# New AIAG FMEA Process - How to complete the new format

#### RiotDiscoMan

##### Registered
Hello all,
I have been working on new PFMEA, I want to ask your opinion for a potential change/improvement
Item 2 of Step#4, Failure analysis describes the Failure Mode for Focus element/step.
However If you consider 4M elements though they altogether make the focus element/step but there are different failure cause for each 4m elements.
What I would suggest to write failure mode of each work element rather than failure mode of focus element/step or add additional column to describe failure cause. this will give more insight for the Work element Failure Cause. Otherwise one must always keep in mind work element function & potential failure. In case you have 4M or 6M, that makes the study even more difficult.

Have you obtained any feedback or resolution to this? I have been trying to determine if I should be considering 4M as mentioned in the manual, or 6M as per 6 Sigma.

#### akdeniz

##### Registered
Have you obtained any feedback or resolution to this? I have been trying to determine if I should be considering 4M as mentioned in the manual, or 6M as per 6 Sigma.
Hi, I have received no feedback so far. However after a couple of application I decided to act freely, ultimately is a tool to avoid potential problems. There is no limitation You should be considering all possible causes (6 M).

#### Johnny Quality

##### Quite Involved in Discussions
I feel like I'm missing something...

The Severity, Occurrence and Detection tables are ranked as a 10x10x10 matrix. However, once you apply the individual rankings to the Action Priority table it's simplified to a 5x5x4 matrix.

What's the point of the 1-10 system if when determining Action Priority it makes no distinction between a 9 or 10 for Severity, etc?

#### Bev D

##### Heretical Statistician
Super Moderator
Well just because it’s the holiday season allow me some Grinchy snark: why would anyone expect that a nonsensical method would use a sensible approach to anything?

The RPN is mathematical jabberwocky.
Turning perfectly useful continuous data into an ordinal rating is nothing more than a lazy way out of real work and only invites (nearly demands) guessing…
a 1-10 scale itself provides only the alluson of precision and really only lends itself to endless bickering over meaningless differences.

I could go on but it would serve no purpose…

#### Mikey324

##### Quite Involved in Discussions
Well just because it’s the holiday season allow me some Grinchy snark: why would anyone expect that a nonsensical method would use a sensible approach to anything?

The RPN is mathematical jabberwocky.
Turning perfectly useful continuous data into an ordinal rating is nothing more than a lazy way out of real work and only invites (nearly demands) guessing…
a 1-10 scale itself provides only the alluson of precision and really only lends itself to endless bickering over meaningless differences.

I could go on but it would serve no purpose…

I would like this comment twice if it would let me. Well said, as sad as that is.

#### seeva

##### Registered

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...
Very well said about the future of this FMEA , I share your similar view after seeing the presentation...

#### GCollat

##### Registered
I am working in an automotive industry that is just turning from the old FMEA to the new VDA AIAG FMEA. My question is:
- PFMEA and Control Plan numbers should be linked? as in the old fmea was

#### bobdoering

Trusted Information Resource
I am working in an automotive industry that is just turning from the old FMEA to the new VDA AIAG FMEA. My question is:
- PFMEA and Control Plan numbers should be linked? as in the old fmea was
As far as linking the documents, there needs to be a clear path for the user to go from one to the other, numbering the documents may help. As far as numbering the characteristics, that was clarified some in the new AIAG Control Plan book, page 27 no. 17 Characteristics - Number - which is yes, they characteristic numbers need to flow through all relevant documents.

#### Jimmy123

##### Involved In Discussions
Let the 27 columns filled by a suitable software. I have really good experience with the IQ-RM from APIS. The CP and Flow chart is linked in the same file. 27 columns in Excel kills all good discussion in the FMEA session. There are other good tools like Plato. I think GM, will use it?

Last edited: