Inspections Station Failures in PFMEA

[hippiegurl67]

I have seen some previous discussions on this topic (2008) and wondered if there had been any updates. I work for a large assembler. I deal with several opinions on APQP paperwork from all over our company. I have a question I would appreciate your feedback on:

Inspection steps (End of line inspectors, continuity, vision). Do they belong on the PFMEA? I have always added them as a process step but not assigned failure modes. I have always been trained they belong as detections only. FOR EXAMPLE: The failure mode suggested by my team is: "Vision passes bad part" (as well as "vision fails good part"). Well, dont we assume everything coming into the station is good? Would failures here not be captured on a MFMEA? Also, what are my detections? 5x5? Red Rabbit? And...if you deal in a General Motors world, this creates extra RPL1/S situations in which deviations would be needed for critical characteristics. And, .....If you were to add add vision failures to a PFMEA (which checks for many things), do you break each vision "inspection" down to severities? This could get VERY cumbersome and not really value added. I could understand adding items like damaged part (if the EOL operator lifts the part up)...

 

[Miner]

You will get a lot of different perspectives to this question. My perspective is that there are two primary failure modes to an inspection step:

1. Accepting a defective part
2. Rejecting a good part

Others might be possible such as damaging a product while inspecting, but those should be exceptions.

 

[hippiegurl67]

You will get a lot of different perspectives to this question. My perspective is that there are two primary failure modes to an inspection step:

1. Accepting a defective part
2. Rejecting a good part

Others might be possible such as damaging a product while inspecting, but those should be exceptions.

Understood. So, then if this is a manned station, what are your suggested detections?

 

[Miner]

The more effective approach would be to reduce Occurrence by ensuring the measurement devices are 1) accurate through calibration, linearity study and stability study as appropriate, and 2) are repeatable and reproducible through an R&R study. The only real detection controls at a manual inspection would be some type of system to ensure that the inspections have not been overlooked or deliberately bypassed.

 

[hippiegurl67]

Thanks so much for the reply. I dont see the value add to this. PFMEA's do not incorporate deliberate bypass per the manual. So, for us we have no detection for an EOL inspection failure mode....and have no intention to add an additional inspection beyond final inspection so this is a non issue for us. I really hate these "gray"areas as it causes a lot of grief when dealing with different opinions. Thanks!!

 

[Miner]

I don't disagree with you but have had too many automotive customers insist on it as well as for receiving and shipping. You pick your battles.

 

[hippiegurl67]

I don't disagree with you but have had too many automotive customers insist on it as well as for receiving and shipping. You pick your battles.

Thank you so much for the feedback!