Potential "A" ranks/nonconformances

[issmileplz]

This request concerning "A" Ranks (level of serverity) may be difficult to satisfy. Nonconformances in our business (automobiles seatbelts) are considered to be an "A" rank when it concerns a safety issue or involves noncompliance with government regulations and requires immediate reponse and containment. In other words a show stopper !! With that in mind does anyone know how to predict potential 'A" ranks early on in the initial phases of development and prior to product design so as to prevent noconformances down the line. Information may be out there under a different title. I am aware that DFMEA and FMEA covers this requirement with a severity ranking of one (1) through ten (10). I am also familar with preventitive action as stated in QS 9000 and ISO 9001. I have searched through the forums to no avail. Would appreciate any help I can get and thanks in advance.

[D.Scott]

First - welcome to the Cove.

Trying to understand what you are looking for so I may be off here.

If you are looking for "pre-design", the only thing I can think of is Concept Planning. This would surely predict most "A" cases. Prior to that a "Needs Analysis" of past "problems" could lead to a product concept and would be a good place to identify "A's".

"Voice of the customer" is a possibility in identifying "up-the-line" severity ratings. QFD (House of Quality) is a good tool for understanding the customer needs and predicting the severity of a nonconformance.

Maybe this can get you started. Others will, I am sure, shed some light.

Dave

[issmileplz]

I had only one response so I thought I would try to clarify what I am looking forr. This request concerning "A" Ranks (level of severity for critical failures) may be difficult to satisfy. Nonconformances in our business (automobiles seatbelts) are considered to be an "A" rank when it involves a safety issue or noncompliance with government regulations and requires immediate response and containment. In other words a show stopper !!
Does anyone know of a system on how to predict potential 'A" ranks early on in the initial phases of new business quotes, development and prior to product design so as to prevent these failures down the line. A sort of "Discover, Control, Resolve and Prevent system". We do identify a system on being reactive to an "A" rank.
An example of such a system would be to ensure the Supplier Manual specifies that suppliers have a process for identifying and resolving critical failures in their system to prevent it from getting to the customer. The customer in turn ensures that this requirements is audited for compliance during supplier audits. Information may be out there under a different title. I am aware that DFMEA and FMEA covers this requirement with a severity ranking of one (1) through ten (10). I am also familiar with preventative action as stated in QS 9000 and ISO 9001. Would appreciate any help I can get and thanks in advance. I have gone through the forums to no avail.

[M Greenaway]

I cannot see that you are looking for anything other than FMEA.

Perhaps I dont understand the question

Let's think of it this way;

They did a rewrite on the FMEA manual to further designate detection readings. And I see absolutely no problem with it.

They designated what type of inspection method would work with the detection methods.

If your detection is a 10 you are fu**ed. My problem would be that you have to get to level 4 on the ranking system before an "A" ranking is kicked in.

All they did is make it more difficult to give some guidelines that they could not understand or comply with themselves.

Now I want to know the definitive definitions of"

A- Error Proofed
B-Gauging
C-Manual Inspection

1: If it error proofed it still requires a human to monitor it.
2: If it is gauged, a human has to set, read, and verify the gauge.
3:If it is manual inspection I would worry about the gauges, not the users.

I know I'm a pain in the ***, but let's get real here. There is no such thing as 100% inspection that is 100% effective.

Look at number 7, "control is achieved with double vision inspection only". Many times I have been at work where I had double vision! I know that is not the intent, but what is intent???

#8: Control is achieved with charting methods, such as spc. "So we put a chart on the floor, who completed it and who interpreted it, and who reported it"?

#1: Impossible, otherwise there would not be close to a million recalls per year. Of course the fact that assembly plants do not perform incoming inspection would not come into play. We are all QS-9000 and make no mistakes.