New AIAG FMEA Process - How to complete the new format

Stevebod

Starting to get Involved
#1
Ok so the new "process" has been published and I have (tried and tried again) to read it and understand it. So far 5+ reads later and I still do not have a clue how to complete the new format. It seems to be way over the top compared to the previous, if slightly flawed editions which at least after a quick read most people could get cracking with the generation of a PFMEA.

It now appears likely that you will need your own "expert" just to understand how to complete / co-ordinate completion of the form which to my mind completely defeats the object of getting process owners to “do it for themselves”.

I think this is for the benefit of “quality consultants” who will be rubbing their hands with glee and deciding how they are going to spend all the extra money they will now be getting on the back of all the new training that will be required. (Probably an “acceptable” cost for larger organisations, but for those smaller organisations with relatively simple processes it seems a completely unnecessary expense).

All in all a major backward step that will achieve nothing but confusion for many people involved in simpler processes, and there should have been the option of a more streamlined FMEA process available for processes that involve less complex parts / processes.
 
Last edited:
Elsmar Forum Sponsor

Bev D

Heretical Statistician
Staff member
Super Moderator
#2
Every day I encounter a new reason to be glad that I am not in automotive or other highly regulated industries.

:soap: warning rant ahead
While I certainly understand that standardizing best practices is highly useful (no need to reinvent the wheel constantly) most of our profession's attempts to do this have resulted in:
- approaches that are too simplistic and not good quality practice (Cpk, RPN, AIAG gage R&R...) and that make rational aproaches based on sound physics and statistical practice nearly impossible to do
- overly complicated forms and procedures that substitute format for content and are just audit traps

It seems that all this does is drive us to the lowest of mediocrity resulting in a 'check the box' mentality that drives out rational thought, real quality improvement and innovation. It does however provide employment for hack consultants and know-nothing auditors. it's a shame; there are some really fabulous consultants and auditors who really know their stuff and they get lost in the sea of incompetency.
:braincloud:
 

Coury Ferguson

Moderator here to help
Staff member
Super Moderator
#3
I know that I am sending 2 of our people to this training 7/22. Here is their information that you can check on their website about training in your general area.

TRIGO USA
Direct: 888-225-1137
www.trigo-group.com


Disclaimer: I am not affiliated with them in anyway. They are just a training group that offers this type of training that we have used.
 

Stevebod

Starting to get Involved
#5
I always thought that the main reason for FMEA's was to identify process variables, how they can go wrong, and what you can do to mitigate them. There are far far better, simpler and more user friendly ways to achieve this objective than what is written in the latest specification. I fear the new process will detract from the main reasons for carrying out an FMEA process as people will be focusing more on how to fill out the form!
 

Stevebod

Starting to get Involved
#6
I started doing FMEA's 30 + years ago, (pre computer and hand written), the reasons for doing them are sound, but even now there seems to be much confusion as to what constitutes a "failure mode", or a cause, (of a cause etc.), resulting in more time spent discussing how to complete the formant and what goes in what box and completely missing the point of doing an FMEA in the first place.
 

Stevebod

Starting to get Involved
#7

A tragically boring and tedious presentation whereby the presenters seem to have little conviction of what they are trying to convey and don't seem to understand it themselves, let alone have a hope of educating anybody that has the patience to listen to this for more than the first 5 minutes. After doing FMEA's for 30+ years I was really hoping for some clarity as I get as confused now as I did when I started writing them out by hand for customer "Quality" auditors that seemed to be equally clueless. If this is the future of FMEA's then * help us all...
 

Miner

Forum Moderator
Staff member
Admin
#8
I agree Steve. They are making the process as complicated as that of the original design. I have found that the primary benefit of an FMEA is that it forces an engineer to consider all possible failure modes. Often, they have an "Oh s..t!" moment when they realize they had overlooked something. The risk assessment portion is usually blindingly obvious to them, yet that is where most of the time is spent arguing over whether the score is a 5 or a 6.

I also think that it is interesting that the people that came up with the new approach say it is too complicated to do in Excel and that you will need special software, and those same people work for the companies that plan to provide that software.
 

Stevebod

Starting to get Involved
#9
....jobs for the boys......everybody should simply ignore this latest diatribe of rubbish that is the new AIAG FMEA "standard" and develop there own more basic systems that at least allows those that understand the process the ability to identify what is important and what to do about it. I can't imagine many auditors have a clue how to audit this new system....
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
C FMEA Process assessment In the Draft for the AIAG/VDA FMEA Manual is gone FMEA and Control Plans 0
K AIAG/VDA FMEA & Process Control Plans FMEA and Control Plans 0
G AIAG FMEA - Major customers of the FMEA process FMEA and Control Plans 3
L PFMEA (Process FMEA) issue about lower RPN - AIAG 3rd edition page 55 FMEA and Control Plans 13
S PFMEA Form - What forces you to use the AIAG form for Process FMEA? FMEA and Control Plans 4
J Which OEM or customers are now requiring the new AIAG/VDA FMEA format? FMEA and Control Plans 0
C AIAG/VDA FMEA - Is the new better? FMEA and Control Plans 0
P VDA AIAG FMEA - Slides for Quality Audience FMEA and Control Plans 4
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 5
D FMEA-MSR in the AIAG-VDA Aligned Handbook - What is it? FMEA and Control Plans 4
bobdoering AIAG VDA FMEA Handbook - 2019 - something familiar about this.... FMEA and Control Plans 37
R Information on the roll out of the new harmonized DRAFT FMEA AIAG/VDA manual IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 4
Marc When will Revision 5 of the AIAG FMEA Manual be released? FMEA and Control Plans 93
S Pre-release version of the upcoming AIAG FMEA Revision 5 FMEA and Control Plans 1
N AIAG 4th ed. FMEA Manual "Fit" Changed to "Appearance" - Fit severity? FMEA and Control Plans 2
Z Failure Mode Identification in PFMEA according to AIAG FMEA Rev.4 FMEA and Control Plans 6
K 4th Edition AIAG FMEA Occurrence, Severity and Detection Criteria for Plastics FMEA and Control Plans 1
P Occurrence Rating in AIAG FMEA Manual 4th Edition FMEA and Control Plans 5
C AIAG FMEA 4th Ed "Design Assumption" - I Need Examples FMEA and Control Plans 15
M AIAG FMEA Manual Request FMEA and Control Plans 9
D AIAG FMEA 4? Ed. Explanation: Relationship between PFMEA and Special Characteristics FMEA and Control Plans 8
V Latest revisions of Core Tools Manuals from the AIAG (APQP, PPAP, FMEA, SPC and MSA) IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 3
X AIAG FMEA Occurrence Criteria Issue FMEA and Control Plans 6
A AIAG Design FMEA Severity Rankings - Noncompliance Government Regulation? FMEA and Control Plans 9
M DFMEA Detection Ranking in AIAG FMEA Manual 4th Ed. - Explanation wanted IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 6
I What is the difference between FMEA Fourth edition (AIAG) and VDA 4.2? VDA Standards - Germany's Automotive Standards 7
R Is there an FMEA standard other than AIAG? FMEA and Control Plans 11
M What are the changes in the latest AIAG FMEA edition FMEA and Control Plans 4
Stijloor Latest AIAG PPAP and FMEA Errata Sheet APQP and PPAP 7
P AIAG FMEA manual 4th edition - Problem with Appendix C FMEA and Control Plans 3
T RPN of Action Results per the AIAG FMEA manual FMEA and Control Plans 5
P AIAG FMEA Core Tools Exam FMEA and Control Plans 4
L AIAG's FMEA 4th Edition - Presentation with changes wanted FMEA and Control Plans 8
U AIAG's FMEA Manual 4th Edition Released - 2nd July 2008 FMEA and Control Plans 77
Stijloor AIAG's FMEA 4th Edition Rollout Events. FMEA and Control Plans 3
S Are the AIAG document (FMEA, PPAP, SPC, MSA, APQP) guidelines or requirements FMEA and Control Plans 6
K Ford FMEA - differences to AIAG FMEA FMEA and Control Plans 8
R AIAG's FMEA Manual 4th Edition pushed back to 1st quarter 2008 FMEA and Control Plans 16
S Has the AIAG published the latest FMEA manual yet? FMEA and Control Plans 2
J Changes to AIAG's FMEA manual to happen in the 3rd quarter of 2007 FMEA and Control Plans 10
K AIAG FMEA Manual - New version in June 2007? FMEA and Control Plans 6
S VDA vs. AIAG - FMEA Ranking FMEA and Control Plans 4
C Is Risk Assessment Still Necessary? The AIAG FMEA Manual does not address FMEA and Control Plans 1
M PFMEA Detection Evaluation Criteria - Visual Check - Page 52 of the AIAG FMEA manual FMEA and Control Plans 2
A Sae J1739:2002 - Is it different from the AIAG's latest FMEA manual? FMEA and Control Plans 1
A AIAG Releases FMEA Update - 30 June 2001 FMEA and Control Plans 16
M Renault vs. AIAG FMEA - Would like details of it's usage and any training aids FMEA and Control Plans 4
Anerol C Gage R&R Template AIAG 4th Edition IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 3
A PFMEA new AIAG FMEA and Control Plans 0

Similar threads

Top Bottom