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 7 Comments

Reviewing AIAG / VDA FMEA Handbook

Reviewing AIAG / VDA FMEA Handbook

I am often asked for my opinion about the FMEA Handbook that was jointly published by AIAG and VDA in 2019. Here is a summary of my candid views on this handbook, excerpted from a presentation I gave at the 2019 Guangbin Yang Reliability Symposium.

What is AIAG – VDA FMEA Handbook?

AIAG is Automotive Industry Action Group. It was founded in 1982 by the three largest North American automotive OEMs. Over the years, AIAG created and maintained an FMEA standard for use in the North American automotive industry.

VDA was founded in December 1980 as a German quality management standard. VDA created and maintained an FMEA document for use in Germany and Europe.

AIAG approach to FMEA was different than VDA approach to FMEA.

Sometime prior to 2019, AIAG and VDA began working together to create a single “harmonized” approach to FMEA that was intended to be used in North America and Europe and beyond. It was published in 2019.

Points of Agreement

I’ll begin by saying we should all agree, successful FMEA implementation is a critical objective in industry. Aim for making FMEA highly effective, and not a “check-box.”

A few of the positive contributions made by the new AIAG & VDA FMEA Handbook:

  • OEMs/suppliers have access to a common approach to FMEA, across continents
  • Many FMEA concepts described in the Handbook are well written
  • Alignment w/ ISO 26262. Example: FMEA-MSR *
  • Concept of Action Priority attempts to resolve flaws with RPN

* MSR is Monitoring and System Response

Significant Concerns

Unnecessary Complexity

Proper approach: FMEA procedure and format should be as simple as possible. New or updated standards or handbooks should not add complexity.

Why? Complexity consumes valuable time and reduces effectiveness. Critical issues can be missed.

Concerns:

  1. The FMEA Handbook adds considerable new terminology and other complexities.
  2. Performing FMEA with use of Excel spreadsheet is very cumbersome.
  3. Complexity can obscure higher-risk issues (“missing the forest for the trees”)

Resource Intensive

Proper approach: FMEAs should be as streamlined as possible, ensuring no higher-risk issues are missed.

Why? FMEAs need to be implemented in a way that supports product development process and allows teams to spend valuable time on most important issues.

Concerns:

  1. FMEA Handbook consumes valuable time on potentially lower-risk tasks.
  2.  Use of AIAG/VDA friendly software requires dedicated administrative support.

Enforced Hierarchical Chain

Proper approach: FMEA procedure should focus on targeted areas of risk.

Why? FMEAs take time and cost money. They should be done when a certain level of risk can be effectively addressed by FMEA procedure.

Concerns:

  1. FMEA handbook enforces function and failure networks, which can lead to overly large FMEAs and unnecessary work. There are “work-arounds,” but you shouldn’t need to use “work arounds.”
  2. Example: enforcing causes at next lower level can miss important causes.

Wrong Sequence

Proper approach: An FMEA Recommended Practice or Standard should be developed or updated first. An FMEA Reference Manual or Handbook should follow the standard. In the past, SAE J1739 (published as an FMEA Recommended Practice or Standard) was published prior to AIAG (published as an FMEA Reference Manual).

Why? An FMEA standard outlines what must be done. An FMEA Handbook shows how to do what must be done.

Concerns:

  1. Getting the proverbial “cart before the horse” (wrong sequence) can result in sub-optimization. When that happens, the FMEA Handbook is not guided by a best-practice standard.

Inadequate Focus on Interfaces

Proper approach: Including all higher-risk interfaces in scope of FMEA is crucial to successful FMEA application.

Why? More that 50% of problems occur at the interfaces.

Concerns:

  1. FMEA Handbook does an inadequate job of clearly identifying high-risk interfaces and ensuring interface risk is reduced to acceptable level.

PFMEA Issues

Proper approach: Process FMEA procedure needs to be properly linked to Process Flow Diagram, Process Control Plan, and corresponding Work Instructions.

Why? Potential manufacturing or assembly deficiencies are identified and controlled through these linkages.

Concerns:

  1. FMEA Handbook is deficient in linking Process Flow Diagram, Process FMEA, Process Control Plan, and Work Instructions.
  2. Insufficient guidance on application of significant characteristics.
  3. Enforced causes at next lower level can miss important process causes.

A word about Harmonization

Much of the effort to integrate the approaches from AIAG and VDA was done in the name of “harmonization.” Although this can be a noble goal, there are potential downsides.

Harmonization makes sense when the differences between the two approaches are not significant, and when the process being harmonized would become more effective for company or user.

  • Example: early versions of AIAG and SAE J1739

Harmonization or alignment does not make sense when the differences between the two approaches are significant, and when the process being harmonized would become less effective for company or user.

  • Example: areas of significant concern in this presentation

Summary

Effective FMEA implementation is critical to safe, reliable and economical products. The new AIAG/VDA FMEA Handbook, although providing some positives, adds unnecessary complexity to FMEA applications, and is not best practice in certain areas.

My opinion: impact on North American Auto Industry may be a reduction in overall FMEA effectiveness.

My focus is to support SAE J1739 to be the best possible FMEA standard.

Next Article

The next article will address a series of reader questions on FMEA Detection.

 

Filed Under: Articles, Inside FMEA Tagged With: FMEA Standard

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.

« Being Setup for Failure
Regulating Reactive Chemicals »

Comments

  1. patrick canoot says

    December 1, 2022 at 10:56 AM

    Dear mister Carlson,

    I’ve read your interesting review of the AIAG/VDA FMEA manual and must agree with most of your comments. I see lots of hesitation at OEM’s to fully implement the new approach. Do you believe it will survive or rather be adapted?

    Kind Regards

    Reply
    • Carl Carlson says

      December 1, 2022 at 11:31 AM

      Hi Patrick,
      I appreciate your comments on the AIAG/VDA article. The hesitation from OEMs is understandable. I wish I knew the answer to your questions. I know that automotive engineers want to do a good job on products and processes, and FMEA is crucial to that goal. My view is that automotive companies should take a hard look at SAE J1739 as an alternative. It is leaner and more effective in my opinion.
      Carl

      Reply
      • Mark says

        December 19, 2022 at 5:39 AM

        Dear Carl.
        I fully agreeded with most of your valued comments. SAE J1739 is more suitable tool from engineering eyes.

        regards

        Mark

        Reply
  2. Francisco Torres says

    December 4, 2022 at 1:50 PM

    Great post Carl.

    Reply
    • Carl Carlson says

      December 4, 2022 at 1:55 PM

      Thanks, Francisco. Glad you liked it.
      Carl

      Reply
  3. RamKumar K says

    April 13, 2023 at 7:26 PM

    Hi Carlson,

    Since I am new to fmea topic I want to know whether fmea is 5 step for rpn methodology and it is 7 step for ACTION PRIROTY ..Please correct my question

    Reply
    • Carl Carlson says

      April 14, 2023 at 6:15 AM

      Hi Ram Kumar,
      Thanks for your question.
      As you can see from the article “Reviewing AIAG/VDA FMEA Handbook,” I believe there are many shortcomings to the AIAG/VDA approach. I prefer the SAE J1739:2021 standard, which outlines a six-step process. These FMEA process steps are the same regardless of whether you are using RPN or Action Priority. I prefer Action Priority to RPN, as it accounts for all combinations of S, O, and D. If you use RPN, you must address high-severity regardless of RPN value.
      Please feel free to ask any follow-up questions.
      Carl

      Reply

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