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.

The "New" integrated FMEA - or "Much Ado About Nothing"

Discussion in 'APQP and PPAP' started by Andy Nichols, Jul 23, 2019.

Tags:
  1. Andy Nichols

    Andy Nichols Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2015
    Messages:
    3,037
    Likes Received:
    1,550
    Trophy Points:
    112
    Location:
    In the "Rust Belt"
    Having sat through the AIAG training (2 days for Process FMEA) I can report that the actual VDA content is low, the actual difference is that it's now a "how to" manual with clearer directions on HOW TO do the FMEA )because people weren't doing it properly). Look out for revised APQP in the future...
     
  2. tony s

    tony s Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2015
    Messages:
    1,012
    Likes Received:
    758
    Trophy Points:
    112
    Location:
    Laguna Philippines
    Any highlights on what are the "not doing properly"?
     
  3. Andy Nichols

    Andy Nichols Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2015
    Messages:
    3,037
    Likes Received:
    1,550
    Trophy Points:
    112
    Location:
    In the "Rust Belt"
    The traditional - cut n paste from previous versions without updating, not using a team etc etc. For my part I see them without a clear understanding of the failure mode which is where the new methodology is useful. They drilled on what I do in class which is the verb-noun description instead of all the other nonsense people use to (they think) describe the issue.
     
    tony s likes this.
  4. Andy Nichols

    Andy Nichols Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2015
    Messages:
    3,037
    Likes Received:
    1,550
    Trophy Points:
    112
    Location:
    In the "Rust Belt"
    Of course, many will want to rush out and get training on the "new" - which I'd strongly suggest you DO NOT DO! Because:

    1) it's not required to be used by customers. Even FCA's new CSR says "should" not "shall"
    2) CB auditors have yet to be trained on it (don't hold your breath)
    3) it's NOT required to be retrospectively applied and MOST IMPORTANTLY
    4) if you don't have a plan to actually deploy what's been learned, you'll lose any benefit from the training.
     
    Last edited: Jul 30, 2019
    John C. Abnet and Bev D like this.
  5. Andy Nichols

    Andy Nichols Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2015
    Messages:
    3,037
    Likes Received:
    1,550
    Trophy Points:
    112
    Location:
    In the "Rust Belt"
    In developing training materials, I find the new VDA-AIAG methodology very good. I'm looking forward to applying it.
     
  6. Andy Nichols

    Andy Nichols Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2015
    Messages:
    3,037
    Likes Received:
    1,550
    Trophy Points:
    112
    Location:
    In the "Rust Belt"
    From the direction given at the most recent AIAG Quality Summit, here near Detroit, the OEMs have an extended period before appearing to require their use. Rather than wait until a CSR tells you to do it, why not apply the revised AIAG-VDA PFMEA to an issue like a production line/process which causes scrap/rework and certainly if you've had a spill and experienced the need for sorting. After all, your existing FMEA apparently failed your organization...
     
  7. John C. Abnet

    John C. Abnet Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2017
    Messages:
    287
    Likes Received:
    169
    Trophy Points:
    42
    Great topic. I also sat through the two day AIAG training which @Andy Nichols describes. The trainer was excellent. I give him an A+. The curriculum was "busy" and seemed fragmented. I give it a C.

    My concerns remain (particularly based on the response of the QE,s and other "owners" of the PFMEA I met, whom organizations sent to the training) as follows...
    1- The AIAG/VDA process requires (as defined by its authors) ...
    a) An additional amount of "up front" work
    b) Additional top management support (time, resources, etc...)

    2- The 4th edition (all "previous" AIAG methods) were rarely understood, rarely were supported as needed by top management, rarely included input from a cross functional team, rarely applied correctly, and as result, were rarely living/useful documents.
    One of the reasons listed by the authors for this migration to the AIAG/VDA method is the numerous market quality failures and recalls.
    The concern I have is that rarely, when something is not working/not being done correctly (i.e. application of 4th edition), due to a lack of understanding and resources, does changing the process "fix" the
    problem.

    SUMMARY:
    If Top Management is not providing the resources and the current creators of PFMEA within organizations are not applying the methods correctly, I have serious doubts about the ability (willingness is more accurate) to provide additional resources and understanding to apply the new AIAG/VDA methodology.

    I would simply add that this AIAG/VDA method requires you to "show your work". Think mathematical long division. Remember how the teacher would give a lesser grade if you failed to "show your work" ? This new method adds fields requiring the user to show his/her work . (i.e. Ishikawa, effects on all downstream customers, state the FUNCTION (intent) of process steps/requirements, etc..etc...

    I am currently working on a "user's" curriculum with the intent to provide a clear one day summation/understanding of the AIAG/VDA methodology.

    This should be an interesting transition.

    Be well.
     

Share This Page