FMEA – Vol. X: Suggested Formats for “Aligned” FMEA Forms

     The AIAG/VDA FMEA Handbook presents standard and alternate form sheets for Design, Process, and Supplemental FMEA.  The formats presented do not preclude further customization, however.  In this installment of the “FMEA” series, suggested modifications to the standard-format form sheets are presented.  The rationale for changes is also provided to facilitate practitioners’ development of the most effective documentation for use in their organizations and by their customers.

     In Exhibit 1, the Standard Form Sheet for each of the aligned FMEA types discussed in this series – Design (Vol. VI), Process (Vol. VII), and Supplemental for Monitoring and System Response (Vol. VIII) – is reproduced for reference and comparison.  Only the standard formats were discussed in the initial presentation of each aligned FMEA type to simplify the introduction of the method to new users.  Doing so also allows each installment to “parallel” the presentation in the Handbook, resulting in a more user-friendly supplement.

Design FMEA Form Sheet
            Modifications to the standard format are minor, intended to improve legibility of the form sheet without significantly changing the workflow of the analysis.  The modified DFMEA Form Sheet is shown in Exhibit 2.

     In similar fashion to previous installments, number “bubbles” have been placed on the form to highlight areas that have been modified.  The changes are described below:
(1)       The amount of information recorded in the header of the form, for Planning & Preparation (Step 1), is significantly reduced.  The displaced information should be contained in the FMEA Report, improving legibility of the information most relevant while conducting and reviewing the analysis.  Reducing the size of the header provides more space for analysis on each page of the form; this is more advantageous as product complexity increases.
     Highlighting of information fields is limited to the FMEA ID so a form can be quickly identified (e.g. filing and retrieval).  “FMEA ID” is a generic term used for all types of analysis; creating an “intelligent” identification scheme, as discussed in previous installments, allows correlation of analyses related by product family, manufacturing location, etc.  Dates are also labelled generically; the analysis to which it refers is made obvious by its inclusion on the form.
     To maintain an orderly arrangement of information contained in an extensive analysis, page number tracking has been added to the header.  Without this, a reviewer could be unwittingly missing a significant portion of the analysis, concluding that there is much less risk than actually exists in the product design.  Allocation of development resources needed to ensure a successful product could be delayed or omitted from project plans.
(2)       The “History/Change Authorization” column has been removed for the following reasons:

• The Handbook identifies it as an optional entry, neglecting to elucidate its envisioned use.
• Analysis history is best recorded in the FMEA Report; several iterations of development and analysis could easily overwhelm the form, obscuring information that remains relevant.  Change authorization is usually defined by standard practice (i.e. Design Responsible authorizes changes via Engineering Change process); including it here would be redundant.  More relevant to the analysis would be approvals of current designs when the analysis suggests action should be taken.  These, too, would be redundant, however, as this information is recorded in the Optimization (Step 6) section of the form.
• Elimination of this column provides additional space for analysis, improving legibility of the form sheet.
  

     The first column label, “Issue #,” has been retained, but “Failure Chain #” or similar label could be substituted to maintain consistency of terminology.  Minor adjustments have been made to other column labels to improve legibility and maintain uniformity.
(3)       An additional “Issue #” column has been added to facilitate tracking a failure chain’s details through all six steps.  This is particularly helpful when the form is presented in stacked format.  Minor adjustments have been made to other column labels to improve legibility and maintain uniformity.
(4)       The “Remarks” column has been narrowed to discourage the inclusion of lengthy notes on the form sheet, saving space for analysis.  Its recommended use, instead, is to simply place a “flag,” such as an asterisk (*), in this column to signal the reader that the FMEA Report contains additional information.  Form sheet entries should be succinct, serving as a summary of analysis; detailed discussions should be contained in separate reports or addenda and included in the final FMEA package.
 
     The Alternate DFMEA Form Sheet, shown in Exhibit 3, moves the “Next Higher Level” Structure and Function Analysis to a separate row.  This format allows wider columns and, thus, improved legibility of other information.  However, the “waterfall” display of information is lost.  A waterfall display results when a single entry (row) in an early column is referenced by multiple rows in subsequent columns (e.g. a focus element has multiple failure modes, a failure mode has multiple causes, etc.).  A waterfall display adds information to the analysis, almost subconsciously (e.g. the complexity or potential weakness of a focus element), at a glance.  The loss of this additional information and the reduced area for analysis (failure chains) render this alternate format less desirable.

Process FMEA Form Sheet
     Modifications to the standard format are minor, intended to improve legibility of the form sheet without significantly changing the workflow of the analysis.  The modified PFMEA Form Sheet is shown in Exhibit 4.

     PFMEA Form Sheet modifications are described below:
(1)       The amount of information recorded in the header of the form, for Planning & Preparation (Step 1), is significantly reduced.  The displaced information should be contained in the FMEA Report, improving legibility of the information most relevant while conducting and reviewing the analysis.  Reducing the size of the header provides more space for analysis on each page of the form; this is more advantageous as process complexity increases.
     Highlighting of information fields is limited to the FMEA ID so a form can be quickly identified (e.g. filing and retrieval).  “FMEA ID” is a generic term used for all types of analysis; creating an “intelligent” identification scheme, as discussed in previous installments, allows correlation of analyses related by product family, manufacturing location, etc.  Dates are also labelled generically; the analysis to which it refers is made obvious by its inclusion on the form.
     To maintain an orderly arrangement of information contained in an extensive analysis, page number tracking has been added to the header.  Without this, a reviewer could be unwittingly missing a significant portion of the analysis, concluding that there is much less risk than actually exists in the process.  Allocation of development resources needed to ensure an efficient manufacturing process could be delayed or omitted from project plans.
(2)       The “History/Change Authorization” column has been removed for the following reasons:

• The Handbook identifies it as an optional entry, neglecting to elucidate its envisioned use.
• Analysis history is best recorded in the FMEA Report; several iterations of development and analysis could easily overwhelm the form, obscuring information that remains relevant.  Change authorization is usually defined by standard practice (i.e. Process Responsible authorizes changes via Engineering Change process); including it here would be redundant.  More relevant to the analysis would be approvals of current processes when the analysis suggests action should be taken.  These, too, would be redundant, however, as this information is recorded in the Optimization (Step 6) section of the form.
• Elimination of this column provides additional space for analysis, improving legibility of the form sheet.

     The first column label, “Issue #,” has been retained, but “Failure Chain #” or similar label could be substituted to maintain consistency of terminology.  Minor adjustments have been made to other column labels to improve legibility and maintain uniformity.
(3)       An additional “Issue #” column has been added to facilitate tracking a failure chain’s details through all six steps.  This is particularly helpful when the form is presented in stacked format.  Minor adjustments have been made to other column labels to improve legibility and maintain uniformity.
(4)       The “Remarks” column has been narrowed to discourage the inclusion of lengthy notes on the form sheet, saving space for analysis.  Its recommended use, instead, is to simply place a “flag,” such as an asterisk (*), in this column to signal the reader that the FMEA Report contains additional information.  Form sheet entries should be succinct, serving as a summary of analysis; detailed discussions should be contained in separate reports or addenda and included in the final FMEA package.
 
     The AIAG/VDA Handbook offers four alternate PFMEA Form Sheet formats, shown in Exhibit 5.

     The disadvantages of each of the four alternate formats shown in Exhibit 5 outweigh the advantages they may offer.  In Form D (Exhibit 5A), the additional row used for Process Item definition reduces analysis space and sacrifices the “waterfall” presentation of information (see discussion in “Design FMEA Form Sheet” section, above).
     The division of functions and requirements into separate columns, as shown in Form E (Exhibit 5B), is recommended in classical FMEA (Vol. III, Vol. IV).  Doing the same in the aligned analysis is less advantageous, however.  Legibility suffers when adding columns to an already-crowded form.  A key advantage to the aligned format is the correlation of information between steps by numbering and color-coding; the additional columns makes this progression less intuitive.  Form F (Exhibit 5C) combines the methods used in Forms D and E, combining the disadvantages of both in a single form.
     Form G (Exhibit 5D) is the most drastic departure from the standard format.  “Next Higher Level” information is omitted from Structure and Function Analysis; the remaining columns in Steps 2, 3, and 4 have been reordered.  Thus, the advantage of the new method’s information flow and correlation between steps is lost.  An addition to the Risk Analysis (Step 5) section of the form is interesting, however.  The Handbook explicitly eschews the RPN calculations that classical FMEA relies on, but Form G includes three “reference” columns for similar calculations.  Perhaps the development team recognized that RPN and similar calculations can be useful after all.
     Reintroducing RPN to the recommended format was considered, but rejected for fear that transitioning practitioners would rely too heavily on it.  It could be a useful piece of additional information to be considered after the Action Priority has been determined.  Unfortunately, it could also be a crutch for those resistant to change or unwilling to evaluate the new method fairly.  The risk of misuse prompted its exclusion; perhaps it will be reintroduced after use of Action Priority tables no longer feels “new” or “unnatural.”
 
FMEA-MSR Form Sheet
     Modifications to the standard format are minor, intended to improve legibility of the form sheet without significantly changing the workflow of the analysis.  The modified FMEA-MSR Form Sheet is shown in Exhibit 6.

     Modifications to the Standard FMEA-MSR Form Sheet to derive the “Recommended Full FMEA-MSR Form Sheet” are described below:
(1)       The amount of information recorded in the header of the form, for Planning & Preparation (Step 1), is significantly reduced.  The displaced information should be contained in the FMEA Report, improving legibility of the information most relevant while conducting and reviewing the analysis.  Reducing the size of the header provides more space for analysis on each page of the form; this is more advantageous as the complexity of the diagnostic system increases.
     Highlighting of information fields is limited to the FMEA ID so a form can be quickly identified (e.g. filing and retrieval).  “FMEA ID” is a generic term used for all types of analysis; creating an “intelligent” identification scheme, as discussed in previous installments, allows correlation of analyses related by product family, manufacturing location, etc.  Dates are also labelled generically; the analysis to which it refers is made obvious by its inclusion on the form.
     To maintain an orderly arrangement of information contained in an extensive analysis, page number tracking has been added to the header.  Without this, a reviewer could be unwittingly missing a significant portion of the analysis, concluding that there is much less capability or risk than actually exists in the diagnostic system.  Allocation of development resources needed to ensure a successful product could be delayed or omitted from project plans.
(2)       The “History/Change Authorization” column has been removed for the following reasons:

• The Handbook identifies it as an optional entry, neglecting to elucidate its envisioned use.
• Analysis history is best recorded in the FMEA Report; several iterations of development and analysis could easily overwhelm the form, obscuring information that remains relevant.  Change authorization is usually defined by standard practice (i.e. Design Responsible authorizes changes via Engineering Change process); including it here would be redundant.  More relevant to the analysis would be approvals of current designs when the analysis suggests action should be taken.  These, too, would be redundant, however, as this information is recorded in the Optimization (Step 6) section of the form.
• Elimination of this column provides additional space for analysis, improving legibility of the form sheet.

     The first column label, “Issue #,” has been retained, but “Failure Chain #” or similar label could be substituted to maintain consistency of terminology.  Minor adjustments have been made to other column labels to improve legibility and maintain uniformity.
(3)       An additional “Issue #” column has been added to facilitate tracking a failure chain’s details through all six steps.  This is particularly helpful when the form is presented in stacked format.  Minor adjustments have been made to other column labels to improve legibility and maintain uniformity.
(4)       The “Remarks” column has been narrowed to discourage the inclusion of lengthy notes on the form sheet, saving space for analysis.  Its recommended use, instead, is to simply place a “flag,” such as an asterisk (*), in this column to signal the reader that the FMEA Report contains additional information.  Form sheet entries should be succinct, serving as a summary of analysis; detailed discussions should be contained in separate reports or addenda and included in the final FMEA package.
 
     The Handbook offers no alternate format for the FMEA-MSR Form Sheet; however, one has been derived for inclusion here.  The “Full” form of Exhibit 6 includes an entire DFMEA, spanning three pages in its linear format; such a large document can be unwieldy.  In stacked format, it may be difficult to include all information for a single failure chain on one page.  The “Recommended Alternate FMEA-MSR Form Sheet,” shown in Exhibit 7, alleviates these concerns.

     To reduce the size of the FMEA-MSR form to two pages, consistent with Design and Process FMEA Form Sheets, the Optimization (Step 6) section of the DFMEA portion of the form has been removed.  This allows the DFMEA portion to occupy the first page, while the second page contains the Supplemental analysis.
     Removing the DFMEA Optimization information does not jeopardize the validity or effectiveness of the analysis because the information is redundant; it is recorded in the original DFMEA.  Also, improvements to the design resulting from DFMEA Optimization require the Supplemental analysis to be reviewed or repeated.  Any change in conditions will, therefore, be identified and evaluated during a subsequent iteration of analysis.  The reduced form is more legible, easier to use, and, therefore, likely to improve the efficacy of analysis.
  
All FMEA Types Form Sheets
     The FMEA Form Sheets presented here have been formatted for printing, when required, on B/A3 paper.  They can be reduced to A/A4 paper for more convenient printing, but legibility will suffer due to the amount of content (i.e number of columns) included in the form.  A JayWink Solutions logo has been added to identify each modified form to prevent accidental use when customized forms have not been approved by a customer.
     Software views are provided in the Handbook, but will not be presented or discussed in detail here, as they are dependent upon the software package chosen.  Software packages will vary in the display format used and output options available.  A common spreadsheet application was used to create the forms presented in this series in order to maintain maximum flexibility.

     For additional guidance or assistance with Operations challenges, feel free to leave a comment, contact JayWink Solutions, or schedule an appointment.
 
     For a directory of “FMEA” volumes on “The Third Degree,” see Vol. I:  Introduction to Failure Modes and Effects Analysis.
 
References
[Link] “FMEA Handbook.”  Automotive Industry Action Group and VDA QMC, 2019.

Jody W. Phelps, MSc, PMP®, MBA
Principal Consultant
JayWink Solutions, LLC
jody@jaywink.com