In this video, I reveal one of the most common mistakes people make when writing Failure Modes in a Failure Modes and Effects Analysis (FMEA).
Too often, people confuse Failure Modes with Failure Effects, leading to wasted time and ineffective results. But don’t worry! I’ll show you how to avoid this by asking one simple question: “What specifically causes…?” This technique helps ensure you develop proactive strategies that improve equipment reliability, avoid unexpected downtime, and strengthen your overall maintenance plan
When we do Reliability Centered Maintenance (RCM), we proactively identify Failure Modes. It’s important to write them properly so you can effectively manage each one.
Don’t let improperly written Failure Modes hold you back—this small change can have a big impact on your reliability goals. Watch to learn how to:
- Write Failure Modes properly
- Avoid a common FMEA pitfall
- Get better results from your FMEA
But an effect at one level is a cause at another level. It depends on what the level of indenture the analyst begins the analysis. The level should be commensurate with the level at which a corrective action can be imposed.
I agree that the focus must be on having sufficiently detailed failure modes to drive value from your analysis, but I agree with the comment above, the causal chain can be viewed from different levels and this changes the assigned terminology. The statement that these “failure modes” are actually effects is unfortunately too simplistic and could cause confusion for inexperienced practitioners. I think rigid adherence to a single approach and lack of underlying principles is one of the biggest problems within this field. I have no doubt Nancy fully understands the underlying principles but the message in this video is overly simplified and too direct in my opinion.