I want to know the defination of term potenial failure mode. and
how we can identify the 'potential failure mode'?

In my case while performing PFMEA we observed that our part is having interface with other component and at each stage of process we are either generating or controlling the part dimensions.

Now if this dimensions goes out of tolerence that is considered as failure mode and this non confernmce may have severe effect (if we considerd the worst impact ) upto the ranking of 8 and 9 . During discussions we developed that in some cases its diificult to develop the non conformance upto this level while manufacturing .

so we are in confusion of what to be set as rule for term potential and is there any thumb rule or process to develop the potentail failure modes ?

I want to know the defination of term potenial failure mode. and
how we can identify the 'potential failure mode'?

In my case while performing PFMEA we observed that our part is having interface with other component and at each stage of process we are either generating or controlling the part dimensions.

Now if this dimensions goes out of tolerence that is considered as failure mode and this non confernmce may have severe effect (if we considerd the worst impact ) upto the ranking of 8 and 9 . During discussions we developed that in some cases its diificult to develop the non conformance upto this level while manufacturing .

so we are in confusion of what to be set as rule for term potential and is there any thumb rule or process to develop the potentail failure modes ?

Possible, as opposed to actual: the potential uses of nuclear energy.
Capable of being but not yet in existence; latent: a potential problem.
Capable of being or becoming: a potential danger to safety.

Naveen, welcome to the Cove

Failure modes and effects analysis (FMEA) is a step-by-step approach for identifying all possible failures in a design, a manufacturing or assembly process, or a product or service.

“Failure modes” means the ways, or modes, in which something might fail. Failures are any errors or defects, especially ones that affect the customer, and can be potential or actual.

FMEAs should always be done whenever failures would mean potential harm of the end item being designed and therefore in the example that you cited, it could be a part of the PFMEA (Process FMEA)

Process FMEA focuses on manufacturing and assembly processes. Refer to this website for more info - http://www.npd-solutions.com/fmea.html

I want to know the defination of term potenial failure mode. and how we can identify the 'potential failure mode'?

Hello naveenattri,

I use the AIAG FMEA manual as my reference here...

Definition: Potential failure mode is defined as the manner in which the process could potentially fail to meet the process requirements and/or design intent as decribed in the process function/requirements column. (Page 39)

So, when performing a Process FMEA, a failure mode can be a process failure and/or a product failure.

A good technique to help you identify failure modes is asking:

How can the process fail to meet requirements?
How can the part fail to meet requirements?
Regardless of the engineering specifications, what would a customer (end user, subsequent operations, or service) consider objectionable?
Start by comparing similar processes and reviewing customer (end user and subsequent operation) claims relating to similar components. In addition, a knowledge of the design intent is necessary. (Page 41.)

The actual assembly drawing and access to historical part/assembly information will be very helpful.

Let us know if this was of help to you. If not please come back with more questions.

Stijloor.

Stijloor:

There is a lot of confusion over failure modes in a Process FMEA mixing a potential cause with a potential failure mode.

You stated that it could be both a process or a product but I respectfully disagree.

One must look at the particular process step and state what is expected to occur to the product at that step. Some people might say it is the value added at the process step.

We might be trying to punch 10 holes and we only punch 9. That is a failure mode.

The potential cause could be a number of things in the process. It could be a broken punch or the die might have been made without the provision for the 10 holes. I try to keep the potential causes down to no more than 3.

Again, as I see it, the potential cause is something negative to the product at that process step. It did not meet a requirement of some sort. The potential cause of that failure is in the process.

Stijloor:

There is a lot of confusion over failure modes in a Process FMEA mixing a potential cause with a potential failure mode.

Confusion? I agree. But...I did not talk about causes. All I did was clarifying Failure Modes and how to identify them.

You stated that it could be both a process or a product but I respectfully disagree.

That's fine. I stand by my (and AIAG's FMEA) opinion that a failure mode can be both process and product at that step of the operation.

One must look at the particular process step and state what is expected to occur to the product at that step. Some people might say it is the value added at the process step.

Absolutely!

We might be trying to punch 10 holes and we only punch 9. That is a failure mode.

Yes! Now we have a process failure.

The potential cause could be a number of things in the process. It could be a broken punch or the die might have been made without the provision for the 10 holes. I try to keep the potential causes down to no more than 3.

I did not raise "causes", but since you bring it up. I do a thorough (potential) root cause analysis to find out. It may be 3 causes it may be more. Who knows? Why limit the options? Actions required will be prioritized anyway.

Again, as I see it, the potential cause is something negative to the product at that process step. It did not meet a requirement of some sort. The potential cause of that failure is in the process.

David, when I consult/train FMEA, my main intent is to make sure that my Clients/Students end up with a solid FMEA, a list of actions and commitments + due dates, hopefully contributing to a more robust design and or process. I am obligated to introduce and teach commonly accepted definitions and practices that are recognized in the industries that I serve. You and I and perhaps others can engage in intellectual and philosophical discussions (as often happens here, but that's OK) about terminology and approaches, but in the end, what counts is what works well and what works for my Client.

Thank you David. I really appreciate your contributions here at The Cove.

Stijloor.

Stijloor:

The reason I try to keep the causes to no more than 3 is the fact that your FMEA can become really large. Let's say someone stated a potential cause was "Martians did it". The occurence rating would be say a 1. Would I keep this in my process FMEA? No, I would discard it. The number keeping no more than 3 is not solid but not too many have more than 3 potential causes with occurence rating over 5 or 6.

Here is an example that I have used in the past on describing potential failure modes and causes.

Let's say the last operation was packing and the Packer was to place a foam wrap around the product so that the edges do not touch during shipping. The Customer opens up the package and observes chipped paint on the corners of the product.

I would say that the potential failure mode here is chipped paint (that is what the Customer views) with 1 potential cause could be that the wrapping was not completely around each product.

I was most interested in a process failure as being a potential failure mode. Could you please give me an example?

Thanks

Stijloor:

The reason I try to keep the causes to no more than 3 is the fact that your FMEA can become really large. Let's say someone stated a potential cause was "Martians did it". The occurence rating would be say a 1. Would I keep this in my process FMEA? No, I would discard it. The number keeping no more than 3 is not solid but not too many have more than 3 potential causes with occurence rating over 5 or 6.

Here is an example that I have used in the past on describing potential failure modes and causes.

Let's say the last operation was packing and the Packer was to place a foam wrap around the product so that the edges do not touch during shipping. The Customer opens up the package and observes chipped paint on the corners of the product.

I would say that the potential failure mode here is chipped paint (that is what the Customer views) with 1 potential cause could be that the wrapping was not completely around each product.

I was most interested in a process failure as being a potential failure mode. Could you please give me an example?

Thanks

David,

Allow me to use your example.

Process step: Wrap two layers of foam around the entire product.
Potential failure mode: Foam is not entirely wrapped around the product.
Effect of failure: Chipped paint on product, dissatisfied customer.
You see? The failure mode is not chipped paint. Chipped paint is the effect of the failure mode noticed by the customer.
Possible cause: Packer fatigue, etc.

One of the challenges in FMEA (Design and Process) is not to mix up failure modes, effects of failure, and causes. Your focal point must always be the process. What happens as a result of the failure mode is the effect.

I will attach a few slides that clarify this concept.

Stijloor.

I think that I can understand what is being said here in regards to process failure mode -

Let's say that you are a Widget Maker that makes individual components and you have a Maintenance Process for your Widget Making Tool. After making 100K parts, your Widget Making Tool is supposed to get sharpened, but it doesn't - it goes back on the shelf.

Now, the next time you go to get the Widget Making Tool to run the product, low and behold, you can't because it has not been properly sharpened - remember, the Widget that you are making has let's say 150 edges each with a potential for a burr - I ceratinly am not listing every one of those as a potential failure mode, nor am I listing every dimension on the part as a failure mode.
The failure here (and the easiest way to address the problem) is to say that as a whole - the Maintenance process itself within the manufacture of the component has failed. With a good Root Cause Investigation you should be able to determine where exactly in the maintenance process the failure occured, but, the FMEA has given you the heads up as to where to start looking. Your current control would be your Maintenance Procedure ; the Process Function that this area may addressed in could be something like Set-Up of Widget Making Machine ; the actual Failure Mode would be worded as Improper Tool Maintenance or Maintenance Process.
I have found that this method is quite successful to use during the FMEA and my customers love it. I do an FMEA for every component that we manufacture - within the manufacture of any component, you have potential failure modes that can encompass items that relate only to that particular product that you are making, as well as processes that cover a wide span or family of parts or products - all of these must be addressed in the FMEA in some form or another if they can interact in a manner that would pose a critical risk.

Stijloor:

Here is how perceived my example.

Customer opens up a box and finds the paint is chipped on the product. That is the failure mode as I see it. The result of the failure mode is an unhappy Customer who may be discouraged from purchasing more products from the same manufacturer. Does the customer know that the parts are to be fully wrapped? No, I don't think so. Would a customer complain to the manufacturer that the parts where not fully wrapped? I don't think so.

I have always looked at the potential failure mode from a Customer perspective whether the customer is the next operation in the plant or the consumer as in this situation. The failure mode is a product characteristic that has failed to meet their expectations.

The potential cause of this failure could be the wrapping and then we could use the 5 whys or some other method to obtain a core cause(s).

I appreciate this type of discussion.

David and Pudge 72,

Great examples. Thank you. Have you looked at my PowerPoint slides?

We must be careful not to let FMEA become a problem-solving excercise.
The idea is to be proactive and discover potential failure modes before they are incorporated into the process. Should we be concerned about the customer? Absolutely, but the main purpose of (in this case) a Process FMEA is to design and develop a "bug-free" robust process so that we do not have to worry about the effects on the customer. There's a strong bias toward reactive-type work that affects pro-active thinking.

Stijloor.

I think that I can understand what is being said here in regards to process failure mode -

Let's say that you are a Widget Maker that makes individual components and you have a Maintenance Process for your Widget Making Tool. After making 100K parts, your Widget Making Tool is supposed to get sharpened, but it doesn't - it goes back on the shelf.

Now, the next time you go to get the Widget Making Tool to run the product, low and behold, you can't because it has not been properly sharpened - remember, the Widget that you are making has let's say 150 edges each with a potential for a burr - I ceratinly am not listing every one of those as a potential failure mode, nor am I listing every dimension on the part as a failure mode.
The failure here (and the easiest way to address the problem) is to say that as a whole - the Maintenance process itself within the manufacture of the component has failed. With a good Root Cause Investigation you should be able to determine where exactly in the maintenance process the failure occured, but, the FMEA has given you the heads up as to where to start looking. Your current control would be your Maintenance Procedure ; the Process Function that this area may addressed in could be something like Set-Up of Widget Making Machine ; the actual Failure Mode would be worded as Improper Tool Maintenance or Maintenance Process.
I have found that this method is quite successful to use during the FMEA and my customers love it. I do an FMEA for every component that we manufacture - within the manufacture of any component, you have potential failure modes that can encompass items that relate only to that particular product that you are making, as well as processes that cover a wide span or family of parts or products - all of these must be addressed in the FMEA in some form or another if they can interact in a manner that would pose a critical risk.


Using your example, what is the SCOPE of the FMEA?

Widget making (cutting)
Maintenance Process

Stijloor.

Stijloor:

Here is how perceived my example.

Customer opens up a box and finds the paint is chipped on the product. That is the failure mode as I see it. The result of the failure mode is an unhappy Customer who may be discouraged from purchasing more products from the same manufacturer. Does the customer know that the parts are to be fully wrapped? No, I don't think so. Would a customer complain to the manufacturer that the parts where not fully wrapped? I don't think so.

I have always looked at the potential failure mode from a Customer perspective whether the customer is the next operation in the plant or the consumer as in this situation. The failure mode is a product characteristic that has failed to meet their expectations.

The potential cause of this failure could be the wrapping and then we could use the 5 whys or some other method to obtain a core cause(s).

I appreciate this type of discussion.

There are times when differentiating between the part failure mode and the process failure mode will not yield substantially different results, but I've always believed that in PFMEAs we should concentrate on failures of the process. Isn't process control the goal? The goal of process control has to be meeting the requirements with a minimum of variation, not enhancing the ability to detect defects. APQP--of which PFMEA is a part--is about process control. It stands to reason that if we use potential product defects as modes, we're missing the point. If we concentrate on how the process itself might fail, and doing what needs to be done to prevent those failures, defects will be much less likely to occur in the first place.

In other words, using product defects as modes creates an unnecessary "why." We can ask, "Why are there defects in the product?" or we can ask, "Why are there defects in the process?" thus skipping right to the heart of the matter. We need to get people into a process-control mode of thinking, and away from searching for defects. Control the process and the output will be predictable, and using the PFMEA process to identify effective process controls is facilitated greatly by understanding that it's failures of the process that we need to worry about, and not the results of those failures.

Stijloor -

Completely Agree!!! Thank you - actually, the way that I develop the FMEA is really not with the customer in mind (some may actually cringe at that), but, rather as a Tool to make the process as robust as possible within the facility.
I look at the FMEA as potentially the biggest 5S, problem solving, process improvement before-it-goes-bad matrix that exists! The opportunity that FMEA allows you to look into your process and make imrovements is lost on so many that it really is too bad.
In actuality, it is the single biggest brainstorming tool that may exist to improve your process without having 50 meetings and as many conference calls. And, whether you utilize it to evaluate failure modes of processes, parts, components, machines or whatever - in the end, all you are doing is evaluating the integrity of what has been developed and where you can improve before the customer even sees it!!!

David and Pudge 72,

Great examples. Thank you. Have you looked at my PowerPoint slides?

We must be careful not to let FMEA become a problem-solving excercise.
The idea is to be proactive and discover potential failure modes before they are incorporated into the process. Should we be concerned about the customer? Absolutely, but the main purpose of (in this case) a Process FMEA is to design and develop a "bug-free" robust process so that we do not have to worry about the effects on the customer. There's a strong bias toward reactive-type work that affects pro-active thinking.

Stijloor.

Very well stated. :agree1: The customer transmits requirements in the form of specifications. If the customer has created the specifications as a result (at least in part) of the DFMEA process, then potential product defects have already been considered, and are reflected in the specifications. We don't need access to the DFMEA, and don't even need to know if a DFMEA document exists, in order to do the PFMEA process. Design the process so that the requirements are consistently met, and the concerns of the DFMEA will also be met. This means that suppliers have to concentrate on process control, and exercising due diligence in preventing defects from occurring. The best way to go about that is to use the PFMEA process as a method of identifying potential process failures, and the effects of them with regard to the specifications, not the end use of the product.

Thanks to Jim, Stijloor, David and Pudge72 for providing excellant insights in the FMEA :applause:

Stijloor -

Completely Agree!!! Thank you - actually, the way that I develop the FMEA is really not with the customer in mind (some may actually cringe at that), but, rather as a Tool to make the process as robust as possible within the facility.
I look at the FMEA as potentially the biggest 5S, problem solving, process improvement before-it-goes-bad matrix that exists! The opportunity that FMEA allows you to look into your process and make imrovements is lost on so many that it really is too bad.
In actuality, it is the single biggest brainstorming tool that may exist to improve your process without having 50 meetings and as many conference calls. And, whether you utilize it to evaluate failure modes of processes, parts, components, machines or whatever - in the end, all you are doing is evaluating the integrity of what has been developed and where you can improve before the customer even sees it!!!

I'm glad to hear it. :agree1: We need a lot more of that kind of approach, imo.

BTW and :topic:, but I assume that your user name is a reference to this guy (http://www.baseball-almanac.com/players/player.php?p=fiskca01), right?

Here is my last kick at this. It is raining out anyway.

I am going to quote the following from AIAG Potential Failure Mode and Effectg Analysis third edition.

"Typical failure modes could be but are not limited to: Bent, Cracked, Handling Damage, Surface too rough, Open circuited, Burred, Hole too shallow, Dirty, Deformed, Short circuited, Hold off-location, Hole missing, Hole too deep, Surface too smooth and Mis-labeled". Page 41 in the process FMEA section.

Each one of the quoted examples is a product failure mode. The product did not meet expectations in some manner. I don't see anything in the examples listing dull processing tools or broken punch in a stamping atmosphere. All I see above are product failures.

The example that Pudge reflected on a processing tool is a potential cause and not a potential failure mode.

Each example shown above is perceived by a Customer (could be next Operation) or the Operator on the machine.

I don't know about the rest of the people here this morning, but the failure mode per AIAG standard looks pretty black or white to me.

Here is my last kick at this. It is raining out anyway.

I am going to quote the following from AIAG Potential Failure Mode and Effectg Analysis third edition.

"Typical failure modes could be but are not limited to: Bent, Cracked, Handling Damage, Surface too rough, Open circuited, Burred, Hole too shallow, Dirty, Deformed, Short circuited, Hold off-location, Hole missing, Hole too deep, Surface too smooth and Mis-labeled". Page 41 in the process FMEA section.

Each one of the quoted examples is a product failure mode. The product did not meet expectations in some manner. I don't see anything in the examples listing dull processing tools or broken punch in a stamping atmosphere. All I see above are product failures.

The example that Pudge reflected on a processing tool is a potential cause and not a potential failure mode.

Each example shown above is perceived by a Customer (could be next Operation) or the Operator on the machine.

I don't know about the rest of the people here this morning, but the failure mode per AIAG standard looks pretty black or white to me.

Quite frankly I think the AIAG guidelines are wrong in this regard. If you have a customer that insists on cleaving to the letter of the AIAG manual, then you're stuck with doing PFMEA in an inefficient manner, which is nothing new in automotive work. My own experience has been that customers in general don't care one way or the other, and when a question is raised, it's usually a simple matter of explaining one's concern for process control, and how the selection of potential failure modes affects it. There will always be customers who believe that the difference between black and white is a strict dichotomy, and doesn't involve shades of gray. Fortunately, there are a few out there who appreciate when a supplier steps outside the lines and can logically support the reasons for doing so.

Dave - absolutely no offense meant here so please don't take any, but, I really believe that is why the Big Three are also BROKE.
I don't really put a lot of value into their methods any longer except to give them the credit of beginning to develop the system.
I truly believe, and again - I am not trying to be sarcastic, that the reason for a lot of their failure is that they did not allow their own good ideas to morph into something that actually can be used as a tool that not only shows improvement in a product, but in a process as well.
I really don't care about how to eliminate a crack or paint chip in a specific part, I want to eliminate the process that is creating the cracks and the chipping. When I do the FMEA, I examine the specific product which opens up the areas of opportunity, and, I do take into account specifications and requirments that are specific to the product that I am doing the FMEA on, but, I do not allow myself to silo a potential improvement into 1 product. If my FMEA for Part X reveals a process improvement that could be utilized on Part Z - I am going to take advantage of it. That is why I believe that a Failure Mode can be a process which can then be turned into an area of tremendous opportunity.

Friends,

A solid FMEA beats any so called "improvement __________" (y'all fill in the blank) hands down. It's less expensive too. Interesting to see that many "heated" discussions here in The Cove are related to reactive-type work. Wish we could have more preventive-type conversations....:(

Thanks to all of you for your great contributions to FMEA. :applause:

Stijloor.

Jim - :topic:

Yes, you got it!!!

I think that you were the 1st to make the connection.
Hero as both 27 and 72. Decorates most of my downstairs walls with memorabilia of how a player should play the game.

:thanx:

-Pudge

Pudge:

It is still raining here so here goes.

Process FMEAs are mandatory with the big three (or small 3 now) at sample submission but it turned into a game. 50% are made up in a corner by someone in Quality Engineering the day before the samples and paper work are due.

The Risk Priority Numbers are the biggest game ever. Make sure it isn't over 64 as an example or the automotive customer may reject them. We all know how to play the numbers game; drop the severity and maybe the occurence. Yup, we are OK now. Just made the maximum of 64.

When I first started training in this subject in 1993, 70% were not done with anything else in mind except to meet the Customer requirement. It has changed since then and manufacturers have found that it is the best preventive system ever if the company really uses a team approach prior to making the product. It does work!!

Whether the people in the Cover rather deviate from the AIAG standard as far as the definition of potential failure modes, who cares as long as we prevent nonconformities and improve the process. That is what we are all after.

The original question was the definition of a potential falure mode and it is describe clearly in the AIAG standard.

The original question was the definition of a potential falure mode and it is describe clearly in the AIAG standard.

Stiljoor quoted the AIAG FMEA manual:
Potential failure mode is defined as the manner in which the process could potentially fail to meet the process requirements...[Emphasis added]

Note that it doesn't say, "Potential failure mode is defined as the manifestation of process failure in the process output."

The manual provides examples which do not match the definition, so the concept is not "describe clearly" in the manual.

Jim:

I agree that the so called definition is muddy (what does it really mean) but the the AIAG examples used for clarification are very clear.

Jim:

I agree that the so called definition is muddy (what does it really mean) but the the AIAG examples used for clarification are very clear.

You can't isolate the examples from the written explanation. They contradict one another. In the end, sometimes it hinges on what the customer expects to see. Some customers want to see potential failure modes represented as in the examples in the manual, some want to see how the process might feel, and some just want to make sure that there are no blank pages in the PPAP package. There are an enlightened few who understand that what counts is seeing evidence that suppliers have made a conscientious effort to anticipate and prevent problems.

i think we have moved away from the basic question . iam well aware how to identify the failure mode but what i want to know is the potentiality of failure mode and its concerned effect .
let me make you this question clear by an example :
iam creating a product dimension of 100+/-0.5 at a process stage (which is a proces function requirement). now product dimension out of limit is a failure mode. now if i consider the worst effect this lead to impact on safety of end user .
and if i continue considering the FMEA in same manner then at every stage i am either modiying or creating a product dimension and every dimension if considered for worst effect makes its a special product and its concerning processs parameter a special process parameter

but i look from the potentiality point of view ,many product dimensions with the considered worst effect are very difficult or impossible to create or modify .

now this may lead any one in trouble because we may starting focus on those risk or failure mode which may have less probability to happen (high RPN due to high severity) rather than real problamatic failure modes


so if any one have any technical paper or expertise in this field please help me to resolve this issue ?

i think we have moved away from the basic question . iam well aware how to identify the failure mode but what i want to know is the potentiality of failure mode and its concerned effect.
naveenattri, here is the question as you asked it in your original post:
I want to know the defination of term potenial failure mode. and
how we can identify the 'potential failure mode'?

Perhaps we misunderstood.

let me make you this question clear by an example :
iam creating a product dimension of 100+/-0.5 at a process stage (which is a proces function requirement). now product dimension out of limit is a failure mode. now if i consider the worst effect this lead to impact on safety of end user .
and if i continue considering the FMEA in same manner then at every stage i am either modiying or creating a product dimension and every dimension if considered for worst effect makes its a special product and its concerning processs parameter a special process parameter

but i look from the potentiality point of view ,many product dimensions with the considered worst effect are very difficult or impossible to create or modify .

now this may lead any one in trouble because we may starting focus on those risk or failure mode which may have less probability to happen (high RPN due to high severity) rather than real problamatic failure modes


so if any one have any technical paper or expertise in this field please help me to resolve this issue ?

The severity rating shouldn't be looked at in isolation from the other two factors (Occurrence and Detection), unless it's a customer requirement to do so--e.g., you might have a customer that requires actions to take place for all Severity ratings > x.

If you have a high severity rating, and relatively low Occurrence and Detection ratings, you will, in all likelihood, wind up with a relatively low RPN. RPN ratings should be viewed as relative values, and in general, the highest ones should be addressed before lower ones, all else being equal. The PFMEA process must be undertaken with the understanding that output will be governed by rational consideration of risks, and not by knee-jerk reactions to RPN ratings. You have to think about the possibilities and make rational, unbiased decisions with the available evidence.

Please let a non-automotive person jump in here. I am VERY limited in my knowledge and use of FMEAs.

The examples stated seem to disclose non-conformances (chipped paint etc.). I thought FMEAs were suppose to be for potential problems. What I see here are Non Conformances. Could someone please clear this up for me? Again, please excuse my lack of knowledge on this.

Doug

Please let a non-automotive person jump in here. I am VERY limited in my knowledge and use of FMEAs.

The examples stated seem to disclose non-conformances (chipped paint etc.). I thought FMEAs were suppose to be for potential problems. What I see here are Non Conformances. Could someone please clear this up for me? Again, please excuse my lack of knowledge on this.

Doug

The examples are referring to potential problems, their potential causes and likely effects. We know, for example, that chipped paint might be the result of poor packaging and/or rough handling. We might know this because it's happened before to our products (direct experience) or because we can logically deduce that painted objects might need special care in handling and packaging.

To me this is the same debate as "preventive corrective action". This is confusing because we try to apply rational limits to "potential" and "preventive" within reason. On any scale one person's 8 is anothers 9. It is really a subjective issue, and I empathize with people that want some rules or scoping so these words don't imply in some type of infinitesimal, non productive, nor realistic strife for quality.:)

New reader/poster here, and also new to PFMEA. Currently involved in one at work and having a hard time making the Failure Mode/Effect/Cause distinction. However after reading this thread it has become somewhat clearer. Now to convince the rest of team.
Thanks for your informative posts!!
RLaw

Welcome RLaw,

Glad that you found this place useful. Do come back if you have other queries.