Case Study

Creative
Lighting
Company
G8D Case Study

Introduction

This case study has been developed to further explain the application of Global 8D Problem Solving
(G8D), in particular it focuses on steps D3 to D7. As a reminder the steps in the G8D process are
defined as: -

D0 Prepare for the Global 8D Process

D1 Establish the Team
D2 Describe the Problem
D3 Develop the Interim Containment Action (ICA)
D4 Define and Verify Root Cause and Escape Point
D5 Implement and Validate Permanent Corrective Actions (PCAs)
for Root Cause and Escape Point
D6 Implement and Validate Permanent Corrective Actions (PCAs)
D7 Prevent Recurrence
D8 Recognise Team and Individual Contributions

This case study will also cover specifically the use of the following tools and methodologies: -

Is/Is Not worksheet

Differences and Changes worksheet
Possible Causes worksheet
Possible Root Causes worksheet
Givens and Wants process
Decision Making worksheet
Verification testing
Validation testing

Background
This case study has been developed around real events at a lighting design and manufacturing
company that we will call The Creative Lighting Company.

The company design and manufacture a range of domestic, utility, industrial and retail lighting
products. They are a relatively small company based in the UK with customers all over Europe.

This case study is used to provide a working example of how the Global 8D problem solving process
has been applied to what appears to be a simple problem in their paint plant.

Scenario
The Creative Lighting Company are making metal lamp shades for the domestic market. These are
fabricated from two spinnings which are press fitted together and then painted using a robotic powder
coat paint plant in several colours (spinning is a process for making cylindrical forms over a pre-shaped
former).

These are then assembled with a lamp holder, metal reflector and mounting arrangement for ceiling
and/or wall mounted application.
2
www.resultsresults.co.uk
G8D Case Study

Some of the blue finished product has a defect, paint runs on the top flat. This has been occurring over
the past few weeks.

Top spinning (mounting flange)

Flat

Lower spinning (reflector and lamp housing)

The paint plant is a powder coating plant. Powder is positively charged through robotically operated
spray guns that are mounted in shuttle booths, one for each colour and one for special colours.

The product is manually hung on the conveyor (that runs continuously) using specially designed hooks.
After each paint run the hooks are dipped in a solution to remove the old paint. The conveyor is
negatively charged to attract the paint and the metal hook serves to provide that electrical connection.

The following diagram gives a schematic of the paint plant area for information.

Paint spray booth

Loading and shuttle system for
unloading area colour change
over

Track for hanging

product for painting,
runs at a set speed
continuously

Drying
Oven

Paint Plant Schematic Diagram

Then Creative Lighting Company had been making this lamp shade design for over 2 years when they
ran into this problem of a paint run on some of the finished product in one particular colour, blue. As
they do not make for stock, only to order for their retail outlet customers, this has an immediate
impact on their ability to meet current demand.

3
www.resultsresults.co.uk
G8D Case Study

After several attempts to resolve the problem themselves the paint plant team call in help from the
Process Engineer. She decides that this requires a more structured approach and employs the G8D
process to ensure they get to root cause and prevent this type of problem occurring again.

The Problem Solving Effort

At this stage the paint plant team have instigated a 100% inspection to remove any faulty blue lamp
shades. This is delaying the change over to the next colour as they are having to paint more blues than
needed to make up for the number being rejected at end of line inspection.

The Process Engineer has been asked the lead the G8D Team in their problem solving efforts and to
ensure that a customer representative is also made available to the team.

The team has been formed and includes members from Quality, paint plant, the Process Engineer,
Maintenance and from assembly (the internal customer).

We join the problem solving effort at D2 Define the Problem.

D2 Define the Problem

The team leader confirmed the purpose of the meeting which was to establish what had been done so
far and to get to a clear problem statement.

The team discussed what had been done so far which included: -

Use a more experienced operator to load the paint line

Increased the drying time by 30 seconds (Speed of conveyor)
100% inspection of primer coated product before finish coat
100% inspection of finished product before moving to packaging ready for transporting to the
assembly area

Based on the facts available to them, the team then developed the problem description starting with
the problem statement what is wrong with what.

Problem Statement: Some of the blue finished product has a defect, paint runs on the top flat. This
is what the G8D Team have been able to establish as a result of their initial investigations.

Having established a clear problem statement, the team now need to develop a problem description.

To do this the team used the Is/Is Not worksheet and completed it as follows.

4
www.resultsresults.co.uk
G8D Case Study

Is/Is Not worksheet

IS IS NOT Data / information
(But could be) needed

What Object Domestic lamp shade On any other colour

finished in blue of domestic lamp

What defect Paint run Blister, low paint

cover, inclusions

Where on object The top flat Anywhere else

Where first seen After top coat applied Before top coat

Where first After the top coat in Any other time

observed the paint plant

Where seen since Only in the paint Anywhere else

plant

When first Three weeks ago Over three weeks

observed ago

What pattern No data Get data from the

since plant

How many 20% of the blue N0 more or no less

affected than

What size No data Get data from the

plant

Defects per No data Get data from the

object plant

Trend Stable Rising or falling

percentage

The team then went and gathered further information from the paint plant and reported that:-

What pattern since? = Random

What size? = 2mm by 15 mm consistently

Defects per object? = One per finished lampshade

The team are now able to develop a problem description for the lamp shade as based upon the
information they were able to establish about the problem

Problem Description: 20% of the blue finished lampshades are consistently rejected for paint runs
on the top flat. Defects are not seen before the finish coat is applied.
5
www.resultsresults.co.uk
G8D Case Study

D3 Develop the Interim Containment Action (ICA)

Having established the Emergency Response Action (ICA) as 100% inspection the team looked into
various options, considering the following: -

Continue 100% inspection loosing 20% of finished blue product

Stop producing the blue product
Get the blue finished by an existing subcontract paint supplier
Rework and recycle all rejects through paint plant
Paint the blue product using a wet backed booth normally used for prototype and development
work

The following was recorded by the team as part of their decision making process:

Possible ERA For Against Rank

Continue 100% inspection loosing 20% No other action Loss of 20% 2
of finished blue product required
Stop producing the blue product Will stop the problem Will lose customers quickly 5

Get the blue finished by an existing Will meet customer Additional cost of 1.50 per 4
subcontract paint supplier need. item gives a loss on all blue
Will buy time to solve sales
the problem.
Rework and recycle all rejects through Additional product Needs to be done on 1
paint plant can be achieved. overtime as plant is at
Keeps the problem capacity right now
in-house
Paint the blue product using a wet Can do all needed Needs skilled labour from 3
backed booth normally used for and any rework of old development dept.
prototype and development work rejects Paint not as heat resistant
as powder coating

Having considered the options the team decided to recommend to rework the blue rejects in overtime
as the labour could be used on all other colours and only needs to be in attendance for the first 20
minutes of the process for loading onto the paint plant as they can be removed by the day shift on the
following day.

D4 Define and Verify Root Cause and Escape Point

The G8D team had 2 meetings to determine possible causes and then to establish the possible root
causes.

Possible Causes: Referring to the Is/Is Not worksheet, the team first used the Differences and
Changes worksheet to record what was different in, on or around the IS when compared to the IS
NOT

E.g. What is different on or around the (is) blue when compared with (is not) the black, white or grey
finished lamp shades?

6
www.resultsresults.co.uk
G8D Case Study

The team established a number of differences and these were recorded on the Differences and
Changes worksheet.

Different paint colour

Different paint thickness specification (heavier coat)

Different paint supplier

Different paint powder coat booth for each colour

Longer hooks used for blue finish

Then we need to ask the question what has changed in, on or around the IS. Something must have
changed or the problem would have always been there. This must be factual so its OK to generate a
question log or ask a team member to go and find out.

A useful tool that can be used to record this information is a time line. A time line is used to record
all events in and around the problem. The team developed their time line having gathered all the
relevant details.

Time Line for Paint Plant

New New paint Plant New electrical

hooks batch cleaned earth installed

Roof leak
New staff New dryer
over plant

15/2 21/2 2/3 11/3 18/3 1/4 12/4

This time line clearly shows events that the team considered relevant to the problem with the blue
lamp shades starting with a new supply of hooks on the 15 th February to the new electrical earth
installation on the 12th April.

This can be added to later in the process as more information and further understanding is achieved.

Having this and previous information the G8D team can now complete the differences and changes
worksheet

The relevant section of this completed worksheet is shown below.

7
www.resultsresults.co.uk
G8D Case Study

G8D Worksheet - Difference and Changes

For each entry in the IS/IS NOT Worksheet, determine the difference between the "IS" and
the "IS NOT". Then determine what has changed in, on or around the IS and record the
date of that change.

Differences Changes Dates

Paint colour, Paint thickness (thicker on the New batch of hooks for all colours, New 15/02/2012
blue), paint supplier different for blue only, staff on paint plant, New batch of 21/02/2012
specific booth for each colour, longer hooks blue paint, 2/03/2012
used for blue paint due to paint thickness New batch of hooks supplied 15/02/12

Lamp shade hangs lower due to longer hooks The longer hooks were introduced with the new 22/12/2011
used to ensure paint thickness application paint specification for blue in late December last
year.

This shows the differences and changes around the problem and is driven from the information
gathered and the entries on the Is/Is Not worksheet.

The team then brainstormed possible causes of (problem description) 20% of the blue finished
lampshades are consistently rejected for paint runs on the top flat. Defects are not seen before the
finish coat is applied.

Possible causes were then brainstormed by the team and they recorded the following:-

Untrained labour

Poor paint quality

Bad connection to earth

Clean-down during maintenance caused excess dirt

Water got into plant after roof leak

Having determined possible causes the team then developed a causal theory for each possible cause
and entered onto the Possible Cause worksheet seen on the next page.

NOTE: again this worksheet aligns with the previous 2 as the process is driven by the differences and
changes around the IS when compared to the IS NOT. Therefore the causal theories are developed
in line also.

8
www.resultsresults.co.uk
G8D Case Study

G8D worksheet - Possible Causes

Develop rounded causal theories for each possible cause. First brainstorm the causes and
develop a rounded statement for each possible cause
A) Untrained labour have hung the lamp shades incorrectly leading to incorrect angle and paint runs
during the curing process

B) Untrained labour touched some of the lamps during hanging. The grease deposited prevented proper
curing of the paint resulting in runs

C) New batch of paint was of poor quality leading to unsatisfactory curing leading to paint runs

D) New hooks not fitting properly causing a poor earth and leading to paint runs due to poor adhesion and
curing properties

E) Hooks for blue paint finish are longer than normal and are not fully immersed during cleaning. This leads
to partial removal of old paint leading to poor earth connection

F) Clean-down during maintenance caused excess dirt in the plant leading to paint defects

NOTE: This only shows the completed section of the worksheet

NEW TEAM MEMBER: having developed the possible cause theories the team decided that they needed
some additional expertise in the team and requested that an engineers from production engineering
and maintenance attended the meeting to help with the next stage of the process.

Establish Possible Root Causes

Using the Possible Root Causes Worksheet the extended team completed the worksheet as detailed
on the following page.

9
www.resultsresults.co.uk
G8D Case Study

G8D Worksheet - Possible Root Causes

For each causal theory determine if the cause fully explains why the problem exists with
the "IS" and not the "IS NOT". Use a PLUS sign (+) to confirm, a "?" if not known and stop
once a no or NEGATIVE sign (-) is entered

A B C D E F G H I J K

N N N Y Y N

Y Y

Y Y

Y Y

Y Y

N Y

NOTE: the possible root causes worksheet has been shrunk for the purposes of this case study.
Normally this would align to the Is/Is Not and other worksheets.

10
www.resultsresults.co.uk
G8D Case Study

The outcome of this exercise showed that possible cause E -Hooks for blue paint finish are longer than
normal and are not fully immersed during cleaning. This leads to partial removal of old paint leading to poor
earth connection to be the most likely cause.

Verify Possible Root Causes

The team reconvened and determined that the verification activity would be carried out in four stages:
-

1. Inspect all the longer hooks in the paint plant and check for paint residue after the cleaning
process
2. Examine the cleaning process to determine if the theory could be proven regarding cleaning
3. Select suspect hooks and run a trial through the paint plant to see if all the blue lamp shades
developed the paint run after curing
4. Use the same hooks fully cleaned to see if the problem was not repeated

This was carried out later that day and the theory was proven and they were able to switch the
problem on and off again.

The G8D Team now had a verified root cause for the problem.

Define and Verify Escape Point

The team discussed with the paint plant the hook cleaning process and agreed that the depth of the
cleaning tank was OK provided that the cleaning fluid was kept topped up. Anything less that 90% full
meant that the longer hooks would not be fully immersed in the cleaning fluid.

The team ran a further experiment to determine how long before the cleaning tank fluid level dropped
below 90% but within the minimum level specified in the Standard Operating Procedure. They
concluded that this would take 6 to 8 working days to get below the 90% and a further 12 days to get
to the minimum level based on current activity levels.

This was determined as the verified escape point.

D5 - Implement and Validate Permanent Corrective Actions

(PCAs) for Root Cause and Escape Point

Having established the verified root cause of the problem and escape point, the team met to discuss
what would be the most effective permanent corrective action and discussed and agreed the following
options: -

1. Design an alternative hook that would fall within the minimum cleaning fluid level
2. Increase the size of the cleaning tank to facilitate the longer hooks
3. Increase the frequency of cleaning tank cleaning and top up
4. Use an alternative cleaning method for the longer hooks (shot blasting or sub-contract cleaning)
5. Use disposable hooks
6. Develop the paint plant (spray booth) to enable the standard hooks to be used on the blue
finish
7. Change the SOP for the cleaning tank to revise the minimum level to 90%

11
www.resultsresults.co.uk
G8D Case Study

Each of these was investigated by the team and other members of the company and the following
was reported back to the team by the team leader and the production engineering department.

Proposed PCA Complexity Time to Cost to Product Disruption to Comments/

implement implement on-cost production concerns
(Days) () ()
1. Alternative hook H 20 25 100 Nil None Concerns over
design paint finish
thickness
2. Larger tank L 10 1,500 Nil 1 day
3.Inceased frequency of L 2 Nil 0.03 Nil Concerns over
top up and cleaning of cost of cleaning
tank fluid at 60 per
refill
4. Alternative cleaning M 14 Nil 0.02 Nil Concerns over
method shot blasting life of hooks
reduced to 3
weeks from 6
months
Alternative cleaning L 10 Nil 0.07 Nil Reliability and
method sub-contract turn round
times
5. Disposable hooks L 14 300 0.36 Nil Cost of hooks
and need to
stock
6. Paint plant H 30-40 2,500 3,500 Nil 1 3 days Not guaranteed
development outcome
7. Change SOP for L 1 Nil Nil Nil
cleaning tank operation
KEY Complexity: L = Low; M = Medium; H = High

The team leader had reported to management the success so far with potentially solving the problem
and was provided with a number of criteria that the final solution needed to meet: -

GIVENS (Must meet these):-

Must solve the problem completely

Must not disrupt production more than 1 day
Maximum cost to implement of 2,000
Maximum on-cost to product to be 0.02
Time to implement must be within 10 working days

WANTS (Preferred if possible): -

500 to implement (5)*

Zero product on-cost (10)*
Implement within 5 days (5)*

*The number in brackets is a score of how important these are to the business.

The team used the decision making worksheets to establish which ERA proposal to take forward. This
activity is summarised in the following table.

12
www.resultsresults.co.uk
G8D Case Study

Decision Making Worksheet Summary

Proposed PCA Failed/met Givens Criteria

1. Alternative hook design Failed - time to implement
2. Larger tank Met all givens
3.Inceased frequency of top up and cleaning of tank Failed product on-cost
4. Alternative cleaning method - shot blasting Failed time to implement
4. Alternative cleaning method sub-contract Failed product on-cost
5. Disposable hooks Failed time to implement and product on-
cost
6. Paint plant development Failed time and cost to implement and
product on-cost
7. Change SOP for cleaning tank operation Met all givens

Given the failure of all but 2 proposed ERAs, the team agreed to proceed with: -

Installing a larger cleaning tank to ensure all hook sizes would be fully immersed and
therefore properly cleaned (ERA for root cause)
Change the SOP for the cleaning tank to include a regular depth check twice for every shift
(ERA for escape point)

D6 Implement and Validate PCAs

The team drew up a full plan and included all the necessary disciplines from the company in the
meeting. These included production engineering, health and safety, maintenance and process
engineering in the form of the team leader.

The validation was carried out in the following ways: -

For root cause -

Monitor paint quality by having a daily report on all quality issues to ensure problem remained
solved
Earth testing kit provided for sampling all hook connectivity every hour which was recorded and
reported each day

For escape point

Developed an operator level check graph that was monitored by the paint shop supervisor and
measured
Cleaning fluid level twice a day
Cleaning fluid cleanliness at the beginning of each shift
Sample visual check of each type of cleaned hook
The SOP was up-dated to include this and the operators were trained

13
www.resultsresults.co.uk
G8D Case Study

D7 Prevent Recurrence
The extended team came together to determine the root cause of the root cause for both the problem
and the escape point.

It was discovered that the cleaning tank was not considered as part of the induction process and that
the operators were not aware of the importance of using only completely clean hooks.

The team recommended that: -

1. All new product introduction should be signed off by process engineering as well as production
engineering and production management
2. All operators were trained on the principles of powder coating and the key factors to be
monitored
3. The induction process for new operators in the paint plant to include a training period on paint
plant operation and/or cleaning tank operation

NOTE: For further information on the use of all the worksheets and methodologies, please see the
Global 8D Problem Solving with Results workbook.

Graham Cripps

Results Consortium Ltd

www.resultsresults.co.uk

14
www.resultsresults.co.uk