Accendo Reliability

Your Reliability Engineering Professional Development Site

  • Home
  • About
    • Contributors
  • Reliability.fm
    • Speaking Of Reliability
    • Rooted in Reliability: The Plant Performance Podcast
    • Quality during Design
    • Critical Talks
    • Dare to Know
    • Maintenance Disrupted
    • Metal Conversations
    • The Leadership Connection
    • Practical Reliability Podcast
    • Reliability Matters
    • Reliability it Matters
    • Maintenance Mavericks Podcast
    • Women in Maintenance
    • Accendo Reliability Webinar Series
    • Asset Reliability @ Work
  • Articles
    • CRE Preparation Notes
    • on Leadership & Career
      • Advanced Engineering Culture
      • Engineering Leadership
      • Managing in the 2000s
      • Product Development and Process Improvement
    • on Maintenance Reliability
      • Aasan Asset Management
      • CMMS and Reliability
      • Conscious Asset
      • EAM & CMMS
      • Everyday RCM
      • History of Maintenance Management
      • Life Cycle Asset Management
      • Maintenance and Reliability
      • Maintenance Management
      • Plant Maintenance
      • Process Plant Reliability Engineering
      • ReliabilityXperience
      • RCM Blitz®
      • Rob’s Reliability Project
      • The Intelligent Transformer Blog
    • on Product Reliability
      • Accelerated Reliability
      • Achieving the Benefits of Reliability
      • Apex Ridge
      • Metals Engineering and Product Reliability
      • Musings on Reliability and Maintenance Topics
      • Product Validation
      • Reliability Engineering Insights
      • Reliability in Emerging Technology
    • on Risk & Safety
      • CERM® Risk Insights
      • Equipment Risk and Reliability in Downhole Applications
      • Operational Risk Process Safety
    • on Systems Thinking
      • Communicating with FINESSE
      • The RCA
    • on Tools & Techniques
      • Big Data & Analytics
      • Experimental Design for NPD
      • Innovative Thinking in Reliability and Durability
      • Inside and Beyond HALT
      • Inside FMEA
      • Integral Concepts
      • Learning from Failures
      • Progress in Field Reliability?
      • Reliability Engineering Using Python
      • Reliability Reflections
      • Testing 1 2 3
      • The Manufacturing Academy
  • eBooks
  • Resources
    • Accendo Authors
    • FMEA Resources
    • Feed Forward Publications
    • Openings
    • Books
    • Webinars
    • Journals
    • Higher Education
    • Podcasts
  • Courses
    • 14 Ways to Acquire Reliability Engineering Knowledge
    • Reliability Analysis Methods online course
    • Measurement System Assessment
    • SPC-Process Capability Course
    • Design of Experiments
    • Foundations of RCM online course
    • Quality during Design Journey
    • Reliability Engineering Statistics
    • An Introduction to Reliability Engineering
    • An Introduction to Quality Engineering
    • Process Capability Analysis course
    • Root Cause Analysis and the 8D Corrective Action Process course
    • Return on Investment online course
    • CRE Preparation Online Course
    • Quondam Courses
  • Webinars
    • Upcoming Live Events
  • Calendar
    • Call for Papers Listing
    • Upcoming Webinars
    • Webinar Calendar
  • Login
    • Member Home

by Fred Schenkelberg 1 Comment

When to Do FMEA

When to Do FMEA

Failure modes and effect analysis is a tool to identify potential failures and prioritize based on severity, occurrence, and detection. I like to describe FMEA as an organized brainstorm. You probably have some experience with FMEA.

In some industries, there is a high expectation or mandate to do an FMEA study. In some industries FMEA maybe just another tool to consider using during various stages of the product or asset lifecycle.

In my opinion, FMEA should be a part of your project plan when it is likely to add value.

Value in the sense that the organization will receive an adequate benefit based on the investment to conduct the FMEA study.

It’s required

If you are in a situation where FMEA is a customer or contract requirement, you still may or may not need to actually conduct an FMEA. I mean a study where you and your team actually participate and benefit from the work. I’ve seen organizations simply outsource the FMEA study to a third party or to an individual to fill out the form.

The customer receives a copy as proof that the study was accomplished. In one organization the design and manufacturing team knew the study was being done by a third party simply to meet the requirements of the contract. Most never saw the report and those that did review it found it of little value, other than the customer agreed the requirement was met.

What a waste of time and money.

In some cases, even when an FMEA is required, it may be useful for the team. But how do you know if it’s worth the investment?

We only find what we already know

FMEA, when done by a team, may result in a list of potential failures that are already known.

It is possible the team does not reveal anything new. Nothing new other than a little bit of added discussion around each issue is not a good use of time.

The members of the study bring with them what they know about the product and the potential failure modes. Most engineers inherently consider the weaknesses and attempt to design or work to minimize the failures.

If the team already has methods to communicate and share the potential failure modes and priorities, then conducting an FMEA is merely a repeat of other work.

When does FMEA make sense?

One of the best FMEA’s I’ve seen was for a bottling machine. This machine is large and capable of positioning and filling 200 bottles per minute, including capping the bottle. The team was to focus on potential improvements to improve the equipment availability. It is a complex piece of equipment.

The team included equipment operators, maintenance technicians, manufacturing engineers, quality engineers and equipment vendor engineers. The team structure included people that didn’t normally get the chance to discuss the operation of the equipment. The operators with their first-hand knowledge of the problems helps the rest of the team understand the nature of failures. The vendor engineers helped everyone know the possibilities and limitations of the design intent. The entire group contributed and learned from each other’s point of view.

While everyone brought in what they already knew, not everyone knew what everyone else did. The resulting set of action items actually made a difference and significant improvement to the equipment’s operation. Yet, not any one group would have been able to achieve as much. The value stemmed from the sharing and understanding of the issues from many voices.

In this case, for a complex piece of equipment and assembling a team from operators to vendors enabled the group to make a difference.

 

Communicate with your team

In general, an FMEA is a tool to help your team communicate with each other. If that is already occurring, FMEA may not be the right activity. If different parts of the organization are working to locally optimize solutions or no one group understands all aspects of the equipment, then FMEA make sense.

Another case to consider FMEA is when the potential failures are not well know. It may be a new material, process, or design, which the team has little prior experience. Then the brainstorm elements of the FMEA may reveal areas that need exploration and understanding. The ‘what if’ discussion provides a means to consider areas previously not explored. The process then expands the team’s awareness of potential failure modes, thus improving the team’s ability to detect the issues when they occur.

FMEA provides value when it guides the subsequent product testing by highlighting areas to monitor.

Without that insight, we may not include specific measurements or detection capability to determine if the potential issues occur or not. Without the awareness, we would miss the chance to detect real problems.

Summary

FMEA is a good tool. It has a long history and many successes. When done well and when the potential for value exists then conducting an FMEA study make sense. If done just to check of a requirements box or when little uncertainty about potential failure exist, then spend your team’s time focused on other tasks.

The key is when the study will help share insights and knowledge to reveal and prioritize potential failures. FMEA has value in building consensus and awareness when connected to other actives like product testing or improvement experimentation.

Think about and choose to do or not do FMEA based on your specific situation.

Filed Under: Articles, Musings on Reliability and Maintenance Topics, on Product Reliability Tagged With: FMEA

« Optimizing Maintenance
Mood’s Median Test »

Comments

  1. Hilaire Perera says

    July 17, 2019 at 8:56 AM

    A limitation of the standard Failure Modes and Effects Analysis (FMEA) and Failure Modes, Effects and Criticality Analysis (FMECA) procedures is that neither identifies the product failure mechanisms and models in the analysis and reporting process. Investigation of the possible failure modes and mechanisms of the product aids in developing failure-free and reliable designs. A design team must be aware of the possible failure mechanisms to design hardware capable of withstanding loads without failing. Failure mechanisms and their related physical models are also important for planning tests and screens to audit nominal design and manufacturing specifications, as well as the level of defects introduced by excessive variability in manufacturing and material parameters. Without information on failure mechanisms, FMEA may not provide a meaningful input to critical procedures such as virtual qualification, root cause analysis, accelerated test programs, and to remaining life assessment. Another potential shortcoming of the standard FMEA is that the use of environmental and operating conditions information is not made at a quantitative level

    Failure mechanisms are the processes by which physical, electrical, chemical and mechanical stresses induce failure. Knowledge of the failure mechanisms that cause product failure is essential to design and qualify reliable products. FMEA and FMECA procedures do not identify the product failure mechanisms and models, which limits their applicability to provide a meaningful input to critical procedures such as virtual qualification, root cause analysis, accelerated test programs, and to remaining life assessment.

    Failure Modes, Mechanisms and Effects Analysis (FMMEA) enhances the value of FMEA and FMECA by identifying high priority failure mechanisms and failure models. High priority failure mechanisms determine the operational stresses, and the environmental and operational parameters that need to be controlled. Models for the failure mechanisms help in the design and development of a reliable product.

    Center for Advanced Life Cycle Engineering (CALCE) has developed the FMMEA process and helped several organizations implement the tool in their product development process

    Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Article by Fred Schenkelberg
in the Musings series

Join Accendo

Receive information and updates about articles and many other resources offered by Accendo Reliability by becoming a member.

It’s free and only takes a minute.

Join Today

Recent Articles

  • Self-Discipline Part 1
  • Is Safety Training Helpful?
  • FINESSE Facilitation: What Are Best Practices for Qualitative Assessment Analysis?
  • ISO 9001 Context and in the Real World, What do we do?
  • The Galvanic Corrosion Piping Trap!

© 2023 FMS Reliability · Privacy Policy · Terms of Service · Cookies Policy

This site uses cookies to give you a better experience, analyze site traffic, and gain insight to products or offers that may interest you. By continuing, you consent to the use of cookies. Learn how we use cookies, how they work, and how to set your browser preferences by reading our Cookies Policy.