Informational Family or Baseline PFMEA Rules

[tonyfan]

Thank you Golfman25. What you've described is exactly what I've been asking them to do. Hoping I can make this change happen.

 

[Golfman25]

Nothing worse than a 3rd party auditor messing with a perfectly workable system. The FEMA book is for guidance, not law. Sensible modifications should be fine. Until that lazy auditor comes around and your "boxes don't match." Good luck.

 

[morteza]

Hi all,

Thanks for your shared information. After studying this topic, I decided to provide family FMEA instead of many separated FMEAs in my organisation. At the start I faced a problem. I do not know how to input requirements in the FMEA form. May someone share a real family FMEA?
Another question:
What are differences between Generic (Foundation) FMEA and Family FMEA?

Thanks all

 

[vailmij]

So we are a stamper. There are several stamping "processes" we lay out -- blanking, forming, piercing, trimming, etc. But not every part goes thru every one of those processes. So we cut them out and only include the relevant stamping steps. But some parts get plated or painted or other processes. For those we keep in the FMEA in order to match the boxes in our process flow, but just note that they are not applicable.

As per Ron's concern regarding subsequent changes, we treat every submitted (daughter) FMEA as "obsolete" when printed. The parent FMEA is kept up to date with changes. If we need a new one for a previous part, we just cut and paste again. We did this because managing 100s of FMEAs was unworkable and we couldn't keep up with revisions when something changed.

Hi Golfman25,

I know this post is over a year old, but it appears we are trying to implement the same changes that you went through. We also happen to be a metal stamping manufacturer as well so our processes are practically identical:

1) Receiving
2) Setup
3) Stamping
4) Cleaning
5) Outside service (clean, heat treat, and/or plating)
6) Final Inspection
7) Pack & ship

I really like your idea of having one controlled master PFMEA and Process Flow. Our thought was to do the same thing, but how do you address different Severity ratings for the same process? - for example an Inside Diameter may be a CC on one part and would therefore have a higher severity rating than the ID for other parts. Or a part may have several inside diameters, but only one of them is a CC. I have a hard time seeing how a Master PFMEA could capture all of those differences. I can send you a PM if you are willing to talk further. Thank you!!

 

[reunalla]

Hi Everyone,

I have a question regarding family PFMEAs. I'd like to put together a kind of modular FMEA system to cover all processes at the company like
- incoming material receiving
- internal transport
- warehousing
- melting
- casting/molding
- finishing
- machining
- etc.
- shipping

So my thoughts to have a matrix with all part numbers then group them into families and just make a matrix with marking which module applies to that family. The reason behind this is that the company has over 200 individual PFMEAs currently (in Excel, no software) and they are not maintained but the parts themselves sometimes very similar with minor differences. Processes also similar but of course the machining is creating different product characteristics for each individual product.
For the individual product characteristics, I plan to add a list of all important characteristics as one huge filterable spreadsheet as an appendix to the PFMEA.

PROS:
- approx. 15 modules PFMEA needs to be maintained in this way instead of the 200+ individual ones
- if I change something in the module that will apply to all PFMEA with uses the same module
- the review takes less time

CONS:
- for PPAPs, I need to put together the modules and save to my PPAP folder as the actual state in the time of submission (can be reviewed by customer on-site)
- hard to add the changes which only apply to one part specifically (e.g X part need higher melt temperature)
- problem with part characteristics

What are your thoughts? Can this work with IATF auditors/customer auditors?

Thank you in advance.

 

[vailmij]

Hi Everyone,

I have a question regarding family PFMEAs. I'd like to put together a kind of modular FMEA system to cover all processes at the company like
- incoming material receiving
- internal transport
- warehousing
- melting
- casting/molding
- finishing
- machining
- etc.
- shipping

So my thoughts to have a matrix with all part numbers then group them into families and just make a matrix with marking which module applies to that family. The reason behind this is that the company has over 200 individual PFMEAs currently (in Excel, no software) and they are not maintained but the parts themselves sometimes very similar with minor differences. Processes also similar but of course the machining is creating different product characteristics for each individual product.
For the individual product characteristics, I plan to add a list of all important characteristics as one huge filterable spreadsheet as an appendix to the PFMEA.

PROS:
- approx. 15 modules PFMEA needs to be maintained in this way instead of the 200+ individual ones
- if I change something in the module that will apply to all PFMEA with uses the same module
- the review takes less time

CONS:
- for PPAPs, I need to put together the modules and save to my PPAP folder as the actual state in the time of submission (can be reviewed by customer on-site)
- hard to add the changes which only apply to one part specifically (e.g X part need higher melt temperature)
- problem with part characteristics

What are your thoughts? Can this work with IATF auditors/customer auditors?

Thank you in advance.

Hi reunalla,

It sounds like you are trying to implement something very similar to what we are planning as well. We are in the same situation: hundreds of PFMEAs in excel; most with the same processes; mostly similar parts.

We got started down this path after our most recent IATF audit. We had made an improvement in our packing process, so the auditor said therefore that improvement should be referenced on every PFMEA (she actually noted this in our nonconformity report). When having hundreds of excel PFMEAs, this would be very time consuming. Multiply that times every process improvement we make... So, that's when we started researching the idea of using a "modular PFMEA" system, as you say.

We started by making a "Master PFMEA" in excel. In the workbook, we made a tab for each "Module" (e.g. Stamping, Cleaning, Deburring, etc).

Our snag however, is figuring out how to address specific requirements that may be noted on prints (e.g. if a print has a note stating a cleanliness requirement). In such a case, we cant just simply point to the Cleaning Module on the Master PFMEA. So, we need to come up with some kind of solution with a part-specific PFMEA that would include all those specific requirements and also reference the appropriate Modules in the Master PFMEA. Another example is if a specification is "critical" (some of our fuel-injector components have a cleaning spec that is critical) then the severity rating could not be the generic one used on the Master PFMEA.

Obviously we don't have this figured out yet either, but I wanted to contribute some of our thoughts.

 

[morteza]

Hi Everyone,

I have a question regarding family PFMEAs. I'd like to put together a kind of modular FMEA system to cover all processes at the company like
- incoming material receiving
- internal transport
- warehousing
- melting
- casting/molding
- finishing
- machining
- etc.
- shipping

So my thoughts to have a matrix with all part numbers then group them into families and just make a matrix with marking which module applies to that family. The reason behind this is that the company has over 200 individual PFMEAs currently (in Excel, no software) and they are not maintained but the parts themselves sometimes very similar with minor differences. Processes also similar but of course the machining is creating different product characteristics for each individual product.
For the individual product characteristics, I plan to add a list of all important characteristics as one huge filterable spreadsheet as an appendix to the PFMEA.

PROS:
- approx. 15 modules PFMEA needs to be maintained in this way instead of the 200+ individual ones
- if I change something in the module that will apply to all PFMEA with uses the same module
- the review takes less time

CONS:
- for PPAPs, I need to put together the modules and save to my PPAP folder as the actual state in the time of submission (can be reviewed by customer on-site)
- hard to add the changes which only apply to one part specifically (e.g X part need higher melt temperature)
- problem with part characteristics

What are your thoughts? Can this work with IATF auditors/customer auditors?

Thank you in advance.

Hi reunalla,

Having family FMEAs like those you mentioned is OK and will work with auditors!
The important key is how to group them in a family. some OEMs have their specific requirements on fmaily FMEA, e.g. FORD states [1]:
"The organization may write FMEAs for families of parts, where typically the only difference in the parts is dimensional, not form, application or function. The organization should obtain STA review and concurrence prior to use of family process FMEAs".

One of the common problem in family FMEA is that customers have different symbols for special characteristics, or one characteristic may be special for one customer while for others not.

For your case it is recommended to have Family FMEA. When the manufacturing process is the same as other parts in the family then a family PFMEA is appropriate [2].


1- Ford Motor Company. Customer-Specific Requirements For IATF-16949:2016. Mar. 2017 pp 24
2- SAE J1739-2009. pp 3

 

[Golfman25]

Hi Golfman25,

I know this post is over a year old, but it appears we are trying to implement the same changes that you went through. We also happen to be a metal stamping manufacturer as well so our processes are practically identical:

1) Receiving
2) Setup
3) Stamping
4) Cleaning
5) Outside service (clean, heat treat, and/or plating)
6) Final Inspection
7) Pack & ship

I really like your idea of having one controlled master PFMEA and Process Flow. Our thought was to do the same thing, but how do you address different Severity ratings for the same process? - for example an Inside Diameter may be a CC on one part and would therefore have a higher severity rating than the ID for other parts. Or a part may have several inside diameters, but only one of them is a CC. I have a hard time seeing how a Master PFMEA could capture all of those differences. I can send you a PM if you are willing to talk further. Thank you!!

Start with a range. Or you can identify outliers with separate lines. Or You can make individual plans from the master. Be creative and figure out what would work best for your situation. What doesn't work for us is 100s of PFMEAs floating around.

 

[vailmij]

Be creative and figure out what would work best for your situation. What doesn't work for us is 100s of PFMEAs floating around.

Thanks for the reply. I think the phrase "Perfect is the Enemy of Good" applies here. The Master/Family PFMEA's that we start developing won't be perfect, but it'll certainly be better than having 100s of PFMEAs.

That said though, I'm having a hard time picturing a PFMEA that you are describing with a "range" of ratings; or how you are "cutting and pasting" to create the daughter PFMEAs. Do you mean you have one (or several) Master PFMEAs with the generic process steps and a separate part-specific PFMEA that is just a skeleton with some miscellaneous "part-specific" ratings on it? When a part's PFMEA needs to be reviewed, then you temporarily copy the relevant steps from the Master PFMEA and paste it into the part-specific one?

 

[Golfman25]

Thanks for the reply. I think the phrase "Perfect is the Enemy of Good" applies here. The Master/Family PFMEA's that we start developing won't be perfect, but it'll certainly be better than having 100s of PFMEAs.

That said though, I'm having a hard time picturing a PFMEA that you are describing with a "range" of ratings; or how you are "cutting and pasting" to create the daughter PFMEAs. Do you mean you have one (or several) Master PFMEAs with the generic process steps and a separate part-specific PFMEA that is just a skeleton with some miscellaneous "part-specific" ratings on it? When a part's PFMEA needs to be reviewed, then you temporarily copy the relevant steps from the Master PFMEA and paste it into the part-specific one?

So we have a master FMEA. It contains every operation we do, i.e.; blank, trim, coin, draw, extrude, etc. Now every part does not see every operation. So to make a part specific FMEA we just delete everything that isn't relevant. We can then modify any of the numbers as we deem necessary, but that rarely happens. Now here is the key. Once it is printed, it is obsolete. We put it in the part file for reference purposes. But all future updates are done on the master. That way we catch the issues that can be applied across all parts. We sit down yearly and review the master, tweaking it as we see things come up over the years. Over the past 20+ years we have gone back and forth and back and forth and finally settled on this as it seems to work really well for us. I am sure by the book "FMEA gurus" would have issues with it, but it works for us.