We recommend a modified version of the FMEA approach to assessing the risk. The approach is tailored to the needs of project and program managers. We will model the time line as a control plan with minimal controls other than the typical tollgate reviews and, perhaps, team meetings. We know from personal experience that treating potential failures systematically can often forestall risky events completely.

What does it look like?

Our approach uses a header section much like the automotive FMEA so that the document can be appropriately identified, the team named, and other information added for tracking purposes. 

One of the most significant fields is Risk Description, where we explicitly identify the risk. In general it is wise to include enough information that a casual reader can understand the risk situation; that is, a clear, concise, and complete description of the potential issue. It is important at this stage that we do not include potential solutions, because the table has special fields for this.  We define other fields to be:

  • Severity
  • Probability
  • Controllability
  • RPN, where
    • RPN = Risk priority number
    • RPN=severity x probability x control
    • Post Mitigation RPN

Stay tuned for more on the topic!

2 Comments

  • Charlie Stanton
    Posted February 14, 2013 at 2:41 pm

    I found success in the practical use of integrated DVP&R – DFMEA when assigned to Dodge Truck Chassis Engineering in the 1990’s. Mentally I adapted Thermodynamic “Control Volume Theory” to durability. Key was integrating it from design analysis, mule data acquisition, to prototype bench testing, to fixture reacted simulation through launch. It is not the same approach used for developing military hardware.

    I’ll state my approached worked like a charm and ended up helping the release engineers ‘get it right the 1st time’.

    Key was being inside the release group. Staff based testing does not work nearly as effectively as having the “Sword of Damocles” hanging over your own skull. I say this having worked for GMPG Noise & Vibration Lab in the 1970’s. There and then, deadlines came and went with little if any feedback on my performance – from the release groups.

    Perhaps that is why so many of us engineers left – lack of positive impact on the product.

  • Mark Dalzell
    Posted February 26, 2013 at 9:31 pm

    I would like more information concerning this recommended changed to FMEA. I agree with the changes recommended.

    Mark Dalzell
    Director of Quality
    The Morey Corporation

Leave a comment

0.0/5

Cart0
Cart0
Cart0