Search Results

Dear Clients, Colleagues, Friends & Family I am thrilled to share some exciting news with you. As a global business, engaged in numerous projects across the industry and supply chain, it is time to adapt to market needs. My previous business partner, Lloyd Staples, and I have decided to restructure the business. Moving forward, I will focus on Europe, the Middle East & Africa, and will be more actively involved in operational aspects with customers and the dream team I have by my side. Whilst we are now separate operating entities, we firmly believe in continuing to put our customers’ needs first and supporting one another in this transition. The future is called ht+a (Hans Trunkenpolz + Associates), and it is already something special. It's a new name and a new look, but the same expert-led solutions you’ve trusted for almost 20 years. Do drop me a message – I’d love to catch up. Or follow us on social media and find us at www.ht-a.solutions. And thank you for your continued support. “The future is not something we enter. The future is something we create.” Leonard I Sweet Yours Sincerely, Hans Trunkenpolz Founder & Managing Director ht+a

Matthew Woodford, with a 45-year tenure in the motor industry, delves into Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (FMEA), a key element in engineering and manufacturing. FMEA aids in anticipating failures, enhancing product robustness, and improving process efficiency. FMEA is a dynamic risk management framework applicable to daily life, ensuring consistency and fostering collaboration among engineers. In manufacturing, FMEA and its reverse variant enhance safety and process robustness, contributing to smarter engineering practices. Reverse FMEA stresses processes to uncover weaknesses, reinforcing process robustness. Embracing FMEA as a "living document" aids in ongoing improvement and professional growth. FMEA is a tool for personal and professional growth, encouraging engagement with documentation to expand understanding. Conducting comprehensive FMEA before major expenditures helps prevent costly modifications and delays. Improve engineering and manufacturing practices through effective risk management and failure anticipation. Watch The Video Read The Blog By Matthew Woodford Introduction With 45 years of experience in the motor industry, I aim to share some of the benefits and knowledge I have acquired and pass it on to others. I would like to discuss one of my favourite software tools in the quality system arsenal, which is FMEA. I want to demystify what an FMEA is, explain its benefits, and illustrate how it can enhance you as an engineer or technician. When utilized correctly, this tool can empower you. Whilst there are various FMEA types, such as Reverse FMEA and Systems FMEA, the core concept remains the same: analyzing failure modes and their effects. This is the essence of Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (FMEA). Design FMEA We can conduct a design FMEA, where the designer working on the product evaluates the strength of the design. The purpose is to determine if a failure in this aspect of the design would, for example, endanger a person's life or whether such a failure would leave the end user dissatisfied by compromising the primary function or purpose of the part being designed and developed. By performing a thorough design FMEA, we can then proceed to review our process FMEA. Process FMEA A Process FMEA follows the same approach as a Design FMEA but is utilized to assess our manufacturing process. Outputs from our manufacturing process are directed towards tasks such as control plans, preventive maintenance, and machine tender documents. There are specific outcomes associated with this analysis. FMEA in Real-Life Performing an FMEA is a natural process that we all engage in unconsciously. There is no hidden or mysterious aspect to conducting an FMEA; it is simply a methodical risk assessment tool. This structured approach involves following specific steps, breaking them down, and evaluating the outcomes, a practice that is ingrained in our daily routines. For instance, when embarking on a long journey, such as a thousand-kilometre road trip that has been meticulously planned, considerations about potential risks are automatically present in our subconscious. Questions like whether the car has been serviced recently, the timing of the last service, and the need for another service before the trip naturally arise. Anticipating possible failures like a breakdown during the journey is part of this subconscious risk analysis. To ensure a smooth trip, it is advisable to send the car for servicing, check the oil level, inspect the radiator for leaks, confirm the antifreeze mixture, and assess the condition of the tyres. With only 800 kilometres of tyre wear left, it would be wise to replace the tyres to ensure a successful trip. The goal is to reach the destination and return without any issues. This involves planning and preparing the car, fueling it up, and driving safely to the destination. Anticipating potential problems during the journey is known as Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (FMEA), in a very simplistic format. By examining the functions and steps of the journey, one can identify possible risks and take preventive measures, such as checking the spare wheel and ensuring it is in good condition before departure. This proactive approach helps mitigate any potential issues that may arise during the trip. FMEA in Industry In the automotive and manufacturing industries we implement a structured process based on the fundamental concept of FMEA. This structured approach ensures consistency in how FMEA is applied by everyone involved. Instead of having different versions from different individuals, our standardized approach allows for a clear understanding and interpretation of any FMEA document within the automotive industry. Furthermore, with a structured approach, we are guided through a distinct series of actions. By following these progressions we can scrutinize each step to comprehend their purpose. For instance, it is essential to evaluate the process flow meticulously. This involves moving from one operation to the next in a systematic manner, foreseeing potential outcomes through FMEA analysis before making significant investments. By getting the FMEA right, we can effectively communicate our requirements to machine suppliers, which is a key advantage of this approach over mere checkbox exercises. Understanding the planned process is crucial as we progress through each step sequentially, deconstructing them into functions to determine their intended role. We have inputs for a process. These inputs consist of your five M's: man, machine, material, method, and mother nature. All these inputs are utilized in your method. If you are baking a cake and you have the correct mixture and sequence for adding the elements, we anticipate a result. The result should be a delicious, succulent cake that is not overcooked, tough, dry, or crumbly unless we are intentionally designing a crumble, which would be part of your Design FMEA! Therefore, we have a process FMEA. We have dissected that stage into inputs and anticipated outputs, for example, we aim to reach our destination on our car trip. In our process, we anticipate specific outputs that we identify and by breaking down these functions into elements and expected outcomes, we can test these outcomes. Thinking About Failure Modes When we ponder the familiar question of what could go awry, we may find ourselves contemplating the possibility of not achieving a desired outcome - that would be our failure scenario. Have you ever visited B&BS, hotels, or similar accommodations? We all crave that perfect golden-brown toast to complement our breakfast. Placing it in at the top of the toaster, we watch as the toaster whirls, clicks, clunks, and eventually delivers the toast from the bottom - still white! I like golden toast, so I put it on the top again for a second run. Only this time it comes out burnt at the bottom! I don't want that so I put it in the bin. That's a wasted piece of bread and an unnecessary expense gone down the drain. My process for making golden brown toast didn't succeed. The expected result of inserting a piece of bread at the top is a nicely toasted piece at the bottom, which is my anticipated outcome. What can go wrong? It's not golden brown. There are two failures: it's burnt and black, or it remains the same colour as when it was inserted (i.e. it's not toasted). These are the failure modes. For each failure mode identified in our process, the next step is to question it and determine why it occurred. Why did it end up burnt? What measures should I implement to prevent this from reoccurring? Every time it happens, a burnt slice of bread is wasted. I need to evaluate my process and expected outcome. If I'm not achieving it, that's my failure mode. Now, what preventive measures can I implement to avoid encountering that failure mode? That's when you establish the correct settings for speed and temperature. I have been purchasing machines from various countries, including Japan, and one particular machine I acquired was a rotary transfer machine. If you are reading this, you should have some understanding of manufacturing processes. This rotary transfer machine required special procedures for changing tools, involving large and heavy cutters being swapped in and out. While I was there, a thought crossed my mind - could I accidentally damage the machine while they were changing the tooling? So, I asked my Japanese colleagues and engineers if the table would rotate if I pressed the "index table" button on the control panel while they were removing a cutter. They were taken aback and expressed concern, saying it would be foolish and unsafe! I acknowledged the danger but inquired if the table would rotate if I activated the control. They discussed amongst themselves and returned confirming that indeed the table would rotate. I then requested a safety control to be implemented not just to protect the part's integrity but also to ensure the operator's and setter's safety, a crucial aspect in Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (FMEA). The team left and returned with new PLC logic for the controller and upon pressing it, the rotary table did not move, which was the desired outcome. Reverse FMEA There is a concept emerging in FMEAs known as reverse FMEA. Different customers, such as Ford, General Motors, and Volkswagen, have varying interpretations of reverse FMEA. However, it is crucial to understand that a reverse FMEA is not an afterthought! By the time you have your production line set up, it may be too late to perform an FMEA. This is because the FMEA should be conducted before purchasing a machine. The findings of an FMEA, including the necessary controls, should be integrated into your tender documentation for potential machine suppliers. By sharing the identified potential failures from your process FMEA with the machine supplier, you are essentially informing them about the specific risks that could lead to nonconforming parts. It is essential that the machine supplier addresses these issues in their own FMEA, incorporating the outputs from your process FMEA into their machine controls. Having been a Ford employee for many years, they encourage you to experiment. Once your process is approved, it undergoes all the necessary launch controls, and you move into series production. After 12 months they reassess the improvements you have made to enhance the robustness of your process. They expect to see a detailed plan that identifies and prioritizes the machines, including those that may pose constraints or act as bottlenecks, and those with the most critical characteristics. You should have conducted tests to identify potential failures and defective parts, with controls in place as outlined in the FMEA and control plan to detect and prevent any issues. They are now considering performing a reverse FMEA. What other modifications or scenarios could be tested on the machine that were not previously considered during the initial FMEA analysis? What would be the outcome if the part is inserted upside down? How would the machine react if the tool changer mistakenly selects the wrong tool? Is it possible to load the part backwards, and if so, would it cause any damage to the machine? Will the machine continue to operate normally in this situation? When we caution against acting recklessly or tempting fate, we must remember that in manufacturing and the automotive industry, Murphy's Law often applies - if something can go wrong, it will! It is crucial to anticipate and prevent potential failures before they occur. For Ford, the reverse FMEA approach involves deliberately testing processes and operations to identify weaknesses. This proactive strategy involves documenting and preserving results as evidence for audits. By outlining a plan to systematically assess machines and establish priorities, companies can mitigate risks and prevent costly mistakes. This meticulous approach is a key aspect of reverse FMEA. When addressing other customer-specific requirements, your reverse FMEA analysis could be guided by your quality matrix, the data obtained from your quality feedback, warranty information, customer complaints, and G8Ds. It is important to address these quality issues and question why the FMEA process did not prevent them. Revisiting your FMEA and conducting an audit on it is crucial. The FMEA should have indicated the possibility of these issues occurring and confirmed that the necessary measures were in place to prevent them. However, despite having a control plan outlining detection and protection measures, the customer was not safeguarded. If the customer had been protected, the need for a corrective action process like the 8D system would not have arisen, which is typically initiated when a customer receives a faulty or defective part. Benefits of an FMEA Performing an FMEA does not guarantee that you will have the most resilient process, but if done correctly, it can eliminate 99% of potential failures. Simply checking the box is not enough. An FMEA is designed to optimize time and cost in a process. Making changes to your machinery, process, or equipment after purchase and installation will lead to project delays, time penalties, and possibly the need to hire more resources to mitigate these setbacks. Ultimately, it will incur costs. Conducting an FMEA before making capital expenditures can result in significant cost savings. Conclusion When striving for personal growth, the desire to progress and acquire knowledge is natural. An FMEA serves as a wealth of information. If your FMEA is robust and reliable, you should seek to understand the process and the organization you are part of. Review, comprehend, and question the FMEA as it holds a vast amount of knowledge for everyone's benefit. I believe that FMEAs are among the best-structured systems in manufacturing, particularly for those involved in process or project engineering. I have immersed myself in FMEAs, finding them stimulating and a valuable part of my ongoing learning journey. Or Listen To The Podcast Want to learn more about FMEA? Sign up for one of our instructor-led courses: ht+a FMEA Courses Accredited AIAG + VDA Harmonized FMEA Course Mastering Manufacturing: The Transformative Role of FMEA and Its Impact on Engineering Excellence

During a Core Tools III training session I presented, a student asked a relevant question which deserves a quantitative answer. So to answer more comprehensively than I did during the training, I will break down my response to this question into several posts you can follow. Often in the automotive industry, we throw around phrases like “Best in Class”, “Lessons Learnt" and "Robust Process” without further explaining what we mean by these. I was asked “What is a Robust Process?” when using that last phrase. Having briefly answered what a robust process is without quantifying it, I continued the lecture. If someone had given me that answer when starting in process manufacturing, I would have again asked “So what is it?”. The definition is: A robust process is one that consistently produces products at the required volume and meets or exceeds the customer’s quality expectations with minimal variation regardless of changing conditions or inputs. That statement still leaves me asking the same question. It does not give me boundaries or targets to which I can claim I have a robust process. So let’s dig deeper. What do I need to achieve to make my process robust? This question should be asked when designing the initial process at your PFMEA stage. Unfortunately, all too often, this critical stage of process design is often overlooked. However if you have inherited an existing process that performs below expectations, then you need to identify the functions or systems that need to be initiated (if they don’t already exist) and the targets for each of these “Tools” in order to claim a robust process. If we look at the definition above, we can start to break it down into chunks... Firstly, if we want a facility to perform with minimal variation in the required volume, the production line must be capable of achieving quantity and quality. If quality is poor, this will have an adverse effect on both the quantity and delivery. So what better measurable to monitor than Overall Equipment Efficiency (or OEE in short)? Okay, I hear some ask, so "What is OEE, what is my target and what do I need to do to reach and maintain that target?". I am not going to do in these articles is teach OEE or any other system that gets mentioned, however, I shall give pointers and targets to such mentioned quality systems to help you understand what they are and, more importantly, what the quantifiable target values are. Hopefully having wet your appetite, my next article will break down what OEE is, what to aim for and what tools and systems help maintain OEE. Written by: Matthew Woodford (ht+a Trainer & Consultant)

Having explained in the first part of “What is a Robust Process”, I ended by saying that OEE is a good indicator of understanding the “health” of a production facility. Overall Equipment Efficiency (OEE) is a measure of the ability of a machine to consistently produce a product which meets quality standards at the designed cycle rate without disruption. World-class standards aim for an OEE of or above 85%. So what makes up OEE? OEE measures three key indicators - these are made up of other key measurable such as Dock To Dock (DTD), Build To Schedule (BTS) and First Time Through (FTT), but let’s look at the top levels which are: •       Equipment Availability •       Performance Efficiency •       Quality Performance Looking at these three key areas we can therefore express that: OEE = Availability x Performance Efficiency x Quality Rate Where AVAILABILITY is the amount of time the machine or process was available to run compared to the amount of time it was scheduled to run. Therefore: Availability = Operating Time / Net Available Time PERFORMANCE EFFICIENCY determines how closely a piece of equipment runs to its planned cycle time. This can be affected by speed losses and losses associated with undocumented idling or minor stoppages resulting from blocked or starved upstream or downstream equipment. If possible this should be logged if it is having an impact on key equipment performance efficiency. Therefore: Performance Efficiency = (Planned Cycle Time x Total Products Run) / Operating Time Finally, QUALITY RATE is the total number of good parts produced on a machine or operation compared to the total products run, or: Quality Rate = (Total Products Run – Total Rejects) / Total Products Run To summarise: a process should achieve 85% or more to be classed as a Robust Process. If you have attended the Core Tools training you will know that you can derive various data sheets to capture supporting data to help with the above. This blog is not about teaching OEE as such, but should further knowledge about OEE please consider our Manufacturing Excellence (Lean Manufacturing) training. Next, I will focus on quality performance indicators... Written by: Matthew Woodford (ht+a Trainer & Consultant)

APQP, FMEA and PPAP are all about designing all the controls and capabilities for a robust process. Trying to convert an existing poorly performing production facility into a robust process can be done but requires time (often downtime whilst trying to support production!) and extra cost. To do this would be a whole new conversation! Setting the scene... You have your new production line. It has been commissioned and has been producing good parts. Like a new car, it drives every bit as it was designed to do and delivers a pleasurable driving experience. But fail to do your quality inspections (oil, water, tyre pressure etc.) and that driving experience could change to a negative one quickly! Ignore the scheduled maintenance intervals and the reliability in performance will be compromised.  A production line, machines and gauges are no different. So what do we need to do to monitor and maintain our robust process? Naturally, everything is specified in our PPAP! But in this section, I want to focus on continuous improvement, SPC and MSA. Continuous improvement is driven by the philosophy of "if you’re not improving then you’re standing still". If you’re standing still in today’s competitive environment then you are actually going backwards. No matter how well the process has been planned, there is always an opportunity for improvement. There will be quality concerns - internal or external. There will be performance breakdowns. There will be information based on customer feedback, employee involvement teams, quality data analysis, market dynamics and technology improvements. So we can continue to build a better and more efficient production facility. There are several tools to assist in continuous improvement: Kaizen; PDCA; Six Sigma; Lean Manufacturing; Value Stream Mapping and SPC. Applying any one or more of these methods can help keep you focused on keeping your production facility robust. Let's split SPC or Statistical Process Control into two parts: Process Capability: As was discussed earlier, capability assesses the ability of a process or operation to repeat within predefined specifications, defining the variation of the process to that of the tolerance limits. We use the indices Cp/Cpk, Pp or Ppk to quantify how well the process meets drawing specifications. Process capability should be performed at least once every twelve months. Control Charts on the other hand are used to monitor the stability of the process over time. A typical Xbar and R chart plots the performance of the process over time against calculated control limits (not tolerance specifications). Using control charts helps identify trends, shifts, or other patterns that may indicate special causes of variation that require investigation and corrective action to keep the process under control. So we can say that capability analysis studies whether or not a process is capable of meeting drawing specifications, whereas control charts monitor the ongoing performance and variation of the process. Both are needed if we wish to maintain our robust process. As for MSA (Measurement System Analysis), we need to perform an analysis to ensure the measurements taken from a manufacturing process are both accurate and reliable. More commonly known as a Gauge R&R (Repeatable & Reproducible) Study, this ensures the equipment we use to obtain data that we do or do not act upon or make decisions about, is reliable, accurate and capable of producing consistent results. I hope I have succeeded in defining a Robust Process and the tools for measuring and maintaining a robust production facility. Till next time! Written by: Matthew Woodford (ht+a Trainer & Consultant)