iSixSigma

FMEA for a student

Six Sigma – iSixSigma Forums Old Forums General FMEA for a student

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 15 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #37240

    justalearner
    Participant

    I’m a student, and for me it’s difficult to understand things just reading them on books.I would like to immagine how things happens in the real world.For example, if I had to fill in a PFMEA form for a company and I should determine what I have to write in the first column how could I do?Have I to find out a list of process functions, such as 1)arrival, 2)incoming inspection, 3)cutting, …, n)spedition ?      

    0
    #109191

    mjones
    Participant

    Presuming your FMEA is for a process (not a product), start with your process map, and develop your FMEA based on your process map. Be careful to keep discussions in your FMEA at the same level as your map so the whole team is thinking at the level in the process. Usually, you will use each step of the process map as the steps or process functions in the first column. Don’t let discussion digress into more detailed steps than level of the map.
    As you develop your process map to further detail, you will develop additional FMEAs that address the detailed maps.
    It is best to start your process map at high-level and then drill down to the point that you are addressing issues that are most significant to your project. 

    0
    #109192

    Confused
    Participant

    Mjones, you seem to be a pretty smart guy with good answers.  I recently heard someone pronounce FMEA as Feema (phonetic).  Is that right?

    0
    #109193

    Confused
    Participant

    By the way, why are you posting at this time?  I would think you would be watching the Hogs get their butts kicked.

    0
    #109196

    mjones
    Participant

    For this particular game, I’ve found I can post and keep up with the action pretty well. And, hey, Auburn is my choice of 2nd ‘home state.’

    0
    #109197

    mjones
    Participant

    Nope. Was not me! Not “recently.”
    I’ve been re-trained by one of Texas’s finest. Actually, he threatend to slap me up side the head with a full bottle of Lone Star!
    I’m cured!! Really!!! Totally re-programmed.
    I go it. It is not Feeemuh, it is F-M-E-A. Just spell it and nobody gets hurt…even if you spell it really fast.

    0
    #109208

    Aguilar
    Member

    Hi, i am working in the PFMEA, but i am not sure if there is the recently version for the PFMEA, who knows wich one is the rigth version ?
    Can sombody send me this new version ? please.
    Thanks

    0
    #109293

    justalearner
    Participant

    thank you, I think it’s very clear and I’m already looking for material in the net about process maps.Only one thing. If in the higher level I have an activity (name it A) and this one is expanded in the next level, you said I need additionial fmea for A.But the failure modes of A in the higher level FMEA are different from the ones in the detailed FMEA?Have I to write different things?
    just to have an idea about how a plant works, can someone show me an example (or more examples) of a list of process functions?

    0
    #109296

    justalearner
    Participant

    anyway, can somebody send me a pFMEA via email to analize itthis is my email address:
    [email protected]
    without XXX 

    0
    #109305

    mjones
    Participant

    The short answer to your question is, Yes. But to expand a bit on two points:
    1) Start at high level with relatively few process steps. Start with an FMEA at the high-level. Then, break each of these high-level steps into a series of more detailed steps for your second-level of processes. You will have a second-level process for each of your high-level steps. It is only necessary to define your second-level steps for the high level steps that are most likely to be a primary source for your problem. (You may not have to do them all.) You would do an FMEA then, on each of the second-level process. And perhaps you will need to break down some steps in some of your second-level to a third-level. Continue until you get to root cause.
    2) Your FMEA and your levels of the process must match. Then, for each level of FMEA, you must address the failure modes that are appropriate for that level. Sometimes, a failure mode will have the same description or ‘name’ even though it is at different levels, but that doesn’t really matter. What is of a concern is that you have the controls in place to detect the failure or prevent it at the level you can most effectively do this. Or, once your PFMEA has alerted you to this, you take action to establish effective prevention or detection methods to protect your downstream customer. (You may notice that this is an opportunity to apply the Lean concept of mistake proofing to your “Six Sigma” improvement process.) 
    Also, I do encourage you to learn well about process maps. This is critical to the SS process.

    0
    #109381

    justalearner
    Participant

    I will read your post with care offline, for now I just thank you.bye

    0
    #109382

    RubberDude
    Member

    “version” of FMEA?  hmmmm…. new one on me.  Different folks have different forms, but you should use the one acceptable to your customer or to your internal needs.  If you just want to see what format is out there, I suggest you look over the AIAG website.  It’s automotive based, but acceptable in most industries.

    0
    #109384

    victor1
    Member

    Thanks, I am goint to check in this Web and ask to my customer…
     
    Thanks a lot.
    V.R

    0
    #109447

    justalearner
    Participant

    I have tried to immagine a real situation, maybe with a large amount of fantasy.
    Tell me what is wrong with things I’ll show.
    Suppose a company, in one of its plant, produces 3 families of product, and each of these families have roughly the same process.
    So we have 3 processes: P1, P2 and P3.
    P1, in turns, has 3 process steps, and so on…
    In the following table, processes are shown:

    Process 1

    Process 2

    Process 3

    P1

    P2

    P3

    1 level

    2 level

    3 level

    1 level

    2 level

    3 level

    1 level

    2 level

    3 level

    A

    A1
     

    D
     
     

    F

    F1
     

     

    A2
     
     
     
     
     

    F2
     

    B
     
     

    A

    A1
     
     
     
     

     
     
     
     

    A2
     
     
     
     

    C

    C1

    C11

    E
     
     
     
     
     

     
     

    C12
     
     
     
     
     
     

     

    C2
     
     
     
     
     
     
     

    I will get 17 FMEAs, one for each process, and I number everyone of them:

    FMEA number

    Process

    01

    P1

    02

    P2

    03

    P3

    04

    A

    05

    B

    06

    C

    07

    D

    08

    E

    09

    F

    10

    A1

    11

    A2

    12

    C1

    13

    C2

    14

    F1

    15

    F2

    16

    C11

    17

    C12

     
    Now, I’m not sure about how to go on, but I guess I have three ways:
    —follows…

    0
    #109448

    justalearner
    Participant

    1) A failure can be analized in the higher level FMEA or on the lower one. It depends.

    Process: P1

    FMEA n: 01

     

    1 column of FMEA

    Failure mode
     

    A

    Mode x
     

     

    Mode y
     

    B

    ……
     

    C
     
     

     

    Process: A1

    FMEA n: 10

     

    1 column of FMEA

    Failure mode
     

    A1

    Mode w
     

     

    Mode z
     

    The problem is: how can a process have things at two different levels? If this process is completely described by A1 and A2, everything happening to it should happen in A1 or in A2.
    If this statement is not true I’d need an example.
    2) Every failure goes to the lower level.
    Fmea number 1 should be as follows:

    Process: P1

    FMEA n: 01

     

    1 column of FMEA

    …

    A (see FMEA n10,11)
     

    B
     

    C (see FMEA n12,13)
     

     
    And number 9:

    Process: P3

    FMEA n: 09

     

    1 column of FMEA

    …

    F (see FMEA n14,15)
     

    The problem is: It seems that document n.9 doesn’t show any failure mode at all.
     
    3) Out of all 2level processes I should only consider the ones I’m interested.
    Suppose that when I analize A, I’m particularly interested in the process called A2 because it can be source of failures.
    So I leave all the remaining of A (in my example only A1), at the higher level and analize A2 in a new FMEA.
    Thus, FMEA for P1 has in A all failure modes of A but the ones of A2.
    Document n.10 doesn’t need to exist.
    The problem is: It seems too odd and complicated.
    ———–
    Hope what I wrote is at least close to the way thing must be done.
    bye

    0
Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 15 total)

The forum ‘General’ is closed to new topics and replies.