Inquiry into the Effectiveness of Eight Discipline-Based Problem-Solving
Abstract
Purpose: The eight discipline (8D) report is a method for solving problems in industry and is based on an eight-step problem-solving process and is often called an 8D report. The 8D report has been covered in the literature; however, much of the literature on 8D reports only describes the use of 8D reports and fails to evaluate 8D reports empirically. The purpose of this research is to determine if the use of 8D reports combined with training within an organization leads to finding root causes more quickly.
Methodology/Approach: The research uses a mixed-methods approach. A case study describes the implementation of 8D reports in a manufacturing organization in the automotive industry. The paper then looks at five years’ worth of data after the implementation of an 8D-based process for addressing quality problems and determined if there is a significant difference in the time to find root causes after the implementation of 8D reports combined with training.
Findings: The research found that the time to solve problems was reduced between the early and later years after the implementation of an 8D process and related training. Faster problem resolution means resources can be redirected elsewhere, as well as a reduction in scrap or rework.
Research Limitation/Implication: The paper only looked at the use of 8D reports in the case study organization.
Originality/Value of paper: This paper provides evidence supporting the effectiveness of 8D reports as an approach to problem-solving. The case study aspect also provides guidance for managers seeking to implement 8D reports in their organizations.
References
Abusalim, N., Rayyan, M., Jarrah, M., and Sharab, M., 2020. Institutional adoption of blended learning on a budget. International Journal of Educational Management, [e-journal] 34(7), pp.1203-1220. DOI: 10.1108/IJEM-08-2019-0326.
Alam, M.K., 2021. A systematic qualitative case study: Questions, data collection, NVivo analysis and saturation. Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management, [e-journal] 16(1), pp.1-31. DOI: 10.1108/QROM-09-2019-1825.
Alexa, I. and Kiss, I., 2016. Complaint analysis using 8D method within the companies in the field of automotive. Review of Faculty of Engineering, [e-journal] 10(1), pp.16-21. DOI: 10.14232/analecta.2016.1.16-21.
Amadi, A., 2022. Integration in a mixed-method case study of construction phenomena: From data to theory. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, [e-journal] 13(3), pp.61-74. DOI: 10.1108/ECAM-02-2021-0111.
Atigre, P.S., Sha, A.P. and Patil, V.R., 2017. An application of 8D methodology for minimizing the defects in manufacturing process: A case study. International Journal of Engineering Research & Technology, 6(9), pp.123-126.
Barsalou, M. and Smith, J., 2019. Applied statistics manual: A guide to improving and sustaining quality with Minitab. Milwaukee, WI: Quality Press.
Barsalou, M., 2023. Back to basics: 8D or A3? Quality Progress, 56(1), pp.56.
Biban, L.K. and Dhounchak, D. and Shakti, 2017. 8D Methodology: From concept to application across manufacturing industries. International Journal of Scientific Research in Science, Engineering and Technology, 3(6), pp.558-563.
Bossert, J., Duffy, G.L., Reid, D.R. and Rooney, J.J., 2018. Speaking your language. Quality Progress, 51(8), pp.16-37.
Boyers, P.E., 2017. Back to basics: Maintaining knowledge. Quality Progress, 50(5), pp.64.
Cameron, R. and Molina‐Azorin, L.R., 2011. The acceptance of mixed methods in business and management research. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, [e-journal] 19(3), pp.256-271. DOI: 10.1108/19348831111149204.
Carnell, M., 2019. Six Sigma solutions: A sign of the times. Quality Progress, 52(4), pp.50-52.
Caudill, J.G., 2013 Designing workplace E-Learning. Bulletin of the IEEE Technical Committee on Learning Technology, 15(4), pp.19-21.
Chen, H.R. and Cheng, B.-W., 2010. A case study in solving customer complaints Based on the 8Ds method and Kano model. Journal of the Chinese Institute of Industrial Engineers, 27(5), pp.339-350.
Chen, J.C., 2017. Nontraditional adult learners: The Neglected Diversity in Postsecondary Education. SAGE Open, [e-journal] 7(1), pp.1-12. DOI: 10.1177/2158244017697161.
Darekar, S., Pendum, D.V., Shukla, P. and Joshi, P., 2013. Systematic fact finding and problem solving for leakage in high pressure line in diesel engine. MR International Journal of Engineering and Technology, 5(1), pp.39-44.
Dew, J.R., 2018. Learning sbout learning. Quality Progress, 51(7), pp.30-35.
Dew, J.R., 2021. The right mix. Quality Progress, 54(5), pp.22-27.
Divanoğlu, S.U. and Taş, Ü., 2022. Application of 8D methodology: An approach to reduce failures in automotive industry. Engineering Failure Analysis, [e-journal] 134, 106019. DOI: 10.1016/j.engfailanal.2021.106019.
Els, R.C. and Meyer, H.H.W., 2022. Leaders' attitudes towards, and commitment to quality management of training within the military. The TQM Journal, [e-journal] 34(7), pp.1-17. DOI: 10.1108/TQM-09-2021-0259.
George, A., Ranjha, S. and Kulkarni, A., 2021. Enhanced problem solving through redefined 8D step completion criteria. Quality Engineering, [e-journal] 33(4), pp. 695-711. DOI: 10.1080/08982112.2021.1969665.
Ionescu, N., Ionescu, L.M., Rachieru, N. and Mazare, A.G., 2022. A model for monitoring of the 8D and FMEA tools interdependence in the era of Industry 4.0. International Journal of Modern Manufacturing Technologies, [e-journal] 14(3), pp.86-91. DOI: 10.54684/ijmmt.2022.14.3.86.
Jung, B., Schweisser, S. and Wappis, J., 2017. 8D- Systematsich Probleme lösen. 3rd ed. Munchen: Carl Hanser Verlag.
Krishnan, S.K., 2006. Increasing the visibility of hidden failure costs. Measuring Business Excellence, [e-journal] 10(4), pp.77-101. DOI: 10.1108/13683040610719290.
Ly Duc, M. and Bilk, P., 2022. Zero defect manufacturing using digital Numerical control. Management and Production Engineering Review, [e-journal] 13(3), pp.61-74. DOI: 10.24425/mper.2022.142383.
Montgomery, D.C., Runger, G.C. and Hubele, N.F., 2001. Engineering statistics. 2nd ed. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
Nafukho, F.M., Irby, B. J., Pashmforoosh, R., Lara-Alecio, R., Tong, F., Lockhart, M.E., El Mansour, W., Tang, S., Etchells, M. and Wang, Z., 2023. Training design in mediating the relationship of participants’ motivation, work environment, and transfer of learning. European Journal of Training and Development, [e-journal] 47(10), pp.112-132. DOI: 10.1108/EJTD-06-2022-0070.
Palady, P. and Snabb, T., 2000. TAPS: A total approach to problem solving. USA: PAL Publishing.
Park, B. and Jeong, J., 2019. A novel rule-based MPS model for SME manufacturing factory in Korea. Procedia Computer Science, [e-journal] 155, pp.716-721. DOI: 10.1016/j.procs.2019.08.103.
Rambaud, L., 2011. 8D structured problem solving: A guide to creating high quality 8D Reports. 2nd ed. Breckenridge: PHRED Solutions.
Rathi, R., Reddy, M.C.G., Narayana, A.L., Narayana, U.L. and Rahman, M.S., 2022. Investigation and implementation of 8D methodology in a manufacturing system. Materials Today: Proceedings, [e-journal] 50(5), pp.743-750. DOI: 10.1016/j.matpr.2021.05.273.
Reidemeister, E., 2016. All under one roof. Quality Progress, 49(3), pp.24-28.
Schallock, B, Rybski, C., Jochem, R. and Kohl, H., 2018. Learning factory for Industry 4.0 to provide future skills beyond technical training. Procedia Manufacturing, 23, pp.27-35.
Skurkova, K.L. and Prajova, V., 2022. 8D report application in production process of rear seat. MM Science Journal. (Preprint). DOI: 10.17973/MMSJ.2022_11_2022139.
Suárez-Barraza, M.F. and Rodríguez-González, F.G., 2019. Cornerstone Root Causes Through the Analysis of the Ishikawa Diagram, is it Possible to Find Them? A First Research Approach. International Journal of Quality and Service Sciences, [e-journal] 11(2), pp.302-316. DOI: 10.1108/IJQSS-12-2017-0113.
Tielker, A., 2019. Back to basics: A formula for learning. Quality Progress, 52(7), pp.56.
Verleye, K., 2019. Designing, writing-up and reviewing case study research: An equifinality perspective. Journal of Service Management, [e-journal] 30(5), pp.549-576. DOI: 10.1108/JOSM-08-2019-0257.
Authors
Copyright (c) 2023 Matthew Barsalou, Marta Grabowska, Robert Perkin
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
This is an open access journal which means that all content is freely available without charge to the user or his/her institution. Users are allowed to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of the articles in this journal without asking prior permission from the publisher or the author. This is in accordance with the BOAI definition of open access. This journal is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License - http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0.
Authors who publish with the Quality Innovation Prosperity agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work.
