Page 185 - DMGT524_TOTAL_QUALITY_MANAGEMENT

Total Quality Management

Notes Management does not understand the FMEA, and a lot of confusion and disagreement exists as
to how to fill out the FMEA form. Debate occurs when individuals attempt to develop the
ratings for occurrence and detection numbers. Because accurate feedback systems don’t yet exist
to base the ratings on, they’re based on inaccurate guesses. Using inaccurate ratings, the
organisation calculates erroneous RPNs and identifies an RPN level at which recommended
actions are needed. If the number of recommended actions required based on this level is too
high, the organisation “adjusts” the ratings to bring the RPNs down below the trigger level,
which reduces the number of recommended actions. Obviously, this makes the entire FMEA
process meaningless.
As a result, the organisation fulfills its paper requirement, but the value of the FMEA is greatly
diminished. Problems still remain unsolved at a high cost to the organisation. The individuals
performing the FMEAs believe they are doing them correctly because the customer or auditor is
accepting them. Eventually, everyone sees the FMEA process not as a tool but as something that
has to be done.

Stage 2: Learning Proper FMEA Techniques

Management ensures that the personnel who will perform and use the FMEA data are trained in
the proper technique.

Note The people who perform design FMEAs must be experts in the product and the
people who perform the process FMEAs must be experts in the process.

Rather than being confused by the FMEA terminology, they realize they have used the FMEA
methodology before but never called it FMEA. They also learn that although they have used the
methodology, they have not used it rigorously enough to achieve its full benefits.
In stage two, everyone involved gains understanding of what the ratings and class column mean
and how to use them to prioritize what must be worked on first. They understand that the class
column is the most important factor and not the RPN. Management also realized that they don’t
have systems in place that will give them data to accurately determine the failure probability
occurrence ratings, detection ratings and class. Using the limited objective data they have, they
know they will have to use their knowledge of the product and process to arrive at the ratings.
Due to the lack of an objective basis, they know that it is a waste of time to argue for long periods
about the ratings.
When leaving this stage, those who have been using FMEAs believe they can be a powerful tool.
Unfortunately, the people who perform FMEAs doubt whether management will provide the
time and resources necessary to support their successful implementation. They also question
how they will explain the new approach to their auditor or customer, who may still be at stage
one in their understanding of the FMEA implementation process.

Stage 3: Building a Proper FMEA

The organisation begins to use FMEAs correctly on a targeted product. Early on, there is
excitement that the FMEAs are finally going to be done correctly. As the implementation
continues, worry starts to set in as the FMEA uncovers and documents the complexity of the
product and process being analysed. Everyone knew the complexity existed but had never seen
it documented. The FMEA grows from the 5 or 10 pages that used to be normal to 100 or more
pages.

180 LOVELY PROFESSIONAL UNIVERSITY