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
    • Quality 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 Dianna Deeney Leave a Comment

QDD 058 UFMEA vs. DFMEA

UFMEA vs. DFMEA

FMEA (Failure Mode and Effects Analysis) is a super-tool for a team, especially when developing concepts and requirements. Done early, iteratively, and treated as a “living” analysis helps teams throughout development and beyond.

Some people seem to either love it or hate it. I don’t have a strong reaction like that, but I do think it can be a valuable option for teamwork and design – so much so that I’ve dedicated a few episodes to it (including this one). We touch on some of the objections to it, too.

FMEAs can have different focuses and can be built to suit the goals of the team. There are two FMEAs, in particular, that can be done in the early concept stages of development: “use” UFMEA and “systems design” DFMEA.

  • What is the difference between these two FMEAs?
  • How do they relate to one another?
  • Should we do both of them?
  • What do we do with the information?

 

 

 

View the Episode Transcript

 

FMEA is not the only way to assess risk and make risk-based decisions. Here are a few other options:

  • ETA, FTA – to get more detail on multiple causes of a failure event
  • SWIFT – Structured What-If Technique
  • User process flow or task analysis

TIP – Many of these can be done with a team and then used as an input into an FMEA to take it further.

What’s today’s insight to action? Do risk analyses early and iteratively. Consider using both UFMEA and systems DFMEA because they focus on different things. Think about the user and the product itself because we’re designing products as an interface to DO something for a user.

Citations:

Visit these other blogs to explore these topics further:

Getting Started with FMEA: It All Begins with a Plan

Choosing a Confidence Level for Test using FMEA

Remaking Risk-Based Decisions: Allowing Ourselves to Change our Minds

Prevention Controls vs. Detection Controls

The Designer’s Risk Analysis affects Business, Projects, and Suppliers

A big failure and too many causes? Try this analysis. (FTA)

 

Episode Transcript

Welcome to Quality during Design for products, others love for less. I’m your host, Dianna Deeney. We’re wrapping up a “Versus Series” where we’ve been comparing different quality and reliability methods and techniques and tools and learning how they get applied to product development and design engineering. In all of these episodes, we’ve been talking about some principles of quality and reliability engineering, namely that we can use them to essentially prune the product development process. Because these tools are people-focused, risk-based and they can help us uncover ideas, navigate decisions and empower teams, they are very useful in our toolbox for early concept development work.

There is a power tool that we haven’t really gotten into yet, and I was reserving it for this last episode, and that is failure mode and effects analysis. And the topic in comparison that we’re going to be doing today is comparing use FMEA versus design FMEA, or you’ve probably also seen them as UFMEA and DFMEA. And in this case, the design FMEA we’ll be talking about is the system level or top-level product FMEA.

Now these two FMEAs are really excellent at getting team buy-in, developing concepts and ideas, and fostering that risk-based thinking early in the concept development. And we can use them iteratively through product development and in the field. What are these two different FMEAs? How do they differ from each other and how are they alike? And do we need to do both of them? What kind of information do we get out of each that can benefit the product development process?

Well, first of all, FMEA, failure mode and effects analysis (or sometimes failure modes and effects analysis) is really a tool. It’s a tool that we can use with our team and our cross-functional team to systematically understand risks and to be able to make based decisions throughout the product development process. The scope of FMEA is really focused on errors and failures, but we can look at them as symptoms that the product or the system that we’re designing could be better. FMEA is an analysis, the goals of which we want to identify and assess potential problems and their effects, minimize or eliminate those through changes, or stabilize them.

When we use FMEA during development, during concept development, it helps a team prioritize efforts and focus. The big benefit is that it gets a cross-functional team to communicate and maybe commiserate with each other. After development, it helps a team understand the risks of the design and decide if it’s acceptable or not. If it’s not acceptable, then some different action needs to be taken.

Many groups use a hierarchy of FMEAs, different levels of product design, use cases and manufacturing methods, each FMEA focused on a particular aspect of a product and its development. But we don’t need to do FMEA on everything. We can use the top level, high level FMEAs to identify the areas that are most prone to failures or problems, and maybe focus in on another sub-level FMEA for that.

The two FMEAs that we’re comparing today are, I consider, top level FMEAs, and that’s use FMEA and DFMEA.

What is a UFMEA? Well, the focus is on human factors. The scope is human error and use error. Those are the kind of things we’re looking for in evaluating with a UFMEA. The goals with this analysis to integrate the human needs, capabilities, and limitations, and to address the effects of human error with our product.

On the other hand, what is design FMEA? Its focus is different than a UFMEA. If focus is on design failures or the product system failures. It has different names depending on what the focus of it is. You may hear of this top level analysis as a system level, FMEA, or a product FMEA, maybe even a hazard analysis. The scope of a design FMEA is on the product system, failures and faults. And the goals are a little different than UFMEA, too. It’s to integrate the technological needs and capabilities and limitations. We’re analyzing how to address the effects of a product system failure.

Those are some of the differences between a UFMEA and a DFMEA of the system product level DFMEA. There are some similarities. The analysis coming from a UFMEA and a system level DFMEA are both inputs into concept design into the requirements and even test planning, both the human factors testing and product testing. Both documents are also considered living documents, meaning they’re maintained throughout development and sustaining activities. Sustaining activities are those activities like field monitoring, complaint analysis, and so on. We can even add a criticality aspect to it where they become FMECA, which is another way for us to rank and prioritize our efforts actions and help us make decisions.

Besides the similarities in them just being FMEAs, they do relate to one another. Another way that UFMEA and DFMEA relate is through the interface between the product and the user. When we’re thinking just about the product, we’re thinking that there is an input, the product has a process where it’s doing something or accomplishing something, and then there is an output. On the other side of this, almost mirrored, is the process of the user. The user gets input – they’re perceiving something from our product. They do something with our product and interact with it, and then they decide what kind of control or action that they want to take with our product.

When we marry these together, we can think of them as a continuous loop and a cycle where wherever our user is deciding to do something with a control, that’s our input into our product design. And whatever our output is of our product design is an input into our users’ perception. A UFMEA evaluates the user’s perception process and control decisions. And a design FMEA evaluates our product or our system, its input, the process and its output. These two different analyses are focused on different things, but they both affect the product design and the choices that we make about how our product is going to function and the features that it has. It’s worth while evaluating our product design from both of these angles.

I understand and have seen the value of FMEAs, especially with a cross-functional team: garnering ideas, helping them make decisions, and working toward a common goal. It’s made the design of whatever that we were analyzing better in the end: safer, easier to use more dependable. And I’m not sure that the team would’ve came to the same kind of decisions unless we had gotten together and talked about it. FMEA provides a framework for cross-functional teams to be able to do this.

Even so, there are some strong feelings about FMEA. Some people love them and some people despise them. I don’t know that I would go so far as to say I love them, but let’s talk about some of the objections that people have with FMEA.

One of the actions is that FMEAs aren’t value added to the project. And I agree that if we wait until the end of the project, when everything’s already designed and settled, and we’re not really allowed or can make any changes for improvements, then it is too late. It really isn’t value added. That’s why we want to do FMEAs early and then iterate on them through the concept development process. This allows us to talk about and make decisions during the design process, not just assess what we’ve already done. But FMEAs aren’t just for development. It’s also for sustaining activities. Like when we need to figure out root causes of field failures, as one example.

Another objection is that FMEAs are just too difficult, but I don’t think they’re difficult to start if we start with a concept, a high-level idea. We can still evaluate those with an FMEA and use risk based thinking. We’re going to uncover ideas that shape the design itself and help us define the requirements. Something else that helps with an FMEA process that might seem too difficult is having a plan. FMEA starts out as a team thought experiment. So, create a plan or a test protocol. If, you will. Take some time to get everyone on the same page, with the scope of what we’re talking about, the rating scales, how we rate things and the acceptance criteria that’s going to trigger action.

A third objective I’ve heard is that we can’t even get started with an FMEA until we have the design all figured out. Instead think of it as a way to empower design engineers, to get the broader team’s input and experiences. We are allowed to start with empirical methods, ideas, presumptions, and potential ideas. And as we learn more and iterate on our design, then we can move to analytical method where we’re further assessing things with the data that we get from tests, from experiments, with the real thing.

The last objection that I’ll talk about in this episode is we don’t have time. It costs too much to do it. It does take time. There is a life cycle costing book that suggested that each function or piece of equipment of a DFMEA takes a bit less than 18 total people hours. A team of five working on an FMEA for equipment – it could take three hours, but that would be over the lifetime of product development. Done right, FMEA is a preventive activity. Designing-in controls is often more effective and cheaper and easier than trying to manage failures at the back end. FMEA helps the team throughout the product development process. And it helps other internal customers with maintaining the product in the market. So FMEA does take time, but the team also saves time in the long run, especially when treated as a living document.

FMEAs are not the only way to assess risk and make risk based decisions. There is event tree analysis and fault tree analysis, and those help us get more detail on multiple causes for a failure event. SWIFT is a Structured What If Technique. We can evaluate the user process with a process flow and task analysis. But here’s a tip: many of these different analyses could be an input into an FMEA where we’re further evaluating the high-risk items.

So what’s, today’s insight to action? Do risk analyses early and iteratively. Talk about the user and the product itself because we’re designing products to do something for a user. Do both UFMEA and a system level design FMEA, because they focus on different things.

 

Filed Under: Quality during Design

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

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

Quality during Design podcast logo

Tips for using quality tools and methods to help you design products others love, for less.


by Dianna Deeney
Quality during Design,
Hosted on Buzzsprout.com
Subscribe and enjoy every episode
Google
Apple
Spotify

Recent Episodes

QDD 102 Get Design Inputs with Flowcharts

QDD 101 Quality Tools are Legos of Development (and Their 7 Uses)

QDD 100 Lessons Learned from Coffee Pod Stories

QDD 099 Crucial Conversations in Engineering, with Shere Tuckey (A Chat with Cross-Functional Experts)

QDD 098 Challenges Getting Team Input in Concept Development

QDD 097 Brainstorming within Design Sprints

QDD 096 After the ‘Storm: Compare and Prioritize Ideas

QDD 095 After the ‘Storm: Pareto Voting and Screening Methods

QDD 094 After the ‘Storm: Group and Explore Ideas

QDD 093 Product Design with Brainstorming, with Emily Haidemenos (A Chat with Cross Functional Experts)

QDD 092 Ways to Gather Ideas with a Team

QDD 091 The Spirits of Technical Writing Past, Present, and Future

QDD 090 The Gifts Others Bring

QDD 089 Next Steps after Surprising Test Results

QDD 088 Choose Reliability Goals for Modules

QDD 087 Start a System Architecture Diagram Early

QDD 086 Why Yield Quality in the Front-End of Product Development

QDD 085 Book Cast

QDD 084 Engineering in the Color Economy

QDD 083 Getting to Great Designs

QDD 082 Get Clarity on Goals with a Continuum

QDD 081 Variable Relationships: Correlation and Causation

QDD 080 Use Meetings to Add Productivity

QDD 079 Ways to Partner with Test Engineers

QDD 078 What do We do with FMEA Early in Design Concept?

QDD 077 A Severity Scale based on Quality Dimensions

QDD 076 Use Force Field Analysis to Understand Nuances

QDD 075 Getting Use Information without a Prototype

QDD 074 Finite Element Analysis (FEA) Supplements Test

QDD 073 2 Lessons about Remote Work for Design Engineers

QDD 072 Always Plot the Data

QDD 071 Supplier Control Plans and Design Specs

QDD 070 Use FMEA to Design for In-Process Testing

QDD 069 Use FMEA to Choose Critical Design Features

QDD 068 Get Unstuck: Expand and Contract Our Problem

QDD 067 Get Unstuck: Reframe our Problem

QDD 066 5 Options to Manage Risks during Product Engineering

QDD 065 Prioritizing Technical Requirements with a House of Quality

QDD 064 Gemba for Product Design Engineering

QDD 063 Product Design from a Data Professional Viewpoint, with Gabor Szabo (A Chat with Cross Functional Experts)

QDD 062 How Does Reliability Engineering Affect (Not Just Assess) Design?

QDD 061 How to use FMEA for Complaint Investigation

QDD 060 3 Tips for Planning Design Reviews

QDD 059 Product Design from a Marketing Viewpoint, with Laura Krick (A Chat with Cross Functional Experts)

QDD 058 UFMEA vs. DFMEA

QDD 057 Design Input & Specs vs. Test & Measure Capability

QDD 056 ALT vs. HALT

QDD 055 Quality as a Strategic Asset vs. Quality as a Control

QDD 054 Design Specs vs. Process Control, Capability, and SPC

QDD 053 Internal Customers vs. External Customers

QDD 052 Discrete Data vs. Continuous Data

QDD 051 Prevention Controls vs. Detection Controls

QDD 050 Try this Method to Help with Complex Decisions (DMRCS)

QDD 049 Overlapping Ideas: Quality, Reliability, and Safety

QDD 048 Using SIPOC to Get Started

QDD 047 Risk Barriers as Swiss Cheese?

QDD 046 Environmental Stress Testing for Robust Designs

QDD 045 Choosing a Confidence Level for Test using FMEA

QDD 044 Getting Started with FMEA – It All Begins with a Plan

QDD 043 How can 8D help Solve my Recurring Problem?

QDD 042 Mistake-Proofing – The Poka-Yoke of Usability

QDD 041 Getting Comfortable with using Reliability Results

QDD 040 How to Self-Advocate for More Customer Face Time (and why it’s important)

QDD 039 Choosing Quality Tools (Mind Map vs. Flowchart vs. Spaghetti Diagram)

QDD 038 The DFE Part of DFX (Design For Environment and eXcellence)

QDD 037 Results-Driven Decisions, Faster: Accelerated Stress Testing as a Reliability Life Test

QDD 036 When to use DOE (Design of Experiments)?

QDD 035 Design for User Tasks using an Urgent/Important Matrix

QDD 034 Statistical vs. Practical Significance

QDD 033 How Many Do We Need To Test?

QDD 032 Life Cycle Costing for Product Design Choices

QDD 031 5 Aspects of Good Reliability Goals and Requirements

QDD 030 Using Failure Rate Functions to Drive Early Design Decisions

QDD 029 Types of Design Analyses possible with User Process Flowcharts

QDD 028 Design Tolerances Based on Economics (Using the Taguchi Loss Function)

QDD 027 How Many Controls do we Need to Reduce Risk?

QDD 026 Solving Symptoms Instead of Causes?

QDD 025 Do you have SMART ACORN objectives?

QDD 024 Why Look to Standards

QDD 023 Getting the Voice of the Customer

QDD 022 The Way We Test Matters

QDD 021 Designing Specs for QA

QDD 020 Every Failure is a Gift

QDD 019 Understanding the Purposes behind Kaizen

QDD 018 Fishbone Diagram: A Supertool to Understand Problems, Potential Solutions, and Goals

QDD 017 What is ‘Production Equivalent’ and Why Does it Matter?

QDD 016 About Visual Quality Standards

QDD 015 Using the Pareto Principle and Avoiding Common Pitfalls

QDD 014 The Who’s Who of your Quality Team

QDD 013 When it’s Not Normal: How to Choose from a Library of Distributions

QDD 012 What are TQM, QFD, Six Sigma, and Lean?

QDD 011 The Designer’s Important Influence on Monitoring After Launch

QDD 010 How to Handle Competing Failure Modes

QDD 009 About Using Slide Decks for Technical Design Reviews

QDD 008 Remaking Risk-Based Decisions: Allowing Ourselves to Change our Minds.

QDD 007 Need to innovate? Stop brainstorming and try a systematic approach.

QDD 006 HALT! Watch out for that weakest link

QDD 005 The Designer’s Risk Analysis affects Business, Projects, and Suppliers

QDD 004 A big failure and too many causes? Try this analysis.

QDD 003 Why Your Design Inputs Need to Include Quality & Reliability

QDD 002 My product works. Why don’t they want it?

QDD 001 How to Choose the Right Improvement Model

© 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.