Automotive Severity 10 - Supplier Response - FMEA for an electronic product

B

Beldenray

#1
All,

Interesting question.

Automotive customer has reviewed our FMEA for an electronic product, and determined that a severity of 10 exists for a specific failure mode. The customer's systems cannot detect or dianose this failure mode, leading to potential of a severity 10 for this failure mode.

In the past, I have been told that the Vehcile OEM's will not allow 10's to be passed off to their customers. As a supplier, this is causing us grave concern.

Should we force our customer's hand to resolve this? No one wants to expose consumers to risk.

Belden
 
Elsmar Forum Sponsor

howste

Thaumaturge
Super Moderator
#2
Re: Automotive Severity 10 - Supplier Response

So this failure mode may affect safe vehicle operation without warning? If so, it is what it is. If it's a 10, there may be no way to reduce the severity except through design change. What you need to do is make sure that you have a low occurrence ranking (i.e. mistake proofing) and a low detection ranking to counter the high severity.
 

Helmut Jilling

Auditor / Consultant
#3
Beldenray said:
All,

Interesting question.

Automotive customer has reviewed our FMEA for an electronic product, and determined that a severity of 10 exists for a specific failure mode. The customer's systems cannot detect or dianose this failure mode, leading to potential of a severity 10 for this failure mode.

In the past, I have been told that the Vehcile OEM's will not allow 10's to be passed off to their customers. As a supplier, this is causing us grave concern.

Should we force our customer's hand to resolve this? No one wants to expose consumers to risk.

Belden
A lot of misinformation in your statements. Please refer to the 3 tables in the PFMEA section of the AIAG FMEA book, 3rd ed.

Whether the customer's system can "detect" the failure or not does not effect the Severity rating. The definitions for Severity are pretty clear in the Severity table (pg 43).

The detectability is evaluated by the Detection table on pg 53. Ideally, that failure is soemthing YOUR system should detect. The final variable to lower the overall RPN score is how often does it occur (Occurance Table on pg. 49). The three scores are rated independently, then multiplied.

There is no rule whether customers will accept a part with a 10 severity. However, it is generally regarded that only a design change will lower a severity rating, and I am guessing you don't have design responsibility for it?
 
B

Beldenray

#4
Actually, this post was written NOT to address the specifics of the RPN (which is pretty low), but rather to address the specific liablity that could be associated with a product that could cause human injury without warning. This seemed like the best place to address this issue, since it is tied in with risk analysis.

In my experience with OEMs, I have been told "Your products do not have severity 10. The system diagnositics cover that issue." However, in this instance, there are absolutely NO system diagnostics with cover this failure mode. Also, the product was designed similar to products that work in systems with dianostics that could catch this failure mode. (Our low occurance comes from this data of previous designs.)

How common is see this sort of risk for automotive products, and how have you responded to them?

Belden
 

Helmut Jilling

Auditor / Consultant
#5
Beldenray said:
Actually, this post was written NOT to address the specifics of the RPN (which is pretty low), but rather to address the specific liablity that could be associated with a product that could cause human injury without warning. This seemed like the best place to address this issue, since it is tied in with risk analysis.

In my experience with OEMs, I have been told "Your products do not have severity 10. The system diagnositics cover that issue." However, in this instance, there are absolutely NO system diagnostics with cover this failure mode. Also, the product was designed similar to products that work in systems with dianostics that could catch this failure mode. (Our low occurance comes from this data of previous designs.)

How common is see this sort of risk for automotive products, and how have you responded to them?

Belden
I have seen Severity = 10 in some cases, but not very often. Seven, eights and nines, also. But, Severity can only be reduced by redesigning the product is an established axiom in automotive, and you don't have that authority. So, the severity is what it is. You can only address detection and occurance with mistake proofing and robust inspection.

By the way, what is this particular failure mode we are discussing, that is so severe and undetectable?
 
M

Michael Walmsley

#6
A 10 is a 10 is a 10!!!!:caution:

I've worked on most of the automotive electronic systems (Tier 1 and customer level) to know that a 10 is a product recall waiting to happen.
It will. Eventually. Regardless of the Occurence rating in an FMEA.

The only way out is to redesign.

There is something you are not telling us.

How close are you to product release????

You are probably under tremendous pressure by your management and customer management to downplay the issue.

Your management does not want to lose the business by confronting the customer and requesting a delay to redesign. Spineless idiots!
In the long run your reputation will suffer more by not doing the right thing.

Your customer is probably trying to get you to reduce the severity / deleting the mode from the FMEA.
In this way they can always come back later and blame everything on you if and when it does happen.

You , as a release / design engineer are caught in the middle. When a liability lawsuit does happen you will be in the hot seat in a court of law.

Your only option as a supplier is to contact your legal department with the potential issue. You will most likely be requested to write an electronic memo to your customer,explaining the issue,potential outcomes of the issue and to seek their guidance. It is now in their court.

If they seek to release the product as is,there will be "Joint" liability shared.
If not, then pursuing a redesign is the only option.:agree:
 
Last edited by a moderator:

howste

Thaumaturge
Super Moderator
#7
Beldenray said:
Actually, this post was written NOT to address the specifics of the RPN (which is pretty low), but rather to address the specific liablity that could be associated with a product that could cause human injury without warning....

How common is see this sort of risk for automotive products, and how have you responded to them?

Belden
Maybe I'm crazy, but I believe that cars are shipped every day with hundreds (if not thousands) of severity 10 potential failure modes. If my steering wheel falls off, that's severity 10. If my gas tank explodes, that's severity 10. The key is that it's not very likely for my steering wheel to fall off or my gas tank to explode.

As far as liability goes, a 10 is a 10 and liability is liability. If a steering wheel falls off, you can bet there will be an investigation and one or more organizations will be held liable. You mentioned that your customer's diagnostics reduce the severity of this failure mode on your other products. If your customer's diagnostics failed to detect a problem with your product, does that mean you have no liability? :nope:

To directly answer your question: A very low percentage of failure modes are severity 10, but there are still thousands of them. In the cases where I've had to deal with them, we have responded by having very good controls to prevent the failure mode, and very good controls to detect them if they occur.
 
M

Michael Walmsley

#8
I disagree.

NA automotive Steering wheels not only have a lock nut to attach them to the column, but also a lock key as a secondary backup. You will notice freeplay vertically weeks prior to impending release. This acts as a "warning" to the end user. It then places it into a sev level =9.

Fuel systems have shields , bypass vents , labled warnings which also place them into a sev=9 category.

I disagree as to the hundreds and thousands of sev = 10 being on a particular group of vehicles in my experience. Nothing would be sold if this were the case.

The 10 is a red flag. I agree with the need for stringent controls for them,if there are controls that can be had.

I think the original concern was for the lack of any controls to be had.

I also think that they were not digging deep enough to look.

Warning mechanisms and fault/control diagnostics are the chaepest and fastest means for redesign,followed by redundancy.
 

Helmut Jilling

Auditor / Consultant
#9
Michael Walmsley said:
A 10 is a 10 is a 10!!!!:caution:

I've worked on most of the automotive electronic systems (Tier 1 and customer level) to know that a 10 is a product recall waiting to happen.
It will. Eventually. Regardless of the Occurence rating in an FMEA.

The only way out is to redesign.

There is something you are not telling us.

How close are you to product release????

You are probably under tremendous pressure by your management and customer management to downplay the issue.

Your management does not want to lose the business by confronting the customer and requesting a delay to redesign. Spineless idiots!
In the long run your reputation will suffer more by not doing the right thing.

Your customer is probably trying to get you to reduce the severity / deleting the mode from the FMEA.
In this way they can always come back later and blame everything on you if and when it does happen.

You , as a release / design engineer are caught in the middle. When a liability lawsuit does happen you will be in the hot seat in a court of law.

Your only option as a supplier is to contact your legal department with the potential issue. You will most likely be requested to write an electronic memo to your customer,explaining the issue,potential outcomes of the issue and to seek their guidance. It is now in their court.

If they seek to release the product as is,there will be "Joint" liability shared.
If not, then pursuing a redesign is the only option.:agree:

Sounds like you give some very smart advice...
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
G FMEA Severity Ranking for an Automotive Audio System FMEA and Control Plans 9
D Suggestions for Ishikawa for hyperdetailed customer - plastic molding automotive parts Nonconformance and Corrective Action 9
H Automotive wires - Compliance with USCAR21-4 & USCAR38-1 Various Other Specifications, Standards, and related Requirements 0
P Training department ideas and development for automotive supplier Training - Internal, External, Online and Distance Learning 6
C In-process inspection - Tooling and assembly lines for automotive companies AS9100, IAQG, NADCAP and Aerospace related Standards and Requirements 6
K New supplier audit as per V3.1 by French Automotive OEM General Auditing Discussions 2
D Automotive Hospitality Consultant Career and Occupation Discussions 11
B Quality manual for automotive industry wanted Quality Management System (QMS) Manuals 2
G Handling Unpacked (Additive Chemical) Product For Automotive Applications IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 3
T Ideas for developing a Supplier Quality Management System, non automotive ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 5
M Scope of Combined ISO 9001 and IATF 16949 QMS - Non-automotive customers ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 5
J Sample size definition in an Automotive SMT pilot lot run Misc. Quality Assurance and Business Systems Related Topics 1
S Internal calibrations - Part of an ISO 17025 accredited testing laboratory (Automotive) ISO 17025 related Discussions 16
J What is the minimum standard for automotive component traceability? Manufacturing and Related Processes 2
D O Ring capability and measurement - What is the automotive 'norm' for capability studies on O Rings? General Measurement Device and Calibration Topics 3
E Translating from Automotive to Medical Device industry - [email protected] Other Medical Device Related Standards 2
A The latest revision number and changes in automotive core tools IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 1
R The alignments and contradiction in Quality Engineering and management between the Automotive and Aerospace industry AS9100, IAQG, NADCAP and Aerospace related Standards and Requirements 0
Q IATF 16949 certification without automotive products in "production" IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 5
tony s What is the automotive process approach for auditing? IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 2
L Comparison matrix between IATF 16949:2016 to ISO 12207, ISO 9001 and Automotive SPICE IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 3
eule del ayre List of Level 3 PPAP requirements for automotive suppliers APQP and PPAP 20
S IMDS=REACH for automotive industry? REACH and RoHS Conversations 3
E CSR SHIPPING - Need suggestions for making SOP/WI for our shipping dept (automotive)... Customer and Company Specific Requirements 11
qualprod What tier number fits in a company producing paper labels stuck on automotive parts? IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 7
E Is there an Automotive Customer Complaint Index? IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 3
S New to the automotive business and VDA VDA Standards - Germany's Automotive Standards 5
D Automotive Warranty Analysis Software Quality Tools, Improvement and Analysis 0
E Solder thermal profiles for PPAP - Automotive IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 1
P Automotive Customer asking PPAP for catalogue parts IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 16
A Should we do business in the automotive sector? IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 7
O QRQC (quick response quality control) methodology in automotive industry IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 3
V Generic requirements regarding capability study in automotive Capability, Accuracy and Stability - Processes, Machines, etc. 1
I Making a process PFMEA, no DFMEA (non-automotive toll manufacturer) FMEA and Control Plans 1
V Paint batch approval procedure for automotive industry Manufacturing and Related Processes 6
D Introducing an existing product into automotive context - DFMEA needed? IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 8
J IATF Minimum Automotive Quality Management System Requirements for Sub-Tier Suppliers IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 12
J What classifies something as "automotive"? Looking for input? IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 11
J IATF 16949 Cl. 8.4 - Externally provide process not for automotive part IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 3
B Improper R&R Test? Downdraft Velocity in Automotive Spray Booths Gage R&R (GR&R) and MSA (Measurement Systems Analysis) 2
B Approval of Supplier with ISO 9001 (Automotive) General Auditing Discussions 18
H Documentation Required by IATF 16949 (Automotive QMS) IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 38
P Automotive Supplier PPAP Level Requirements Supplier Quality Assurance and other Supplier Issues 12
W Documented Problem-Solving for Automotive IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 4
S Compliance to GADSL (Global Automotive Declarable Substance List) RoHS, REACH, ELV, IMDS and Restricted Substances 4
H FMEA for electrophoresis deposition of automotive parts FMEA and Control Plans 1
M The biggest gaps and problems in QMS or Quality in Automotive Misc. Quality Assurance and Business Systems Related Topics 3
M Please explain the following Automotive Acronyms IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 3
D Clarification of Applicability of TS 16949 Requirements to a Non-Automotive Business IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 13
G VDA 6.3 Automotive Audit with detailed questions Audit Questionnaire Process Audits and Layered Process Audits 8

Similar threads

Top Bottom