8 Antworten anzeigen - 1 bis 8 (von insgesamt 8)
  • Autor
    Beiträge
  • #31828
    Kaylinn Willson
    Participant

    Hello,

    This may already be a feature but I haven’t found it yet. Is there a way to set a default occurrence or detection score for a prevention or detection action? We have our CARMs server set up for new users to help build the PFMEA, but we want the valuations to be standardized also. We know that some users may need to change the rating, but we want a default value to start when they select an action from the CARMs server. Is this possible?

    Thank you!

    #31835
    Jürgen Eilers
    Keymaster

    Occurrence and detection ratings are located at the action group level. Not a single action is the justification of the rating, but (potentially) a collection of actions together justify the rating.

    Given that you upload modules with action groups with ratings you will download the ratings.

    As a workaround you could integrate the rating in the name of the action and later run a search request which a check if there are inconsistencies in your database, e.g. „Detection action“ would be named „Detection action (D=4)“.

     

    #31837
    Kaylinn Willson
    Participant

    Thank you for the response. I understand the idea that ratings are tied to the group of actions – but I feel like you could still have default values for individual action types and the system would take the best (or worst?) rating, much like is done if you have more than one failure effect tied to a failure cause and the system takes the highest severity.

    We started employing the work around you mentioned, but I worried that users might get confused if the instance count is visible in their display settings as it would then show a different number and an inexperienced user may incorrectly think this is the expected ranking.

    #31848
    Helmut Hahn
    Participant

    Hello,

    I do not think that it is a good Idea that rating is assigned to a single detection or prevention action. The E or A-Rating has to be evaluated from particular combination of detection or preventive actions.

    If you choos to have at all cost one rating I would suggest to allow only one preventiv and one detection action per action group.
    In the case there is a combination of actions write the in a long text in only one action element in APIS. Could cause other difficulties with the maintenance of the document but others and possibly less and easier ones than having mupliple actions.

    #31850
    Kaylinn Willson
    Participant

    Hello,

    Generally speaking, we DO only have one prevention and detection action per failure. We record using the best method we have in place. For example, we have training for every step, but some steps also have a camera verification. The training may be a rating of 8 while the camera verification is a rating of 2. In this case, we only record the camera verification because it is implied that we do training for every step. But regardless of the step, the camera verification is always a 2 and the training is always an 8, at least as a default. I would think the software could put in the default values and if the user wants to change them, they can. Much like the software already has a feature of marking all valuations as 10 to start, and then the user has to go modify the rankings.

    Workstation Settings options

    #31851
    Frank Rudolf
    Participant

    Hello all,

    As an auditor and as a moderator, I have my problems with the described standardised procedure. A measure must always be evaluated under individual aspects. For example, the camera in a clean room requires a different assessment than in a foundry.

    Moreover, I am of the opinion that our software is already very overloaded with individual solution requests.

    Frank

    #31852
    Kaylinn Willson
    Participant

    Hello,

    While I understand the desire for a simple software program, I didn’t see this as an individual solution request – I think other companies can use this feature if they would like, or they can not. Much like the initial default value of 10 (above) is not used by our company, others could choose to not use default values for the rankings.

    However, I do not understand your reasoning for different ratings. If a camera checks a process 100% for errors and stops the operation in station, that would be the same ranking regardless of if it is in a clean room or in a foundry (a score of 3 per the AIGA/VDA standards, as noted in APIS below). If AIGA/VDA went through the effort to create standardized descriptions for the valuations, then it seems normal to be able to apply a standardized ranking to each control method, correct? It would be one less thing for the hundreds of users in my company to have to decide and update while managing their APIS documents. We plan to implement the use of the CARMs server to have standard functions, failures, preventions, detections, etc. and it seems like having standard valuations would make sense.

    AIGA/VDA D3 Description

    #31866
    hans reichelt
    Participant

    Hello Kaylinn,

    I can understand the suggestion. It is often desired to create the FMEA faster.

    I think it is a good suggestion if the ideal state is given. This is thinkable, if you use it for activities and standard processes, which are really proven. In the process it would be imaginable, but not for new technologies! It takes a lot of experience to recognize the right use cases.

    Because it also hides dangers, especially when working with modules.

    In the process it can be, that at different production locations differently is manufactured because other machines or processes are accomplished. This must be checked!

    This also needs experience.

    For a design or concept FMEA I would rather advise against it !

    Opportunities:

    The step to discuss the effectiveness of measures again and again with the team offers the moderator the possibility to estimate the knowledge of the team members. If the evaluation is already given, this important dialog is omitted.

    Software:

    I am be less concerned about „overloading“ the software. Those who do not know the function will not use it.

    That this function is used wrongly, exists always. Especially as in the case described, that employees without moderator training are used to „support“ the creation of FMEAs. The responsibility for the correct application remains of course with the moderator.

    kind regards, Hans

     

8 Antworten anzeigen - 1 bis 8 (von insgesamt 8)
  • Sie müssen angemeldet sein, um zu diesem Thema eine Antwort verfassen zu können.