How to motivate colleagues to use 8D method or similar

Pau Calvo

Involved In Discussions
Hello all,

I did not found any topic similar so i seek your wisdom in this topic.

To make the history short, I work on a small Tier 2 automotive company very production centred and i am struggling to achieve that my colleagues use 8D methodology or similar to analyse the problems and the claims.

I tried to explain them that it is important to make an analysis of the root cause and this extra work it is only for our benefit, that this will help.
I have raise this concern to my boss, that is tired to try to implement it without success, and also to the general manager.

I hope that you could shear your experiences.

Thank you
 

Mike S.

Happy to be Alive
Trusted Information Resource
Give them different tools to use depending on the circumstance. To install a fastener, sometimes you need a hammer, sometimes you need a sledgehammer, sometimes you need a screwdriver. One tool rarely fits all needs well.
 

John Broomfield

Leader
Super Moderator
Find out problem solving methodology the anti-8Ds prefer and document it.

Then form two separate teams solving the same problem to compare timeliness, root causes and team member involvement.

Allow the teams to discuss both methods and decide for what types of problems each methodology should be used.
 

Pau Calvo

Involved In Discussions
Thank you both for the answers, but the main issue is that they are not used to use any kind of tool.
They don't seem to value the use of this tools, they think that is more usless paperwork and meetings.
I guess is the same story as for FMEA :unsure:...
 

Mike S.

Happy to be Alive
Trusted Information Resource
If they don't use any (formally identified) kind of RCA tool, do they still come up with good root causes? If yes, no problem. If no, explain to them what shortcomings their responses have and tell them they can choose between tools W, X, Y, or Z to establish root causes, because you're not going to accept crap like "employee error" or "machined part undersize" as root cause statements.
 

Bev D

Heretical Statistician
Leader
Super Moderator
So 8D isn't a tool or an RCA method. it is a roadmap or checklist or a rough overlapping series of things one must do when a problem occurs. look at the steps.

Some companies proscribe certain methods and study designs (fishbone diagrams, KT "is, is-not", Apollo, 5-Why, etc.)

That said, the best advice here is to understand what your company objects to in 8D and why they object to it.
In my experience there are several common themes:
- the Customer requires every defect to have an 8D even the trivial or seemingly 'one-off' defects. This isn't about 8D, it's about the usefulness or ROI in preventing all defects or in having very high quality.
- the cause tools you employ are weak and rarely actually get to the causal mechanism so problems just recur. again this isn't about 8D itself, but about knowing how to do good structured problem solving for people processes or physics processes.
-The company doesn't value understanding true causal mechanisms and simply wants to rely on quick fixes, bandaids and punishment. If this is the case, Deming would tell you to go find another place to work. and so would I.
 

John Predmore

Trusted Information Resource
this extra work it is only for our benefit

You asked us to share our experience. The company where I began my career had many initiatives over many years to improve quality, reduce cost, and increase production. At the beginning, many of their efforts were misguided and led to meager results.

The year their quality and capability began to dramatically improve was when the plant manager became a disciple of the 5-why approach to root cause investigation. He would sit in meetings with suppliers and our own engineers, and by asking a few simple “why” questions, expose their shallow analysis and reflexive thinking, thinking which was unreliable to fix our problems. During my time with the company, they improved average in-plant quality from 30,000 parts per million to 300 parts per million. By the time I left, delivered quality was closer to 30 ppm. They achieved 100-fold improvement, not by hiring 100 times as many inspectors or 100 times as many engineers. They made improvement by fixing problems at the source, fixing problems once and forever. In my judgement, the key to their success, their single biggest breakthrough, was better root cause determination.

Did they do the “extra work” for their own benefit? Definitely. W. Edwards Deming famously said, “Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival.” The company would not have survived into the modern era without learning how to fix their problems quickly and forever. A crucial step to fixing a problem is properly identifying the cause of the problem.

I benefited as well as the company from the “extra work”, having stable employment and learning job skills which are transferable to other industries. After I moved on, I continue to tell the story of quality at the source, and I continue to lead other people to embrace the transformation. At this point in my career, I have my own personal stories of achieving 100-fold or 99% improvement. My story begins with what I witnessed at that one factory and I am grateful for that man’s leadership. Once you experience 100-fold levels of improvement, you will never willingly go back to the old, limited way of thinking about quality.
 

optomist1

A Sea of Statistics
Super Moderator
Hi Pau,
Whatever structure, roadmap and associated tools one chooses....the name they attach to the same is secondary....you have the Plt Manager/Your direct managers attention I suggest:
1) Escalate the issue to the Gen/Plt Manager...make it part of the appropriate team members Goals & Objectives...as from your post it appears to be a discipline matter...of course this is part of Roles & Responsibilities discussion as well (must be clearly defined & owned).
and/or
2) Assuming you have an internal PM, he/she must make this part of the "open issues" meeting either internal or external...

Again echoing comments above, Bev et al, regardless of the established or accepted method process and associated tools, they are of little value if left unused. At least in the auto/mobility field...the 8D process and associated tools are key and eventually feed into what some call a Master PFMEA...aka Lessons Learned data base....again absent any knowledge as to your firm's IT ERP systems...w/o this info, many firms end up addressing the same of similar problems....short memories, employee turn over...etc....hope this helps
 

Mike S.

Happy to be Alive
Trusted Information Resource
I use 5-whys more than any other method for RCA, but when helpful I have used other methods such as Apollo, 8-D and fishbone and various hybrids. The results are what counts.

I have found it helpful to give real-world examples when training folks, and for them to keep and reference when they are doing RCA on their own.
 

Golfman25

Trusted Information Resource
Get rid of all the quality jargon. Stop calling it 8D, 5 why, fishbone and such. As Bev said, 8D is just a checklist. You can work thru everything without identifying 1D, 2D, 3D, etc. And don't treat every problem like it's the end of the world subject to a tri-lateral 8D fishbone. Just fix the easy problems. Go further and deeper with the harder issues.
 
Top Bottom