大家一起研究DRBFM
Design Review Based on Failure Modes (DRBFM) is a tool developed by Tatsuhiko Yoshimura while at Toyota. DRBFM is an integral part of his GD3 methodology designed to improve quality and reliability and meet customer expectations. DRBFM is an enhancement to the Failure Mode Effects Analysis (FMEA) currently used today.
FMEA was originally used to rigorously identify all risk of a design, identify actions to mitigate the risk and close the loop with actions taken. The effort required to complete each of these steps for every cause of failure can be considered painful. This rigorous analysis, while considered critical, is often considered too time consuming given shorter product development times and reduced costs. DRBFM methodology puts the value back into the key analysis phase. The focus of analysis is on the area on change only. The area of change can be components, interfaces (including environmental and customer usage) and new functional requirements. The basic enhancements of DRBFM are: 1) Prework must include benchmarking, well defined functional requirements with specifications, well defined components and interfaces based on the change and documentation known current and previous concerns. 2) Documentation of the concerns, effects, causes and controls based on the knowledge of the design engineer. 3) Discussion with the appropriate team to detail additional concerns, effects, causes, controls and recommended actions to ensure all causes are prevented from reaching the customer. 4) Close the loop with results of the recommended actions. While these steps look the same as FMEA it is the rules of engagement, elimination of FMEA rules, attention to detail and focus on actions that adds the value. The analysis format is different to encourage detailed analysis and understanding of what was learned during the discussion. If performed correctly the team members should leave saying the meeting was beneficial. If nothing was learned or a design change identified during the meeting, the meeting was a waste of time.
DRBFM can be performed without an existing FMEA. You just need an experienced person to explain how to accomplish the analysis.
Excerpt from Tatsuhiko Yoshimura weekly report to Jim Queen, Vice President of GM Engineering: followed up on the state of DRBFM/DRBTR implementation at Holden. I have always been impressed by Holden activities. I think they understand the background thoughts of these methodologies correctly. It is also a result of good efforts by Bill Haughey in GMNA Validation. He is the person who understands the GD3 philosophy most correctly.・nbsp; Tatsuhiko Yoshimura has written Bill Haughey a letter of recommendation permitting him the use of all his training material and granting him expert (black belt) status in his GD3 methodologies.
FMEA was originally used to rigorously identify all risk of a design, identify actions to mitigate the risk and close the loop with actions taken. The effort required to complete each of these steps for every cause of failure can be considered painful. This rigorous analysis, while considered critical, is often considered too time consuming given shorter product development times and reduced costs. DRBFM methodology puts the value back into the key analysis phase. The focus of analysis is on the area on change only. The area of change can be components, interfaces (including environmental and customer usage) and new functional requirements. The basic enhancements of DRBFM are: 1) Prework must include benchmarking, well defined functional requirements with specifications, well defined components and interfaces based on the change and documentation known current and previous concerns. 2) Documentation of the concerns, effects, causes and controls based on the knowledge of the design engineer. 3) Discussion with the appropriate team to detail additional concerns, effects, causes, controls and recommended actions to ensure all causes are prevented from reaching the customer. 4) Close the loop with results of the recommended actions. While these steps look the same as FMEA it is the rules of engagement, elimination of FMEA rules, attention to detail and focus on actions that adds the value. The analysis format is different to encourage detailed analysis and understanding of what was learned during the discussion. If performed correctly the team members should leave saying the meeting was beneficial. If nothing was learned or a design change identified during the meeting, the meeting was a waste of time.
DRBFM can be performed without an existing FMEA. You just need an experienced person to explain how to accomplish the analysis.
Excerpt from Tatsuhiko Yoshimura weekly report to Jim Queen, Vice President of GM Engineering: followed up on the state of DRBFM/DRBTR implementation at Holden. I have always been impressed by Holden activities. I think they understand the background thoughts of these methodologies correctly. It is also a result of good efforts by Bill Haughey in GMNA Validation. He is the person who understands the GD3 philosophy most correctly.・nbsp; Tatsuhiko Yoshimura has written Bill Haughey a letter of recommendation permitting him the use of all his training material and granting him expert (black belt) status in his GD3 methodologies.
没有找到相关结果
已邀请:
RSS Feed
8 个回复
xn_fan (威望:0) (安徽 芜湖) 机械制造 工程师
赞同来自: