FMEA Workshop...Alignment of the Severity, Occurrence, and Detection tables between AIAG, VDA, and...
Transcript of FMEA Workshop...Alignment of the Severity, Occurrence, and Detection tables between AIAG, VDA, and...
FMEA Workshop Update on the AIAG-VDA FMEA
Harmonization Project September 19, 2017
Format of Today’s Workshop
• Explanation of the AIAG-VDA FMEA Methodology – Project Overview – Scott Gray - AIAG – The Six Step Process – Jose Avalos – ZF/TRW – New Form Sheet – Rhonda Brender – Nexteer – The S, O, D Rating Tables – Mary Beth Soloy – Ford – Action Prioritization (AP) - Dave Dalby – Honda N.A.
• Question and Answers – Panel Format
2
AIAG-VDA FMEA Project
Why - ● Experience with warranty results, field failures, recalls are indicative of
opportunities to improve product and process risk analysis methodologies ● From the AIAG Current State of Quality survey, the number two industry
concern is Customer Specific Requirements, specifically, the number of redundant CSR’s
• A common set of FMEA requirements will enable suppliers to have a single FMEA business process, and associated methods/tools to produce a robust, accurate, and complete FMEA that would meet the needs of all of their customers
What ● Develop a single co-copyrighted AIAG - VDA FMEA Manual, that clearly
defines an improved methodology, that is aligned with SAE J1739 ● Take the best from VDA and AIAG and combine the processes so that they
will meet requirements for both Industry groups
Project Team Objective
Provide consistent direction, guidance to all automotive suppliers
Update to include: - Best Practices - Improved Examples - Functional Safety
AIAG-VDA FMEA Project Team
AIAG Work Group VDA Work Group
OEMs FCA US LLC, Ford, GM, Honda N.A., Daimler Truck NA
Daimler AG, Ford Europe, Volkswagen AG, Adam Opel AG
Suppliers Nexteer, Bendix, ON Semiconductor, ZF/TRW
Robert Bosch GmbH, Continental, Schaeffler AG, Knorr-Bremse, ZF Friedrichshafen AG
5
FMEA Methodology Changes
Project Objectives Current Status
Alignment of the Severity, Occurrence, and Detection tables between AIAG, VDA, and SAE J1739
One set of tables for DFMEA and PFMEA A second set for MSR -
Alignment of Process A six step process New form sheet
Alignment of key terms and definitions One set of terms and definitions
Improved approach for documenting and reducing risks
Function focus 4M AP instead of RPN
Alignment with ISO26262 Definition of “Supplemental FMEA for Monitoring and System Response (MSR)”
Ensure the methodology can be completed using Excel
Being confirmed through validation testing
6
Development Status
• Project is currently in the “Build” phase – Although we have pulled some elements from the
“validation phase” forward • We expect to release a draft manual for AIAG
Stakeholder Review/VDA Yellowbook in November. – 90 Day commenting period
• Release of publication targeted for early Q2 2018 – Common training is being planned
• Effectivity will not occur until after the IATF 16949 transition deadline of Sept. 14, 2018
7
FMEA Workshop Update on the AIAG-VDA FMEA
Harmonization Project September 19, 2017
Six Step Process
9
New – Six steps, a systematic approach to perform the analysis Purpose: • It is recommended that the failure mode and effects analysis to
be carried out in six steps to achieve good quality, reliability, safety in our products and processes. This six steps are applicable to Design and Process FMEA’s.
Current Situation – • There are two manuals with similar approaches for FMEA realization, some
customers require suppliers to have either the AIAG or VDA FMEA method.
• The quality of the FMEA analysis is often reported as poor, due to many factors such as lack of understanding on the subject, key positions turnover and so on.
Six Step Process
10
System Analysis Failure Analysis and Risk Mitigation1st Step
Scope Definition2nd Step
Structure Analysis3rd Step
Function Analysis4th Step
Failure Analysis5th Step
Risk Analysis6th Step
Optimization
Project identification System structure for a product or elements of a process
Overview of the functionality of the product or process
Establishment of the failure chain (potential Failure Effects, Failure Modes, Failure Causes) for each product or process function (step)
Assignment of Prevention Controls (existing and/or planned) to the Failure Causes and Failure Modes
Identification of the actions necessary to reduce risks
Overview
• Project plan • Analysis boundaries • Lessons learned • Basis for the Structure Analysis step
• Visualization of the analysis scope • Identification of
interfaces & interactions
• Basis for the Function Analysis step
• Visualization of the analysis scope • Identification of
interfaces & interactions
• Basis for the failure analysis step
• Visualization of the failure relationships • Creation of failure
structures • Identification of
sources of variations
• Basis for the record of failures on the FMEA form
• Assignment of prevention / detection controls
• Rating of severity, occurrence and detection
• Collaboration between customer and supplier (severity)
• Basis for the optimization step
• Assignment of responsibilities
• Documentation of actions
• Implementation of actions
• Confirmation of effectiveness of the actions
• Continuous improvement of the product and process
• Basis to the refinement of controls
Six Step Process
11
1st Step: Scope Definition
• Current - Definition of Scope says to consider all the production processes and to select which process or processes to apply FMEA analysis.
• New - Consider all processes within the plant that can effect the quality of the shipped product and select which process or processes to apply PFMEA analysis.
• This opens the door to allow data to drive which process should be analyzed, i.e. if bad lab testing processes allowed defective product to be shipped, then those process can be analyzed. New Scope Definition Opens The Thought Process To Consider All Plant Processes For Analysis
Six Step Process
12
1st Step: Scope Definition
Important points in the scope steps are: 1.- Define what to include and exclude from the FMEA. 2.- FMEA project plan, such as important dates, FMEA responsible persons, potential team members, project timelines, etc. 3.- Define the boundaries of the analysis.
This information gathered should be captured in the FMEA header as a minimum
Six Step Process
13
Example of tools used in scoping
5T’s, Boundary block diagram, Process block diagram
5T’s FMEA Team – Who needs to be on the team? FMEA Timing – When is this due? FMEA InTent – Why are we here? FMEA Tool – How do we conduct the analysis? FMEA Task – What work needs to be done?
1st Step: Scope Definition
Six Step Process
14
2nd Step: Structure Analysis
The Structure Analysis transfers the information gathered in the scoping step to visualize the relationships and interactions between the design or process elements. The structure analysis is the basis for the next step (function analysis)
System Subsystem Product Component
2nd Step: Structure Analysis
Visualization of the structure analysis
Boundary diagram, Structure trees – Design / Process
Six Step Process
3rd Step: Function Analysis
• In this step the functionality of the product or processes are ensured by allocating a description of the activities, purposes or tasks intended for the product performance.
System Subsystem Product Component
Vehicle: Safe Stop passengers
Brake System: Provide Vehicle Deceleration
Caliper: Convert fluid pressure to clamp force
Brake pad: Transfer friction to the rotor
Six Step Process
3rd Step: Function Analysis
Visualization of the function analysis
P-diagram, Function tree, Function Matrix
Six Step Process
4th Step: Failure Analysis
• The failures of the functions are deducted from the functions already identified in step # 3.
• Step # 4 is to identify failure causes, modes, and effects, and show their relationships to enable risk assessment.
System Subsystem Product Component
Vehicle function: Safe Stop passengers
Brake System function: Provide Vehicle Deceleration
Caliper: Convert fluid pressure To clamp force
Brake pad: Transfer friction to the rotor
Failure of the vehicle function: • Unable to safe stop
passengers
Failure of the brake system function: • Unable to decelerate
vehicle • Delayed deceleration • Rapid deceleration
Failure of the Caliper function: • Caliper failed to convert
fluid pressure to clamp force
• Reduced conversion of pressure to clamp force
Failure of the brake pad function: • Inner brake pad width
designed too thin • Excessive friction
transferred to the rotor
Six Step Process
Visualization of the failure analysis
FMEA form , Failure Net
4th Step: Failure Analysis
Six Step Process
5th Step: Risk Analysis
In this step prevention and detection controls are assigned, as well as the rankings for severity, occurrence and detection. A new approach for action prioritization will be introduced. Note: RPN will disappear
Six Step Process
6th Step: Optimization
The primary objective of optimization is to develop actions that reduce risk and increase customer satisfaction by improving the design or process. The FMEA can be used as the basis for continuous improvement for design or process.
Six Step Process
FMEA Workshop Update on the AIAG-VDA FMEA
Harmonization Project September 19, 2017
FMEA TOOL USAGE
Change Points From Current AIAG
2017 Sample of tools used for FMEA during a training class at AIAG.
Recognize, but not require any certain software solution
Microsoft Excel will work – Microsoft Excel will work – Microsoft Excel will work
THE FMEA REPORT VIEW
Change Points From Current AIAG
SAMPLE REPORT OF A REPORT GENERATED BY FMEA DATABASE SOFTWARE
THE FMEA SPREADSHEET
Change Points From Current AIAG
SAMPLE REPORT OF A SPREADSHEET FILLED IN
6-STEP PROCESS AND SPREADSHEET
Change Points From Current AIAG
Change Points From Current AIAG Fill-in-the-Blanks Method
27 New manual & form sheet add structure to help drive team to a more complete analysis
FORM F
Return
Return
Return
We often fill out the FMEA from left to right during creation and change of the analysis
Change Points From Current AIAG Step Analysis Method
28 New manual & form sheet add structure to help drive team to a more complete analysis
2. STRUCTURE 3. FUNCTIONS 4. FAILURES
• How To Complete a FMEA – Current – “Fill in the blanks method” The current manual
explains what each column is for, leaving the team to fill in the blank spreadsheet cells with information.
• Slower for cross-functional teams due to switching from left brain and right brain thinking
– New – “Step analysis method” The new manual explains what each step is for, allowing the team to take into consideration items that might not have been considered using the current form.
• Faster for cross-functional teams due to focused agenda on one task which may be a left brain (S,O,D) or right brain (Failure Analysis) task
Change Points From Current AIAG
New manual & form sheet add structure to help drive team to a more complete analysis
Current AIAG 4th Ed FMEA New AIAG-VDA FMEA
Change Points From Current AIAG
DFMEA
Current AIAG 4th Ed FMEA New AIAG-VDA FMEA
Change Points From Current AIAG
PFMEA
New!
Current AIAG 4th Ed FMEA New AIAG-VDA FMEA
Change Points From Current AIAG
DFMEA
Current AIAG 4th Ed FMEA New AIAG-VDA FMEA
Change Points From Current AIAG
PFMEA
Functions are Positive! 1 – 2 – 3
Current AIAG 4th Ed FMEA New AIAG-VDA FMEA
Change Points From Current AIAG
The Failure ChaiN
DFMEA and PFMEA
Failures are Negative! 1 – 2 – 3
Current AIAG 4th Ed FMEA New AIAG-VDA FMEA
Change Points From Current AIAG
DFMEA
New!
Current AIAG 4th Ed FMEA New AIAG-VDA FMEA
Change Points From Current AIAG
PFMEA
New!
Current AIAG 4th Ed FMEA New AIAG-VDA FMEA
Change Points From Current AIAG
DFMEA and PFMEA
New!
Section Summary
• Multiple software tools can be used including MS Excel • The handbook will include Report and Spreadsheet views • Step Analysis replaces the Fill-in-the-Blank method • Structure, Function, and Failure Analysis sections promote
knowledge within and between the sections • New! Failure Chain supports the cause and effect hierarchy • New! PFMEA 4M Labels • New! DFMEA & PFMEA Action Status • New! Action Priority (AP)
38
FMEA Workshop Update on the AIAG-VDA FMEA
Harmonization Project September 19, 2017
Rating Tables
Project Objective: Alignment of the Severity, Occurrence, and Detection tables between AIAG, VDA, and SAEJ1739 Each failure mode, cause and effect relationship (failure chain or net) is assessed for its independent risk
40
Rating Tables
• Evaluation numbers from 1 to 10 continue to be used for S, O, and D respectively
• 10 stands for the highest risk contribution • By examining these ratings individually and in
combinations of the three factors the need for risk-reducing actions may be prioritized as High, Medium or Low
41
Rating Tables - Severity
42
The Severity rating (S) is a measure associated with the most serious failure effect for a given failure mode of the function being evaluated. The rating shall be used to identify priorities relative to the scope of an individual FMEA and is determined without regard for occurrence or detection.
DFMEA Severity
Change Points From Current AIAG
Split Rating Of 10 And 9 Allowing For Alignment With Functional Safety Groups
SEV Severity criteria Corporate or Product Line Examples
10 Affects safe operation of the vehicle and/or other vehicles, the health of operator or passenger(s) or road users or pedestrians.
9 Noncompliance with regulations.
8 Loss of essential vehicle function necessary for normal driving during expected service life.
7 Degradation of essential vehicle function necessary for normal driving during expected service life.
6 Loss of convenience function.
5 Degradation of convenience function.
4 Perceived quality of appearance, sound or haptics unacceptable to most customers
3 Perceived quality of appearance, sound or haptics unacceptable to many customers
2 Perceived quality of appearance, sound or haptics unacceptable to some customers
1 No discernible effect.
The table may be augmented to include
product specific examples.
Safety is 10 regardless of warning
PFMEA Severity
Change Points From Current AIAG
Manufacturing Effect Divided Into Two Columns. Rank 10 – Safety Rank 9 - Regulations
Rating Tables - Occurrence
Occurrence Of Cause For DFMEA Based On Incidents Per Items/Vehicles
DFMEA Occurrence
The Occurrence rating (O) is a measure of the likelihood of occurrence of the cause, which results in the failure mode during the design life of the item, taking into account the associated prevention controls.
Change Points From Current AIAG
Added Emphasis On Prevention Controls As Input To The Occurrence Rating
DFMEA Occurrence Product Design Newness Prevention Controls - Procedural Prevention Controls - Analytical
Expected Failure Occurrence(Design Newness and Prevention
Controls Best Fit)
OCC Novelty of Design, Application or Use Case
Best Practices, Design rules, Company Standards, Lessons Learned, Industry
Standards, Material Specifications, Government Regulations
Effectiveness of Prevention oriented analytical tools including Computer Aided Engineering, Math Modelling, Simulation Studies, and Tolerance
Stacks
Occurrence criteria for potential Failure Causes resulting in the Failure
Mode, considering Prevention Controls, rated for the intended
service life of the item(Qualitative rating)
Corporate or Product Line
Examples
10 First application of new technology anywhere without operating experience and / or under uncontrolled operating conditions. Use Case or operating conditions vary widely and cannot be reliably predicted.
Standards do not exist and best practices have not yet been determined.
Not able to predict field performance. Occurrence during intended service life cannot be determined at this time, no
preventive controls, or occurrence during intended service life is extremely
high.9 First use of design with technical innovations or materials within
the company. New use case, or change in duty cycle / operating conditions. Not previously validated.
Newly developed for this design. First application of new standards with no experience.
Not targeted to identify performance to specific requirements.
Very high occurrence during intended service life.
8765432 Almost identical mature design with long term field exposure.
Same application, with comparable duty cycle and operating conditions. Testing or field experience under comparable operating conditions.
Design expected to conform to Standards and Best Practices, considering Lessons Learned from previous designs, with significant margin of confidence.
Capable of finding deficiencies in the system/ component related to the failure.
Indicates confidence in design conformance.
Very low occurrence during intended service life.
1 Known system/ component with identical mature design. Same application, duty cycle, and operating conditions. Testing or field experience under comparable operating conditions, orMature system/ components with long, failure-free series production experience under comparable operating conditions.
Design proven to conform to Standards and Best Practices, considering Lessons Learned, which effectively prevents the failure from occurring.
Capable of ensuring with high confidence, that the failure can not occur.
Possibility of failure is virtually eliminated through preventative control
and history of failure-free series production.
Note: A 10, 9, 8, 7 can drop to a 5 or 3 after testing.
Change Points From Current AIAG
Occurrence Based On Process Maturity, Controls With A Summary
PFMEA Occurrence
Likelihood Of Detection Descriptions May Lead To Mixed Interpretation
Change Points From Current AIAG
DFMEA Detection
The Detection rating (D) is a measure of the effectiveness of the detection control to reliably demonstrate the failure cause or failure mode before the item is released for production. The detection rating is the rating associated with the most effective detection control.
Considers Capability To Detect And Timing
Change Points From Current AIAG
DFMEA Detection Detection Controls rated according to the best fit for each detection activity performed prior to delivery of the design for production Blank until filled in by user
DET Detection Capability Corporate or Product Line Examples
10 DETECTION CAPABILITY: No test or test procedure not capable of detecting failure prior to delivery of design for production.
9 DETECTION CAPABILITY: General test procedure not designed to specifically detect the cause and/or failure mode.
8 DETECTION CAPABILITY: Procedure is uncertain and/or there is limited experience with the new procedure. TIMING: Post technical release and prior to production launch.
7 DETECTION CAPABILITY: Procedure is uncertain and/or there is limited experience with the modified procedure. TIMING: Post technical release and prior to production launch.
6 DETECTION CAPABILITY: Proven product design and development verification procedure with new usage profile. TIMING: Post technical release and prior to production launch.
5 DETECTION CAPABILITY: Proven product design and development verification procedure with same usage profile as previous product. TIMING: Post technical release and prior to production launch.
4 DETECTION CAPABILITY: Proven product design and development verification procedure with new usage profile. TIMING: Prior to technical release.
3 DETECTION CAPABILITY: Proven product design and development verification procedure with same usage profile as previous product. TIMING: Prior to technical release.
2 DETECTION CAPABILITY: Detection of Causes (including Noise Factors) with physical testing with high confidence. TIMING: Prior to technical release.
1 Design proven to conform to Standards and Best Practices, considering Lessons Learned, which effectively prevents the failure from occurring.
Detection By Type & Detection Capability
Change Points From Current AIAG
PFMEA Detection
FMEA Workshop Update on the AIAG-VDA FMEA
Harmonization Project September 19, 2017
AP Table - Determining Action Priorities
Change Points From Current AIAG
Current Situation – • The manual acknowledges that with limitations of resources, a
method to prioritize must be established. • The manual offers logic on how to prioritize actions: * Review high Severity Ranks items first. * Make use of RPN, without setting thresholds. * Recognize that a higher RPN number may not be point to the correct item for the team to work on next. * An example of logic showing how a RPN of 90 should be prioritized over a RPN of 112.
The actual logic to drive prioritization is left to each company and is not on the form.
Determining Action Priorities
Change Points From Current AIAG
Current Situation – • Upside – * Manual explains how logic should dictate prioritize of actions using a combination of Severity, Occurrence, Detection Ranks and RPN. • Downside – * When is use, the spreadsheet itself, only shows the Rank Numbers and the final RPN. The direction of logic, is back in the manual. * Unless a company establishes its own procedure to give the team a method of prioritization, the highest RPN can be the easiest method for the team to fall back on.
The actual logic to drive prioritization is left to each company and is not on the form.
Action Priority Table is logic based and the results can be seen on the form
New – Action Priority (AP)
Change Points From Current AIAG
Action Priority – • A table was built, that is logic based. • The logic takes into consideration the level of Severity, the amount of
Occurrence and the Detection Controls being used. • All of these items are what the current manual advises to be
considered when prioritizing actions. • To make the table manageable, the table groups together categories
of S, O, and D, such as, Severity 9 / 10, Detection 2 ~ 4, etc. • The combination of each group is assigned a High, Medium, and Low
prioritization. The table covers the 1000 possible combinations. • The logic or justification is listed on the table for each H, M & L.
Action Priority shows the breakdown of S, O & D, the results and explains the logic
New – Action Priority (AP)
Change Points From Current AIAG
10 (Sev) x 4 (Occ) x 2 (Det) = 80 RPN
3 (Sev) x 8 (Occ) x 5 (Det) = 120 RPN
Severity then Occurrence then Detection followed by AP
Manual logic applied to the Table and shows the results to the users.
Change Points From Current AIAG
Action Priority – • Upside to New AP Table * The logic that is recommended in the manual is built into the table. * As the users use the spreadsheet or software in front of them, logic based prioritization drives the High, Medium or Low.
FMEA Workshop Update on the AIAG-VDA FMEA
Harmonization Project September 19, 2017
Questions and Answers
• Explanation of the AIAG-VDA FMEA Methodology – Project Overview – Scott Gray – The Six Step Process – Jose Avalos – New Form Sheet – Rhonda Brender – The S, O, D Rating Tables – Mary Beth Soloy – Action Prioritization (AP) - Dave Dalby
• Question and Answers – Panel Format
58
FMEA Workshop Update on the AIAG-VDA FMEA
Harmonization Project September 19, 2017