The Cove Business Standards Discussion Forums
Go Back   The Elsmar Cove Business Systems and Standards Discussion Forums > >
Forum Username

Elsmar Cove Forum Visitor Notice(s)

Wooden Line

Analysis of Potential Field Failures - Impact on Quality, Safety or the Environment

Monitor the Elsmar Forum
Courtesy Quick Links


Links Elsmar Cove visitors will find useful in the quest for knowledge and support:

Jennifer Kirley's
Conway Business Services


Howard's
International Quality Services


Marcelo Antunes'
SQR Consulting, and
Medical Devices Expert Forum


Bob Doering
Bob Doering's Blogs and,
Correct SPC - Precision Machining


Ajit Basrur
Claritas Consulting, LLC



International Standards Bodies - World Wide Standards Bodies

AIAG - Automotive Industry Action Group

ASQ - American Society for Quality

International Organization for Standardization - ISO Standards and Information

NIST's Engineering Statistics Handbook

IRCA - International Register of Certified Auditors

SAE - Society of Automotive Engineers

Quality Digest

IEST - Institute of Environmental Sciences and Technology


Some Related Topic Tags
audit nonconformances and findings, audits and auditing, field failures, potential field failures, ts 16949 - automotive quality system standard, customer complaints and customer found nonconformance, management review
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Rate Thread Content Display Modes
  Post Number #1  
Old 10th April 2011, 05:32 PM
mioara fekete

 
 
Total Posts: n/a
Please Help! Analysis of Potential Field Failures - Impact on Quality, Safety or the Environment

Hello,

I want to talk about an issue raised during the audit ISO / TS.

The NC was

"In the management review it was stated that there was no potential field failure, however during last year there were customer claims related to crimping.(wiring company)."


The question was that based on what it was decided that there is no risk.
We were unable to present any analysis(only the 8D report)of actual and potential field-failures and their impact on quality, safety or the environment.
Can you please advice what kind of analysis we should do?
Also we were asked to present a procedure with the flow of the analysis(how are we going to evaluate if we should ask for a recall or not).

thanks & regards
mioara

Sponsored Links
  Post Number #2  
Old 10th April 2011, 05:54 PM
Stijloor's Avatar
Stijloor

 
 
Total Posts: 15,334
Re: Analysis of potential field failures

Quote:
In Reply to Parent Post by mioara fekete View Post

Hello,

I want to talk about an issue raised during the audit ISO / TS.

The NC was

"In the management review it was stated that there was no potential field failure, however during last year there were customer claims related to crimping.(wiring company)."

The question was that based on what it was decided that there is no risk.
We were unable to present any analysis(only the 8D report)of actual and potential field-failures and their impact on quality, safety or the environment.
Can you please advice what kind of analysis we should do?
Also we were asked to present a procedure with the flow of the analysis(how are we going to evaluate if we should ask for a recall or not).

thanks & regards
mioara
If you received customer complaints about crimping nonconformities; that is considered an actual field failure. I gathered from your post that you performed an 8-D analysis to find out what the root causes were that contributed to the problem. You have to conduct an analysis on this field failure and determine if there are any other possible related field failures. In other words, in what manner was the customer affected and how should you respond to it?

Now what I have presented deals with reactive work; Corrective Action.

Let's now talk about the intent of that clause in ISO/TS 16949:2009.

You are expected to conduct an FMEA prior to process approval/validation to find out if there are any potential failure modes introduced by the crimping process that could possible have an effect (potential field failure) on the customer. That possible failure mode and its effects must be presented to Top Management for preventive actions and necessary resources.

I believe that there was no visible/documented connection between your FMEA process and Management Review.

Hope this helps.

Stijloor.
Thanks to Stijloor for your informative Post and/or Attachment!
  Post Number #3  
Old 10th April 2011, 09:39 PM
Miner's Avatar
Miner

 
 
Total Posts: 4,370
Look! Re: Analysis of potential field failures

Quote:
In Reply to Parent Post by Stijloor View Post

I believe that there was no visible/documented connection between your FMEA process and Management Review.
Stijloor is correct. If your Management Review found no potential failure modes then one of two things failed. Either no PFMEA was performed, or a PFMEA was performed and the Management Review was unaware of it. Either issue would be a potential NC as PFMEAs are a requirement of TS16949, and the lack of awarenes of the PFMEA in a Management Review would be an indication of a shallow MR.
  Post Number #4  
Old 11th April 2011, 04:36 PM
mioara fekete

 
 
Total Posts: n/a
Re: Analysis of potential field failures

Quote:
In Reply to Parent Post by Stijloor View Post

If you received customer complaints about crimping nonconformities; that is considered an actual field failure. I gathered from your post that you performed an 8-D analysis to find out what the root causes were that contributed to the problem. You have to conduct an analysis on this field failure and determine if there are any other possible related field failures. In other words, in what manner was the customer affected and how should you respond to it?

Now what I have presented deals with reactive work; Corrective Action.

Let's now talk about the intent of that clause in ISO/TS 16949:2009.

You are expected to conduct an FMEA prior to process approval/validation to find out if there are any potential failure modes introduced by the crimping process that could possible have an effect (potential field failure) on the customer. That possible failure mode and its effects must be presented to Top Management for preventive actions and necessary resources.

I believe that there was no visible/documented connection between your FMEA process and Management Review.

Hope this helps.

Stijloor.
Hello,
thanks for your reply.
The failure modes as effects of crimping were available in the PFMEA, management team was aware regarding the effect, 8D report was done and sent to customer.Is true no other anayze was done.
The question is still alive.Is the RPN the relevant indicator which is telling me that there is no risk for the customer?
When should we ask for a recall?
I want to make an internal procedure to highlight step by step what has to be done .
Has anybody any idea?

regards Mioara
  Post Number #5  
Old 11th April 2011, 04:54 PM
Kevin Mader's Avatar
Kevin Mader

 
 
Total Posts: 1,223
Re: Analysis of Potential Field Failures - Impact on Quality, Safety or the Environme

Mioara,

Iím not sure if Iím following you correctly, but it sounds like there is a disconnect between a potential occurrence vs. and actual occurrence (customer complaints).

In a risk management program, original assumptions need to be re-challenged when objective evidence refutes them. In this case, it sounds like your PFMEA indicated that the potential for crimping errors had a given RPN (low) and that further mitigation might be unnecessary (business decision?). Once you had the occurrence, new objective evidence is needed that shows that the original assumptions were challenged to determine if they are still valid, else you will need to assign a new RPN (and perhaps new control plans/mitigations). Based on the magnitude of the effect for the customer complaints you received, your 8D report should indicate to the reader (the auditor) that risk management activities were reviewed and determined relevant or were changed to reflect the new observed conditions. For this, you may need to know more about how the product you manufactured is used (if you arenít the manufacturer of record).

I suggest you take a look into risk management here at the Cove. Do a few key word searches and see if you pick up something useful. In the end, you need to respond to the finding: why was there a disconnect between what was reported at MR (potential) and the complaint you received (actual).

Regards,

Kevin
Thanks to Kevin Mader for your informative Post and/or Attachment!
  Post Number #6  
Old 25th July 2011, 09:04 AM
QualityQ

 
 
Total Posts: n/a
Re: Analysis of Potential Field Failures - Impact on Quality, Safety or the Environme

Hello,
Regarding this close our ISO 16949 auditor said that actual and potential "field failures" refer to "Gemba" which means the shop floor in short terms. I didn't find his interpretation correct.

Till this year regarding this close, we were always analysing our warranty datas and looking for possible problems which may cause warranty issues.

I still haven't changed our way of analysis. But soon we'll have an ISO 16949 audit.
What do you think about that?

Best regards,
Elif
  Post Number #7  
Old 25th July 2011, 10:07 AM
qusys

 
 
Total Posts: 2,263
Re: Analysis of Potential Field Failures - Impact on Quality, Safety or the Environme

Quote:
In Reply to Parent Post by QualityQ View Post

Hello,
Regarding this close our ISO 16949 auditor said that actual and potential "field failures" refer to "Gemba" which means the shop floor in short terms. I didn't find his interpretation correct.

Till this year regarding this close, we were always analysing our warranty datas and looking for possible problems which may cause warranty issues.

I still haven't changed our way of analysis. But soon we'll have an ISO 16949 audit.
What do you think about that?

Best regards,
Elif
Elif, probably your TS auditor was not properly correct in his interpretation.
Actual failures are the RMA of your customers, where you should have G8D and all actions in place, while potential field failures have to be intended as the potential failures of your product in exercise that you supply to your final customer.
For instance, customer representative should inform himself with customers and have their documented feedbacks as one of the input in mgmt review.
Also the interpretation regarding FMEA is correct, so both the item will cover the item.Hope this helps
  Post Number #8  
Old 25th July 2011, 10:42 AM
QualityQ

 
 
Total Posts: n/a
Re: Analysis of Potential Field Failures - Impact on Quality, Safety or the Environme

Hello,
Thanks for the info.
When you say RMA, do you mean (Returned Material Authorization)?
When you say the final customer, you mean the one who drives the car, right?

But how can I be sure that your interpretation is the correct one? Because I cannot convince him, at all?
Reply

Lower Navigation Bar
Go Back   The Elsmar Cove Business Systems and Standards Discussion Forums > >

Bookmarks



Visitors Currently Viewing this Thread: 1 (0 Registered Visitors (Members) and 1 Unregistered Guest Visitors)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Forum Search
Display Modes Rate Thread Content
Rate Thread Content:

Forum Posting Settings
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Emoticons are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Discussion Threads
Discussion Thread Title Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post or Poll Vote
TS 16949 Clause 5.6.2.1 - Review of Potential Field Failures Phantasm IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 16 6th October 2016 04:40 PM
ISO/TS 5.6.2.1 - Potential Field Failures on OEMs greeneyedm IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 3 4th February 2015 10:51 AM
Potential Field Failures and their Impact on Quality, Safety and the Environment rexlee IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 19 2nd August 2008 04:23 AM
No Actual Field Failures (5 years) - Still need Analysis of Potential Field Failures? Nirmala - 2009 IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 6 4th March 2008 03:39 PM
Analysis of actual and potential field failures - Clarification on clause 5.6.2.1 pktonk IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 4 11th May 2006 09:23 AM



The time now is 02:56 PM. All times are GMT -4.
Your time zone can be changed in your UserCP --> Options.



Misc. Internal Links


NOTE: This forum uses "Cookies"