Operations Management ORMB11-1: Session 17 DFM + QFD + FMEA

Operations Management ORMB11-1
Session 17 DFM + QFD + FMEA

Dipankar Bose - XLRI
Design for Manufacturing
The designers consideration of the organizations
manufacturing capabilities when designing a product

Concurrent Engineering
Computer Aided Design (CAD)
Types of product recovery

Types of Product Recovery
Upgrade
Repair
Refurbishing
Remanufacturing
Cannibalization
Recycling
Waste management
Quality Function Deployment (QFD)
What is QFD?
Customer-driven planning tool
Builds customer voice into the design

Steps
Prepare customer requirements/ Voice of customer
Benchmark and Choose target values
Identify design requirements/ Voice of organization
Design targets
Link customer requirements with design requirements
Correlation matrix

House of Quality
HOW?
Identify Design Requirements
Relationship Matrix between
Customer Needs and Design
Requirements
HOW MUCH?
Design Target Values
Customer
Perception
(Benchmarking)
Correlation Matrix
(Roof of the House)
WHAT?
Prepare
Customer
Requirements
P
r
i
o
r
i
t
i
e
s

Importance Weighting
Technical Evaluation
Competitive
Assessments
QFD Stage1 Voice of the Customer
Answers WHAT? What do customers want?

Voice of customer Primary input for House of Quality

Value drivers A small subset of requirements with
Level of priority

Three steps Clarify-Categorize-Prioritize customer
requirements

Methods for Clarification Market research/In-depth
qualitative interviews/ Concept engineering

Voice of the Customer
Categorization
Must be
Performance
Level
Customer satisfaction
Attractive
Indifferent
One dimensional
Can be removed
Should be fulfilled before
One-dimensional
Important for improvement
Voice of the Customer Prioritization
May be more than 200 customer requirements
Arrange them in descending order
Decide which are most critical
Selected ones are considered in next stage

Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) can be used at this step
QFD Stage 2 Competitive Analysis
Two steps Benchmarking and Choosing Target levels for
Chosen customer requirements in Stage 1
Benchmarking
Compares organization and competitor in quality
performance of customer requirements
Identifies strategic and operational gap
Find ways to close the gap
Plays critical role is selecting most important customer
requirements
Choosing target levels
Identifies benchmarked requirements where target is
already met
Helps to reduce size of the matrix
QFD Stage 3 Voice of the
Organization
From Customer requirements to design requirements
These are HOW by which design team acts to make
WHAT

Heart of QFD planning process
Listed across the top of the house
Affects one or more customer requirements

If QFD team is not satisfied
Go back to previous stage with what-if questions

QFD Stage 4 Design Targets
Three steps Benchmark/ Set target values/ Determine
cost for design requirements

Should look into the inconsistencies between
Customers perception on key customer requirements
Current measures on design requirements

Needs to see if technical data
Support or refute customer perception

Projected cost of elevating design requirements to target
specifications
QFD Step 5 Link the Requirements
Relationship Matrix
Indicate the strength of relationship between WHAT and
HOW
Heart of the House of Quality
Lack in strong relationship
Customer requirement is not addressed
Project will have problem in meeting the requirements
May use symbol for strong, medium and weak
relationships
May also be quantified
When multiplied with Level of priority
Helps to obtain important weightage for each HOW


QFD Stage 6 Correlation Matrix
Roof of the house

Two steps
Specify tradeoffs between design requirements
Select design requirements that most effectively meet
customer requirements based on limited resource and
other organizational constraints

Positive or negative correlation
Positive Change in one requirement helps other
Negative There is a trade off between these
requirements
May be uncorrelated


FMEA Basics
Failure Mode & Effects Analysis
Sometimes also called FMECA (Failure Mode Effects &
Criticality Analysis)

An analytical tool that uses a disciplined technique to
identify and help eliminate product and process potential
failure modes General Motors

Used by NASA In 1963
Adopted by Ford Motor Co. In 1980s
ISO 9004: Clause 7.1.3.3 and 7.3.1 List FMEA as risk
assessment tool and refer as Fault Mode and Effect
Analysis

10 Steps for FMEA Implementation
1. Review the process or product
2. Brainstorm potential failure model
3. List potential effects of each failure mode
4. Assign a severity ranking for each effect
5. Assign an occurrence ranking for each failure mode
6. Assign a detection ranking for each failure mode and/or
effect
7. Calculate the risk priority number for each effect
8. Prioritize the failure modes for action
9. Take action to eliminate or reduce the high-risk failure
modes
10. Calculate the resulting RPN as the failure modes are
reduced or eliminated
Next

Back
Failure Modes and Potential Effects
Seat Cushion
Requirement Failure Mode Effect
Four screws
Fewer than four
screws
End User: Loose seat cushion and noise.
Manufacturing and Assembly: Stop shipment and
additional sort and rework due to affected portion.
Specified screws
Wrong screw used
(larger dia.)
Manufacturing and Assembly: Unable to install screw
in station.
Assembly
sequence: First
screw in right
front hole
Screw placed in any
other hole
Manufacturing and Assembly: Difficult to install
remaining screws in station.
Screws fully
seated
Screw not fully seated
End User: Loose seat cushion and noise.
Manufacturing and Assembly: Sort and rework due to
affected portion.
Screws torqued
to dynamic
torque
specification
Screw torqued too
high
End User: Loose seat cushion due to subsequent
fracture of screw and noise.
affected portion.
Screw torqued too low
End User: Loose seat cushion due to gradual loosening
of screw and noise.
affected portion.
Back
Assigning Severity, Occurrence, and
Detection Rankings
Establish clear and concise descriptions for the points on
each of the scales
So that all team members have the same understanding
of the rankings

The scales should be established
Before the team begins the ranking process

The more descriptive the team is when defining the
ranking scale
The easier it should be to reach consensus during the
ranking process
Process FMEA Severity Evaluation
Criteria

Design FMEA Occurrence Evaluation
Criteria

Design FMEA Prevention/Detection
Evaluation Criteria

Design FMEA Prevention/Detection
Evaluation Criteria Continued

Reaching Consensus on Rankings
Team voting
Get process expert involved
Defer to one of the team members
Rank failures and effects within a ranking category
Talk it out
Use the higher ranking
Back
Using RPN
Focus on failure modes with high RPN
For modes with same RPN focus on mode with high D
Easiest approach for making improvement is
Increase the detectability of the failure
Thus lowering the detection ranking
Reducing the severity is important
Especially in situations that can lead to injuries

When recommending action, focus on prevention rather
than inspection
When a failure mode is eliminated completely
New risk priority number approaches zero as
occurrence ranking becomes one

Back
Prioritizing Failure Modes for Action
Use Pareto Diagram Decide on cut-off RPN

Problems
Two or more failure modes may have the same RPN
The team may have a disagreement in the ranking scale
for severity, occurrence and detection
It is assumed that all the three (S, O, and D) indexes are
equally important

SOD (alternative to RPN) Sorted in descending order
Prioritize first by severity, second by occurrence and
lastly by detection

Back

Back
Advantages
Improve quality, reliability and safety of product/process
Increase user satisfaction
Reduce system development timing and cost
Collect information to reduce future failures
Early identification and elimination of potential failure
modes
Emphasize problem prevention
Minimize late changes and associated cost
Catalyst for teamwork and idea exchange between
functions

Criticism
Limited by committees experience of previous failures
If failure mode cannot be identified, then external help
is needed

If used as top-down tool
FMEA may only identify major failure modes in system
If not used as a "bottom-up" tool
FMEA can not identify many more causes and failure
modes resulting in top-level symptoms

It is not able to discover complex failure modes involving
multiple failures within subsystem
Criticism Continued
Be aware of LACK of WEIGHING FUNCTION
Less serious failure mode may receive higher RPN than
more serious failure mode
Straight multiplication is not best suited
Example: ranking of "2" may not be twice as bad as a
ranking of 1

Good tool for identifying problem areas and being
prepared
But cannot use it as absolute tool

QCP Quality Control Plan
Every operation should have a QCP
Specify procedures to ensure that the process continues
to operate as it should
End result of an FMEA
QCP not based on FMEA is of little value
Both updated periodically
Worksheet Design FMEA

Worksheet Process FMEA

Isuzu Questions
Give a brief overview on Isuzus products and production
plants.
Discuss the following concepts: a) Cost Deployment
Flowchart, b) Cost Strategy Map, c) Developing Functional
Specifications, and d) Detailed Cost Reduction Techniques.
How did Isuzu react to unprofitability during 1991?
Discuss Isuzus VE Program.
Discuss Isuzus Tear-down methods.
What are the barriers to the success of Isuzus Cost
creation program? Why the term Cost creation was
used?

Operations Management ORMB11-1: Session 17 DFM + QFD + FMEA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Operations Management ORMB11-1: Session 17 DFM + QFD + FMEA

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Operations Management ORMB11-1: Session 17 DFM + QFD + FMEA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Operations Management ORMB11-1

Session 17 DFM + QFD + FMEA

You might also like