iSixSigma

FMEA vs Risk Analysis

Six Sigma – iSixSigma Forums Old Forums General FMEA vs Risk Analysis

Viewing 26 posts - 1 through 26 (of 26 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #49283

    GARON
    Participant

    Our design team like the FMEA process, but want to do it top down, but our manufacturing guys want to do FEMA it bottom up. Both want to perform risk analysis by using FMEA.
    How do you meet both groups need by using FMEA?

    0
    #168212

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    Garon,
    You both want to do the FMEA so why would you let such a trivial thing like this get in the way? Do it their way and then they owe you a favor.
    There was a response the other day from Heebeegeebee about a book called “Getting to Yes” This is why his suggestion was such a good idea. There is more to SS than running Minitab (apologies Chris and Jeff). The book is about negotiation and you spend a lot of time doing it – you are negotiating position rather than issues. Nobody wins this one. Good book Heebeegeebee.
    Just my opinion.

    0
    #168215

    GB
    Participant

    Actually, it was Adam Bowden’s book suggestion.   Good read.

    0
    #168216

    Deanb
    Participant

    “Getting to the Yes” is a classic. Great book, and very relevant. It goes well with a pinch of Sun Tzu-Art of War (choose your battles wisely).

    0
    #168217

    Heebeegeebee BB
    Participant

    Dean…Good point about Sun Tzu.  Words to live by.
    I was brutalized on this forum awhile back for delving into the Change mgmt side of our trade by recommending a non-tool/stats book.   I recommended Nicolo Machiavelli (The Prince) and still do to this day.  Sun Tzu, Lao Tse and Machiavelli are my mainstays when it comes to the Soft skills needed in our biz.
      Another tome dealing with the human nature side of what we do is Bruce Lee’s “The Tao of Jeet Kun Do”.
    Scarily relevant to Western Business…

    0
    #168218

    GARON
    Participant

    I suggested that the Design team to do it top down and manufacturing bottom up, but manufacturing insisted that since FMEA is bottom up then design team should do it bottom up, but design team think it is too long doing it bottom up components by components. Manufacturing likes the FMEA way that captures all possible failure modes that RISK Analysis will not do. Risk Analysis is different from FMEA.
    The goal is to capture all possible failures that will cause the system to fail and cause hazards. Why FMEA bottom up then Risk analysis top down and ETC’s.
    Thanks

    0
    #168219

    Mikel
    Member

    Hey, I’m a little slow but I don’t have a clue what bottom’s up vs top down means with respect to FMEA.
    Please explain.

    0
    #168229

    Deanb
    Participant

    Heebee,I found it interesting that you consider “The Prince” a key “soft skills” reference. It certainly has some gems, but it also focuses heavily on the art of creating fear and love (but above all fear) as a means to acquire and retain power, and even justifies ruthlessness and deception (such as forming a friendship pack with someone you are planning to fire, etc). Machiavelli wrote this to help heads of states survive in times of rapidly shifting alliances. Is this the environment you find yourself in? If not, be careful as I have found Machiavelli tendencies by some can actually cause Machiavelli ripple-down behaviors in some organizations where nobody trusts anybody. Like in the Godfather when he hugs his best friend and says “I love you” as he is pulling a trigger. There are gems too, such as whenever you must be tough on someone, balancing that by being extra kind as well, to avoid being hated. There are many ways to look at “The Prince.” Just curious.

    0
    #168234

    GARON
    Participant

    Please let us not to get philosophical here. I am trying to find the best way to address both teams concern and not to dictate to them.

    0
    #168235

    Deanb
    Participant

    In that case, let me suggest Alfredo Pareto’s principle of “Pareto Efficiency” to resolve your problem.Pareto Efficiency is the ideal state where at least one party is clearly better off, most are as well off, while no party is worse off. Now all you have to do is get the parties together and find this ideal state. If every one is basically as well off either way, try flipping a coin.

    0
    #168237

    Taylor
    Participant

    The Prince———-GREAT sums it up

    0
    #168239

    Taylor
    Participant

    Garon
    Both groups are correct. The design team point of view is reverse engineering, nothing wrong with that. But what the design team needs to do as look at the MFG side before doing that. Its not a matter of who is right or wrong its who needs to go first.
    Just my 2 cents worth

    0
    #168240

    Taylor
    Participant

    Stan, Im only assuming but I think what he saying is the design team is taking a finished product and performing an FMEA on the design failure as a whole and the MFG team is looking at each individual component prior to assembly. But we all know what assumptions can get ya
     

    0
    #168246

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    Stan,
    It is one of those non-issue issues. At the end of the day the way it get analyzed won’t change the numbers so you end up with two groups p_ssing in each others sandbox over something that should have zero net effect.
    This one of those issues where you can let the other person have their way, they thinks they have won and you give up nothing.
    Regards

    0
    #168252

    Deanb
    Participant

    I agree with Chad’s point, that the results of the top down approach should be the starting point for the bottom up folks. Different functions can value the same risk modes differently. Getting diverse vantage points can be instrumental to fully understanding the risk modes. Also, the more the FMEA team knows before it starts, the stronger its results will be. Perhaps other functional areas should also do FMEAs in advance of manufacturing’s.

    0
    #168253

    Deanb
    Participant

    I agree with Chad’s point, that the results of the top down approach should be the starting point for the bottom up folks. Different functions can value the same risk modes differently. Getting diverse vantage points can be instrumental to fully understanding the risk modes. Also, the more the FMEA team knows before it starts, the stronger its results will be. Perhaps other functional areas should also do FMEAs in advance of manufacturing’s.

    0
    #168258

    Stevo
    Member

    That’s funny!!   You are not asking about tool usage anymore.  You are talking about the human side of six sigma – or the “Philosophy of Six Sigma”.  And it’s all open for debate.
     
    I hope you are just looking for someone to validate the choice you have already made and it’s not that you are a complete idiot.
     
    Having a bad day – Stevo
     
    Ps.  A sideways approach is the correct answer.

    0
    #168264

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    Deanb,
    I am not sure how the risk can be valued differently. Freqency of Occurance is a calculation (from a capability number), Detection can work from a MSA and if the engineers can’t tell you what happens when a part fails you can use defect insertion and see what it does. To many FMEA’s are love fests that run on opinion when the data from a Measure Phase can eliminate most of the guess work.
    The process map gives you steps. Historical dat gives you failure modes. Most everything is sitting right in front of people.
    Just my opinion.

    0
    #168268

    Deanb
    Participant

    Severity can vary from functional views of the same mode. Manufacturing may only see a $20 rework, while finance sees backcharges in the thousands, and sales may see an angry customer and eroded market position with much higher potential financial risks to the firm. When this broader organizational knowledge filters back to the manufacturing FMEA, that team may employ that impact information differently, obtaining a higher RPN score, and a higher priority. I have found that FMEAs depend entirely on the strength of the knowledge of the participants, plus the expert knowledge provided by others who also know their stuff, but may know it from a different vantage point. Otherwise it does become an opinion-fest.

    0
    #168273

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    Deanb,
    Maybe it is the time I spent with automotive but severity is the effect on the customer.
    As far as the view of $20 for rework or whatever the number I would use that information in conjunction with the Frequency of Occurance. The cost doesn’t mean much if it doesn’t happen or how frequently it happens.
    As far as the people who know their stuff, of course it is valuable. Then you have the issue of sorting out the ones that do and the ones that think they do. When you have all of them show up with data to substantiate their opinion it marginalizes the people who don’t know and the people that do aren’t working on opinion any longer.
    The other issue is the technology. If you are in a fast paced industry the many of the effects of experience are mitigated. The “young guns” are generally more clued up on the technology that the “experienced” who are dragging a lot of baggage. (now I get blasted)
    Just my opinion.

    0
    #168280

    Stevo
    Member

    On the Bruce Lee topic, last night I watched “Enter the Dragon”  Best Kung fu movie ever.  It’s now officially called a classic – 35 years old.
    Sorry for the off topic post – but the rest of the stuff is boring me.
    Stevo

    0
    #168282

    Deanb
    Participant

    I do believe the original SAE automotive standard for FMEAC does treat Severity as risk to customer. In CI work I have seen FMEAs and used FMEAs to find risks to internal and external customers, but especially to company. This treatment probably does vary, so it might not be OK to assume all FMEAs are standardized.If FMEA is used cross-functionally,the players probably first need to agree on whose risks they are measuring or else apple-oranges will get compared.

    0
    #168283

    HF Chris
    Participant

    What about “Bruce Leroy”, that was also a good “Kung Fu” movie.HF Chris

    0
    #168294

    Heebeegeebee BB
    Participant

    I use it to help in recognizing the signs and symptoms of what is such an atmosphere described in your last note, with the intent of fostering change.   If change is not realistic, I utilize “The Prince” to help uproot and lay bare, the miscreants involved.  
    “…Machiavelli wrote this to help heads of states survive in times of rapidly shifting alliances…” – Amen, Brother!   It is the bane of Aerospace/defense.  Having spent over 15 years in this segment, Machiavelli is an absolute “must-read” survival guide.

    0
    #172801

    Fidge
    Participant

    Risk Priority Number, is that a completely made up number, or is there a scientific way to actually assign a number to severity, occurance, and detection?

    0
    #172802

    Ron
    Member

    FMEA should be originated at the System FMEA level, then to the Design FMEA level, Then to the Process FMEA level which flows into your control plans.
    If you have already missed these opportunities and cannot go back and recontsruct it you should as a minimum do a PFMEA and control plan

    0
Viewing 26 posts - 1 through 26 (of 26 total)

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