NCR（Non-conformance Report ) 不符合报告 

First of all, let’s define non-conformity as a nonfulfillment or failure to meet the expectations, need or obligation of your process. It can be stated or implied. So a service or product that doesn’t meet (conform to) specifications has a nonconformity. In the case above, you expected to have 20 products delivered to Point B but only 15 got there and 5 were damaged, so you prepare a NCR.

The NCR serves 5 main purposes:

describe the non-conformity

determine the disposition of the non-conformity

track the non-conformity

assign cost(s) to the non-conformity

record approvals

It is important to record and track all NRCs in order to make informed productivity and efficiency decisions. Data is compiled into reports, charts and trend diagrams to provide insight for decision making. [Of course CIS compiles all NCR information and provides you with data to make informed decisions.]

A key takeaway is that a non-conformance report (NCR) does more than simply track or log the occurrence of the nonconformity – it also describes the disposition.

CAR（Corrective Action Request）纠正措施请求 

CAR stands for Corrective Action Request, and it means the activity of originating a Corrective Action. In the ISO arena, CAR is by far one of the most frequently used terms for Corrective Action. The essence of CAR is to conduct an investigation on a problem which already happened and needs root cause analysis and resolution to prevent recurrence. Although the acronym translates to Corrective Action Request, when companies use this acronym, they actually use it for their entire Corrective Action lifecycle rather than just the request portion.

In my view, this is not an appropriate name for a Corrective Action, because the name implies it is only the initial stage of the Corrective Action process. What happens after the Corrective Action has been Requested and is now on Root Cause mode? Should it be CARC, as in, Corrective Action Root Cause? Or what if the Corrective Action is in the Review of Effectiveness stage, should it be CARE? Get the point?

SCAR（Supplier Corrective Action Request）供应商纠正措施请求 

I know when you first hear this, you think of a scar in your face, arm or body part. SCAR was derived from the need to issue suppliers a Corrective Action to a problem that originated based on their product or service. So, as a way to differentiate it from a regular internal corrective action or CAR, somebody out there decided to call it a SCAR. Basically, a SCAR is a formal request to a supplier that they correct a problem and explain to you exactly how they will do so. SCAR is mostly used in organizations where there is a strong customer-supplier relationship and where both customers and suppliers are high in the Quality food chain (e.g., electronics companies, semiconductors, telecom, etc.).

CAPA（Corrective Action Preventive Action）纠正措施 预防措施 

This term is mostly used by quality software companies who want to say that they have a system that can cover Corrective and Preventive Actions. The downside of the acronym CAPA is that it may create confusion, due to its similarity to CAR and PAR. If employees want to log a CAR or a PAR, should they call it CAR, PAR or CAPA? As you can see, it can actually scare people and prevent them from even attempting to log an opportunity for improvement.

PAR:（Preventive Action Request）预防措施请求 

PAR, or Preventive Action Request, is very similar to CAR. PAR is also one of the most widely used terms for Preventive Actions by companies that are ISO certified. We use PARs to conduct an investigation to find the root cause(s) of a potential problem so that this possible problem does not come to pass. As with CAR, PAR refers to all steps of Preventive Action, not just the Request portion as the name might imply. Again, when the Preventive Action moves to Root Cause Investigation, we don’t switch the name to PARC but wrongly continue to call it PAR until closure. Therefore, in my view, PAR is not good nomenclature for Preventive Actions.