Why CAPA is Often Poorly Implemented Despite Being Widely Used?
In over 25 years of working with and helping organizations—from maritime shipping companies to aerospace manufacturers—implement management systems, I’ve repeatedly seen how Corrective and Preventive Actions (CAPA) are misunderstood. It’s ironic that something so essential to continual improvement is also one of the most misapplied tools in the ISO management systems toolbox.
CAPA is not just a bureaucratic checkbox. It’s a mindset, a methodology, and ultimately, a culture of accountability. Yet, many organizations treat it like paperwork to satisfy auditors. They go through the motions but don’t drive true change.
Let’s take a closer look at why that happens—and more importantly, how to fix it.
The Cost of Superficial Fixes:
I recall once being called to a major mass transit agency plagued by repeated maintenance defects. Each time, the team applied a “fix”: retrain the operator. But the issue kept recurring. Turns out, the maintenance PMs weren’t updated, and the work instruction hadn’t been updated in months. Blaming the operator was easy—but wrong.
Superficial fixes look good on paper but don’t solve systemic issues. They’re like slapping a patch on a leaking pipe without checking for any other issues. The result? Recurrence, wasted resources, and a false sense of security.
Common Errors in Root Cause Analysis:
Jumping to Solutions
We’re all guilty of this at times—spot a problem and rush to fix it. But without understanding the “why,” we risk solving the wrong issue. In one case, a logistics firm experiencing delays due to system outages assumed the software was buggy. After proper analysis, the real cause was network throttling due to unauthorized video streaming on company bandwidth!
Lesson: Solutions without root cause understanding are just guesses.
Blaming People Instead of Systems:
In one manufacturing plant I worked with, a new hire mistakenly loaded the wrong metal alloy into the CNC machine, leading to costly rework and a delayed delivery. Management’s first reaction? “He should’ve known better.”
But when we stepped back and looked at the process, here’s what we found:
- The labeling on the raw material bins was faded and inconsistent.
- There was no standardized material verification step before machining.
- The onboarding training skipped over the material identification process because “it’s common sense.”
Blame fixes nothing. Systemic fixes change everything.
Using the Same Method for Every Problem:
The 5 Whys are fantastic—for simple issues. But try applying them to a supply chain failure involving multiple vendors, customs delays, and technical documentation errors? You’ll be asking “why” until you’re blue in the face.
Not every problem is a nail. Don’t always reach for the same hammer.
Choosing the Right RCA Tool:
Depending on the complexity and scope of the issue, we have a rich toolbox at our disposal:
- 5 Whys – Great for linear, single-cause problems.
- Fishbone Diagram (Ishikawa) – Excellent for visualizing categories of causes.
- Fault Tree Analysis (FTA) – Ideal for safety-critical, high-risk industries.
- Pareto Charts – Help prioritize based on frequency or impact.
When dealing with aviation or space projects, for example, I always recommend tools taught in our AS9100 Lead Auditor Training, which delve into aerospace-specific risk analysis techniques.
Match the tool to the problem’s complexity and impact—not the other way around.
Getting the Problem Statement Right:
You can’t fix what you can’t clearly define. Vague problems lead to vague solutions. A good problem statement is:
- Specifically – “Three customer complaints about product X’s connector” is better than “Product issue.”
- Observable – Use facts and evidence.
- Measurable – Define the extent of the issue (e.g., “Occurred in 20% of units”).
Avoid assumptions like “we think” or “it might be.” Using the what Is / Is not analysis is a great tool to better define the problem. Those are great for brainstorming—not for RCA.
Digging Deep into Causes:
Problems rarely have a single root. Like an iceberg, the visible issue is just the tip.
In one factory I worked with, a rejected shipment of components wasn’t due to operator error alone. Digging deeper revealed outdated work instructions, a backlog of maintenance tickets, and a perverse incentive scheme that rewarded speed over quality.
To truly solve a problem, gather data, build a timeline, and identify all contributing factors. Be like an investigator, not a judge.
Validating Root Causes:
Before implementing a fix, ask: “If we fix this, will the issue recur?” If the answer isn’t a confident “no,” you haven’t found the true root cause.
This is where engaging front-line personnel becomes invaluable. They know the process intricacies that top management often overlooks. I’ve seen junior machinists point out insights that saved companies millions. Invite their input. Validate assumptions. Test hypotheses. And if you’re not sure how to go about it, our Root Cause Analysis Problem Solving Workshop is a great place to get hands-on with these techniques.
Corrective and Preventive Actions:
Corrective: Fix the Issue
Corrective actions address the immediate problem. They are reactive and necessary. But stopping there is like drying the floor without fixing the leak.
Preventive: Make Sure It Never Happens Again
Preventive actions are proactive. They address systemic weaknesses before failure occurs. A preventive culture requires foresight, data analysis, and sometimes, bold changes.
Mistake-Proofing Techniques
Use poka-yoke (error-proofing) wherever possible. In a shipboard application, we installed a foolproof valve handle shape that could only turn one way—no room for operator confusion. Automation, too, helps eliminate manual error (though it introduces its own risks if not carefully controlled).
CAPA must do more than fix. It must transform
Conclusion: CAPA as a Culture, Not a Form:
At its heart, Corrective and Preventive Actions (CAPA) isn’t about forms, checklists, or satisfying auditors. It’s about embedding resilience, learning, and continuous improvement into your organization’s DNA.
By avoiding RCA missteps and using the right tools, we move from reactive firefighting to proactive risk management. We stop blaming people and start improving systems. We evolve from fixing problems to preventing them altogether.
The most effective organizations I’ve worked with don’t see CAPA as a task. They see it as a way of thinking—one that builds institutional memory, elevates performance, and wins the trust of customers, regulators, and employees alike.
And that, I’d argue, is the real measure of quality.
