What are Comfort and Convenience Items on a Design FMEA

M

mickng

#1
Hi, I am start teaching FMEA since 2002 ( from FMEA 3rd Edition to 4th Edition ). But there is still an arguement on Loss of secondary function (vehicle operable, but comfort /convenience functions inoperable)
( as refer to Severity Table ).

Lets take an example failure - Air Condition not functioning. Herewith some TS auditors' comment.

Auditor 1
From Customer Effect - you should rate it under 8 because loss the primary function of air condition even vehicle is operable ( but it against the 4th edition table ).

Auditor 2
From Customer Effect - you should rate it under 6 because loss of secondary function and vehicle is operable. Air Condition is only Secondary function for the vehicle. In other words, unless you are designing engine parts otherwise the failure only can reach as high 6 )

Auditor 3
ANYTHING ALSO POSSIBLE, it depends........ ( Seem like not answering at all ).

NOW, my question is.... when we are designing an System or Sub System or Component, do we look at the failure of its own or whether failure to the vehicle? If failure of its own, then it should be rated 8 as primary function is loss but if failure to the vehicle, then it should be rated 6 as it is considered as secondary function to the vehicle ( off course, except engine itself )..

What do you think as an expert? Please give your solid comment ( not again like.... it depends.... ).:bonk:
 
Elsmar Forum Sponsor
A

adamsjm

#2
Unfortunately, it does depend.
If the HVAC failure only affects the HVAC system, then the comfort of the operator is lost and the severity would be a 6.
However, there are some situations in the off-road equipment industry where the machine must be shut down if the HVAC system (specifically the air conditioning) does not function. In this case, the result is “vehicle is not operable” and a severity of 8.
The Failure Mode should be written specific enough to point out these differences.
 
M

mickng

#3
Unfortunately, it does depend.
If the HVAC failure only affects the HVAC system, then the comfort of the operator is lost and the severity would be a 6.
However, there are some situations in the off-road equipment industry where the machine must be shut down if the HVAC system (specifically the air conditioning) does not function. In this case, the result is “vehicle is not operable” and a severity of 8.
The Failure Mode should be written specific enough to point out these differences.
Hi ADAM,

Can I conclude the FMEA 4th edition - Severity - Customer Effects, now analyse the part design failure as part of VEHICLE. Means, if the part causes the VEHICLE inoperable, then rated 8 and if the part only contribute comfort or convenience / secondary function TO THE VEHICLE (while VEHICLE still operating), it should be rated 5 or 6? This definition is totally different from FMEA 3rd Edition ( if you read carefully the definition for rank 5-8 ).

FMEA 3rd Edition mentioned - VEHICLE / ITEM INOPERABLE (8).. and VEHICLE / ITEM OPERABLE BUT COMFORT AND CONVENIENCE ITEMS INOPERABLE.. If we base on the FMEA 3rd Edition, RANK 8 include both VEHICLE and ITEM itself...( I hope you understand what am i trying to say ..) Means, now I can inform this GOOD NEWS for my customer that the severity that they determined last time (8) can be downgraded (6) as long as the VEHICLE is operable. AND, they can now drop the SPC since it is not SPECIAL CHARACTERISTIC anymore..

TKS..:applause:
 
A

adamsjm

#4
FMEA 3rd Edition mentioned - VEHICLE / ITEM INOPERABLE (8).. and VEHICLE / ITEM OPERABLE BUT COMFORT AND CONVENIENCE ITEMS INOPERABLE.. If we base on the FMEA 3rd Edition, RANK 8 include both VEHICLE and ITEM itself...( I hope you understand what am i trying to say ..) Means, now I can inform this GOOD NEWS for my customer that the severity that they determined last time (8) can be downgraded (6) as long as the VEHICLE is operable. AND, they can now drop the SPC since it is not SPECIAL CHARACTERISTIC anymore..
There is no difference between Ver. 3 and Ver. 4. The Item mentioned refers to a System which may not be a vehicle. If we performed a DFMEA on a House (Item) the loss of the roof would be a Severity of 8 while the loss of Air-Conditioning would be a loss of comfort, Severity of 6. As far as it not being a Special Characteristic with a Severity of 6 vs 8 - that would depend upon how you and you customer rate risk. A Severity-Occurrence matrix method for assigning risk requires the understanding and assignment of Occurrence. While SPC is the most common method to mitigate risk, it is not the only method. Error-proofing, incoming inspection results, and other methods can demonstrate heightened control.
 

Jim Wynne

Staff member
Admin
#5
Hi, I am start teaching FMEA since 2002 ( from FMEA 3rd Edition to 4th Edition ). But there is still an arguement on Loss of secondary function (vehicle operable, but comfort /convenience functions inoperable)
( as refer to Severity Table ).

Lets take an example failure - Air Condition not functioning. Herewith some TS auditors' comment.

Auditor 1
From Customer Effect - you should rate it under 8 because loss the primary function of air condition even vehicle is operable ( but it against the 4th edition table ).

Auditor 2
From Customer Effect - you should rate it under 6 because loss of secondary function and vehicle is operable. Air Condition is only Secondary function for the vehicle. In other words, unless you are designing engine parts otherwise the failure only can reach as high 6 )

Auditor 3
ANYTHING ALSO POSSIBLE, it depends........ ( Seem like not answering at all ).

NOW, my question is.... when we are designing an System or Sub System or Component, do we look at the failure of its own or whether failure to the vehicle? If failure of its own, then it should be rated 8 as primary function is loss but if failure to the vehicle, then it should be rated 6 as it is considered as secondary function to the vehicle ( off course, except engine itself )..

What do you think as an expert? Please give your solid comment ( not again like.... it depends.... ).:bonk:
Can I conclude the FMEA 4th edition - Severity - Customer Effects, now analyse the part design failure as part of VEHICLE. Means, if the part causes the VEHICLE inoperable, then rated 8 and if the part only contribute comfort or convenience / secondary function TO THE VEHICLE (while VEHICLE still operating), it should be rated 5 or 6? This definition is totally different from FMEA 3rd Edition ( if you read carefully the definition for rank 5-8 ).

FMEA 3rd Edition mentioned - VEHICLE / ITEM INOPERABLE (8).. and VEHICLE / ITEM OPERABLE BUT COMFORT AND CONVENIENCE ITEMS INOPERABLE.. If we base on the FMEA 3rd Edition, RANK 8 include both VEHICLE and ITEM itself...( I hope you understand what am i trying to say ..) Means, now I can inform this GOOD NEWS for my customer that the severity that they determined last time (8) can be downgraded (6) as long as the VEHICLE is operable. AND, they can now drop the SPC since it is not SPECIAL CHARACTERISTIC anymore..
The rankings in the AIAG manual are explicitly described as "Suggested Evaluation Criteria," (my emphasis) and the manual makes it clear that "The team should agree on evaluation criteria and a ranking system and apply them consistently..." This means that unless your customer has explicitly required you to use the criteria and rankings given in the manual, you are free to devise your own, and should devise your own if you feel that the suggested criteria and rankings in the manual aren't appropriate.

All of this bickering about whether something is a 6 or an 8 doesn't add any value to anything. Determine the risks involved for everyone (the end user, your customer, your company) and take the appropriate steps to mitigate them. If your customer insists that a 6 should be an 8 and the difference requires more work on your part, they should be apprised of those costs at the RFQ stage.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
R Class 1 Convenience kits for home teeth impression, NOT smile direct or other for alignment purposes Canada Medical Device Regulations 0
A Convenience Kit Requirements Other US Medical Device Regulations 10
M Informational USFDA final guidance – Unique Device Identification: Convenience Kits Medical Device and FDA Regulations and Standards News 0
S Definition of Convenience Kit for a Combination Product US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 0
T UDI Labeling of Convenience Kits 21 CFR Part 820 - US FDA Quality System Regulations (QSR) 1
M UDI (Unique Device Identification) for Convenience Kits with several options Other US Medical Device Regulations 3
S Regulations for Selling Convenience Kit vs. Selling Separate Parts Other US Medical Device Regulations 2
V EO Sterilization of Drugs in Custom Convenience Kits Pharmaceuticals (21 CFR Part 210, 21 CFR Part 211 and related Regulations) 6
A Convenience Kits - FDA Registration Responsibilities and Requirements 21 CFR Part 820 - US FDA Quality System Regulations (QSR) 5
G Changing Non-Critical Component Suppliers - Convenience kits (FDA) Procedure packs Other Medical Device and Orthopedic Related Topics 2
John C. Abnet Terms- Different Items in a system ISO 26262 - Road vehicles – Functional safety 0
A ISO 13485 procedure change and reflect to legacy manufacture items ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 2
NDesouza COTS Items CoC for FAI Documentation AS9100, IAQG, NADCAP and Aerospace related Standards and Requirements 12
K IEC 62304 - Functional and performance requirements for SOUP items IEC 62304 - Medical Device Software Life Cycle Processes 2
K Verify Software Architecture - supporting interfaces between items IEC 62304 - Medical Device Software Life Cycle Processes 2
C Contract Review with Multiple Line items ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 7
C Documentation for items used for Design Verification 21 CFR Part 820 - US FDA Quality System Regulations (QSR) 4
G ISO 17025-2017 Management Review reporting items - Inputs ISO 17025 related Discussions 1
nadhar2 Classification of Action Items Misc. Quality Assurance and Business Systems Related Topics 3
DuncanGibbons Best practice for identifying "items" of parts for DFMEA analysis AS9100, IAQG, NADCAP and Aerospace related Standards and Requirements 2
D Determining Calibration Frequency schedule for items used in production Manufacturing and Related Processes 2
F IEC 62304 - Segregation and communication between software items IEC 62304 - Medical Device Software Life Cycle Processes 1
G Reporting measurement uncertainty for custom items Measurement Uncertainty (MU) 2
M IEC 62304 - Develop an Architecture for the Interfaces of Software Items IEC 62304 - Medical Device Software Life Cycle Processes 8
C AS9100 8.3.5.e Design and Development Outputs - Key Characteristics / Critical Items AS9100, IAQG, NADCAP and Aerospace related Standards and Requirements 2
D Supplier Scorecard, Assessment of Pass Through Items From Sub Tier Suppliers Supplier Quality Assurance and other Supplier Issues 4
C Per IEC 62304, are DHF documents Configuration Items? IEC 62304 - Medical Device Software Life Cycle Processes 8
J APQP Requirements - What is meant by "among other items" IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 2
N Timing for Closing High FMEA RPN Items FMEA and Control Plans 4
R Polypropylene Packaging for Food items Design and Development of Products and Processes 2
J Software and Methods for Tracking CAPA (Corrective and Preventive Action) items US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 3
K What technical documents need to be maintained for "manufactured for" items 21 CFR Part 820 - US FDA Quality System Regulations (QSR) 8
D NQA-1 Standard Applied to Services rather than Items for Nuclear Power Various Other Specifications, Standards, and related Requirements 3
M How to identify software configuration items in a BOM Quality Manager and Management Related Issues 3
S Interesting Medical Device Database Site (666,413 items listed) Other Medical Device and Orthopedic Related Topics 1
I Requirements for shipping items that fall under the Cartagena Protocol Various Other Specifications, Standards, and related Requirements 4
N ISO 17025 clause 5.8.3 Records of Non-Conforming Test Items ISO 17025 related Discussions 3
S Not accepting Flowdowns for COTS Items AS9100, IAQG, NADCAP and Aerospace related Standards and Requirements 3
M Shelf Life Control and Identification of items that do not have Shelf Life ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 5
O Process Startup Only items in a Control Plan FMEA and Control Plans 1
G How to manage/control critical items and key characteristics? AS9100, IAQG, NADCAP and Aerospace related Standards and Requirements 1
Q Identifying Critical Items and Key Characteristics - Product Realization Process AS9100, IAQG, NADCAP and Aerospace related Standards and Requirements 8
AnaMariaVR2 The TSA Is Now Instragramming Items They Confiscate Travel - Hotels, Motels, Planes and Trains 5
A Segregation of Software Items on a Medical Device IEC 62304 - Medical Device Software Life Cycle Processes 4
K Is there an overall standard for calibration of items used in TS 16949 Certified Co. IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 3
R What is the optimum number of check items should an inspector look into a product? Inspection, Prints (Drawings), Testing, Sampling and Related Topics 6
K Sampling Plan for Small Lots of Single Use Items Inspection, Prints (Drawings), Testing, Sampling and Related Topics 8
M Record Retention requirements for Safety Items Document Control Systems, Procedures, Forms and Templates 7
M 8.2.4.2 Appearance Items - When Masters for Colour, Grain, etc are not appropriate? IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 6
R Always Internal Audit all Line Items of applicable FDA Regulations? 21 CFR Part 820 - US FDA Quality System Regulations (QSR) 5

Similar threads

Top Bottom