Your Reliability Engineering Professional Development Site
With the Inside FMEA series of articles, my intention is to bring to life the subject of FMEA, and provide value to readers from all levels of experience.
Whether you are new to FMEA, or an FMEA expert, it is my sincere desire that each and every person who reads Inside FMEA articles will discover new insights about FMEA, and experience improved success in FMEA applications.
The first article, called “Welcome to Inside FMEA”, will introduce the series, and provide a glimpse of what is to come.
Readers are encouraged to contact me with any questions about FMEA, or feedback on Inside FMEA articles. Questions, feedback, and ideas for future articles can be sent to carl.carlson@effectivefmeas.com. I will personally respond to all questions and feedback.
I’m excited to bring this new series to Accendo, and hope you enjoy reading the articles, as much as I enjoy writing them. As I say to readers of my book, "best wishes for effective FMEAs."
Carl S. Carlson
“If no one ever took risks, Michelangelo would have painted the Sistine floor.” – Neil Simon
FMEA and Risk Management are two distinct bodies of knowledge. This article explores some of the interactions between these two important methods. It is not intended to be a complete analysis of the similarities, differences, and linkages between FMEA and risk management. Rather, it is a high-level overview.
“Many ideas grow better when transplanted into another mind than the one where they sprang up.”
Oliver Wendell Holmes
In the international FMEA community, one of the hot topics is how much of an FMEA can be automated versus how much needs to be team-based. Some experts say the future of FMEA requires an automated approach, as systems are getting more and more complex. Others say FMEA must always be grounded in a team of subject matter experts, narrowly focused on the highest priority issues.
In this article, I will share my thoughts on why FMEA needs to be team-based, and what elements can be prepopulated or automated.
“Number rules the universe.” – Pythagoras
Risk Priority Number (RPN) . . . by definition, a single number that represents relative risk for prioritizing issues in an FMEA. Sounds simple. But, how well does it work in practice? And, is there a better way?
This article highlights shortcomings and concerns when using RPN in FMEA, and discusses an alternative. It is a companion article to “Prioritizing risk for corrective actions in an FMEA.”
“Time is money” – Benjamin Franklin
One of the most common complaints about FMEAs is that they can take a long time to do. This article presents solutions to this challenge.
One of the most important concepts in designing for reliability is robust design. This article is a high-level overview of robust design and its relationship to FMEA.
“For the robust, an error is information.” Nassim Nicholas Taleb
“The danger which is least expected soonest comes to us.” Voltaire
This article discusses the application of Hazard Analysis, why it is used, and the similarities and differences with FMEA.
“My software never has bugs. It just develops random features.” Anonymous
More and more mechanical and electrical systems include software integration. The FMEA methodology applies very well to software as well as hardware. It is possible to include software functionality in the System FMEA as part of the functional descriptions. However, for complex software functionality such as embedded control systems, it may be useful to perform a separate software FMEA.
FMEAs are legal documents that support the demonstration of due care in product development. FMEA teams should ensure their worksheets are consistent with good legal practices for documents, and follow company legal guidelines.
“Common sense often makes good law.” William Orville Douglas, past Justice of the Supreme Court
[This is a companion article to “Using Design FMEAs to Identify Special Product Characteristics.” These two articles should be read in sequence.]
Identification and application of special product and process characteristics help to focus assembly and manufacturing processes on the most important areas, in order to achieve the right outcomes.
“Science is the process that takes us from confusion to understanding” – Brian Greene
One of the most important principles in reliability engineering and management is the differentiation between the vital few and the trivial many. The application of special product characteristics uses that principle.
“The whole of science is nothing more than the refinement of thinking.” – Albert Einstein
In last month’s article we discussed the most common FMEA mistakes and how to convert them into quality objectives. This month we will focus on how to audit FMEAs, using the FMEA quality objectives as a guideline.
“Twice and thrice over, as they say, good is it to repeat and review what is good.” Plato
“Good judgment comes from experience and experience comes from poor judgment.” Will Rogers
Much is learned by observing the mistakes companies have made in doing FMEAs. Based on the experience of over 2,000 FMEAs and working with many companies in a wide variety of applications, certain common mistakes show up repeatedly. In this article, I’ll share ten common FMEA mistakes and how to convert them into quality objectives.
More than one operational mode may need to be considered to ensure that all important failure modes are identified and analyzed in the FMEA. This article focuses on what you need to know about modes of operation when performing FMEAs.
“My favorite mode of transport is hot-air ballooning. It’s so graceful to be blown by the wind, to go where the wind takes you.” Richard Branson
Many companies miss out on the value of System FMEA and begin with lower level sub-assemblies or components. This article explains why it is usually best to begin with a properly done System FMEA.
“Big whirls have little whirls,
That feed on their velocity;
And little whirls have lesser whirls,
And so on to viscosity.”
Lewis Fry Richardson
“Prediction is very difficult, especially if it’s about the future.” Niels Bohr
In an FMEA, is it possible to think of everything that might happen in the future? What strategies can be used by FMEA teams to maximize the opportunity to anticipate what can go wrong, so risk can be reduced to an acceptable level?