C
cheryl mcguire - 2008
Re: 7 D Format
7-d you do not congradulate the team as you do in the 8-d last step.
7-d you do not congradulate the team as you do in the 8-d last step.
Re: 7 D Format
8D is an established problem solving tool that Ford coined (from existing problem solving methodology!). Basically just the 8 steps I am sure you are aware of.......not ever heard of 7D and I can't say it would be that useful!
All the steps in an 8D incorporate the established PDCA cycle, with reviews and interim plans to contain the issue.
I often find that "Interim Containment Action" is not always comprehensively used, as most faults we encounter can either not be fixed and scrapped! OR can be used under concession, therefore this could be considered an 7D. Maybe someone has incorporated two steps into one. I think the format is fine as it is!
I would not reccomend avoiding any steps in the 8D especially if it is for FORD!
8D is an established problem solving tool that Ford coined (from existing problem solving methodology!). Basically just the 8 steps I am sure you are aware of.......not ever heard of 7D and I can't say it would be that useful!
All the steps in an 8D incorporate the established PDCA cycle, with reviews and interim plans to contain the issue.
I often find that "Interim Containment Action" is not always comprehensively used, as most faults we encounter can either not be fixed and scrapped! OR can be used under concession, therefore this could be considered an 7D. Maybe someone has incorporated two steps into one. I think the format is fine as it is!
I would not reccomend avoiding any steps in the 8D especially if it is for FORD!
Helmut Jilling
Auditor / Consultant
As Cheryl said, the "7D" format drops the 8th step - it leaves congratulating the team off. It was the modified 8D form that Chrysler preferred some years back.
PS: The 5 step GM form is similar as well. It combines several of the action steps into one field.
E
ezorangee
This reminds me of an occurance during a QS9000 (Yes, this was back a few years) audit.
We were reviewing customer specific requirements, and Chrysler was one of our accounts. The auditor asked to see our records for evidence of corrective actions.
Our format was 7D, and of course, Chrysler required the 8D format. As the auditor was reading through the corrective action reports the Plant Manager walked into the room.
After a few minutes of reading through the reports, the auditor looked at me and dryly commented, "I see that you only do the 7D format. Don't you congratulate the team?"
Without missing a beat, the Plant Manager responded, "Oh yes! We give them their salary every Friday!"
I thought it was funny. The auditor did not. It was a nonconformance.
We were reviewing customer specific requirements, and Chrysler was one of our accounts. The auditor asked to see our records for evidence of corrective actions.
Our format was 7D, and of course, Chrysler required the 8D format. As the auditor was reading through the corrective action reports the Plant Manager walked into the room.
After a few minutes of reading through the reports, the auditor looked at me and dryly commented, "I see that you only do the 7D format. Don't you congratulate the team?"
Without missing a beat, the Plant Manager responded, "Oh yes! We give them their salary every Friday!"
I thought it was funny. The auditor did not. It was a nonconformance.
J
JadeS
It is funny. Some auditors have absolutely no sense of humour.
Last edited by a moderator:
Q
QCAce
I personally prefer and use a 4 step process:
1-problem description
2-assignment and tracking date
3-root cause and corrective action
4-verification
Of course, I'm not in a company where 8D is a customer requirement. I'm not opposed to 8D. More important I think is the requirements we use to define when a corrective action should be written: significant or repeated events and it is based on facts and data.
1-problem description
2-assignment and tracking date
3-root cause and corrective action
4-verification
Of course, I'm not in a company where 8D is a customer requirement. I'm not opposed to 8D. More important I think is the requirements we use to define when a corrective action should be written: significant or repeated events and it is based on facts and data.
A
AndyJP - 2012
7D or 8D they both boil down to the same, know the problem / contain the problem / fix the problem and ensure that it does not happen again. The pit falls are to get stuck at the containemnt stage, to loose focus at the root cause stage (or be blinkered to other methids of getting to the root cause), automatically blame the operator / supplier.
What ever you call it you should ensure that you have got rid of the problem once and for all and not just by inspecting the hell out of the product, not matter whoes self importance you have to tread on. Remember that once you have covered all the obvious answers no matter hwo crazy the one left may sound it just might be the solution. I have seen this and only found out after I finished a contract that I was right all along.
If all else fails take a sidewyas look at the problem and just ask what if?
What ever you call it you should ensure that you have got rid of the problem once and for all and not just by inspecting the hell out of the product, not matter whoes self importance you have to tread on. Remember that once you have covered all the obvious answers no matter hwo crazy the one left may sound it just might be the solution. I have seen this and only found out after I finished a contract that I was right all along.
If all else fails take a sidewyas look at the problem and just ask what if?
Helmut Jilling
Auditor / Consultant
I am an auditor and I thought it was funny. However, I think theauditor was alsowrong. At that time, Chrysler required the 7D format.There should not have been a nonconformance.
Similar threads
