Aesqrm 000202103

RM13000
8D Problem Solving Method
An AESQ Reference Manual

Supporting SAE AS13100™ Standard
Issued March 8, 2021

RM13000
8D Problem Solving Method
An AESQ Reference Manual

Supporting SAE AS13100™ Standard
AESQRM000202103
SAE Industry Technologies Consortia provides that: “This AESQ Reference Manual is published by the AESQ Strategy
Group/SAE ITC to advance the state of technical and engineering sciences. The use of this reference manual is entirely
voluntary and its suitability for any particular use is the sole responsibility of the user.”
Copyright © 2021 AESQ Strategy Group, a Program of SAE ITC. All rights reserved.
No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, distributed, or transmitted, in any form or by
any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior written permission of AESQ
Strategy Group/SAE ITC. For questions regarding licensing or to provide feedback, please contact info@aesq.sae-itc.org.
Aerospace Engine Supplier Quality (AESQ) Strategy
Group
The origins of the AESQ can be traced back to 2012. The Aerospace Industry was, and still is, facing many
challenges, including:
• Increasing demand for Aero Engines

• Customers expecting Zero Defects
• Increasing supplier / partner engine content
• Increasing global footprint
The Aero Engine manufacturers Rolls-Royce, Pratt & Whitney, GE Aviation and Snecma (now Safran Aircraft
Engines) began a collaboration project with the aim of driving rapid change throughout the aerospace engine
supply chain, improving supply chain performance to meet the challenges faced by the industry and the need
to improve the Quality Performance of the supply chain.
Suppliers to these Engine Manufacturers wanted to see greater harmonisation of requirements between the
companies. Each Engine Manufacturer had Supplier Requirements that were similar in intent but quite different
in terms of language and detail.
This collaboration was formalized as the SAE G-22 Aerospace Engine Supplier Quality (AESQ) Standards
Committee formed under SAE International in 2013 to develop, specify, maintain and promote quality standards
specific to the aerospace engine supply chain. The Engine Manufacturers were joined by six major Aero Engine
suppliers including GKN, Honeywell, Howmet Aerospace, IHI, MTU and PCC Structurals. This collaboration
would harmonise the aerospace engine OEM supplier requirements while also raising the bar for quality
performance.
Subsequently, the Aerospace Engine Supplier Quality (AESQ) Strategy Group, a program of the SAE Industry
Technologies Consortia (ITC), was formed in 2015 to pursue activities beyond standards writing including
training, deployment, supply chain communication and value-add programs, products and services impacting
the aerospace engine supply chain.
AESQ Vision
To establish and maintain a common set of Quality Requirements
that enable the
Global Aero Engine Supply Chain
to be
truly competitive through lean, capable processes
and a
culture of Continuous Improvement.
i
The SAE G-22 AESQ Standards Committee published six standards between 2013 and 2019:
• AS13000 Problem Solving Requirements for Suppliers (8D)

• AS13001 Delegated Product Release Verification Training Requirements (DPRV)
• AS13002 Requirements for Developing and Qualifying Alternate Inspection Frequency Plans
• AS13003 Measurement Systems Analysis Requirements for the Aero Engine Supply Chain
• AS13004 Process Failure Mode & Effects Analysis and Control Plans
• AS13006 Process Control
In 2021 the AESQ replaced these standards, except for AS13001, with a single standard, AS13100.
The AESQ continue to look for further opportunities to improve quality and create standards that will add value
throughout the supply chain.
Suppliers to the Aero Engine Manufacturers can get involved through the regional supplier forums held each
year or via the AESQ website http://aesq.saeitc.org/.
ii
AESQ Reference Manuals
AESQ Reference Manuals can be found on the AESQ website at the following link:
https://aesq.sae-itc.com/content/aesq-documents
AESQ publishes several associated documents through the SAE G-22 AESQ Standards Committee supporting
deployment of AS13100. Their relationship with APQP and PPAP is shown in Figure 1.
Figure 1: AESQ Standards and Guidance Documents and the link to AS9145 APQP / PPAP
iii
RM13000 - 8D Problem Solving Method
Table of Contents
1. INTRODUCTION TO PROBLEM-SOLVING ............................................................................................................... 4
2. PROBLEM-SOLVING APPROACHES ........................................................................................................................ 5
Customer Typical Milestones for Problem-solving Investigations ................................................................................ 7
3. PROBLEM-SOLVING METHODOLOGIES ................................................................................................................. 8
PROBLEM-SOLVING METHODOLOGY EQUIVALENCY...................................................................................................................... 9

PROBLEM-SOLVING METHODOLOGY – WHAT TYPE OF PROBLEM IS IT? .......................................................................................... 10
4. PROBLEM-SOLVING USING THE 8D METHODOLOGY .......................................................................................... 11
THE EIGHT DISCIPLINES......................................................................................................................................................... 12

D0 Emergency Response Actions and Prepare for 8D ........................................................................................ 12
D1 Form the Team .............................................................................................................................................. 12
D2 Define the Problem ....................................................................................................................................... 13
D3 Develop Interim Containment Actions .......................................................................................................... 13
D4 Diagnosis: Identify and Verify Root Causes and Escape Point ...................................................................... 13
D5 Identify Permanent Corrective Action for Root Cause and Escape Point ...................................................... 14
D6 Implement Permanent Corrective Action ...................................................................................................... 14
D7 Prevent Recurrence ....................................................................................................................................... 14
D8 Recognize the Team ...................................................................................................................................... 15
4D METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................................................................................. 15
2D METHODOLOGY FOR SIMPLE PROBLEMS NOT REQUIRING DOCUMENTATION .............................................................................. 15
5. FORMS OF 8D ..................................................................................................................................................... 17
A3 EXCEL 8D METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................................................................... 17

D1. Form the Team..................................................................................................................................................... 17
D2. Define the Problem .............................................................................................................................................. 17
D3. Implement Containment ...................................................................................................................................... 17
D4. Find the Root Cause ............................................................................................................................................. 17
D6. Fix the Root Cause ............................................................................................................................................... 17
D7. And D8. Fix the System issues, Read Across and Recognize the Team................................................................. 17
TWO PAGE POWERPOINT 8D FORM ....................................................................................................................................... 18
THREE PAGE WORD 8D FORM............................................................................................................................................... 20
6. CASE STUDIES OF 8D .......................................................................................................................................... 23
CASE STUDY 1 – OIL PAN BRACKET ......................................................................................................................................... 23

CASE STUDY 2– ESCAPE OF MACHINED DISC .................................................................................................................. 24
Immediate Containment (D0) .................................................................................................................................... 24
Team (D1) ................................................................................................................................................................... 24
Problem Statement (D2)............................................................................................................................................. 24
Interim Containment (D3) .......................................................................................................................................... 24
Root Cause (D4, D7) ................................................................................................................................................... 24
Permanent Corrective Actions (D5, D6):..................................................................................................................... 24
Team Recognized (D8): .............................................................................................................................................. 25
CASE STUDY 3 – INCORRECT PART MARKING.................................................................................................................. 26
DO – Immediate Containment Action(s) – What needs to be stopped?..................................................................... 26
D1 – Pull Team Together – What skills are needed? .................................................................................................. 26
D2 – Define the Problem – What is the impact of failure? ......................................................................................... 26
D3 – Interim Containment Actions(s) – How to get production up and running? ...................................................... 27
1
D4 – Root Cause Analysis – What are the causes of the problem? ............................................................................ 27
D5 – Identify Permanent Corrective Actions(s) – For the immediate problem ........................................................... 29
D6 – Implement Permanent Corrective Actions(s) – Validate and check for effectiveness ........................................ 29
D7 – Implement Preventive Action(s) – Prevent recurrence ....................................................................................... 30
D8 – Congratulate the Team – Provide recognition ................................................................................................... 30
7. BASIC QUALITY TOOLS FOR PROBLEM-SOLVING................................................................................................. 31
8. APPENDIX A: 8D CHECK LIST ............................................................................................................................... 32
D0 assessing questions ............................................................................................................................................... 32

D3 assessing questions Before ICA (Interim Containment Action) ............................................................................. 35
D5 assessing questions Before PCA (Permanent Corrective Action) .......................................................................... 37
D8 Assessing Questions .............................................................................................................................................. 40
9. APPENDIX B: 8D TRAINING SYLLABUS ................................................................................................................ 41
B.1 Prerequisite of the training ........................................................................................................................... 41

B.2 Training requirements ................................................................................................................................... 41
B.3 Methods training .......................................................................................................................................... 41
10. APPENDIX C: TERMS & DEFINITIONS .................................................................................................................. 43
11. APPENDIX D: ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ................................................................................................................. 44
2
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 1: AESQ STANDARDS AND GUIDANCE DOCUMENTS AND THE LINK TO AS9145 APQP / PPAP .................................................... III
FIGURE 2: STRUCTURED PROBLEM-SOLVING DECISION TREE................................................................................................................ 5
FIGURE 3: PARETO PRINCIPLE ...................................................................................................................................................... 6
FIGURE 4: PROBLEM-SOLVING INTERRELATIONSHIP DIAGRAM ............................................................................................................ 8
FIGURE 5: PROBLEM-SOLVING METHODOLOGY ROADMAP .............................................................................................................. 10
FIGURE 6: EXCEL A3 8D FORM .................................................................................................................................................. 18
FIGURE 7: POWERPOINT 8D FORMAT (PAGE 1) ............................................................................................................................ 19
FIGURE 8: POWERPOINT 8D FORMAT (PAGE 2) ............................................................................................................................ 19
FIGURE 9: WORD 8D FORM (PAGE 1) ......................................................................................................................................... 20
FIGURE 10: WORD 8D FORM (PAGE 2) ....................................................................................................................................... 21
FIGURE 11: WORD 8D FORM (PAGE 3) ....................................................................................................................................... 22
FIGURE 12: CASE STUDY 1 USING EXCEL A3 8D FORM ................................................................................................................... 23
FIGURE 13: CASE STUDY 1 USING POWERPOINT 8D FORM (PAGE 1)................................................................................................. 25
FIGURE 14: CASE STUDY 1 USING POWERPOINT 8D FORM (PAGE 2)................................................................................................. 25
FIGURE 15: CASE STUDY 3 – HOW THE SHAFT LENGTH (X) CALCULATED ............................................................................................ 27
FIGURE 16: CASE STUDY 3 FISHBONE DIAGRAM ............................................................................................................................ 27
FIGURE 17: CASE STUDY 3 5-WHY DIAGRAM FOR DIRECT CAUSE EXAMPLE ........................................................................................ 28
FIGURE 18: 8D CASE STUDY 5 WHY DETECTION EXAMPLE .............................................................................................................. 28
FIGURE 19: 8D CASE STUDY – MARKING CHECK SHEET .................................................................................................................. 29
FIGURE 20: AESQ 8D INTERACTIVE TOOL CONTROL PANEL ............................................................................................................ 31
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 1: TYPICAL CUSTOMER PROBLEM-SOLVING MILESTONE REQUIREMENTS ....................................................................................... 7
TABLE 2: AESQ 8D VS ARP9136 ................................................................................................................................................ 9
TABLE 3: 8D CASE STUDY CORRECTIVE ACTION SUMMARY .............................................................................................................. 30
TABLE 4: TOOL TRAINING FOR EACH DISCIPLINE ............................................................................................................................ 42
3
1. INTRODUCTION TO PROBLEM-SOLVING
This Reference Manual has been created to support the requirements of AS13100 Section 10 and
provides information on the use of problem-solving methodologies to satisfy the requirements of this
standard.
A problem can be defined as;
“A perceived gap between the existing state and a desired state, or a deviation from a norm,
standard, or status quo”
Business Dictionary
In this definition the ‘problem’ can represent an improvement opportunity when addressing the gap
between the ‘existing state and the desired state’ or an issue when addressing a ‘deviation from a
norm or standard’.
ISO 9001, AS9100 and AS13100 require organizations to have a process to manage both types of
problems in Section 10 of their respective standards. ISO 9001 provides examples for improvement
that include;
• Corrective action
• Continual improvement
• Breakthrough change
• Innovation, and
• Re-organization
This Reference Manual will primarily focus on managing problems associated with products and
manufacturing processes, although some may also be applied to other situations such as service
issues and improvement.
AS13100 requires organizations to use the 8D methodology for customer escapes as described in
Chapter 6. Alternative approaches that meet the intent of this requirement may be used if approved
by the customer.
The other material in this Reference Manual is provided as guidance for managing other types of
problem-solving with varying degrees of complexity.
4
2. PROBLEM-SOLVING APPROACHES
In every part of the business, there are issues that need to be managed.
However, not all issues will require an individual problem-solving investigation to be completed.
There are two main approaches to how problems can be managed;
1) Individual Root Cause Analysis & Corrective Action
2) Themed improvement
The following guidance aims to help clarify which approach should be selected.
Figure 2 illustrates the logic to consider when a new issue arises in deciding whether individual root
cause or themed improvement is most suitable.
Figure 2: Structured problem-solving decision tree

When the organization becomes aware of an issue the priority is to assess it and determine the
nature of the problem. This is achieved through completing a detailed problem definition. If the issue
is product related then the organization should also ensure that the customer (internal and external)
is protected from any non-conformance that may have been, or is suspected to have been,
produced. This is referred to as Containment.
The organization should record all issues in a master database or similar so that the number of
issues can be measured and analyzed on an ongoing basis.
Once the issue has been defined and containment (if required) has been carried out then the
organization needs to define the approach to best manage the issue.
If the issue is regarded as having a Low Impact, then one approach would be to perform a pareto
analysis of all the data to identify the key themes that can be managed through improvement
activity.
5
Pareto of Themes
35
30
25
% of all issues 20
15
10
5
0
Theme 1 Theme 2 Theme 3 Theme 4 Theme 5
Themes
Figure 3: Pareto Principle

Examples of where problem-solving is more effectively conducted on themes (i.e., a collection of
issues) may include:
• Low level product non-conformance usually handled through rework or concessions
• Manufacturing Process Capability issues
• Product Design issues
• Process compliance issues (e.g., audit findings, process compliance check failures)
Using this approach does mean that for some issues, once recorded, defined and contained will not
be actioned if it belongs to a theme that is low on the Pareto analysis. Clearly it is best if all issues
are addressed and closed out through a robust problem-solving investigation however it is
recognized that it is important to focus resources onto those issues that have the biggest impact to
the customer and business performance.
If the issue is assessed as being of High Impact, then the organization should conduct a focused
root cause and corrective action investigation using the 8D approach or similar. Typical High Impact
issues include;
• Customer quality escapes
• Repeat Issues
• Non-conformance that cause customer delivery issues
• Non-conformance that is associated with a high cost of non-quality
• Special Cause issues that have not been seen before
• Issues that have no obvious cause
• Issues that are complex in nature and require a cross functional team approach to fix them.
Many customers will require a formal investigation for managing escapes from a supplier. Typically,
they will require an 8D investigation or similar.
Where the problem originates in an external supplier then the requirements for managing the
corrective action should be flowed down by the organization. The organization will be seen as being
responsible for the quality and timeliness of the supplier’s investigation by the customer.
6
The organization should monitor the status of all problem-solving activity with the business to
ensure that the process is effective and timely.
Learning from investigations and improvement actions should be read across to areas that can
benefit from the insights gained. Wherever possible the organization’s Management System
processes should be updated along with the following documents, as applicable;
• Design FMEA
• Process FMEA
• Control Plans
• Work Instructions
• Audit Checklists
Records of the investigation and actions taken are required to be maintained by ISO9001 and
AS9100 (10.2.2).
Customer Typical Milestones for Problem-solving Investigations

Problems that have impacted our external Customers typically will require completion of key
problem-solving steps against defined timescales. Some typical customer requirements are shown
in Table 1.
Table 1: Typical Customer problem-solving milestone requirements
Stage Airbus AESQ
Immediate Response 24 Hours
Define Problem
Contain Problem 72 Hours
Identify Root Cause(s) & Identify Corrective Action(s) 30 Days
Implement Corrective Action
Verify Fix 90 Days
Read Across Learning
Close
7
3. PROBLEM-SOLVING METHODOLOGIES
Many types of Problem-Solving methodologies have been established. They range from the very
simple “Just Do It”, to the comprehensive Eight Discipline (8D) investigation approach, to the
broader DMAIC method.
The 8D approach is used to document external Customer escape issues or internal high pain defect
issues, to very simple “find and fix” methods that deal with problems that are more local and not in
need of an extensive investigation. All methods have their origination from the “Plan, Do, Check,
Act” approach developed by Walter Shewhart and W. Edwards Deming back in the 1920’s. The
figure below shows some of the breadth of problem-solving methods that have evolved overtime
and how they overlap.
Figure 4: Problem-Solving Interrelationship Diagram

While purpose of this manual is not to go into detail in every problem-solving method, it focusses on
a very comprehensive methods that focusses on Root Cause and Corrective Action Investigations.
The core of this reference manual is based on the 8D investigation approach developed by Ford
Motor Company in 1987. This manual recognizes not every problem requires all the steps of 8D,
thus attention is paid to shortened variations of this model such as “4D” (medium type problems)
and “2D” (very simple to fix type problems) to provide the user problem-solving efficiency where the
situation calls for it.
Figure 4.0 below illustrates the various problem-solving types all emanating from the 8D
investigation steps. While the illustration shows the nine steps of 8D being reduced to “4D” for
medium type problems and “2D” for simple type problems, even these shortened versions may
require additional steps given the situation. For example, a 4D type problem may require a
temporary action to be taken while a permanent solution is investigated. This is adding D3 to the
core 4D steps. The same can be said of a simple 2D problem.
Selecting the best approach is critical for the effectiveness of the investigation and the ability to
prevent recurrence. Each type of methodology is supported by a range of problem-solving tools that
can be used to get to root cause and implement effective corrective actions.
8
Whatever methodology is used the basic intent of any problem-solving process is to;
1. Define the problem and containment actions
2. Understand the root cause
3. List and assign actions to fix problem
4. Evaluate results and standardise if problem is solved
Many of the tools in used in these methods overlap, as such there is a section on the common
problem-solving tools. These tools may be found in Section 7.
Problem-Solving Methodology Equivalency
The table below shows the equivalency between the AESQ Eight Disciples (8D) per RM13000 and IAQG Nine
Steps (9S) per ARP9136. Companies may use either method.
Table 2: AESQ 8D vs ARP9136

RCCA Investigation Comparison Diagram
AESQ 8D Problem Solving Methodology Per
ARP9136 9S Methodology
RM13000
D0 - Immediate Containment Action(s) S0 - Start Immediate Containment Actions
D1 - Form Team S1 - Build the Team
D2 - Define Problem and Impact S2 - Define Problem
D3 - Interim Containment Action(s) S3 - Complete and Optimize Containment Actions
D4 - Determine Root Causes S4 - Identify Root Cause(s)
D5 - Determine Permanent Corrective Action(s) S5 - Define and Select Permanent Corrective Action(s)
S6 - Implement Permanent Corrective Action and
D6 - Implement Permanent Corrective Action(s) Check Effectiveness
S7 - Standardize and Transfer the Knowledge Across
D7 - Determine Preventative Action(s) Business
D8 - Recognize the Team and Close Out
Investigation S8 - Recognize and Close the Team
There is no significant difference between AESQ 8D per RM13000 and IAQG 9S per ARP9136. As such,
suppliers can use either method.
9
Problem-Solving Methodology – What type of problem is it?

The following roadmap in Figure 5 is used as visual guidance to select the most appropriate
problem-solving methodology based on complexity. It should be noted that there may be occasions
where the nature of the problem changes as the investigation progresses and hence the procedure
may expand or collapse to meet the needs for the change.
Figure 5: Problem-Solving Methodology Roadmap

Since 8D is the core problem-solving investigation approach espoused by this reference manual,
Section 6 provides detailed discussion of each of its nine steps thoroughly. The use of 4D and 2D is
done using the specific 8D steps per Figure 5 and their explanation would not bear repeating.
10
4. PROBLEM-SOLVING USING THE 8D METHODOLOGY
The 8D problem-solving process was established in the automotive industry in the early 1980s by
Ford Motor Company to standardize and improve the capability of problem-solving in their supply
chain. It was launched under the full title of Team Oriented Problem-Solving (TOPS) using the Eight
Disciplines (8D).
This methodology was to be used as a standard tool for Ford suppliers where;
• The problem cause was not known
• It was suspected that the problem was complex with potentially several contributory causes
• A cross functional team approach was required due to the complex nature of the problem being
investigated
This method has now been well established and has become the default problem-solving process in
many industries, including aerospace. It is well supported globally with training providers and
consultants experienced in it use.
The AESQ adopted this approach in 2015 as the harmonized methodology for key problem-solving
investigations. Typically, it is required for all customer escapes although each customer may invoke
it differently.
This chapter describes the expectations for meeting the requirements of AS13100 when 8D is
required. When required the organization uses one of the 8D form as described in this chapter and
available from the AESQ Website. The purpose of this form is not to restrict the investigation
approach but instead is designed to provide;
• A standard method of reporting the summary of the investigation to the customer. This is
particularly useful where an organization may have hundreds of suppliers who are required to
submit investigation reports.
• Creates a common language for problem investigation reporting.
• Useful list of key questions to ask and evidence to gather at each stage of the investigation.
This will help to improve the rigor of the investigation. These prompts are based on learning
from experience from reviewing thousands of investigations by the AESQ member companies.
• Provide a record (evidence) of the investigation for future reference
The correct training of 8D practitioners is key to the successful outcome of the process. It is
expected that 8D practitioners are trained by a training provider meeting the requirement of the
“training syllabus” (see Appendix B). One of the roles of the 8D practitioner is to ensure that the 8D
Report is complete.
11
The Eight Disciplines
D0 Emergency Response Actions and Prepare for 8D

Where a symptom is observed and there is customer impact the organization takes immediate
action to protect the customer.
D0 should be completed and returned to the customer within 2 days of the problem being identified
unless otherwise agreed.
Actions:
a) Define the symptom (this is to be quantified).
b) Define and implement Emergency Response Actions (sometimes referred to as immediate
containment actions). Check that the containment action works (provide evidence).
c) Check if the symptom has been seen before.
d) Suspend all shipment of suspect nonconforming hardware.
e) Initiate is/is not chart.
Ensure that:
• The symptom has been defined and quantified.
• The stakeholders affected have been identified and notified.
• Management is committed to fixing the problem using 8D.
• Additional resources are involved as needed.
• Raise an 8D form in your quality management system.
D1 Form the Team

The organization forms a cross-functional team of people who have the knowledge, skill,
experience, time, authority and works the problem at pace right through to a satisfactory conclusion.
At least one member of the team needs to be appropriately trained in the application of the 8D
methodology and is be accountable for the application of this standard.
Actions:
• Identify a Champion for the team that ensures actions are taken, and any roadblocks are
removed.
• Identify a Team Leader that can focus and motivate the team.
• Select team members.
• Define the team goal.
• Define the roles of the team members.
12
D2 Define the Problem

The organization defines the nonconformance to the customer requirement by identifying and
describing in quantifiable terms what is wrong. This statement is called the problem description.
Actions:
• Collect, and analyze data to find out “what is wrong with what.” Develop a problem statement
by describing the problem in quantifiable terms. The description should address:
o Problem discovery point: where is the earliest point within the process where the problem is
observed?
o Problem manifestation: what are the indications that a problem exists? It is best if the
problem can be described in terms of customer experience.
o Problem impact: what is the impact in terms of quality, reliability and productivity?
o Problem focus: Can the investigation focus be narrowed to speed convergence to the root
cause?
• Record the process flow as appropriate.
• Review the problem description with the customer and affected parties.
D3 Develop Interim Containment Actions

The organization implements actions to immediately stop the symptoms from affecting the customer
until the problem can be resolved permanently.
Actions:
• Select and implement the most effective containment action(s).
• Work with the customer, and the supplier if relevant, to determine the locations of affected
product and the responsibilities, methods and timescale to contain that product.
• Check that the containment action is effective. Read across to other affected product as
appropriate.
• Maintain records of containment as required by the customer (see Appendix D9 and D10 for an
example Containment Workbook)
• Notify customer of resumption of shipping as agreed to by customer.
D4 Diagnosis: Identify and Verify Root Causes and Escape Point

The organization’s aim is to find the root cause by identifying potential causes and selecting the
ones which explain the problem. The organization needs to find the generation points where the
symptom was created and the escape points where the problem should have been detected and
contained.
Actions:
• Update the problem definition if necessary.
• Find the root causes of the problem, of the escape and of the quality management system.
• Verify the root causes.
• Verify the escape point(s) and establish why they were present.
13
D5 Identify Permanent Corrective Action for Root Cause and Escape Point
The organization identifies the corrective actions that permanently eliminate the generation and
escape root causes.
D5 is completed in a timely manner not to exceed 30 days of the problem being identified unless
otherwise agreed with the customer.
Actions:
• Identify permanent corrective actions for all root causes identified.
• Verify that the corrective actions are effective and do not cause further problems.
• Define the actions required to fix the control system at the escape point so no further
occurrences are created.
D6 Implement Permanent Corrective Action

The organization then implements and tests the corrective actions that fix the root causes and the
quality control system at the escape point.
Actions:
• Plan the implementation of the corrective actions.
• Implement the corrective actions that fix the root causes.
• Check that the actions are effective at fixing the root causes and result in no other product
issues being created.
• Implement the corrective actions that fix the quality control system at the generation and
escape point(s) ensuring that it detects and not releases the problem again.
• Remove containment measures when permanent corrective actions are proven to be effective.
• Update the appropriate quality documentation such as the process flow diagram, PFMEA and
control plan.
• Check that the corrective actions continue to be effective by monitoring.
D7 Prevent Recurrence
The organization takes appropriate systemic action (modify policies, procedures, practices,
standard work, design manuals, etc.) to prevent recurrence of this problem and other similar
problems and capture the lessons learned.
NOTE: The team may not have the authority to implement systemic actions, in this case they make
recommendations to the Champion for implementation.
The champion ensures that recommendations are appropriate to the scale of problem and have
responsibility for implementation.
Actions:
• Identify further affected parties, products, processes, or systems for similar problems and read-
across opportunities for improvement(s).
• Implement read-across actions to prevent further problems.
14
• Make recommendations with implementation plan on systemic fixes.

• Document the lessons learned in relation to the problem within the system so that the lessons
are referred to in order to maximize the value of the 8D effort and prevent any similar problems.
D8 Recognize the Team

The organization recognizes the success of the team and formally close the project.
Actions:
• Document the lessons learned from the 8D process and maintain all problem-solving records.
• Recognize the team for their contribution and celebrate the achievements.
• Is the achievement appropriate for the problem solved?
• Close the project.
4D Methodology
The 4D approach draws from the steps of 8D per Figure 5. The steps are:
• D2 (Define Problem),
• D4 (Determine Root Causes),
• D5 (Determine Permanent Corrective Actions) and
• D6 (Implement and Validate Corrective Actions).
Each of these four steps were previously described above.
Use these questions below to determine if the full 8D is required or of a shorter version would be
appropriate Use the following set of questions to aid in that decision:
1) Did this problem result in a product escape?
2) Does this problem require an emergency containment action?
3) Does this problem require population bounding?
4) Does this problem require a set of interim containment actions?
If the answer is “yes” to two or more of the four questions above, it is best to utilize the entire nine
steps of the 8D investigation process. Otherwise, start with the 4D shortened version, expand if
needed as more information becomes available. Examples of when a 4D is appropriate could be a
problem contained to a specific factory cell, such as a machine breakdown, part non-conformance
or yield issue where no defective units left the station.
Note that no two problems are alike. A problem might start using the 4D approach and through the
process the team or team leader might realize that a temporary (interim) action is needed, in this
case step D3 is added and a 5D investigation. This is very appropriate to do.
2D Methodology for Simple Problems not requiring documentation

Everyday problem-solving does not require the level of documentation or steps such as an 8D
investigation or a 4D investigation. The following are some examples of everyday problems
encountered such as, a pencil breaks then go sharpen it; the flashlight doesn’t go on, there is no
need for a fault tree or 5-Why analysis to quickly identify the problem and solution. The problem
15
solver instinctively reaches for a new set of batteries and replaces the ones in the flashlight, pushes
the switch, the light goes on. The 2D approach draws from the steps of 4D per Figure 5 with the
steps being D2 (Define Problem) and D6 (Solve Problem). These two steps are previously
described above.
When should one recognize that they do not need to perform all the four steps of a 4D? Use the
following set of questions to aid in that decision:
1) Can the problem be resolved immediately without a lengthy investigation?
2) Is the root cause readily understood?
3) Is the solution readily available to implement?
4) Are containment actions not likely to be needed?
If the answer is “yes” to the question set above, go ahead and implement a 2D type investigation.
16
5. FORMS OF 8D
There are three different forms provided here in this section meet the requirements but are not
required to be used if a form is already in use that meets the 8D requirements. Customers may
require a specific form of the report.
A3 Excel 8D Methodology
This follows the same steps as for an 8D, but it is less prescriptive, and this allows it to be a useful
tool for non-product related issues. In a work environment, it is good practice to print the A3 sheet
and post onto team boards to increase visibility of current investigation(s) and drive active
engagement in the problem-solving process.
Based on the prior discussion of 8D, the following incorporates additional 8D guidance when using
the A3 format. Figure 6 shows a blank A3 form. Follow steps D1 – D4, D5/D6 and D7/D8 are
combine.
D1. Form the Team – Pull together as many people that are familiar with the problem as possible.
Process Users are particularly important as they understand the detailed steps and issues that
occur. Ensure Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) are drawn into the team.
D2. Define the Problem – Once the team is formed, define the problem - once again stick to the
facts of what actually happened and don’t make assumptions. If necessary, walk the process with
the team to really see what is happening. The 5W2H or SMARTI tool in Section 7.
D3. Implement Containment – Once the problem is fully defined and understood by the team
determine what the containment activity is to prevent the problem recurring whilst the root cause is
investigated.
D4. Find the Root Cause – Recommend using tools from Section 5 to determine the root cause of
the problem.
D6. Fix the Root Cause – Once the team has determined the root cause of the problem using the
most appropriate methodology, then the solution(s) to the problem should make itself clear to the
team and it should be implemented. It is important not to walk away from the problem at this stage
but ensure that the actions have owners and they have the support necessary to implement the
corrective action. The corrective action should be reviewed to ensure that it is effective.
D7. and D8. Fix the System issues, Read Across and Recognize the Team – In this final step
the team need to think about ways of preventing the problem from happening again. Also, the team
should look at opportunities of reading fixes across similar processes, other locations / components
that may be affected by the same issue. When this work is complete, it is important to recognize the
good work that the team have completed in fixing the problems and communicate to the local
management the fix that has been implemented and the results.
17
Figure 6: Excel A3 8D Form
Two Page PowerPoint 8D Form

This next form was developed as a two-page presentation style problem-solving and report out tool.
The layout of the problem and solution is different but has all the elements of the 8D in a different
format.
Page 1 covers the 8D Steps D0 through D3 where the problem is defined with the necessary
containment actions. There are two status indicators on this page as well. The first is a visual impact
indicator to be used to help bound the problem. It is located on the left-hand side of the page. It
includes where in the value stream between the supplier and airline the problem exists. There is a
color coding scheme to indicate the customer impact level. The second is an investigation status
indicator (it is in the middle of right-hand side). These boxes are filled in as the problem-solving
process progresses with the status.
18
Figure 7: PowerPoint 8D Format (page 1)
The second page starts with determining Root Cause through the 3x5 Why method (step D4) and
continues through step D7 preventative action. The steps follow the direction of the standard 8D,
just are presented differently.
Figure 8: PowerPoint 8D Format (page 2)
19
Three Page Word 8D Form

This next form was developed as a three-page working document style problem-solving and report
tool. The customer may require more diagrams or figures that could be attached or a presentation.
This form summarizes the 8D method.
Figure 9: Word 8D Form (page 1)
20
21
22
6. CASE STUDIES OF 8D
The following three case studies are all real problems that were solved using the 8D methodology.
Each case is presented in a different format, all of which are acceptable. The common thread is the
9 steps of the 8D process.
Case Study 1 presents an example shows each step in the form. Case Study 2 provides some
background to the case and some summary thoughts on how the investigation was completed and
then presents the PowerPoint 8D Form. Case Study 3 walks through the teams thought process in
detail using each of the nine steps of the 8D methodology. Each root cause tool used is also
demonstrated in the case study in the appropriate step.
Case Study 1 – Oil Pan Bracket

A quality issue was found at ACME Engine Assembly involving the XYZ Oil Pan Bracket. It was
discovered that the holes were undersized resulting in the inability to assemble the bracket to the
pan. An investigation was launched to determine the root causes of the issue. Follow the case study
in Figure 12 using the Excel A3 8D Form.
Figure 12: Case Study 1 using Excel A3 8D Form
23
CASE STUDY 2– ESCAPE OF MACHINED DISC

ACME Supplier took over manufacturing a disk from their customer Turbines Inc, this disk was
rough turned and minimum and maximum thicknesses were defined on the drawing. The supplier
determined the thickness by calculating a difference between measurements obtained from
opposing sides of the disk by using a micrometer and sonic pin. Their initial calculations showed
they were meeting the blue-print dimensions. The part was further processed in the customer’s
facility before assembling to the engine.
Two years after the first disk was made a non-conformance was found at the customer during
engine assembly.
Immediate Containment (D0)

Issued a stop build order from using all ACME disks P/N1234567 in assembly and sub-assembly.
100% inspection of all ACME disks to find any acceptable products.
Team (D1)
A team was created to investigate the issues relating to the non-conformance. This team was
comprised of members from ACME Supplier and its customer Turbines. Team member expertise
included customer quality engineer, supplier quality engineer, statistician, customer quality
manager, supplier quality manager.
Problem Statement (D2)

The P/N1234567 Disk supplied by ACME Supplier during the time period of Jan 2017 and Jan 2019
had potential non-conformances in the web thickness with maximum over-thickness or under-
thickness. The suspect population includes ~500 disks. The problem is found throughout the
customer and supplier facilities. This is shown in Figure 10.
Interim Containment (D3)

Incoming Inspection was implemented immediately at Turbines Inc machining facility to ensure that
any issues were detected and reworked immediately.
Root Cause (D4, D7)

The team conducted a 3x5 why root cause analysis using the form shown in Figure 11. Below
summaries the root causes they determined.
1. Generation Point (Direct) Root Cause: Over or under machining the part due to lack of
accounting for manufacturing variation.
2. Detection (Inspection) Root Cause: No Gage Repeatability and Reproducibility study (GRR)
was completed at First Article Inspection (FAI) (team feels GRR would have picked this up).
3. Systemic Root Cause: FAI did not have 2 independent measurement methods – only pinpoint
micrometer (sonic gauge).
Permanent Corrective Actions (D5, D6):

The team developed several permanent corrective actions. Figure 10 has a summary table of the
actions, their owners, an estimated completion date and status.
24
Team Recognized (D8):

The team was recognized by the Quality Leader at Turbines Inc at his Quality All-Hands for their
work. Additionally, members of the team utilized this 8D investigation to improve their overall
knowledge in Quality.
Figure 13: Case Study 1 using PowerPoint 8D Form (page 1)
Figure 14: Case Study 1 using PowerPoint 8D Form (page 2)
25
CASE STUDY 3 – INCORRECT PART MARKING

An aerospace component company, who manufacturers shafts, is required to physically mark the
shaft length on the part for the assembly operator to use at the next higher-level assembly. A recent
event occurred when the actual dimension, which was within the engineering defined tolerance, was
identified incorrectly on the shaft. The recorded dimension on the shaft was outside the engineering
tolerance which was caught by the assembly operator who verifies this dimension on the shaft prior
to its assembly. Given the marked shaft dimension was out of tolerance, a quality notification was
issued back to the component manufacturing site it originated at.
In response to the quality notification and given that this incorrectly marked shaft reached the
external customer assembly floor, an 8D investigation was required by the external Customer.
Following is the step-by-step process used to document this investigation using the 8D process.
DO – Immediate Containment Action(s) – What needs to be stopped?

Given this problem was initially found by the shaft Customer, the following immediate containment
actions were taken by the Customer:
1) An 8D investigation was initiated by the Customer Supplier Quality Engineer (SQE) assigned
to that supplier. The SQE began by preparing the 8D document as shown in Appendix A.
2) Contacted the supplier to inform them that three delivered shafts were received with
dimensional markings that were outside the engineering tolerance.
3) Supplier asked to verify if the out-of-tolerance markings matched the actual shaft length or if
they incorrectly marked each shaft.
4) Supplier requested to respond back to Customer within 48 hours.
D1 – Pull Team Together – What skills are needed?

The SQE contacted the supplier who provided team members from Inspection, Manufacturing
Engineering, Quality Control and Assurance. The SQE worked with the supplier team members in
establishing the following:
1) Meeting cadence
2) Trained supplier in use of the AS13000 8D form to ensure clarity and understanding.
3) What the final Customer’s expectations were (e.g., containment actions within 48 hours, use
of root cause analysis tools).
4) Timeframe for corrective action implementation.
D2 – Define the Problem – What is the impact of failure?

The team, using problem definition tools such as 5W-2H, defined the problem as follows:
“On April 15, 2020, the Customer reported that the dimension marking on the shaft provided by the
Supplier – which is nominally 935.40 +/- 0.4mm, is outside of limits on 4 of the shafts: S/N’s 120,
121, 122 and 123.”
It was also determined using an “Is-Is Not” analysis the following:
1) The marked dimension IS outside the engineering drawing requirement
2) The actual dimension IS NOT outside the engineering drawing requirement
3) The actual failure mode IS an incorrectly marked shaft
4) The actual failure mode IS NOT an incorrectly manufactured shaft
The impact of failure was determined not to affect form, fit or function. Engineering did require the
marking be corrected prior to installation at the next higher assembly since the shafts were not
already assembled and contained.
26
D3 – Interim Containment Actions(s) – How to get production up and running?

In order to help its Customer, get its assembly line up and running, the Supplier took the following
temporary actions to provide conforming shafts:
1) Remarked all returned shafts from the Customer with the correct dimensions.
2) Quality Alert issued in shop floor with notification to all operators & inspectors.
3) Pulled all in-house incorrectly marked shafts found internally prior to shipping and re-identified
them with the correct dimension prior to shipping.
4) Read across action taken with Supplier checking all shafts.
D4 – Root Cause Analysis – What are the causes of the problem?

The initial investigation focused on how the subject shaft length dimension is calculated. The
diagram below illustrates this feature.
Figure 15: Case Study 3 – How the Shaft length (X) calculated
The team, per the problem definition, utilized a Problem Statement, Fishbone Diagram, and 5-Why
Analysis to identify the causal factors and subsequent root causes of the problem. These causes
are broken down into the categories of direct, detection and systemic.
First, the team determined the causal factors for the Problem Definition using the Fishbone Diagram
as seen below.
PROBLEM DEFINITION
“On April 15, 2020, the Customer

reported that the dimension marking on
the shaft provided by the Supplier –
which is nominally 935.40 +/- 0.4mm , is
outside of limits on 4 of the shafts:
S/N’s 120, 121, 122 and 123.”
Figure 16: Case Study 3 Fishbone Diagram

Secondly, the team conducted a 5-Why Analysis for the direct cause of the problem. This is shown
in the diagram below. Note the leading question “What is happening that shouldn’t be at the process
Generation point?”
27
5-WHY DIAGRAM
8D
8D
What is happening that shouldn’t be at the process Generation Point?
(HINT: Do not was te the 1 s t “why ” by res tating the problem; what is the failure mode or abs enc e of the requirement?)
“On April 15, 2020, the Customer reported that the dimension marking on
the shaft provided by the Supplier – which is nominally 935.40 +/- 0.4mm ,
is outside of limits on 4 of the shafts: S/N’s 120, 121, 122 and 123.”
Why is this happening?
Theref ore
Operator marked incorrect (out-of-
1 tolerance) dimension on shaft
Why ? Theref ore

Incorrect dimension was recorded
2 on route sheet by Supplier’s
inspector
Why ? Theref ore
Supplier inspector calculated Deploy new
spreadsheet
3 dimension manually, thus making that calculates
the error shaft length
Why ? Theref ore

No CMM or Excel automated
KEY QUESTION 4 inspection calculation was available
What can we do at the process to inspector
generation point to prevent or
Why ? Theref ore
better detect the failure mode Update inspection
planning process Inspection planning process
prior to laving the Operator’s
work station?
to compare route
sheet value with
5 allowed for lack of automated
drawing calculation
2
Caution: Your last answer should be a cause you can correct and control
Figure 17: Case Study 3 5-Why Diagram for Direct Cause Example
Note the use of the “Therefore” test as part of the 5-Why Analysis. The 5-Why Analysis must make
sense going from top-to-bottom asking “Why” and from bottom-to-top stating “Therefore”. This helps
to validate the 5-Why analysis.
Third, the team conducted a 5-Why Analysis for the detection cause of the problem. This is shown
in the diagram below.
Figure 18: 8D Case Study 5 Why Detection Example
28
D5 – Identify Permanent Corrective Actions(s) – For the immediate problem

Now the team works to identify the needed permanent corrective actions for the problem that
initiated the 8D investigation. Note the brainstormed list of possible corrective actions from the
5-Why Diagram. Also, a Solution Selection Matrix can be used if there is a need to analyze multiple
possible solutions using typical criteria such as speed to implementation, cost, ease of
implementation, etc. Corrective actions at this stage address the initial problem but the team may
also look to see how they may deploy these corrective actions in a read across manner which is
part of D7. The permanent corrective actions for this incorrectly marked shaft length problem are as
follows:
1) Update the Operator work instruction to include an inspection note to compare the recorded
router dimension with the drawing requirement. This is a permanent C/A.
2) Create an Operator check sheet that includes a step to compare the recorded router
dimension with the drawing requirement. This check sheet will be called out by the work
instruction in Item 1 above. This is a permanent C/A.
Drawing Revision
(図面のリビジョン)
　　　　年　　月　　　日 OP-
(YYYY/MM/DD) (OP No.)
P / N S / N
9 3 5 . * * DBA L
The total length is within the range of 935.00 - 935.80.
(全長寸法は935.00 - 935.80　の範囲内であること。) Prepared Checked
(作成者) (再確認者)
Marking Check　/　Inspector
（マーキング確認 / 検査員）
Check point when prepare marking check sheet.

CHK (マーキング確認シートの作成時注意ポイント)
1. Check the marking contents is correct.
（1．マーキングの内容が正しいか確認すること。）
2. If the part need dimensional marking, check the value is within the tolerance.
（2．寸法をマーキングする製品の場合は，寸法が公差内である事を確認すること。）
3. Check router and electric router recorded value are the same.
（3．ERPの数値と備考欄の数値が一致していることを確認すること。）
4. Re-check the marking contents, before proceed to next operation.
（4．次工程に流す前に，もう一度マーキング内容を確認すること。）
5. When the marking sheet check, double check should carry out.
（5．マーキングシート確認は必ずダブルチェックを実施すること。）
6. Both Marking sheet double checking inspector should record their name
in router and electric router.
（6．マーキングシート再確認者は工程確認票備考欄，ERPに氏名を記録すること。）
Figure 19: 8D Case Study – Marking Check Sheet

3) Create a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet for the Inspector to eliminate the need to manually
calculate the shaft length dimension. This spreadsheet is called out as a tool from the
inspection plan. This is a temporary action (D3).
4) Modify CMM program to inspect the shaft length dimension directly. This is a permanent
action.
D6 – Implement Permanent Corrective Actions(s) – Validate and check for effectiveness

Next the team sets up an implementation plan for the permanent corrective actions identified in D5.
This will include who is responsible to assure the C/A gets implemented, the expected dates for
completion, validating all C/A’s are deployed and effective. Determining effectiveness may mean
monitoring the next sequence of deliveries for the failure mode subject of the 8D investigation or
completing an audit or both. Below summarizes the plan.
29
Table 3: 8D Case Study Corrective Action Summary
NO C/A DESCRIPTION C/A TYPE WHO ECD STATUS
1 Update the Operator work Permanent Ian R. 6/15/2020 Ian is very

instruction to include an inspection late!!
note to compare the recorded D5 Mfg. Eng.
router dimension with the drawing
requirement.
2 Create an Operator check sheet Permanent Ian R. 7/15/2020 On time
that includes a step to compare the
recorded router dimension with the D5 Mfg. Eng.
drawing requirement. This check
sheet will be called out by the work
instruction in Item 1 above.
3 Create a Microsoft Excel Temporary Earl C. 6/05/2020 Complete
spreadsheet for the Inspector to
eliminate the need to manually D3 QC
calculate the shaft length
dimension. This spreadsheet is
called out as a tool from the
inspection plan.
4 Modify CMM program to inspect Permanent Jun S. 8/15/2020 In process
the shaft length dimension directly.
D5 QC
5 Ensure implementation of all C/A’s D6 - Validate Larry B. 8/31/2020 In process
QM
6 Monitor next three lots of shafts for D6 - Effectiveness Larry B. 10/15/2020 Not started
incorrect marking failure mode.
QM
7 Read across of C/A’s in Items 1-4 D7 – Read Across Larry B. 10/31/2020 Not started
above to similar shafts
QM
8 Update PFMEA to assure new D7 – Preventive Ian R. 11/15/2020 Not started
failure modes/causes of action
failure/process controls get Mfg. Eng.
documented.
D7 – Implement Preventive Action(s) – Prevent recurrence

D7 is about implementing corrective actions beyond the initiating event that drove the permanent
corrective actions. What other product could the failure mode become infected into? What future
designed components could contain potentially the failure mode if we do not update the appropriate
QMS procedures, design manuals, manufacturing planning standard work, etc.?
The team has addressed the D7 actions per the corrective action plan in D6 in the prior section. See
Items 7 & 8.
D8 – Congratulate the Team – Provide recognition

The D8 step is about recognizing the hard work implemented by the 8D Investigation Team. This
may be done any number of ways such as an agenda item at a management staff meeting, a pizza
party, an email from the manager impacted by the investigation. This is truly up to the company how
it will execute this step.
For this case study, the company decided to recognize the team at a staff meeting and made this
one of the meeting’s agenda items.
30
7. BASIC QUALITY TOOLS FOR PROBLEM-SOLVING
The use of basic quality tools are strongly recommended as part of the problem resolution process
no matter what specific methodology is applied. Many problem-solving tool are available in the
Interactive 8D tool on AESQ (add link) and on https://asq.org/quality-resources/seven-basic-quality-
tools with instructions on how to use for problem-solving tools and templates to use.
The figure below shows AESQ 8D Interactive Tool Control Panel, each button is a hyperlink (when
downloaded from AESQ). The left-hand column of the panel are the four key actions: Immediate
(D0-D2), Interim (D3-D4), Permanent (D5-D6), and Preventative (D7-D8). The second column,
Process Steps and Key Words, has the step by step instructions to walk the user through the 8D
process. The third column is the Tools Matrices, all the possible tools and templates that would
support an 8D investigation are in this column. The fourth column, or right-hand column is the key
questions that should be answered during the 8D investigation. Additionally, in the center of the
control panel is links to all the 8D forms.
Figure 20: AESQ 8D Interactive Tool Control Panel
31
8. APPENDIX A: 8D CHECK LIST
The following checklist is designed to assist in assessing the quality of the 8D activity.
Review the following assessing questions during execution of each step and before proceeding to
the next step.
D0 assessing questions
Are emergency response actions necessary?
Emergency
Is a field action required as part of the emergency response? How was the emergency response
Response
action verified?
Action (ERA)
How was the emergency response action validated?
How well does the proposed 8D meet the application criteria?

8D Application
Has the effect of the issue been quantified?)
Criteria
Have measurements been taken to quantify the symptom(s) demonstrated? Does a performance
gap exist AND/OR has the priority (severity, urgency, growth) of the symptom warranted initiation
of the process?
Is the cause unknown?
Is management committed to dedicating the necessary resources to fix the problem at the root
cause level and to prevent recurrence?
Does the symptom complexity exceed the ability of one person to resolve?
Will the new 8D duplicate an existing 8D?

Other
Have all changes been documented (e.g., FMEA, control plan, process flow)?
Common
Do we have the right team composition to validate the current step and proceed to the next?
Tasks
Have we reviewed the measurable(s)?
Have we determined if field action is required?
Can we anticipate need for deployment of timely on-site support?
Have we reviewed all these assessing questions with the sub tier if the issue was caused by the
latter?
32
What have you done to make the room user-friendly?
Warm Up
When and where will the team meet?
What has been done to help team members build their relationships with each other?
What has been done to help team members focus on the team's activity?
Has the purpose of the meeting been stated?
Has the team been informed of the agenda for the meeting?
Are the people affected by the problem represented?

Membership
How is customer’s viewpoint represented?
Does each person have a reason for being on the team?
Is the team large enough to include all necessary input but small enough to act effectively?
Does the team membership reflect the problem's current status?
Do the team members agree on membership?
Product /Process What special skills or experience will the team require in order to function effectively?
Knowledge
Have the team's goals and membership roles been clarified?
Operating
Does the team have sufficient decision-making authority to accomplish its goals?
Procedures
How will the team’s information be communicated internally and externally?
and Working
Do all members agree with and understand the team's goals?
Relationships
Are team members’ roles and responsibilities clear?
Is a facilitator needed to coach the process and manage team consensus?
Has the designated Champion of the team been identified?

Roles
Has the Team Leader been identified?
Common
Tasks
Have we determined if a field action is required?
latter?
33
Can the Symptom be subdivided?
Symptom
Has a specific Problem Statement been defined (object and defect)?
Problem Statement
Have 'Repeated Whys' been used?
What's wrong with what?
Do we know for certain why this is occurring?
Has Is/Is-Not Analysis been performed (what, where, when, how big)?
Problem Description
When has this problem appeared before?
Where in this process does this problem first appear?
What, if any, pattern(s) is (are) there to this problem?
Are similar components and/or parts showing the same problem?
Has the current process flow been identified? Does this process flow represent a change?
Have all required data been collected and analyzed?
How does the ERA affect the data?
Is there enough information to evaluate to identify potential root causes?
Do we have physical evidence of the problem?
Has a Cause & Effect Diagram been completed?
Does this problem describe a 'something changed' or a 'never been there' situation?
Type of Problem
Has the Problem Description been reviewed for completeness with customer and affected
Review of Problem
parties?
Description
Should this problem be reviewed with executive management?
Should financial reserves be set aside?
Should any moral, social or legal obligations related to this problem be considered?
Common
Do we have the right team composition to validate the current step and proceed to the
Tasks
next?
Have we reviewed all these assessing questions with the sub tier if the issue was caused
by the latter?
34
D3 assessing questions Before ICA (Interim Containment Action)

Are ICA's required?
Implementation
Is a field action required as part of the ICA?
What can we learn from the ERA that will help in the selection of the 'best' ICA?
Based on the criteria established, does the ICA provide the best balance of benefits and
risks?
How does this choice satisfy the following conditions?
The ICA protects customers 100 percent from the effect.
The ICA is verified.
The ICA is cost-effective and easy to implement.
Have you shipped, or is there any suspect material in transit to any customer?
Do you have any similar parts in finished stores with the same problem?
Do you have any suspect material currently in production that may exhibit this problem?
Does this problem exist in similar customer part numbers?
Has a sub-tier supplier contributed to this problem?
is any suspect material in transit including to customer?
Have the appropriate departments been involved in the planning of this decision?
Planning
Are the appropriate Advanced Product Quality Planning (APQP) tools available (e.g.,
FMEA, control plans, instructions)?
Have plans, including action steps, been identified (who needs to do what by when)?
Has a validation method been determined?
Does the customer have a concern with this ICA (is customer’s approval required)?
Have we identified what could go wrong with our plan and have preventive and
contingency actions been considered?
Are implementation resources adequate?
Does the validation data indicate that the customer is being protected?
Post Implementation
Can the ICA effectiveness be improved?
Common Tasks
next?
Has timely on-site support been deployed as needed?
by the latter?
35
Has the factual information in the Problem Description been updated? Is it consistent with
General
the previously performed is/is not analysis?
What sources of information have been used to develop the potential root-cause list?
Is there a root cause (a single verified reason that accounts for the problem)?
Root Cause
What factor(s) changed to create this problem? What data is available that indicates any
problem in the manufacturing or design process?
How did we verify this root cause?
Does this root cause explain all the facts compiled at D2?
Does the root cause analysis address the system level issue?
Have appropriate Advanced Product Quality Planning (APQP) tools been considered?
Potential Root Cause
(e.g., FMEA, control plans, instructions)
Is there more than one potential root cause?
Does each item on the potential root-cause list account for all known data? Has each item
been verified (used to make the effect come and go)?
How did you determine assignment of percent contribution?
If the level is achievable, has the team considered and reviewed with the Champion the
benefit of developing a separate problem description (and, by definition, separate 8D) for
the one or more contributing potential root cause(s)?
If the level is not achievable, has the team considered and reviewed with the Champion the
benefit of alternate problem-solving methods?
Does a control system exist to detect the problem?

Escape Point
Has the current control system been identified? Does this control system represent a
change from the original design?
Has it been verified that the control system is capable of detecting the problem?
Is the identified control point closest to the root cause/potential root cause?
Is there a need to improve the control system?
Common Tasks
next?
by the latter?
36
D5 assessing questions Before PCA (Permanent Corrective Action)
What criteria have been established for choosing a PCA for the root cause and escape
point?
Does the Champion agree with these criteria?
Is a field action required as part of the PCA?
What choices have been considered for the PCA's?
Document the rationale for the validation analysis
What features and benefits would the perfect choice offer? How can we preserve these
benefits?
What risks are associated with this decision and how should they be managed?
Does the Champion concur with the PCA selections?
What evidence (proof) do we have that this will resolve the problem at the root-cause level?
Did you verify the whole variation range of parameters affecting the cause occurrence?
Which variables did we measure during the verification step? Do these indicators constitute
sound verification?
What are the possibilities that this choice, once implemented, will create other troubles?
Can the customer live with this resolution?
Will our containment continue to be effective until our choice can be implemented?
What resources will be required for PCA implementation? Do we have these resources?
What departments will need to be involved in the planning and implementation of this
decision?
Have actions been considered that will improve the ICA prior to PCA implementation?
Have we reviewed all these assessing questions with the sub tier if the issue was caused by
the latter?
37
What departments are needed to implement the PCA's?

Are representatives of those departments on our team to plan and implement their roles
and responsibilities?
What customer and/or supplier involvement is needed?
Who will do the planning for the customer and for the supplier?
Do we have the necessary resources to implement this plan? What is needed?
At what point(s) is this plan vulnerable? What can be done to prevent these points?
How are we monitoring completion of the plan?
When will the ICA be removed?
How will we communicate this plan to those who have a need to know? What training will
be required?
What measurable(s) will be used to validate the outcome of the PCA's (both short-term and
long-term)?
Has the ICA been discontinued?

Has the unwanted effect been totally eliminated?
How can we conclusively prove this?
How are we continuing to monitor long-term results? What is the measurable? Is this the
best way to prove the root cause is eliminated?
How have we confirmed the findings with the customer?
Have we updated all quality documentation pertaining to this issue? (e.g., process flow
charts, Process control plan, work instructions, visual aids, etc.)
next?
by the latter?
38
What policies, methods, procedures and/or systems allowed this problem to occur and escape?
Prevent Actions
What needs to be done differently to prevent recurrence of the root cause? Of the escape point?
(this problem and
Is a field action required as part of the prevention actions?
similar problems)
What evidence exists that indicates the need for a process improvement approach
Who is best able to design improvements in any of the systems, policies, methods and/or
procedures that resulted in this root cause and escape?
What is the best way to perform a trial run with these improvements?
What plans have been written to coordinate Preventive Actions and standardize the practices?
Does the Champion concur with the identified Prevent Actions and plans?
How will these new practices be communicated to those affected by the change?
Have we standardized all the practices that need standardization?
What progress check points have been defined to assess system improvements?
What management policy, system or procedure allowed this problem to occur or escape?
Systemic Prevent
Are these practices beyond the scope of the current Champion?
Recommendations
Who has responsibility for these practices?
Does the current Champion agree with the team's systemic prevention recommendations?
Common Tasks
Have all systems, practices, procedures, documents, etc. been updated? Do they
accurately reflect what we want to be done from here?
latter?
39
D8 Assessing Questions
Has the 8D report been updated and appropriately distributed?

Is the 8D paperwork completed and have other members of the organization (who have a need to
know), and the customer, been informed of the status of this 8D?
Is the 8D report and its attachments retained in our historical file system?
Is there a complete list of all team members, current and past?

Were there significant contributions by individual team members? What were they?
Are there opportunities to provide recognition from Leader to Team, Team Member to Team
Member, Team to Leader, Team to Champion?
What are some different ways to communicate the recognition message?
Are there any non-team members whose contributions to the 8D process justify inclusion at
recognition time?
Are all current and past team members being recognized?

Do the results achieved by the team warrant some publicity (e.g., company newsletter)?
D8 is intended to be positive. What are the chances that it might backfire and turn into a negative?
What have you learned as individuals and as a team? About yourselves? About problem-solving?
About teamwork?
How did the organization benefit by the completion of this 8D process?
Review each 8D objective. What was done well?
What sort of things should be repeated if conditions bring them together again on another 8D?
Are there changes to the business practices that should be considered, based on the learning in
this 8D?
latter?
40
9. APPENDIX B: 8D TRAINING SYLLABUS
The purpose of this syllabus is to define the minimum requirements that an 8D training course should cover to
meet customer expectations.
B.1 Prerequisite of the training
The training provider should check that the trainees have baseline understanding of:
• Quality management systems,
• Problem-solving, root cause analysis,
• FMEA, customer Parts/Process approval, SPC, Control plans … (APQP/PPAP),
• Customer root cause/Corrective actions system (e.g., Apollo).
B.2 Training requirements
Competencies of the trainees should be assessed with a written exam covering the content of the syllabus.
The training should review and explain the 8D process and customer requirement (see §1).
The training should review and explain the Problem-Solving Form (see ).
The training should focus on:
• Team dynamic and facilitation; management of resources and competencies
• Practical examples or case studies
• Questioning and listening techniques
• Basic tools as specified in the table below
• Human factors and error/mistake proofing
• Go/look/See  observe the process where it is performed
• Testing the solutions
• Ingredients of good/bad problem-solving process
• Communication with stakeholders
B.3 Methods training
The training provider should plan specific tool training regarding each step of the 8D depending on customer
requirements.
41
Table 4: Tool Training for Each Discipline
Steps Objective Tools

Immediate containment
D0
and preparation
Form the team
D1
Define the Problem Brainstorming (to make sure all information and data
D2
related to the issue are collected)
Is/is not
Comparison sheet
Check Sheets and Tally Charts
Histograms
Scatter Diagrams
Control charts
Pareto Analysis
5Ws/How many/How often
Containment
D3
Root Cause Analysis Data Collection:
D4
Check sheets
Data Collection and analysis:
Histograms
Scatter Diagrams
Run and Control charts
Process mapping Design of Experiments
Pareto Analysis
Human factors
Analysis Techniques
Fishbone
5 Why’s
Cause and Effect
FTA (Fault Tree Analysis)
Root cause chain
Identify Corrective Action
D5
Implement Corrective Poke Yoke / Mistake proofing
D6
Action Human factors
Simulating the defects to test the inspection system
Preventive action Audit for effectiveness
D7
Recognize the team
D8
42
10. APPENDIX C: TERMS & DEFINITIONS
ESCAPE POINT: The earliest point in the process where the problem should have been detected.
FAILURE MODE: The manner in which a component, subsystem, system, or
manufacturing/assembly process could potentially fail to meet or deliver its intended function(s) or
process requirements.
GENERATION POINT: The point in the process where the failure mode was created.
INTERIM CONTAINMENT ACTION (ICA): Immediate temporary actions taken in order to eliminate
or significantly reduce the effect of the Failure Mode on the customer(s) until permanent corrective
actions are in place and verified.
PERMANENT CORRECTIVE ACTION (PCA): Long-term actions taken to address the problem from
its root cause(s) and fix it permanently.
PROBLEM: Description of an issue where a product does not meet the required standard.
RECURRENCE: Subsequent nonconformance with the same underlying Root Cause.
ROOT CAUSE: The fundamental deficiency or failure of a process that when resolved, prevents or
significantly reduces the likelihood of recurrence of the problem.
SYMPTOM/FAILURE MODE EFFECT: Measurable events or effects that indicate the existence of
one or more problems.
43
11. APPENDIX D: ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This reference manual represents the consensus of the members of the AESQ. The Team
members who developed this guidance and whose names appear below, wish to acknowledge the
many contributions made by individuals from their respective organizations.
Organization Representative
Rolls-Royce Ian Riggs – Team Co-Leader
IHI Jun Sakai
Pratt & Whitney Pete Teti
Pratt & Whitney Peter Papadopoulos
Rolls-Royce Ricardo Banuelas
MTU Tobias Kranz
Honeywell Adam Rogers
GE Marnie Ham
Rolls-Royce Karl Evans
GKN Aerospace Roger Persson
44
Change History
Revision Date Description of Change
March
Initial Release
2021
For more information or to provide feedback:
AESQ Strategy Group

400 Commonwealth Drive
Warrendale, PA 15096
Email: info@aesq.sae-itc.org
45

Aesqrm 000202103

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

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

Aesqrm 000202103

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

RM13000

8D Problem Solving Method

An AESQ Reference Manual

Issued March 8, 2021

An AESQ Reference Manual

• Increasing demand for Aero Engines

• AS13000 Problem Solving Requirements for Suppliers (8D)

2. PROBLEM-SOLVING APPROACHES ........................................................................................................................ 5

Customer Typical Milestones for Problem-solving Investigations ................................................................................ 7

3. PROBLEM-SOLVING METHODOLOGIES ................................................................................................................. 8

PROBLEM-SOLVING METHODOLOGY EQUIVALENCY...................................................................................................................... 9

4. PROBLEM-SOLVING USING THE 8D METHODOLOGY .......................................................................................... 11

THE EIGHT DISCIPLINES......................................................................................................................................................... 12

A3 EXCEL 8D METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................................................................... 17

6. CASE STUDIES OF 8D .......................................................................................................................................... 23

CASE STUDY 1 – OIL PAN BRACKET ......................................................................................................................................... 23

7. BASIC QUALITY TOOLS FOR PROBLEM-SOLVING................................................................................................. 31

8. APPENDIX A: 8D CHECK LIST ............................................................................................................................... 32

D0 assessing questions ............................................................................................................................................... 32

9. APPENDIX B: 8D TRAINING SYLLABUS ................................................................................................................ 41

B.1 Prerequisite of the training ........................................................................................................................... 41

10. APPENDIX C: TERMS & DEFINITIONS .................................................................................................................. 43

11. APPENDIX D: ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ................................................................................................................. 44

Figure 2: Structured problem-solving decision tree

Figure 3: Pareto Principle

Customer Typical Milestones for Problem-solving Investigations

Stage Airbus AESQ

Immediate Response 24 Hours

Contain Problem 72 Hours

Identify Root Cause(s) & Identify Corrective Action(s) 30 Days

Implement Corrective Action

Verify Fix 90 Days

Read Across Learning

Figure 4: Problem-Solving Interrelationship Diagram

Problem-Solving Methodology Equivalency

Table 2: AESQ 8D vs ARP9136

D0 - Immediate Containment Action(s) S0 - Start Immediate Containment Actions

D1 - Form Team S1 - Build the Team

D2 - Define Problem and Impact S2 - Define Problem

D3 - Interim Containment Action(s) S3 - Complete and Optimize Containment Actions

D4 - Determine Root Causes S4 - Identify Root Cause(s)

Problem-Solving Methodology – What type of problem is it?

Figure 5: Problem-Solving Methodology Roadmap

4. PROBLEM-SOLVING USING THE 8D METHODOLOGY

The Eight Disciplines

D0 Emergency Response Actions and Prepare for 8D

D1 Form the Team

D2 Define the Problem

D3 Develop Interim Containment Actions

D4 Diagnosis: Identify and Verify Root Causes and Escape Point

D6 Implement Permanent Corrective Action

• Make recommendations with implementation plan on systemic fixes.

D8 Recognize the Team

2D Methodology for Simple Problems not requiring documentation

Figure 6: Excel A3 8D Form

Two Page PowerPoint 8D Form

Figure 7: PowerPoint 8D Format (page 1)

Figure 8: PowerPoint 8D Format (page 2)

Three Page Word 8D Form

Figure 9: Word 8D Form (page 1)

Figure 10: Word 8D Form (page 2)

Figure 11: Word 8D Form (page 3)

Case Study 1 – Oil Pan Bracket