History of FMEA ,some
enclose a documents about the history of FMEA.
I wish that may be helpful to you all.
The history of FMEA
FMEAs have been around for a very long time. Before any documented format was developed, most all inventors and process experts would try to anticipate what could go wrong with a design or process before it was developed. The trial and error alternative was both costly and time consuming.
FMEAs were formally introduced in the late 1940's with the introduction of the military standard 1629. Used for Aerospace / rocket development, the FMEA and the more detailed FMECA were helpful in avoiding errors on small sample sizes of costly rocket technology.
Use of the FMEA was encouraged in the 1960's for space product development and served well on getting a man on the moon. Ford Motor Company reintroduced FMEA in the late 1970's for safety and regulatory consideration after the disastrous "Pinto" affair. Ford Motor Company also used FMEAs effectively for production improvement as well as design improvement.
FMEAs have gone through a metamorphosis of sorts in the last decade as focus on severity and occurrence has replaced RPN driven activity. The third edition of the AIAG FMEA document (SAE J1739) illustrates several of these changes.
1. The form has changed (only recommended) to include a prevention column under Design or Process Controls. The unique change allows for controls that actually reduce probability of a cause instead of only looking at test/evaluation method effectiveness.
2. The addition of language which downplays the "RPN" mentality. The statements related to reducing severity first (difficult), then occurrence (probability), which is the real focus and has the greatest benefit with FMEA use, and then detection (test effectiveness).
Selecting an arbitrary RPN to fall below is both ineffective at driving change and foolhardy if the order of the improvement is not controlled (severity, occurrence, detection).
In past years, setting an RPN would immediately be met with lower numbers without any real change or improvement.
Can you determine the order of need for change in the following three examples:
1. severity ( 5 ) , Occurrence ( 4 ) , Detection ( 2 ) = 40
2. severity ( 9 ) , Occurrence ( 2 ) , Detection ( 2 ) = 36
3. severity ( 8 ) , Occurrence ( 1 ) , Detection ( 8 ) = 64
I wish that may be helpful to you all.
The history of FMEA
FMEAs have been around for a very long time. Before any documented format was developed, most all inventors and process experts would try to anticipate what could go wrong with a design or process before it was developed. The trial and error alternative was both costly and time consuming.
FMEAs were formally introduced in the late 1940's with the introduction of the military standard 1629. Used for Aerospace / rocket development, the FMEA and the more detailed FMECA were helpful in avoiding errors on small sample sizes of costly rocket technology.
Use of the FMEA was encouraged in the 1960's for space product development and served well on getting a man on the moon. Ford Motor Company reintroduced FMEA in the late 1970's for safety and regulatory consideration after the disastrous "Pinto" affair. Ford Motor Company also used FMEAs effectively for production improvement as well as design improvement.
FMEAs have gone through a metamorphosis of sorts in the last decade as focus on severity and occurrence has replaced RPN driven activity. The third edition of the AIAG FMEA document (SAE J1739) illustrates several of these changes.
1. The form has changed (only recommended) to include a prevention column under Design or Process Controls. The unique change allows for controls that actually reduce probability of a cause instead of only looking at test/evaluation method effectiveness.
2. The addition of language which downplays the "RPN" mentality. The statements related to reducing severity first (difficult), then occurrence (probability), which is the real focus and has the greatest benefit with FMEA use, and then detection (test effectiveness).
Selecting an arbitrary RPN to fall below is both ineffective at driving change and foolhardy if the order of the improvement is not controlled (severity, occurrence, detection).
In past years, setting an RPN would immediately be met with lower numbers without any real change or improvement.
Can you determine the order of need for change in the following three examples:
1. severity ( 5 ) , Occurrence ( 4 ) , Detection ( 2 ) = 40
2. severity ( 9 ) , Occurrence ( 2 ) , Detection ( 2 ) = 36
3. severity ( 8 ) , Occurrence ( 1 ) , Detection ( 8 ) = 64
没有找到相关结果
已邀请:
RSS Feed
8 个回复
jche (威望:0)
赞同来自: