H | H | H | H | H | H | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Bad | 29.665 | Good | 0.077 | Bad | 0.049 | Good | 32.432 | Good | 0.142 | Good | 0.025 |
Good | 29.667 | Good | 0.078 | Good | 0.13 | Good | 32.435 | Good | 0.142 | Good | 0.026 |
Good | 29.667 | Bad | 0.079 | Bad | 0.136 | Bad | 32.44 | Bad | 0.145 | Bad | 0.027 |
Bad | 29.668 | Bad | 0.082 | Good | 0.161 | Bad | 32.44 | Bad | 0.146 | Bad | 0.027 |
Good | 29.669 | Good | 0.084 | Bad | 0.162 | Good | 32.44 | Bad | 0.148 | Bad | 0.027 |
Good | 29.67 | Good | 0.088 | Bad | 0.163 | Good | 32.442 | Good | 0.142 | Good | 0.028 |
Good | 29.67 | Good | 0.088 | Bad | 0.163 | Bad | 32.442 | Bad | 0.145 | Good | 0.028 |
Bad | 29.67 | Bad | 0.089 | Good | 0.163 | Bad | 32.442 | Good | 0.145 | Bad | 0.029 |
Bad | 29.67 | Bad | 0.092 | Bad | 0.164 | Bad | 32.442 | Good | 0.153 | Good | 0.029 |
Good | 29.671 | Good | 0.093 | Bad | 0.164 | Good | 32.442 | Good | 0.154 | Good | 0.03 |
Bad | 29.671 | Bad | 0.093 | Good | 0.167 | Good | 32.443 | Good | 0.181 | Bad | 0.03 |
Bad | 29.671 | Bad | 0.095 | Good | 0.168 | Good | 32.443 | Good | 0.187 | Good | 0.031 |
Bad | 29.671 | Good | 0.098 | Good | 0.172 | Bad | 32.444 | Bad | 0.19 | Bad | 0.032 |
Bad | 29.672 | Good | 0.104 | Bad | 0.173 | Bad | 32.445 | Bad | 0.198 | Bad | 0.033 |
Good | 29.674 | Bad | 0.111 | Good | 0.175 | Bad | 32.453 | Bad | 0.2 | Good | 0.049 |
Good | 29.674 | Bad | 0.124 | Good | 0.176 | Good | 32.454 | Bad | 0.201 | Bad | 0.065 |
Top EC | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | ||||||
Bottom EC | 2 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 4 | 1 | |||||
Total EC % | 3 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 6 | 3 | |||||
Confidence | None | None | None | None | 90% | None |
C | C | C | C | C | C | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Good | 26.342 | Bad | 0.053 | Good | 28.309 | Good | 0.097 | Good | 0 | Good | 0.01 |
Good | 26.349 | Good | 0.057 | Good | 28.31 | Good | 0.102 | Good | 0 | Good | 0.01 |
Bad | 26.351 | Bad | 0.059 | Good | 28.311 | Good | 0.106 | Good | 0.01 | Good | 0.01 |
Bad | 26.357 | Good | 0.06 | Bad | 28.315 | Bad | 0.108 | Bad | 0.015 | Bad | 0.015 |
Bad | 26.358 | Bad | 0.061 | Good | 28.315 | Bad | 0.109 | Bad | 0.018 | Bad | 0.018 |
Good | 26.364 | Good | 0.063 | Good | 28.315 | Good | 0.109 | Good | 0.019 | Good | 0.018 |
Bad | 26.366 | Good | 0.065 | Bad | 28.316 | Bad | 0.109 | Bad | 0.021 | Bad | 0.018 |
Good | 26.369 | Good | 0.073 | Bad | 28.317 | Good | 0.111 | Good | 0.021 | Good | 0.019 |
Good | 26.371 | Good | 0.073 | Bad | 28.319 | Good | 0.112 | Good | 0.022 | Bad | 0.019 |
Bad | 26.372 | Bad | 0.084 | Bad | 28.32 | Good | 0.12 | Good | 0.025 | Bad | 0.02 |
Bad | 26.373 | Bad | 0.086 | Bad | 28.32 | Bad | 0.132 | Good | 0.03 | Good | 0.02 |
Good | 26.375 | Bad | 0.087 | Bad | 28.32 | Bad | 0.134 | Bad | 0.035 | Bad | 0.021 |
Good | 26.378 | Bad | 0.091 | Good | 28.321 | Bad | 0.137 | Bad | 0.038 | Bad | 0.025 |
Bad | 26.38 | Good | 0.091 | Bad | 28.322 | Bad | 0.139 | Bad | 0.041 | Good | 0.028 |
Bad | 26.383 | Bad | 0.095 | Good | 28.337 | Good | 0.139 | Bad | 0.045 | Good | 0.028 |
Good | 26.39 | Good | 0.115 | Good | 28.344 | Bad | 0.144 | Bad | 0.051 | Bad | 0.03 |
Top EC | 2 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | |||||
Bottom EC | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 5 | 1 | |||||
Total EC | 2 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 8 | 4 | |||||
Confidence | None | None | None | None | >95% | None |
A | N | B |
---|---|---|
Behrens, B.-A., Wilde, I. and Hoffmann, M., 2007; | Ford & Suppliers | The 8D methodology started with the Powertrain Organisation of the Ford Group. With benefits seen from the team-oriented problem solving (TOPS), it was rolled out business-wide. Soon entire Ford supply chain, including suppliers, were using the 8D framework |
Hongkong based Electronics company | Improving the quality of the Integrated assembly line using Ford's 8D methodology. Highlights the benefits of highly focused approach with simple analytical tools of 8D in achieving considerable benefits in a short time | |
Automotive Company (Trim Line) | Significant reduction in defect rate of the highest failure on Trim area resulting in financial gains. 8D offers an essential solution from identifying the root cause until the implementation of preventive action. Quick turnaround time and easy to implement the methodology |
C | O | A | F | M | C |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Six Sigma | Motorola Inc. (1987) | Improve process capability | Reduce process variation by controlling inputs | Methodology: DMAIC Tools: Statistical techniques | Skilled workers required to implement, resource-demanding and long-term |
TRIZ | Russia (the 1940s) | To develop inventive solutions to complex problems | To understand contradictions and resolve them | Methodology: Tools: Contradiction Matrix, ARIX | Difficult to acquire, training, resource-demanding |
Total Quality Management (TQM) | Japan (the 1990s) | Improve the quality and consistency of processes | Customer satisfaction | Methodology: Plan Do Study Act Tools: Statistical techniques | Vague and inconsistent conceptualisation, excessive resource consumption, unsatisfactory results |
T | B | W | H | H | L | L | A |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Initial | 0.21 | 1.88 | 0.1335 | 0.2865 | 1.8035 | 1.9565 | |
First Rebuild | 0.25 | 1.85 | 0.1335 | 0.2865 | 1.8035 | 1.9565 | |
Second Rebuild | 0.2 | 1.9 | 0.1335 | 0.2865 | 1.8035 | 1.9565 | |
Cast Body | 0.2 | 1.85 | 0.1335 | 0.2865 | 1.8035 | 1.9565 | Not important |
Housing | 0.6 | 1.72 | 0.1335 | 0.2865 | 1.8035 | 1.9565 | Important, so is something else |
Cartridge | 1.65 | 0.4 | 0.1335 | 0.2865 | 1.8035 | 1.9565 | Important, so is something else |
Brass Nut | 0.19 | 1.86 | 0.1335 | 0.2865 | 1.8035 | 1.9565 | Not important |
Cartridge Top Seal | 0.2 | 1.89 | 0.1335 | 0.2865 | 1.8035 | 1.9565 | Not important |
Cartridge Bottom Seal | 0.22 | 1.9 | 0.1335 | 0.2865 | 1.8035 | 1.9565 | Not important |
Housing Face Seals | 0.25 | 1.88 | 0.1335 | 0.2865 | 1.8035 | 1.9565 | Not important |
T | B | W | H | H | L | L | A |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Housing& Cartridge | 1.88 | 0.22 | 0.1335 | 0.2865 | 1.8035 | 1.9565 | 2 important factors explain the variation |