AIAG-VDA FMEA tutorial and completely filled FMEA

Sleepy Cat

Starting to get Involved
Bev D,
Don't make me say the same thing over and over again.
As you can see from what I've written above so far, the real examples contain confidential information, so I've replaced them with simple examples.
Then, after fully understanding the importance of the existing 4M (Material, Machine, Man, Environment), we are discussing the case where "Method" must be added to this. We are not ignoring the existing 4M.
If you also don't know how to write "Method", figure it out together. Your points are all inept and do nothing for how to write about "Method".
Even though the AIAG VDA FMEA handbook says that "Method" can be added according to the company, we are confused because the handbook does not provide specific examples of how to write it.

AndrewK,
I'm not native English speaker, too.
So maybe I didn't fully understand what you were trying to say. I'm sorry for taking too long to understand.
What you're saying is, in Structure Analysis, it's better to write something like a proper noun instead of writing a specific recipe or condition? - as shown in the table below.
STRUCTURE ANALYSIS (Step 2)<-FUNCTION ANALYSIS (Step 3)<-FAILURE ANALYSIS (Step 4)
3. Process Work Element 4M Type<-3. Function of the Process Work Element and Process Characteristic<-3. Failure Cause (FC) of the Next Lower of Characteristic
MethodManual steering methodMethodEstablish proper mixing speed according to work instruction #12345The correct information is not conveyed to the operator
Failure Cause; Indeed, Failure cause is opposite of requirement of process element.
In other words, stiring at a different mixing speed than work instruction #12345 is FC in [01] Mixing of powder.
At this time, if the mixing speed was different due to human error by the operator, it should be categorized as Man element.
So, we thought it was Method's FC that the correct information is not conveyed to the operator.
Isn't there a contradiction in this way of thinking?
 

AndrewK

Involved In Discussions
Bev D,
Don't make me say the same thing over and over again.
As you can see from what I've written above so far, the real examples contain confidential information, so I've replaced them with simple examples.
Then, after fully understanding the importance of the existing 4M (Material, Machine, Man, Environment), we are discussing the case where "Method" must be added to this. We are not ignoring the existing 4M.
If you also don't know how to write "Method", figure it out together. Your points are all inept and do nothing for how to write about "Method".
Even though the AIAG VDA FMEA handbook says that "Method" can be added according to the company, we are confused because the handbook does not provide specific examples of how to write it.

AndrewK,
I'm not native English speaker, too.
So maybe I didn't fully understand what you were trying to say. I'm sorry for taking too long to understand.
What you're saying is, in Structure Analysis, it's better to write something like a proper noun instead of writing a specific recipe or condition? - as shown in the table below.
STRUCTURE ANALYSIS (Step 2)<-FUNCTION ANALYSIS (Step 3)<-FAILURE ANALYSIS (Step 4)
3. Process Work Element 4M Type<-3. Function of the Process Work Element and Process Characteristic<-3. Failure Cause (FC) of the Next Lower of Characteristic
MethodManual steering methodMethodEstablish proper mixing speed according to work instruction #12345The correct information is not conveyed to the operator
Failure Cause; Indeed, Failure cause is opposite of requirement of process element.
In other words, stiring at a different mixing speed than work instruction #12345 is FC in [01] Mixing of powder.
At this time, if the mixing speed was different due to human error by the operator, it should be categorized as Man element.
So, we thought it was Method's FC that the correct information is not conveyed to the operator.
Isn't there a contradiction in this way of thinking?
Yes.. Not accomplishment of Work instruction will be for for Man element, i usually assighn it like that. For method cause i would put something like: 1) Stiring method or speed unsuitable to used components. 2) Mixing speed definition is wrong or not validated . 3) WI doesnt specify full conditions for operation(temperature or components for example) - or WI incomplete.
 

AndrewK

Involved In Discussions
for the old cuses "damaged or dirty, not near the operator" regarding WI - i think they might be a part of 5s, and assighned to "environment" element/ Because Function of Environmental conditions is to allow operator make work basically. Requierements are- sufficient light, cleanliness, ergonomics, easy access etc
 

Sleepy Cat

Starting to get Involved
AndrewK,
Thank you for teaching me carefully. Our doubts have been cleared. And it turns out that our way of thinking was not largely wrong.
Also, I understood that you said - "damaged or dirty, not near the operator" are assigned to "environment" element.
As you suggested, I would like to use the following general FC for "Method".
1) Stirring method or speed unsuitable to used components;
- The Work Instructions say incorrect method or condition.
2) Mixing speed definition is wrong or not validated;
- The definition of Work Instructions is wrong or not validated.
3) WI does not specify full conditions for operation (temperature or components for example) - or WI incomplete;
- The Work Instructions say insufficient information.

So far, we have discussed the mixing method or mixing speed as "Method", but do you think that "Visual observation" and "Verification" are also included in "Method"?
We consider "Visual observation" and "Verification" to be "Measurement" element.
 

AndrewK

Involved In Discussions
:) we are learning together- when trying to explain something begining to go deeper in the topic and invesstigate more :)! In my understanding "Visual observation" and "Verification" are part of current process controls for certain causes. If you want to add Measurement as 4m element - it might be as measurement method or technique- linked to MSA stydies and so on in this case as preventive controls/ At least that how is i understand it. On my practice i've never use more than 4 m
 

Sleepy Cat

Starting to get Involved
I was too greedy :eek:
We also have no plans to add "Measurement". I just got interested ;)

IATF16949:2016 Section8.6.3 Appearance Items states that “For organizations manufacturing parts designated by the customer as "appearance items," the organization shall provide the following:”
a) appropriate resources, including lighting, for evaluation
b)masters for colour, grain, gloss, metallic brilliance, texture, distinctness of image (DOI), and haptic technology, as appropriate
c)maintenance and control of appearance masters and evaluation equipment
d)verification that personnel making appearance evaluations are competent and qualified to do so.
Masters (master sample) is one of the PPAP submissions, but certainly an appearance item MSA is not required.

However, due to your suggestion, I realized that even if there is no IATF16949 requirement, anything that can be MSA should be classified as "Measurement".
In the field of statistical analysis, there is an attribute agreement analysis (also called attribute gage R&R study).
Being able to do GRR can be thought of as one of the measurement systems.
If the day comes when we need to add "Measurement", "Visual observation" and "Verification" will be included in "Measurement".

Thank you for staying with us for such a long time !!!
 

AndrewK

Involved In Discussions
I was too greedy :eek:
We also have no plans to add "Measurement". I just got interested ;)

IATF16949:2016 Section8.6.3 Appearance Items states that “For organizations manufacturing parts designated by the customer as "appearance items," the organization shall provide the following:”
a) appropriate resources, including lighting, for evaluation
b)masters for colour, grain, gloss, metallic brilliance, texture, distinctness of image (DOI), and haptic technology, as appropriate
c)maintenance and control of appearance masters and evaluation equipment
d)verification that personnel making appearance evaluations are competent and qualified to do so.
Masters (master sample) is one of the PPAP submissions, but certainly an appearance item MSA is not required.

However, due to your suggestion, I realized that even if there is no IATF16949 requirement, anything that can be MSA should be classified as "Measurement".
In the field of statistical analysis, there is an attribute agreement analysis (also called attribute gage R&R study).
Being able to do GRR can be thought of as one of the measurement systems.
If the day comes when we need to add "Measurement", "Visual observation" and "Verification" will be included in "Measurement".

Thank you for staying with us for such a long time !!!
Alawys welcome :) it is a pleasure to discuss a doubts and find out something more beyound the scope that used to be
 

Sleepy Cat

Starting to get Involved
Hi,
I have a question about standard 4M - Material.
In Handbook (2nd Printing Jul. 2022) 3.4.6.3, examples of "Thought Provoking Simulation Questions" for "Material" is:
2. Can material be applied to a wrong location?
If the answer to this question is yes, then the Failure Cause will be written as "Using the wrong material".
However, when proceeding with the concept of 5-whys analysis, the cause of "Using the wrong material" is the operator's human error (Man) or the sufficient light of the place (Environment).
Is "Using the wrong material" really appropriate as a Failure Cause of "Material"?
 

AndrewK

Involved In Discussions
Hi,
I have a question about standard 4M - Material.
In Handbook (2nd Printing Jul. 2022) 3.4.6.3, examples of "Thought Provoking Simulation Questions" for "Material" is:
2. Can material be applied to a wrong location?
If the answer to this question is yes, then the Failure Cause will be written as "Using the wrong material".
However, when proceeding with the concept of 5-whys analysis, the cause of "Using the wrong material" is the operator's human error (Man) or the sufficient light of the place (Environment).
Is "Using the wrong material" really appropriate as a Failure Cause of "Material"?
I would start from definition of what material it is and what it should do, and which requierements to material we have. In my practice in Material category i put causes related raw material condition and supplement materials as well.
For example in Labeling process- i have my product as label. Material - is inks, and paper. Function of material is to "allow printing label acc. requierement #123"/ REquierement to paper -proper density type,size etc. to ink -certain colour, ink type etc.
some Failures of material category- which will be a causes then are- Wrong paper type,wrong paper size, wrong ink colourm wrong ink type
or depending on worplace organization might be written as - simlar paper type/or ink color allocated nearby.

AS Handbook says also- FMEA analysis itself is highly subjective and represents team vision,understanding and expirience of product and process
 

Sleepy Cat

Starting to get Involved
I think so, too.
Materials, including consumables, should be mention the presence or absence of the Element Function necessary to produce the required of the Process Step Function.
However, in FMEA, assumes that the incoming materials are correct.
Why occur that you say? - Wrong paper type, wrong paper size
Also, isn't "similar paper type allocated nearby" classified as "Environment"?
 
Top Bottom