I understand the desirability and importance of having the DFMEA on hand when preparing a PFMEA. However, is it an absolute requirement? Can you reasonably expect to be able to complete a PFMEA without access to the design?

IMHO, since design changes are not meant as fixes for PFMEAs, all is not lost just because we don't have a design.

What say you all

Nope - the requirement is not 'absolute'. Many times a non-design responsible supplier cannot get a DFMEA from their customer.

I would say most times the DFMEA is not available.

You're right. I was being overly optimistic using the word 'many' instead of 'most'.

Thank you!!

Has anything changed in the last 4 years? :nopity:

You know, when I saw the title of this thread I was thinking about that, Howard. I was doing an APQP overview the other day and I was going through the 'Reality' vs. 'Theory' aspect. These folks are not design responsible. In these situations I try to explain that the APQP manual is theory and, as my 'standard' example, I cited the fact that most suppliers have a 'snowball's chance in hades' of getting a customer's DFMEA.

I say it's still true. Was last in the 'trenches' as a QE from April 2002 through May 2003 and it was true then with the two customers (I was 'dedicated' to Harley-Davidson and Visteon) I 'worked' with.

Nothing has changed.

I agree - Nothing has changed. From my view, I wonder if a "big" reason is that my customers perform a DFMEA on their assembled part and don't dive down to the component level (which is what we supply). I have gotten two DFMEAs from two different customers over the last 7 years and I really had to hunt to find references to our component.

I would say that seeing most customers do not give DFMEA's out because afterall, it indicates liability, they do however at least in some cases, pass down significant and critical characteristics and parameters which are used on the DFMEA and PCP.

I'd say you are getting the important and usable parts of ther DFMEA in that context.

I would say that the design FMEA is not required for the process FMEA.

What you do need is the output of the design process, which is often the drawings, not the DFMEA itself. The drawings should detail the special characteristics, etc, that need to be considered in the process FMEA.

Help,

We are currently producing several ppaps and have a requirement to supply design fmeas. This is new to us to what depth do you go when producing this type of document with regards to press tools. We have been unable to get hold of an example to guid us through this. Can anyone help ta.

Shallow Mike

Help,

We are currently producing several ppaps and have a requirement to supply design fmeas. This is new to us to what depth do you go when producing this type of document with regards to press tools. We have been unable to get hold of an example to guid us through this. Can anyone help ta.

Shallow Mike
It would help if you told us what type of work is involved, and what a "press tool" is.

There are different "types" of FMEAs that I've seen - Concept, System, Design, Process, Machine, Service, etc. The AIAG PPAP manual's definition of Design FMEA to be supplied with PPAP is "parts or materials for which they (supplier - my insertion) are design-responsible" (sect I.2.2.4). You may be dealing with a Customer Specific Requirement, but I have not had to supply anything other than a PFMEA with any PPAPs.

Our die cast machines (as their own entities) are nothing other than "big presses". Could your customer be asking for a Machine FMEA by chance? I know we haven't addressed your immediate question - but we'll get there with a little more info.

No, a DFMEA is not required, but it sure makes the PFMEA easier since it identifies the signficant and critical characteristics (that should also be on the drawing). Concept - System - Component and Part DFMEAs are possible. I push my customers for a copy of the DFMEA. They are usually system level DFMEAs. I have never received a component or part DFMEA.

Basically when we receive an order to supply a pressed component we may also have to design and build a progression press tool to stamp the piece part as part of our production process. A requirement of ppap at level 3 is to supply a press tool DFMEA to show that the tool is capable of meeting the customers requirements. Or so we are lead to believe.If this is the case, do we as suppliers decide on the depth of the DFMEA, ie do we have to take each pilot pin, punch and die forming stages which can amount to a lot of stages in a large press tool, and do the numbers? As well as this there is the question of the design itself surely by producing this document we are potentially giving away a lot of design info and at the end of the day who owns this confidential information? We as a company do not design the component part but in some cases do design the tool that produces that part and which forms part of the overall production process. I hope this gives more of an insight and look forward to some possible suggestions guys

Shallowmike

Just a quicky to say I have just had this scenario this week.

We are tier 2 on this project and the Tier 1 asked to review our PFMEA. They said they would get the customer DFMEA so we may do the PFMEA but alas, NO DFMEA has ever materialised.

Just a quicky to say I have just had this scenario this week.

We are tier 2 on this project and the Tier 1 asked to review our PFMEA. They said they would get the customer DFMEA so we may do the PFMEA but alas, NO DFMEA has ever materialised.

And probably never will. :mad:
This is an almost impossible document to receive

A requirement of ppap at level 3 is to supply a press tool DFMEA to show that the tool is capable of meeting the customers requirements
It is not a requirement of PPAP level 3 to supply a DFMEA unless you are part design responsible (at least in AIAG's eyes). A DFMEA will not show that the tool is "capable" of anything. There is also no requirement that, should you give them a DFMEA, you must disclose anything proprietary.

Given that, if your customer is still demanding a DFMEA - yes you decide the "depth" to take it to. The excercise may be beneficial to your company so you could, possibly, end up with a "customer copy" on a more superficial level. I don't have a lot of practice with the DFMEA methodology but we do have some Covers that do - so please post any specific questions you have and hopefully someone will be able to help (you'll probably even get some of my "book learning" answers too :rolleyes: )

Cheers buddy :thanx:

I feel that a Design FMEA's biggest benifit is to the supplier not the customer. . . the Design (and System) FMEA start the control process and give meaning and purpose to the lower level documents and controls instituted in process; PFMEA, Machine FMEA, PCP, Work Instructions, Inspection Instructions, etc.

This is a risk minimization trickle down function (Say that fast three times). As I stated in an earlier post, rarely will a customer give the supplier their DFMEA, but they will usually pass down significant and critical characteristics from FMEA's (their or their customer's).

Not necessary, but a great starting point. Without it, you are usually relying on Tribal Knowledge to determine what to control, how and to what degree.

:soap: