No Actual Field Failures (5 years) - Still need Analysis of Potential Field Failures?

N

Nirmala - 2009

We do not have any customer feedback or actual filed failure for last 5 years. The potential failures are addressed during initial product FMEA . Do we still need to do analysis of potential filed failures ?

Thanks for your time and advise
 

Stijloor

Leader
Super Moderator
Re: No Actual Field Failures (5 years) - Still need Analysis of Potential Field Failu

We do not have any customer feedback or actual filed failure for last 5 years. The potential failures are addressed during initial product FMEA . Do we still need to do analysis of potential field failures ?

Thanks for your time and advise

Hello Nirmala,

Welcome to The Cove Forums! :bigwave: :bigwave:

If you address potential failures during Design FMEA (and hopefully during Process FMEA), which means that this should also include possible field failures, then you are OK.

Obviously, If you never experienced any field failures in the last 5 years, you must have a good program in place and excellent controls. The fact that they have not occurred, does not mean that they could not happen. Hence the need for paying attention to potential field failures.

Stijloor.
 

Jen Kirley

Quality and Auditing Expert
Leader
Admin
Re: No Actual Field Failures (5 years) - Still need Analysis of Potential Field Failu

Welcome to The Cove! :bigwave:

Are you asking if the potential for field failures should not be analyzed for existing product, or for new product?

What is the life cycle of your product? For some products (e.g. computer chips, refrigerators) 5 years without a field failure may not assure a failure will not yet occur.

For new product it should always be done in the FMEA. Renewed analysis should be done when there are design changes or process changes. The time frame for field failures is generally based on the product's life cycle, safety, customer expectations, and replacement costs.
 

Helmut Jilling

Auditor / Consultant
Re: No Actual Field Failures (5 years) - Still need Analysis of Potential Field Failu

We do not have any customer feedback or actual filed failure for last 5 years. The potential failures are addressed during initial product FMEA . Do we still need to do analysis of potential filed failures ?

Thanks for your time and advise

The amount of analysis could be scaled to match the amount of inherent risk. If the risk is very low, you can scale the amount of analysis to match. What do your customers currently expect.
 

Jim Wynne

Leader
Admin
Re: No Actual Field Failures (5 years) - Still need Analysis of Potential Field Failu

We do not have any customer feedback or actual filed failure for last 5 years. The potential failures are addressed during initial product FMEA . Do we still need to do analysis of potential filed failures ?

Thanks for your time and advise

Two thoughts come to mind: first, if your FMEA addresses potential field failures of the product, you have done the analysis, and second, you need to be careful to avoid a logical breakdown such that you say, "X hasn't happened to date, therefore x will never happen."
 

Steve Prevette

Deming Disciple
Leader
Super Moderator
Re: No Actual Field Failures (5 years) - Still need Analysis of Potential Field Failu

We do not have any customer feedback or actual filed failure for last 5 years. The potential failures are addressed during initial product FMEA . Do we still need to do analysis of potential filed failures ?

Thanks for your time and advise

I'd say you have to look at the costs of potential failures (direct and nondirect) versus the costs to prevent them.

NASA is obviously able to go more than 5 years between Shuttle failures, but I suspect they are going to keep doing FMEA (and hopefully better).
 
V

vanputten

Re: No Actual Field Failures (5 years) - Still need Analysis of Potential Field Failu

Is it possible that you have already done the analysis of the actual feild failures? There aren't any actual failures so the analysis is probably pretty quick.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Top Bottom