Development of the PFMEA - SEVERITY scores not derived from the DFMEA - Ford

[Ron Rompen]

My company is a Tier II/Tier III supplier of precision stamped metal parts to the automotive sector.

We were recently visited (read AUDITED) by Ford (3 tiers up from us) and got chewed up REALLY bad....some of which was deserved, some of which I don't think was fair. However, thats a different story.

One of the items that both we AND our customer got beat up on was our PFMEA. Specifically, we were challenged that our SEVERITY scores did not reflect the SEVERITY scores on the DFMEA.

My answer to that was pretty simple; "What DFMEA?????"

I have never in my career been given access to the customer DFMEA (at least, not until about 24 hrs after this observation by the 'visitor').

My question to the rest of the group is; how much information do YOU share with your suppliers? Under what conditions and restrictions?

Is it normal for a supplier to be working 'in the dark' and trying to best-guess the potential effect of a failure of a single sub-component in an assembly that has been vaguely described ('this is a widget...it's used to active the widget-sensor')?

Since then, my customer has committed to sharing DFMEA's on all new programs with us, and so far they seem to be following through. But both their SQA and I are wondering the same thing....are we alone in the madness???

 

[howste]

Nobody ever accused Ford of being fair!

I've never seen a DFMEA from a customer. The only ones I've ever had access to were for parts and assemblies where my company was design-responsible. I would love to have DFMEAs for systems that our parts fit into though.

 

[Wes Bucey]

Nobody ever accused Ford of being fair!

I've never seen a DFMEA from a customer. The only ones I've ever had access to were for parts and assemblies where my company was design-responsible. I would love to have DFMEAs for systems that our parts fit into though.

This is certainly a bummer for poor Ron. All my sympathy!

Mark this one down to a tough lesson in the school of hard knocks. Next, add a process in your Contract Review to include a search for these kinds of nasty surprises.

It is excellent that this customer (also in the line of fire from Ford)
"has committed to sharing DFMEA's on all new programs with us, and so far they seem to be following through. But both their SQA and I are wondering the same thing....are we alone in the madness???"

As howtse writes, much of automotive information exchange between tiers operates on an ASSUME basis, with unwelcome consequences.

I'm sorry to report that many industries, not just automotive, continue to treat their suppliers as adversaries instead of partners. Some of the folks who end up in the function of supplier quality auditors are more interested in playing "gotcha" than in making a truly smooth supply chain for their employer. (Think of the cop who hides behind a signboard to catch speeders versus the one who sits by the side of the road to serve as a forceful reminder of speed limits. One gets more glory for writing tickets, but the other saves more lives by "prevention" rather than "detection." Kind of like the Quality business, huh?)

 

[Bill Ryan - 2007]

I have received two DFMEAs over the last 10 yrs. They were not very helpful as my customer performed the DFMEA on the assembly - not the component. I was only able to glean a few Severity values for those parts. One approach I have used is to submit a list of the product Failure Modes and Severity ratings I have identified and ask the Supplier Quality Engineer (SQE) for his input. More and more (with some customers) the PFMEA is being asked for in advance of PPAP just so they can review it and give any "recommendations" they'd like to see, which, in turn, opens lines of communication.

Maybe it's just me, or maybe I'm "on a roll", but lately it seems that the customer SQEs are being less adversarial and much more helpful. Maybe I've just gotten the luck of the draw with the current pool of SQEs I deal with, but it sure has been a pleasant ride. They seem to want to be part of the team and help us succeed. What a concept!!!!

 

[jmack]

I used to work for a company that did Automated Welding Systems, and we were required by the Big 3 to do a DFMEA for every system. As the Project Manager, it was quite an event to host all the required personnel. I would like some links to PFMEA severity guidelines. The company I work for now, seems to have a differant philosophy than I have used in the past, so I guess I want to confirm who is closer, and why.

 

[Al Dyer]

I've always been under the impression that a severity rating needs to come from the customer. During all our PFMEA operations we have requested a severity rating for each item to our SQA. 98% of the time we get not response but we do have on file a record of our request. Just one of those CYA's that might come up in the future.

Al...

 

[Bill Ryan - 2007]

I used to work for a company that did Automated Welding Systems, and we were required by the Big 3 to do a DFMEA for every system. As the Project Manager, it was quite an event to host all the required personnel. I would like some links to PFMEA severity guidelines. The company I work for now, seems to have a differant philosophy than I have used in the past, so I guess I want to confirm who is closer, and why.

jmack - First off, a belated Welcome to the Cove

I hope you are still around. I don't have any of my files here at home but I'll post some pdf files of rankings I've received from a couple of my customers on Monday. They are fairly close to the AIAG table but each has its particuliar (peculiar??) twist.

 

[jmack]

Thanks Bill. I look forward to seeing what you have.

 

[Bill Ryan - 2007]

These are readily accessible on customers' web sites so I'm reasonably sure I'm not violating any copyright issues.

 

[Jim Wynne]

My company is a Tier II/Tier III supplier of precision stamped metal parts to the automotive sector.

We were recently visited (read AUDITED) by Ford (3 tiers up from us) and got chewed up REALLY bad....some of which was deserved, some of which I don't think was fair. However, thats a different story.

One of the items that both we AND our customer got beat up on was our PFMEA. Specifically, we were challenged that our SEVERITY scores did not reflect the SEVERITY scores on the DFMEA.

My answer to that was pretty simple; "What DFMEA?????"

I have never in my career been given access to the customer DFMEA (at least, not until about 24 hrs after this observation by the 'visitor').

My question to the rest of the group is; how much information do YOU share with your suppliers? Under what conditions and restrictions?

Is it normal for a supplier to be working 'in the dark' and trying to best-guess the potential effect of a failure of a single sub-component in an assembly that has been vaguely described ('this is a widget...it's used to active the widget-sensor')?

Since then, my customer has committed to sharing DFMEA's on all new programs with us, and so far they seem to be following through. But both their SQA and I are wondering the same thing....are we alone in the madness???

In my opinion, it's a serious error to expect that Severity or other factors will be transferred from the DFMEA in a tiered supply chaine, and it's evidence that the Ford auditors incompetent. One of the reasons is the one you cite--difficulty of access. The other reason is more pragmatic and involves common sense--a commodity I've found woefully lacking in the Big Three's SQEs. The customer needs to be concerned only with whether you, as a supplier, produce parts that meet the documented requirements. If the parts meet design record requirements and then fail in end use (the operation is a success, but the patient dies) it's the result of the customer's design being wrong, and there's nothing the supplier can do about it. All you can do is follow MIL-TFD-S (Make It Like-The F* Drawing-Says). WIth that in mind, what you should do is concentrate on *process* failure modes and ways to prevent them, and tell your customer that you design your processes so as to meet their drawing requirements on a consistent basis.

Of course, there's a good chance that you'll get hit over the head anyway, but I believe in fighting the good fight and giving the customer what's asked for.