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 Carl S. Carlson Leave a Comment

FMEA vs FMECA: What’s the Difference?

FMEA vs FMECA: What’s the Difference?

What is the difference between FMEA and FMECA? Are they the same or different? The answer may surprise you. Let’s explore this topic.

When explaining the difference between FMEA and FMECA, it is essential to differentiate between applications in two different industries: Defense industries (and defense suppliers), and Automotive industries (including other industries that use the automotive standards).

In this article, I will characterize the definitions by industry, and show the differences and similarities. At the end, I’ll provide my view on whether we need to keep referring to FMEA and FMECA, as if they are different methods.

Defense industries, and defense suppliers

Many defense applications use the term FMECA. The current standard is Mil-Std-1629A, which will eventually be replaced by SAE1025.

FMECA is an acronym for Failure Mode, Effects and Criticality Analysis. The “C” in FMECA stands for Criticality Analysis. FMECA has its origin in Mil-Std-1629, published in 1974 by the Department of Defense, and revised in 1980 as Mil-Std-1629A. In Mil-Std-1629A, FMEA is the analysis done without Criticality Analysis (CA), and FMECA is an FMEA with an added Criticality Analysis.

According to Mil-Std-1629A:
FMEA is “a procedure by which each potential failure mode in a system is analyzed to determine the results or effects thereof on the system and to classify each potential failure mode according to its severity.”

FMECA is an FMEA with an added Criticality Analysis (CA). CA is “a procedure by which each potential failure mode is ranked according to the combined influence of severity and probability of occurrence.”

When doing work for the Department of Defense (DoD) or DoD suppliers, in most cases FMEA is done with CA, thus it is called FMECA. I rarely see FMEA done without CA, in military work.

Automotive industries, and other commercial industries

For the purpose of this article, I will uses my book, Effective FMEAs, to define the term FMEA. This definition is consistent with the FMEA standard SAEJ1739:2021, which is used by many automotive and commercial organizations.

Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (FMEA) is a method designed to:

1. Identify and fully understand potential failure modes and their causes, and the effects of failure on the system or end users, for a given product or process.
2. Assess the risk associated with the identified failure modes, effects and causes, and prioritize issues for corrective action, and
3. Identify and carry out corrective actions to address the most serious concerns.

FMEA is an engineering analysis done by a cross-functional team of subject matter experts that thoroughly analyzes product designs or manufacturing processes, early in the product development process. Its objective is finding and correcting weaknesses before the product gets into the hands of the customer, with the end result of risk reduced to an acceptable level.

So, what IS the difference between FMECA and FMEA?

The short answer is very little. I’ll explain.

Most people supporting defense industry applications use the term “FMECA” (following Mil-Std-1629A), which, as covered above, includes Criticality Analysis.

Most companies supporting commercial industries (automotive and others) use the term “FMEA” (following an FMEA standard such as SAEJ1739:2021), which always includes a type of risk prioritization similar to Criticality Analysis. SAEJ1739:2021 allows certain types of risk prioritization, such as SxO matrix, or Action Priority. It is important to note that SxO matrix in SAEJ1739 is identical to qualitative CA in Mil-Std-1629A.

In other words, in most applications both FMECA and FMEA use a risk prioritization method, such as SxO matrix or CA, in order to prioritize issues for corrective actions.

Separate from this discussion is a unique type of CA called Quantitative Criticality Analysis. See my article titled “Application of Quantitative Criticality Analysis in FMEA”

FMEA Process mapped to Application

All types of FMEA (or FMECA) follow an FMEA process. Here is a graphical representation of this process in six steps.

6 Steps

Mapping the 6 steps to both defense and automotive industry applications:

6-steps by industry

As you can see, both FMEA (automotive) and FMECA (defense) have the same process steps, up to Recommended Actions.

Modernizing Mil-Std-1629A

The SAE1025 team is in the process of modernizing Mil-Std-1629A. One of many changes being considered is to add a column for Recommended Actions. This will bring FMECA in defense applications very close to FMEA in automotive applications, in terms of scope of work.

Conclusion Survey Question

In my opinion, there is no longer any need to use both terms FMEA and FMECA. In most defense and commercial applications, FMEA or FMECA uses a form of CA. It will greatly simplify and focus the teaching and application of FMEA to settle on one or the other, FMEA or FMECA, and cease using both terms.

Short Survey

Please consider replying to this very short two-question survey:

  1. Which term do you prefer to use, FMEA or FMECA, and why?
  2. Should we cease using two different terms (FMEA and FMECA) and settle on one term?

Write me at carl.carlson@effectivefmeas.com or click on Ask a Question link below, and let me know your answers to the two questions. I’ll announce the results of this informal survey in a later article.

All survey responses are anonymous.

Next article

How should models be used in the FMEA process? This important subject will be discussed, including specific recommendations.

Filed Under: Articles, Inside FMEA Tagged With: FMEA and FMECA

About Carl S. Carlson

Carl S. Carlson is a consultant and instructor in the areas of FMEA, reliability program planning and other reliability engineering disciplines, supporting over one hundred clients from a wide cross-section of industries. He has 35 years of experience in reliability testing, engineering, and management positions, including senior consultant with ReliaSoft Corporation, and senior manager for the Advanced Reliability Group at General Motors.

« Jack Knife Diagrams for Reliability Engineering
Leadership in the ISO 31K Context »

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

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

Articles by Carl Carlson
in the Inside FMEA series

[popup type="" link_text="Logo Info" ]

Information about FMEA Icon

Inside FMEA can be visually represented by a large tree, with roots, a solid trunk, branches, and leaves.

- The roots of the tree represent the philosophy and guiding principles for effective FMEAs.
- The solid trunk of the tree represents the fundamentals for all FMEAs.
- The branches represent the various FMEA applications.
- The leaves represent the valuable outcomes of FMEAs.
- This is intended to convey that each of the various FMEA applications have the same fundamentals and philosophical roots.

 

For example, the roots of the tree can represent following philosophy and guiding principles for effective FMEAs, such as:

1. Correct procedure         2. Lessons learned
3. Trained team                 4. Focus on prevention
5. Integrated with DFR    6. Skilled facilitation
7. Management support

The tree trunk represents the fundamentals of FMEA. All types of FMEA share common fundamentals, and these are essential to successful FMEA applications.

The tree branches can include the different types of FMEAs, including:

1. System FMEA         2. Design FMEA
3. Process FMEA        4. DRBFM
5. Hazard Analysis     6. RCM or Maintenance FMEA
7. Software FMEA      8. Other types of FMEA

The leaves of the tree branches represent individual FMEA projects, with a wide variety of FMEA scopes and results. [/popup]

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 Posts

  • 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