What this is
What is a Problem Solving Record?
What is a Problem Solving Record?
It's the record used in KnowOps to work one problem through background, current state, goal, analysis, countermeasures and follow-up on a single page - the A3 format. It's built against ISO 9001 cl.10.2 and sits in the Continuous Improvement programme, alongside Kaizen events and work instruction control.
What's the difference between a root cause and a correction?
A correction fixes the immediate symptom - the jam is cleared, the batch is re-run. A root cause is the condition that let the failure happen in the first place. This record scores both the correction (Countermeasures Address The Cause) and whether the analysis behind it actually reached a cause rather than stopping at the symptom.
How does this record relate to a CAPA record?
This is where the analysis happens - background, current state, cause, countermeasure. Once a corrective or preventive action needs a formal owner and due date, it's raised as its own CAPA record (FDN-014) and the reference is entered back here through the CAPA ID field, so the problem record and the action record stay linked.
Scope
When is a problem solving record required?
This record is one step in a larger programme. Using it for work that belongs to a neighbouring template produces records that are hard to report on later.
Use this template when
- A problem has occurred more than once, or is likely to recur, and a single conversation hasn't made it go away
- The cause isn't yet understood - this record forces the sequence: background, current state, analysis, countermeasure, follow-up, in that order
- You need one page that survives a handover, an audit, or the problem owner leaving the business
- The fix needs to be trialled and checked again before it's declared closed, not just actioned once
- A linked RCA or CAPA record needs this one to exist as its parent
Do not use it for
- Kaizen Event Record, which runs a focused improvement event, recording the baseline, the team, what changed and what it delivered.
- Work Instruction Control Record, which controls the creation, approval, issue and withdrawal of a work instruction, and confirms the people using it were briefed.
- Idea to Implementation Tracker, which tracks an improvement idea from the floor through assessment, decision, implementation and the benefit it delivered.
- Improvement Suggestion Record, which logs a single suggestion and its disposition, rather than a problem that needs analysing.
- Anything outside KnowOps, which belongs in the workspace that owns that process
Compliance mapping
Which ISO 9001 cl.10.2 requirements does this satisfy?
ISO 9001 cl.10.2 sets out what has to happen once a nonconformity is identified - react, evaluate the cause, act, review effectiveness, and update the system if the same failure could recur elsewhere. The record maps onto that sequence section by section.
| Clause | Requirement | Where it lands |
|---|---|---|
| ISO 9001 cl.10.2.2 | Retain documented information as evidence of the nature of the nonconformity and any action taken | Header |
| ISO 9001 cl.10.2.1(a) | React to the nonconformity and, as applicable, take action to control and correct it | Background and current state |
| ISO 9001 cl.10.2.1(b) | Evaluate the need for action to eliminate the cause(s) of the nonconformity, so that it does not recur | Analysis |
| ISO 9001 cl.10.2.1(c) | Implement any action needed | Countermeasures and follow up |
| ISO 9001 cl.10.2.1(d) | Review the effectiveness of any corrective action taken | Countermeasures and follow up |
| ISO 9001 cl.10.2.1(f) | Make changes to the quality management system, if necessary | Countermeasures and follow up |
| ISO 9001 cl.10.2.1(g) | Corrective action shall be appropriate to the effects of the nonconformities encountered | Outcome |
What it does not cover
- Problem Stated In Facts Not Opinions marked No, which means the record analyses a problem nobody has actually pinned down yet.
- Gone To See The Actual Process marked No, which means the current state was described from memory or a report, not from standing where the problem happens.
- Root Cause Analysis Carried Out marked No or Partly with Countermeasures Address The Cause marked Yes, which means a fix was written for a cause that was never properly established.
- Countermeasures Trialled Before Rollout marked No, which means the fix went straight to full rollout with no check that it actually worked before everyone depended on it.
- Checked Again After Thirty Days marked No on a record marked Problem Resolved, which means the resolution is unverified - a closed record that has not been tested by time.
Global
Problem Solving Record requirements by country
Corrective action is one of the few ISO 9001 clauses with a direct regulatory shadow - food, retail and safety-critical sectors all layer their own expectations of what 'closed' has to mean on top of it.
ISO 9001:2015 cl.10.2
The baseline requirement behind every certified quality management system: react, evaluate the cause, act, review effectiveness, and update the system.
Certification bodies expect this sequence evidenced per nonconformity, not just a ticket marked closed.
BRCGS Global Standard for Food Safety, Issue 9
Retailers auditing to BRCGS expect corrective action to be tied to a demonstrated root cause, not a restated symptom.
An auditor pulling this record reads straight past 'fixed' to whether the cause analysis and the recheck are both on the page.
FDA FSMA Preventive Controls, 21 CFR 117.150
Corrective actions taken under a food safety plan must be evaluated to determine whether they were adequate, and that evaluation has to be documented.
An unresolved Checked Again After Thirty Days: No is exactly the gap this clause is written to catch.
How to complete it
How to complete a problem solving record, step by step
Every field on this record can be filled in correctly and the problem can still not be solved. The judgement calls sit above the fields.
Problem Recurring and Times Occurred are usually entered before the analysis is finished, which makes them a guess dressed as a fact more often than teams admit. Treat a Yes here as a prompt to go find the count, not as data in itself.
Root Cause Analysis Carried Out: Partly is a legitimate answer mid-investigation. It is not a legitimate answer on a record marked Complete. The difference is whether anyone came back to it before closing the section.
Cause Goes Beyond Human Error exists because 'operator error' is the fastest route to a closed record and the least durable fix. A genuine Yes here can name the system gap that let the error happen - not just note that a person was involved.
A recheck logged the same day as closure isn't a recheck. It has to fall far enough after the countermeasure went live that a real recurrence would have had time to show up before the record is trusted.
What auditors find
Most common problem solving record findings
Six patterns that show up on this record when it's being used to close problems quickly rather than solve them.
| Finding | Clause | What fixes it |
|---|---|---|
| Problem Recurring is marked Yes and Times Occurred is left blank | ISO 9001 cl.10.2.1(b) | Enter a count before scoping the countermeasure - a cause analysis aimed at 'this keeps happening' with no number attached can't later prove the fix reduced anything. |
| Root Cause Analysis Carried Out is marked Partly and Cause Tested Against The Evidence is marked Yes | ISO 9001 cl.10.2.1(b) | Don't score the evidence test until the cause analysis is complete - testing an unfinished cause against the evidence proves nothing. |
| Countermeasures Address The Cause is marked Yes on a record where Root Cause Analysis Carried Out is marked No | ISO 9001 cl.10.2.1(c) | Hold the countermeasures section until the analysis section is genuinely closed - a fix that addresses an unestablished cause is a guess with a due date. |
| Problem Resolved is marked Yes and Checked Again After Thirty Days is marked No | ISO 9001 cl.10.2.1(d) | Don't mark the outcome resolved until the recheck field carries a real answer - schedule the thirty-day return before closing anything. |
| Effect Measured and Problem Resolved are both marked Yes while Standard Updated is marked No | ISO 9001 cl.10.2.1(f) | A working fix that never reaches the standard, work instruction or training material is one shift change away from reappearing as a new problem record. |
| Action Required is marked Yes and CAPA ID 2 is left blank | ISO 9001 cl.10.2.2 | Raise the CAPA and enter its reference at the point Action Required is set, not afterwards - an unlinked flag is not documented evidence of action taken. |
Case in point
Case in point: the same downtime, three problem records deep
A packing line jam gets a Problem Solving Record. Root Cause Analysis Carried Out is marked Partly, Countermeasures Address The Cause says Yes anyway, and the record closes inside a week. The countermeasure is a guard adjustment - a fix aimed at a cause that was never confirmed, only assumed.
Eleven weeks later the same jam opens a second record. Times Occurred on the first record was left blank, so nobody can say whether this is occurrence two or occurrence six. The second record repeats the same partly-analysed cause, because the first one never got the thirty-day recheck that would have surfaced the gap while it still mattered.
The template
The template, field by field
The form exactly as it installs. Every field, option, score and conditional rule is editable, and the links to other templates come with it.
5 sections
- Reference
- OPS-034
- Archetype
- Record
- Record ID
- A3-2026-000
- Scoring
- Problems closed
- Direction
- High is good
- Singleton
- Yes
- Basis
- ISO 9001 cl.10.2
- Links
- Links RCA, CAPA, Kaizen Event
- Tags
- Improvement, Problem solving
- Sections
- 5
- Fields
- 50
- Follow up fields
- 3
- Repeating sections
- 0
- Links out
- 4
Header
13 fieldsRecord ID*
Auto sequence. Format A3-2026-000.
The record's own ID. Other templates point at this value.
Status*
Drives who this goes to next.
- Planned2 pts
- In progress2 pts
- Complete3 pts
- Deferred0 pts
- Open0 pts
- Closed3 pts
- Overdue0 pts
Date and Time*
Completed By*
Site*
Site ID*
Format SITE-000.
Links to FDN-001 Site ID
Problem Title*
Problem Owner*
Area*
Opened*
Problem Recurring*
- Yes0 pts
- No2 pts
- N/Aexcluded from denominator
Times Occurred
A Page That Survives The Person Leaving
A problem worked through on one structured page can be picked up by somebody else. The same problem held in a series of meetings cannot.
Background and current state
6 fieldsProblem Stated In Facts Not Opinions*
- Yes2 pts
- No0 pts
- N/Aexcluded from denominator
Current State Measured*
- Yes2 pts
- No0 pts
- N/Aexcluded from denominator
Gone To See The Actual Process*
- Yes2 pts
- No0 pts
- N/Aexcluded from denominator
Data Rather Than Anecdote*
- Yes2 pts
- No0 pts
- N/Aexcluded from denominator
Scope Bounded*
- Yes3 pts
- Partly1 pt
- No0 pts
Impact Quantified*
- Yes2 pts
- No0 pts
- N/Aexcluded from denominator
Analysis
6 fieldsRoot Cause Analysis Carried Out*
- Yes3 pts
- Partly1 pt
- No0 pts
Cause Goes Beyond Human Error*
- Yes3 pts
- Partly1 pt
- No0 pts
Cause Tested Against The Evidence*
- Yes2 pts
- No0 pts
- N/Aexcluded from denominator
Multiple Causes Considered*
- Yes2 pts
- No0 pts
- N/Aexcluded from denominator
Why Existing Controls Failed Explained*
- Yes3 pts
- Partly1 pt
- No0 pts
Team Involved In The Analysis*
- Yes2 pts
- No0 pts
- N/Aexcluded from denominator
Countermeasures and follow up
6 fieldsCountermeasures Address The Cause*
- Yes2 pts
- No0 pts
- N/Aexcluded from denominator
Countermeasures Trialled Before Rollout*
- Yes2 pts
- No0 pts
- N/Aexcluded from denominator
Owner And Date On Each*
- Yes2 pts
- No0 pts
- N/Aexcluded from denominator
Effect Measured*
- Yes2 pts
- No0 pts
- N/Aexcluded from denominator
Standard Updated*
- Yes2 pts
- No0 pts
- N/Aexcluded from denominator
Checked Again After Thirty Days*
- Yes2 pts
- No0 pts
- N/Aexcluded from denominator
Outcome
19 fieldsProblem Resolved*
- Yes3 pts
- Partly1 pt
- No0 pts
Days To Resolve
Recurred Since*
- Yes0 pts
- No2 pts
- N/Aexcluded from denominator
RCA ID
Links to FDN-013 RCA ID
CAPA ID
Links to FDN-014 CAPA ID
Lessons Learned ID
Links to FDN-031 Record ID
Items Assessed*
Excludes anything marked N/A.
Items Failed*
Score Percent*
Calculated on submission. High is good. N/A items leave the denominator.
Result Band*
- Pass3 pts
- Caution1 pt
- Fail0 pts
Completeness Percent*
How much of the template was actually answered. A high score on a half completed form is not a high score.
Action Required*
Raise the action record, then enter its reference here.
- No2 pts
- Yes0 pts
Priority
- High0 pts
- Medium1 pt
- Low3 pts
CAPA ID 2
Format CAPA-2026-00000.
Links to FDN-014 CAPA ID
Action Owner
Problem Owner*
Signature*
Area Manager*
Second Signature*
OPS-034 · record IDs look like A3-2026-000 · Links RCA, CAPA, Kaizen Event
Open in KnowellaRun it with agents
From a document you fill in to a programme that runs itself
The form is the easy part. Keeping it current, routing it to the right owner and holding the evidence together is the work that actually slips.
Holds the Problem Solving Record register, flags any record left on Root Cause Analysis Carried Out: Partly past its due date, and chases the thirty-day recheck automatically instead of leaving it to memory.
Cross-checks this record against the RCA and CAPA it links to, so a countermeasure that never reached a CAPA reference gets surfaced before the audit does.
Feeds equipment-related recurrences - jams, breakdowns, failures logged against an asset - straight into a new Problem Solving Record instead of a maintenance note nobody connects to the last three times it happened.
Coordinates the crew, rolls open problems and overdue rechecks into one view, and holds every write for your approval before it touches a record.
This template lives in KnowOps — frontline execution. Shift handover, production control, daily management, worker lifecycle and improvement.
Meet KnowOps→Glossary
Problem Solving Record definitions and key terms
- A3
- A single-sheet problem-solving format, named for the paper size it was originally written on, that forces background, current state, goal, analysis, countermeasures and follow-up onto one page instead of a folder of meeting notes.
- Root cause
- The condition or system gap that, if removed, would have prevented the problem occurring at all - as distinct from the immediate trigger, which is usually just the last thing that happened before the failure was noticed.
- Genchi genbutsu
- Going to see the actual place where the problem happens, rather than working from a description of it. The template's 'Gone To See The Actual Process' field scores this directly.
- Countermeasure
- An action aimed at a confirmed cause, distinct from a correction, which only addresses the immediate symptom without touching why it happened.
- Nonconformity
- ISO 9001's term for a requirement that hasn't been met. A recurring problem is, formally, a nonconformity that a previous corrective action failed to close.
FAQ
Frequently asked questions about problem solving record
What's the difference between a Problem Solving Record and a CAPA record?+
This record is where the analysis happens - background, current state, cause, countermeasure. A CAPA record (FDN-014) formalises the corrective or preventive action once a cause is established, with its own owner and due date, and its reference is entered back into this record's CAPA ID field.
Does every problem need a full root cause analysis?+
The scoring rewards attempting one - Yes scores highest, Partly scores something, No scores zero - but Scope Bounded exists precisely so a minor, contained problem doesn't need the same depth of analysis as one with a quantified, spreading impact.
Who owns the record once the countermeasure is live?+
The Problem Owner throughout, countersigned by the Area Manager. Ownership doesn't transfer to whoever happens to implement the fix, which is what keeps the thirty-day recheck from getting lost between two people.
What happens if the thirty-day recheck finds the problem came back?+
Recurred Since gets marked Yes, and normally a new Problem Solving Record is raised rather than the old one being reopened - which is why Times Occurred and Recurred Since both need honest entries, not just the current record's outcome.
Is this record raised once per workspace or once per problem?+
Once per problem. The Record ID auto-sequences (A3-2026-000), and Times Occurred and Recurred Since exist specifically to track a problem across more than one instance of this record - the template assumes recurrence is a possibility, not an anomaly.
What if the problem turns out not to be recurring at all?+
Problem Recurring is marked No, which scores higher than Yes - the template treats a first-time, non-recurring problem as the more favourable position, since recurrence is the signal that a previous fix, if there was one, didn't hold.
Keep going
Related templates and programmes
Industries this is written for
Programmes this belongs to
Used together in Continuous Improvement
Improvement Suggestion Record
Captures an improvement idea from anybody, with what it would change and who could own it
Continual Improvement Project Record
Records a structured improvement project, from problem statement through measurement to sustained result
Lessons Learned Record
Captures what an event or project taught the organisation, in a form other areas can use
Kaizen Event Record
Runs a focused improvement event, recording the baseline, the team, what changed and what it delivered
Work Instruction Control Record
Controls the creation, approval, issue and withdrawal of a work instruction, and confirms the people using it were briefed
Idea to Implementation Tracker
Tracks an improvement idea from the floor through assessment, decision, implementation and the benefit it delivered
More in Continuous Improvement
Kaizen Event Record
Runs a focused improvement event, recording the baseline, the team, what changed and what it delivered
Work Instruction Control Record
Controls the creation, approval, issue and withdrawal of a work instruction, and confirms the people using it were briefed
Idea to Implementation Tracker
Tracks an improvement idea from the floor through assessment, decision, implementation and the benefit it delivered
Written and reviewed by
Siddarth Singh
Founder & Chief Executive Officer, Knowella
Certified Safety Professional and industrial and systems engineer with more than a decade inside food supply chain, freight and manufacturing operations. This page was written against the current text of the standards it cites, not against secondary summaries of them.
- Certified Safety Professional (CSP), Board of Certified Safety Professionals
- MBA, University of Chicago Booth School of Business
- MS and BS, The Ohio State University, Industrial and Systems Engineering
- Six Sigma Black Belt
Sources and last review. Reviewed 16 August 2026 against:
- ISO 9001:2015 cl.10.2 - Nonconformity and corrective action
- ISO 9001:2015 cl.10.2.2 - Documented information requirements
- BRCGS Global Standard for Food Safety, Issue 9
- FDA FSMA Preventive Controls, 21 CFR 117.150 - Corrective actions and corrections
This page is general guidance, not legal advice. Confirm requirements with your jurisdiction’s regulator.