A spate of cartoons and commentary throughout the summer has lampooned BP, Halliburton, Transocean, and Cameron International for their apparent inability to plan timely control measures that might have constrained the destruction after the blowout on the Deepwater Horizon oil rig in the Gulf of Mexico. A Congressional hearing likewise roundly criticized leaders of these corporations for failing to anticipate the possibility of a major leak as well as subsequent failures of back-up systems.
ADVERTISEMENT |
This debate will continue to rage, no doubt, but in the heat of this discussion, it may be useful to reflect on the possibilities inherent in failure mode and effects analysis (FMEA) for preventing or responding to defects in product or process outcomes. Because no industry is immune to product or service failure, FMEA provides a systematic analysis technique that helps identify potential problems. FMEA is utilized in all industries, from manufacturing to education to health care. The method was popularized by the auto industry but is clearly useful to any industry that experiences failures in systems or design.
FMEA is an analytical approach that is used in the development stage as well as during operations management to focus on “what might go wrong” with respect to a product or service. Teams identify potential failures in a system and try to eliminate these potential failures during the design stage. The greatest benefit of FMEA lies in the determination of risk that it brings. During the operations phase, the goal is to anticipate failure modes and to address them using effects analysis to study the consequences of a number of potential failures.
Prevention rather than detection
Waiting for failures to happen and then analyzing what went wrong is a costly approach, not only with respect to response time, but also to resources that must be dedicated to finding a “fix.” Many people’s health or safety may be jeopardized by delays in responding. Product recalls are one way of dealing with failure with which many are familiar; one can imagine the cost of such recalls to a manufacturer. The approach of W. Edwards Deming and other quality professionals is to prevent failures or defects, rather than simply detecting them after they have occurred. Intercepting and preventing failures before they affect customers is one goal of FMEA.
FMEA does not wait for failures to happen; it brainstorms all possibilities, and then addresses each in turn. Design FMEA diminishes risk by anticipating and planning for possible failures during the design of a product or service. An organization’s responsibility would be to put in place appropriate responses to each identified failure, so these can be called upon immediately if the failure takes place. While the energy devoted to FMEA may seem excessive to some (i.e., devoting resources to something that may never happen), most would agree that the resources necessary to reverse the effects of failure after it has happened are far more substantial. Think again of the Deepwater Horizon case and the weeks that have been consumed with various trial remedies.
FMEA was originally designed for military use, soon after World War II. In a way, it represents the kind of “reverse design” advocated by Russell Ackoff and others. By picturing a particular kind of failure, a team can work backward to identify factors in the design or operation of a process or product that may contribute to that failure. The only limitations on the analysis are those of the imagination.
FMEA tools
In developing FMEA analysis, organizations utilize a variety of tools that are familiar to quality professionals. Check sheets, for example, cause-and-effect analysis, and software solutions can contribute to an understanding of potential failures and identify responses to them. Using FMEA, failures are categorized according to their potential consequences, frequency of occurrence, and detection of the failure. The “failure mode” refers to the way a failure occurs, “failure effect” involves outlining the consequences of a specific failure, “failure cause” is identifying reasons for a defect or failure to occur, and “severity” defines the seriousness of the failure and its consequences. A check sheet can help in distinguishing these factors, and Pareto charts may help to identify frequency and severity issues.
PQ Systems consultant, Jackie Graham, Ph.D., works with a number of organizations to build FMEA documents that record the efforts of the best team to go through a product or process in a detailed way, imagining every possible failure that might occur. Their thoughts are captured and used as a living document—to be added to as new failure possibilities emerge. When things go wrong, this document offers the combined expertise of the best minds in addressing the failure and responding to its implications. During the brainstorming process, Graham says, a number of “elephants in the room” are introduced and dealt with, providing yet another benefit to an organization’s successful product or service.
The data gathered during FMEA must be charted to show the specific effects; ultimately, statistical process control is brought into the picture. Spreadsheets—another form of a check sheet—are among the critical tools in developing FMEA. Using an Excel spreadsheet, team members can utilize software such as CHARTrunner to create meaningful charts from the data to facilitate understanding and clarify key issues. Data analysis can support examination of a variety of failure modes and opportunities to potentially prevent future failures.
Athough FMEA technology represents more sophistication than this simple explanation suggests, organizations find that the investment in learning and applying the techniques will be paid back many times over if and when they are actually needed. A helpful software product, FMEA Investigator, provides one-to-one instruction on conducting FMEA using an interactive, multimedia program. This application explains the purpose and benefits of FMEA and provides step-by-step instructions for both process and design FMEA.
Of course, the hope is that once FMEA has been utilized in the design phase of a product or service, its analysis will not be called upon to address subsequent failures. Like insurance, it may be something that organizations invest in but hope they’ll never really need. However, knowing that a plan is in place must help lots of leaders sleep better at night.
For more information, visit www.pqsystems.com/FMEA.
Add new comment