Not according to the SAE guidelines on
PFMEA's (SAE J1739 Rev. JUN2000)
I don't see anything in my copy of J1739 that proscribes use of training as a prevention control. If I missed something, can you tell me where to find the source of your information?
It's always been my 'take' that the PFMEA 'assumes' that the person is fully qualified etc. Therefore the focus of the task is on the process. I have seen all kinds of 'goofy' controls, like internal audits etc. but it's not in the 'spirit' of looking into the process for sources of error and control.
You'll have to take my word for it when I say that I doubt that many people have reviewed more supplier PFMEAs than I have, and I too have seen many "unusual" entries, but "looking into the process for sources of error" should never overlook the potential for human error, and lack of training is a common source of error. You have to remember that a PFMEA is a
process, not a document. The document is a record of what took place during the process, and it's a good idea to review operator and inspector training during the PFMEA process, especially when dealing with new products, new machines, and new gaging (which is almost always the case in automotive work).
So, at the heart of this is the philosophy of the reasons for poor quality and peoples' influence over it.
In my 35+ years experience of industry, many mistakes have been made by people, however, it wasn't because of poor training!
Maybe lack of 'awareness', lack of experience, a process was flawed, got changed without anyone being told, wasn't maintained well enough, the raw material spec. changed etc. etc. etc. None of these were because someone wasn't 'trained'.
Lack of awareness and experience aren't training issues?
Once the issue of mistakes rears its ugly head, then 'mistake proofing' of the process should be used.
I think that the main purpose of the PFMEA process is to develop prevention controls. If we're just going to wait for mistakes to happen before doing anything, what's the use if doing PFMEA at all?
One example keeps coming to mind of a way to describe the difference between training and 'awareness', knowledge etc. If you pardon my euphemism, "We all want our kids to have sex education, not sex training......"
The analogy doesn't work, I'm afraid. Do you believe, for example, that when we train people how to use new machines, fixtures and gages that the training should be confined to classroom, and when it's over we should just turn them loose on the process?
In answer to the OP, I think there's absolutely nothing wrong with citing training as a prevention control, so long as it makes sense in the context of the operation under consideration. Efficacious training is a
fundamental way of preventing bad things from happening.