Here's the way that it should work: The customer does the DFMEA and the results are incorporated in the design output--drawings and specifications, mainly. Thus if the supplier satisfies the specifications given to them, the design requirements will be met. The PFMEA should address the supplier's process(es) and not the customer's. It's the responsibility of the customer to ensure that they adequately communicate their requirements. When developing Risk Priority Numbers (RPNs) for the manufacturing process, the supplier should take into account only the potential failures of their own processes, and the concomitant risks to their own business, not the customer's.
Over the years I've seen many situations where a supplier met all of the specifications, but somehow or another the product didn't work as intended. The operation was a success but the patient died. This is solely the responsibility of the design authority. This is not to say that a supplier shouldn't bring to light things that the customer might have missed.
Over the years I've seen many situations where a supplier met all of the specifications, but somehow or another the product didn't work as intended. The operation was a success but the patient died. This is solely the responsibility of the design authority. This is not to say that a supplier shouldn't bring to light things that the customer might have missed.
The customer is ultimately responsible for communicating their requirements adequately. But as much as possible I'd advocate for people bringing things to light rather than falling in the recurrent "they didn't say, so we don't ask".
I also understand that manufacturers in the automotive supply chain are bound by IATF to know and ensure their products comply with applicable laws ad regulations. Clients often include disclaimers in their specifications about them not being necessarily complete, and transfer responsibility to the supplier. True or false?