Product quality investigation use case

Use case scenarios demonstrate when and how to use the Product non-conformance application to create a product quality investigation report. It provides practical examples of common product quality investigation situations.

Use Case 2: Airbag Sensor Defect-Quality Investigation

This use case is a follow-up use case from Product non-conformance, see Product non-conformance use case.

Solution

Following the non-conformance case escalation, Alectri must conduct a comprehensive quality investigation to identify the root cause of airbag sensor defects affecting 2024 Voltar VS vehicles. The investigation requires cross-functional coordination, structured root cause analysis, and financial governance for remediation activities.

The quality investigation team encounters some challenges:

• Fragmented communication across engineering, quality, and finance teams
• Need for structured root cause analysis methodology
• Difficulty coordinating stakeholders from multiple departments
• Missing visibility into total quality costs across remediation activities
• Lack of governance for corrective and preventive action expenses
• No clear process for linking root causes to remediation plans

Solution

Quality Investigation Management: Able Tutor, Quality Investigation Lead, coordinates the investigation.

1. Opens the quality investigation case "2024 Voltar VS Airbag Sensor Defect Investigation" created from the non-conformance escalation
2. Creates investigation tasks: "Analyze sensor calibration data," "Review manufacturing process," and "Evaluate supplier quality controls"
3. Assigns tasks to Emily Cooper (Quality Investigation Member) for execution

Investigation Execution: Emily Cooper conducts the comprehensive investigation.

1. Creates stakeholders with RACI roles for Engineering, Supplier Quality, Manufacturing, and Dealer Network teams
2. Reviews and expands impacted asset list through VIN analysis and creates remediation actions for sensor module replacement
3. Adds containment actions for affected vehicle shipments with CoPQ expense tracking
4. Performs root cause analysis using 8D methodology — supported by 5 Why Fishbone (Ishikawa) analysis — analysis to identify contributing causes, probable causes, and final root cause
5. Creates cause associations linking task causes to issue causes with action plans
6. Creates remediation plans including corrective and preventive action with planned dates, owners, and approval status
7. Raises a financial request with line charges for parts, labor, services, and process improvements, and submits it for finance review and approval

Financial Review and Approval: Smith, Finance Lead, reviews the financial impact.

1. Reviews corrective action expenses and associated CoPQ expense lines
2. Reviews preventive action expenses and associated CoPQ expense lines
3. Approves or rejects line-charge items at the individual line level, maintaining cost governance tied to actual remediation work
4. Confirms total quality cost across containment, remediation, and prevention activities

Benefits

• Cross-functional coordination: RACI definitions verify appropriate stakeholder engagement
• Root cause clarity: Structured 8D methodology, supported by 5 Why and Fishbone analysis, identifies underlying issues
• Complete remediation planning: Corrective and preventive actions with ownership and timelines
• Financial governance: Line-level approval and rejection authority maintains cost control
• Total cost visibility: CoPQ tracking across all investigation and remediation activities
• Full traceability: Links between root causes, remediation actions, and financial approvals
• Preventive measures: Structured action plans help prevent recurrence

Outcome

The quality investigation team identifies the root cause of the airbag sensor defects through 8D analysis — including 5 Why and Fishbone techniques — and cross-functional collaboration. Emily coordinates stakeholders across Engineering, Supplier Quality, and Manufacturing to develop corrective and preventive action plans, and raises a financial request for remediation costs. Smith reviews and approves or rejects line-level charges, maintaining cost governance. The investigation establishes preventive measures to avoid recurrence and provides full traceability from root cause through remediation.