This 8D template provides an 8D format to Bosch suppliers having no other official format available.

ATTENTION: SupplyOn Problem Solver is the official 8D tool for suppliers and to be used by default.
The structure follows the Bosch 8D requirements to the suppliers.
Use of this form does not guarantee 100% correctness or completeness of the 8D report.
PLEASE COMPLETE ALL FIELDS. USE N/A IF NOT APPLICABLE.
Add lines, information and filelds as necessary to completely present your problem solving activities.
Version: 1.1
Issued by: Bosch CP/PQA

8D report
Date: 08.10.2014

Complete all fields. Use n/a if not applicable.

SUPPLIER Add lines, information and fields as necessary to completely present your problem solving activities.

8D started on: 9/26/2024

Attachment
Complaint No.(Q2): Quality Alert Intermediate report: 9/26/2024

No.
Concession No.: Final report:

Header data
Complaint Date: 9/25/2024 Product:
8D-Title: Nok Electrical continuity / Excessive tension cause broken wire Bosch Material No.: 8-750-784-232
Warranty Decision: NA Bosch Production plant: Bosch Aveiro
Complaining Customer: NA Customer Material No.:
Complaint type/mode: NA Serial No.:
Supplier No.: 97143168
Supplier name: FIT Voltaira Morocco Issuer:
Contact Person at Bosch: Santos Filipe (HC/PUQ-A2) Telephone:
Business Address: Bosch Termotecnologia, S.A. | Administração e Instalações Fabris | EN 16 - km 3.7 - Cacia | 3800-533 Aveiro | Telefax:
Email: Departamento Comercial e Assistência
<[email protected]> Técnica | Av. Infante D. Henrique, Lotes 2E e 3E | 1800-220 Lisboa |
PORTUGAL
Contact Person at Supplier: Salwa Lamrabet Telephone: 212 (0)665832309
Business Address: FIT Voltaira Morocco SARL | Tanger Automotive City, Lot n°170, Commune de Jouamaa |Province Fahs Anjra, Tanger Telefax:
Email: – Maroc.
[email protected]
D1 Problem Solving Team
Sponsor Khalil Bezzout Email [email protected] Phone Quality
Team Leader Salwa Lamrabet Email [email protected] Phone Quality
Team Member Aznague, Abdelhakim Email [email protected]
Phone Engineering
Team Member Laouiqel, Zahraa Email [email protected] Quality
Team Member Khalid Temsamani Email [email protected] Phone Technical

D2 Problem Description Bosch Manufacturing Date: 8/29/2018

Bosch description:
Date of Detection 9/25/2024
Location of Detection Parts has been detected at Bosch Aveiro during assembly
Quantity Complained 15 pcs Batch No. Production date of wire harness: from 24/08/08 till 06/09/2024
Quantity Delivered 997 pcs
Quantity Returned Not returned yet
Date of Part Return (leaving Bosc TBD
Problem description:
NOK Electrical continuity
Excessive tension caused broken wire
Failure effect at
Bosch:
Part has been failed in EOL tester

Failure effect at OEM (car maker; 0 km):

NA , part didnt pass Bosch process

Failure effect on final customer (field):

NA , part didnt pass Bosch process

Supplier description:
What exactly is the problem?
Bad insertion caused NOK Electrical continuity
Excessive tension caused broken wire
Where exactly is the problem observed? / Geographical, in the process, on the object (from analysis), etc./
Bosch Aveiro plant

When exactly did the problem occur?

The problem was detected during customer production at 25.09.2024

How often does the problem occur?

First occurence

What is the problem history? / First occurrence, trend, repeat complaint etc./
First occurrence

Other Bosch Parts potentially affected? No If yes, please specify NA

Other Bosch Plants potentially affected? Yes If yes, please specify TBD

Preliminary Risk Assessment

9/26/2024
End of D2:
D3 Containment actions

Containment actions
Quantity
Introduced Control Effective- Quantity
No. Part number Where Action Responsible Effective from blocked Quantity checked TOTAL
on Method ness [%] NOK parts
TOTAL
FVMA Inform all department about the claim S.LAMRABET 9/25/2024 9/25/2024 - 100%

1.

FVMA Sensitize all operators about this issue Laouiqel, Zahraa 9/25/2024 9/25/2024 - 100%

2.

FVMA Create a PIQ and displayed in concerned Laouiqel, Zahraa 9/25/2024 9/25/2024 - 100%
station
3

FVMA Sort all the parts availabe in FVMA Laouiqel, Zahraa 9/25/2024 9/25/2024 Visual control 100%
Green label was sticked in all cotrolled
boxes==> ( Firewall action) 8-750-784-232 : 210 pieces
at FVMA
4 8-750-784-232 : 264 in
transit

FVMA Process verification made : Salwa / Abdelhakim 9/25/2024 9/25/2024 100%

1-Break wire and pass it in electrical
board ==> Result part did not pass
electrical board
2-Measure affected wire and see if the
length is in nominal or min to see if wire
are to stressed
3-Check which scenario is better for
5
assembly which can have low risk on
having tension : brown on black or black
on brown
4-Mark next to Q1 with green Dot .
evidence as part has been controlled

Labeling after complaint / Acc. to specific request applicable to this complaint. How? Which shipments? /
Green label was done for controlled shipment

Are all affected areas and departments informed? /If yes, please specify. If no, why not?/
Yes, communication of the claim was done

Description of Firewall (until verification of actions in D6) /refer to the list of containment actions above/
Picture of the defect was added in the PIQ ( Important Point of quality) and shared with all concerned processes in the production
100% control made in extracontrol .

Agreement of the customer on process or product-changing containment actions. Date: 9/26/2024 Responsible: S.LAMRABET

D4 Root Cause Analysis

OCCURRENCE
Root causes: Why could the non-conformity occur?
Responsible verification: Verific. completed on:
Technical Root Cause x (TRCx):
Managerial Root Cause x (MRCx): Responsible verification: Verific. completed on:

NON DETECTION
Root causes: Why has the non-conformity not been detected?
Responsible verification: Verific. completed on:
Technical Root Cause y (TRCy):
Responsible verification: Verific. completed on:
Managerial Root Cause y (MRCy):

Causing Process: /Explanation of the causing process. /

In case of BLD (Baseline Defectiveness; e.g. blowholes or cavities for casting parts or defect density in semiconductor manufacturing):
Occurrence: Does the analysis prove that no other root cause can be linked and that the failure rate is coherent with baseline? /YES or NO/
If no, Please specify:
Detection: Proof that the test coverage is sufficient. /YES or NO/
If no, Please specify:
Responsible Verification: Date:

Reproduction of the defect possible?

If yes, Result:

If no, Why not:

Responsible: completed on:

Expected effects/Risk assessment (Probability):

Risk analysis: /A risk estimation regarding further affected parts has to be performed, based on the available data; probability of occurrence, probability of detection/

Production period affected from: to: Responsible: completed on:

Expected number of further non-conformities: 0

D5 Corrective actions and proof of effectiveness:

Actions against root causes (in D4):

Estimated effectiveness [%]: effective from:

TRCx:
MRCx: Estimated effectiveness [%]: effective from:
Estimated effectiveness [%]: effective from:

TRCy:
Estimated effectiveness [%]: effective from:

MRCy:
Responsible: completed on:

D6 Introduction of corrective actions and tracking of effectiveness

Customer agreement on: by:

Actions against:
Effectiveness [%] Responsible:

TRCx:
5/17/2019 introduced on: effective from:
Planned introduction on:

Effectiveness [%] Responsible:

TRCx:
introduced on: effective from:
Planned introduction on:

Effectiveness [%] Responsible:

MRCx:
introduced on: effective from:
Planned introduction on:

Effectiveness [%] Responsible:

TRCy:
introduced on: effective from:

Planned introduction on:

Effectiveness [%] Responsible:

MRCy:
introduced on: effective from:

Planned introduction on:

Responsible: completed on:

Removal of containment actions:

Responsible: removed on:

D7 Prevention of recurrence of the non-conformity

Update of documentation (FMEA, directives, PQP, drawing, ...):

Responsible: due date: completed on:

Lessons Learned transfer to other Processes, Products, Plants

Could the root cause affect other processes, products or sites?
If yes: Which other processes, products or sites may be concerned?
If yes: Which departments do you inform (e.g. Lessons Learned Coordinators)?
If no: Why don't you expect other processes, products or plants to be concerned?

D8 Final Meeting
Participants:
Accomplished on:
Results:

Signatures

Plant manager: Name: Date: Signature:

Sponsor: Name: Date: Signature:

Team Leader: Name: Date: Signature:

 Failure Visualization sheet

8D Title Nok Electrical continuity / Excessive tension cause broken wire Complaint No. NA

Bosch Part / 8-750-784-232 Date 26.09.2024

Version N

Picture
NOK part

Specific requirement: Actual value (non conformity):

Good insertion inside connector Bad insertion

Not stretched wire Broken cables
 Ishikawa

8D Title Nok Electrical continuity / Excessive tension cause broken wire Complaint No. NA

Bosch Part 8-750-784-232 Date September 26, 2024

Version

1. man 1. machine 1. measurement

1,1 Bent down terminal was created during the

insertion of terminal on metallic parts in ceramic 2,1 Terminal was damaged during the crimping process …
assembly workstation

2,2 New mobile device ( Levier) to gather the terminal

during ceramic assembly damaged the the terminal

Measurement
1,2 Bent locking lance due to the hand 2,3 Worn out mobile device ( Levier) to gather the
influence on the ceramic assembly terminal during cerami cassembly damaged the terminal

Machine
Man
2,4 Terminal not inserted inside the ceramic

2,5 Adjustment of checking window is not detecting

small variation

2,6 interferance between the locking lance and the

ceramic during insertion

2,7 Pressure B variation below the limit on the ceramic

assembly workstation

Not correctly
locked crimp
contact
4. environment 5. material 6 method

4.1 Bent locking lance due to the influence of

Bent terminal received from supplier Handling between process using trolley can lead to damage the terminals
spool paper
Environment

4.2 Bent locking lance due to the influence of

Terminal contact not inserted straight inside holders

Material

Method
gloves

Twisted terminals during ceramic assembly

Verification method on Vision system is creating Black abrasion on terminal
on the ceramic cavity

Please specify:

Relevancy for
consideration
Ishikawa (relevant for futher root
No. Ishikawa Category Cause Item Description cause analysis, Reason for excluding
(Possible Cause) or
to be excluded from
analysis)

Check the defect simulation,

manipulation with big handling and
normal handling if the terminal is not
Bent down terminal was created during the locked on the ceramic the failure is
1.1 Man Excluded Cause insertion of terminal on metallic parts in Excluded detected.
ceramic assembly workstation Normal handling dur to touching teh
terminal by hands is not affecting the
bent level of terminal. The material of
terminal is too hard.

Check the trial presentation : Results of

trial numb 9
Bent locking lance due to the hand influence
1.2 Man Excluded Cause Excluded The trial 9 shows that the terminal
on the ceramic assembly
locking lance height behavior can been
negligated

During crimping operation the terminal

don't get in contact with the crimping
Terminal was damaged during the crimping
2.1 Machine Excluded Cause Excluded machine no risk to have bent terminal
prossess
inside for this part

Based on Maintenance intervention

Terminal guide assembly can damaged the
2.2 Machine Excluded Cause Excluded register, terminal guide assembly was
terminal during ceramic assembly
OK

Worn out part will not touch the terminal

so its not possible to create any bent
inside terminal that can lead to incorrrect
Worn out terminal guide assembly to gather
insertion.
2.3 Machine Excluded Cause the terminal during cerami cassembly Excluded
The defective part shows a trace of
damaged the terminal
terminal engagement so the terminal
was locked on the ceramic before the
detection of failure at customer OEM

The defective part shows a trace of

terminal engagement so the terminal
2.4 Machine Excluded Cause Terminal not inserted inside the ceramic Excluded
was locked on the ceramic before the
detection of failure at customer OEM

Camera insepction window was set up to

2.5 Machine Possible cause Relevant
detect complete and not engaged terminals

interferance between the locking lance and

2.6 Machine Possible cause Relevant
the ceramic during insertion

Check the trial presentation : Results of

trial numb 7
Pressure B variation below the limit on the
2.7 Machine Excluded Cause Excluded
ceramic assembly workstation All the simulated cases were detected
on the process ( Ceramic assembly and
Vision Test System )

Check the trial presentation : Results of

Bent locking lance due to the influence of trial numb 8
4.1 Environement Excluded Cause Excluded
spool paper The influence of paper spool can not
create bent locking lance

Check the trial presentation : Results of

trial numb 10
Bent locking lance due to the influence of
4.2 Environement Excluded Cause Excluded The height of locking lance is sometimes
gloves
increasing or decreasing after gloves
manipulation
 Delivery note of contact used is 218124-
52.
Records checked for inspection records
5 Material Excluded Cause Bent terminal received from supplier Excluded
no deviation found.
According to supplier no deviation found
during batch production

During the trolley ised between crimping

and ceramic assembly the terminals can
Handling between process using trolley can get stick together during handling but
6 Methode Excluded Cause Excluded
lead to damage the terminals this can create bent terminal from
outside not inside. That’s why the
rootcause is rejected
 Simulation made taking inconsideration
Terminal contact not inserted straight inside different wires color shows that the parts
7 Methode Excluded Cause Excluded
holders are OK. (27 bad insertions)

8 Methode Excluded Cause Twisted terminal before ceramic insertion Excluded Check results of trial num 6

Borderline dummies were evaluated as OK

9 Methode Possible cause Relevant
parts
 5 Why Form

8D Title Nok Electrical continuity / Excessive tension cause broken wire Complaint No. Quality Alert

Bosch Part / 8-750-784-232 Date 27,03,19

Version

The problem with which

Root Causes
the 5Why question chain 1st Why? 2nd Why? 3rd Why? 4th Why? 5th Why? …. … (TRC, MRC)
Measures (R, D)
is started

1) Why did it Not correctly locked crimp contact Q: Why was the contact was not Q: Why The terminal was inserted in TRC : Combination of Material TRC :
correctly locked ? borderline condition? tolerance influence and tooling of Improve the Terminal holder and the End stop
happen? A: The terminal was inserted in A: Combination of Material tolerance assembly station designs to reduce the material tolerance influence
(Why did the boredrline condition influence and tooling of assembly ( stackups ) of terminal and contact holder during
station ( TRC) the assembly process
manufacturing
process not prevent
the incident? )

2) Why wasn't it Not correctly locked crimp contact Q: Why was the contact was not Q: Why Camera insepction window TRC:Camera inspection was only set for TRC:
correctly locked ° was set up to detect complete and not engaged and not engaged terminals 1- Camera adjustement was made Jaoud 22/03/19
detected? A:Camera insepction window was set engaged terminals MRC:Borderline are not defined 2- Creation of dummy 0,5 Abdessamad 25/03/19
(Why did the quality up to detect complete and not engaged A: Borderline area not defined internally internally 3-MSA done for vision test Fatima 27/03/19
terminals ( MRC) MRC:
process not detect the 1-Internal definition of borderline : 0,5 was
incident?) choosen based on comparaison with failure part
0,4 Team 12/03/2019
During Mrs Mayer visit the dummies were not
correctly detectd by vision test and following
actions were implemented:
1-Create new dummies with 0,5 mm
2- Upgrade the vision test program 03.04.19
jaouad
3- Perform MSA for vision test 03.04.19
4- Check with US colleagues the possibility of
more trials

21/05/2019 :
TRC : 1.Implementation of new inspection tool to
the vision program (Edge tool) _ Prettl 17/05/2017
MRC : 2. Define new borderline engagement
terminal dimension of 0.6mm _ Prettl 17/05/2017

Q: Why was the contact was not Q: Why Borderline dummies were Q: Why locking lance changed position Q: Why the locking lance position TRC 1 : The locking lance position will
detected as NOK part ? evaluated as OK parts A: the locking lance position will change after repeated usage of change after repeated usage of TRC1 :
A: Borderline dummies were evaluated A: Locking lance changed position change after repeated usage of dummies dummies Implement new preparation method of verification
as OK parts dummies A: Terminals tolerances , terminal TRC 2 : Terminals tolerances , terminal parts (dummies) to reduce terminal movement _
have space where to move inside the have space where to move inside the Prettl 17/05/2017
ceramic ( TRC) ceramic TRC2 : No actions possible from Prettl side

Q: Why-Question, A: Answer, TRC: Technical Root Cause, MRC: Managerial Root Cause, R: Responsible Person, D: Deadline.
8D evaluation checklist
8D Title Nok Electrical continuity / Excessive tension cause broken wire

Complaint
Quality Alert
No.

Bosch Part / 8-750-784-232

Date

Version

done by

Completed Requirements Comments

Please select: waf2abt:
Yes N/A No Nature of what happened.
BASIC: (4 points) --> What exactly is the problem?
Quantitative and precise problem description (Bosch, supplier) based on collection of facts.
waf2abt:
- Object with defect
D2 Problem Description

Answers to questions: Location

(Supplier,where
plant,the incidentapplication)
customer, occurred.
x What
x Where --> Where
-waf2abt:
Defect onexactly
the partis the problem
x When observed?
(from
Time analysis)
of the incident.
waf2abt:
x How many parts affected / How much --> When
Scale exactly
of the is the problem observed?
incident:
- geographical is the object with defect
x NOK and OK pictures available. --> How much/many is/are affected? How
observed
- whenexactly
often at first,does the problem occur?
EXCELLENT: (additional 1 point)
x Effect at Bosch plant. --- when
in process
againis
how many
failure repetition,
(trend,
objects
observed? rythm of
show the failure
x Effect at OEM. occurence)
- on the object is the observed
x Effect on final customer. -(from
how analysis)
much at the object is affected
- when in the life cycle of the object
- how many defects at the object
BASIC: (1 points)
D3 Containment Actions

x Containment actions are clearly described and in time. - tendancy, trend

x Containment actions for current production in effect
x Containment actions adequate to defect mode.
x Sorting results given.
x Responsibility and implementation date given.
x Whole supply chain covered.
x All relevant customers (int./ext.) informed; if necessary authorities notified.
EXCELLENT: (additional 1 point)
x Proof of efficiency of containment action.

BASIC: (4 points)
Occurence
D4_a Root

x TRC and MRC (Management System) systematically analyzed.

Cause

x Risk assessment is available.

EXCELLENT: (additional 2 points)
x MRC (leadership and/or business process) analyzed.

BASIC: (4 points)
D4-b Root

detection
Cause

x TRC and MRC (Management System) systematically analyzed

Non

EXCELLENT: (additional 2 points)

x MRC (leadership and/or business process) analyzed

BASIC: (2 points)
D5/D6-a Corrective Action

x Defined corrective actions covering all TRC and MRC of D4_a

x Effectiveness for all corrective actions is given.
x Responsibilities and implementation dates defined.
Occurence

x Reason for withdrawal of containment actions is documented.

EXCELLENT: (additional 1 point)
Effectiveness is assessed and evaluated with regard to risks on other product /processes. A
x protection, e.g. through Poka Yoke could be introduced.
The MRC in the business processes and/or leadership are found and corrective actions
x effectively introduced.

BASIC: (2 points)
D5/D6-b Corrective

x Defined corrective actions covering all TRC and MRC of D4_b

Non detection

x Effectiveness for all corrective actions is given.

x Responsibilities and implementation dates defined.
Action

EXCELLENT: (additional 1 point)

The MRC in the business processes and/or leadership are found and corrective actions
x effectively introduced.
x Plan for monitoring effectiveness provided. Redundant tests/controls have been stopped.

BASIC: (2 points)
Preventative

x Update of documents (FMEA, CP, PQP, directives, drawing etc. If necessary ECR).
Actions
D7

x Lessons learned (LL) transfer to all relevant products, processes and plants.
EXCELLENT: (additional 1 point)
x Feedback from LL network documented.

BASIC: (1 point)
x Signatures from 8D sponsor, team leader and QM represantative.
D8 Final
Meeting

EXCELLENT: (additional 1 point)

x Team review of 8D process.
x Signatures of plant or division manager.
x 8D self-evaluation.
points %
0 0 Final Score
 x

8D evaluation sheet Q2 Notification No. Quality Alert

###

Part/ Nok Electrical continuity / ###

Supplier/production site FIT Voltaira Morocco / 8-750-784-232 Part Number 8D Title Excessive tension cause broken###
wire
Defect Type or
Affected Bosch Plant Bosch Aveiro Code Date

8D STEP NOT SATISFYING BASIC LEVEL EXCELLENT SUM REMARKS

Fundamental (real) problem, occurrence and effects

D2 Empty or only symptom description, data are described comprehensibly and unambiguously Additional information with regard to interface and
Problem collection is missing. x (including detailed quantitative data: what, where, effect at customer are available. 4 / 5
description [0 P] when, how much, who, …). [+1 P]
[4 P]

Containment actions are described clearly and

D3 Arbitrary or incomplete containment action Efficiency is quantitatively assessed
introduced
Containment (not concrete, no deadline).
(Deadlines and responsible are defined).
x (for example in %) 2 / 2
actions [0 P] [1 P]
[1 P]

Technical Root Cause (TRC) and Managerial Root

D4_a Managerial Root Cause (MRC) in BUSINESS
Only direct causes determined Cause (MRC) in MANAGEMENT-SYSTEM are worked
PROCESS and/or LEADERSHIP, are worked
Cause and Effect
Analysis
(superficial or hypothetical). out. Risk assessment (including effect on other x out. Use of Problem Solving Methods is proven.
6 / 6
(Occurrence) [0 P] products / processes) is defined.
[+2 P]
[4 P]

Technical Root Cause (TRC) and Managerial Root

D4_b Managerial Root Cause (MRC) in BUSINESS
Only direct causes determined Cause (MRC) in MANAGEMENT-SYSTEM are worked
PROCESS and/or LEADERSHIP, are worked
Cause and Effect
Analysis
(superficial or hypothetical). out. Risk assessment (including effect on other x out. Use of Problem Solving Methods is proven.
6 / 6
(Non-detection) [0 P] products / processes) is defined.
[+2 P]
[4 P]

Arbitrary corrective actions Corrective actions cover completely all root causes
All MRC (in BUSINESS PROCESSES and/or
D5/D6_a (not concrete, unclear link to root cause, no (TRC and MRC in MANAGEMENT SYSTEM) from D4
LEADERSHIP) from D4 are solved and
Corrective Actions deadline / responsible). and are documented. x documented
3 / 3
(Occurrence) Efficiency not proven. Efficiency is proven.
[+1 P]
[0 P] [2 P]

Arbitrary corrective actions Corrective actions cover completely all root causes No more action needed for TRC as occurrence
D5/D6_b (not concrete, unclear link to root cause, no (TRC and MRC in MANAGEMENT SYSTEM) from D4 completely prevented. All MRC (in BUSINESS
Corrective Actions deadline / responsible). x and are documented. PROCESSES and/or LEADERSHIP) from D4 are 2 / 3
(Non-detection) Efficiency not proven. Efficiency is proven. solved and documented
[0 P] [2 P] [+1 P]

QM-Documentation updated. Comprehensible

Feedbacks / evaluations from LL-Network are
D7 Missing or unclear indication. Lessons Learned was started on all concerned
Preventive Actions [0 P]
x products, processes and locations.
available. 2 / 3
[+1 P]
[2 P]

Signatures from Team leader, Review by Sponsor with all team members done
D8 Missing signature or only by initiator. Sponsor (Department manager level) available. For and documented. Signatures from Plant-, BU-
Final Meeting [0 P]
x external 8D also -/QMM. Management available.
1 / 2
[1 P] [+1 P]

Overall comment

Date : evaluated by: Signature 26 / 30

score % 87 / 100
7/12/16 Aleksandar Donev Yes No
Evaluation done with witness on
the spot and/or training on the x
job

CP/PQA | 05.07.2012 | © Robert Bosch GmbH 2012. All rights reseved, also regarding any disposal, exploitation, reproduction, editing, distribution, as well as in the event of applications for industrial property rights.
8D Step Description of requirements

D2 Problem Description
Key question: Has the fundamental (real) problem been identified and
understood?

Requirement for ‘BASIC level’ Examples

· The problem has been quantitatively and · Pareto analysis concerning all customers
clearly identified from customer’s and built up over time.
supplier's view. It includes facts, figures and Number of rejected parts corresponding to
dates, usually listed under: what, where, production period.
when, how much, who. Flow charts, trend charts, sketches, photos,
drawings.

· The whole environment should be taken · Specific events that occurred (shift
into account as far as possible. change or maintenance/setting in
manufacturing), changes in the environment
(seasonal climate variations, change in project
teams, …)
· Evidence is provided for description and
simplification of the problem analysis.

· The Problem description is the input for

efficient Problem Solving.

Requirement for ‘Excellent’ Examples

· Additional information regarding · History chart, accumulation of facts,
interfaces and impact on customer is situation/problem analysis according to
provided. Kepner-Tregoe, BASIC conditions, description
of problem in assembly or vehicle.

· All parameters which allow the

reproduction of the defect are available.
· Preliminary risk assessment is available. · Effect on end customer (loss of some
functions, complete product break down…).

D3 Containment Actions
Key question: Has the customer Bosch been protected from using defective
products?

Requirement for ‘BASIC level’ Examples

· The containment actions ensure that
there are no defective products received by, Customers to be informed are for example:
delivered to or used by the customer.

· The necessary customer information · Production (follow-up shifts, other

(internal / external) has been processed and production lines/ plants)
required notifications to authorities done.
· Warehouses (Bosch, Logistic Service
Provider, Transit)
· Original Equipment Manufacturer and AA,
· End Customer
· Measures are effectively implemented and
Containment actions are, for example:
evidence is given
· sorting actions or warehouse blocking,
· build up for firewalls,
· fast design review by development,
· statistical analysis (Plant, 0 km, field),
· start of endurance test or HALT (Highly
Accelerated Lifetime Test),
· …
· If no containment action can be
implemented, then the decision process must
be transparently depicted.

Requirement for ‘Excellent’ Examples

Effectiveness of containment actions must be Efficiency check by sorting of product lots with
documented. Evidence for the efficiency known defect rate, confirmation of the stability of
evaluation has to be supplied. this check over time (especially shift end in case
Not all containment actions ensure a 100% of human visual control…). Multiple checking of
filtering, in such cases the evaluation of the same lots…
efficiency is to been fed into the risk assessment.

CP/PQA | 05.07.2012 | © Robert Bosch GmbH 2012. All rights reseved, also regarding any disposal, exploitation, reproduction, editing, distribution,
as well as in the event of applications for industrial property rights.
D4 Cause and Effect Analysis
Key question:
- Has the Root Cause been established?
- Why did our processes not identify the defective part?

Requirement for ‘BASIC level’ Examples

· The Technical Root Cause (TRC) and the · Reproduction of the incident can be
Managerial Root Cause (MRC) in the validated, for example through simulation or
Management-System, in reference to all testing (errors can be switched on and off).
facts compiled in D2, is fully established, Non-detection can be validated with, for
validated and reproducible. example, a test setup.

· The root cause was efficiently worked out · The MRC is clarified in regard to the
thanks to the use of methodical quality tools. management system and the way it is used
on daily base (quality of FMEA, Control Plan,
use of design rules and norms, product and
process release…).

· Using a cause-effect diagram (Ishikawa)

and a deep dive Why-Why-question (5xWhy,
Naze Naze) technique. If needed or useful, use
Fault Tree Analysis (FTA), Shainin, Six Sigma,
process analysis etc… The focus is not only
set on how deep and precise the tools were
used, but also how understandably it was
explained. This explanation shall give the
evidence that the root cause was found.

· In case of defect types that cannot be

erased completely, but are approved of in a
specified extent (like sinkholes for casting
parts or defect density in semiconductor
manufacturing), the analysis proves that no
other root cause can be linked and that the
defect rate of a certain defect type is no
higher than the approved threshold.

· The non-detection was clearly addressed · Check if the defect was latent and could
and understood. have been activated internally, or if external
parameters are needed especially in regard to
customer interface. Review if the test
coverage is sufficient.
· A risk assessment provided. · The risk assessment includes the severity
of the problem, the probability of occurring
and detction, and an estimation of the
potential extent of loss.

Requirement for ‘Excellent’ Examples

· The complete MRC (including Business · The focus is set on the business
processes and Leadership) was worked processes (for example how the use of a
out. preventive quality tool or design rules is
· The causal relationship between problem, defined or regulated), as well as on the
TRC and MRC is transparently depicted. leadership (how the organization was set up,
tasks and responsibilities defined and how
competences and capacities were managed,
how decisions were taken).

· The evidence of the use of methodical

tools is proven by submitting the analysis
process as well as the results.

D5/ D6 Corrective Actions

Key questions:
- Is the problem eradicated?
- Can the problem be detected with certainty?
Requirement for ‘BASIC level’ Examples
· The corrective actions define and fully
cover the causes listed in D4. They are · Photos, sketches, Tests, simulations,…
documented.
· Evidence of effectiveness of corrective · QAM/Firewalls do not catch defective
actions taken is provided before immediate parts anymore after implementation of
measures are withdrawn. corrective actions.

· Responsible persons are designated and · In case of defect types that cannot be
dates set. Reason for withdrawal of erased completely, but are approved of in a
containment actions is documented. specified extent (like sinkholes for casting
parts or defect density in semiconductor
manufacturing), a specific action on a
singular event is not requested, if defect rate
reduction measures are defined and
monitored.
Requirement for ‘Excellent’ Examples
· A theoretical representation of the
Occurrence: changed process sequence is possible using a
flow chart.
· Effectiveness is assessed and evaluated · Procedure or design rule were revised (for
with regard to risks on other products / example how to define, release and control
processes. A protection via Poka Yoke could the use of a product or process design rule,
be introduced. how to define a maintenance interval, how to
define validation test). Or if the organization
was changed (new responsibility split, clarified
interfaces,…), or competences/capacity was
adapted.

· The MRC in the business processes and/or · The decision taking process can also be
Leadership is fixed. changed (rules for strategic override,
management release,…).

Detection: · e.g. “Check the Checker”

· Plan for monitoring effectiveness · While protecting the manufacturing flow
provided. Tests / controls which have become via Poka Yoke, it must be assessed whether
redundant by introduction of Poka Yoke have test or controls have become redundant (for
been stopped. example visual check by operator, sensor
control, ….), in such cases the detecting
process could be suspended.

CP/PQA | 05.07.2012 | © Robert Bosch GmbH 2012. All rights reseved, also regarding any disposal, exploitation, reproduction, editing, distribution,
as well as in the event of applications for industrial property rights.
D7 Preventive Actions
Key question: Is the problem eradicated (even somewhere else)?
Requirement for ‘BASIC level’ Examples
· The defect is prevented from occurring · Failure Mode and Effect Analysis (FMEA),
elsewhere by transferring findings to related Fault Tree Analysis (FTA), “Control Plan”,
products / processes / locations. drawings, development / design guidelines,
test plans. Updating of work instructions or
process descriptions is proven. ECR necessary
(e.g. tool modification)?

· Document changes (ie. FMEA, control

plan, drawings…) must be described in detail.

Requirement for ‘Excellent’ Examples

· The findings are transferred to ALL · New knowledge should be readily stored
relevant products / processes / locations using in a Lessons Learned database.
the Lessons Learned Network and
confirmation / evaluation from LL Network is
provided.
· Change / adjustment of products /
processes inareas not directly affected.

· The application of Lessons Learned should

be checked on a regular basis (e.g. by audits).

D8 Final Meeting
Requirement for ‘BASIC level’ Examples
· Signatures from team leaders, sponsors are
provided (department manager level). The -/QMM
signature has to be added in case of 8D linked to
external (customer) complaint.

Requirement for ‘Excellent’ Examples

· The discussion / debriefing and evaluation · Conclusion of Problem-Solving with
of the 8D steps is complete. consent from participants and, if necessary
from customer. Analysis of teamwork and 8D
· Signatures from plant- and BU- process is documented.
management are provided.

CP/PQA | 05.07.2012 | © Robert Bosch GmbH 2012. All rights reseved, also regarding any disposal, exploitation, reproduction, editing, distribution,
as well as in the event of applications for industrial property rights.