8D report example
This is a worked 8D example based on a common manufacturing defect: intermittent surface scratches on a machined aluminium housing shipped to an automotive Tier 1 customer. It shows what each discipline looks like when done properly.
Key takeaways
- Realistic 8Ds have gaps and revisions — that is a feature, not a defect.
- Root cause reproduction is the key evidence a customer looks for.
- System updates (D7) are as important as the corrective action itself.
Report header
- Report ID: 8D-2026-041.
- Customer: Tier 1 automotive; reference PRR-8842.
- Product: machined aluminium housing, PN 42-7118, rev C.
- Incident: intermittent surface scratches on top face; 6 units flagged in customer incoming inspection over 2 weeks.
D1–D3 (team, containment, description)
D1: 5-person team (leader from plant quality, process engineer, tooling engineer, supplier-quality contact, customer interface).
D2: quarantine of all housings shipped in the previous 30 days (both plant + Tier 1 site); 100% visual inspection on the machining line; interim response to customer within 24 hours.
D3: Is — scratches on top face only, second shift only, machining line B. Is-Not — no scratches on other faces, no scratches on line A, no scratches on first or third shift. Defect rate on second shift line B: 0.7% (14 defective out of 1,980 units).
D4 — Root cause
Candidate causes from Ishikawa included fixture wear, tool wear, coolant contamination, operator handling, chip evacuation and part-transfer robot end-effector. Is-Not analysis eliminated tool wear (would affect other faces) and coolant (would affect all shifts).
Reproduction: with a worn end-effector rubber pad reinstalled on the transfer robot, the defect returned within 40 units. With a new pad, defect rate dropped to 0.0%. Root cause: worn rubber pad on second-shift transfer robot, previously replaced ad-hoc rather than on schedule.
Escape cause: pad wear was not on the preventive maintenance schedule and not in the PFMEA detection controls.
D5–D8 — Verification, prevention, closure
D5: pad replaced on all shifts; observation window of 3 weeks / 42,000 units on line B; defect rate on top face: 0.0%. Customer field data: no new complaints.
D6: same replacement rolled out to line A.
D7: PFMEA updated with new failure mode (transfer-robot pad wear); control plan updated with visual pad-condition check every shift; PM schedule updated with 30-day pad replacement.
D8: customer sign-off received on day 26; team recognised in monthly quality review; lessons learned tagged "machining / transfer-robot / surface defect".
Frequently asked questions
- Is this a real 8D?
- It is a composite based on common manufacturing scenarios. The structure and phase depths reflect what customer auditors expect.
- Do all 8Ds have such a clean reproduction step?
- No — reproduction is the gold standard but not always achievable. Where reproduction is not possible, D4 relies on stratified data analysis and designed experiments.
- Where should we store worked examples?
- Lessons-learned index, tagged by product family, process and failure mode. See D8 for details.
Related guides
Replace your 8D template with a structured workspace
Qhubio gives every investigation a repeatable structure — D1 through D8, with linked evidence and a clean report at the end.
