The TE Supplement states: "Internal processes should be addressed using this discipline." (pg. 5) The FMEA manual states: "The FMEA discipline will also assist in developing new machines or equipment. The methodology is the same, however, the machine or equipment being designed is considered the product." (pg. 29)
It appears to me that the FMEA wants us to use a Design FMEA, while the TE Supplement wants us to use a Process FMEA. Which FMEA are we suppose to use, or are we suppose to use both methods?
Our registrar said we needed to have evidence of using both design and process FMEAs as quality planning tools. They can be generic, if that is appropriate to your product line.
We had recognized FMEA's as a good tool, and had an formal action request in our system to train our engineers in their use, but the auditors wanted to see samples of them prior to recommending us for registration to TE. That's the last thing on our non-conformance list and I'm currently waiting for our engineering dept to finish the design FMEA so I can submit the action plans to our Lead Auditor.
As I side note, has anyone used AIAG's self-tutorials on Design and Process
FMEA development? Would be interested in your opionions on it.
Do you design the equipment that you are making? If you are, then you need to do a DFMEA. If you are not, then the company that does design the equipment should do a DFMEA and let you see the results. The DFMEA should have areas in it that you'll find useful for inputs to your PFMEA.
Are you aware of the supplement guidelines for Machinery FMEA. They are essentially Design FMEA specifically biased towards machinery design, but requires knowledge of the intended process. We do not conduct process FMEA as a seperate activity. This can only be effectively conducted with the customer engineering team.
I have the Machinery FMEA Handbook in pdf if you wish a copy.
I would like to thank all of you for your input. However, I will address each of you individually, here in this forum.
Roger, we do design our equipment here. In fact, we typically take the equipment from the development stage (pre-design) all the way through to servicing; we are fully capable. According to Tom, I need to do both, is this correct? I would think that it is, with one exception (see next paragraph).
Tom, your company manufactures repetative product, correct? You can make changes to the design and processes and see improvements in the suceeding products, right? Even though we do make some standard products, the majority of our machinery and vast majority of revenue comes from custom machinery. Almost every machine we design, build, install, and service is different. Some machines are similar, but there are practically no two machines of ours that our exactly the same. Even if built under the same purchase order and at the same time, "duplicate" machines are different. The first machine goes through more rework and debug so the second machine benefits from it. Therefore, the second machine will be different from the first one, possibly even some details in the design. We do not do enough repeat business of the exact same machine for FMEAs to be truly useful as they were intended. The only benefit I can see for us to do FMEAs, is to practice so we can show that we can do one. All we will be doing is going through the motions, and not gaining any real significant return on the investment (meaning time spent on FMEAs). Tom, if I am wrong about your process, please let me know how you are dealing with this issue.
Sean, I just had one of my internal auditors, who happens to be an engineer, take a FMEA class last Friday (that was provided by Plexus) and he was never told about any supplement guidelines for Machinery FMEA. I would love to have a copy, thanks. My question to you is, has this guideline been accepted by the big three and the AIAG? Where did you get it from? I'm assuming, if we say we comply to the guideline, then I will have to have a good, controlled copy, just like the 7-pack from the AIAG.
Mark, thank you for establishing this wonderful forum so people like me can try and get up-to-speed on these quality issues. I am currently not a member of ASQ, even though I work on the north side of Milwaukee, WI (Glendale actually), is becoming a member difficult? What are some of the benefits? Can I get a copy of the ASQ newsletter, or whatever it is, without being a member?
Thank you again to everyone!
[This message has been edited by Dan De Yarman (edited 15 December 1999).]
Well, I won't go into details, but I'm not a big ASQC proponent. I am a member, however. I'm not sure how you can get a news letter without belonging. I will say the monthly magazine is probably worth the yearly 'dues'.
I think it's like US$80 a year.
go to www.ASQ.org to get the answers about whats available to members and the general public. the membership is about $80 plus division fees (typically <$10) if you opt to join any...as in the 'automotive division'
most sections and divisions have web sites open to the public with their newsletters posted (can access from the asq site)....and then of course there is the 'asq.net' (search/info stuff) available to members only.
AS in any society you need to choose what is of value and seperate the BS. They have improved their services over the years, but still have room for more growth...LOL
Glendale...hmmmm. I was there last week doing Internal auditor training.
Our product line (induction heating and melting equipment) is much like yours. Almost every unit is different from the others built, yet they all have similarities to previously designed and built units. Use your FMEAs to address designs more generically. In reality, your engineering department is probably doing much of the thought process required by FMEAs; they are just not documenting it using that format. By documenting it, you may find that you can continually improve on the process and eliminate some redundant efforts.
I found that the use of a good consultant was extremely valuable to our registration process. Our companies are located in the same area, and I can recommend a good local consultant if you are interested.
Hope I've cleared it up a little.
[This message has been edited by Tom Goetzinger (edited 17 December 1999).]