We have created an example 8D form with the

appropriate back-up pages to allow you to fully complete

a real world 8D investigation. Please save this form as the
master and then use it to create a unique 8D report.

This way you can modify the form as required without

affecting your master template.

Various boxes through the document have text comments

(shown by a 'red' triangle) to further aid your completion
of the 8D report.

Please also note that the cells have not been protected, so
if you make a mistake that affects the template, you will
need to go back to your last saved version. Therefore,
regularly save your last copy that you are happy with -
just in case!!

Regards,

Customerservices@Leandeployment.com
4.0 8D Introduction - 5mm area of flash on part ultimately causing a gap to the body of ++4mm

8D Analysis is conducted to enable targeted problem solving for one or more areas within the project. In the Chilco case, 8D is being used to provide
additional analysis on one of the parts within the injection moulding process that was identified using lean and six sigma analysis as being a
potential source for variation that can be improved upon. 8-D analysis (8-DA) evolves the broader project portfolio (PP) and project to embrace
specific content built in the PP. 8-DA is different in that most of the applications are intentionally in need of further development and interpretation
by the team. The team should select multiple worksheets (4-5 minimum) from 8-DA to apply in the project and develop in ways appropriate to the
ongoing work. Team is also expected to include procedures for use, prototypically, based on templates from CA 1 and 2, using a consistent
numbering system throughout.

Information Description of Approach Description of Intended Outcomes

Summarize how root causes for
problems were determined,
identify a corrective action and
8D Form Identify FACRs from 8D Process
whether/how it was validated, and
discuss analysis of corrective action
chosen
To constrain the problem, to determine a
Record all known information
Problem Description solution space for potential root cause
about the problem
factors
Analyze the problem description in Determine whether environmental
Problem Solving
situational context factors play a role in the problem
Explore a sample of specific
Test Cases problems related to the problem Relate conceptual findings to use cases
domain that requires a solution
Determine solution alternatives that best
Decision Making Compare alternatives fit the problem context, environment and
situation
Note: Click on blue links above to view worksheet.
 8-D Response Report
WHO IS EFFECTED BY THE PROBLEM? Date Open: 31-May 8D No.: 070BB2
Customer
Company: Incorp 1 Initial Response: 1-Jun-07 Complaint 4796
No.:
Address: Any Street. Target Close Date: 6/6/2007
Location: Greensboro, NC Revision Date(s): 6/1/2007
Part No./Code 81550/60-0C040-00 8D Initiator: TECH 682 SU07-Team
Product Name: 700N RC Pulled Datum 8D Initiator's Spvr: A. Boss
✘ INTERNAL or EXTERNAL
Actual Close Date:
D1 TEAM MEMBER NAMES/TITLES: D2 PROBLEM STATEMENT/DESCRIPTION (quantify) (one defect per 8D)
Co-Champion: ABC1
Co-Champion: ABC2 Problem: 5mm area of flash on Datum II preventing the lamp from seating and
Team Members: causing a gap to the body of 4mm and above. Injection Moulding Inspection
ABC3, ABC4, ABC4 Standard page 5 of 9 states: 2) Dimension of Gap and Step 1a) gap points 5 thru 11
Gage +/- 0.5mm. Includes Datum II.
% Target Actual
D3 CHOOSE AND VERIFY INTERIM CONTAINMENT ACTION(S) (ICA):
Effective: Date: Date:

100% Inspect moulding cell 3, lot 4723397, for defect on Datum II. One found. Verify lots from
4723396 back to last known good lot 4723391 from same cell

HOW DID YOU VERIFY THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE ICA? 100% 31-May-07 31-May-07
Verified customer records of successful lamp seating (fitness for use) of all parts prior to containment
activity internally. No parts were identified with like or similar issue on any cell or prior to 5/31
identification or problem.
D4 DEFINE AND VERIFY ROOT CAUSE(S): % Contribution:
Retractor was damaged, Why- Retractor mechanism became gaulled, Why- Normal wear and tear of tool, Why-
Preventive Maintenance Schedule is currently at 90 days, Why- 90 days is II Stanley Internal Standard for
retractors Why not enough- poorly lubricated
HOW DID YOU VERIFY THE ROOT CAUSE(S)?
100%
Retractor was damaged, Why- Cleaner sprayed in the tool while the tool was running, Why- Cleaner sprayed to
remove grease from the surface of the tool, Why- Cleaner was able to get into retractor area, Why- Lubrication
of retractor minimized, Why- Friction of retractor increased due to minimal or no lubrication, Why- Operator not
following II Stanley SOP for mould cleaning
D5 CHOOSE AND VERIFY PERMANENT CORRECTIVE ACTION(S) (PCA): % Effective:

1) Repair retractor that was damaged, 2) Modify Preventive Maintenance schedule from 90 days to 30 days
temporarily to determine required preventive maintenance, 3) Develop Predictive Maintenance schedule based
on results of #2, 4) Retrain ALL Set-Up personnel on Engineering Standard for cleaning of mould surface
100%
HOW DID YOU VERIFY THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE PCA?:
Verified through testing cases that each corrective action 100% effectively serves to address the IS case identified
through Problem Analysis. Evaluated potential poke yokes at other Chilco locations and observed 100% success
 100%

Verified through testing cases that each corrective action 100% effectively serves to address the IS case identified
through Problem Analysis. Evaluated potential poke yokes at other Chilco locations and observed 100% success
rate for sensors.
Target Actual
D6 IMPLEMENT AND VALIDATE PERMANENT CORRECTIVE ACTION(S) (PCA):
Date: Date:

1) Repair retractor that was damaged, 2) Modify Preventive Maintenance schedule from 90 days to 30 days
temporarily to determine required preventive maintenance, 3) Develop Predictive Maintenance schedule based
on results of #2, 4) Retrain ALL Set-Up personnel on Engineering Standard for cleaning of mould surface
6-Jun-07 6-Jun-07
HOW WILL YOU VALIDATE THE PCA?
- Verify Preventive Maintenance results each 30 days and status of retractors, - Verify moulding fixture built and
utilized, - Verify assembly fixture built and utilized, - Verify each department has been provided revised
documents, trained to new documents, and using, - Update Lessons Learned documents including FMEA
D7 SYSTEM PREVENTION ACTIONS TO PREVENT RECURRENCE: Target Actual
Mistake Proofing: How are you going to ensure it can't happen again? Date: Date:

1) Add sensors and / or mechanical check in moulding and / or assembly process, 2) Modify Inspection
6-Jun-07 6-Jun-07
Standards; Moulding, Assembly, Final Inspection, and 200% to include this issue.

HAS CORRECTIVE ACTION/IMPLEMENTATION BEEN REVIEWED AGAINST DOCUMENTS?:

Control Plan ✘ FMEA Flowchart ✘ Proc./Work Instr. ✘ Add to Internal Audit
Check boxes that apply:
D8 TEAM AND INDIVIDUAL RECOGNITION: Recognize the collective efforts of the team.
Original: To the dept. Sprv/Mgr. Copy: All initial 8D's and revisions must be sent to appropriate personnel at the location.
If this is a customer related 8D, copy to the Corporate Quality Management Department.
8-D page 1 of 9 Rev. 5 18-Nov-05
 PROBLEM DESCRIPTION
070BB2
1. Operational
Definition Problem: 5mm area of flash on Datum II preventing the lamp from seating and causing a gap to the body
of 4mm and above. Injection Moulding Inspection Standard page 5 of 9 states: 2) Dimension of Gap and
What's Step 1a) gap points 5 thru 11 Gage +/- 0.5mm. Includes Datum II.
wrong with what?
Why?
2. Description
IS IS NOT GET INFO ON
of Problem
WHAT
Object Verified through
Datum II on injection moulded part # Datum II from other injection moulded parts
quality/inspection
81550/60-0C040-00 from like or similar moulding cells.
records from other cells.

Defect
Flash elsewhere on the part or on other
5mm of flash
parts from like or similar injection moulders

WHERE
Seen on object Flash and tear
in datum II

See insert- no other visible or measurable

flash on part.
Seen Customer records
geographically evaluated showed parts
Found during final inspection in shipping
Seen in lot 4723391 or before. in/before lot 4723391
department packaging area in lot 4723397.
100% of parts allowed
for lamp seating.

WHEN
First seen No records exist of this
problem for this or like /
May 31st, 2007 Before this time
similar processes to
date.

When else seen

In lots dating back to 4723392 In lot 473391 or before

When seen in
process (life cycle)
Shifts 3, 1, and 2 beginning 5/27 Before 5/27

HOW BIG Initial Containment Information

How many objects 45
have the defect?
40

35

21
30

25 Row 5 More than this in first lot

Qty Row 4
20

15 8

10 21

5 11

0 1
How many defects
per object?
1 = Datum II on injection moulded part #
More than 1
81550/60-0C040-00

What is the trend?

Revised Information
1400

1200

1000
612

800
Row 10 In any lot previous to 4723391
Qty

Row 9
600

400
610 159

200
239

0 11
8

Updated By: J. Travis Felton Update Date: 6/1/2007 Update #: 1.0

8-D page 4 of 9 Rev. 1.0 1-Jun-07
 070BB2 4.4 8D PROBLEM SOLVING WORKSHEET
1. Operational Definition (Type in D2 here) (Type in D2 here)
What's wrong with what? Why?
2. Description 3. Deductions About Facts and Other Information 4. Possible Causes
IS IS NOT
of Problem 3a. Differences 3b. Changes Date List Change-How Theories
WHAT A Lubricant seemed to be very sparse in the
Object Datum II from other mould retractor area.
Datum II on injection
injection moulded parts
moulded part # Retractor was damaged sooner than normal. None observed. 5/31/2007
from like or similar
81550/60-0C040-00
moulding cells.

Defect B Cleaner is impacting the lubricant functionality in

Flash elsewhere on the the retractor area of the mould.
part or on other parts Operator sprayed cleaner while machine
5mm of flash 6/4/2007
from like or similar was still running- to get grease off of surface
injection moulders

WHERE C Lubricant viscosity may not be consistent.

Seen on object See insert- no other
Inspection standard does not specify this
Only Datum II visible or measurable None observed. 6/4/2007
defect
flash on part.

Seen D
geographically Found during final
inspection in shipping Seen in lot 4723391 or Inspection standard does not specify this
department packaging before. defect
area in lot 4723397.

WHEN E
First seen
May 31st, 2007 Before this time Not considered in PFMEA or Control Plan

When else seen F

In lots dating back to
In lot 473391 or before
4723392

When seen in G
process (life cycle) Shifts 3, 1, and 2
Before 5/27
beginning 5/27

HOW BIG
How many objects 5. Test causes for probability (+, -, ?) Page 2
1 Part More than this in first lot
have the defect? Does it explain Is/Is Not fact?

How many defects 6. Steps to verify Root Cause?

per object? 1 = Datum II on injection (make the problem come and go)
moulded part # More than 1
81550/60-0C040-00

What is the trend?

In any lot previous to
398 Parts
4723391

Updated By: A. Body Update Date: 1-Jun-07 Update #: 1

8-D page 5 of 9 Rev. 1 1-Jun-07
 070BB2 4.5 TESTING POSSIBLE PROBLEM CAUSES

be

ng

ay
cti
rac th to

ten y m
ret ctio rican mpa

the
a.

rea the
ret e in ed
tor e
are

s is s it
u ld a r s e e m

t.
of
uld r a in
fun lub r is i
s ow

mo racto nality t

on co
e c v is
mo ry sp nt s
eo e-H

the ane

t b nt
ve brica
Th ang
rie

Cle

n o b r ic a
.
Lu
Ch

Lu

0
"IS's" A B C D E F G

1 - + +

2 - + +

3 - + +

4 - + +
5 - + +

6 - + +

7 - + +

8 - + +
9 - + +

10 - + +

11 - + +

12 - + +
13 - + +

14 - + +

15 - + +

16 - + +

17 - + +
Comments/ Verified on 17 Introduced Verified that
Follow-Up additional cleaner into lubricant
Items recreations of lubricant mix viscosity is not
the flash- and found it to an issue unless
lubricant is an counteract cleaner is
issue desired function introduced into
of lubricant the retractor
area of the
mould.

Updated By: Update Date: Update #:

8-D page 6 of 9 Rev. 5 18-Nov-05
 070BB2 4.6 DECISION MAKING WORKSHEET
(1) END RESULT:
(4) CHOICES AVAILABLE - (INNOVATE)
(2) CRITERIA:
A B C D
GIVENS: (mandatory, measurable, realistic) (5) INFO Y/N (5) INFO Y/N (5) INFO Y/N (5) INFO Y/N
Repair retractor that was damaged. Replace y re-tool y

Modify Preventive Maintenance schedule from

Determine permanent schedule
90 days to 30 days temporarily to determine 30 days often enough y y
within 90 days
required preventive maintenance schedule.
Develop Predictive Maintenance schedule
within 90 days y
based on results of #2.
Modify Inspection Standards; Moulding,
Assembly, Final Inspection, and 200% to include 200% possible at lean rate y
this issue.
Add sensors and / or mechanical check in
assembly soon enough n moulding location appropriate y mechanical check appropriate n sensors capable of detecting y
moulding and / or assembly process.
(3) How (5) How (5) How (5) How (5) How
Important INFO Good INFO Good INFO Good INFO Good
WANTS: flexible limits, subjective, realistic (1-10) (0-10) Score (0-10) Score (0-10) Score (0-10) Score
Implement standard vibration and Tools for vibration
6 0 0 0 0
Impact testing analysis for process analysis available
0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0
6
Relative MERIT (total score) 0 0 0 0
6,000
Updated By: A. Body Update Date: Update Rev #: 3
8-D page 7 of 9 Rev. 3.0 4-Jun-07