D5 of 8D clarification, how to verify root cause

[Jim Wynne]

I got it from here:

What is 8D? Eight Disciplines Problem Solving Process | ASQ

The original question is hypothetical (meaning you're just curious about the ASQ 8D method)?

 

[Miner]

FWIW, I have been using 8D since Ford rolled it out as TOPS (Team Oriented Problem Solving) and found the ASQ material overly simplistic and inaccurate. The other source was slightly better, but not great. I attached a compilation that I have developed over the years.

 

[qualprod]

FWIW, I have been using 8D since Ford rolled it out as TOPS (Team Oriented Problem Solving) and found the ASQ material overly simplistic and inaccurate. The other source was slightly better, but not great. I attached a compilation that I have developed over the years.

Thanks Miner

I found this in your document:

D5: Identify Solutions (Planned PCA)

Verify through testing that the action will resolve the problem at the root cause level allowing for variation in the frequency or patterns created by the cause. Evaluate the action over the full range of production variation and operating conditions.
Yes, it is, that we have to verify by testing that action will resolve the program if is a training in a person?

and considering your previous response.

If the root cause is truly training, you could verify this by testing operators post-training to make sure they actually understand.

So does testing can takes too long in 5D?

I hope the customer is able to wait my responses ...... maybe now is looking another supplier?
Thanks

 

[RoxaneB]

Yes, it is, that we have to verify by testing that action will resolve the program if is a training in a person?

I have placed part of your response in bold because you have, based on my quick read of this entire thread, ignored a question that has been asked multiple times...

WHY was the operator not trained?

The fact that the operator was not trained is NOT the root cause. It is a result of an action - in this case, it sounds as if the action was that training was NOT conducted.

Simply training the operator - which appears to be the action you have your heart set on - will NOT address the root cause because the problem solving effort here does NOT seem to address the actual root cause.

Consider why the operator was not trained and develop a corrective action based on THAT.

 

[Miner]

Verify through testing that the action will resolve the problem at the root cause level allowing for variation in the frequency or patterns created by the cause. Evaluate the action over the full range of production variation and operating conditions.
Yes, it is, that we have to verify by testing that action will resolve the program if is a training in a person?

Think out of the box. You don't have to wait until someone needs training. Find someone that has not been trained previously, train them and test their knowledge.

and considering your previous response.

If the root cause is truly training, you could verify this by testing operators post-training to make sure they actually understand.

So does testing can takes too long in 5D?

I hope the customer is able to wait my responses ...... maybe now is looking another supplier?

The key is to communicate with your customer. Contact them and provide an update, possibly an interim 8D, and timing on the final 8D.

Roxane made a good point. I was focusing on the verification aspect because that was the question that you asked, but you should dig deeper into the root cause.

 

[qualprod]

Think out of the box. You don't have to wait until someone needs training. Find someone that has not been trained previously, train them and test their knowledge.



The key is to communicate with your customer. Contact them and provide an update, possibly an interim 8D, and timing on the final 8D.

Roxane made a good point. I was focusing on the verification aspect because that was the question that you asked, but you should dig deeper into the root cause.

Thanks Roxane and Miner

Ok, I understand, refreshing a 5w, instead of lack of training, I can add an additional 5w, and say because the follow-up of training
never was performed, other additional 5w, is little compromise with the QMS in this guy, this can be the last step.
Under this perspective , in order to ensure actions will eliminate the problem, I could think one action as to get by some means the compromise
on this guy and maybe to apply some testing or be convinced once is proved now is fully committed?
will this last action can be the testing? is it a convincing proposal?
Thanks for your patience

 

[RoxaneB]

Thanks Roxane and Miner

Ok, I understand, refreshing a 5w, instead of lack of training, I can add an additional 5w, and say because the follow-up of training
never was performed, other additional 5w, is little compromise with the QMS in this guy, this can be the last step.
Under this perspective , in order to ensure actions will eliminate the problem, I could think one action as to get by some means the compromise
on this guy and maybe to apply some testing or be convinced once is proved now is fully committed?
will this last action can be the testing? is it a convincing proposal?
Thanks for your patience

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying or who "this guy" is.

A few of us are stating that training is not necessarily going to address the root cause that led up to the situation. Will it help? Probably. But true corrective action means including activities that will reduce the likelihood of the situation recurring. Training one person does not achieve this.

Consider this scenario...A supervisor asks an operator to move a wooden pallet holding a bunch of heavy boxes. The supervisor wants them moved from point A over to point B, and tells the operator to use the forklift. The operator starts the forklift, picks up the pallet with the boxes and starts to drive over to point B. Along the way, he drives down a ramp, however, he is not centred properly and the forklift falls off the ramp. Thankfully, the operator is unharmed, but the contents of the boxes are damaged, plus there is damage to the forklift. As part of the investigation, it is determined that the operator was never trained to operate a forklift.

So, to the above the scenario, will training the operator address the root cause? Was it a lack of training that was the primary cause behind the forklift accident? No. It was certainly a factor, but it was not the true root cause. The real root cause likely lies in understanding why the supervisor assigned someone without the training OR why the operator did not say anything about his/her lack of training.

The feedback here appears to indicator that you have not dug deep enough on your root cause and you have not yet hit the real root cause, so your actions, while undoubtedly helpful, are doing little to fix the underlying issue.

There is, by the way, a BIG difference between the reasons of "lack of training" and "follow-up of training never performed" that you mentioned. The first means training was never done. The second says training was done but there was no check on its effectiveness. Not sure you can have both reasons.

Beyond that, both of those reasons do NOT dig deep enough. WHY was there a lack of training? ... or ... WHY was there no follow-up to the training? 5W is not coming up with 5 different reasons of why. 5W is taking that first why and digging deeper and deeper to get to the real reason.

 

[Jim Wynne]

Thanks Miner
I hope the customer is able to wait my responses ...... maybe now is looking another supplier?

I would still like to know if this is an actual situation with a customer or just a hypothetical.

 

[Bev D]

And I'm not sure you (qualprod) are actually understanding what we are saying.

Operator training is never a root cause. There is always a deeper causal mechanism. And retraining the operator is never an acceptable corrective to prevent recurrence. The fact that you are struggling to determine for test for the effectiveness of this 'corrective action' is a sure sign that retraining the operator is not a corrective action that prevent recurrence.

Qualprod do you disagree with this position?

 

[qualprod]

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying or who "this guy" is.

Thanks Rox, I got what you say,
my answers in bold

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying or who "this guy" is.
the guy is the person in charge of the training schedule.


So, to the above the scenario, will training the operator address the root cause? Was it a lack of training that was the primary cause behind the forklift accident? No. It was certainly a factor, but it was not the true root cause. The real root cause likely lies in understanding why the supervisor assigned someone without the training OR why the operator did not say anything about his/her lack of training.
Let´s say these are root causes, as actions to eliminate them, could apply to give these employees awareness talks, additionally to check authorities/responsibilities , maybe they don´t know exactly their frontiers of actions ? or what is recommended?

The feedback here appears to indicator that you have not dug deep enough on your root cause and you have not yet hit the real root cause, so your actions, while undoubtedly helpful, are doing little to fix the underlying issue.
Understood

There is, by the way, a BIG difference between the reasons of "lack of training" and "follow-up of training never performed" that you mentioned. The first means training was never done. The second says training was done but there was no check on its effectiveness. Not sure you can have both reasons.
The first, little or none training, the second, no follow-up of the schedule of training by the training responsible.
there were scheduled training, but the responsible of the schedule (who hires the trainer, assign resources,etc.) forgot
to do it.

Beyond that, both of those reasons do NOT dig deep enough. WHY was there a lack of training? ... or ... WHY was there no follow-up to the training? 5W is not coming up with 5 different reasons of why. 5W is taking that first why and digging deeper and deeper to get to the real reason.