PFMEA Severity - What is Process FMEA Severity estimation based on?

  • Thread starter Matthew_Hopkins
  • Start date
S

Sanda

#51
Re: Severity estimation in a PFMEA is a bit confusing

I've been away for a long period of time, but the "unspoken" question push me to wrote me opinion
The problem with DFMEA's and PFMEA's starts from their purposes.
To those in charge of design we told them that their responsibility is only for the product -they don't know the manufacturing process (even if they know that some product failure modes are cause by processes), and to the process engineers we told them to take care of the processes presuming that the product is well designed (but they still need the DFMEA as input because some causes from DMEA's becomes failure modes in PFMEA's).
I don't think I've answer to your question, but I presented an approach used very often in automotive industry.
The negative side of this is that the 2 parties rarerly comunicate properly.
 
Elsmar Forum Sponsor

Helmut Jilling

Auditor / Consultant
#52
Re: Severity estimation in a PFMEA is a bit confusing

I've been away for a long period of time, but the "unspoken" question push me to wrote me opinion
The problem with DFMEA's and PFMEA's starts from their purposes.
To those in charge of design we told them that their responsibility is only for the product -they don't know the manufacturing process (even if they know that some product failure modes are cause by processes), and to the process engineers we told them to take care of the processes presuming that the product is well designed (but they still need the DFMEA as input because some causes from DMEA's becomes failure modes in PFMEA's).
I don't think I've answer to your question, but I presented an approach used very often in automotive industry.
The negative side of this is that the 2 parties rarerly comunicate properly.
Welcome back... I agree with your comment, but remember, there is no hard line separating the DFMEA and the PFMEA. The PFMEA still deals with product failure modes, but focuses on those caused by the Process. The focus is still product failure modes - and their effect on the assembly line and the end user.
 

Jim Wynne

Staff member
Admin
#53
Re: Severity estimation in a PFMEA is a bit confusing

Welcome back... I agree with your comment, but remember, there is no hard line separating the DFMEA and the PFMEA. The PFMEA still deals with product failure modes, but focuses on those caused by the Process. The focus is still product failure modes - and their effect on the assembly line and the end user.
That's true only if the AIAG guidelines are adopted. There is benefit to be had (as I've said before) in concentrating the PFMEA on risks not to the customer or end user, but on "the organization's" own processes. We should be able to assume that risks to customers and end users are addressed in the specifications.
 

Helmut Jilling

Auditor / Consultant
#54
Re: Severity estimation in a PFMEA is a bit confusing

That's true only if the AIAG guidelines are adopted. There is benefit to be had (as I've said before) in concentrating the PFMEA on risks not to the customer or end user, but on "the organization's" own processes. We should be able to assume that risks to customers and end users are addressed in the specifications.
True, I took the practice from there since Sandra mentioned the automotive reference. However, in any case, I advocate a broad approach. There is nothiing to be lost in identifying all the relevant failure modes. If there is an issue that will affect the user, let's say part rusting due to insufficient paint thickness, there is no reason that should be left out. That is the purpose of a PFMEA. Identify risks to the internal processes, the customers, end users, etc.
 

Jim Wynne

Staff member
Admin
#55
Re: Severity estimation in a PFMEA is a bit confusing

True, I took the practice from there since Sandra mentioned the automotive reference. However, in any case, I advocate a broad approach. There is nothiing to be lost in identifying all the relevant failure modes. If there is an issue that will affect the user, let's say part rusting due to insufficient paint thickness, there is no reason that should be left out. That is the purpose of a PFMEA. Identify risks to the internal processes, the customers, end users, etc.
Corrosion is the result of a process failure, and that (or those) process failures are best characterized as process failure modes. Corrosion is the effect of a process failure mode, and any potential process failure modes should be considered fair game. This does not mean, however, that effects on end users per se should be considered. One of the effects of failure in end use (failure that's a result of process failure, not design failure) is something bad happening to the provider. That's the relevant risk.
 

Helmut Jilling

Auditor / Consultant
#56
Re: Severity estimation in a PFMEA is a bit confusing

Corrosion is the result of a process failure, and that (or those) process failures are best characterized as process failure modes. Corrosion is the effect of a process failure mode, and any potential process failure modes should be considered fair game. This does not mean, however, that effects on end users per se should be considered. One of the effects of failure in end use (failure that's a result of process failure, not design failure) is something bad happening to the provider. That's the relevant risk.
Jim, I don't think you answered my question.
If there is an issue that will affect the user, we have to consider it somewhere. Why shouldn't we use the FMEA that we are doing anyway ofr everything?
I used the example of a part that recived insufficient paint thickness. That is clearly a process failure. The part looks perfectly good when it was shipped, buut it will rust prematurely.

There is no reason that should be left out. That is the purpose of a PFMEA. Use one document to identify risks to the internal processes, the customers, end users, etc. That is what the darn thing was made for...
 

Jim Wynne

Staff member
Admin
#57
Re: Severity estimation in a PFMEA is a bit confusing

Jim, I don't think you answered my question.
If there is an issue that will affect the user, we have to consider it somewhere. Why shouldn't we use the FMEA that we are doing anyway ofr everything?
I used the example of a part that recived insufficient paint thickness. That is clearly a process failure. The part looks perfectly good when it was shipped, buut it will rust prematurely.

There is no reason that should be left out. That is the purpose of a PFMEA. Use one document to identify risks to the internal processes, the customers, end users, etc. That is what the darn thing was made for...
The specifications for the product are supposed to derive from all of the requirements. That's why a job shop--which will never have access to an OEM DFMEA--should concentrate its efforts on meeting the specifications, and not what might happen if the specifications are met and something bad happens anyway. Meet the specifications and if something rusts or blows up or goes over the edge of a cliff, the design-responsible party will be responsible. It's a dangerous thing for a job shop to try to accomplish things that the designer is responsible for.
 

Helmut Jilling

Auditor / Consultant
#58
Re: Severity estimation in a PFMEA is a bit confusing

The specifications for the product are supposed to derive from all of the requirements. That's why a job shop--which will never have access to an OEM DFMEA--should concentrate its efforts on meeting the specifications, and not what might happen if the specifications are met and something bad happens anyway. Meet the specifications and if something rusts or blows up or goes over the edge of a cliff, the design-responsible party will be responsible. It's a dangerous thing for a job shop to try to accomplish things that the designer is responsible for.
Jim, I agree with your premise, but I don't think you are answering my question. A painter MUST evaluate the consequences of underpainting a part. And, those consequences only occur later to the end user. The failure mode is premature rusting. Isn't that the very purpose of a PFMEA? The spec indicates the paint mill thickness, the PFMEA considers the risk of failures. Why do you have a problem with that? The purvey of a designer is to specify the paint, the rest is process management.
 

Jim Wynne

Staff member
Admin
#59
Re: Severity estimation in a PFMEA is a bit confusing

Jim, I agree with your premise, but I don't think you are answering my question. A painter MUST evaluate the consequences of underpainting a part. And, those consequences only occur later to the end user. The failure mode is premature rusting. Isn't that the very purpose of a PFMEA? The spec indicates the paint mill thickness, the PFMEA considers the risk of failures. Why do you have a problem with that? The purvey of a designer is to specify the paint, the rest is process management.
Having some experience with automotive paint processes, I can tell you from firsthand experience that the goal of the process is to meet the specifications and in particular to pass the performance testing that's almost always required in those cases. If I understand the specifications and can demonstrate, using the customer's criteria, that I can meet them given specific process controls, my goal is to maintain those process controls and continue to meet the specifications. What might happen in the field is not a part of the thinking that goes on; it's all about successful test results.

I experienced two instances where automotive parts (not painted metal) failed in the field, and in both instances, despite the customer's dogged attempts to blame the failures on us, we were able to demonstrate that the parts we made consistently passed the required testing and otherwise met all of the specifications. There were no safety issues involved; these were interior trim parts. When safety issues are involved and product liability is an issue, it's even more important that a job shop is able to demonstrate a pattern of consistently meeting the customer's specifications.

There are innumerable instances every day of job shops making parts without knowing exactly how and where they're used. They might know in a general way what a part is used for, but to think that contract shops do or should always understand the potential field failure modes is just not realistic.
 

Helmut Jilling

Auditor / Consultant
#60
Re: Severity estimation in a PFMEA is a bit confusing

Having some experience with automotive paint processes, I can tell you from firsthand experience that the goal of the process is to meet the specifications and in particular to pass the performance testing that's almost always required in those cases. If I understand the specifications and can demonstrate, using the customer's criteria, that I can meet them given specific process controls, my goal is to maintain those process controls and continue to meet the specifications. What might happen in the field is not a part of the thinking that goes on; it's all about successful test results.

I experienced two instances where automotive parts (not painted metal) failed in the field, and in both instances, despite the customer's dogged attempts to blame the failures on us, we were able to demonstrate that the parts we made consistently passed the required testing and otherwise met all of the specifications. There were no safety issues involved; these were interior trim parts. When safety issues are involved and product liability is an issue, it's even more important that a job shop is able to demonstrate a pattern of consistently meeting the customer's specifications.

There are innumerable instances every day of job shops making parts without knowing exactly how and where they're used. They might know in a general way what a part is used for, but to think that contract shops do or should always understand the potential field failure modes is just not realistic.
Jim, this is going to be my last attempt to synchronize with you on this thread. Again, I agree with your premise, but again, you did not answer my question -

"What is the purpose of a PFMEA, automotive style particularly, if not to evaluate the failure mode and the risks involved?"

If applying a RPN number to a permaturely rusting part is not a failure mode that a painter must evaluate on a PFMEA, then we are in a parallel universe...
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
O PFMEA - Reducing Severity (S) Ranking - Manufacturing Process Design Changes FMEA and Control Plans 4
J On PFMEA for danger labels - Label always should be assigned severity 10 ? FMEA and Control Plans 3
A PFMEA severity score different applications FMEA and Control Plans 11
C Determining PFMEA Severity for Armored Parts FMEA and Control Plans 5
G Internal vs. External PFMEA Severity Rankings FMEA and Control Plans 12
C Does the PFMEA Severity have to match the DFMEA Severity? FMEA and Control Plans 3
G AIAG PFMEA (3rd edition) Severity Rankings - Define a "portion of the product" FMEA and Control Plans 3
Ron Rompen Development of the PFMEA - SEVERITY scores not derived from the DFMEA - Ford FMEA and Control Plans 13
R PFMEA - RPN - Severity, Occurrence and Detection - Which one does not change? FMEA and Control Plans 67
M PFMEA Severity Ranking - 9 is with warning and a 10 is without warning FMEA and Control Plans 5
Howard Atkins Differences Between QS-9000 and VDA PFMEA Severity Index VDA Standards - Germany's Automotive Standards 4
D Can PFMEA be used in disposition of NC material? ISO 14971 - Medical Device Risk Management 4
V Customer Print Specifications on PFMEA FMEA and Control Plans 13
blile Increasing PFMEA occurrence ranking after non-conformance FMEA and Control Plans 4
A PFMEA new AIAG FMEA and Control Plans 0
Q Is that any difficulty to do software DFMEA and PFMEA in ISO 13485? ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 5
bobdoering Informational New AIAG PFMEA Process - Excel Template Attached FMEA and Control Plans 20
A Redesigning our process flow chart, PFMEA and Control Plan Process Maps, Process Mapping and Turtle Diagrams 4
A PFMEA English language question IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 4
S Is there any connection between PFMEA and Acceptance Plan FMEA and Control Plans 1
K PFMEA (Process FMEA) - Can be common for 3000 products? FMEA and Control Plans 2
N PFMEA repetitive failure modes in subsecuent stations. FMEA and Control Plans 1
T DFMEA/PFMEA and SCCAF alignment FMEA and Control Plans 19
N Control plan evaluation methods - Which methods should be carried over from the PFMEA? FMEA and Control Plans 3
A PFMEA - How long should the recommended actions remain in the recommended actions column? APQP and PPAP 3
S How to fulfill PFMEA "requirement" column? FMEA and Control Plans 2
T Informational Family or Baseline PFMEA Rules FMEA and Control Plans 22
M Control Method correspondence between PFMEA and CP FMEA and Control Plans 8
O Difference Between PFMEA & Control Plan FMEA and Control Plans 3
N In-Process Production Test Stations in PFMEA (Process FMEA) FMEA and Control Plans 18
W Is the RPN (risk priority number) in the PFMEA really a RPN without the detectability ISO 14971 - Medical Device Risk Management 4
I Making a process PFMEA, no DFMEA (non-automotive toll manufacturer) FMEA and Control Plans 1
Proud Liberal DFMEA / PFMEA linkage - Where in the standards do I find it? FMEA and Control Plans 5
N PQC (Product Quality Characteristics) and PFMEA FMEA and Control Plans 3
N PFMEA Potential Failure Mode for Weight FMEA and Control Plans 5
M I need a sample Reverse PFMEA Process Checklist FMEA and Control Plans 2
C PFMEA example with machining (lathe+mill) FMEA and Control Plans 1
L Simple Example for PFMEA / Control Plan Training Training - Internal, External, Online and Distance Learning 1
B Proactive efforts to reduce risk - PFMEA risk reduction activities IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 8
N PFMEA no effect ratings FMEA and Control Plans 15
N DFMEA, Drawings and PFMEA of an Assembly Process FMEA and Control Plans 12
A PFMEA for DC Motor FMEA and Control Plans 5
Crimpshrine13 PFMEA Scope - Oversized Special Characteristic FMEA and Control Plans 4
B PFMEA and Control Plan Links APQP and PPAP 2
B Update our PFMEA after Supplier updates their PFMEA? FMEA and Control Plans 4
Q PFMEA Scope and Detection Controls FMEA and Control Plans 1
A VDA 4 and PFMEA - What's main difference? VDA Standards - Germany's Automotive Standards 0
A Corrective Action Column in Control Plan and aligning PFD, PFMEA and Control Plan FMEA and Control Plans 6
R Is PFMEA (Process FMEA) for OEM sufficient to address Risk? ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 7
J Example PFMEA for Hydraulic Cylinders wanted FMEA and Control Plans 0
Similar threads


















































Top Bottom