Can 'training' be classed as a prevention control in a Process FMEA ?

Not according to the SAE guidelines on PFMEA's (SAE J1739 Rev. JUN2000)

It's always been my 'take' that the PFMEA 'assumes' that the person is fully qualified etc. Therefore the focus of the task is on the process. I have seen all kinds of 'goofy' controls, like internal audits etc. but it's not in the 'spirit' of looking into the process for sources of error and control.

I guess it all depends what processes/functions you can apply this too. Some Customers won't be satisfied with operator training only as a preventive control and require something else, since even with training mistakes can be made.

We have some Processes in our PFEMA that are under Preventive Controls marked as Operator training. Naturally we have the training record as proof if a Auditor should ask for them specifically. But the processess that are marked as operator training can only be prevented this way.

Don't know if this helps :bigwave:

I'm sure Dr. Deming is spinning in his grave..........:lol:

I'm sure Dr. Deming is spinning in his grave..........:lol:

I am sure he is :biglaugh: But the said Processes / functions that I am implying to, do require a Person that has been trained to know what to look for. Training records/matrixes exist and it is documented in the Shop order as to what is acceptable and not.

If it is such a no no to have operator training under preventive controls, then how come none of the external auditors that have been thru here has questioned it ? :confused:

Nice point!

We don't have enough space to cover why any auditor wouldn't make an issue of this, but a few that come to mind include not being sufficiently knowledgeable of this aspect**, not knowing what criteria to write an nc against.....We have many Covers who have to audit this type of thing, they will, I'm sure offer their suggestions, too

** This is why the IATF have been keen to ensure 'core tools' training for auditors. Frankly, just training on PFMEA etc doesn't make an auditor any better at evaluating this kind of situation, given the time constraints they have to audit within.

The difficulty I have is that from a purely management standpoint, you shouldn't have people not competent to work on the process. That's a qms failure, not a process failure, as the PFMEA is applied.

Can 'training' be classed as a prevention control in a Process FMEA ?

I just finished a couple of FMEAs for a non-automotive customer, and I used training as part of my prevention.

I guess my thinking was - why do we train - to teach so mistakes are not made - and in my book - that is prevention.

So, at the heart of this is the philosophy of the reasons for poor quality and peoples' influence over it.

In my 35+ years experience of industry, many mistakes have been made by people, however, it wasn't because of poor training!

Maybe lack of 'awareness', lack of experience, a process was flawed, got changed without anyone being told, wasn't maintained well enough, the raw material spec. changed etc. etc. etc. None of these were because someone wasn't 'trained'.

Once the issue of mistakes rears its ugly head, then 'mistake proofing' of the process should be used.

One example keeps coming to mind of a way to describe the difference between training and 'awareness', knowledge etc. If you pardon my euphemism, "We all want our kids to have sex education, not sex training......":o

I am with you Andy on this, I didnt like the use of training as a prevention control but couldnt think why, just didnt like the look of it.

Could we say that PFMEA is looking at the process hardware (and probably software) that prevents people doing the wrong thing - taking the people element or people skill level out of the equation for a moment ??

Not according to the SAE guidelines on PFMEA's (SAE J1739 Rev. JUN2000)

I don't see anything in my copy of J1739 that proscribes use of training as a prevention control. If I missed something, can you tell me where to find the source of your information?

It's always been my 'take' that the PFMEA 'assumes' that the person is fully qualified etc. Therefore the focus of the task is on the process. I have seen all kinds of 'goofy' controls, like internal audits etc. but it's not in the 'spirit' of looking into the process for sources of error and control.

You'll have to take my word for it when I say that I doubt that many people have reviewed more supplier PFMEAs than I have, and I too have seen many "unusual" entries, but "looking into the process for sources of error" should never overlook the potential for human error, and lack of training is a common source of error. You have to remember that a PFMEA is a process, not a document. The document is a record of what took place during the process, and it's a good idea to review operator and inspector training during the PFMEA process, especially when dealing with new products, new machines, and new gaging (which is almost always the case in automotive work).

So, at the heart of this is the philosophy of the reasons for poor quality and peoples' influence over it.

In my 35+ years experience of industry, many mistakes have been made by people, however, it wasn't because of poor training!

Maybe lack of 'awareness', lack of experience, a process was flawed, got changed without anyone being told, wasn't maintained well enough, the raw material spec. changed etc. etc. etc. None of these were because someone wasn't 'trained'.

Lack of awareness and experience aren't training issues?:confused:


Once the issue of mistakes rears its ugly head, then 'mistake proofing' of the process should be used.

I think that the main purpose of the PFMEA process is to develop prevention controls. If we're just going to wait for mistakes to happen before doing anything, what's the use if doing PFMEA at all?

One example keeps coming to mind of a way to describe the difference between training and 'awareness', knowledge etc. If you pardon my euphemism, "We all want our kids to have sex education, not sex training......":o

The analogy doesn't work, I'm afraid. Do you believe, for example, that when we train people how to use new machines, fixtures and gages that the training should be confined to classroom, and when it's over we should just turn them loose on the process?

In answer to the OP, I think there's absolutely nothing wrong with citing training as a prevention control, so long as it makes sense in the context of the operation under consideration. Efficacious training is a fundamental way of preventing bad things from happening.

Could we say that PFMEA is looking at the process hardware (and probably software) that prevents people doing the wrong thing - taking the people element or people skill level out of the equation for a moment ??

Sure, so long as there are no people required to operate the process. Why eliminate a integral part of the process when you're trying to discover ways to prevent it from failing? Why would you not be glad to see evidence of training? What harm comes from including training?

Jim, we're just going to have to disagree..........I stand by my post!

Jim, we're just going to have to disagree..........I stand by my post!

What about the reference to J1739?

In reviewing the Prevention and Detection criteria, I don't see how 'training' fits the 'prevention' category.

My issue is that 'training' is about skills transfer. I understand that 'training' is used for a variety of interventions with people regarding the quality of their work, the process etc., but many of those interventions have nothing to do with skills transfers. Indeed, some are thinly veiled threats of termination (you've seen this in corrective action responses, no doubt)

I'm simply stating, Jim, for eveyone's review, that, based on a number of years of both doing regular day-time work in manufacturing industry - plus being a trainer/consultant - that training shouldn't be used since it isn't preventive - it's the actions (that come out of identifying that a lack of/poor training could cause the failure) which are the important things to implement, not 'training' per se. Training just makes people dangerous (hence my analogy).

Rather than turn this thread into an individual debate over approach, I've made my observations and people can take them or leave them.........:D

Jim

What if the purpose of my PFMEA is to see where I can improve the process assuming skilled competent people are involved ? I could therefore eliminate training as a prevention control in this context couldnt I ?

Sure, so long as there are no people required to operate the process. Why eliminate a integral part of the process when you're trying to discover ways to prevent it from failing? Why would you not be glad to see evidence of training? What harm comes from including training?

Thank you Jim. :applause:

Jim

What if the purpose of my PFMEA is to see where I can improve the process assuming skilled competent people are involved ? I could therefore eliminate training as a prevention control in this context couldnt I ?

Well, if the purpose of the PFMEA is to examine everything except operators and their potential for causing bad things to happen, then you would be justified, but I think your question sort of assumes its answer, doesn't it?

PFMEA is most commonly used for new parts and processes, and my responses in this thread are based on that common usage. You can include or eliminate anything you want, so long as your customers don't object. In typical automotive PFMEA review, I've never heard of anyone objecting to citing training as a prevention control, though (until now).

I gotta agree with Jim on this one.
In my previous employer I was a process engineer for an almost entirely manual assembly process.
The nature of our product, as well as the nature of our budget, would not allow for much automation, so we relied on the competence of the employees to maintain the quality of our product.
The only tool we had available to "prevent" employees from assembling product incorrectly was to "train" them and evaluate their competence through our documented training procedure.
Therefore training would be listed in many areas as a method of prevention.
Several QS and subsequent TS auditors had reviewed our PFMEA with nothing ever said about it being unacceptable, and none of the customers ever complained, so I guess it was OK.

In reviewing the Prevention and Detection criteria, I don't see how 'training' fits the 'prevention' category.

My issue is that 'training' is about skills transfer. I understand that 'training' is used for a variety of interventions with people regarding the quality of their work, the process etc., but many of those interventions have nothing to do with skills transfers. Indeed, some are thinly veiled threats of termination (you've seen this in corrective action responses, no doubt)

I'm simply stating, Jim, for eveyone's review, that, based on a number of years of both doing regular day-time work in manufacturing industry - plus being a trainer/consultant - that training shouldn't be used since it isn't preventive - it's the actions (that come out of identifying that a lack of/poor training could cause the failure) which are the important things to implement, not 'training' per se. Training just makes people dangerous (hence my analogy).

Rather than turn this thread into an individual debate over approach, I've made my observations and people can take them or leave them.........:D

Andy, even if the training has been documented , like lets say a operator covering for another for a week. The week prior the person covering for the other one is getting hands on training on the job he will be working on. He will be trained on what is acceptable what is not. Once the training has concluded it will be documented that this person has been trained by the regular operator. Now mind you that it is 100 % visual inspection for detection on this. Isn't operator training a good prevention then? :confused:

I gotta agree with Jim on this one.
In my previous employer I was a process engineer for an almost entirely manual assembly process.
The nature of our product, as well as the nature of our budget, would not allow for much automation, so we relied on the competence of the employees to maintain the quality of our product.
The only tool we had available to "prevent" employees from assembling product incorrectly was to "train" them and evaluate their competence through our documented training procedure.
Therefore training would be listed in many areas as a method of prevention.
Several QS and subsequent TS auditors had reviewed our PFMEA with nothing ever said about it being unacceptable, and none of the customers ever complained, so I guess it was OK.

I had a Customer question the operator training in a process twice. And on one I understood their questioning of it and realized that there was a different or better way of prevention to it. And on another Issue, I had to actually explain to the Customer what the training detailed and he was satisfied then once he understood the process training.

Andy, even if the training has been documented , like lets say a operator covering for another for a week. The week prior the person covering for the other one is getting hands on training on the job he will be working on. He will be trained on what is acceptable what is not. Once the training has concluded it will be documented that this person has been trained by the regular operator. Now mind you that it is 100 % visual inspection for detection on this. Isn't operator training a good prevention then? :confused:

As described, you've done the right thing to train the person.:agree1:

Where the 'prevention' comes in, is in the methods used to minimize the risk of missing the poor quality product. My experience is that the person didn't have optimized acceptance criteria, enough time to perform the check, incorrect lighting etc. which affected their ability to inspect the parts. I'm just very cautious about citing 'training' alone as a preventive action, since all around us, in all walks of life we meet situations where even highly trained people (apparently) get it wrong...........

I agree with Jim on training as a preventive control and will take one step further. there's skill training (what, when, how) which certainly reduces the number of errors they would make if untrained or poorly trained. Then there is educuation: why you do it in a certain way. I have seen many well intended, yet misguided actions that caused defects or enabled defects to escape, that could be - and were - prevented by simple education. when combining the two you get a significant reduction in error based defects and some reduction in variation based defects.

by the way the 'joke' goes: the difference between training and education is why we we have driver's training and sex education.

I agree with Jim on training as a preventive control and will take one step further. there's skill training (what, when, how) which certainly reduces the number of errors they would make if untrained or poorly trained. Then there is educuation: why you do it in a certain way. I have seen many well intended, yet misguided actions that caused defects or enabled defects to escape, that could be - and were - prevented by simple education. when combining the two you get a significant reduction in error based defects and some reduction in variation based defects.

by the way the 'joke' goes: the difference between training and education is why we we have driver's training and sex education.

:applause:

There is another apect of this 'training' thread that occurs to me, which might also influence the outcome as a truely preventive measure.

I'm guessing that the training done is on a work instruction or similar document? It is frequently the case that the documentation isn't accurate, complete or written in a manner that someone could follow it, even with training, awareness and competency. In fact, it's due to people's abilities that we get any product out the door, sometimes.

For years, organizations have created mountains of documentation that it is of little value to actually getting the job done!

Surely, before one can claim training as a preventive measure, the criteria being used as the basis for training have to be proven?

Just a thought.......

As described, you've done the right thing to train the person.:agree1:

Where the 'prevention' comes in, is in the methods used to minimize the risk of missing the poor quality product. My experience is that the person didn't have optimized acceptance criteria, enough time to perform the check, incorrect lighting etc. which affected their ability to inspect the parts. I'm just very cautious about citing 'training' alone as a preventive action, since all around us, in all walks of life we meet situations where even highly trained people (apparently) get it wrong...........


I agree. Training is usually a good, beneficial thing. But, not all training would make it up the scale to qualify as a prevention. I would not list it too often. I think the intent of the FMEA exercise is to promote creative solutions that are truly preventive. I can see some occasions where it would be acceptable.

There is another apect of this 'training' thread that occurs to me, which might also influence the outcome as a truely preventive measure.

I'm guessing that the training done is on a work instruction or similar document? It is frequently the case that the documentation isn't accurate, complete or written in a manner that someone could follow it, even with training, awareness and competency. In fact, it's due to people's abilities that we get any product out the door, sometimes.

For years, organizations have created mountains of documentation that it is of little value to actually getting the job done!

Surely, before one can claim training as a preventive measure, the criteria being used as the basis for training have to be proven?

Just a thought.......

Work Instructions are a big Issue in training a person right. And one of my biggest pet peeves is the reading of a shop order. I dont care if you have been at a job for an hour or 20 years, always read the shop order. It will contain all the necessary information for a person to make a good product.

And yes training cannot be used as a preventive measure on everything, that be to easy in writing a PFEMA :lol: ...but some processes / functions can only be controlled by proper training.

:tg:

Andy I still agree with you.

I should explain that I am not coming from the point of what is considered good practice in automotive standards, or what might be considered acceptable by automotive auditors and/or customers, I am coming from the point of actually using this tool to analyse and improve a process, without any constraints of having to comply with certain standards.

I think I answered my own question earlier - I want to create a robust process that is less prone to the whims of the operator, hence ignoring controls that are purely operator dependant is right for me in this context.

I think.............

So, for example, if a process is entirely manual with absolutely no automation, and relies solely on the competence of the operator to maintain the quality of the product, you would not consider the proper training of that operator a method of preventing nonconforming product from being produced?

I understand that you method of detection is going to be 100% visual, so the RPN for this process is likely to be very high, but I can think of no other means of prevention than to provide the operator with the knowledge necessary to build the product correctly.

If training employees doesn't prevent quality issues, then why waste money training them? Why would every quality standard require training, if it were not an important part of every QMS?

I am not saying you should try and use "Training" as the means of preventing every failure mode on your pFMEA, but I believe that it is most certainly a valid means of prevention for certain potential failure modes.

I can see a reason for including training in the PFMEA.

The aspect of validating a need for training has come up. That could be done in the FMEA process, where identified risk can be pointed to and specific training done--and competency verified--to reduce that risk.

After the competency is improved for a time period, the FMEA can be updated to show how reduced incidents can impact the detection ratings and lower the RPN.

In a world of knee-jerk training design, this seems like a logical approach to me. So logical as to be kinda scary... :rolleyes:

This is the original question:

Can 'training' be classed as a prevention control in a Process FMEA ?

The answer, quite unequivocally, is "yes."