Scoring 8Ds for Acceptance/Rejection

Just curious if there are any scoring or checklists for 8D reports in common usage? I'm guessing there are proprietary ones used in individual companies but anyone have what they use available?

Do any big companies (or small) share the way they decide whether to accept a completed supplier 8D type or report on corrective action?

I'm trying to work out what the thinking is behind accepting or rejecting 8D reports. I've had rejections for not congratulating team, which IMHO is ridiculous. I've seen simple checklists which include questions from building the team through to congratulating the team at the end. Example is a question on whether the team includes hourly paid employee. I'm assuming that is a way of asking if there is someone involved who actually makes the part not just some abstract collection of managers without direct hands on involvement in production. This example I have seen is basic hence my post.

If this has been discussed previously (in a recent timescale so still relevant) please feel free to direct me to the thread and remove this one. I have tried to find something but my search skills are insufficient to find anything.

Evaluation of a CA response is pretty simple. Does it make sense? Does it rationally describe the problem, the containment, the corrections made and the prevention element? Does it indicate that the supplier is doing something more than filling in the blanks and understands what a root cause is? If so, it doesn't make any difference how many "Ds" there are. In the end, the important thing is whether or not the problem has been properly solved and put to rest.

True but I know some organizations have a scoring process in an attempt to standardize or to take out judgement of individuals. Whether that is possible or their reason I don't know but I am still interested in this.

For example I know organizations that give a percentage or other score to the resulting report provided by their customers on the corrective actions taken for rejections. I've seen percentage scoring figures down to two decimal places, which implies an accuracy to their system that isn't there. It's like they have a simple checklist some guy can tick yes, now or N/A and from that (perhaps with a weighting) you get a percentage. The result of that percentage determines whether the 8D is accepted or rejected and bounced back to the supplier like a naughty schoolboy. Never had this but I've seen it elsewhere and am trying to see if there are any examples or if they have any use/merit that I could take from.

Personally my attitude is to review the containment, root causes and countermeasures. Are they likely to be right and solve the rejection issues? A simple yes or no would suffice for me too. I don't care if they patted someone on the back and only care about the 8D team to know if the people involved are likely to know what they are about (useful to have someone from the shopfloor who does the work or supervises it directly IMHO). Take common sense over a rigid ticklist based scoring but still think it is worth looking into in case it has any merit, even if only to give to those doing the 8D or CA reporting (modified) a guidance on approach or what the recipient might be looking at.

My intuition tells me that such scoring systems are probably best at making people happy who think that scoring systems should be applied to everything, or that there is a one-size-fits-all substitute for knowledge and experience.

The true teller will always be the root cause analysis. If this is adaquately detailed and well documented, all else must follow. If the root cause analysis is lame at best, then the fix will probably be irrelevant.

I think [Jim Wynne] is correct when it comes to scoring mechanisms.

TPMB4 said:

For example I know organizations that give a percentage or other score to the resulting report provided by their customers on the corrective actions taken for rejections.

Click to expand...

I have to wonder if those same organizations regularly accept Corrective Actions that are only, say, 80% effective. 70%? What percentage below 100% is acceptable if you still have the recurring problem that the CA was supposed to solve?

I understand the concept; I just think it's misguided. No scoring system anyone can devise will improve the basic concept already mentioned above ... Was it accurate and did it solve the problem? Anything beyond that is really just busy work. (Must be nice to have that kind of time!)

My take on it is the scoring system is more like a teacher marking your handwriting. The comments are all about the bits of the report that they like in it that you deem to be irrelevant such as the need to pat someone on the back in the report. Does that ever add anything to the efficacy of a corrective action?
I don't think these scoring methods in the 8D are a comment of the effectiveness of the actions taken or the RCA done prior to the actions taken. To me that is taken up by the monitoring of the effectiveness within the 8D report.