Search the Elsmar Cove!
**Search ALL of Elsmar.com** with DuckDuckGo including content not in the forum - Search results with No ads.

When will Revision 5 of the AIAG FMEA Manual be released?

Emmyd

Involved In Discussions
#91
I'm not ready to reinvent the wheel just yet, mine is rolling just fine at the moment. I'd love to see some clarification on this.
According to the webinar, existing FMEA's will not have to be updated to the new standard. Official rollout for the new FMEA's to be required by customers is still pending. The OEM's are supposed to be letting the auditors know a date to start auditing to the new FMEA in October. Until then, the new FMEA's are to be used by request from your customers. Training on the transition is supposed to start being offered in July.

Hope this helps!
 
#92
Re: Trainer Bob Right off the bat I noticed that the handbook allows previous 4th Edition formats to be used and recommends new products use the new format. I think that will put alot of people at ease a little longer.
 
#93
There are a couple things that I quite like about the new handboook:

1. Breaking down the system or process into its components or steps
2. Explicit address of the analysis scope up-front
3. Action priority being used as a risk metric instead of RPN

But it also seems like a pretty significant change if you're just using an Excel sheet. It also seems that some of the suggested tools for structure analysis, function analysis and failure analysis are not very well-described, so I'm curious if that is to leave room for interpretation or if there's additional clarification we'll need at some point on that front.

What are your biggest concerns after reading the handbook?
 

SQ_Joe

Involved In Discussions
#94
There are a couple things that I quite like about the new handbook:

3. Action priority being used as a risk metric instead of RPN
<<JMA - Absolutely! We have known for a very long time that RPN was useless. AP is a good start, but they made it a "stop light" control. Only 3 categories, R. Y, & G. There should be 5 categories for finer distinction between desired actions.>>

But it also seems like a pretty significant change if you're just using an Excel sheet.
<<JMA - Yes and no. If you were building proper FMEAs in a V model fashion, There is nothing new.
Excel will still work easily. You have to think in terms of storing "Knowledge/Lessons-Learned modules for the focus element.
The new form is still built to "push down" actions, yet does not have good hooks (fields / columns) to "pull up" information which would enrich management's understanding and response actions. (Sensi, not beat down).
There are commercial MS Excel FMEA workbooks available today. They have built in methods for the AIAG-VDA approach.
Examine the one at FMEA Template - FMEA tools for Failure Mode Effects Analysis It can handle the FMEAs and their module linking.>>

It also seems that some of the suggested tools for structure analysis, function analysis and failure analysis are not very well-described, so I'm curious if that is to leave room for interpretation or if there's additional clarification we'll need at some point on that front.
<<JMA - It is well defined. Look at YOUR TEAM'S focus element only and you will see Rev. 4 structure.
YOUR TEAM will identify potential causes which are failures modes for the "lower level components" you use to build YOUR TEAM'S output (that which is within YOUR boundary). This process was completed by the "higher level systems team" and requirements to prevent failures and their modes where passed down to YOUR TEAM.
The higher level team does their work and passes down requirements to prevent failures and their modes
You take these "requirements to prevent failures and their modes" and determine how what within your boundary causes the effect.
Then you pass to other boundaries what "requirements to prevent failures and their modes" they are responsible to analyze. This is the data YOUR TEAM places in the Lower Element columns.

Basically, outside RPM to AP, YOUR Team still performs analysis in the same way. The form change is to force YOUR TEAM to recognize the "requirements to prevent failures and their modes" of the higher level boundary within which you are a piece of and to pass down "requirements to prevent failures and their modes" to "boundaries / groups" you are responsible.

The boundary diagram examples in the new manual are still misleading. Main issue: they show completed diagrams which can only be drawn at the conclusion of all of the FMEA processes - bottom to top. They are history starting points for future programs. >>

What are your biggest concerns after reading the handbook?
<<JMA - It was written again by high level OEM and Tier 1 management who got the job because they had the time. I.e.: They do not manage engineering groups who produce products and, therefore, out of the latest knowlwdge loop as to how data and information flows up and down the product chain.>>
 
Top Bottom