Reducing both Detection and Occurance in a Design FMEA WITHOUT a Design Change

[MSAFAI]

Hi everybody,

The following question has kept me awake to this hour (it is now about 4 o'clock AM where I live):

In the DFMEA example given in the QS9000 FMEA manual, in more than one occasion you come across a reduction of both D and O WITHOUT any design changes. It seems as if reducing D will reduce O. Whereas, the manual states "the only way to bring a reduction in the occurence number is to change the design".

Can anyone explain this apparant contradiction between the manual's text and the manual's example?

Thanks in advance
MSAFAI

MSAFAI:


How did you deduce that there was no design change?

ASD...

Originally posted by MSAFAI:
Dear Al,

Please have a look at the DFMEA example given in the QS9000 FMEA manual. I quote from the manual two cases, column 'Actions Taken':

" Test results (test no 1481) show specified thickness is adequate ... "

or another case:

" evaluation showed adequate access"

Regards,
MSAFAI

I'm looking at the same page you are. This is a design FMEA. Wouldn't a change under actions taken be a design change?

ASD...

[MSAFAI]

Originally posted by Al Dyer:
MSAFAI:


How did you deduce that there was no design change?

ASD...

Dear Al,

Please have a look at the DFMEA example given in the QS9000 FMEA manual. I quote from the manual two cases, column 'Actions Taken':

" Test results (test no 1481) show specified thickness is adequate ... "

or another case:

" evaluation showed adequate access"

Regards,
MSAFAI

[MSAFAI]

Dear Al,

Do you mean there has been a 'design change' or there has not?

The sentences I quoted from the FMEA manual seem to sugges there has been no design change. Do you agree?

Regards,
MSAFAI

MSAFAI:

Under the actions taken (page 12 AIAG FMEA) I look at the statement that says "based on test, 3 additional vent holes provided in affected areas."

I would consider that a change in design.

I work mainly with process FMEA's but the thought process is the same.

ASD...

[MSAFAI]

Originally posted by Al Dyer:
MSAFAI:

Under the actions taken (page 12 AIAG FMEA) I look at the statement that says "based on test, 3 additional vent holes provided in affected areas."

I would consider that a change in design.

I work mainly with process FMEA's but the thought process is the same.

ASD...

Dear Al,

That ia a design change, you are right. But how about other cases in the same page where there is no desing change?

Regards,
MSAFAI

P.S. I think we have to give up. Since, there are no comments from other forum members.


Regards

[Marc]

I was looking through this old thread and wondering. Do any of you folks have any comments on this? My 'schooling' was a design change had to be made but I can't remember the arguement and logic as to why.