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
“Life calls not for perfection, but for completeness.” Carl Jung
One of the common FMEA questions that comes up is: When is an FMEA complete? You’d think it would be simple, but many organizations and practitioners get it wrong.
In this article, I’ll begin with the purpose of Design and Process FMEAs, and from there, we’ll examine two very different approaches to completing an FMEA.
“I never teach my pupils. I only attempt to provide the conditions in which they can learn.” Albert Einstein
Reliability engineers, FMEA team leaders, and other quality and reliability professionals are often called upon to teach the principles of reliability or FMEA. This article is the beginning of a new series called “The principles of effective teaching.”
If you want to convey knowledge to another person, you are teaching. If you want to learn from another person who is teaching, you will benefit from learning these principles.
“The important thing is not to stop questioning.” Albert Einstein
I always encourage readers to ask questions, and include a link in my article to make it easy. Asking questions is a great way to learn.
A reader recently asked, “When performing an FMEA, should the effect consider the mitigated case or unmitigated case? In this article we will look at different aspects that can be considered in order to answer the question.
An “Inside FMEA” reader recently asked a question on the subject of Process FMEAs, specifically whether assigning the cause as “operator error” is useful. This article will share insights into the nature of a cause in Process FMEA, and whether describing cause as “operator error” adds value.
Fred and I podcasted on this topic. Link to the podcast is here.
I’ve seen literally hundreds of Process FMEAs that list “operator error” as the cause of a process related failure mode. Let me be as clear as I can. Assigning “operator error” as the cause in a Process FMEA does not add value. I’ll explain. [Read more…]
Are generic lists of failure information useful to FMEA teams? Are they a good idea or not?
There is a lot of discussion amongst FMEA practitioners on automating and standardizing FMEAs. In this article, I will discuss the pros and cons of using generic lists of failure modes, effects and causes.
The Oxford English dictionary defines “generic” as “characteristic of or relating to a class or group of things; not specific.” [Read more…]
[Last month I mentioned that the next article would be on the subject of the application of models in the FMEA process. I am postponing that important topic, in order to do more research. Stay tuned . . .]
This month, I want to discuss one of the most common problems that FMEA teams face: getting confused about the difference between failure modes, effects and causes.
“Things are not always as they seem; the first appearance deceives many.” Phaedrus
What is the difference between FMEA and FMECA? Are they the same or different? The answer may surprise you. Let’s explore this topic.
Some defense-related applications require a special type of criticality analysis, called Quantitative Criticality Analysis to supplement FMEA applications. This is the “C” in what is called FMECA: Failure Mode, Effects and Criticality Analysis. I’ll shorten Criticality Analysis to CA in this article.
What is Quantitative CA? When and why it is used? Can Quantitative Criticality Analysis be used in commercial applications?
Did you know that early FMEA standards did not include recommendations to reduce risk? They limited the analysis to the technical risk, without making specific recommendations. The first time I am aware of that an FMEA standard added a column called “Recommended Actions” was in 1993. Thankfully, it is common practice today to include Recommended Actions in FMEAs.
But what makes for excellent Recommended Actions and what is their role in an FMEA? We’ll begin with the fundamentals.
Every FMEA team needs to prioritize risk as part of the procedure. Why? Because companies or organizations have limited resources that must be focused on highest risk. The question becomes, by what method should we prioritize the risk identified in an FMEA?
One of the more challenging aspects of FMEA is the subject of Occurrence. Part of every FMEA standard or procedure is the assessment of Occurrence based on an agreed-upon scale. Here are some pointers for when and how to use occurrence in an FMEA.
We’ll start with a definition. The Oxford English dictionary defines “occurrence” as “the fact or frequency of something happening.”
I am often asked about the application of detection in FMEAs. When and how to assess for the risk of detection can be confusing. Here are some pointers for when and how to use detection in an FMEA.
As we celebrate the new year, I am republishing an article I wrote last year, titled “The Future of Reliability Engineering,” as part of the Inside FMEA series. This article applies equally well to FMEA, as you will see.
Sometime in 2023, I will write an article titled “The Future of FMEA.” But, first, I want to hear from readers. Please write me with your ideas on what should be included in the future of FMEA. You can reach me at Carl.Carlson@EffectiveFMEAs.com
Wishing everyone on Accendo Reliability a happy and healthy new year, and best wishes for high reliability and effective FMEAs!
“Destiny is no matter of chance. It is a matter of choice. It is not a thing to be waited for, it is a thing to be achieved.” – William Jennings Bryan
I am often asked for my opinion about the FMEA Handbook that was jointly published by AIAG and VDA in 2019. Here is a summary of my candid views on this handbook, excerpted from a presentation I gave at the 2019 Guangbin Yang Reliability Symposium.
Leading is about learning to be a facilitator – Ashif Shaikh
Ask yourself, when teams work very well together, what are the positive characteristics of the team leader? When teams are dysfunctional, and have poor outcomes, what skills of the leader need to be improved?
Giving proper feedback is a great way to help a colleague improve FMEA facilitation skills. Carefully listening to feedback from a colleague is an important way to improve one’s own FMEA facilitation skills. Both are aided by understanding and using facilitation quality objectives. [Read more…]