1. Hello and Welcome to The Quality Forum Online...Continuing in the spirit of People Helping People !
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
You must be a registered member in order to post messages and view/download attached files in this forum.
Click here to register.

FMEA Recommended Action

Discussion in 'FMEA - Failure Modes and Effects Analysis' started by Pongsakorn, Jul 5, 2018.

  1. Pongsakorn

    Pongsakorn Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2015
    Messages:
    28
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    2
    After Recommended Action in FMEA was completely done and the new RPN was accessed, should the "Recommended Action" be moved to be in the "Current Control" column or it should be still remain in the Recommended Action column.

    I got different opinion from various customer audit and I do not know which one is the accurate comment.
    Any theory in written that I can make reference when I discuss with customer?
     
  2. Serious Man

    Serious Man Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2017
    Messages:
    51
    Likes Received:
    15
    Trophy Points:
    7
    I have not found anything in AIAG FMEA manual, so it is up to organization.
    Personally I would move it to "Current control" during next scheduled/unscheduled review or revision of PFMEA.
     
    Pongsakorn likes this.
  3. Pongsakorn

    Pongsakorn Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2015
    Messages:
    28
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    2
    I have done for both but there is different customer has different opinion, I am not able to serve such different opinion at the same time.
    I just need to settle this by having something for reference that can explain to customer to be clear that what I do is correct.
     
  4. John C. Abnet

    John C. Abnet Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2017
    Messages:
    106
    Likes Received:
    50
    Trophy Points:
    27
    Good question @Pongsakorn ;
    My professional experience has caused me to not be a fan of the "recommended action" column. I see this as AIAG's attempt to redundantly capture change point control within the PFMEA itself and imply that organizations have no change point/document control system (to which I ask, who reviewed the change?, who reviewed the risks associated with the change?, who was involved in the change?, who approved the change? what project management records exist associated with the change, etc...etc...) I would much rather see the revision activity captured in a change control data base or other system specific to the most recent revision of the document.

    Alas, I digress and rant...please forgive me. Regardless of my opinions, the AIAG template does indeed include the dreaded fruitless "recommended action" column.

    My experience has resulted in the following professional opinion...
    I council companies to put the change activity (if a change point control data base/system exists, I recommend simply putting the CPC number [discrete identifier] in this column and not the redundantly repeat the actual details) into the "recommended changes" column and leave it there, UNTIL that particular process/function is revised again. The next time that particular process/function is revised I then recommend moving the previous "recommended changes" into the "current controls" column and then identify the next change in the "recommended action" column.

    Hope this helps.

    Be well.
     
  5. Pongsakorn

    Pongsakorn Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2015
    Messages:
    28
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    2
    John,
    Thanks for sharing your experience. I did both way and change back and forth to follow customer comment.
    I am tired now to depend on customer that has different opinion and I have no reference to stop customers to request base on their own opinion.
    I actually need AIAG to clarify this and I may send my concern to AIAG.
     
  6. ncwalker

    ncwalker Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2015
    Messages:
    223
    Likes Received:
    128
    Trophy Points:
    42
    Location:
    North Carolina
    I agree with John. Let's consider the part print instead. If you have a design at rev B and find out there's problems, you of course modify the design and release rev C. But you don't LEAVE the rev B stuff on the print, you REPLACE it. (You may leave a trail, but the print itself is replaced).

    The purpose of this is to avoid confusion. You don't want to risk building the part the wrong way.

    The question becomes - why would you NOT do this with the PFMEA? And for what it's worth, the AIAG books say that the PFD, PFMEA and CP in them are examples, not requirements. But ... it's sometimes easier to do what everyone else does than to do things better. Don't get me started on the process flow diagram. :) I cannot stand that example. It's redundant and unclear.
     
    John C. Abnet likes this.

Share This Page