Technical risk
Digitizing inconsistent inputs preserves the difficulty of investigation.
Standardise the investigation
8D organised the stages, ownership and evidence used during follow-up.
Back to portfolio
CASE 01 / Cross-plant complaints and 8D
Cross-plant complaint management with 8D
I coordinated the workflow redesign with the participating teams, combining bottleneck mapping, structured inputs, an 8D standard and adoption follow-up.
01.1 / Context
Information moved across plants without a predictable flow.
Manual steps, scattered documents and limited visibility made follow-up difficult. Mapping exposed delays and unclear handoffs in the workflow.
Investigating the problem
Mapping exposed unstructured inputs, limited visibility of pending work and manual deadline follow-up. These observations directed changes to the investigation workflow before digital resources were selected.
Implementation constraints
The workflow crossed plants and departments with distributed inputs, documents and responsibilities. The change needed adoption by the people involved as well as a documented procedure.
Unstructured inputInformation arrived in different formats and at different moments.
Unclear ownershipPending items and due dates required repeated manual follow-up.
Long lead timeThe process had a high average response time.
01.2 / Development
The redesign started by mapping the workflow.
We mapped bottlenecks and ownership across functions. We then structured inputs, digitised records, organised tasks, formalised the procedure and monitored adoption.
The previous workflow spread information and pending work across disconnected channels, documents and control points.
01.3 / Project decisions
The redesign made inputs, ownership and pending work visible.
The workflow and its governance defined how each tool was used.
Technical risk
Recording a task does not guarantee clear ownership.
Make work visible
Planner, structured documents and dashboards improved traceability of pending items and due dates.
Technical risk
Publishing a procedure does not ensure adoption in daily work.
Follow the change
Meetings, individual guidance, feedback and adjustments were part of implementation.
From decision to implementation
- Map with the teams
Bottlenecks, responsibilities and cross-plant handoffs were examined together to define the complaint workflow.
- Structure execution
Inputs and documents were standardized; 8D organized investigation. Tasks, owners and deadlines became visible for follow-up.
- Support adoption
Implementation included a procedure, meetings, individual guidance, feedback and adjustments to the new workflow.
59%reduction in average response time
01.4 / Evidence and outcomes
A more predictable workflow across plants.
Structured inputs, visible tasks and adoption follow-up jointly contributed to the lead-time reduction. The result was built collectively across the participating teams. This study does not report the measurement period or absolute before-and-after times.
- greater visibility of pending items and ownership;
- due-date tracking across functions;
- adoption monitored after rollout.
Verification / interpreting the evidence
Outcome of the redesign
The approximately 59% reduction refers to average complaint response time. It reflects collaborative work with the departments involved, rather than an isolated automation effect.
Engineering criterion
Faster responses and root cause elimination are different dimensions. The workflow includes effectiveness and recurrence assessment; response time alone does not establish that problems will not return.
Limits of the public evidence
Absolute times, the comparison period and the number of complaints are not published. No additional financial gains or statistical conclusions are calculated.
01.5 / Synthesis
Learning
The workflow needed follow-up during adoption: defined inputs and ownership worked alongside adjustments in use and assessment of effectiveness.