Agent-Skills.md

Agent Skills: 8D Problem Solving Skill

Structured 8D problem solving for customer complaints and quality issues. D0-D8 phases with containment, root cause analysis, and escape point identification. USE WHEN user says '8D', 'eight disciplines', 'customer complaint', 'corrective action', 'root cause analysis', 'containment', 'escape point', or 'problem solving report'.

UncategorizedID: robdtaylor/personal-ai-infrastructure/Eightd

Install this agent skill to your local

pnpm dlx add-skill https://github.com/robdtaylor/personal-ai-infrastructure/tree/HEAD/skills/Eightd

Skill Files

Browse the full folder contents for Eightd.

Download Skill

Loading file tree…

skills/Eightd/SKILL.md

Skill Metadata

Name
Eightd
Description
Structured 8D problem solving for customer complaints and quality issues. D0-D8 phases with containment, root cause analysis, and escape point identification. USE WHEN user says '8D', 'eight disciplines', 'customer complaint', 'corrective action', 'root cause analysis', 'containment', 'escape point', or 'problem solving report'.

8D Problem Solving Skill

Overview

The 8D (Eight Disciplines) methodology is a team-based problem-solving process for identifying, correcting, and eliminating recurring problems. Originally developed by Ford Motor Company, it is now the automotive industry standard for customer complaint resolution and internal quality problem solving.

Skill Integration

| Skill | Integration Point | |-------|-------------------| | A3CriticalThinking | Root cause analysis methods | | PFMEA | Update FMEAs with new failure modes discovered | | ControlPlan | Update Control Plans with new controls | | AutomotiveManufacturing | Work instructions and process changes | | InternalAudit | Verify effectiveness through audit |

8D Phase Overview

| Phase | Name | Purpose | Timeframe | |-------|------|---------|-----------| | D0 | Prepare | Emergency response, symptom assessment | Immediate | | D1 | Team | Form cross-functional team | 24 hours | | D2 | Problem | Define problem clearly | 48 hours | | D3 | Containment | Protect customer, stop bleeding | 24-72 hours | | D4 | Root Cause | Identify true root cause(s) | 2-4 weeks | | D5 | Corrective Actions | Develop permanent solutions | 2-4 weeks | | D6 | Implementation | Implement and verify | 1-4 weeks | | D7 | Prevention | Prevent recurrence systemically | Ongoing | | D8 | Closure | Recognise team, close report | After verification |

D0: Prepare for the 8D Process

Emergency Response Actions (ERA)

Before formal 8D begins, immediate actions to protect:

  1. Customer Protection

    • Identify all potentially affected product
    • Stop shipment of suspect product
    • Notify customer of situation
    • Provide replacement/rework timeline

  2. Symptom Assessment

    • What is the symptom?
    • When was it first detected?
    • How much product is affected?
    • Is this a safety/regulatory issue?

  3. **8D Trigger Criteria

| Trigger | 8D Required? | |---------|--------------| | Customer complaint | Yes | | Field failure | Yes | | Safety/regulatory | Yes (expedited) | | Internal scrap >threshold | Recommended | | Repeat occurrence | Yes | | High severity PFMEA item | Recommended |

D0 Outputs

  • Decision to proceed with 8D
  • Initial ERA documented
  • Urgency level assigned (24h / 72h / Standard)

D1: Establish the Team

Team Composition

| Role | Responsibility | Required? | |------|---------------|-----------| | Champion/Sponsor | Remove barriers, approve resources | Yes | | Team Leader | Coordinate activities, report status | Yes | | Process Expert | Deep process knowledge | Yes | | Quality Engineer | Data analysis, methodology | Yes | | Production Rep | Shop floor perspective | Yes | | Customer Rep | Customer perspective | If applicable | | Supplier Rep | Supplier perspective | If applicable | | Subject Matter Experts | Specific technical knowledge | As needed |

Team Size

  • Ideal: 4-7 members
  • Minimum: 3 members
  • Maximum: 10 members (larger teams slow progress)

D1 Outputs

  • Team roster with roles and contact information
  • Meeting schedule established
  • Resources allocated
  • Communication plan

D2: Describe the Problem

Problem Description Techniques

5W2H Analysis:

| Question | Answer | |----------|--------| | What is the problem? | Specific defect/symptom | | Where was it found? | Location (customer, inspection, operation) | | When was it found? | Date, time, shift, production lot | | Who found it? | Person, inspection method | | Why is it a problem? | Impact to customer/function | | How many are affected? | Quantity, frequency, trend | | How was it detected? | Detection method used |

IS / IS NOT Analysis:

| Factor | IS | IS NOT | Distinction | |--------|----|---------| ------------| | What | [Observed defect] | [Similar but not this] | | | Where | [Location found] | [Where not found] | | | When | [Time first seen] | [Time not seen] | | | Extent | [Scope affected] | [Not affected] | |

Problem Statement Format

Good problem statement:

"Outer diameter of part #12345 measures 25.08-25.12mm (spec: 25.00 ±0.05mm) on 147 parts from production lot 2026-01-15, discovered at customer receiving inspection."

Bad problem statement:

"Parts are out of spec" (too vague)

D2 Outputs

  • Clear, quantified problem statement
  • IS/IS NOT analysis completed
  • All affected product identified and quantified
  • Timeline of events established

D3: Interim Containment Actions (ICA)

Containment Scope

| Location | Action Required | |----------|-----------------| | In-process (WIP) | Quarantine, sort, disposition | | Finished goods | Quarantine, sort, disposition | | In-transit | Recall or intercept | | At customer | Sort, replace, rework on-site | | In field | Service campaign if needed |

Containment Actions

  1. Sort - 100% inspection to separate good/bad
  2. Hold - Quarantine suspect product
  3. Replace - Provide conforming product
  4. Enhanced inspection - Temporary additional checks
  5. Process change - Temporary parameter adjustment

Containment Verification

Before releasing containment:

  • Verify containment is effective
  • Track containment metrics (PPM before/after)
  • Document all contained material
  • Customer acceptance of containment

Escape Point Analysis

Critical Question: Where should this have been caught?

| Stage | Did we have detection? | Why did it escape? | |-------|----------------------|-------------------| | Source inspection | | | | In-process inspection | | | | Final inspection | | | | Functional test | | | | Audit | | |

D3 Outputs

  • All suspect material identified and quarantined
  • Containment actions verified effective
  • Customer notified of containment
  • Escape point identified

D4: Root Cause Analysis

Root Cause Categories

Occurrence Root Cause: Why did the defect occur?

  • Process, machine, material, method, environment

Detection Root Cause (Escape Point): Why wasn't it caught?

  • Inspection method, frequency, capability, training

Root Cause Analysis Tools

| Tool | Best For | Reference | |------|----------|-----------| | 5-Why | Simple cause chains | reference/root-cause-tools.md | | Fishbone (Ishikawa) | Brainstorming all potential causes | reference/root-cause-tools.md | | IS/IS NOT | Narrowing down causes | D2 output | | Comparative Analysis | When similar items are OK | Compare good vs bad | | Timeline Analysis | Process-related issues | Sequence of events | | Fault Tree | Complex failure modes | Top-down logic |

5-Why Guidelines

| Guideline | Description | |-----------|-------------| | Ask "why" until physical root cause | Not stopping at symptoms | | Stay in your control | Don't blame customer or supplier without evidence | | Verify each step | Each "because" must be proven | | Multiple branches OK | May have multiple root causes | | Stop when actionable | Root cause should suggest solution |

Root Cause Verification

Verification Methods:

| Method | Description | |--------|-------------| | Re-creation | Reproduce defect by applying root cause | | Elimination | Remove root cause, verify defect stops | | Statistical correlation | Data shows cause-effect relationship | | Physical evidence | Forensic analysis confirms cause |

Root cause is verified when:

  • Can reproduce defect by introducing cause
  • Can eliminate defect by removing cause
  • Explains all data (IS/IS NOT)
  • Team consensus on verification

D4 Outputs

  • Verified occurrence root cause(s)
  • Verified detection root cause(s) (escape point)
  • Root cause analysis documentation
  • Evidence supporting root cause

D5: Develop Corrective Actions

Corrective Action Types

| Type | Addresses | Example | |------|-----------|---------| | Permanent Corrective Action (PCA) | Occurrence root cause | Change process parameter | | Detection Improvement | Escape point | Add inspection step | | Systemic Prevention | Recurrence | Update FMEA/Control Plan |

Corrective Action Hierarchy

Prefer higher-order controls:

| Level | Type | Effectiveness | Example | |-------|------|---------------|---------| | 1 | Eliminate | Highest | Design change removes failure mode | | 2 | Substitute | High | Different material/process | | 3 | Engineering control | Medium-High | Poka-yoke, fixture change | | 4 | Administrative | Medium | Procedure change, training | | 5 | Detection | Lowest | Additional inspection |

Corrective Action Criteria

Each corrective action must be:

  • Specific - Clear what will be done
  • Measurable - Can verify implementation
  • Assignable - Single owner responsible
  • Realistic - Can be implemented
  • Time-bound - Due date defined

Risk Assessment

Before implementing corrective actions:

  • Will action introduce new risks?
  • Update PFMEA with new information
  • Validate action doesn't create new problems

D5 Outputs

  • List of corrective actions with owners and dates
  • Risk assessment of each action
  • PFMEA updates identified
  • Control Plan updates identified

D6: Implement and Verify Corrective Actions

Implementation Steps

  1. Plan - Detailed implementation plan
  2. Communicate - Notify all affected parties
  3. Train - Train operators on changes
  4. Execute - Implement changes
  5. Verify - Confirm actions completed
  6. Validate - Confirm actions are effective

Verification vs Validation

| Verification | Validation | |--------------|------------| | Did we implement the action correctly? | Did the action solve the problem? | | Check implementation | Check effectiveness | | Immediate | Over time |

Effectiveness Verification

| Method | Description | Duration | |--------|-------------|----------| | Before/After comparison | Metric improvement | 1-3 months data | | Control chart | Process stability | 25+ subgroups | | Capability study | Cpk improvement | Per standard | | Audit | Process compliance | Scheduled | | Zero defects | No recurrence | 3-6 months |

D6 Outputs

  • All corrective actions implemented
  • Implementation verification completed
  • Effectiveness validation initiated
  • Updated documentation (WI, Control Plan, FMEA)

D7: Prevent Recurrence

Systemic Prevention Actions

| System | Update Required | |--------|-----------------| | PFMEA | Add failure mode, update S/O/D, add controls | | Control Plan | Add/modify inspection, update reaction plan | | Work Instructions | Incorporate process changes | | Training | Update training materials, retrain | | Lessons Learned | Document for future reference | | Similar Products | Apply to similar parts/processes |

Horizontal Deployment

Apply learning across:

  • Similar parts on same equipment
  • Similar processes in other areas
  • Similar failure modes in PFMEA
  • Supplier processes if applicable

D7 Outputs

  • FMEA updated with new failure mode
  • Control Plan updated
  • Work instructions revised
  • Training completed
  • Lessons learned documented
  • Horizontal deployment completed

D8: Recognise Team and Close

Closure Criteria

  • [ ] Root cause verified
  • [ ] All corrective actions implemented
  • [ ] Effectiveness verified (no recurrence period)
  • [ ] FMEA/Control Plan updated
  • [ ] Work instructions updated
  • [ ] Training completed
  • [ ] Customer accepts closure (if customer complaint)
  • [ ] Lessons learned documented

Team Recognition

  • Acknowledge team contribution
  • Share success with organisation
  • Consider formal recognition programme

8D Archive

Retain 8D reports for:

  • Customer-required retention period
  • Minimum 3 years per IATF 16949
  • Accessible for reference and audits

D8 Outputs

  • 8D report complete and approved
  • Customer acceptance (if applicable)
  • Archive in quality records
  • Team recognised

Templates

  • templates/8d-report.md - Full 8D report template

Reference Materials

  • reference/root-cause-tools.md - 5-Why, Fishbone, IS/IS NOT
  • reference/verification-methods.md - How to verify root cause and effectiveness

MNMUK-Specific Guidelines

Response Timeframes

| Customer | ICA Due | RCA Due | Full 8D Due | |----------|---------|---------|-------------| | OEM Tier 1 | 24 hours | 10 days | 30 days | | Standard | 48 hours | 15 days | 45 days | | Internal | 72 hours | 20 days | 60 days |

8D Numbering

Format: 8D-[YYYY]-[SEQ] Example: 8D-2026-001

Approval Authority

| Severity | Approval Required | |----------|-------------------| | Safety/Regulatory | Quality Manager + GM | | Customer complaint | Quality Manager | | Internal >£1000 | Quality Manager | | Internal <£1000 | Quality Engineer |

Quick Reference

# Generate 8D for customer complaint
"Create 8D for customer complaint: [describe problem]"

# Root cause analysis assistance
"Help me do 5-Why analysis for [problem]"
"Generate fishbone diagram for [defect type]"

# Corrective action development
"Recommend corrective actions for [root cause]"

# 8D review
"Review this 8D for completeness"