Containment FMEA and GP-12 (GM procedure for early production containment)

[Marc]

Subject: Re: Containment FMEA
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1999 19:49:30 -0500
To: Leann

--> Leann wrote:
-->
--> Marc,
-->
--> Good memory, but I'm not overseeing anything except my desk!!
-->
--> I've asked a few of the experts here if they were familiar with
--> CFMEAs and no one knew what I was talking about. We do have a
--> 'Critical Problem Containment' spec, but I don't believe the spec
--> will fulfill the requirement in the SS.
-->
--> What does the spec say?
-->
--> Since the goal of containment is 'to have certified product at the
--> customer in 24 hours', does a CFMEA address this issue, or does it
--> refer to the final test of the product?
-->
--> Thank you for your reply. I'm leaving for the day so I'll look for
--> your response tomorrow. Have a good evening, Marc.
-->
--> Regards,
-->
--> Leann...

Well, you'll have to hate me for this. I don't have the most recent Semi-conductor Supplement and I can't find [I'm single and not real organized at times] my old one off hand to reference. I remember the issue and searched my archives but can't come up with a document or anything with related info. I do remember going through that requirement with the LRQA lead auditor - what-was-his-name with red hair - either in Guadalajara or Phoenix. Maybe it was in Mesa that it surfaced in my view. Can't remember. The question came down to the intent, as I remember - What do you do to ensure there are no holes in your containment process.

I do not agree that "...the goal of containment is 'to have certified product at the customer in 24 hours'". That is one single part of containment. Containment is the many things a company does when a problem is identified - internally or externally. Containment is just that - to contain. To keep from getting out.

Including:

• Identify part number and determine what has been shipped, when, what is in the hands of customers (in their stock - requires close contact with a customer 'point of contact'), what is enroute, etc.
• Determine when the 'event' occurred (like lot number).
• Isolate in-house and warehoused suspect product.
• Determine earliest and latest. Eg. Did test fail? When? Is this a 'standard' that went bad? In the case of a test instrument calibration, when was the last calibration? Can you test interim product to see if stuff in between is OK or where the calibration went far enough out as to allow nonconforming product to be 'passed' and shipped. What shipped product lots are 'suspect' and 'what's in the pipeline'?
• Close communication with customers to ensure 'timely' update on possible (suspect) lots or known 'contaminated' lots.
• The customer has to have knowledge of lots - what may they have shipped that was assembled with your suspect component.

What you do to ensure that product shipped from the point at which you know of the problem is 'Conforming' [HOLD EVERYTHING!!!! - What have we got here?] (often 100% inspection/test for the specific defect and then you 'certify' [as per the SS requirement, but typical outside the sector as well - can you say SORT?] each shipment for an agreed upon time period - which depends upon the problem identified, etc., as I'm sure you know). This is what you ship to the customer within X hours (not always considering reality). The intent here with the stated hours is to avoid interrupting a customer's manufacturing schedule.

Not necessarily in the above order / many are 'simultaneous', so to speak. To me a containment FMEA would be an FMEA on these types of actions.

I can't remember about Phoenix-Mesa, but in Guad the auditors came in about 11 pm or so and said "GO" and Guad had 12 hours to contain - which [in general] included the actions above that I listed above, but limited to what could be done locally (no customers were contacted or anything - it was a fire drill, if you will). But - I don't remember a specific 'Containment FMEA' document.

To be honest I can't remember the details or specifically how it was explained that Motorola complied. I remember it came up in part with 'What is the FORMAT for a containment FMEA?'

You folks are the only semiconductor manufacturer I have worked with in QS and the specific term 'Containment FMEA' never came up before or after in so far as I, one with 'old timer's disease' [I can't remember s__t] can remember. But again - I do remember it as a specific issue. I guess MY question is - is LRQA not still your registrar? Since I know the requirement was addressed, what has happened that the issue has arisen?

Anyone else have any experience or info with Containment FMEAs?

[Laura M]

Marc,
Don't know if this will help, but we added the GP-12 (GM procedure for early production containment) to our PFD's, PFMEA's and Control Plans. We had a GP-12 version, and then standard process. Containment "failure modes" were things like "mixed stock", "short skids" (missing parts if defects are removed), "visual inspection doesn't catch the defect", etc. We may or may not revise the containment process/instructions, if in reviewing the intended containment we thought we were introducing problems.

As far as containment after the customer has id'd a defect, we implemented instructions, looked at why the defect wasn't identified by the process, and at the end of the problem solving process, the necessary actions typically ended up at process changes on the PFMEA. Didn't really have anything called a containment FMEA - but the closest would be my reference above.

Laura

[Marc]

Thanks for the feedback! Others?

[Bill Ryan]

I had not heard of a Containment PFMEA until this thread was resurrected. I suppose you could go through the FMEA process if you were trying to debug your Containment Procedure, but that sounds like maybe having too much time on one's hands.

I have "heard of" Containment Control Plans (different than "Pre-launch" or "GP-12" that Laura mentioned) but we don't use them. We use our NCM procedure and the "instruction approach" (again as Laura mentioned) because most containment issues seem to be a single (maybe two) nonconformance. Once the CA is performed (correctly!!!!), the "single item Control Plan" would be obsolete. If the need to go into containment came up again, it wouldn't make sense to keep adding to the list when the previous things have been corrected. In addition - once the nonconformance has been identified, the current PFMEA would/should be updated to address the issue.

There are times when customers have required reverting to the Pre-launch Control Plan for existing product being put on a new module/line (as an example), but that doesn't seem to happen too much.

Bill

[lana2006]

Hi Mark

I have a question about GP-12
On December 2066 we will ended a project, its necesary to make a GP 12 for it?

Thanks

[lana2006]

Sorry 2006

[Jim Wynne]

Originally Posted by lana2006

Hi Mark

I have a question about GP-12
On December 2066 we will ended a project, its necesary to make a GP 12 for it?

Thanks

Do you mean the end of a design project and the beginning of production? GP12 is for early (i.e., at the beginning) production containment.

[jeffrey_Chang]

Originally Posted by Marc

Anyone else have any experience or info with Containment FMEAs?

Hi Marc,
Containment FMEA (CFMEA) is used to identify critical failure mechanisms, which due to low detectability and or high criticality require a containment screen. It will also be used in developing a permanent corrective action to eliminate the root cause of a problem (8D containment plan) or actions to monitor improvements/changes. Effective corrective actions from the CFMEA should be eventually integrated into the respective FMEA through periodic review.
Normally, we will use the CFMEA when we receive a complaint from the customer.
Hopes this helps.
thks.
jeffrey.