(8D) Format

Stanley Complaint No 09.02.
23
Opened Date
Revision Date
10.02.23
8D REPORT
D0 - Concern Details. Define symptom D1 - Establish the Team
Segment Area Name Department
Part Number T3119 Champion P. MADANKUMAR production
Part Description BOLT Team Leader VIJAYAKUMAR production
Machine Name Team Member MARUTHU PANDI production
Team Member Muthu krishnan quality
Symptom (What is the Major problem?) Team Member Ilango production
Team Member Dheena Tool store
Head Damage
Team Member Balaji quality
D2 - Describe the problem
Photo NOK Part Photo OK Part
What is the problem? Head damage observed forging process
Why is there a problem? Visual defects found in shop floor

When did the problem start? 09.02.23
Who detected the problem? Line process
How was the problem detected? visual defects head damage
How many pieces are affected? 127
Where it should have been detected? Stanley Plant - line Inspection
Are similar parts affected? No
D3 - Interim Containment Action
Consider: Qty. In stock Qty. Checked Qty. NOK Date Responsible Identification OK Parts %Effective
- Work in Process 1800 1800 127 20.04.23 ilango 1673 nos Visual ok 100%
- Warehouse Finished Goods 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
- Transit Finished Goods
- Customer Store
- Other (please state):
TOTALS
Containment Actions Details: Manufachering Date for 1st OK parts after
09.02.23
Containment Actions
Manufachering Date for 2nd OK parts after
BC0523070
Immediately discussed with quality team, Quarrantined the suspect quantity segergation done 25000 Nos, Date 20.04.2023 Containment Actions
How are OK parts identified? 100 % Checked ok
D4 - Root Causes Analysis

5 WHY Analysis to identify root cause
Consider: Man, Material, Machine, Method, Who, Where When Why, How, Process settings, Rework, Maintenance etc. Attach extra detail sheets where necessary
1. - Occurrence - Why was the non conformity made?
During running conditions, parts transfer rotating on forging process
2. - No-Detection - Why was the non conformity not detected?
Small head burr is not detect visually identified during hourly inspection.
3. - Verification
Line inspector cross verify every 4 hrs one in process inspection head burr parts observed on shopfloor area.
4. - Did the FMEA identify the failure mode?
Head damaged idnetifed in the FMEA, But this defects operator not propperly ensure that machine
OCCURRENCE - List the "TRUE" root cause(s) from 5Why (and/or from Ishikawa Diagram, FTA… ) %Contribution
During running conditions 3rd station part rotating on 4th stations 100%
NO-DETECTION - List the "TRUE" root cause(s) from 5Why (and/or from Ishikawa Diagram, FTA… ) %Contribution
Hourly inspection not detected the issue parts 100%
D5 - Choose and Verify Permanent Corrective Actions

What actions have been taken to prevent the manufacture of reject parts in the future?
Consider: Error proofing, Testing, Process Control etc. (Actions must cover all root causes)
OCURRENCE - Permanent Corrective Actions Resp. Due Date Avoid Cause? (Y/N)
Design modified (Under new monitoring upcoming lot DINESH 11.02.23 Yes
NO-DETECTION - Permanent Corrective Actions Resp. Due Date Avoid Cause? (Y/N)
All forging operator awarness created Ilango 11.02.23 Yes
D6 - Implement and Validate Permanent Corrective Actions Verified

Are the countermeasures implemented and confirmed as effective?
Permanent Corrective Actions Date Implement. Validation method %Effective
DESIGN CHANGED ( TOOL CODE - KPIN-CL -D4-T3119) 21.04.23 Up coming lot verify 100%
Change Management Activity

Is eSCR required? eSCR number Date eSCR submitted Date eSCR approved
YES NO
D7 - Follow-up Actions (Lessons Learned / Recurrence Prevention Activities)
Review the following documentation and update as a result of this concern.
Consider: Updated? Details (If yes, list doc; if no, explain why) Resp. Dept. Timing
- DFMEA NO Nil
- Drawing / CAD data NO Nil
- Design / Development / QA Standards yes Tool drawing modified Dinseh Engg 21.04.23
- PFMEA NO Nil
- Process Flow Chart NO Nil
- Control Plan / Chart NO Nil
- Work / Inspection Instructions NO Nil
- Sub-supplier Follow-up NO Nil
- Training completed NO Nil
- Layered Audit NO Nil
Was requalification documentation reviewed to verify that there have not been any unauthorized changes since last PPAP?
Have the countermeasures taken been horizontally deployed to similar parts, processes and other plants?
Actions Resp. Due Date Completed
NIL
D8 - Congratulate the Team and Closure

Recognize the team and individual efforts
Action Resp. CLOSURE DATE
Successfully completed and implemented action plan to avoid re occurance ILANGO 21.04.23
(Q4-018C)
ISHIKAWA DIAGRAM
MATERIAL MACHINE METHOD

Raw material grade used as per drawing New M/C used ? Tool Setting Properly?
Raw material wire diameter as per drawing Is M/C in good condition ? Are Control Plan respected?
RM Tensile as per drawing Blow Out Problem Machine set up properly
Long term material used First Blow Pin problem Proper Inspection method carried
Raw material available in rust condition First Blow Wornout Material Stopper properly fitting
Second Stage Cone Tool Wornout Tool drawing changed
Punch Broken Issue
Preventive Maintenance as per plan?
Head burr
MANPOWER ENVIROMENT MEASUREMENT

Is operator trained ? Is process needs environmental control? Instruments are calibrated?
Is operator is new / under training ? - No Proper Lighting Facilities Instrument used as per Control Plan
Is operator temporary ? - No Machine any abnormal Temperature Dimensions Variation
Operator Fatique - No Surrounding More Noise Instruments error
Operator Health condition not well - Good RM Incoming Inspection carried
Set up inspection & Approval carried
Eddy current Sorting Carried in final
(Q4-018C)

(8D) Format

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

(8D) Format

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

(8D) Format

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Stanley Complaint No 09.02.

Why is there a problem? Visual defects found in shop floor

D4 - Root Causes Analysis

During running conditions, parts transfer rotating on forging process

2. - No-Detection - Why was the non conformity not detected?

4. - Did the FMEA identify the failure mode?

D5 - Choose and Verify Permanent Corrective Actions

D6 - Implement and Validate Permanent Corrective Actions Verified

Change Management Activity

D8 - Congratulate the Team and Closure

MATERIAL MACHINE METHOD

RM Tensile as per drawing Blow Out Problem Machine set up properly

Second Stage Cone Tool Wornout Tool drawing changed

Punch Broken Issue

Preventive Maintenance as per plan?

MANPOWER ENVIROMENT MEASUREMENT

Is operator temporary ? - No Machine any abnormal Temperature Dimensions Variation

Operator Fatique - No Surrounding More Noise Instruments error

Operator Health condition not well - Good RM Incoming Inspection carried

Set up inspection & Approval carried

Eddy current Sorting Carried in final

You might also like