Training in 8D Problem Solving as a Preventive Action?

#1
I've been confronted that a training cannot be a preventive action i case of claim received from customer.:eek:

In PpFMEA we did predict this failure mode, but for this particular failure root cause we did not. So we introduced a new method - procedure, and also we should train operators on this new procedure (in order to prevent the recurrence). So to be honest, i know that this is not a poka yoke system and we cannot predict that the failure mode will not happen again, but in order to prevent more defects of this kind we need to train the operators on this procedure. :magic:

I want to hear your opinion?:agree:

Also, what is your way of defining validation of effectiveness of 8D reports.

Thank you in advance for any comments and advice.:thanx:
 

Sidney Vianna

Post Responsibly
Staff member
Admin
#3
I've been confronted that a training cannot be a preventive action i case of claim received from customer.
Probably what happened was: your organization submitted a corrective action plan to this customer, stating that "operators would be re-trained".

A lot of organizations are no longer accepting the old "operator retraining" as a corrective action proposal , after seeing this plan fail too many times. Obviously, I am not sure this is the case, but it sounds as such.

If the retraining was supposed to be the CA, you should ask yourself: whay wasn't the original training effective, to start with?

Good luck.
 
Last edited:

Jen Kirley

Quality and Auditing Expert
Staff member
Admin
#4
I always encourage my clients to consider the "fistful of factors," easily remembered as man-material-machine-method-Mother Nature. Of these, training is very often a part of the corrective/preventive action, especially when changes are made to the process or system; people need to be informed of the new thing, true?

But very seldom is training personnel a stand-alone solution.
 

optomist1

A Sea of Statistics
Trusted
#5
hmmm, when in doubt..."retrain operators", my experience informs me that knowledge and use of 8D is a given and part of a well informed organization..again from my experience...many suppliers only execute and follow through on an 8D...when forced to.


Effectiveness of an 8D; mostly recurrence of a similar defect or reject...many times even when an 8D is executed, it becomes more about filling the "we completed and 8D..." square than we truly got to the root cause and implemented long term corrective action(s)...my two cents
 
#6
Actually, the corrective action was to change something in the training plan that would be a useful knowledge -> like a lessons learned. And the preventive was with the changes, train the old and the future new operators.

Well, everybody has to have an opinion. My way is to do a sanity check when possible.

Thank you.
 

optomist1

A Sea of Statistics
Trusted
#8
Generally (at many firms), the 8D info is used to enhance and refine PFMEA and MPFMEA
the (Master PFMEA) is the place where Lessons Learned are entered and maintained. The MPFMEA usually maintained on a Sharepoint location, updated and group/team reviews etc.
 
#9
Did this occur because of some customer issue/ failure?
If so, the customer may be saying that this is not preventive because you had to create a new procedure to prevent it from occurring again.

If it hasn't happened, and this is a new process that has come about due to an investigation of another issue, that the identification and subsequent process change/ implementation would be preventive.
 
#10
It happend because of audit claim.

Mine opinion is that it could be looked in both ways, and it should not be a hot subject or a point of discussion.

Training is not the best option, and it's like saying I have nothing else to make this not happen again. (unfortunately this problem cannot be solved without design change)
Did this occur because of some customer issue/ failure?
If so, the customer may be saying that this is not preventive because you had to create a new procedure to prevent it from occurring again.

If it hasn't happened, and this is a new process that has come about due to an investigation of another issue, that the identification and subsequent process change/ implementation would be preventive.
Sent from my SM-A510F using Tapatalk
 

Top Bottom