ht+a's Podcast
New Name. New Look.
Same expert-led solutions you’ve trusted for almost 30 years.
Training, auditing, implementation & project management for the manufacturing industry.
ht+a's Podcast
WEBINAR | Drowning in FMEAs? Attempting to make sense of FMEA requirements and standards.
Have you ever wondered how the automotive industry handles the intricate web of FMEA standards?
Join us in an enlightening conversation with Hans Trunkenpolz, founder of ht+a, as he demystifies the complexities and challenges surrounding Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (FMEA) in the automotive sector. We promise you'll gain a deeper understanding of why a universal approach to FMEA is so critical yet elusive. Hans sheds light on the five different standards and the added layers of customer-specific requirements that leave many suppliers scrambling to keep up.
Throughout the episode, we uncover the nuanced differences in FMEA standards mandated by leading OEMs like Ford, Mercedes-Benz, Volkswagen Group, and Stellantis. Discover how inconsistent requirements and the lack of consensus even after introducing the harmonized AIAG-VDA standard create substantial hurdles for suppliers striving for compliance. We also delve into the historical efforts to harmonize American and German standards, emphasizing the critical importance of proactive communication and seeking waivers from OEMs to navigate this multifaceted landscape effectively.
As we explore further, we discuss the importance of robust design principles and the early involvement of production experts in the FMEA process to improve product development. Hans highlights common pitfalls such as inadequate initial FMEA efforts and the impact of cost reduction on product robustness. Whether you are a supplier, an OEM, or simply interested in automotive engineering standards, this episode is packed with valuable insights and practical strategies to tackle the pervasive issues within FMEA implementation.
Sign up for our self-paced courses or instructor-led workshops at www.ht-a.solutions
Sign up for our self-paced courses or instructor-led workshops at www.ht-a.solutions
Okay, awesome, I think we'll get started. So welcome everyone. Thank you very much for dialing in to today's webinar all about FMEAs and the confusions around FMEA and technology. Geek lead at HTNA, Working very closely, of course, with our founder namesake of the business, Hans Trunkenpuls Associates. Hans, thanks for being here today. Back in, You're on mute. I can't believe we actually just did that.
Hans Trunkenpolz:Eternal faux pas, yeah thanks, Taryn, and hello everybody out there. And you're actually on South African soil for a change.
Tarryn Jordaan:Yeah, boy, actually got the pleasure of your company for three whole days on client visits this week. So nice to have you back here with the team, thank you. Thank you, hoping. As always, you can bring a bit of clarity to the topic at hand, although I believe this is a tough one to bring clarity to because there are so many questions around FMEA. Since I joined the organization and of course I know you like to give it as it is Usually you don't hide your feelings or thoughts about it, about things in the industry. So yes, hans, I guess that makes some point. The last four years first term I probably learned in the automotive industry since I joined it was FMEA. So if it's like one of the popular core tools, what's so confusing about it? Why isn't it clear? Why today's topic?
Hans Trunkenpolz:Well, taryn, I think we have an explanation as to why there is confusion, as you rightfully said it, in and around this super powerful tool. Number one reason I would like to bring forward is that there are currently, as we speak, five different recognized FMEA standards describing the methodology itself. Next to these five standards, you will find another four different FMEA applications standards, but applications that are required in different customer-specific requirements of the OEMs as they stipulate them in certain books and booklets. So you're sitting with nine documents, if I may call it that which the IETF, as the framework of automotive industry, only calls FMEA. But if you have to zoom further into details, you will find all the different standards and you will find all the different applications. So these are two heavyweight reasons as to why I think it was brought into the top five topics that you collect through marketing. Another reason is that to this day, unfortunately, the OEMs haven't come up to a final agreement as to what should be the ruling standards, the one size fits all FMEA standard. They haven't done so so far, although the times would be right for now with having the latest newcomer of the joint, the harmonized version between AIG and VDA. So that could give a perfect foundation to start the discussions and come to an alignment that we all agree to this one particular standard, which is not the case as we speak.
Hans Trunkenpolz:Another reason that creates confusion and I say this, and I say this with confidence because I see it all the time where OEM representatives are partly unaware of their own customer-specific requirements, so they start recognizing different approaches of FMEA. That might now pop up during a certification audit with an ITF auditor that then says a different opinion and said, no, this is not the customer-specific requirements. So they start now to disagree with one another, and so there's a lot of reasons as to why I'm not really surprised that it made it into your top five topics for this webinar and, to be a little bit gently, provocative. What also does not help is that still, and also to this day, the reputation of the FMEA in the supply chain is also on a record low, so nobody really is interested in what standard or what application, so they all fit together to make it a mess as we have it right now. So these would be my summary points that would explain as to why we have confusions out there, summary points that would explain as to why we have confusions out there.
Tarryn Jordaan:I didn't think it would be that messed up. For one, I thought the harmonized FMEA A-R-A-G-V-D-A harmonized one was the one to do now because it came out Sorry, it's not a question yet, it's commenting and also FMEAs. As you know, I work closely also with one of our key trainers, matthew. I mean, he speaks about FMEAs passionately and the value that they actually bring to a business, so it's surprising to hear that they've got a bit of a bad rep right now, not used valuably. What's the way forward, hans, if there's all of this confusion, all of these standards? Is there a way forward?
Hans Trunkenpolz:Well, taryn? Well, actually, there is no way forward until the OEMs, together with the comic associations, come to an agreement that we identify now one particular standard for argument's sake, the harmonized AIG and VDA approach. Until this is not sorted, there is no really a way forward. The only thing that we can do from our side, from HT&A, is to make our clients and friends out there around the world aware as to what the situation currently is. What do you have to be aware of? Where are the standards? Where do you find the standards? Where are the applications of the FMA and the likes of?
Hans Trunkenpolz:Because the general obligation of the supply chain is to be, on one side, compliant with the ITF, which is again the general framework of all automotive activities. It's the entry card, if you want to call it that automotive activities. It's the entry card, if you want to call it that. But on the other side, that ITF also caters for those customer-specific requirements. And if you want to go into this clause 5.3.2 of the ITF that describes that all customer-specific requirements shall be reviewed and basically integrated into the scope of the management system, so they are mandatory you have to follow those.
Hans Trunkenpolz:But that's all we can do. But it's a challenge for the supply chain until we are not aligned as to where we go and which standard we're going to make applicable for everybody. And yeah, it's unfortunate for the supply chain, but that's currently the situation we all have to deal with, even from our side, when we do certification audits or I in this particular case. You can see the sorrow, you can see the pain points. You can see all this. What's the before said arguments that are brought forward as to why we have a confusion in and around this particular core tool? So sorry if this is a very yeah, sorry to interrupt.
Tarryn Jordaan:This might be very basic for everybody. Maybe everyone out there knows, but which rules Are they contradictory or not? Iatf or CSRs, which is the ruling one?
Hans Trunkenpolz:Well, as I said before the ruling, the governing document for an automotive component or assembly or module supplier, depending on where you find yourself in the supply chain, is the RTF-60949. That's the entry card. So this is where there is a common sense on all OEMs nearly around the world, or at least the major ones, where they say you need to have this certification of 6949. So this is building the framework for the whole organization. But in Chapter 8.3, when it comes around, when it goes about development, and RTF 6949 is not specific about which particular standard of the FMA shall be applied. But the way how those two documents are linked now is that ITF says in 1.3 that for product design and for manufacturing process design you shall conduct an FMEA, an FMEA and an FMEA only. But it doesn't say ITF, aig or VDA or the harmonizedized version or Ford FMEA handbook. So those are the standards. It doesn't say that, it just says do an FMEA.
Hans Trunkenpolz:So consequently, now that framework of the ITF with that clause 5.3.2, where that deals with those customer-specific requirements, now as of a sudden those documents become linked. So the ITF, as the ruling document says do an FMA. But in order then to find out which particular standard or which particular FMA application is relevant. Now you have to look into your organization as to who are your responsible OEMs and with that OEM you have then to go and review, as the standard says, review and put it into the scope of the management system. So they are connected. The ruling document remains the ITF. That refers to the CSRs, and now you have to go into the CSRs and find what is the actual standard and application of FMA that you need to follow. So that's how it's linked.
Tarryn Jordaan:But that seems quite clear to me. Why is that an issue? Why is that confusing?
Hans Trunkenpolz:Well, Taryn, I think the best is that we just prepared a couple of slides here. Let me just share this with you and have a little bit of a visualization on what the deal is here. I like, by the way, your title of this webinar. They're in Browning and FMEAs. We're making sense of FMEAs Guys out there. This is not meant to be an FMEA training per se. It's just giving clarification as to what are the standards and how do we deal with that. But I like the headline of that. Let's see, Are we seeing all the screen here?
Tarryn Jordaan:I've got it.
Hans Trunkenpolz:You got it Okay. So if you look at this here and I said early beginning when we started there are five different standards that either refer to FMEA or describe the way of working with FMEA. And there you have on top this, itf 6949 that I just explained is the ruling standard. That creates the obligation for the supply chain to deal with FMEA and the CSRs that you find on the bottom. That creates the obligation for the supply chain to deal with FMEA and the CSRs that you find on the bottom, to this day activated on both sides. Let's maybe start with the center one, this harmonized blue and red book, the harmonized failure mode and effective analysis. So it has a blue half and a red half. The blue is represented by the AIG. So it has a blue half and a red half. The blue is represented by the AIG. The AIG version in its fourth edition is still required as CSRs still available.
Hans Trunkenpolz:And then we have on the red side, vda, which many people don't know anymore yet, unless you are in the automotive industry, for for donkey's years there is a vda standard, number four gathered.
Hans Trunkenpolz:Number four, part two, that deals in a five-step fma approach, very much, very strongly integrated into this harmonized version. So so the germans, the vda side, did bring in a lot of portions from that VDA4, but also with differences. It's still activated, it's still the one and only, if you have a close look the one and only required FMBA application in the whole Volkswagen group. Okay, then you have the harmonized version one, and then you have in the Ford world you have from the Ford Design Institute, a very good booklet, I must say I really do say this Also required by certain CSRs, in this particular case from Ford. Okay, so there you have your five standards. So there's five different standards that refer to and describe the way worth working with FMEAs, and to find that out you have to go through the links, through the CSRs. And those are only the FMEA standards that we have. That's not even yet covering all the FMEA applications so complex.
Tarryn Jordaan:Very, very. And now what if you're working also with multiple OEMs? So I'm a bit confused here, because now what if I've got Ford and VW? And what are the applications you're meaning? Because now you're confusing me. Actually you're going an extra level.
Hans Trunkenpolz:There we go. Yeah, for a particular reason, because it is, to an extent, certain complex and you rightfully said, when you have to deal with a variety of different OEMs, how is that situation With all the differences, with all the different requirements in the CSRs and the likes of? So have a look at this slide here.
Tarryn Jordaan:Hence we lost you, Hence what happened, dear boss?
Hans Trunkenpolz:I'm here, I'm here, I'm here, so I've got to go back to. Can you see the presentation again?
Tarryn Jordaan:No, I don't have the presentation. We've got your screen.
Hans Trunkenpolz:Got your screen. They don't see the presentation.
Tarryn Jordaan:I see Microsoft. Now there's another PowerPoint open.
Hans Trunkenpolz:OK, I'm going to stop sharing and share again.
Tarryn Jordaan:Okay, did that little widget-y thing get in your way? It always gets in my way and then it confuses me. There you go.
Hans Trunkenpolz:Is it back now?
Hans Trunkenpolz:Got it, yeah, so let's have a look here at this matrix. This should show you basically now the whole complexity of what we are actually talking about here. So on the left-hand side side and I basically just taken the examples of the currently ITF registered OEMs that you can find in the database of ITF Then you have on the left hand side the FMA standards with the ITF regulation itself, the IETF 6949, and then the four standards that we were just talking about, the harmonized AIG VDA version, the standalone VDA 4, part 2, and the standalone AIG 4th Edition and the standalone Ford Design Institute, the FMA Ford manual handbook, as they call that. And on the other side we just added a couple of FMEA applications that are also relevant. And then here in this argument, ford talks about a foundation FMEA. He talks about a foundation FMEA, it talks about a family FMEA, it talks about reverse FMEA and it requires even software usage. And then you have a monitoring and system response which is not related to the Ford application but it's to Mercedes-Benz Group.
Hans Trunkenpolz:Interesting enough, guys, there is currently only this single one, mercedes-benz car group that specifically requires the use of the harmonized AIG VDA version, the only one. You can't find it in any other customer-specific requirements, although the interesting thing is, other German car makers go out there and say they want to see the AIHE and VDA application used, which is an invalid requirement. So no German other than Mercedes-Benz, no other German carmaker could write a nonconformity for not using the AHE-VDA approach simply because it's not backed up by the CSR, which we do see is happening. It's required. But this is where also the confusion comes from. So you have quite a complex structure here of different FMA standards and applications and you not only have a reference as required standards to a particular one. You have AIG with Mercedes-Benz. You have the Volkswagen Group requires through the formal Q baselines the VDA 4.2. And you have Stellantis in the area that requires specifically the AIG versions. But those blue crosses will show you that some of other applications are recognized, so you do get away with the usage of that. This is where you can harmonize VDA 4.2 or Volkswagen Group as per CSR. So as per what you can read in the real document does not allow any other applications.
Hans Trunkenpolz:Others do say we recognize others. The other one says you need to talk to your customer if you want to use some others and the likes of but, but volkswagen group, as per formal q only refers to the vda guidelines and and if you know you have to be careful to say is is the the harmonizedG and VDA2 and VDA guideline coming from VDA specifically. So we had this case just recently where they said, no, vda2.4 is what we want to see. So now you're sitting there with a real dilemma, I should say, because again, what if you're dealing with multiple different OEMs?
Hans Trunkenpolz:Okay, and this is the situation. If you ask me that technically you would have to ask, you have to follow the differences in their applications and in the FMA standards. Technically, in practical terms, you would always find the way to the responsible customer representatives and come to maybe a waiver or an agreement that you don't have to do that. But technically, if there's no waiver from an OEM, if there is no commitment, if there is no area of alignment, then you would be technically required to follow each and every application as required by different OEMs. So that's a little bit of a hiccup here.
Tarryn Jordaan:I don't even see like one that I could get away ask for waivers and ask for agreements. I don't even see one that could be my standard there between the R's and X's.
Hans Trunkenpolz:No, no, no, no, no, no. And for a reason you will not find that, but you would have to be very, very proactive in order to go to your OEM and try to achieve that waiver. They will definitely not come automatically to you and offer you the alignment. That is unheard of. That I haven't seen in 40 years of dealing with OEMs and supply chains around the world. That would be something very, very new.
Hans Trunkenpolz:And then for the ones of you, I worked this in this good old system FMEA, back in the days when I was a young engineer and still with BMW cars as a process engineer, we loved that system FMA approach. The reason why I worked in this, just to demonstrate to you and I'm not saying NA doesn't really stand for not applicable, because I find it very applicable, especially for engineering partners to the AM but it's not available. So you will not find any customer-specific requirements. That refers to a system FMA which comes prior to the product design FMA. So that we also find very, very interesting. And in this particular case, stellantis, here, for argument sake, from the from the PSA Peugeot Citroën, they don't really nail you down for a specific standard. So so they say they strongly recommend the AIAG. Oops, can you still see it now?
Tarryn Jordaan:It's refreshing.
Hans Trunkenpolz:It's gone. So Stellantis PSA Group strongly recommends the AIG BDA. It doesn't say you have to, but it does say if you want to use any other standard in FMEA you need to get an approval from the PSA engineers, so the OEM engineers. So you can consider that as a requirement. Although it doesn't say you shall, or you have to or you must. It just says you strongly recommend the AHE VDA. So if you deal with PSA, you're very safe to go the AHE VDA way, which I would always prefer. In any case, a good old friend of mine from BMW back in the days was actually running and leading that harmonization group from the FVDA side with the Americans and he told me many times that this was quite a challenge because it took years longer than it was planned. So to get the alignments between americas and the germans uh as per, as per, his, uh um yeah, explanations was was. How do you say politically correct? Was was challenging.
Hans Trunkenpolz:Entertaining Was challenging and entertaining. Yeah, chili Group, maybe Chili Group, also interesting, chili Group. They acquired Volvo, if you know, but Volvo is still organized and run as an old group, but the Chili Group is basically next to Volvo. They also have a JV with Mercedes-Benz when it comes to smart, so if you do with smart or what else belongs to Chili Group, proton in Malaysia, Lotus is part of the chili group and I think that's that's about it Lotus, proton, smart, volvo, yeah, and then other other Chinese makers. So so they don't refer to any of. That's interesting. They don't refer to any of the available standards and you cannot be held against from any ITF auditor if you just latch on to one specific or one of your favor or one that is aligned with other OEMs, because with the simple FMEA requirements in ITF, you're free to use any of the standards available. You have the same with GM. Gm reduced a lot of requirements from the FMA side coming from the past. There's also for General Motors, no clear requirements for a specific standard. So you are going the ITF way, which means you also free to use any of the applicable standards here. All right, mercedes-benz, we talked about same with JLR, with Jaguar, land Rover. Mercedes-benz nails you down through the, through the MBST, the Mercedes-Benz special terms. If you go into it's the I think it's the 27-09. So MBST 27-09, you go in there, you will see that you have to use. You shall use the AIG VDA version, you shall use the AIG VDA version and they also require you specifically as the only one that makes reference to that monitoring and system response application which is also described in that harmonized AIG and VDA CSRs. Raynaud is the same, no specific requirements to the standards. But interesting, here they're using the reverse FMEA. It's clearly required. You shall do a reverse FMEA. But which standard you follow? That's where you feel free. According to the standard link to the ITF, stellantis, fca. Remember, stellantis is not an OEM brand, it's an investment group that acquired a variety of different brands. The two main ones, as they're registered in ITF, is the FCA group, that's the Fiat, the ex Fiat Chrysler, and that's the Peugeot and Citroen. So the Stellantis group. For FCA, they specifically require the AIG fourth edition. So now you have the AIG here, the combined, the harmonized one, you have the VDA2, you have the fourth edition of AIG and then you specifically have for Ford, where they say you meet the requirements by using the Ford handbook version 4.2, I believe that is Version 4.2, I believe that is so you have the variety all together here and then some of them just tell you just do ITF and feel free with whatever you want to do here. And that is quite complex On this side, maybe to mention folks software, maybe to mention folks software.
Hans Trunkenpolz:So Ford at this point in time is the only OEM that requires, as per the CSRs, also the use of a software. And that's also and I talk to many different STAs in many different regions there's many different opinions about it in many different regions there's many different opinions about it. But if you look into the Ford CSR guys, it does stipulate for software, because an Excel sheet also is a software, an application software of Microsoft. So what is software? And the CSR is actually a lot more specific than that where it says software shall be used that coordinates the FMEA with the control plan. So it does link FMEA with the control plan and associated process documents. So this could be even a standard work instruction. This could be a process flowchart.
Hans Trunkenpolz:There are some softwares out there, aps, for argument's sake. They deal with flowcharts, fmas and control plans. There is Datalyzer out there, there is Plato out there. So there's a variety of software users and there's also companies. I've seen that they program this connection with control plans, also on excel based, also definitely acceptable by stas. It's just a link.
Hans Trunkenpolz:And why? Where does this come from? This one sdx explained it, uh actually quite nicely, where he said we always have the issue you go into an FMEA for a critical characteristic and it's identified as a CC for argument's sake, and then you look at that same characteristics in the flow chart, in a work instruction or a control plan and there it has no identification or it shows an SC. So there is often a discrepancy and surely many of you out there have realized that and experienced that during audits that the SC and CC identification are not constantly followed through all these documents that should be married to one another, like the flowchart and FMA control plan and the responsible work instructions, and that's why we have that discrepancy here. So they want to connect these documents to avoid in the future going forward the problems. As I just explained, the software seems to.
Tarryn Jordaan:I'm surprised it's only one OEM, but it seems to be a worthwhile investment instead of millions of Excel sheets and version issues. And all of that for companies who are able to, because, like Ryan, one of our attendees has commented, fmeas are often just seen as a check the box exercise.
Hans Trunkenpolz:Yeah, I don't want to. I don't want to. I hear what you say, taryn, but I would not like to go thus far to say we have to put all Excel FMEA templates to bed, because I've seen it and I know there is brilliant companies out there that are programming exactly those requirements from Ford on Excel-based. So Excel is an extremely powerful tool. Maybe those standard templates that we also see out there, they will not suffice, but it is definitely possible to program uh, uh and a sufficient software as per ford requirement, excel based. I've seen those and they work. They work very well okay.
Hans Trunkenpolz:So to do it smarter, not necessarily add an fps piece of software yeah, but overall, if you, if you look at, if you look at this, this table here, that should illustrate and and visualize the, the, the, the complexity within a core tool, a powerful core tool that we call fma, because if you zoom into this, you, you will see there's a lot more going on in terms of standards, requirements and applications requirements. Yeah, so I hope this will illustrate a little bit the complexity of this topic of today.
Tarryn Jordaan:Could you just define for me, maybe before we move on, what is a foundation and a family fmea? I actually haven't heard those two terms yeah, uh, yeah, I, I can understand.
Hans Trunkenpolz:You haven't heard about that.
Hans Trunkenpolz:If you look at this table, ford is the only one that that makes reference to foundation and and and and and family Interesting is well, a foundation, a family application typically deals around the products where typically only dimensional changes you have between different products. It's not really affecting the forms or the application or the function of the product, just dimensional. So the family, as you can see, is not a yellow R, it is you have to. The book actually says you're not, shall do a family. You may, You're allowed to. That's why it's in red and SDA is the Ford Responsible Supply Engineer.
Hans Trunkenpolz:So if you do that family FMEA, you have to consult the STA and align with them as to what shall be considered as way of implementing the family FMEA, which is not a requirement per se, it just says you may. But you need to consult with your STA and it makes a lot of sense in many different areas. Just the boundary is often not clear to the supply chain what is dimensional, what is form change and the likes of. So it's probably a good thing that Ford added the consultation of the SDA. What is a requirement is the foundation. So you shall have a foundation FMEA in and around your manufacturing processes, the big segregation, following your answer, the family is more related to the product. The foundation is typically your standard technology for processes for plastic injection, molding, for die casting, for stamping, for fine blanking and the likes of.
Hans Trunkenpolz:So, it's really the basic technology or process technology foundation. The basic technology or process technology foundation, also often known as best practice FMEA. You hear master FMEA, core FMEA and the likes of those are similar terminologies that are used in and around the foundation.
Tarryn Jordaan:So foundation, water process, basic process technology family product related, but with consultation with the sda. Yeah, okay, I get you. Sorry one more and we've got lots of questions. Uh, so we'll get to them soon. To me, reverse fme, and I remember we once upon a time did a webinar about this and and it seems to be a real hot topic. But why do you think? Why is reverse FMEA only required by three OEMs? I'm seeing Ford, gm and Renault.
Hans Trunkenpolz:Look, I don't think I have a scientific answer to this question as to why it's only three, but what I do say is that Ford has always been and I find myself in the automotive industry since 40 years has always been a frontrunner in developing methods and standards and the likes of. So that doesn't really surprise me, gm always leaning very narrowly to the ford as well. You have the same thing they always aligned with, with cqi standards for argument's sake, that ford brought forward and gm followed happily in this area. So it's not a concern, not a surprise. As well as to why reno came to the party here as the front runners, I, I don't. I cannot answer that. I don't know what, what, what the motivation was, but what I can say is that and I talk with with with most of the others as well frequently um, there will be a very, very good chance that you find the upgraded CSRs from the ones that are missing here in their next updates, and rightfully so, rightfully so.
Hans Trunkenpolz:The reverse FMEA is super powerful. It's not a standalone standard for FMEA as well. The reverse FMEA before you ask me now what that is, taryn, you must imagine when you typically start with new projects with your FMEA is in a very early stage of the product lifecycle. The teams come together If they come together, I've seen many times where just the process engineers do that by themselves in the office, which is ideally not the scope of the FMA and you do your assessment ratings in the severity, occurrence and detections, which is still the same also in the harmonized version of aig and vda. You do your assessments best on your best knowledge, at the early phase in the project.
Hans Trunkenpolz:Okay, so this, this can be right, but can not be right. Yeah, the reverse fma basically tells you once you launch that and and for Ford is even more aggressive even before launch, in the validation phase, because this is where you already get the first data from production before SOP, or job one as they call it. When you have data, when you have process data, when you have scrap rates, when you have customer complaints and the likes of you just go back to your standard assessment and said how can you have an occurrence, an occurrence with with a one or with a two or with a very low factor by having I don't know 25 scrap rate in production? So that's not going to tie. So the reverse fma wants you to revise because you mislead yourself with a low rating, you know.
Hans Trunkenpolz:But it's not just only the SOD rating, it's also. You verify your preventive actions in your FMA, your detective actions. Are they effective? Do they really respond? Do they really prevent? Do they really detect by using real process data and figures and the likes of I suppose you might have missed something as well.
Hans Trunkenpolz:Super powerful. Yeah, and maybe you haven't considered potential failure modes. So there's a lot that goes into, but I don't want to. I mean, we have a reverse FME training in our portfolio, but surely we cannot go into all the details. Yeah, more if, if the reputation again would would be increased. Uh, management, buy-in and and the likes of you could get a lot more out of the fmas in general and the reverse fma in particular. So a very super powerful application. But again, looking at this picture, a very complex situation we find ourselves in.
Tarryn Jordaan:Definitely. Actually more so than I thought when we first picked this topic. Far more. Yeah, Hans, we've got quite a few questions and quite a few comments there. Actually, Ryan just left a comment, like it's how I acted. A reverse FMEA is a bandage for a bad FMEA in the first place.
Hans Trunkenpolz:Brian, yeah, I hear what you're saying, but in all fairness, you know you always have. Once the process talks to you, once you have actual figures and data in and around a project in serial life, you're always smarter than before. But I agree to an extent. If the lessons learned would have been used properly, yeah, the initial versions could look already a lot more powerful. I'm not disagreeing, but let's be fair. Yeah, brian.
Tarryn Jordaan:Okay, hans, lots of questions here. Sorry everyone. I hope I get to all and if I've missed any, ping me. And please use the quick Q&A chat Q&A function. There's a question here. Don't you believe that the biggest concern is that supplier companies do not get the design FMEA from the customers to be able to create a good PFMEA?
Hans Trunkenpolz:That's a very good point and I have a very, very aggressive answer for this. The first one thing is, yes, I could not agree more to provide access to it. But so one needs to understand and we can see it nearly anywhere we go in this massive cost reduction drives and missions that we are all in, starting with the OEMs, and it's pushed down into the supply chain. There's two things that we observe and one needs to understand. The basic requirement of a design engineer is to provide a product design that is made for manufacturability under process-capable conditions, Period. That's it. So CP, cpk, 1.33. Yeah, and we like to call this robust design.
Hans Trunkenpolz:One of the purposes of the FMEA and the product design FMEA is to provide a robust product development, but what we do see is that the products and the product robustness is swinging on the other side. Due to cost reduction. Parts must be smaller, lighter, cheaper every year, every year and, as a consequence, we are having so many applications where a process FMA cannot catch up with, or manufacturing or process controls and the likes of if we don't get robustness into the product design. Secondly is the strong disconnect from the design engineers from the manufacturing process, so they are not allowed to see the suppliers. They are not allowed to see the production technologies that are used to manufacture those parts that they design. So there's agree more. So the way forward is a way stronger integration of the production technology, of the production experts, of the process engineers, already into an early involvement into the design, fmeas, and also sharing the nuts and bolts and bells and whistles with the operations. Could not agree more. Good comment yes.
Tarryn Jordaan:Why do you say they're not allowed to go and see the?
Hans Trunkenpolz:Well, managers will say you are a design engineer, here's your cat station. Okay, do the job.
Hans Trunkenpolz:They do the operations, and I might exaggerate a little bit just to bring the point across. But you know what, I might not even exaggerate a little bit just to bring the point across. But you know what, I might not even exaggerate. It's not common anymore to let the design engineers mingle with the operations. They are obliged to stay at the workstations and I'm not talking about single cases where it's running well, but in a very, very large scale they are too strongly disconnected from the operations. So they don't know, do I need this tolerance on this dimension? Is that even possible? And the likes of and the likes of. And that's why it's the early involvement of the process engineers, of the operations in general, into the design is something that I've always, always strongly advised.
Tarryn Jordaan:But we have a situation that yeah, that does seem odd to me. Yeah, donna's got a. Thank you, hans. Sorry, were you at the end of that one? I think so. Yeah, donna, she's got a fair point here. It's worrying, as different standards may have different scoring criteria, so elements could be incorrectly scored. She personally likes a seven step. Uh, harmonized approach. Uh, donna, we don't have something up and ready for today, for how do they all compare for scoring? Hans, could you maybe talk to that quickly, or is it something you can do another time.
Hans Trunkenpolz:No, I can't. I can't. Two things that are significant for Donna to understand. The significance in the scoring between the standards is not so much the SO&D, the severity, the occurrence and detection, because this is what they share all together. One significance is that the output all four standards other than the AIG VDA version, the harmonized version, are still calculating a risk priority number by simply multiplying the severity, occurrence and detection factors together.
Hans Trunkenpolz:The AIG VDA, the harmonized version, is going a different way and removed the RPN, the risk priority number, and replaced it by a so-called AP factor, an action priority that can be either high, medium or low HML. That's what it is. So you don't have an RPN between 1 and 1,000, as you have it in all other four standards, but it's using an AP. Why is that? And I think it was the right consideration to do that the previous four versions and standards multiplying three factors basically means that all the factors are carrying the same weight, their weight, the same. Okay, but in actual reality now the modern style of the harmonized aig and vda favors to to have people saying consider, consider the engineers, the guys, the severity, the impact of a potential failure mode if he occurs, the severity, the impact should weigh the highest of all factors, followed by the occurrence and then the detection. And this is what has been materialized now with this action priority concept of high, medium and low that factors in now that severity carries the highest weight, followed by occurrence, followed by detection. So that is one significant thing.
Hans Trunkenpolz:The other thing one needs to know yes, they all have those rating guidelines for severity, occurring, detection, but you will will find the small printed part. You will find they are meant to be guidelines to support the engineers, to make their life a little bit easier, to get to an agreement of a number from 1 to 10 amongst a variety of people in a team. But it also says there are meant to be guidelines and not really required to be followed. So you do have certain flexibilities when it comes to the assessment.
Hans Trunkenpolz:I mean, if you have, of course, if you have a single visual control and you give it a defection of one, then any auditor would probably challenge you to say, yeah, what does a Poka Yoki system get when a single visual check of a human being already gets a one? So this is where they would challenge you. But to challenge you between a four and a six or a four and a five or a five and a seven in certain areas any auditor would challenge if this is my FMEA as well. So look at those more as a guideline and not so much it says this and that, because they're also too generic. They're also too generic. If you look into these guidelines, they're partly very, very generic and you need to certain interpretation. That's just meant to be helpful for the engineer teams to come to a rating, more than a particular requirement to use that guidelines stringently in a specific standard.
Tarryn Jordaan:Yeah, that's me. Thank you, hans. I don't know if we need to double check something. Yeah From Heidi. As per the BMW Group Standard 2023, it does require AIA, gvda, fmea harmonized, as well as software under Section 5.2. This does seem to be a BMW CSR.
Hans Trunkenpolz:Yes, no, the CSR is clear. The CSR you find in the RTF database and there is no reference in this whole customer-specific requirement. Bmw works with a lot of GS standards it's actually called the group standards and you have a variety of that and this is what I said at the beginning where they have so much interpretation. We don't know our own CSRs. A group standard only becomes a CSR when that group standard number is referred in the CSR, if that makes sense.
Tarryn Jordaan:So in other words, just for this Is that the CSRs on the itFglobaloversightorg website?
Hans Trunkenpolz:On the ITFglobaloversightorg website. Do you still see my? If you look at the BMW, this is the customer-specific requirement of BMW as we speak today. This, that's the CSR Customer Specific Requirement in W Group. So if you now go in here they have.
Hans Trunkenpolz:Bmw has countless of group standards. Group standards within the group of BMW is a different standard than what is required for the suppliers. And here is the customer-specific requirement. If I go into Control Find and put my FMEA, you will find no reference to this GS standard method. The only reference it makes to FMEA is the special approval on the design FMEAs, with no reference to a standard, with no reference to another BMW and the likes of.
Hans Trunkenpolz:We have a reference in here as well for the requalification. There's all the logistics. There is somewhere on the requalification. Yeah, there is somewhere on the requalification. Yeah, group standard 19 or 18 one and group standard 82 refers to the requalification. Only when the gs standard is referred with its number in this csr document, it becomes a csr. If not, it is a group standard within BMW and cannot be enforced by the supply chain. That's the big discrepancy we have. That's why we have CSRs, because that is linked in the ITF and we have a contract with the supplier and we happen to be that this is what I said at the beginning where OEM representatives just coming into and say this is a requirement but the relevance should be really the customer specific requirements, because that is linked to the ITF.
Tarryn Jordaan:This is all quite a cluster. That made absolute sense to me, though. Heidi. Please drop another comment in the chat function if you've got anything more to add on that. Somebody signed in. I can't see their actual name Quality Manager. If your customers are tier one and they supply all the OEMs, then do you only need to comply with the tier one CSR, or do you have to comply with all the OEMs?
Hans Trunkenpolz:Most of the OEMs will make a reference that customer-specific requirements need to be cascaded down into the supply chain. If that is the case and we see this often with big American leads, american tier ones they have their own CSRs for the supply chain and they're deviating from actually what needs to be cascaded down from the OEM. You won't find a reference in the ITF, so you have to go into the. You have to understand if you're a tier one supplier and your customer sits on tier one level, all right, and those big corporations on tier one often have their CSRs you need to understand in which vehicle program does your product go? And from there you need then to compare what is your tier one say versus what is the OEM say. And this is a big discrepancy that we have that the tier ones, the tier twos, do not have access usually and typically to the B2B platform, so they don't have really access to all these requirements and the likes of that.
Hans Trunkenpolz:It happens to be that the tier one cascade or require different requirements from the tier two supplier than what he's supposed to cascade down from the OEM requirements. Down from the OEM requirements. Typical is PPAPs, ppaps and PPA from VDA2, and the likes of APQP and MLA. Those are the two ones that often get mixed up because the American tier ones always lay in bed with the AIG standards, which are great standards. But if those components go into a German vehicle program, you have to have a look into the VDA standards as well, as they're often required by the CSRs. So, depending on what the vehicle program is but you cannot say automatically, only because that's the CSR from my tier one, that this is the ruling government, me, what I have to do you might look into problems with a certification audit.
Tarryn Jordaan:Okay, thank you. Sylvia has a comment, a question. I'm curious as to how other companies force their suppliers to share their DFMEAs with OEMs and if this is a part of the contract between the parties Over comments. Anybody got feedback on that.
Hans Trunkenpolz:He wonders how it should be done to get the information. Or was that the question?
Tarryn Jordaan:I'm curious how other companies force their suppliers to share their DFMEAs with OEMs and if this is a part of the contract between the parties.
Hans Trunkenpolz:Well, there's two different ways to answer this. There's one big group that are engineering responsible or design responsible supplier, and the other one is a build-to-print supplier. It's just producing to a drawing. That relevance only exists when you are design responsible for an OEM and don't mix that up with the design authority. Okay, the design authority always stays with the OEM. Design responsibility can be with a Tier 1 or a Tier 2 supplier even. It doesn't matter. So usually that's what we did at BMW.
Hans Trunkenpolz:Those SE teams, the simultaneous engineering team, is an early integration of the supply chain into the product design, and we discussed this earlier. And there you have way better chances of succeeding to getting this and really having your inputs made. To use the voice of the process, the VOP, the voice of the process needs to be considered in the voice of the customer which goes into the product design. So for that. But the SAE teams don't really work as effectively as they would have planned already 25 years ago, if not longer. Even so, I don't have a smart, a real smart answer to that how it should be done. Typically, what always works is relation, relation management with, with the customers.
Tarryn Jordaan:Okay, Sylvia mentions I'm looking for design, but it's challenging.
Hans Trunkenpolz:I don't disagree with that.
Tarryn Jordaan:He mentions he is looking for design responsible suppliers. He mentions he is looking for design responsible suppliers. Won't you please pop us a note, hans? Maybe you can please put up the last slide there from the presentation just showing our email addresses, so if we've missed the question and completely misunderstood that, then we can get back to you. Sylvia, same goes for anybody. Feel free to email Hans or if you need any other clarifications. I think we've got one more question and I'm really sorry. I do not know how to say your name and I'm scared to butcher it Rudiger F. Rudiger, I've allowed your mic and your camera. If you did have a question because you've got your hand up, please unmute if you've got a question for us. Rudiger F I think I have a Funker.
Funke Ruediger:Yes, helloüdiger, if I think I have a…. Yes, hello everyone, hi, thank you A known expert.
Tarryn Jordaan:Yes, sorry.
Funke Ruediger:I wanted to mention working for BMW that actually the group standards are far more applicable than what you just stated, and especially the group standard for the FMEA that we have is applicable due to the contract. So they might not be listed in the CSRs, but we have a whole bunch of group standards that are mandatory across the board of our suppliers and they come in with the contract, that are signed by our suppliers. And I'm working on it with my colleagues to make sure that we add an eighth topic in the CSR and to make sure that everybody understands that the CSRs are not limited to those few statements that are in there, but actually all the others that are coming via the contract are as binding and mandated to be integrated into the management system the same way as the CSRs.
Hans Trunkenpolz:Okay, well, thank you for that comment and I respect that, but it bypasses actually the connection between the ITF and the CSRs, and we know a lot of GS standards that are not out there.
Hans Trunkenpolz:We do know them, of course, but, in all fairness, the way the ITF operates and how it connects the CSRs.
Hans Trunkenpolz:Why is it then not possible to make a reference of these relevant GSs in the CSRs?
Hans Trunkenpolz:Because if you input them in your frame or in your contracts, that is a workable way, but that is not visible for any auditor, and even most of the quality guys at your suppliers have no visibility, because those pod contracts are one of the most protected documents that not even their own finance departments and sales departments will share with their own people. So it becomes very difficult to really identify what is relevant and what not. If it is anchored outside the CSI in the contract, of course they become mandatory, but that makes the process of rolling out the customer-specific requirements even more challenging than what it is today, and the most simple way out of this would be to make a clear reference of what other GSs and also add them to the CSRs and not only to this highly protected contracts you have with your suppliers. That would be my advice, but of course they become mandatory if they are in any other contract that is not visible to an auditor or an ITF or any other interested party.
Funke Ruediger:Thank you very much for your recommendation and I can assure you that the discussion regarding that is ongoing within BMW. I hope we make some progress in that direction.
Hans Trunkenpolz:Thank, you, mr Funke, thank you, that would be that direction. Thank you, mr Funke, thank you, thank you. That would be a huge support, thank, you.
Tarryn Jordaan:That's definitely. There's a few more comments going. Yeah, everybody's asking exactly that around BMW, so it'll be good to polish up. I think everything's clear there from both horses' mouths. I hope that they will be resolved Now.
Tarryn Jordaan:I think we're drawing to a close, hans. We almost finished on time. We always go a bit long. If anybody else has any more questions, please pop them through. Otherwise, if you email us any point in time and we will also share the recording and the slide, we'll make a couple extra notes around it based on questions today and we will share these usually within a day or two, probably Monday latest. Please feel free to share far and wide. Also, do follow our page on LinkedIn and or sign up for our newsletters on our website to stay up, for our newsletters on our website to stay up to date. We do have another webinar planned for later this year. I forgot the date. I should have checked it in November. You will find it on the website and that is around the process ownership topic. So please join us next time, looking forward to hearing from you again. Thank you, hans.
Hans Trunkenpolz:Yeah, pleasure guys, all the best and wherever you're dialing in and have a good day or good night wherever in 30 countries. It was nice being here with you today, thank you.
Tarryn Jordaan:Cool, have a good one Thanks.
Hans Trunkenpolz:Karen, you too Bye-bye, bye with you today. Thank you, cool. Have a good one, you too bye.
