... will be posted via a link here shortly and forwarded on to Red.

The format will be as follows:

Problem #
Part/System Name
Description of Failure
Potential Effect
Severity
Occurance
Detection
RPN
Recommended Action


Lemme 'splain these Lucy...

Problem #, Part/System Name, Description of Failure - Self explanatory.

Potential Effect - Description of what happens if the failure occurs - closely related to "Severity" below.

Severity - Rated from 1 to 10. 1 = a very minor annoyance, 10 = a Safety CAMPAIGN (which is a nice way of saying that NHTSA has a search warrant and they're at the front door - a safety recall because folks are getting killed... think Explorer tires here... or exploding Pintos... or Honda seatbelt latches failing and people flying through windshields... capiche?).

Occurance - Again rated from 1 to 10. A meausre of how many of the cars displayed a given problem. 1 = VERY RARE, 10 = every one we built.

Detection - Once again, rated 1 to 10. 1 means that it's very easy to catch in design or manufacturing, 10 means you have no way of knowing it is going to happen and can't contain it. Most of the stuff we have is going to have a fairly low detection number - except for something like piston slap, which occurs a few thousand miles AFTER the car is sold.

RPN - Severity*Occurance*Detection. This helps prioritize. A 1 means you probably don't have to worry about it, a 1000 means cars are spontaneously exploding in the parking lot right in front of your eyes and the flying parts are killing little old ladies and children right and left.

Recommended Action - That's why I made all of you contribute a solution. Anybody can be critical. It takes some thought to solve a perceived problem.



Yes, this looks stunningly similar to a DFMEA (Design Failure Mode and Effects Analysis) - because that's really what it is.

There's probably some form out there that covers a Thing Gone Right/Things Gone Wrong listing, but a DFMEA can do the same thing and isn't quite so "hindsight" oriented - doing this now saves a step and stops a quality engineer from parading around YET ANOTHER layer of paperwork (which is a good thing...). The idea is still to drive these ideas UPFRONT into the heads of the marketing and engineering people who are now planning out a Camaro for us - and this saves the step of having the product engineer having to interpret YET ANOTHER form.

Upfront like this I personally consider EVERY failure a design failure. Later on, when manufacturing starts screwing things up we can call some things PROCESS failures. But right now, they're DESIGN failures because we could most likely DESIGN our way out of them.

BTW - Quality Engineers didn't invent this form. Product engineers did. How can you tell? This one and the DVP&R (Design Verification Plan and Report) are actually useful.

 

Doug, the sheet's ready.

Check your email.

 

..I'll post it ASAP!

 

Thanks!

 

http://www.hardenmotorsports.com/5th...20Proposal.htm

F_DMEA documents and notes are posted.....could we get Jason to Sticky this?!?

 

Doug- mailed you re a better version of the HTML translation. Just a heads up.

 

....thanks!

 

Pacer,
DFMEA looks good.
Can you add a few things.

- replace steering column; current one looks dated (was it out of a 1987 Olds?); looks cheap; customer want/perceived quality

- include an optional dual climate control system; customer want

- ELIMINATE parting lines and mold lines on interior pieces; looks cheap; customer want/quality issue

- use better quality materials in interior; current materials look cheap; customer want/perceived quality

- include better lighting (i.e. underhood light, hatch/trunk light, footwell lights, map lights in rear seat positions, courtesy lights in doors, etc); not enough lighting in the current car; customer want



And please, could we relabel everything to "Camaro/Firebird" instead of just Camaro.
I know we haven't heard anything about the Firebird, but if we purposely leave it out, I feel GM will think we don't care about the Pontiac F-body. And I know that's not true.

Thanks.

 

Screw the Pontiac boys, they already got GTO!

J/K

Great job PacerX!

 

The Berlinetta? Oh man

 

HOLY BUCKETS.

It's just a working name.

I called one of my R&D projects "The Perpetual Motion Machine" once because I needed a working name for it. Raised a few eyebrows with that one...

"A customer ordered a prototype "Perpetual Motion Machine" today. I got $15,000 for it."


Secondly, WE'RE NOT THE TARGET MARKET FOR IT ANYWAY. We want Z28's and SS's almost to a man (woman?)

 

Nice job with the spread sheet guys. But if the Z28 has 40hp less than an SS, and the 1LE is available on the SS Chevrolet has lost one customer already.