The Quality Blog

Working in Defense, there is a major push to assure costs are low and liklihood of success is imperative. TKO or Technical Kick Off is an integrated strategy with Boundary Diagrams, Parameter Diagrams, a Matrix approach like QFD and Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (FMEA).  The TKO process is all about velocity and uncovering risks as early in the product development process as is possible. Typically well in advance of product and process design completion.

This is oftem more difficult to deploy than it appears. The FMEA, for instance, is looked at as being very long and tedious. But in TKO it is a process that takes only 1/2 to 1 day and is very focused on the new processes or designs, past failure and new applications.

Although this process does not cover every possible combination that would possibly fail, it does cover thaose that are quitr probable. That is the difference when doing a good FMEA. Size does not matter in this case as the more you do the less efficient you become.

The best way to assure that you are covering the all the known bases is to have a legacy Matrix of Failure Modes and Causes. This is the QFD like matrix. The advantage of the matrix is it is one page and can be viewed by the team faster than a Generic FMEA.

Send me your thoughts. To yake a more advanced class in FMEA which covers this topic click here http://www.quality-one.com/ Also there are web based courses which can be taken online at this address. For more info call 248 280 4800 and ask for Marjorie. 

FIT FMEA A lean approach to FMEA development

Wow, Cool, ever since the mid 60’s I have been exteremely interested in Space. I remember where I was when Neil Armstrong walked on the moon in July 69. (Winslow Arizona gas station). That being said, I just returned from KSC and the new Orion program. We have been working on a strategy to deploy a front end process which reduces overall develpment time of FMEA.

This project has been personally fun for me, for the reasons stated above. The FMEA process in Space systems has not progressed as fast as they have in lets say, the automotive industry. The root of FMEA can be traced to Rocket development and some of the most detailed methods in developing technical risk assessments exist in Space systems. But Automotive has been innovative and the new DRBFM from Toyota goes as far as linking the Design Reviews to the outputs of the FMEA’s. This is what was originally intended, and sometimes forgotten by those of us in the Auto Industry. The checklist mentality used by so many, not only provides no value but actually is of negative value as it takes people away from work that is value added.

Our Space Systems foray, is turning out to be quite successful as we develop and train personnel in the most efficient methods for FMEA. The reception has been good, but the best part is the Space Shuttle launch. I love being as close as you can be to a launch….

Just  got back from the AIAG working group on Error Proofing. I have a couple of observations about error proofing. First, error proofing should be deployed on characteristics that are very important and have some level of risk. (Often outputs of FMEA’s) When the need for a characteristic is known, immediately the first course of action should be error proofing and then only after full consideration has been given to error proofing, consider statistical capability to an acceptable Cpk. level. Second, error proofing has to make sense. Cost and technology should be kept to the minimum and the main way to do that is to assure that the error proofing be implemented at the root cause level. This is the simplist and therefore most fundamental point of engagement. Keep it simple and least expensive, but it does require that the root cause level is known, not some intermediate problem description or control point….