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

Ron Rompen

Trusted Information Resource
#1
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???
 
Elsmar Forum Sponsor

howste

Thaumaturge
Super Moderator
#2
Nobody ever accused Ford of being fair! :lol:

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

Quite Involved in Discussions
#3
howste said:
Nobody ever accused Ford of being fair! :lol:

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?)
 
B

Bill Ryan - 2007

#4
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!!!!
 
J

jmack

#5
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.
 
A

Al Dyer

#6
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...
 
B

Bill Ryan - 2007

#7
jmack said:
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 :bigwave:

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.
 

Jim Wynne

Staff member
Admin
#10
Ron Rompen said:
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.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
J Are complaints applicable to development of medical devices? Customer Complaints 2
P Training department ideas and development for automotive supplier Training - Internal, External, Online and Distance Learning 6
N Example for design and development planning,input,output,review,verification,validation and transfer Misc. Quality Assurance and Business Systems Related Topics 4
Felony Melony Project Milestone Plan-Development to Mass Production APQP and PPAP 2
A 8.6 Release of products and services, 8.3 Design and development - evidence required ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 9
Sidney Vianna What ISO Standard (under the TC 176) supports the UN Sustainable Development Goal #10? ASQ, ANAB, UKAS, IAF, IRCA, Exemplar Global and Related Organizations 11
A Design and development procedure for API Spec Q2 Oil and Gas Industry Standards and Regulations 6
Z Iterative development and FDA change requests IEC 62304 - Medical Device Software Life Cycle Processes 12
D Using Laboratory Notebooks in R&D and Design and Development ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 3
D ISO 13485 - 7.3.6 Design and development verification - Do most folks create a separate SOP? ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 5
M Clinical Development Plan - Advice Requested EU Medical Device Regulations 11
silentmonkey Are risks in supply chain and development activities within scope of MDD? EU Medical Device Regulations 4
M QA/RA Professional Development Suggestions Training - Internal, External, Online and Distance Learning 6
N ISO 19011:2018 - 5.4.2 "...audit program should engage in appropriate continual development..." Training - Internal, External, Online and Distance Learning 4
DuncanGibbons Resources for aiding in procedure, work instruction and manufacturing plan development and management AS9100, IAQG, NADCAP and Aerospace related Standards and Requirements 0
L Design & Development of a SERVICE Service Industry Specific Topics 13
T Design Control Procedures later in the Development Process ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 6
K Old medical devices -> 7.3.7. Design and development validation ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 1
M Design Development MDR Design and Development of Products and Processes 0
O How can I justify excluding the R&D group and the design and development clause? ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 4
Ajit Basrur ISO 22379 for citywide events now in development General Information Resources 1
D CE Marking Requirements MDD & MDR - new product development covered under same scope EU Medical Device Regulations 1
G Strategy for IEC62304 implementation half way into the software development process IEC 62304 - Medical Device Software Life Cycle Processes 9
M Informational EU – Ongoing Guidance development within MDCG Subgroups Medical Device and FDA Regulations and Standards News 1
F Software development plan for SW update IEC 62304 - Medical Device Software Life Cycle Processes 2
C IATF 16949 8.3 Exclusion - Manufacturing process design and development IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 5
M Software Development Company - Who would own the whole process and the certification afterwards? ISO 14001:2015 Specific Discussions 1
A Design and development of products and services ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 2
O Software development plan : development methods IEC 62304 - Medical Device Software Life Cycle Processes 2
S ISO 9001 Clause 8.3 - Design & Development for training course center ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 9
S ISO 9001:2015 & ISO 14001:2015 - I need a format for Design & Development planning ISO 14001:2015 Specific Discussions 2
K Templates for software development quality audit Document Control Systems, Procedures, Forms and Templates 1
DuncanGibbons Are there aerospace standards for the development and manufacture of euipment and tools? AS9100, IAQG, NADCAP and Aerospace related Standards and Requirements 3
L AS9100 and Agile development processes AS9100, IAQG, NADCAP and Aerospace related Standards and Requirements 8
D Electrical Safety During Medical Device Development IEC 60601 - Medical Electrical Equipment Safety Standards Series 3
S How to consider the relevant standards during development of ISO13482:2016 for IVD manufacturing Blood grouping Other Medical Device Related Standards 6
D Medical device development - Custom test equipment ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 3
M Informational US FDA – Device Shortages Update: Challenges to encourage the development of new approaches to device sterilization Medical Device and FDA Regulations and Standards News 0
AlienraverX Design and Development Audit ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 11
S Do we need to validate Software used in Drug discovery and development process? Qualification and Validation (including 21 CFR Part 11) 2
I QMS documents required at each stage of Software development IEC 62304 - Medical Device Software Life Cycle Processes 5
V Who should define and own the Design and Development Plan and how to maintain the updates and revisions. ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 2
S Development of 2xMOPP galvanic isolator for USB-connected device IEC 60601 - Medical Electrical Equipment Safety Standards Series 9
K Design and Development Exclusion Quality Management System (QMS) Manuals 1
V Exclusion of 'Design and Development' from scope of certification ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 9
H Supplier Development - Distributors only? The new GM Standards IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 4
cscalise Determination of CPD (Continuing Professional Development) hours for a training course Training - Internal, External, Online and Distance Learning 1
XRAY_3121 Design and Development Requirement - MDSAP Audit Finding Other Medical Device Regulations World-Wide 5
Ed Panek Splitting UI (User Interface) into two development paths 21 CFR Part 820 - US FDA Quality System Regulations (QSR) 4
K Capturing local government development/planning activities in aspect register ISO 14001:2015 Specific Discussions 2

Similar threads

Top Bottom