New AIAG FMEA Process - How to complete the new format

Ok so the new "process" has been published and I have (tried and tried again) to read it and understand it. So far 5+ reads later and I still do not have a clue how to complete the new format. It seems to be way over the top compared to the previous, if slightly flawed editions which at least after a quick read most people could get cracking with the generation of a PFMEA.

It now appears likely that you will need your own "expert" just to understand how to complete / co-ordinate completion of the form which to my mind completely defeats the object of getting process owners to “do it for themselves”.

I think this is for the benefit of “quality consultants” who will be rubbing their hands with glee and deciding how they are going to spend all the extra money they will now be getting on the back of all the new training that will be required. (Probably an “acceptable” cost for larger organisations, but for those smaller organisations with relatively simple processes it seems a completely unnecessary expense).

All in all a major backward step that will achieve nothing but confusion for many people involved in simpler processes, and there should have been the option of a more streamlined FMEA process available for processes that involve less complex parts / processes.

Every day I encounter a new reason to be glad that I am not in automotive or other highly regulated industries.

warning rant ahead
While I certainly understand that standardizing best practices is highly useful (no need to reinvent the wheel constantly) most of our profession's attempts to do this have resulted in:
- approaches that are too simplistic and not good quality practice (Cpk, RPN, AIAG gage R&R...) and that make rational aproaches based on sound physics and statistical practice nearly impossible to do
- overly complicated forms and procedures that substitute format for content and are just audit traps

It seems that all this does is drive us to the lowest of mediocrity resulting in a 'check the box' mentality that drives out rational thought, real quality improvement and innovation. It does however provide employment for hack consultants and know-nothing auditors. it's a shame; there are some really fabulous consultants and auditors who really know their stuff and they get lost in the sea of incompetency.

I know that I am sending 2 of our people to this training 7/22. Here is their information that you can check on their website about training in your general area.

TRIGO USA
Direct: 888-225-1137
www.trigo-group.com


Disclaimer: I am not affiliated with them in anyway. They are just a training group that offers this type of training that we have used.

Like I said before, i foresee people having to spend more time "making it look right" than adding meaningful content.

I always thought that the main reason for FMEA's was to identify process variables, how they can go wrong, and what you can do to mitigate them. There are far far better, simpler and more user friendly ways to achieve this objective than what is written in the latest specification. I fear the new process will detract from the main reasons for carrying out an FMEA process as people will be focusing more on how to fill out the form!

I started doing FMEA's 30 + years ago, (pre computer and hand written), the reasons for doing them are sound, but even now there seems to be much confusion as to what constitutes a "failure mode", or a cause, (of a cause etc.), resulting in more time spent discussing how to complete the formant and what goes in what box and completely missing the point of doing an FMEA in the first place.

A tragically boring and tedious presentation whereby the presenters seem to have little conviction of what they are trying to convey and don't seem to understand it themselves, let alone have a hope of educating anybody that has the patience to listen to this for more than the first 5 minutes. After doing FMEA's for 30+ years I was really hoping for some clarity as I get as confused now as I did when I started writing them out by hand for customer "Quality" auditors that seemed to be equally clueless. If this is the future of FMEA's then * help us all...

I agree Steve. They are making the process as complicated as that of the original design. I have found that the primary benefit of an FMEA is that it forces an engineer to consider all possible failure modes. Often, they have an "Oh s..t!" moment when they realize they had overlooked something. The risk assessment portion is usually blindingly obvious to them, yet that is where most of the time is spent arguing over whether the score is a 5 or a 6.

I also think that it is interesting that the people that came up with the new approach say it is too complicated to do in Excel and that you will need special software, and those same people work for the companies that plan to provide that software.

....jobs for the boys......everybody should simply ignore this latest diatribe of rubbish that is the new AIAG FMEA "standard" and develop there own more basic systems that at least allows those that understand the process the ability to identify what is important and what to do about it. I can't imagine many auditors have a clue how to audit this new system....

Miner said:

the new approach say it is too complicated to do in Excel and that you will need special software, and those same people work for the companies that plan to provide that software.

Click to expand...

Surely not??