FMEA Revisions - Recommended Actions to Actions Taken

S

sephodwyrm

#1
Hi all, this is my first forum post and I'm sure that we have some experienced Quality Engineers here who can help answer this.

I'm working in an IC assembly and manufacturing firm, and I've been recently put in charge of reviewing the Process FMEAs of our company. From what I know, we've been doing this for several years but we end up with a lot of OFIs and Minors for the way we write our documents.

Having reviewed at about a dozen PFMEAs, things seem to going well until my manager decided that I give a refresher course on the FMEA methodology. A lot of points were raised on the way I review the FMEAs (I try to adhere to the 4th Edition AIAG Manual that we subscribe to, given that we're TS 16949 compliant):

My approach:
1. Recommend Actions for high risk causes, assign Responsibility and Target Date
2. Once the Target Date is up, review the actual actions implemented, and write it down in the Actions Taken, and re-score the S, O, D and RPN.
3. During our periodic annual reviews, we would again confirm the actions taken and update the S, O, D, and RPN and Current Controls (Preventive or Detection). In other words, for completed actions that have become standard practice, recommended actions, resp and target date, and actions taken will be erased (NONE for Rec. Actions).

Voice of my colleagues:
1. Same for 1, except we are to predict the RPN (some of our automotive clients from Germany demanded this).
2. Once the Target Date is up, review the actual actions implemented, write it down in the Actions Taken, and ERASE the Recommended Actions and Responsibility. Hence, the only the Actions Taken cell would have contents.
3. Same thing for the annual review.

I personally disagree with erasing the Recommended Actions when the actions have been taken, since I am certain that there are possibilities where actions taken do not match that of the Recommended Actions. Leaving the Rec. Actions would remind me (the reviewer or auditor) what our Mfg Engineers have proposed and compare it with what they did in future reviews. The samples I've seen in both the Ford FMEA Handbook and AIAG Manual also left the Recommended Actions column untouched when Actions have been taken.

Now I've been ganged up 4 against 1, and even my manager isn't so confident. I really need to clarify this with your help!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Elsmar Forum Sponsor

John Broomfield

Leader
Super Moderator
#2
Hi all, this is my first forum post and I'm sure that we have some experienced Quality Engineers here who can help answer this.

I'm working in an IC assembly and manufacturing firm, and I've been recently put in charge of reviewing the Process FMEAs of our company. From what I know, we've been doing this for several years but we end up with a lot of OFIs and Minors for the way we write our documents.

Having reviewed at about a dozen PFMEAs, things seem to going well until my manager decided that I give a refresher course on the FMEA methodology. A lot of points were raised on the way I review the FMEAs (I try to adhere to the 4th Edition AIAG Manual that we subscribe to, given that we're TS 16949 compliant):

My approach:
1. Recommend Actions for high risk causes, assign Responsibility and Target Date
2. Once the Target Date is up, review the actual actions implemented, and write it down in the Actions Taken, and re-score the S, O, D and RPN.
3. During our periodic annual reviews, we would again confirm the actions taken and update the S, O, D, and RPN and Current Controls (Preventive or Detection). In other words, for completed actions that have become standard practice, recommended actions, resp and target date, and actions taken will be erased (NONE for Rec. Actions).

Voice of my colleagues:
1. Same for 1, except we are to predict the RPN (some of our automotive clients from Germany demanded this).
2. Once the Target Date is up, review the actual actions implemented, write it down in the Actions Taken, and ERASE the Recommended Actions and Responsibility. Hence, the only the Actions Taken cell would have contents.
3. Same thing for the annual review.

I personally disagree with erasing the Recommended Actions when the actions have been taken, since I am certain that there are possibilities where actions taken do not match that of the Recommended Actions. Leaving the Rec. Actions would remind me (the reviewer or auditor) what our Mfg Engineers have proposed and compare it with what they did in future reviews. The samples I've seen in both the Ford FMEA Handbook and AIAG Manual also left the Recommended Actions column untouched when Actions have been taken.

Now I've been ganged up 4 against 1, and even my manager isn't so confident. I really need to clarify this with your help!

sephodwyrm,

Instead of recommending actions on the fly, issue a preventive action request in each case so a team can identify and remove the root causes of each high priority failure mode.

Then record the actions taken for each PAR and rerun the FMEA, repeat to manage the adverse risks down to acceptable levels.

That way you have two organizational learning tools at work for the benefit of customers and other stakeholders.

John
 
S

sephodwyrm

#3
Thanks John for your input.

Our recommended actions are proposed by our Engineers, and our FMEA S, O, D and RPN scoring is also based upon Pareto Analysis of our top defects with PPM data. Our engineers on the floor would also conduct root cause analysis to propose the actions.

Now our issue right now is whether to ERASE the recommended actions when the actions have verified and the Actions Taken column filled in.

I personally intend to keep the Recommended Actions where they are right now since allows me (the designated reviewer from the quality department) to know what our engineers have proposed and verify it against what they actually did, and then we would put the improved (hopefully) S, O, D, and RPN scores in the respective places on the right hand side.

The AIAG Manual example keeps them there, but it would be great if I have a few more actual examples from other FMEA for manufacturing processes.
 

Chennaiite

Never-say-die
Trusted Information Resource
#4
Thanks John for your input.

Our recommended actions are proposed by our Engineers, and our FMEA S, O, D and RPN scoring is also based upon Pareto Analysis of our top defects with PPM data. Our engineers on the floor would also conduct root cause analysis to propose the actions.

Now our issue right now is whether to ERASE the recommended actions when the actions have verified and the Actions Taken column filled in.

I personally intend to keep the Recommended Actions where they are right now since allows me (the designated reviewer from the quality department) to know what our engineers have proposed and verify it against what they actually did, and then we would put the improved (hopefully) S, O, D, and RPN scores in the respective places on the right hand side.

The AIAG Manual example keeps them there, but it would be great if I have a few more actual examples from other FMEA for manufacturing processes.
As it goes, there is no 'One' right way, while there are so many wrong ways. To me, retaining the recommended actions makes sense for exactly the reason that you indicated. What is the justification on the other side of the argument?

I am pretty much sure, this cannot just be the only point of disagreement in FMEA within your team. Keep bringing up more.
 

John Broomfield

Leader
Super Moderator
#5
sephodwyrm,

Yes, accepting recommendations from the Engineers seems faster.

But, as you do not invoke preventive action, do the root causes of the potential failure modes remain in the system?

I see no evidence of the design processes being improved by your FMEAs. Perhaps you are running Lesson Learned sessions to help drive improvements?

John
 
Last edited:
S

sephodwyrm

#6
From John:
do the root causes of the potential failure modes remain in the system?
I (like our Customers), would ask Engineers from the floor to provide actual performance after the actions have been taken. This would allow us to see if the issue has been successfully resolved.

But as you've mentioned, our FMEA is driven by actual problems happening on the floor. There's no evidence showing that it is capable of preventing errors before they happen (hence, it is not meeting the desired objective of the FMEA methodology).

For example, our Engineers on the floor still wouldn't consider updating FMEA a top priority when they improve the process. As a result, the Process FMEAs may have missing or redundant steps when our product is released for mass production. And this would only be highlighted when the Customer reviews our FMEA documents. This is also why I've been brought on to the job.

It certainly does not help when the QA department disagrees with each other over things like whether to keep the content of Recommended Actions after having verified the Actions Taken. >.<
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
V Latest revisions of Core Tools Manuals from the AIAG (APQP, PPAP, FMEA, SPC and MSA) IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 3
Bev D Development Process: FMEA, Critical Characteristics, Spec Setting and Controls Misc. Quality Assurance and Business Systems Related Topics 0
A Question regarding new VDA_AIAG fmea approach for process FMEA FMEA and Control Plans 0
O FMEA rankings vs Hazard Analysis Rankings ISO 14971 - Medical Device Risk Management 15
Y Stellantis FMEA Report IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 10
Sidney Vianna IATF 16949 News AIAG/VDA harmonized approach to FMEA IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 0
S AIAG-VDA FMEA tutorial and completely filled FMEA FMEA and Control Plans 1
W Reconciling FMEA RPN ratings with Risk Acceptability ISO 14971 - Medical Device Risk Management 19
Q VDA Standard - VDA FMEA VDA Standards - Germany's Automotive Standards 11
Y Foundation FMEA FMEA and Control Plans 4
C FMEA Software Report View FMEA and Control Plans 1
G FMEA versus control plan IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 6
M BMW requirements for FMEA IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 9
Anerol C FMEA workshop training South of Texas FMEA and Control Plans 0
Anerol C FMEA Training for South Texas Service Industry Specific Topics 0
K Process FMEA responsible For "Make to Design Parts" (Inhouse or Suppliers ?) FMEA and Control Plans 3
M Industrial Inkjet FMEA FMEA and Control Plans 5
D Twin Screw Extrusion FMEA FMEA and Control Plans 5
M FMEA Severity Scores Between Two Sister divisions? FMEA and Control Plans 6
Casana Step 7 in AIAG/VDA FMEA form FMEA and Control Plans 17
C FMEA Severity Rating for aggravating failures IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 6
A FMEA Official Rankings S-O-D? FMEA and Control Plans 9
R FMEA's for non-manufacturing sites FMEA and Control Plans 4
M ISO 14971:2019 vs FMEA methodology ISO 14971 - Medical Device Risk Management 23
Y FMEA link to Control Plan frequency and sample size FMEA and Control Plans 20
A FMEA Software IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 6
Dan Pare Ford CSR Update (FMEA's) - January 2022 FMEA and Control Plans 25
H RPN in AIaG-VDA FMEA Manual FMEA and Control Plans 1
M Process FMEA for Laser Cutting/Press Brake/Welding FMEA and Control Plans 3
L Looking for Control Plan and FMEA Stamping process FMEA and Control Plans 3
OpExPro AIAG VDA FMEA Rating Tables FMEA and Control Plans 5
OpExPro The note at the bottom of DFMEA occurrence tables in AIAG VDA FMEA FMEA and Control Plans 0
Q FMEA and Risk assessment in Microsoft Access FMEA and Control Plans 6
W FMEA - Current control and occurrence rating FMEA and Control Plans 3
J FMEA Handbook 2019 IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 3
J Process FMEA Template with examples - Cold and Hot Forged components FMEA and Control Plans 4
B Why the Greek god Hephaestus should have done a design FMEA (DFMEA) on his giant robot APQP and PPAP 1
P Design FMEA - Detection Rating criteria ISO 14971 - Medical Device Risk Management 3
J Which OEM or customers are now requiring the new AIAG/VDA FMEA format? FMEA and Control Plans 7
C AIAG/VDA FMEA - Is the new better? FMEA and Control Plans 0
I Does anybody use Detection in medical device Design FMEA? ISO 14971 - Medical Device Risk Management 25
P VDA AIAG FMEA - Slides for Quality Audience FMEA and Control Plans 4
P Design FMEA for Industrial Machinery FMEA and Control Plans 3
B AIAG/VDA’s FMEA Manual Is a Major Advance (my take on this subject) FMEA and Control Plans 2
B AIAG-VDA FMEA - When the new format will be required FMEA and Control Plans 6
D Where does "as far as possible" stop? FMEA - EN 14971 ISO 14971 - Medical Device Risk Management 29
R What are the changes in 5th Edition of FMEA manual? FMEA and Control Plans 6
M Risk and Corrective actions - Currently no FMEA's - Car systems Risk Management Principles and Generic Guidelines 8
C FMEA Process assessment In the Draft for the AIAG/VDA FMEA Manual is gone FMEA and Control Plans 0
Jimmy123 Example of a P-Diagram for Process FMEA - Uncontrollable noises FMEA and Control Plans 39

Similar threads

Top Bottom