posted 13 May 2001 07:26 PM               

The following question has kept me awake to this hour (it is now about 4 o'clock AM where I live):

In the DFMEA example given in the QS9000 FMEA manual, in more than one occasion you come across a reduction of both D and O WITHOUT any design changes. It seems as if reducing D will reduce O. Whereas, the manual states "the only way to bring a reduction in the occurence number is to change the design".

Can anyone explain this apparant contradiction between the manual's text and the manual's example?

posted 14 May 2001 06:37 PM               

How did you deduce that there was no design change?

posted 15 May 2001 12:19 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Al Dyer:
MSAFAI:

How did you deduce that there was no design change?

ASD...

---

Dear Al,

Please have a look at the DFMEA example given in the QS9000 FMEA manual. I quote from the manual two cases, column 'Actions Taken':

" Test results (test no 1481) show specified thickness is adequate ... "

or another case:

" evaluation showed adequate access"

posted 15 May 2001 05:48 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by MSAFAI:
Dear Al,

Please have a look at the DFMEA example given in the QS9000 FMEA manual. I quote from the manual two cases, column 'Actions Taken':

" Test results (test no 1481) show specified thickness is adequate ... "

or another case:

" evaluation showed adequate access"

Regards,
MSAFAI

---

I'm looking at the same page you are. This is a design FMEA. Wouldn't a change under actions taken be a design change?

posted 17 May 2001 02:23 PM               

Do you mean there has been a 'design change' or there has not?

The sentences I quoted from the FMEA manual seem to sugges there has been no design change. Do you agree?

posted 17 May 2001 06:26 PM               

Under the actions taken (page 12 AIAG FMEA) I look at the statement that says "based on test, 3 additional vent holes provided in affected areas."

I would consider that a change in design.

I work mainly with process FMEA's but the thought process is the same.

posted 19 May 2001 07:01 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Al Dyer:
MSAFAI:

Under the actions taken (page 12 AIAG FMEA) I look at the statement that says "based on test, 3 additional vent holes provided in affected areas."

I would consider that a change in design.

I work mainly with process FMEA's but the thought process is the same.

ASD...

---

Dear Al,

That ia a design change, you are right. But how about other cases in the same page where there is no desing change?

Regards,
MSAFAI

P.S. I think we have to give up. Since, there are no comments from other forum members.