Accendo Reliability

Your Reliability Engineering Professional Development Site

  • Home
  • About
    • Contributors
  • Reliability.fm
    • Speaking Of Reliability
    • Rooted in Reliability: The Plant Performance Podcast
    • Quality during Design
    • Way of the Quality Warrior
    • Critical Talks
    • Dare to Know
    • Maintenance Disrupted
    • Metal Conversations
    • The Leadership Connection
    • Practical Reliability Podcast
    • Reliability Matters
    • Reliability it Matters
    • Maintenance Mavericks Podcast
    • Women in Maintenance
    • Accendo Reliability Webinar Series
  • Articles
    • CRE Preparation Notes
    • on Leadership & Career
      • Advanced Engineering Culture
      • Engineering Leadership
      • Managing in the 2000s
      • Product Development and Process Improvement
    • on Maintenance Reliability
      • Aasan Asset Management
      • AI & Predictive Maintenance
      • Asset Management in the Mining Industry
      • CMMS and Reliability
      • Conscious Asset
      • EAM & CMMS
      • Everyday RCM
      • History of Maintenance Management
      • Life Cycle Asset Management
      • Maintenance and Reliability
      • Maintenance Management
      • Plant Maintenance
      • Process Plant Reliability Engineering
      • ReliabilityXperience
      • RCM Blitz®
      • Rob’s Reliability Project
      • The Intelligent Transformer Blog
      • The People Side of Maintenance
      • The Reliability Mindset
    • on Product Reliability
      • Accelerated Reliability
      • Achieving the Benefits of Reliability
      • Apex Ridge
      • Metals Engineering and Product Reliability
      • Musings on Reliability and Maintenance Topics
      • Product Validation
      • Reliability Engineering Insights
      • Reliability in Emerging Technology
    • on Risk & Safety
      • CERM® Risk Insights
      • Equipment Risk and Reliability in Downhole Applications
      • Operational Risk Process Safety
    • on Systems Thinking
      • Communicating with FINESSE
      • The RCA
    • on Tools & Techniques
      • Big Data & Analytics
      • Experimental Design for NPD
      • Innovative Thinking in Reliability and Durability
      • Inside and Beyond HALT
      • Inside FMEA
      • Integral Concepts
      • Learning from Failures
      • Progress in Field Reliability?
      • R for Engineering
      • Reliability Engineering Using Python
      • Reliability Reflections
      • Testing 1 2 3
      • The Manufacturing Academy
  • eBooks
  • Resources
    • Accendo Authors
    • FMEA Resources
    • Feed Forward Publications
    • Openings
    • Books
    • Webinars
    • Journals
    • Higher Education
    • Podcasts
  • Courses
    • 14 Ways to Acquire Reliability Engineering Knowledge
    • Reliability Analysis Methods online course
    • Measurement System Assessment
    • SPC-Process Capability Course
    • Design of Experiments
    • Foundations of RCM online course
    • Quality during Design Journey
    • Reliability Engineering Statistics
    • Quality Engineering Statistics
    • An Introduction to Reliability Engineering
    • Reliability Engineering for Heavy Industry
    • An Introduction to Quality Engineering
    • Process Capability Analysis course
    • Root Cause Analysis and the 8D Corrective Action Process course
    • Return on Investment online course
    • CRE Preparation Online Course
    • Quondam Courses
  • Webinars
    • Upcoming Live Events
  • Calendar
    • Call for Papers Listing
    • Upcoming Webinars
    • Webinar Calendar
  • Login
    • Member Home

by Adam Bahret Leave a Comment

Effective DFMEAs

Effective DFMEAs

DFMEA’s definitely have a bad reputation as exercises that consume an enormous amount of time and unfortunately yield little value to the program.

And can be miserable to experience.

 

A quote from a customer “We aren’t going to do any more DFMEA’s because we feel a bit traumatized by the last round.”

I have also seen DFMEA’s be a cornerstone to a design program using its resources with surgical precision to improve the product.

I started to think about the differences between the ineffective and effective DFMEA’s.  Here are some of the steps that I believe make the “good ones”  GOOD.

 

 

Step one:  Cleave the system.  This is the process of breaking the product down into its major sub-systems by functionality.

If it was a toaster the cleave would result incleaver1

  • heating system
  • casing
  • toast loading/unloading
  • electrical system
  • controls

Step two: Define the parameters for use cases.  The way the product is going to be used in detail is critical for defining failures and the likelihood of occurrence.

Many extended debates (time wasted) can be due to team members have differing opinions on use case parameters.  Define the use case and distribute it to the DFMEA team in advance of the first meeting.  Allow enough time for responses and updates.

Everyone should arrive in agreement of the definitions.

Step Three:  Failure definitions.  What do the main failure modes look like?  Is it a failure if the toaster “under-toasts” the bread? “What is burned?”Do we want to categorize failure modes by type?

toast shades

A) Going to put us out of business: “Damage to household”

B) Warranty claim: “Damage to toaster”

C) Product did not produce: “Damage to toast”

D) Product completed process but poorly: “Toast dog will probably still eat” (i.e. change target market)

Step Four: Prep the team on the technology.

Not everyone invited (you created a multi-disciplinary team, right?) understands the product technology.

Wasting time during the DFMEA session syncing up everyone on technical details can significantly increase session length and boredom.

Not to mention these people won’t be able to contribute effectively until they understand these details and can participate in the discussion.

Step Five:  Stop deep technical debates.

Discussions/debates between a few core people should be stopped.  They should take an action to continue the debate/discussion off-line and return to the next session with the resolution for the team to consider.

There is no way quicker to get everyone to roll their eyes and open their email than to have a geek fest of hot debate that is over everyone’s head.

frustrated girl

Step Six: All DFMEA matrix rows have actions to be executed/followed up on.

There should never be a high ranking line item that does not have an executable action with a delivery date.  Just because the team is no longer meeting to complete the DFMEA doesn’t mean they are no longer a team.

All are accountable for actions assigned to them to all others who agreed it was a valuable action.

Give those guidelines a shot and see if DFMEA’s can become a valuable tool again…or for the first time?

Filed Under: Apex Ridge, Articles, on Product Reliability Tagged With: DFMEA, FMEA

About Adam Bahret

I am a Reliability engineer with over 20 years of experience in mechanical and electrical systems in many industries. I founded Apex Ridge Reliability as a firm to assist technology companies with the critical reliability steps in their product development programs and organizational culture.

« Reliability is Not Metrics, It’s Decision Making
10 Things a Maintenance Supervisor Can Do to Improve Reliability »

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Article by Adam Bahret
in the Apex Ridge series

Join Accendo

Receive information and updates about articles and many other resources offered by Accendo Reliability by becoming a member.

It’s free and only takes a minute.

Join Today

Recent Articles

  • test
  • test
  • test
  • Your Most Important Business Equation
  • Your Suppliers Can Be a Risk to Your Project

© 2025 FMS Reliability · Privacy Policy · Terms of Service · Cookies Policy