Hello everybody
There is a new AIAG FMEA revision, I haven't read it yet but I just want you to be aware

------------------
Alex

Cha-Ching$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Continuous Improvement or Continuous Gouging!

Hello again,

I reviewed the link that Marc posted and the AIAG hasn't released the 3rd edition yet, so I probably have a draft document. I found several changes.

1. CURRENT CONTROLS. Now we have to establish if the controls are for detection or for prevention.

2. SEVERITY CRITERIA. There are two columns, one for the end user effect and the other one for Manufacturing / Assembly Effect.

3. OCCURRENCE CRITERIA. The Cpk column was deleted, but a Ppk matrix with calculation explanation was added in the appendix.

4. DETECTION CRITERIA. It is established a more clear criteria focused in error proofing.

5. RECOMENDED ACTIONS. More clear criteria specifying that rankings of 9 or 8 should have special atencion. And what are the specified steps for recomended actions, first severity, then occurence and finally detection.

My point of view is that this FMEA 3rd edition is very similar of the FMEA manuals released by Ford.

Regards,

------------------
Alex

In the pdf_files directory there is a gif file named FMEA-Newest_Manual_Released.gif announcing the release of the AIAG's 'newest' (Edition 3) FMEA Manual.

I have also received the 'Changes Summary' which I'll be posting in the Members File Access directory as soon as I get them typed in - maybe in a day or three. Of course the Premium Access folks will auto-magically get the summary at the same time as Premium Access includes access to all the files in the Members Access directories.

Stay tuned. Changes are mostly clarifications which more specifically define what they ('Le Grande Menage-a-Trois') 'expect' and/or 'require'. One might even look at most of the AIAG's revisions as one sees the QS-9000 'Interpretations' which periodically auto-magically appear.

This is really only significant to 'Big Menage-a-Trois' suppliers. If you do FMEAs of whatever kind/type and you're not 'automotive', this isn't much worth your attention.

I have not yet contrasted the SAE's FMEA Manual - J1739_200006 (available from the Society of Automotive Engineers (http://sae.org) ) with the new AIAG FMEA 'Manual' (I guess I'll have to buy it....) so I won't yet comment on how they contrast. I'll do that and publish it when I upgrade the FMEA Guide File Set.

Hi Marc:
Long time no "see". :cool: I requested a copy of the changes from AIAG (attached as Word document). Here also is a text version of the 3rd edition changes. My main gripe as an auditor has been addressing not only high RPNs but also those with high severity which the 3rd edition now more clearly recognizes (yes, there is a God):

3rd Edition
Design FMEA – Introduction
· In the Team Effort section, the technical/physical limits of product maintenance (service) is given consideration.
Design FMEA – Development of a Design FMEA
· Detailed discussion of system, subsystem, and component in item 2 with an associated appendix (Appendix F) that provides descriptions and examples.
· For the severity ranking, the ranking used is the most serious for a given failure mode. If a failure mode has numerous effects, only the most serious matters.
· Two notes added to discussion of severity ranking.· Additional examples of typical causes of failure provided.
· Occurrence table changed to failures per thousand vehicles/items.
· Only two types of design controls are recognized:§ Prevention§ Detection
· For design controls, the form has been changed to provide for separate columns to record controls. One column is to be used to record prevention controls, the other column is for detection controls.
· The one column form for controls is still included in the appendix, however, use of the two column form for controls is the preferred approach.
· The example used has been changed to reflect the two columns for controls.
· To determine the detection ranking, only detection controls are considered.
· For recommended actions, focus first on high severity and then on high RPN.
· Intent of actions is to first reduce the severity ranking then the occurrence ranking then the detection ranking.
Process FMEA – Introduction

Process FMEA – Development of a Process FMEA
· For Key Date, a note has been added for suppliers that recognize a due date at scheduled start of production is too late. The latest the due date could be for a supplier is the customer required PPAP submission date.
· In item 9, Process Function/Requirements, it is recommended to record the associated process/operation number for the step being analyzed.
· Additional examples of typical failure modes have been provided.
· In item 10, Potential Failure Mode, a note has been added that provides guidance on recording potential failure modes.
· For the severity ranking, the ranking that is used is the most serious for a given failure mode. If a failure mode has numerous effects, only the most serious matters.
· Severity table has been changed to recognize effects for both internal and external customers.
· A note has been added to the severity section.
· Additional examples for causes of failure have been provided.
· Occurrence table changed to failures per thousand vehicles/items.
· Appendix (Appendix I) provided with associated Ppk values to assist team in determining the occurrence ranking.
· Only two types of process controls are recognized:§ Prevention§ Detection
· For process controls, the form has been changed to provide for separate columns to record controls. One column is to be used to record prevention controls, the other column is for detection controls.
· The one column form for controls is still included in the appendix, however, use of the two-column form for controls is the preferred approach.
· The example used has been changed to reflect the two columns for controls.
· To determine the detection ranking, only the detection controls are considered.
· Detection table provides additional detail to assist the team in determining the detection ranking.
· For recommended actions, focus first on high severity and then on high RPN.
· Intent of actions is to first reduce the severity ranking then the occurrence ranking then the detection ranking.

Process FMEA – Follow Up
· Methods to use to ensure that concerns have been identified and actions implemented have been included.
Appendices
· Design FMEA Quality Objectives and Process FMEA Quality Objectives have been added as appendix A and B respectively.
· Both one column and two columns forms for controls are included.
· An appendix (Appendix F) has been added that provides information concerning the interfaces and interactions among systems, subsystems, and components.
· An appendix (Appendix I) has been added that includes a Ppk column for the Process FMEA occurrence table. It also includes sample calculations.

Best Regards,

Pete

A new edition of FMEA has recently gone out, we're a tier 2 supplier, is this new edition going to affect us. I read a rejoinder at the AIAG website that this new addition are only applicable to tier 1 suppliers of the big three. corporations..

Any comments:rolleyes:

Hi, Pete! Well, I missed saying thanks for your post and attachment. It was posted during a pretty stressful time - right at that first week after the server software and host changeovers which was one of the worst projects I have ever had the displeasure to manage. What a nightmare...

Belatedly, thanks! Always good to see you stop by! :thedeal:

I've just gone through (with our customers input) a very very detailed PFMEA exercise.

Question - If a probable failure is determined "at any given point in a process" and a similar action takes place in -(for example) four separate steps of the complete process - is it necessary to Duplicate the rankings for each operation?

We were struggling with - a "handling issue" and trying to determine what caused - scratches - nicks - burrs on one part at each step of a process --- what we ended up doing was duplication of all the Probable causes for each operation and then "re-ranking (or not) the Sev - Occ- etc.

Seems to me what we ended up with was nothing less than 650 line items if information - that consisted of 35-40 useable lines - and then duplicated to the point of sheer madness.

Is there a "rule/guyide for use" of some kind for an fmea that says - one probable cause - one probable effect - is enough?

Do you do a PFMEA for each individual process or one for a series of processes?

Each step -1) Load 2) process 3) unload - at each process within the plant...

Each process or 'operation' has it's own FMEA, right? It sounds like a 'process' FMEA (which I support) as opposed to a product FMEA (all operations).

The difference is that in multiple operations it is easiest, and makes the most sense (IMHO), to do a 'Process' FMEA for each process step. That way you can use the same FMEA for any part you put through the process. For example, if you do an FMEA on a grind operation / machine, then any part you put through the operation will use the same FMEA. In cases where dimensions called out are different you can address through a matrix. If you did it this way, you would only address the handling issue in 1 small PFMEA.

I don't want to mislead anyone - I represent a software company called Dyadem specializing in FMEA software. As there is a lot of talk about FMEA processes, I thought that some of you may be interested in reviewing our program. If so, please email me at gatkinson@dyadem.com and we can talk. Thanks.

No problem with your post, Northern Comfort.

The problem which comes into play - which is why I have these forums up - is even given good software, if one doesn't understand FMEAs software is of little use. I most often see this with statistical packages, less with stuff like FMEAs.

I do believe FMEA - or for automotive in particular an FMEA - Control Plan - Flow Diagram integrated package - is worth its weight in gold.

I agree "admin". One thing we do at Dyadem is FMEA training, and while on site, I am always amazed at the individual companies procedures for the completion of their FMEA studies. Its not that their approach is incorrect, its just the different styles of how to complete them, and the differences are not just within the facility, they are within the departments. The point I'm making is that I find most facilities lack the consistency in their corporate approach to studies, meaning the left hand usually doesn't know what the right is doing. Its not that the engineers don't know how to complete the FMEA's, its that they do not know how to complete them while maintaining a corporate consistency.

Its obvious that I work for a company that sells an FMEA software application, and my end goal of course is to sell a couple license of the program, but with that said, I would be more than happy to share my training knowledge with anyone who has any questions. I personally value the FMEA methodology, and would love to see it more widely used within all industries from Medical to Automotive.

The post from the admin was because we technically don't allow advertising - particuarly Forum SPAMMING.

Your post was allowed (not moved to the 'Advertising' Forum) because you stated that you sell software, your post was not aggressive hype marketing and because you registered (guaranteeing a valid e-mail address). We are more than happy for you to join in the discussion - even with respect to your product - as long as it is relevant to the thread topic and as long as facts are presented. Hold the hype, so to speak.

These forums are for sharing knowledge and we all hope you will contribute from that angle!

The "hype" shall be kept to a minimum. I am in a fortunate position as the company I represent literally has 1000's of clients from the largest size companies to the small start-ups, and due to this, I have truly seen a lot. We work hand in hand with our clients, allowing me to understand their approach to their studies. Just when I think I've seen it all, another company comes on board with a new approach and style which is exciting and different. My goal is to share these stories and experiences with anyone who wishes to listen. (leaving out the companies names of course).

Also see http://Elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=3881 where a couple of posts on the second page which take a stab at the differences.

Of course there's always http://Elsmar.com/FMEA/ for some basics.

The data file for this and other FMEA files are in the Premium Restricted Access Directory (http://Elsmar.com/Cove_Premium/) directory. Join Here (http://Elsmar.com/join.html) if you haven't already.

This is the Premium Restricted Access Directory Subscription file listing (http://Elsmar.com/Premium_Files.html). (275K)