DFMEA buy-in strategies for Design Engineers

g_dep1

Starting to get Involved
#1
Hello everyone,

I wanted to post about DFMEA implementation strategies. I am currently working at a defense contractor and our new VP wants to flow down APQP elements across operations. Within this includes DFMEA.

I believe (and from my past experience in the automotive world) that DFMEAs are a Design engineering tool which Quality can help facilitate, brainstorm failure modes and provide input regarding detection controls and occurrence levels. However, in order for the tool to be effective, the cognizant Design Engineer should be leading the effort and utilizing it in conjunction with their other designing efforts (3d modeling, testing, etc). Unfortunately at my organization, the onus is on me, the Quality Engineer, to lead the DFMEA effort on one of our new product designs. I have been sitting with the lead Engineer and completing the boundary diagrams with him, p-diagrams, and system level DFMEAs. My concern is that since this tool is not incorporated into his designing process, him like most of the engineers believe this is just an added task from the quality department. I don't believe DFMEAs can be affective with such implementation

What are some change management/buy-in strategies when it comes to DFMEAs and having them led by the lead Design Engineers? The perception that this is a Quality Engineer led tool is not value add. I am open to peoples other views if they don't agree with that statement as well.

Thanks
 
Elsmar Forum Sponsor

Ninja

Looking for Reality
Staff member
Super Moderator
#2
Howdy,
As an engineer, I take it from your post that you aren't one. (no criticism..."engineer" is a personality type, not a degree or measure of ability).
The "engineer" personality type doesn't take too well to institutional risk management, and abhors paperwork.

I believe (and from my past experience in the automotive world) that DFMEAs are a Design engineering tool which Quality can help facilitate, brainstorm failure modes and provide input regarding detection controls and occurrence levels.
I agree with your belief this far. It can be an effective tool to provide input on detection levels, occurrence levels, etc. This should totally be done.

in order for the tool to be effective, the cognizant Design Engineer should be leading the effort and utilizing it in conjunction with their other designing efforts
Yeah, that's not gonna happen. Design Engineers design, other people do paperwork.

the onus is on me, the Quality Engineer, to lead the DFMEA effort on one of our new product designs
...and it will be for all subsequent ones as well...it's time to reset your expectations a bit...

I have been sitting with the lead Engineer and completing the boundary diagrams with him, p-diagrams, and system level DFMEAs.
You must be very tactful if he hasn't punched you yet. If you put both p-diagrams and system level DFMEA's in front of me, you should keep an eye on your tires in the parking lot...

him like most of the engineers believe this is just an added task from the quality department.
...but that's just because it IS an added task from the quality department. If you want it done, do it yourself. Try to shove it on me, you better watch for sugar in your gas tank as well.

I don't believe DFMEAs can be affective with such implementation
It totally can be 'effective' (sp. my inner engineer coming out)...and should be. As the "quality puke" (manager, director, VP, whatever...the annoying guy who wants me to do useless paperwork), you need answers and ideas from the design guys as to the ways the design they've just poured their hearts into might suck (i.e. fail). It's like auditing your own work...a bad idea. You're gonna do the paperwork, or get designers who are OK doing paperwork instead of designing cool stuff...you can't have both at top level.

Two cents from someone who has repeatedly, flatly refused to do DFMEA for medical, auto, aero and defense...don't get me wrong...they got done...just not by a design engineer.
HTH
 

Ronen E

Problem Solver
Staff member
Moderator
#3
Just for context, I'm an engineer too. A design engineer. I agree that there are some prevalent characteristics, but I've met and worked with many design engineers in my life and there are many character types among them. There is of course the stereotype cliche, but that's exactly what it is. It being a stereotype is most evident in medical devices. Medical device design engineers are a strange breed (and yes, there are some of the stereotype among them too).
Talking personality types, I'm an INTJ-T (Turbulent Architect) in the 16-personalities system.
The "engineer" personality type doesn't take too well to institutional risk management, and abhors paperwork.
"Abhors paperwork" is a cyclic argument. Who doesn't?... Being just "paperwork" (not documentation, data collection, analysis, thoughtful reporting and the likes), obviously renders the object useless, non-value-adding, or just a bunch of imposed nonsense to cover some a$$.
The real question is whether dFMEA in a certain context is "paperwork" or not. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. Personally I'm not a great fan of all FMEAs, but I can see the value in some instances.
Yes, as a design engineer it's tough work to look for flaws in a design you're already in love with. But one of the most valuable lessons I learned on my first R&D engineering job, from the start-up's CEO (who was himself a very seasoned R&D engineer, much closer to the cliche than myself, and used to attend some of our design reviews) was: "You must never come to a design review thinking I must protect the design from any change to the best of my ability".
As to "The "engineer" personality type doesn't take too well to institutional risk management" - sure, the cliche design engineer doesn't. In my reality though, some don't and some do, quite. I can't say that I "love it", but I can tolerate it easily, I like doing it properly, and I can definitely see the added value when it is done properly (by "it" I refer to institutional risk management, not necessarily FMEA).

And sorry for being such a geek :geek:.
 

Ninja

Looking for Reality
Staff member
Super Moderator
#4
Great input from Ronen E...thank you.

I also am an INTJ...extreme in at least two of them...
...and apparently a bonafide cliche by that metric (sorta figured I was)...and I'm OK with that...but figured an extreme view would still be helpful if others chimed in. Thanks for doing so.
 

Ronen E

Problem Solver
Staff member
Moderator
#5
I also am an INTJ...
Hello, buddy. We're quite rare in the general population, you know. So good to meet one!
extreme in at least two of them...
Let me guess, the T and the J?...
A few years back, when I first came across this classification, I got an extreme J. At that time the outcome was INTJ-A.
A few months ago I redid it and came out INTJ-T (which makes sense to me), with a less pronounced J tendency. I guess I'm mellowing with age...
 

John Predmore

Trusted Information Resource
#6
I am also an engineer INTJ, and in a former life, I did my stint as a Design Engineer. I communicate better with design engineers after having walked a mile in their shoes.

Facing reluctant engineer participants, I often raise one of my favorite quotes from Albert Einstein, "The significant problems we face, cannot be solved using the same level of thinking we used, when we created those problems." I find that scientists and engineers of all persuasions have great admiration for Einstein, so the engineer listens with both ears and everything in-between in a moment of polite courtesy, and then the message sinks in. We need to look at our problems, including designs of our own making, with an open mind and critical eye, in order to uncover previously unrealized factors or mechanisms, in order to achieve a higher level of excellence. That objective is one all engineers can sign on to.

I willingly accept the quality engineer's "burden", that to lead the way in quality thinking, sometimes we must lead by doing. It is not a simple choice between give-a-man-a-fish or teach-a-man-to-fish. Sometimes, we have to help a man acquire a taste for fish.
 

Jim Wynne

Staff member
Admin
#7
Facing reluctant engineer participants, I often raise one of my favorite quotes from Albert Einstein, "The significant problems we face, cannot be solved using the same level of thinking we used, when we created those problems." I find that scientists and engineers of all persuasions have great admiration for Einstein, so the engineer listens with both ears and everything in-between in a moment of polite courtesy, and then the message sinks in.
It's a great thought, but there's no evidence that Einstein actually said or wrote it.
 

Ninja

Looking for Reality
Staff member
Super Moderator
#8
"The significant problems we face, cannot be solved using the same level of thinking we used, when we created those problems."
Yet regardless who who said or originally wrote it...it is (in my view) yet another hint as to why the guy designing a thing shouldn't be the primary lead on performing the FMEA.
 

Jim Wynne

Staff member
Admin
#9
There are many problems with getting creative people to do things in a different way. A writer whose name I don't recall, upon be asked what the most difficult thing about being a professional writer is replied, "Explaining to my wife that when I'm sitting at my desk gazing out the window, I am working." Creativity is largely cerebral, and the formation of drawings and documents is purely a mechanical expression of ideas formed when gazing out the window. Successfully making that mechanical transition from an abstract concept to drawings and specifications actually involves a separate talent from developing the concept itself, and some designers excel at the conceptualization and suck at the translation bit.

Before you can expect people to adopt a new technique or task, they (a) must be thoroughly trained and (b) understand that the new technique isn't an option. The impetus must come from the top level of the organization, and sending a QE to accomplish it is sending lambs to the slaughter. It will never work. Of course it helps if the new idea makes sense, but sometimes that's not enough.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
O AIAG VDA DFMEA Template Required FMEA and Control Plans 2
P DFMEA - Machinery Design Best Practices FMEA and Control Plans 0
P Equipment URS, pFMEA and dFMEA ISO 14971 - Medical Device Risk Management 3
R DFMEA/PFMEA mitigation of high severity (9-10) in low volume products IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 1
J Looking for a training organization that can provide in house DFMEA training FMEA and Control Plans 4
P Understanding DFMEA and PFMEA - Supplier Related IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 21
B Why the Greek god Hephaestus should have done a design FMEA (DFMEA) on his giant robot APQP and PPAP 1
DuncanGibbons Best practice for identifying "items" of parts for DFMEA analysis AS9100, IAQG, NADCAP and Aerospace related Standards and Requirements 2
Q Is that any difficulty to do software DFMEA and PFMEA in ISO 13485? ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 5
M How to complete structure Analysis and Function analysis sections' columns of AIAG-VDA DFMEA form FMEA and Control Plans 0
Jimmy123 Handling nonfunctional requirements in DFMEA FMEA and Control Plans 5
Jimmy123 P-Diagram vs DFMEA FMEA and Control Plans 4
C Function definition for DFMEA FMEA and Control Plans 1
optomist1 DFMEA - Real Life Drama FMEA and Control Plans 25
optomist1 Share a DFMEA template please Document Control Systems, Procedures, Forms and Templates 2
P Detection rating for a user (surgeon) related failure mode in DFMEA APQP and PPAP 3
Marc Definition DFMEA (Design FMEA) - Definition Definitions, Acronyms, Abbreviations and Interpretations Listed Alphabetically 0
S DFMEA when the supplier doesn't have design responsibility APQP and PPAP 15
T DFMEA/PFMEA and SCCAF alignment FMEA and Control Plans 19
C Design for Assembly in DFMEA - Failure Effect of Sub-System(s) FMEA and Control Plans 5
C Resource allocation problems in Software DFMEA FMEA and Control Plans 4
I Making a process PFMEA, no DFMEA (non-automotive toll manufacturer) FMEA and Control Plans 1
Proud Liberal DFMEA / PFMEA linkage - Where in the standards do I find it? FMEA and Control Plans 5
D Introducing an existing product into automotive context - DFMEA needed? IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 8
N DFMEA, Drawings and PFMEA of an Assembly Process FMEA and Control Plans 12
N YS Class in DFMEA & Process Control Measures FMEA and Control Plans 1
R DFMEA Severity 9-10 with Occurrence 3 and Detection 3 - Actions FMEA and Control Plans 3
G Is it compulsory to make DFMEA for proto parts making organisation APQP and PPAP 1
K Determining Effect of Failure without a DFMEA (Design FMEA) FMEA and Control Plans 1
Stijloor DFMEA & DVP&R Training Providers FMEA and Control Plans 1
P Does anyone have a DFMEA process Interface Matrix .xls template FMEA and Control Plans 7
C DFMEA vs. PFMEA Relationship: The cause in DFMEA becomes Failure in the PFMEA FMEA and Control Plans 2
M Severity Reduction in a Design FMEA (DFMEA) FMEA and Control Plans 25
G How to identify Key Characteristics (KC) in a Design FMEA (DFMEA) FMEA and Control Plans 2
W 'Classification' column in DFMEA FMEA and Control Plans 3
N What is the relationship between a DFMEA and PFMEA? FMEA and Control Plans 1
S DFMEA countermeasures in PFMEA FMEA and Control Plans 18
M If I update a DFMEA do I need to submit to my Customer? FMEA and Control Plans 7
R DFMEA (Design FMEA) on Printed Circuit Boards (PCB's) FMEA and Control Plans 2
M How to identify CTQ / Critical Characteristics using the DFMEA approach. FMEA and Control Plans 3
P Removing Detection from DFMEA - Medical Device company using ISO 13485 FMEA and Control Plans 3
R Rear Axle Gear Group DFMEA (Design FMEA) - Example wanted FMEA and Control Plans 2
H DFMEA Severity Ranking of Non-Compliance to EMC Standards FMEA and Control Plans 2
V Simple Representation for Scope of DFMEA and PFMEA FMEA and Control Plans 4
R Risk Assessment Matrix Question - Inputs from the DFMEA, etc. FMEA and Control Plans 9
M ISO 14971 Risk Analysis and use of a DFMEA (Design FMEA) ISO 14971 - Medical Device Risk Management 8
E IQRM PFMEA/DFMEA Software FMEA and Control Plans 11
Chennaiite Vehicle and System DFMEA - Brainstorming to Draft Guidelines FMEA and Control Plans 3
Chennaiite DFMEA (Design FMEA) at Vehicle Level - Some inputs needed. FMEA and Control Plans 4
M DFMEA Detection Ranking in AIAG FMEA Manual 4th Ed. - Explanation wanted IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 6

Similar threads

Top Bottom