8D Problem Solving Content Decisions and Support Materials

[Old Quality Gal]

Hello Colleagues!
In spite of almost 30 years as a quality professional I always learn something new when I monitor these discussions. I am looking for some input on best practice for data in 8Ds and 7 step forms.

I am consultant and the automotive business is not my primary area of knowledge. I am working with a client who is automating their Corrective Action system. I am making some assumptions about best practice and I want to see if the community here agrees or am I out to lunch with my approach.
It seems to me that many layers of investigation and documentation may be developed in the course of investigating a fairly complex problem. There may be pictures, different stand alone analysis documents or test results etc. When submitting an 8D to your customer is the actual 8D form often a summary of the background investigation, containment and root cause analysis performed? Do you frequently send or are you required to send other supporting documentation that gives the details of how you arrived at your conclusions reached in the 8D form itself?
Example: a series of customer returns for failed fan assemblies. Analysis includes photos of the failure. A detailed analysis of all customer returns for like issues. A tolerance study that revealed potential assembly and fit problems at extremes. etc. I am assuming that the 8D would contain summary references rather than all the lengthy details. Example the 5 whys would each contain a couple of sentences summarizing the final answer to that step of the why. Or am I wrong and all this data would be detailed in the 8D or forwarded as supporting material? Thanks for your input. I look forward to your answers.

[Jim Wynne]

In Reply to Parent Post by Old Quality Gal

It seems to me that many layers of investigation and documentation may be developed in the course of investigating a fairly complex problem. There may be pictures, different stand alone analysis documents or test results etc. When submitting an 8D to your customer is the actual 8D form often a summary of the background investigation, containment and root cause analysis performed? Do you frequently send or are you required to send other supporting documentation that gives the details of how you arrived at your conclusions reached in the 8D form itself?

I always start with a summary unless the customer has asked for more details. In many cases, the customer has already seen test results and pictures, etc. and the 8D is just a formality.

[Miner]

The content required depends very heaviliy on the particular customer. My experience has typically been the reverse, that is the customer wanted all of the supporting evidence.

[Marc]

In Reply to Parent Post by Miner

The content required depends very heaviliy on the particular customer.

And upon the product and industry. Aerospace requirements are different than home carpet manufacturer requirements with respect to regulations, etc.

[Jim Wynne]

In Reply to Parent Post by Marc

And upon the product and industry. Aerospace requirements are different than home carpet manufacturer requirements with respect to regulations, etc.

Absolutely--the customer requirements rule. My point was that I don't think it's a good idea in general to offer more than what the customer asked for unless there's a good reason to do so. If the customer is happy with just a summary, that's what you should give him. Offering too much information often results in cans of worms being opened that are better left closed.

[Brian Myers]

I always require the "Supporting Evidence" for any claims made on an 8D from our suppliers. Even though I work in a "non-critical" industry - Audio, I fall back on my training in the Automotive Industry (Brakes and Suspension) and require more documentation than the flowery descriptions and "yes-men" verbage used on most 8D submissions.

I also provide more documentation to start the 8D process. Pictures, Defect Rates, Dates and Reports on lots inspected, etc. The better the supplier's starting information the quicker and more thoroughly they can reslove the issue.

Watch out for the "Prevent Reoccurance" and "Verify Controls" disciplines. These are the most often "lacking" in my experience. Suppliers usually don't understand what is expected here and often are limited in what they CAN provide based on the alloted response time (most people issuing 8D or Corrective Action Requests do not allow enough time for suppliers running batch operations to run multiple follow-up batches that can provide verification of controls and prevention of reoccurance).

Rule of thumb on 8D, 7-step, or Corrective Action Requests/Responses...

WHEN IN DOUBT, DOCUMENT IT!

If you feel your customer will not understand your one line answer on the 8D, explain it with data/additional detail attached. Flip side, if you aren't comfortable with an answer, ask for further data/detail.

Automated CAR/8D System?! Haven't really seen one that works yet! These types of systems are HUMAN DISCOVERY Systems. You can't "automate" the act of discovery (or invention). You can set up Automated Archival Processes for the ensuing data, and in doing so set up a system for archiving that doesn't allow for "closure" until all fields (including space for additional data for each discipline) are filled. Even better, once you have this archive in place, suggest they work on a "lessons learned" database that allows for search of previous issues and resolutions when dealing with new issues or during the design process. This is the ultimate use for 8D/CAR/7-Step Data!



Hope this helps.
Brian

[Old Quality Gal]

I had a good session with my client today, they are located in Ireland.
All of the input from you folks was very helpful.
I finally settled on considering 2 distinct but equally important requirements:The information and value my client expects from their internal problem solving process, including trends and reports.The information and format customers require for the results of the investigation.

The latter will be a controlled extract from the former. Thanks again for the advise!