The FMEA began as a formal procedure in 1949 by the US Army, with the document Mil-std-1629 entitled “Procedures for Performing a Failure Mode, Effects and Criticality Analysis”. During the 1960s, the FMEA began to be used by NASA and the American aviation industry with a strong focus on safety aspects. In the following two decades, the use of FMEA extends to the automotive industry with the adoption by the three great US manufacturers that broaden the scope to the quality and reliability aspects. At the beginning of the 1990s, Chrisler, Ford and General Motors developed the “QS-9000” standard, the equivalent for the automotive sector of the ISO 9000 standard, which envisages the use of FMEA by the automotive industry suppliers in the development phases of both projects and processes.

The first characteristic that distinguishes the second generation FMEA from the classical one is the emphasis placed on the functional approach in the project analysis. In fact, a more complete and structured analysis activity is introduced in order to identify all the functions expected by the customer and to have a more organic view of how the product in question provides for them: it is the starting point for the FMEA analysis. All this has the purpose of not losing the customer orientation, which must guide all phases of product development. The second generation FMEA becomes a tool of technical memory, requiring the clarification of the criteria used in the design phase to try to satisfy the needs of the customers.

It analyzes the potential drawbacks deriving from the manufacturing / assembly process of the product itself. The process FMEA is based on the assumption that the project has been correctly defined. For each phase envisaged on the Flow, the possible risks must be analyzed defining the Causes and Controls necessary to eliminate them. A Pfmea can be valid for different product codes. PFmea are subject to process modifications deriving from Lessons learned, from customer complaints, from new process implementations; it is therefore important to keep them up-to-date by carrying out the necessary maintenance.

FmeaNet has a very effective tool to simplify this maintenance.

For each product we must analyze the critical and important features represented on the design of the assembly. The analysis is formalized for each single phase envisaged on the Flow considering the relative Pfmea. A Control Plan is specific to a single product code, as it considers the characteristics of the individual product. Flow-PFmea-Control Plan are three documents that must be integrated and it is essential to remember that the changes made to one of the three must be reported in real time for the possible revision of the other two.

FmeaNet is equipped with appropriate tools that facilitate these integration needs.