tspinfo.tenneco.comtspinfo.tenneco.com/SupplierManual/P06_2… · XLS file · Web view ·...

Instructions and Guidelines for Tenneco 8D Problem Solving WorkbookP06_23_7_2B.xls

Tab Color CodingRequired Element

This workbook and its attachments are required to be used for any Customer External Issue UNLESS Customer formatted templates are dictated,

When Customer formatted templates are dictated - if they are not comparable or missing any required elements of this workbook - the Tenneco workbook elements) are required to be completed in addition to the Customer documentation for Tenneco documentation and records.

Optional - but strongly Recommended

If any optional tab tool is not utilized: 1) Remove the tab 2) The information is expected to reside within the 8D tab

At minimum one of such tabs must be used

Delete RC identification tab tool(s) not used

GENERAL COMMENTS:

1) Any Pictures be sure they are BIT MAPS or Enhanced Meta Files. (DO NOT IMPORT JPEGS, GIFFS, TIFFs,…)

2) Any additional referred to attachments in the body of the 8D should be made tab attachments (IDENTIFIED as they are in the 8D when ever possible).

GENERAL COMMENTS:

1) Any Pictures be sure they are BIT MAPS or Enhanced Meta Files. (DO NOT IMPORT JPEGS, GIFFS, TIFFs,…)

2) Any additional referred to attachments in the body of the 8D should be made tab attachments (IDENTIFIED as they are in the 8D when ever possible).

Instructions and Guidelines for Tenneco 8D Problem Solving Workbook

When Customer formatted templates are dictated - if they are not comparable or missing any required elements of this workbook - the Tenneco workbook elements) are required to be completed in addition to the Customer documentation for Tenneco documentation and records.

If any optional tab tool is not utilized: 1) Remove the tab 2) The information is expected to reside within the 8D tab

of 31 1/10/98

8 - DISCIPLINE REPORTTraceabilty & Cross Reference Information

Customer # Supplier #

TEN (8D)# TEN Concern #

Photo(s) /Sketch/Print Section:(1A) Team Contact

Team Lead:Phone:Dept/Activity:

Champion: Phone:Dept/Activity:

(1B) Status

Date Opened:Status Date:Next Status Due Date:

Status:(IP- In Progress; VP- Verification Period; C-Closed)

(1C) System/PNTEN System/PN:

Customer System/PN:

(1D) Concern Initiator Name:Phone:Dept/Activity:

(2) PROBLEM DESCRIPTION (all Background Symptom details): In this section please explain in a series of statements or bullets: Who Found - What was found - How was it found- Where was it found - When was it found:How Many/Frequency/ any Pattern: - Prior History or Background:- Anything else to understand the issue for proper containment and to understand root cause:

2A) Problem Statement (Requirement (expectation) vs actual condition - Quantify Is this a Repeat? (Yes or No):If Yes: 8D previous report numbers for reference are:

of 31 1/10/98




(3) EMERGENCY RESPONSE and CONTAINMENT ACTIONS DATE VERIFICATION

Assignee TARGET COMPLETE

(4) ROOT CAUSES Y/N Is / Is not Diagram Attached: Y/N 5 Why's Diagram (REQUIRED)

CAUSE(S) FOR OCCURRENCE: Method of Root Cause Verification

ACTION(S): Include emergency actions (For Product related - All existing material and material to be produced must have containment actions until issue PCA is verified )

METHODS (Documented WI and ID Markings)

Fishbone Diagram Attached:

of 31 1/10/98




CAUSE(S) FOR ESCAPE:

(5) CORRECTIVE ACTIONS (6) VERIFICATIONDATE

INTERIM CORRECTIVE ACTIONS: RESPONSIBILITY TARGET COMPLETED METHODS

of 31 1/10/98




RESPONSIBILITY TARGET COMPLETED METHODS

(7) PREVENTION (6) VERIFICATIONDATE

PERMANENT CORRECTIVE ACTIONS: Must address all verified Occurrence and Escape factors

Must Address All: (1- Systemic findings (L3 of 5Y); 2 - like and similar at site; 3 - applicability to outside location site)

1) Systemic: L3:

2) Inter Plant Like and Similar:

3) Lessons Learned Actions and Read Across (Intra Plant):

of 31 1/10/98




RESPONSIBILITY TARGET Complete METHODS

(8A) TEAM MEMBERS

Must Address All: (1- Systemic findings (L3 of 5Y); 2 - like and similar at site; 3 - applicability to outside location site)

1) Systemic: L3:

2) Inter Plant Like and Similar:

3) Lessons Learned Actions and Read Across (Intra Plant):

of 31 1/10/98




Local Reviews (Always Required) Signatures mean approval Corporate Reviews (Mandatory for Corp. Issues)

Operations Management

Quality Representative

Quality Management

(8B) Reviews and Approvals - Names-Titles-Dates

of 31 1/10/98

Photo(s) /Sketch/Print Section:

Is this a Repeat? (Yes or No):If Yes: 8D previous report numbers for reference are:

of 31 1/10/98

VERIFICATION

RESULTS

Method of Root Cause Verification

of 31 1/10/98

RESULTS

of 31 1/10/98

Tenneco 3-Legged 5 Why Analysis

Concern number: Date of issue: Site/Location:

Part / Process: Permanent Corrective Actions Timing

Insert Issue Description

Specific/Occurrence

Why

Why

Detection Why

Why Why

Why Why

Systemic Why Root Cause

Why Why

Why Why

Why Root Cause

Why

Why

Root Cause

Read Across Actions Timing Lessons Learned Summary

Insert Issue Description from above again

Insert Last box of Root Cause Occurrence

Tips: Insert photos where needed to show conditions describing, Additional legs may be required if independent factors identified. (refer to example)

Therefore

Therefore

Therefore

Therefore

Therefore

Therefore

Therefore

Therefore

Therefore

Therefore

Therefore

Therefore

Therefore

Therefore

Therefore

Therefore

Therefore

Therefore

C6

Use this path for the specific nonconformance being investigated - How was the defect produced? How did the problem occur?

C9

Use this path to investigate why the problem was not detected - How did the controls fail? How did the problem escape?

B11

Use this path to investigate the systemic root cause - Why did the possibility exist for this situation to occur?

C12

Use this path to investigate the systemic root cause - Why did the possibility exist for this situation to occur?

of 31

8D Document Audit 8D #__________________

Yes NoD1 Form the Team

1.1 Is the team cross functional?

1.2 Does the team member list contain full names and titles?

1.3 Does the team include hourly/production employees ?

1.4

D2 Describe the Issue2.1

2.2 Does the problem statement avoid predicting cause (Spec vs Condition) ?

2.3

D3 Containment Activities3.1 Was responsibility for containment assigned to the process owner ?

3.2

3.3

3.4

D44.1

4.2

4.3 Is the Fishbone Diagram complete and does it pull from the FMEA?

4.4 Has it happened before? If yes, why did it fail again - documented?

D5 Corrective Actions5.1 Was corrective action selection based on data showing a link to the issue?

5.2

Is the leader from the appropriate functional area, or is the primary functional area represented ?

Does the problem statement tell what, who, where, when, why, how many and how often?

If applicable does the problem statement include Customer and TEN part number ?

Is containment activity defined (formally documented) WI for methods and marking of material, (including dates and status) ?

Are results documented including number of inspections/number of non conformances found ?

Have all inventory points been considered (e.g. transit, salvage, WIP, etc) and current production until issue resolved?

Find and Verify Root Cause Both Occurrence and Escape

Did team utilize root cause analysis tools (5 Why, Fishbone) to determine root cause?

Was ‘5 Why’ done correctly? Does it branch where necessary, does each ‘Why’ derive directly from the previous ‘Why’?

Is there a documented implementation plan (including responsibility, timeline, and completion date)?

of 31


Yes No5.3 Have all root cause factors (occurrence and escape) identified been accounted

for in the actions?

of 31


Yes NoD6 Verification of Corrective Action

6.1

D7 Prevent Recurrence

7.1

7.2

7.3

D8 Congratulate the Team

AUDIT COMPLETED BY

Auditor__________________ Date: ___________________

Auditor__________________ Date: ___________________

Auditor__________________ Date: ___________________

Comments/Feedback section

Is there documented verification that corrective actions were effective (trend charts, test results, process capability, etc.) including date of verification?

Were actions taken to prevent recurrence including updating of process documentation? (Standard Work, Product/Process Specs, FMEA, Control Plan, etc.)

Were similar internal products and processes investigated and corrections implemented to prevent failures? (has it been institutionalized)

Was applicability for external lessons learn read across out side the site been addressed?

of 31

N/A

FISHBONE (ROOT CAUSE FACTORS)

of 31

LIST ALL POSSIBILITIES IDENTIFIED THROUGH BRAINSTORMING OR WHATEVER MECHANISM TO GENERATE POTENTIALSDenote factors with (O) - Occurrence (E) -Escape or do separate fishbone for each

Man Machine (Tooling) Environment

Method (Process) Material Measurement

ü ? cross-outTrue (VERIFIED) Cause Possible Cause RULED OUT - Not a Cause

Test DirectCause:

INSERT FAILURE MODE

"IS" "IS NOT" TABLE (Filtering to the vital few)

Non-Conformance: Insert failure Mode

A B C

"IS" "IS NOT" Insert Brainstorming Topic

What?

Where?

When?

How Much (frequency-size…)

Insert as many sections to the table as is needed:

Filtering Problem Description Symptom Background information:

Filtering Fishbone/Brainstorming FactorsTake each topic and put it in "C"

If a given "C" fits the criteria of every A and B Mark it on the Fishbone asa leading potential cause.

If a given "C" doesn't fits one criteria of "any " A or B CROSS IT OUT/"Strikethrough" on the Fishbone

??? - Brainstorming or Fishbone Element Potential?

PLEASE FIND A STEP-BY-STEP GUIDE TO USE THE X/Y DIAGRAMStep 1 Fill-out the process name and the date when the YX diagram was compiled

Process:Date:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Input Variables (Xs) Ranking123456789

10

YX Diagram

laminating17/12/2004

Out

put V

aria

bles

(Y

s)

Step 2 Identify the outputs of the process. In case of the 8D, this output could be the failure identified in the NCR/MRR and different potential other failures. Remark, one should avoid to redo the entire PFMEA in order to loose track of the issue on hand. Second, the team should agree on the severity of the output identified. Rating goes from 10 to 1 where 10 is the highest severity One should use the severity table defined in the AIAG PFMEA manual (latest version), table to identify severity.

Process:Date:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

fore

ign

mat

eria

l

smea

rs

thic

knes

s

unbo

nded

are

a

brok

en

7 6 4 9 10Input Variables (Xs) Ranking

123456789

10

YX Diagram


Out

put V

aria

bles

(Y

s)

2.1 Identify output

2.2 Identify severity

Step 3 Identify the inputs of the process : what can cause any of the outputs identified. Second, the team needs to classify these root causes according the Ishikawa split.

Process:Date:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

fore

ign

mat

eria

l

smea

rs

thic

knes

s

unbo

nded

are

a

brok

en


1 pressure 5 02 temperature 5 03 time 5 04 clean room practices 1 05 clean room cleanliness 1 06 washer 2 07 material properties 4 08 robot handling 2 09 human handling 3 0

10

YX Diagram


Out

put V

aria

bles

(Y

s)

Step 4 The team needs to agree on the likelihood that a particular root cause identified (as X) will lead to one or more issues identified (as Y). Rating goes from 10 to 1 where 10 is the highest likelihood.

Process:Date:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

fore

ign

mat

eria

l

smea

rs

thic

knes

s

unbo

nded

are

a

brok

en


1 pressure 5 8 10 9 2122 temperature 5 8 10 7 1923 time 5 8 10 4 1624 clean room practices 1 5 7 775 clean room cleanliness 1 7 3 676 washer 2 10 8 1187 material properties 4 7 5 6 7 1668 robot handling 2 2 4 8 1189 human handling 3 3 4 3 4 112

10

YX Diagram


Out

put V

aria

bles

(Y

s)

3.2 Classify root cause Insert code : 1 = Environment 2 = Machine 3 = Manpower 4 = Material 5 = Method

3.1 Identify root cause

Step 5 In order to get an overview of the results, one has to hit the button “VIEW SUMMARY & CHARTS”

VIEW SUMMARY& CHARTS

You will have a Pareto Analysis of the root causes and a Ishikawa diagram. Other Buttons

CLEAR SHEET

Will clear all the content

DEMO Will give you a demo. Mind that to see the results from the demo,

one still needs to hit the “VIEW SUMMARY & CHARTS”

GO TO GUIDE

Return to YX Diagram

Return to YX Diagram

If a Fishbone or "Is / Is Not" root cause identification tool is not used insert evidence to this tab of what root cause

identification tool activity was used.

If your issue also has an action matrix please replace this tab with your action matrix.

For Product related Issues - Cleaning the Pipeline:

Location Fall out Qty

In transit

Finished Goods

Final Assembly

Sub Assembly

Supplier Transit

Supplier Stock

Suspect Qty (by PN) (Skid, Trailers, Lot codes and Quantities)

Certification Method(Refer to document or detail here)

Certified Product Identification Method

(Pic and alerts are best)

Customer Locations

Component stock

Outside Processing

Rework Locations

Service Inventory

8D - Document Update Checklist

of 31

Document (ID) Numbers Assignee (owner) Explanation if required

PPAP

Process Flow

PFMEA

Control Plan

Work Instructions

Standardized Work

Travelers/Routers

DFMEA

Standards or Masters

PROCESS change Approvals

Other

Potential Documents Requiring updates

(Note list may not be all inclusive)

Not Req'd(Place "X" in

box)

If Req'd Completion

Date

Training Completion

Date

In Process Checksheets and Inspection forms

Prints/Specifications/Test Methods…

tspinfo.tenneco.comtspinfo.tenneco.com/SupplierManual/P06_2… · XLS file · Web view ·...

Documents

Transcript of tspinfo.tenneco.comtspinfo.tenneco.com/SupplierManual/P06_2… · XLS file · Web view ·...