GLOBAL 8D TRAINING REPORT EXAMPLE

Title Date Opened: Last Updated:

Oil on the surface of the Widget ( Supplier 8D Num ) ( Date ) ( Date )
Product/Process Information: Organisation Information:
Widget is for an Visteon application ect (Visteon Part Num.) Widget Manufactures ( Supplier Code )
D Symptom(s):
Oily patches on the Widget ( IMRR received on date :- ( Date ) )
D Emergency Response Action(s): % Date
A) Representative went to Visteon Plant ( Name ) on the (Date ) to see Effective: Implemented:
affected parts and collect data .
B) 100% inspect for this fault and rework by wiping the parts .
Verification: 100% ( Date )
( Note :- Verification is the switch on , switch off measurement of the action
taken )
B) Visteon Plant ( Name ) accepted reworked parts as OK for production ,
without rework parts plants will still witness the oil concern .
Validation:
( Note :- Validation is the measurement of the action over a period of time
e.g. Shift , days , week , month et )
B) Reworked parts were randomly checked over a period of two shifts at
Visteon Plant , check sheet shows 100% O.K parts no oil .
D1 Team (Name, Dept, Phone) D2 Problem
Champion: Problem Statement:
Team Members Dept Phone Visteon Plant ( Name ) assembly line rejected Widget for oily marks on the
surface.
Problem Description:
( Note :- Problem Description is a detailed description of the concern
which is generated by the IS/ISNOT problem solving worksheet )

On the ( Date ) Visteon Plant ( Name ) assembly rejected the Widget

( Visteon Part Number ) for oily marks on the front face of the Widget and
not on the sides or the rear . The oily marks were first identified at Visteon
Plant ( Name ) assembly station during assembly and seen since at the
receiving inspection area . ( Suppliers name ) identified the problem as
occurring after and not before the Ari pressing machine at (Suppliers name)
assembly. The oil is confirmed as Oil (see Report no. ### ). Various patterns
of oil were found on the surface of the insert : Smears - partial & whole
coverage on surface of widget Clusters / Globules - Various
diameters<5mm.
Overall rejected = 118,064.
Quantity defective = data not collected. Estimate that 100% of the affected
batches had oily marks on the surface.
This is the only ( Supplier name ) program to be affected by this problem as
it is assembled on a dedicated Visteon widget line .
IMRR effected by this problem are listed below: ( IMMR Numbers )
D3 Interim Containment Action(s): % Effective Date Imp:
A) 100% inspection & rework introduced after final assembly at packaging
station. B) All recalled stock reworked and passed through 100% inspection before 100% (Date )
re-packaging.
Verification
A&B) Operators were given oil contaminated parts and all parts they reworked
were 100% passed to standard introduced .
Validation:
A&B) Primary :
Packaging check sheet .
A&B) Secondary :
Problem has not reoccurred with customer since 1st delivery of ICA applied
6/3/98

Page 1
Created by Visteon Europe STA Department
D4 Root Cause(s) : % Contribution:
Occurrence:
( Note :- Occurrence is the actual concern , what went wrong and why )
Excessive oil ( BD68 ) in the felt pads used to lubricate the die cut punching tool 100%
contaminated the silicone nesting pads. When these were placed under pressure , oil was
squeezed out onto the insert surface creating NOK parts.
Escape:
( Note :- Escape is why the Visteon plant experienced the occurrence , why did the
occurrence escape from the supplier quality system )
No inspection after pressing and before packing for this fault.
Verification:
Occurrence:
Press was cleaned & run without any oil. Result - no oil on the surface of the badges
pressed . Press was set up in the usual way following the work instruction i.e. soaking
pads in oil and 4 drops every 20 cycles Ref. WI07A issue 2 - oil was found on the
surface
Escape:
No inspection escape 100% likely
D5 Chosen Permanent Corrective Action(s): % Effective:
Occurrence:
a) Oil feed of 1 drop per 20 cycles to the punch lubricating felt pads. 60%
b) Change set up procedure, specific amount of oil added to punch lubricating pad 38%
c) Minimise oil contamination by introducing a separate maintenance bench for 2%
cleaning of the tool.
Escape:
Implement permanent inspection at packing station.
Verification:
Occurrence:
d) Test run at 1 drop per 20 machine cycles. 8 samples badges were inspected every 20
cycles; results were logged. Test length =1400 cycles total. No sign of oil .
e) 10g of oil added before set up , oil is the correct amount
f) Cleaning and set-up on maintenance bench avoids oil contamination on machine
and parts .
Escape:
Verification of inspection method in D3.
D6 Implemented Permanent Corrective Action(s): Date Implemented:
Occurrence:
g) Implement oil feed of 1 drop per 20 cycles to the punch lubricating felt pads. (Date )
h) Set up procedure changed See D5. (See updated work instructions WI07 Issue 3.) (Date )
i) Maintenance bench for tool cleaning introduced. (Date )
Escape:
Ari control plan Issue3 updated to include check for oil at final assembly. Visual
standard implemented.
Validation:
Occurrence:
a)b)c) Ari machine oil check log sheet SF4.10.3/8
Escape:
Paynter analysis chart
D7 Prevent Actions: Date Implemented:
Updated Ari FMEA to include oil contamination as a failure mode. (Date )

D7 Systematic Prevent Recommendations: Responsibility:

At APQP review consider product failure modes of lubrication contamination. Quality Group
Team Leaders
Supervisors
D8 Team and Individual Recognition: Date Closed: Reported by:
Congratulate Team and members ( DATE )

( Customer Sign Off)

Page 2
Created by Visteon Europe STA Department
 Problem Desciption Worksheet
Problem Statement:
Problem
Description IS
What Object What object has the defect?
WH AT
What Defect What is the defect?
Where on the object is the defect Where else on the object could
Where on observed (inside/outside, top/
object bottom, same/different place,...)? but was not?
Where geographically was the
Where first defective object first observed?
WHERE
Where in the process was the
observed defective object first observed?
Where seen Where geographically have the
defective objects been observed?
since
When in time was the defective
object first observed?
When in the process was the
When first defective object first observed?
observed When in the life cycle of the
WHEN
defective object was the defect
first observed?
What patterns of occurrence of
the defect have been observed
What pattern with respect to time?
since When during use of the defective
object is the defect observed?
How many How many objects have the
defect?
affected
What is the magnitude of the
defect in terms of percentages,
What size rates, patterns, trends, yield,
HOW BIG
physical dimensions, etc.?
Defects per How many defects are there per
defective object?
object
Logically could be but Get
IS NOT Information
What objects that are similar in
shape, composition, form or
function could have the defect
but do not?
What other similar defect(s)
could have been observed but
were not?
the defect have been observed
Where geographically could the
defective object have first been
observed but was not?
Where in the process could the
defective object have first been
observed but was not?
Where geographically could the
defective objects have been
observed but were not?
When in time could the defective
object have first been observed
but was not?
When in the process could the
defective object have first been
observed but was not?
When in the defective object's
life could the defect have first
been observed but was not?
What patterns of occurrence
could have been observed with
respect to time but were not?
When during use of the defective
object could the defect have
been observed and was not?
How many objects could have
the defect but do not?
What magnitude could the
defect have, but does not?
How many defects could there
have been per defective object
but were not ?
Page 3
Created by Visteon Europe STA Department