Formato Brose 8-D-Problem Solving Schemexlsx_ (1)

Template for supplier-8D
Release 2018 (16.01.2018)
Language: English t Target of the template for supplier-8D

One standard method to solve complaints from Brose in a structured way and
thus to avoid repeated issues
To 8D -
Report Mindset for successfull problem solving
- real place
- real parts
- real data
- compare to standards
- rapid response / deadlines
- logical thinking
- responsibilities / ownership
Use of different methods according to complexity of the problem

- problems with known cause and countermeasure can be solved by using
existing knowledge (does not apply for repeat failures)
- problems with unknown cause and countermeasure need a structured
approach and tools
The minium requirement is the 8D-report - the usage of Is IsNot, Ishikawa and
5Why (tabs highlighted in green) is recommended.
Index: 100 Page: 1/ 17 (PMP Start) Date saved: 07/15/2024

Copyright by Brose. Alle Rechte vorbehalten Template version 2017
D0 Problem Statement
Is-Situation
(Brose's point of view)
Target-Situation
(Brose's point of view)
D1 Header / Problem solving team

Brose plant (Customer) Supplier
[complete name and address]
End-customer (OEM/Tier1) Supplier number

[Brose SAP Supplier number]
Contact person (Brose) Contact person (Supplier)
Contact information for contact Contact information for contact

person (Brose) [phone / E-Mail] person (supplier) [phone / E-
Mail]
Claim reference number / Leader:
inspection report number (Brose)
Failure location Further

Problem solving team
At
[please tick a box] Internal At Brose team members:
OEM/tier1
Repeat failure
[please tick a box] Yes No
If the answer is yes: further actions have to be defined in

cooperation with Brose (e.g. additional 100%-control at the supplier
or, for the second occurrence, an additional 100%-control at Brose
by a third party)
Claim date
Date when next update of 8D- Last revision [date of the last 8D-
report will be provided report update]
Brose part number Supplier part number(s)

[format XXXXXX-XXX]
Rejected quantity Amount of defective parts
Remarks
D2 Problem description
Summary from Is/IsNot:
Graphical representation of the problem [Please insert pictures, drawings or sketches]
OK - part NOK - part
Index: 100 Page: 2/ 17 (8D-Report) Date saved: 07/15/2024

Copyright by Brose. Alle Rechte vorbehalten Template-version 2017
What is the PROBLEM? Use the W-questions or IS / IS NOT, to understand the problem in its scope and impact.
Which symptoms do we see on our parts?
Why is this a problem?
When did it happen?
When was/were the part(s) produced?
Who detected the problem (name)?
Where was the problem detected (failure place)?
How was the problem detected?
Which other Brose plants / parts are affected?
Are we capturing the defect when we re-introduce the

product into the normal process?
Is the part safety critical? A-failure = safety relevant

[failure clustering]
B-failure = siginificant product/production effect
C-failure = middle incident
Suspect quantity Brose [pce.] NOK - quantity Brose [pce.]
Suspect quantity transport [pce.] NOK - quantity transport [pce.]
Suspect quantity supplier [pce.] NOK - quantity supplier [pce.]
Suspect quantity OEM [pce.] NOK - quantity OEM [pce.]
D3 Containment actions
Verified /
in progress X
Legend Open Realized X X Validated X X X
Containment action(s) supplier (production, stock, spare parts warehouse, transport, ...)
Realization
Actions Responsible Planned date Status Evidence of effectiveness
date
Containment action(s) Brose/OEM/Tier (production, stock, spare parts warehouse, transport, ...)
Realization
date
Identification of o.k. delivery (single part, assembly, handling unit, ...)
Delivery note
Identification Responsible Date of delivery Status Remarks
no.

D4 Failure cause
Actions for root cause analysis
Realization
date
Root Cause for Occurrence
Is the error reproducible? NEIN If not, perform further analysis.
Root Cause for Non-Detection
Is the error reproducible? NEIN If not, perform further analysis.
D5 / D6 Corrective Actions
Actions against failure occurrence or failure cause respectively (product / process, technical solutions,…)
Realization
date
Actions against non detection (manual / automatic controls,…)
Realization
date

D7 Lessons Learned / Read-Across
Read-Across
Realization
date
Check if applicable to similar products / processes (Read-Across)
Lessons Learned
Realization
date
Update / Rework of project-specific documentation

[FMEA, drawings, work- and maintenance instructions,…]
D8 Completion
Completion status
Signature: Date:
Status 8D supplier
In process Suggested for closure Closed Akzeptanz noch nicht geklärt
8D-Status Brose
In process Closed Akzeptanz noch nicht geklärt
Attached documents:

Occurrence n.o.k.-parts - temporal course and validation of measures
N.o.k.-parts
Date
Customer
Internal
…
Date
Customer
Internal
…
Date
Customer
Internal
…
Date
Customer
Internal
…
Date
Customer
Internal
…
N.o.k.-parts
12
10
8
…
Internal
6
Customer
4
Index: 100 Page: 6/ 17 (Statistic) Date saved: 07/15/2024

Sorting results (containment)
Sorting results
Identification suspected Production date of the
Sorted parts N.o.k.-parts Sorting date Identification o.k. - Parts Conclusion of sorting
Parts sorted parts
Endcustomer - claiming plant
Endcustomer - other plant(s)
Endcustomer - others
Brose - claiming plant
Brose - other plant(s)
Brose - others
Supplier - production
Supplier - storage
Supplier - spare parts
Logistics - parts on seafreight
Logistics - parts on airfreight
Logistics - external service
provider
Logistics - others
…
Sorting results
12
10
6 Sorted parts
N.o.k.-parts
4
0
Endcustomer Endcustomer Endcustomer Brose - Brose - other Brose - Supplier - Supplier - Supplier - Logistics - Logistics - Logistics - Logistics - …
- claiming - other - others claiming plant(s) others production storage spare parts parts on parts on air- external ser- others
plant plant(s) plant seafreight freight vice provider
Index: 100 Page: 7/ 17 (Statistic) Date saved: 07/15/2024

Problem
Statement: Noticeable observations
(logically could be, but)
Problem specification IS IS NOT Missing Information Distinctions Changes

What specific object(s) has a What similar object(s) could
deviation? reasonably have the deviation, but
does not?
Object
WHAT
What is the specific deviation? What other deviations could

reasonably be observed, but are
not?
Problem
Where is the deviation on the Where else could the deviation be

object? located on the object, but is not?
Observed on object
WHERE
Where is the object when the Where else could the object be
deviation is observed? when the deviation is observed,
but is not?
Geographically
When was the deviation observed When else could the deviation
first? have been observed first, but was
(date and time) not?
First observed
When since that time has the When since that time could the
deviation been observed? Any deviation have been observed, but
pattern? was not?
WHEN
Elsewhere observed
When in the process history was When else, in the object's history,
the deviation first observed? could the deviation have been
observed first, but was not?
When seen in the

process (life cycle)
Index: 100 Page: 8/ 17 (Is IsNot) Date saved: 07/15/2024

How was the deviation noticed? How could it have been noticed,
but was not?
HOW How discovered
How many objects have this How many objects could have the
deviation? deviation, but do not?
How many affected
How many deviations are on each How many deviations could there
object? be on each object, but are not?
Number of problems
EXTENT
What is the size of a single What other size could the

deviation? deviation be, but is not?
Extent
What is the trend? (…in the What could be the trend, but is
object?) (…in the number of not? (…in the number of
occurrences of the deviation? (… occurrences of the deviation? (…
in the size of the deviation?) in the size of the deviation?)
Tendency
IS / IS NOT Summary
Summary from Is/IsNot:
Index: 100 Page: 9/ 17 (Is IsNot) Date saved: 07/15/2024

Why occurred (O): Why not detected (N):
Man Machine Machine Man
Problem Statement:
… …
Mother Nature Method Material Material Method Mother Nature
Index: 100 Page: 10/ 17 (Ishikawa) Date saved: 07/15/2024

WHEN - When seen
WHERE - Observed WHERE - WHEN - First WHEN - Elsewhere HOW - How EXTENT - How many EXTENT - Number of
WHAT - Object WHAT - Problem WHAT - … WHERE - … in the process (life WHEN - … HOW - … EXTENT - Extent EXTENT - Tendency EXTENT - …
on object Geographically observed observed discovered affected problems
cycle)
IS IS NOT IS IS NOT IS IS NOT IS IS NOT IS IS NOT IS IS NOT IS IS NOT IS IS NOT IS IS NOT IS IS NOT IS IS NOT IS IS NOT IS IS NOT IS IS NOT IS IS NOT IS IS NOT IS IS NOT
Potential causes from the

Result Remarks
Ishikawa-diagram
Occurence
Non-detection
Index: 100 Page: 11/ 17 (C&E) Date saved: 07/15/2024

?
Specification / Feature
Direct reference to the

Feature / specification
Deviation to
Occurence
problem?
correct
Systematic
Specification / Prioritization or comment on
consideration Influencing factors O.k.-part N.o.k.-part
Feature the influence factor
regarding the 5Ms
Non-detection
It is to check whether the fault feature is covered by a test.
If "Yes": Continue processing with the influencing factors test for non-detection. 5x Why
If "No": Continue processing with the 5 Whys (Why is this error feature not covered though a test?)
performed according to
Is this specification
Has this test been

sufficient?
specification?
Where is the inspection

Inspection characteristic How is the testing defined (desired situation)? Comment
characteristic covered?
Index: 100 Page: 12/ 17 (Verify) Date saved: 07/15/2024

5 Why
Problem / Defect:
Use this path to investigate the specific nonconformance caused by the manufacturing process
Why? Why? Why?
Why? Why? Why?

Occurence
Why? Why? Why?
Why? Why? Why?
Why? Why? Why?
Use this path to investigate why the problem was not detected
Why? Why? Why?
Why? Why? Why?

Non-detection
Why? Why? Why?
Why? Why? Why?
Why? Why? Why?
Use this path to investigate what process/system is not robust
Why? Why? Why?
Why? Why? Why?

Systemic
Why? Why? Why?
Why? Why? Why?
Why? Why? Why?
Index: 100 Page: 13/ 17 (5Why) Date saved: 07/15/2024

← Back
Legend Sub-
New Projects Production lines / projects Other plants Others
supplier(s)
O Original location
X Location with similar process / risk
NA Not Applicable
P Pass Through
BLUE Completion verified

GREENCompleted & involved parties informed
RED Not Completed
NA Not Applicable
Original location
Containment action(s) supplier (production, stock,

spare parts warehouse, transport, ...)
Containment actions
Containment action(s) Brose/OEM/Tier (production,

stock, spare parts warehouse, transport, ...)
Identification o.k. delivery (single part, assembly,

handling unit, ...)
Actions against failure occurrence or failure cause

respectively (product / process, technical solutions,…)
Corrective Actions
Actions against non detection (manual / automatic

controls,…)
Actions against reccurence
Index: 100 Page: 14/ 17 (Read-Across) Date saved: 07/15/2024

Implementation overview
Project/Topic 1
Person Responsible 0.8
Status
Today (DD.MM.YY) 15/07/24 0.6
green completed 0 0.4
white in progress 0
0.2
yellow behind schedule 0
red critical 0 0
No. Work package Task / point / issue Person responsible Deadline Status Comments
(DD.MM.YY)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Index: 100 Page: 15/ 17 (Action plan) Date saved: 07/15/2024

Leader of the PS-
Date:
team:
Revised by:
Problem Description:
Final results:
Available evaluation
description result comments
points (red,amber,green)
D0 - Problem Statement
Description of what is good and what is bad in "What is wrong with what?"-
10 form is done.
0
D1 - Header / Team building

4 team leader identified? 0
4 Cross-functional team defined and functions available? 0
2 Basic data and contact information available? 0
D2 - Problem description
Graphical representation of problem available (if applicable)? Pictures are
2 showing the difference?
0
4 The 'W-questions' have been used to describe the problem. 0

Is/IsNot is used and fully complete (also colums distinctions and changes
considered)?
16 All missing information has been answered and properly documented (see action
0
plan)?
8 The Is/IsNot adresses only one problem? 0
A summary of the Is-data is done out of the Is/IsNot to thoroughly describe the
6 problem?
0
4 Suspect quantities and n.o.k.-quantities are available? 0
D3 - Containment actions
Containment actions are defined, verified and validated. Brose / endcustomer is
12 protected.
0
Inspection results in the supply chain to all customer locations are available (tab
6 'Statistic')?
0
Determination of clean point (identification of good material and when the first
2 delivery with good material will be available)?
0
Evaluation by Brose or Self-Evaluation

Read-Across on containments is done - Brose / endcustomer is protected from
4 similar problems?
0
Containment has been verified and implemented within the (from Brose)
6 expected time?
0
D4 - Failure cause
8 Potential causes are identified for occurence and non-detection (Ishikawa)? 0
The problem description from the Is/IsNot has been used as the problem
4 statement in the Ishikawa?
0
First evaluation which potential influences have the highest priority was done
4 (Ishikawa)?
0
Probable and possible causes from the first evaluation have been prioritised by
2 using C&E?
0
10 Verification done / Elimination of potential causes (Verify)? 0
5Why is done on each verified cause (occurence and non-detection)? Systemic

8 5Why was done?
0
Evidence that problem has been able to be turned on/off (show how the root
10 cause was confirmed)?
0
4 Root causes have been found and verified within expected time (Brose)? 0
D5/D6 - Corrective Actions

Corrective actions have been defined on each root cause from D4 (occurence,
6 non-decection and systemic)
0
Evidence that the action(s) eliminate the root causes / Verification that
12 corrective actions enable to "turn the problem on and off".
0
Corrective actions have been defined, verified and implemented within

4 expected time (Brose)
0
Description of the method used to determine effectiveness of actions is

6 available?
0
Evidence with data that show the significant improvement after implementation
8 of the action(s). Charts with data of Before and After the implementation of the 0
permanent corrective actions are available (tab 'Statistic')
4 Read-Across on corrective actions (occurence and non-detection) is done. 0
D7 - Lessons Learned
Direct product/process related documents have been communicated and
8 implemented (like P-FMEA, work instructions, maintenance schedules, PLP, 0
drawings…)
4 Read-Across on systemic corrective actions is done. 0
4 The solutions identified within the 8D are forwarded as LessonsLearned? 0
D8 - Completion
Have the containments been removed after implementation and succesful
4 validation of the corrective actions?
0
4 Final documentation to Brose has been send within expected time? 0
Warning! Yet not all fields have been

0.0% rated!
Index: 100 Page: 16/ 17 (Evaluation) Date saved: 07/15/2024

8D - Report
The 8D-report is used as a reporting document in the automotive industry. With this document, it can be clarified between the customer and supplier what
problem is present with which effects, who the contact persons are (e.g. who has been involved in the problem-solving), and which measures were taken. It
acts as a guideline for systematic problem solving and supports the problem solving process by providing the corresponding tools.
The following descriptions explain the 8D-steps, required technical terms, as well as the tools themselves. Please consider that Brose is especially focused on
systematic problem solving - the use of some of the tools is therefore seen as mandatory (marked accordingly).
D0 - Problem Statement
Step D0 acts as a rough description of the problem. In case of an official claim, you will receive this information from Brose.
The problem description should always explain "WHAT is wrong with WHAT?" (in the form of object and deviation). For demonstration, the NOK-condition
is opposed to the desired OK-condition (usually this is clear, but in some cases the required condition is not obvious).
Examples:
- current consumption too high (1A) versus desired current consumption of 0,1A
- shaft length too long (33mm) versus shaft length 30±0,2mm
D1 - Header / Problem solving team

Step D1 is used to describe the contact persons, the team as well as general information around the problem (e.g. material numbers, claim date etc.). Most of
the general data will be provided by Brose.
Claim reference number /

A number given to you by Brose - please refer to this number in any correspondence with Brose.
inspection report number (Brose)
Date when next update of 8D-
Please enter here the SAP notification number stated in the claim announcement from Brose.
report will be provided
D2 - Problem description
In step D2, the problem is described according to its effect and symptoms as detailed as possible (compared to D0 where the problem was desribed in a rough
manner only). It is only allowed to use data, facts and figures - assumptions can lead to wrong conclusions and should therefore be avoided strictly!
For collecting data, pictures, videos, and analysis data can be used as well as data from the containment actions if available (see step D3). Step D2 does not
have to occur between D1 and D3 in a sequential manner, but rather this information should be gathered and updated throughout the entire problem solving
process.
The Is/Is Not is a collection of all information to describe the problem using 12 questions. The specialty is that it asks not only what has been
observed, but also what THEORETICALLY could have been observed, but in fact was not. Be sure to use facts only - if you are not sure,
add the information to the column "missing information" and try to find an answer to these questions while the problem solving process is
ongoing. Try to fill in each row if possible!
Is/Is Not (TOOL)
The two columns "distinctions" and "changes" are used to generate first clues in regards to potential causes. The column "distinctions" is
used to find suggestions why one state was observed, while the other wasn't - e.g. influence from temperatures could have influenced why a
problem was geographically observed only in warmer regions, while not observed in colder regions. The column "changes" describes if e.g.
a maintenance was done at the same period as the defective part was produced and thus could have caused the problem.
These questions are used to deliver more detailed information regarding the problem, but the information is not gathered systematically
W-questions
compared to the Is/IsNot. The W-questions are thought to deliver a short but detailed overview of the problem within the 8D-report.
The suspect quantities decribe the amount of parts that still need to be analysed, which means that it is not yet known if those parts are OK or
Suspect quantities and NOK- NOK.
quantities The NOK-quantity is the amount of found and verified defective parts.
Different storage locations are considered here.
The link leads to the tab "Statistic" - here it is collected all information how much NOK-parts are found where and when. The chart is also
Failure development (TOOL)
used to show evidence in later step D6 (verification and validation).
D3 - Containment actions
In step D3, containment actions at Brose, the OEM or the supplier are documented which shall avoid NOK-parts being delivered to the customer (Brose /
OEM) e.g. by using replacement deliveries, sorting activities or approved rework etc.
In the moment the delivery with OK-parts can be ensured, the clean point has to be communicated to Brose, which means when does the first OK-delivery
arrive at Brose, how is it marked etc.
A 3D-report that contains all relevant information from step D1 to D3 has to be sent to Brose within 24 hours after a claim has been raised.
With the help of the Read-Across it is possible to check if the chosen containments can be applied to other projects, processes, plants or
Read-Across (TOOL) suppliers for the purpose of lessons learned. Please fill the rows with your chosen containments and the columns with projects, processes etc.
which could be affected as well. Then check for each line and column of the matrix if it is applicable and feasible.
The link, like the Failure-Development (see above), leads to the tab "Statistic"- here it pertains to the lower half of this sheet. There, it is
Sorting results (TOOL)
possible to collect sorting results and to generate a graphical representation.
D4 - Failure cause
In step D4, all measures are documented that are necessary to analyse the technical causes and root causes. It is important that all causes are verified by doing
tests or comparisons. Corrective actions that will be defined later can only be effective if evidence is shown that the real causes are found.
To sustainably ensure that similar problems will not occur again, it is necessary to also consider the organizational backgrounds - the systemic causes.
Therefore, an orientation at the three areas "Why is the defect made?", "Why was the defect shipped?" and "Why was the defect not avoided previously?"may
be useful.
Apply a sufficient description of the problem in the field "problem / defect" . The Ishikawa-diagram helps you to identify the causes of
errors. The sources of errors are divided by type and detection? into the following factors: Man, Machine, Material, Method and Nature.
Ishikawa-Diagram (TOOL) Expand this subdivision with more detailed causes within a superior point. In order to do this, use the provided fields and arrows in the lower
box by drag & drop and fill in possible sources of errors in the yellow fields. Then, evaluate the noted causes by using the provided
evaluation modules.
The Cause and Effect Matrix helps to accurately assess the available failure sources. Therein, the dimensions of the IS-criteria from the Is-/Is
Not-Summary are compared to the possible causes from the Ishikawa-diagram. The yellow squares represent the intersections of respective
Cause & Effect Matrix (TOOL) criteria. Enter appropriate values and add them together in the "Result"-field to determine the most probable fault cause of the problem. The
following measurement steps can be used:
1 = no relationship; 4 = barely connected; 7 = noticeably connected; 10 = very strong correlation
The influences found in the Ishikawa-diagram need to be evaluated according to their plausibility. Therefore, the potential cause is proven by
a comparison of a good versus a bad part.
Verify influences (TOOL) Example: You have found a noisy window regulator. One chosen influence from the Ishikawa is found in category "Man," which is "part
lubricated". It is now checked on the OK and NOK-part if the lubricant is present or not. If so, the influence can be disregarded. If the
response is negative (OK-part was lubricated, NOK-part wasn't), one plausible cause has been found.
The 5xWhy is used to explore the root causes with why-questions. Note the subdivision into "occurence", "non-detection" and "systemic".
Systemic means to investigate what process/system was not robust and thus was allowing the failure to be made.
5xWhy (TOOL)
Five questions are not always enough to find the root cause. Check this and continue the process if necessary.
D5/D6 - Corrective Actions
In step D5/D6, permanent corrective actions are planned, their implementation is documented and the efficiency is verified.
First, corrective actions are defined for the root causes found. These actions must always include responsibilities, due dates and a current status. In general,
there are actions for eliminating the failure occurence and the non-detection. Then, the actions' effectiveness must be verified and validated so that it can be
ensured that the failure will not reocurr.
The link, like the Failure-Development (see above), leads to the tab "Statistic". In this step, the chart is used to show evidence. It must be
Validation (TOOL) shown that actions are implemented so that the failure will not reoccur.
(Note: verification = "It worked this time" vs. validation = "It works every time").
With the help of the Read-Across it is possible to check if the chosen corrective actions can be applied to other projects, processes, plants or
Read-Across (TOOL) suppliers for the purpose of lessons learned. This time, please fill the rows with your chosen corrective actions and the columns with
projects, processes etc. which could be affected as well. Then check for each line and column of the matrix if it is applicable and feasible.
D7 - Lessons Learned / Read-Across
In step D7, the recurrence of the failure shall be prevented for the purpose of lessons learned. Therefore, think beyond the immediate problem. For instance,
where could the same problem occur? Modify the necessary systems, practices, and procedures to prevent the recurrence of this and similar problems.
In general, measures against the systemic root causes are discussed.
The Read-Across-Analysis of previous steps (see above) can now be finalized. The goal is to share lessons learned and, thus, prevent the
Read-Across (TOOL)
recurrence of this or similar problems.
D8 - Closure
In step D8, the problem solving process and, thus, the 8D-report is closed. Please make sure that the issue is officially closed in both the Brose and your
system. It is important that the problem and its solution was documented and communicated.
Please enter here the current stauts of the problem solving. If you want to close the 8D, you need to set your intent to close the issue and set
Status 8D supplier the acceptance-status in the last column by chosing an option from the drop-down menu (click on the field to open).
After review from Brose you will get a feedback if Brose accepts the closure of the 8D.
8D-Status Brose These fields are filled by Brose only - here you will get the feedback from Brose if the 8D has been accepted.
The evaluation matrix is a tool to evaluate the 8D-report as objectively as possible. The evaluation criteria are categorized in 8 steps like the
8D-report itself. When evaluating by using the traffic light colours "red = not acceptable", "amber = acceptable" and "green = OK", a
Evaluation (TOOL)
different number of points is awarded. The overall result will be expressed as a percentage. Using this evaluation, the necessary 8D-contents
are reviewed and reports of high quality shall be ensured.
To avoid reoccurring failures, a consequent visualization of failures is important, both in the team and in the production line. Therefore, the
"Table of defect parts" - GER:
"table of defect parts" is used to inform and train employees. By presenting defective parts and demonstrating containment actions,
"Schadenstisch" (TOOL)
employees are integrated in the problem solving process.
In the action plan, all actions can be documented. This list allows a clear overview of responsibilities, due dates and documents the status of
Internal action plan (TOOL)
every action. The implementation of actions can hereby be guarenteed.
Index: 100 Page: 17/ 17 (Help) Date saved: 07/15/2024


Formato Brose 8-D-Problem Solving Schemexlsx_ (1)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Formato Brose 8-D-Problem Solving Schemexlsx_ (1)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Template for supplier-8D

Release 2018 (16.01.2018)

Language: English t Target of the template for supplier-8D

Use of different methods according to complexity of the problem

Index: 100 Page: 1/ 17 (PMP Start) Date saved: 07/15/2024

D1 Header / Problem solving team

End-customer (OEM/Tier1) Supplier number

Contact person (Brose) Contact person (Supplier)

Contact information for contact Contact information for contact

Failure location Further

If the answer is yes: further actions have to be defined in

Brose part number Supplier part number(s)

Rejected quantity Amount of defective parts

Graphical representation of the problem [Please insert pictures, drawings or sketches]

OK - part NOK - part

Index: 100 Page: 2/ 17 (8D-Report) Date saved: 07/15/2024

Which symptoms do we see on our parts?

Why is this a problem?

When did it happen?

When was/were the part(s) produced?

Who detected the problem (name)?

Where was the problem detected (failure place)?

How was the problem detected?

Which other Brose plants / parts are affected?

Are we capturing the defect when we re-introduce the

Is the part safety critical? A-failure = safety relevant

Suspect quantity Brose [pce.] NOK - quantity Brose [pce.]

Suspect quantity transport [pce.] NOK - quantity transport [pce.]

Suspect quantity supplier [pce.] NOK - quantity supplier [pce.]

Suspect quantity OEM [pce.] NOK - quantity OEM [pce.]

Identification of o.k. delivery (single part, assembly, handling unit, ...)

Index: 100 Page: 3/ 17 (8D-Report) Date saved: 07/15/2024

Root Cause for Occurrence

Is the error reproducible? NEIN If not, perform further analysis.

Root Cause for Non-Detection

Is the error reproducible? NEIN If not, perform further analysis.

Actions against non detection (manual / automatic controls,…)

Index: 100 Page: 4/ 17 (8D-Report) Date saved: 07/15/2024

Check if applicable to similar products / processes (Read-Across)

Update / Rework of project-specific documentation

Index: 100 Page: 5/ 17 (8D-Report) Date saved: 07/15/2024

Index: 100 Page: 6/ 17 (Statistic) Date saved: 07/15/2024

Index: 100 Page: 7/ 17 (Statistic) Date saved: 07/15/2024

(logically could be, but)

Problem specification IS IS NOT Missing Information Distinctions Changes

What is the specific deviation? What other deviations could

Where is the deviation on the Where else could the deviation be

When seen in the

Index: 100 Page: 8/ 17 (Is IsNot) Date saved: 07/15/2024

HOW How discovered

How many affected

What is the size of a single What other size could the

Summary from Is/IsNot:

Index: 100 Page: 9/ 17 (Is IsNot) Date saved: 07/15/2024

Man Machine Machine Man

Mother Nature Method Material Material Method Mother Nature

Index: 100 Page: 10/ 17 (Ishikawa) Date saved: 07/15/2024

Potential causes from the

Index: 100 Page: 11/ 17 (C&E) Date saved: 07/15/2024

Direct reference to the

It is to check whether the fault feature is covered by a test.

Has this test been

Where is the inspection

Index: 100 Page: 12/ 17 (Verify) Date saved: 07/15/2024