1. Supplier Corrective Action Request (SCAR) Supplier Training
UTC AEROSPACE SYSTEMS PROPRIETARY

2. SCAR FORM OVERVIEW
Form SISF00225 is used by UTAS to document the Relentless Root Cause Corrective Action Investigation of a Supplier Corrective Action Requests (SCARs) for non-conformances.
Upon SCAR receipt, the supplier shall investigate the issue:
Within 48 hours:
Reply to UTAS on steps taken to contain/prevent additional products with similar conditions
Within 15 business days:
Determine the root cause as well as initiate and implement a corrective action plan
Within 15 business days (or due date indicated on SCAR):
Take preventative actions and submit the completed SCAR along with objective evidence that demonstrates the corrective action plan was accomplished to UTAS Supplier Quality Engineering for approval.
Proper mistake proofing of corrective actions.
UTC AEROSPACE SYSTEMS PROPRIETARY

3. Supplier corrective action form
UTAS representative will complete necessary information prior to sending out form to supplier.
Step 1: UTAS representative will complete necessary information
UTC AEROSPACE SYSTEMS PROPRIETARY

4. Supplier corrective action form
Step 2: Identify person(s) involved in RCCA Investigation along with their job role C
Step 3: Document any remedial actions to contain the problem and correct or mitigate the
effects of the problem or issue. This may involve checking inventory and finished goods,
placing shipments on hold, and determining what additional units may be affected. This would
also include determining if the problem had already been corrected.
UTC AEROSPACE SYSTEMS PROPRIETARY

5. Supplier corrective action form
Step 4a: Use an Ishikawa diagram to brainstorm possible causes for the non-conformance. Standard categories (Manpower, Machine/Policy, Method/Procedures, etc.) are listed, but you may enter your own categories. We recommend using the Ishikawa diagram, but other tools may be used if needed. Use consensus voting to select the top three most probable causes and list them in Step 4b.
UTC AEROSPACE SYSTEMS PROPRIETARY

6. Supplier corrective action formY
Step 4b: Use the 5-why approach to identify the root cause of the top three most probable causes until you have exhausted the question why and arrived at the root cause.
UTC AEROSPACE SYSTEMS PROPRIETARY

7. Supplier corrective action formCA
Step 5: List the result of the probable causes from the 5-why investigation (step 4b) here. Supplier to create a countermeasure/corrective action plan for accomplishment of each result and notify UTAS within 15 business days of the SCAR origination date. List who is responsible, target completion date, status and actual completion date.
UTC AEROSPACE SYSTEMS PROPRIETARY

8. Supplier corrective action form
Step 6: This is the method that the supplier will use to ensure that the corrective action has
been accomplished and is effective. Each verification plan is ranked by level (Level 1 being the
best).
Level three (III) devices are the lowest level of mistake presentation and this level helps prevent the mistake from going onto the next operation. (After the fact)
Examples are inspections, functional check gaging, routings, instructions, operator training, and operator signoff sheets.
Level two (II) devices are the next level better of mistake prevention and have the goal to determine if there is an issue (during the present time) so that actions can be taken real time to prevent issues. These devices require a human response if the process stops due to the device being activated. (Real time alerting)
Examples of these types of devices are real time control charting, buzzers, lights, automatic shutoffs, and alarms.
Level one (I) devices are the best and most powerful tool for prevention of mistakes at the source, in the future. These devices involve designing errors out of the process, up front, before the parts are produced. (Prevention)
Examples: Some common solutions include only one way fits tools and parts, required safety guides required to operate equipment, and design of the process to eliminate difficult, complicated, or dangerous processes.
UTC AEROSPACE SYSTEMS PROPRIETARY

9. SUPPLIER CORRECTIVE ACTION FORM
Step 7: Supplier to identify if other product could have similar non-conformances. If so then supplier will need to identify what actions were taken to prevent occurrence.
Note: N/A is not an acceptable response in this section. Supplier must show objective evidence that some analysis or effort has been done to make sure the issue is not affecting other products being shipped to UTAS. Analysis should include “like” processes used on multiple products (not just on similar or family of products)
UTC AEROSPACE SYSTEMS PROPRIETARY

10. Supplier corrective action form
Step 8: Once all actions have been completed at the supplier, the supplier representative who owns the SCAR response should indicate their name, title and date here. Send SCAR along with objective evidence (steps 5-7) to the appropriate UTAS Supplier Quality Engineer.
Note: See objective evidence definition and examples on page 12 of this presentation
UTC AEROSPACE SYSTEMS PROPRIETARY

11. Supplier corrective action form
The last section in grey is solely for the UTAS Supplier Quality Engineer to fill out and document acceptance, rejection or follow up verification request of the SCAR documented actions.
Note: You may be contacted if a SCAR is rejected and follow up information is required.
UTC AEROSPACE SYSTEMS PROPRIETARY

12. Mistake Proofing and Objective Evidence
Appropriate Level of Mistake Proofing: The appropriate level of mistake proofing should be taken based upon the severity of the issue. The chart on the right shows the relationship between SCAR severity and the appropriate level of mistake-proofing. In general, the more severe and hazardous the issue, the higher degree of mistake-proofing that is required.
Objective Evidence: The corrective action should contain good objective evidence. Objective evidence is defined as information based on facts that can be proved by means such as analysis, measurement, and observation. One can examine and evaluate objective evidence.
Examples of good objective evidence for corrective action responses include copies of improved procedures, routings, prints, instructions, training records, computer generated documentation, and photographs.
UTC AEROSPACE SYSTEMS PROPRIETARY