Failure Mode and Effects Analysis better known by its acronym (FMEA) has undergone an extensive revision and after years of work by mainly AIAG and VDA, we now have a joint new version designated by FMEA AIAG VDA 1st edition.
If we look at the present situation in organisations, there are now, typically 3 types of FMEA methodologies, namely:
- AIAG methodology
- VDA methodology and
- Hybrid models (using selected principles of each of the above methodologies, combined with specific customisation introduced by the different organisations).
The new combined revision looks at standardising the different methodologies used in the automotive industry, while at the same time building on the strengths of each of the two current ones (i.e. AIAG and VDA).
The main changes of the revised version when comparing with the contents of the previous FMEA Reference Manuals are as follows:
- Introduction chapter defining the basis on how to develop a robust FMEA.
- New chapter on FMEA on Monitoring and System Response (FMEA – MSR). This FMEA can detect failures during end-user operation (driver).
- Improved FMEA planning and preparation process.
- Use of a seven-step approach composed of the following:
Step 1: Project planning and preparation.
Step 2: Structure analysis.
Step 3: Function analysis.
Step 4: Failure analysis.
Step 5: Risk analysis.
Step 6: Optimisation.
Step 7: Documentation of results.
- Use of the Cost of Quality as a measurable of the FMEA effectiveness and efficiency.
- Increased criteria specificity.
- Replacement of RPN (Risk Priority Number) by AP (Action Priority).
- Higher emphasis on error-proofing.
As mentioned before, many of the above “changes” were already applied in several organisations, which means that they can be considered as “refinements” rather than “radical changes”.
What is expected?
Current Reference Manual guidelines and expert discussions, are very clear in the fact that there is no directive forcing organisations to change their current FMEAs into the new format and approach. However, there is an expectation that FMEAs involving new developments will follow the new methodology.
Also, one way that OEMs could force the use of the new approach, will be through its inclusion in their respective Customer Specific Requirements.
From the perspective of the organisations, it is still early to define the totality of the impact of the new approach in terms of workload and value adding.
In my opinion, it will be very interesting to evaluate the use of the Cost of Quality as a measurable of the effectiveness and efficiency of the FMEA and its impact in the quality and business performance of organisations.
Another interesting point to evaluate: until what point will this methodology succeed in changing the philosophy of some organisations where FMEAs are used to show the auditor and avoid nonconformances, instead of a Risk Management Tool targeting the improvement of Business Performance and a driver of Continual Improvement.
We will return to this topic.