Dear friends:

Can anybody give me an explanation about the requirement 5.6.2.1 of standard ISO / TS 16.949? ("Input to management review shall include an analysis of actual and potential field-failures and their impact on quality, safety, or the enviroment").

Thanks in advance,

Javier Verdugo

My interpretation, and that og the the trainer from Plexus (they provide the training for AIAG), is that this is an analysis of the FMEA's and RPN's.

Input to management review is to include information on any field failures that your organization has had or (in the case of a FMEA) could have. Root cause analysis and investigations into the elimination of the problem is what they mean. Automakers do not want you to ignore field failures or to hide them they want them known to top management and discussions on the root cause and the elimination of the problems. JMHO.

See these threads as well:
http://elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=7944

http://elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=6298

Dear friends:

Can anybody give me an explanation about the requirement 5.6.2.1 of standard ISO / TS 16.949? ("Input to management review shall include an analysis of actual and potential field-failures and their impact on quality, safety, or the enviroment").

Thanks in advance,

Javier Verdugo

Anybody with any experience - especially in the "potential field failures" - any non conformities received - any implementation experience / examples?

Best regards,
Antoine :thanx:

We've interpeted actual and or potential field-failures as warranty parts.

My company will have the certification audit next monthand I am actually preparing something to meet this requirement. I first focus on the actual field failure. My interpretation is that it is the problems that caused the return or claims from customer or end users. It's easier to get the data.

For the potential field failure, I treat it as the problem that not yet occur in customer side. I called the engineer to have a brain storming discussion to anticipate the potential problems. It was difficult since most of the engineers tend to think of the experienced defects or problem. What I did is to lead them think of the impact of the new process, product or any other new requirements (eg RoHS).

I also thought about to make a more comprehesive analysis to break down the return/claims of different customer or products. Then the actual field failure may become the potential failure of other customers. But since the TS16949 does not specify too much details of such analysis. I prefer to go in an easire way.