Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

Both sides previous revisionPrevious revision
Next revision		Previous revision
articles:re-thinking_capa [2022/03/06 19:33] – [Why should you "re-think" CAPA?] rrandallarticles:re-thinking_capa [2023/03/16 17:51] (current) – [How do we address this conflict?] rrandall
Line 26: Line 26:
 It is vitally important to note that each definition begins with "//action to __eliminate__ the cause//". This is the "general assumption" mentioned above. It is vitally important to note that each definition begins with "//action to __eliminate__ the cause//". This is the "general assumption" mentioned above.
  
-The concept of “CAPA” is most popular among supporters of the “Zero Defects” motivational management approach. The term “Zero Defects” first appeared in the “//Quality and Reliability Assurance Handbook – A Guide to Zero Defects//” (4155.12H) published by the U.S. Department of Defense on November 1, 1965, which explained: “//Zero Defects is a motivational approach to the elimination of defects attributable to human error//”. And “//Zero Defects is dedicated to preventing defects by detecting and removing the causes of their generation. This is an attempt to reverse the unquestioning acceptance of human error as a normal byproduct of personal effort//”. +However, there is a MAJOR flaw in the CAPA concept... as it establishes an unrealistic expectation that every problem has an //assignable root cause// that can be eliminated. 
- +
-However, the “Zero Defects” concept didn’t gain widespread popularity until it was promoted by Philip B. Crosby in his book “//Quality is Free//” (1979). Crosby is credited with having developed the “Zero Defects” concept during the early ‘60s while working at the Martin Company as the quality control manager overseeing the Pershing missile program +
- +
-However, there is a MAJOR flaw in the “Zero Defects” concept... as it establishes an unrealistic expectation that every problem has an //assignable root cause// that can be eliminated. +
  
 To suggest (or imply) that all defects are the result of an “assignable cause” is to dismiss all that we’ve learned from Walter A. Shewhart & W. Edwards Deming! To suggest (or imply) that all defects are the result of an “assignable cause” is to dismiss all that we’ve learned from Walter A. Shewhart & W. Edwards Deming!
Line 36: Line 32:
 Rather than repeat an earlier article, read: [[articles:whac-a-mole|Corrective Action "Whac-A-Mole"]]. Rather than repeat an earlier article, read: [[articles:whac-a-mole|Corrective Action "Whac-A-Mole"]].
  
-===== How do we address this conflict? =====+==== Institutionalized Delusion ==== 
 + 
 +Amazingly, ISO 13485:2016, "Medical devices — Quality management systems — Requirements for regulatory purposes” was re-affirmed in 2020 (with no changes). This standard retains the CAPA concept (addressed in ISO 13485, sec. 8.5) under the misguided belief that it will one day achieve the mythical "Zero Defects"... completely oblivious that it is perpetuating the inefficiency of [[articles:whac-a-mole|Corrective Action "Whac-A-Mole"]].  
 + 
 +And this delusion continues to be reinforced by the US FDA (Food & Drug Administration) promoting the CAPA concept: 
 +https://www.fda.gov/corrective-and-preventive-actions-capa 
 + 
 +Sadly, the medical device & pharmaceutical industries continue to doggedly embrace the ignorance promoted by the cult of "Zero Defects". 
 + 
 + 
 +