Applying FMEA to National-Level Issues

FMEA has been a popular tool for risk assessment and process improvement in manufacturing, service, and health area, where it can often prevent problems that could run into the thousands or millions of dollars. But has such a structured approach ever applied to billion dollar problems?

The thought first occurred to me during the early stage of the war in Iraq. What "failure modes" could there be for the war?

• the Iraqi army puts up unexpectedly fierce resistance
• the Iraqi army uses chemical or biological weapons
• the Iraqi army initially puts up no resistance, but turns to guerilla warfare
• the Iraqi army crumbles, allowing weapons to fall into the hands of radicals
• the general population rises in a holy war against the infidels
• ....

What is the likelihood of each scenario? What is cost? What planning would mitigate the problem?

Currently the issue could be natural disaster. What disasters face the nation?

• a hurrican swamps New Orleans
• a 7.0 earthquake strikes LA
• forest fires threaten San Diego
• a bird flu pandemic strikes
• an asteroid is on a collision course
• ....

What is the probabilty? What is the cost? Can they be detected in time to take immediate action? How could they be mitigated?

I'm sure much of this goes on behind the scenes and we just don't know it. The Pentagon isn't likely to discuss with the public their unvarnished estimates of what will likely happen. Insurance companies have a multibillion dollar stake in major disasters, so they must do some extensive risk assessment.

Stiil, it often seems from the outside like many big decisions are based more on turf wars, egos, luck or just plain whim, rather than any rational process. Is there some way to bring ideas from quality engineering into what are usually emotional or political decisions? Should $2 billion be used to build a bridge to a remote Alaskan island, immunize millions of children against diseases, reinforce buildings in LA, or build levees around New Orleans?

I don't want this to turn into a political debate or assign blame for current problems. There is certainly plenty of blame to go around. I'm not even specifically interested in focusing on Iraq or New Orleans. I am hoping, rather to gain insight into assessing risk, improving processes, and ultimately saving lives.

Is something like FMEA viable for national issues?
Is it already being effectively done in some arenas?
Where might it provide noticeable improvements?
Should we actively lobby for such approaches?
Should the process be more tranparent (or would that just scare people)?


Tim F

P.S. I know there are lots of lawyers in Congress. There are businessmen and retired military personel. There are a few scientists andentertainers. Are there any quality engineers in major political offices???

Tim Folkerts said:

FMEA has been a popular tool for risk assessment and process improvement in manufacturing, service, and health area, where it can often prevent problems that could run into the thousands or millions of dollars. But has such a structured approach ever applied to billion dollar problems? ...Are there any quality engineers in major political offices???

Click to expand...

I haven't heard of a single one.

Today I heard a news reporter from the Netherlands on NPR. The reporter said that Katrina and its flooding is pretty much all the Europeans are talking about these days. It seems that the Netherlands had levees break with big flooding about 50 years ago. They are astonished that with all of our might and wealth the U.S. is acting like we have never thought of this and it's like there is a war going on in New Orleans.

Let's keep it theoretical!

Herbert Hoover was an engineer and that poor soul presided over the 1929 crash and fallout.

Anyone with other thoughts on this topic? Please remember that Moderators and Administrators will watch this thread like hawks to delete any political or libelous commentary directed at individuals or parties.

Wes Bucey said:

Anyone with other thoughts on this topic? Please remember that Moderators and Administrators will watch this thread like hawks to delete any political or libelous commentary directed at individuals or parties.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I have a thought. I think it would be a good idea not to post a long, politically-charged, way, way off-topic diatribe about a situation that's ripe for political finger-pointing and then ask people to "keep it theoretical" and threaten moderator predation for those who take the bait.

I promise to be good.

The Next Big Question will be interesting. I have heard that the historic buildings are mostly on drier ground, and seem to have been spared the wholesale flooding damage.

What did the Netherlands do after their big flooding (due to broken levees) 50 years ago, anyone know?

Jim is right! I deleted the political screed. I left the fact of Hoover and the warning.

Going back to the general, hypothetical question...

It's my observation that risk management is something that people in general
(including many of us in quality, who should be trained for it!) is very poorly
understood, and even more poorly implemented.

As an example, it always makes me cringe when someone asks whether
some activity, place, or whatever is "safe".

To me, "safe" is a variable, not an attribute.

In my spare time, I help out as a scout troop leader. We do some fairly
aggressive outings, especially with our 14 - 18 yr olds. (I do not do these
aggressive outings; I'm with the younger group.) Our guys have done
rock climbing, ice climbing, ski touring, and mountain climbing. We do
whitewater rafting and swift water canoeing. Are these activities SAFE?

Well, people die doing all of them, when they are improperly equipped,
trained, or maybe just unlucky. We have had minor injuries, up to and
including broken bones.

But by the numbers, the riskiest thing we do... is drive 100 or 200 miles
in private car pools to get to the sites!

Regards,
Brad

Caution

I knew I was edging up pretty close to the line of being too political with this thread. Still I think the core thought is valid (and non-political).

Quality engineering has a lot of useful tools for studying problems and making improvements. These tools have proved useful on small to medium scales and I believe that with the right people and the right push, these same principles could be effectively be used on larger scales as well.


As Brad points out, logic and rational thought are not always how people approach life. In the case of risk assessment, some activities which are actually quite risky have been accepted as just a part of life, while other activities that are much safer are avoided because they are outside our everyday experiences.

It is also important to realize that people don't act on pure rational thought. An ounce of prevention may be worth a pound of cure, but that can sure be a tough sell. That's true whether we are talking about getting around to changing the oil in your car, or shutting down a production line to "fix" a machine that is still working, or preparing for a disaster that might never come.


Tim F

P.S. Perhaps this thread would have been more approriate over at ASQ's "Current Events" discussion, but I always seem to think of the Cove first for discussions of any quality-related issues.

Tim Folkerts said:

Quality engineering has a lot of useful tools for studying problems and making improvements. These tools have proved useful on small to medium scales and I believe that with the right people and the right push, these same principles could be effectively be used on larger scales as well.

Click to expand...

The irony, if there is any, is that the FMEA process as a formal defect prevention tool came to use from the government in the form of a military standard. As the AIAG/SAE FMEA manual says,

This systematic approach parallels, formalizes and documents then mental disciplines that an engineer normally goes through in any design process.

Click to expand...

. FMEA is a process of risk assessment and mitigation, and as such it's something that is normally practiced (we hope), if not formalized, in all situations such as what we're seeing in New Orleans right now. The formalization of the practice helps to add discipline and structure and creates a useful record, so adoption of the formal model (or something like it) would probably be a good idea in many cases.

Wes Bucey said:

Jim is right! I deleted the political screed. I left the fact of Hoover and the warning.

Click to expand...

Because the post is gone, it's only fair to say that Wes's discretion in deleting it is to be commended, and it (the original post) was obviously the result of the level of frustration and impotence we're all feeling right now over the NO situation, and not just a gratuitious "screed" or "diatribe" as I described it. Thanks, Wes .