The effectiveness of implementation CAPA on managing complaints in George Kent (Malaysia) Berhad / Nuraina Amirah Muhamad Sani
The purpose of this paper is to understand the customer complaint process/flow; to study the CAPA is the successful tool to develop the quality of the product; and the effectiveness of CAPA on managing complaints in George Kent Malaysia (GKM). Data are collected by doing interview with three GKMs st...
Saved in:
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Student Project |
| Language: | en |
| Published: |
2018
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://ir.uitm.edu.my/id/eprint/49701/1/49701.pdf https://ir.uitm.edu.my/id/eprint/49701/ |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| Summary: | The purpose of this paper is to understand the customer complaint process/flow; to study the CAPA is the successful tool to develop the quality of the product; and the effectiveness of CAPA on managing complaints in George Kent Malaysia (GKM). Data are collected by doing interview with three GKMs staff who is capable of contributing to the subject matter which is the Quality Engineering Team from metering divisions and by review document received from GKMs Document Controller. There are eight step in managing customer complaint in GKM. GKM has more detailed process on customer complaint. The step involved the QE team and Sales Department. CAPA procedure is a part of the Quality Management Systems
(QMS). Quality Tools is a tool that can identify problem related with the quality of the product or process. CAPA Procedure investigate the root cause analysis of any problem or deviation. CAPA is an important path towards improvement and-effectiveness of Quality Management System (QMS) because it plays an important role lead to the quality of the product or system which has continuous improvement. The effectiveness of CAPA can be measure when there is no repeated cases happened within three months, and the number of CAPA issued decreasing. The number of CAPA issued are decreased significantly from 2016 until 2018. The result in this paper is insufficient to be effective enough since the limited number of workers been interviewed. It is difficult to get the cooperation from the respondent to making a time for the interview session. |
|---|