FMEA vs. Kepner Tregoe Struggle - Management doesn't want to use FMEA

[qualityboi]

Currently we have some internal turmoil going on regarding KT analysis vs. FMEA. Management wants to be ISO/TS certified but has just spent all kinds of money using KT as a problem solving and risk analysis tool. They don't want to use FMEA. My argument (and I really suck at on the spot debate and selling ideas) was that in order to get into the automotive market you need to be ISO/TS certified and use FMEA as the accepted risk management tool. This argument is not working. So how can I convince management to use FMEA (design and process) so they can execute their own strategic plan of selling into the automotive market?

Does anyone have any arguments on how FMEA can compliment the KT analysis (Potential Problem Analysis) and be used as a valuable tool, not something that is just done to achieve conformance to the TS standard? I realize its implicity as a valuable tool ...but they don't...

 

[Jim Wynne]

Re: FMEA vs Kepner Tregoe Struggle

Currently we have some internal turmoil going on regarding KT analysis vs. FMEA. Management wants to be ISO/TS certified but has just spent all kinds of money using KT as a problem solving and risk analysis tool. They don't want to use FMEA. My argument (and I really suck at on the spot debate and selling ideas) was that in order to get into the automotive market you need to be ISO/TS certified and use FMEA as the accepted risk management tool. This argument is not working. So how can I convince management to use FMEA (design and process) so they can execute their own strategic plan of selling into the automotive market?

Does anyone have any arguments on how FMEA can compliment the KT analysis (Potential Problem Analysis) and be used as a valuable tool, not something that is just done to achieve conformance to the TS standard? I realize its implicity as a valuable tool ...but they don't...

If your potential customers require AIAG/SAE-style FMEA, that's what you have to do. That doesn't mean that you can't do whatever else you want to do wrt quality improvement. Many companies, for example, do Six Sigma in addition to using the automotive "core tools." Your management can complain all they want, but if they want to go to Rome, they're going to have do like the Romans do.

 

[qualityboi]

Re: FMEA vs Kepner Tregoe Struggle

I agree and made that argument. They have used lean terminolgy in describing it as waste (none value added) since they are already doing PPA (potential problem analysis. I really don't know what other reason to give.

 

[Jim Wynne]

Re: FMEA vs Kepner Tregoe Struggle

I agree and made that argument. They have used lean terminolgy in describing it as waste (none value added) since they are already doing PPA (potential problem analysis. I really don't know what other reason to give.

Do they understand what "requirement" means? There might be a few customers here and there who will listen to reason in the automotive world, but believe me, there aren't many. "Negotiations" in automotive work usually go something like this:

Automotive Customer: Here are the requirements. Follow them to the letter.

Supplier: But it makes no sense for my company. What if I do x instead?

Automotive Customer: We aren't allowed to make decisions that favor suppliers, ever. Here are the requirements. Follow them to the letter.

 

[Wes Bucey]

Re: FMEA vs Kepner Tregoe Struggle

I agree and made that argument. They have used lean terminolgy in describing it as waste (none value added) since they are already doing PPA (potential problem analysis. I really don't know what other reason to give.

Sometimes, just sometimes, "a rose by any other name" is the argument to make here.

The point of ANY modern Quality Management System is to engage in a style of pre-planning which identifies and avoids potential pitfalls in meeting the requirements of customers.

Many of the so-called "CSR" (Customer Specific Requirements) in the automotive world are an outgrowth of that pre-planning wherein automotive OEMS have identified potential pitfalls and set forth requirements to reduce or eliminate such pitfalls BEFORE they happen.

One of the hallmarks of automotive FMEA is the concept of "weighting" the potential pitfalls according to frequency of probable occurrence and severity of "failure" if it does happen. Regardless of what you call the process of "pre-problem solving," that's going to be necessary to mollify customers in the automotive supply chain. If you are NOT dealing with automotive CSR, you, personally, just worry about the results of the process, not what it is called. If you and your organization ARE dealing with automotive CSR, the bosses need to ignore their fascination with a specific name for the pre-planning and call it FMEA, making sure to include the "weighting" aspect.

It also helps to know the lower you are in the automotive supply chain, the less stress the link above you will put on what you call FMEA, as long as you show results.

Added in edit. The very fact you are aiming for ISO9001:000 versus TS16949 implies all the automotive talk is moot and you probably can get along with any terminology the bosses choose as long as it works, since ISO9001 does not address FMEA by name.

 

[David DeLong]

Re: FMEA vs Kepner Tregoe Struggle

I took KT training in the late 70's and it was great stuff. I was also a Quality Manager in an automotive supplier and used Process FMEAs. I now train in FMEAs (both Process and Design) and will state that they are absolutely great at preventing nonconformities.

Is your company heading towards TS certification? If they are, tell them that FMEAs are mandatory and it is the way to go. If not, forget it. Don't argue too much or it might be said that you have an attitude.

If top Management is onside, here is what I would do:

Get a bit of training in Process FMEA and then have a pilot project on a new project as long as top Management will allot the time and approve it using a small team of about 3 - 4 knowledgeable individuals.

Once you have completed the project, reflect it here since there are a great many people here who can help critique it and give some advise.

FMEAs are the absolutely the best way of preventing nonconformities.

Good luck!!!!

 

[AndyN]

One other thing to consider is the linkage from the 'potential problem tool' to the Control Plan down stream and from the process flow diagram up stream. Are your management familiar that you don't simply 'do' FMEAs, they are part of the overall APQP requirements, to meet most automotive customers' requirements. The other posters are correct (well put Jim!) but maybe your management don't see the bigger picture of APQP and how KT fits.........

 

[Duke Okes]

It's a simple formula: You want automotive business? If yes, do the customers you want require TS? If yes, you must do FMEAs. If not, they will not be a customer. End of discussion.

 

[Yew Jin]

I believed by using both FMEA and KY method objective is same - end in mind we will have risk analysis and contigency plan.

I also believed that your company vision should be bright such as to be world class manufacturing company. So, do the right thing at the first time will shorten the time to meet the vision.

Sometime we can list down the advantage and disadvantage for the both method which included benefit and cost to emphasis that we want to use the FMEA instead KT method.

I am sure if they do not want use FMEA must have their reasons. Find out what is the reason behind and work proactively to propose the alternative by using FMEA.

Some benchmark to change the management mind in below case......
Boss: Why you must go for training?
A: Training can improve our knowledge and skill
Boss: How if you leave after the training?
A: How if I stay and without any training?
Boss: ...............

Sometimes, I believed we can provide more evidence and data to show why FMEA is the most suitable in this case to them for justification. Perhaps they will buy the idea.

Good luck!

 

[AndyN]

I believed by using both FMEA and KY method objective is same - end in mind we will have risk analysis and contigency plan.

I also believed that your company vision should be bright such as to be world class manufacturing company. So, do the right thing at the first time will shorten the time to meet the vision.

Sometime we can list down the advantage and disadvantage for the both method which included benefit and cost to emphasis that we want to use the FMEA instead KT method.

I am sure if they do not want use FMEA must have their reasons. Find out what is the reason behind and work proactively to propose the alternative by using FMEA.

Some benchmark to change the management mind in below case......
Boss: Why you must go for training?
A: Training can improve our knowledge and skill
Boss: How if you leave after the training?
A: How if I stay and without any training?
Boss: ...............

Sometimes, I believed we can provide more evidence and data to show why FMEA is the most suitable in this case to them for justification. Perhaps they will buy the idea.

Good luck!

Yew Jin - the OP doesn't have the option to engage his management with philosophical discussions. If his company want automotive orders, they must use automotive recognized tools.........