I have a copy of the 3rd version. In fact, there's a thread here somewhere whiich lists the differences as I remember. But as a consultant (project manager?) I haven't had to use it. What I did see as I looked through it was nothing earthshaking.

Would you care to take a jab at giving us a summary of the differences? :thedeal:

The major difference affecting the FMEA format is that it adds one extra column which messes up the formatting in the other programs. If you add the column (very easy by the way) you have to re-format the form to fit the page.

Dave

Until, Steve stabs, the only major difference I see is that it splits the "Current Control" into two columns -- "Current Controls Prevention" and "Current Controls Detection." That, plus the fact that you have to shell out additional money to the AIAG to replace all the 2nd Edition FMEA books you previously purchased.

Yeah - Howard ordered several and had them sent to me. I took one and remailed the remaining copies to him. Cheaper than having them mailed direct to him. Go figure.

Most of the people I speak to are not using the 3rd Edition format yet. There is nothing forcing them yet ... perhaps this may change.

I find that most companies are still struggling with how to do a basic FMEA study i.e. Failure Mode vs. Failure Effect ...

A bigger problem is that no two FMEAs are the same -- if two groups perform an FMEA on the exact same part, the results will vary considerably --- instead of adding more columns, more emphasis should have be placed on education, case studies etc...

My opinion ...

Steve

sbond@dyadem.com

Most of the people I speak to are not using the 3rd Edition format yet. There is nothing forcing them yet ... perhaps this may change.

Third Edition took effect July 2001. Use of the previous edition after that date constitutes a nonconformance, if discovered. The new edition should have replaced the old in your controlled document system.

Customers may not be requiring it from you but a QS auditor will. AIAG may not care if you use it, but they would be very upset if they thought people could avoid paying for the new edition. :ko:

Dave

FYI…Ford has LOST the Source Code to their FMEA+ program…

What does this mean?Well enjoy the current version (4.1), cuz there will be no more modifications without the Source Code! No FMEA 3rd edition!

Conversation with an x-Ford colleague many months ago, revealed a need to go elsewhere for canned software. Chris has stumbled onto the only one we found that both imports FMEA+ files & prints to HTML (which could be opened in Excel). Hats-Off to FMEApro. This package is Slick! Now, regardless of what happens in the future, I can always dump my FMEApro files into excel or word..I am no longer at the mercy of a software company!

Big-3-Hand-Puppet:bonk:

That's pretty funny! LOL Lost the code....wow. That explains it then. I'm still waiting on the code to use that FMEA pro program.

It would appear that the FMEA on the program was not complete

I am in the process of updating our fmeas to the 3rd edition anual. The only real changes on the fmea are separating preventive from corrective controls whixh I believe is a good thing. You can stand back and see just how many preventive measures you are actually taking. Also, I create fmeas in excel and look forward to reviewing the free program mentioned here. If there is any good software out there I would appreciate hearing about it. I don't work for a multimillion dollar company so cost is a factor.:eek:

We work with GM, Ford and Chrysler and Chrysler has asked about the third edition changes but GM has demanded that we incorporate the changes in existing FMEA's and even had us attend a workshop for FMEA writing which spent some time covering the 3rd edition changes.

I see that most people are aware of the changes that affect Current Process Controls-Detection vs. Prevention but nothing has been mentioned for what I think is the biggest change...the "Suggested" (I use suggested loosely because it's been mandated we follow it) Evaluation Criteria for Detection.

It has gone from a very liberal, loose interpretation in 2nd edition to actually specifying inspection types, criteria for controls and suggested range of Detection Modes (see pg 53).

People that thought their 200% visual inspection was foolproof can now give it no better than a 7 on the detection scale. Control achieved with SPC can get no better than a 6.

It's basically forced us to go back and re-evaluate how we rate our detection levels and in some cases has caused us to streamline the ratings between FMEA's where we unknowingly gave one detection level a 5 on one FMEA and the same item on another FMEA a 2.

In fact we found that very few of our detection levels can actually get a 1 because the new criteria dictates that the process/product design must be error proofed.

It certainly presents lots of opportunities for improvement, but realistically it will also raise the RPN's across the board which was every managers nightmare. It wasn't uncommon in the class to see several RPN's in the 400 range.

Has anyone else had a customer hold them to the new criteria?

What about customers dictating a "bogey target" for RPN's?

What's really scary is our QS Auditor can in here in Sept and wasn't even aware of the third edition changes.

Food for thought

John

John,
Our auditor was here last week and he wasn't aware of the changes either. He heard it first from me. These registrars amaze. Just once I would like to go in and audit them. Maybe Ford will ask me sometime?

Just a quick note for everyone who may still be reading this thread. I know this isn't what the original subject of this thread was but...

I was at a workshop in early September and the feedback I was getting from the Automotive Supplier Task Force was that they want to get rid of the RPN calculation, hopefully with the next release of the FMEA reference manual.

Focus should move to the higher ranked failure effects (severity) with continuous improvement efforts implemented to reduce the occurence and detection rankings to 1.

There are those 2 words again; continuous improvement.

Ice
:truce:

Actually, I don't expect the RPN to "go away," just that the focus will be more on what's really important. We recently purchased software (Q-Plus from Harpco Systems, Inc) not necessarily because of the software itself, but rather because the philosophy of the person who created the software. He made a very convincing argument that just looking at RPN's doesn't mean squat.

Sounds like the Automotive Task Force may be moving in the right direction, as far as I'm concerned.

David,

What do you think of Rich's software package? We have been using it for the entire life of our facility (approximately 6 years now) and I love it.

I found the learning curve on it to be quite steep but once I figured out what Rich was thinking when he wrote this app, it was clear sailing and a drastic improvement over any other application that was on the market then, or available now.

Good luck.

Ice

I agree that QPLUS will have a fairly steep learning curve. We've just installed it and have not really begun the journey to populate it other than from a 2-day consulting session with Rich.

However, I think it could revolutionize the way we look at FMEA's. I actually now see where we can gain significant benefits through the FMEA process -- not because we're needing a document to send to our customer (who really is only looking for a piece of paper in many cases), but rather because we have a tool for more systematic troubleshooting, root cause analysis, and a "lessons learned" database.

I've got high hopes. But again, we've JUST started on the journey. Glad to hear that your experiences after six years re-enforce our own perceptions.

Does it really make a difference what AIAG sells if we are being pushed to use "powerway" as our PPAP tool?

Sam,

Don't get sucked into believing that you have to use the Powerway APQP application, as Powerway would like you to.

The only thing that is required is that you use the portal that is provided by Powerway.com. You can continue to use any APQP application, or even Word, Excel, Lotus, etc., if you like.

Our company was ready to spend oodles of cash on Powerway's APQP app but luckily I was able to make the powers that be see the light.

Ice.

David McGan

My company, too, has used the QPLUS system for over four years. I agree with IceZebra that the learning curve is extremely steep, especially if you've ever been through a B3 FMEA seminar. While I have some things I would like to see "upgraded", I have not run across any better software. My management recently wanted to see if there was something a little more "user friendly" out there so I got to try quite a number.

Either Rich or Bob are coming to our facility in a month or so and I'm hoping to bounce some ideas that I have off them (their "Help" menu is worthless, IMO).

Good luck and I think once you get going that you will be impressed with the change in the way you "look at" FMEAs.

Sam

I now have two (soon to be five) customers all wanting submission on-line and "demanding" their preferred software package. I sent each of them a "trial" submission with all the documentation in ".pdf" format and asked if there were any issues with the submission. The response from each was "None"!!!! :frust:

Go figure.

Bill

ICE,
my statement was meant to be a "tongue-in-cheek" comment based on the need to meet customer requirements, however, your response has generated a couple of questions.

1- does that mean this would be a no cost venture to use the powerway portal?

2- is excel directly exportable to or through this portal?

3- Have you used this portal for submission?

Bill,
We supply product to all of the automotive OEM's. Not one has asked for an on-line PPAP/ISIR submission.

As far as software, my personel choice is Excel. Primarily because I'm not tied into yearly maintenance fees.
Coupled with Viseo/MS project/auto-cad/solid works, it makes one powerful tool.

Oops, I missed that Sam. Sorry about that.

I was just offering my 2 cents regarding Powerway. It took some convincing here that you don't need to use their APQP software and I figured that we couldn't be the only company with that impression.

To answer your questions:

1) Oh, there will be a cost. I'm not sure what it is but you will need to pay Powerway a license fee to get to their portal.

2) I believe that any application that can generate an electronic file will be able to use the portal. In a nutshell, you will need to upload your file(s) (i.e. FMEA, Control Plan, etc.) to Powerway's database using your web browser. From there, your customer can download and review it (should they wish to). In reality, they will probably just check to make sure you have met your date requirements. If the file isn't there by the required date, then that will raise a flag to your customer and they will probably come a callin'.

3) We have not used the portal yet as our next program is not slated to start until sometime in 2004 but we are in the process of acquiring the proper licensing and hoping to do some poking around in the database.

In response to the applications that you do you use, I agree that these are very powerful tools (we have them all here too) but you may want to consider an integrated package for your APQP needs. Documents like process flow charts are generated automatically based on information entered into them. There is no need to create a separate document. If you remove a step from your FMEA, then it is automatically removed from all other documents. I know that our software package does this and that other applications that are available do it also. Additionally, they usually are driven by databases and thus you do not have a bunch of computer files that litter your hard drive (or network drive, as the case may be).

I offer this only as something to think about and not as a sales pitch for software. I had some difficulty convincing some of my teammates on the advantages of a software package but once I did, they ran with it and they're still running :).

Ice

Sam

American Axle is already on-line. Dana is very close (which is why I included them). Siemens, TRW, and Delphi are supposedly heading that way. I've heard rumors of others. I'm just implying that it will probably become the "wave of the future" (which might help save some of our Wisconsin lumber!!!).

Bill

just give them some time...the whole powerway thing is getting ready to crumble like a house of cards. When they started to pressure me, I held to the end of the month and cut a deal for 2 users- 5,760. Lot better than 9K for web-ware that my SQS at D/C never uses anyway. My GM rep never heard of it, and Ford....well they are Ford. The only one who seems to use Powerway is Powerway.

I now have customers requiring that my PFMEAs be in the third edition format. We are tier two by the way. Reading the new edition on page 51 first paragraph there is an out for the new two columns. You can still use one column but you have to list your preventive control and detection control.

I have Powerway software but have installed the upgrade for the two column as I have a number pf PPAP approvals pending and I do not want to change over until they are all under raps.

I agree that canned software beats the heck out of excel, even though before Powerway that's exactly what I used.

Good luck,

Jay Sturgeon


"Quality is not an accdient."