International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management

Failure mapping using FMEA and A3 in engineering to order product development: a case study in the
industrial automation sector
Clarice Inês Lorenzi, Joao Carlos Espindola Ferreira,
Article information:
To cite this document:
Clarice Inês Lorenzi, Joao Carlos Espindola Ferreira, "Failure mapping using FMEA and A3 in engineering to order product
development: a case study in the industrial automation sector", International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management,
https://doi.org/10.1108/IJQRM-10-2016-0179
Permanent link to this document:
https://doi.org/10.1108/IJQRM-10-2016-0179
Downloaded on: 29 June 2018, At: 18:58 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 0 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF TOLEDO LIBRARIES At 18:58 29 June 2018 (PT)

The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 4 times since 2018*
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:277069 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service
information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please
visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of
more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online
products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication
Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

 Failure mapping using FMEA and A3 in engineering to order product development: a case
study in the industrial automation sector

Author 1: Clarice Inês Lorenzi

Affiliation: Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina

Address: Departamento de Engenharia Mecanica, GRIMA/GRUCON, Caixa Postal 476, CEP

88040-900, Florianopolis, SC, Brazil
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF TOLEDO LIBRARIES At 18:58 29 June 2018 (PT)

E-mail: clara_lz@hotmail.com

Author 2: Joao Carlos Espindola Ferreira (corresponding author)

Affiliation: Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina

Address: Departamento de Engenharia Mecanica, GRIMA/GRUCON, Caixa Postal 476, CEP

88040-900, Florianopolis, SC, Brazil

Telephone: +55 48 3721 4021

Fax: +55 48 3721 7615

E-mail: j.c.ferreira@ufsc.br or jcarlos.ferreira@gmail.com

Abstract

Purpose - To improve the failure analysis and troubleshooting process in engineering to order (ETO)
product development, and reduce the amount of parts with failures. This is important because parts
with failures are associated with the additional costs resulting from corrections of the product, reduced
productivity due to the time waiting for the corrected part, delays in delivery, and harm to the image of
the organization.

Design/Methodology/Approach – FMEA and A3 are combined in a document for failure analysis

and recording of the generated knowledge. The method is applied to an industrial automation company
that designs and manufactures engineering to order products. Initially, the failures identified in
mechanical assembly products are mapped, and then FMEA and A3 are combined in a document
template, and a checklist for review the detailing is built. Then, the method is applied in the design
phase, and also for solving conceptual failures in the mechanical assembly and testing phase, and the
knowledge generated is recorded.

1
 Findings - The results show the feasibility of the proposed method for both failure analysis and
knowledge generation. Moreover, the adoption of improvement practices in routine activities, for
example, the checklist for reviewing the detailing, can reduce up to 10% the amount of parts with
failures.

Practical Implications - The integration of FMEA and A3 encourages group thinking and monitoring
the implemented actions. Since the document contains minor changes in the layout from the design
phase to the assembly and testing phase, it contributed to the understanding of the people who
participated in performing each phase. It should be ensured the participation of experienced
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF TOLEDO LIBRARIES At 18:58 29 June 2018 (PT)

individuals with a proactive assertiveness who encourage the exchange of knowledge, preventing
recurring failures from occurring in the conceptual phase. The approach to ensure quality was well
accepted by the personnel in the company, but the implementation requires changing habits and
establishing new practices.

Originality/Value - The method proposed in this paper was applied to a company that designs and
manufactures engineering to order (ETO) industrial automation products. Since such products have
high variety, the company has different characteristics compared with the companies that were
considered in the few publications that attempted to combine the FMEA and A3 methods for failure
analysis. The proposed method provides convenience for queries and updates, since it allows the
inclusion of different failures in a single A3 report, reducing the number of separate documents. Also,
the method includes a checklist for detailing review, which contributed to the reduction of failures.

Keywords - Failure Analysis, Product Design, FMEA, A3 Method, Checklist, Generated Knowledge

1. Introduction

The need to be competitive in the global market has become a matter of survival for
companies in recent decades (Karim et al., 2008). According to Beiter et al. (2000), this scenario is
associated with the gradually reduced life cycle of products, combined with the pressure to deliver
differentiated products to customers, with high quality, low cost, and in a short time. With regard to
product development, meeting all these requirements is also a challenge for organizations (Von
Corswant and Tunälv, 2002; Hoppmann et al., 2011; Letens et al., 2011).
The need to improve the quality of products, services, and customer satisfaction has led to
various techniques to minimize or eliminate failures (Hassan et al., 2009). Among the most common
techniques to minimize the probability of failure is the Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (FMEA)
(BS 5760 Part 5, 1991; Teng and Ho, 1996; Hawkins and Woolons, 1998; Teoh and Case, 2004),

2
 which attempts to improve the quality and reliability in designs, systems, processes, and services
(Stamatis, 2003; Liu et al., 2013).
Although FMEA is widespread and applied to various business segments (for instance,
Scipioni et al., 2002; Arabian-Hoseynabadi et al., 2010; Oldenhoff et al., 2011; De Souza and
Carpinetti, 2014; Chanamool and Naenna, 2016; Roy et al., 2016; Lolli et al., 2016), users report some
difficulties related to the imprecision of the values of the Risk Priority Numbers (RPNs) and the
difficulty in estimating the values for the indexes (Kara Zaitri et al., 1991; Sankar and Prabhu, 2001;
Jenab and Dhillon, 2005; Liu et al., 2013; Dağsuyu et al., 2016; Roy et al., 2016; Lolli et al., 2016).
FMEA is considered very laborious and boring (Elmqvist and Nadjm-Tehrani, 2008), besides the
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF TOLEDO LIBRARIES At 18:58 29 June 2018 (PT)

difficulty in bringing together the multidisciplinary team (Huang et al., 2000; Teng et al., 2006;
Claxton and Campbell-Allen, 2017). It is also expensive because of its detailed nature (Altabbakh et
al., 2013).
Constraints for adopting this method in its entirety can increase when it comes to companies
that manufacture engineering to order (ETO) products (Erkoc et al., 2008; Behún et al., 2014;
Husejnagic and Sluga, 2015). According to Slack et al. (2006), these companies produce low volume
and high variety products, and they frequently share resources for product manufacturing. Also, in
many of those companies the time from product development to delivery is very long, and along this
period a large amount of knowledge is generated. In view of these ETO characteristics, the following
restrictions may apply to the application of FMEA: (a) difficulty in assembling the multidisciplinary
team (Huang et al., 2000; Teng et al., 2006); (b) large amount of time and resources (Carmignani,
2009; Chao and Ishii, 2007).
Given this scenario, in this work a method was developed that integrates FMEA and the A3
report for troubleshooting (Shook, 2009) into a standard document. The A3 method is one of many
tools developed by Toyota Motor Corporation for continuous improvement of operational
performance (Sobek II and Jimmerson, 2004; Liker and Morgan, 2006). According Saad et al. (2013),
based on the application of the A3 method, the knowledge generated provides the designer greater
understanding of useful knowledge obtained and documented in a new A3 report, which can be used
as a reference or solution to mitigate design failures.
The proposed method is applied in the analysis of failures and record the knowledge generated
in phases of the product development process (design, mechanical assembly, and tests) in a company
that manufactures industrial automation systems. In order to support the detailing phase and minimize
rework in the manufactured parts, a checklist of the review process was also developed, which is
applied specifically to part drawings whose manufacturing processes have higher added value.
In the next section previous research on topics related to the method proposed in this paper is
presented, which includes product development, FMEA, and the A3 method. Then, the proposed

3
 method, its application to a manufacturing company, and the results obtained are described. Finally,
the conclusions of the paper are presented.

2. Related research

A survey of the works related to this research is presented in this section.

2.1. Product development

In order to remain at an appropriate level of competitiveness, companies are under increasing

Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF TOLEDO LIBRARIES At 18:58 29 June 2018 (PT)

pressure to reduce the development time of products and processes (Agus and Haginoor, 2012; Shina,
2012; Thakor, 2013). In this context, many companies have adopted concurrent engineering, which
reduces the product development cycle time, increases product quality, and minimizes costs (Vesey,
1992; Carrillo and Franza, 2006). Concurrent engineering is a product development approach where
multidisciplinary teams work together from initial requirements to production (Sohlenius, 1992; Albin
and Crefeld III, 1994; Swink, 1998; Koufteros et al., 2001; Al-Ashaab et al., 2009).
According to some authors, product development activities can be seen as a broad business
process, where there is integration from strategic planning until the withdrawal of the product from the
market (Wheelwright and Clark, 1992; Carrillo and Franza, 2006; Peres et al., 2010). Therefore, it is
important to adopt a reference model so that all those involved have a similar vision of the process
(Smith and Morrow, 1999; Kalpic and Bernus, 2002; Amaral and Rozenfeld, 2007; Yan et al., 2011).
The model adopted in this paper was proposed by Amaral and Rozenfeld (2007). In this model, each
phase is characterized by the delivery of a set of results (deliverables) that, together, generate a new
level of development. The evaluation of the results of each phase is also important for reflecting on the
design progress, anticipating problems and providing learning opportunities for the company. Such a
broad and thorough assessment procedure is called “gate”.
The model illustrates the product development process in three macro-phases (Pre-
Development, Development and Post-Development) divided into steps that group activities. In this
study only the development macro-phase will be addressed, which emphasizes the technological
aspects adequate to the design of the product, its attributes and production. This macro-phase
comprises the following steps:
• Informational Design: activities primarily related to the acquisition and interpretation of design
information;
• Conceptual Design: with the information obtained in the previous phase the product concept is
proposed, and also its layout and interfaces, color, appearance, finishing, and choice of
materials, shapes, components, manufacturing and assembly processes;

4
 • Detailed Design: the product specifications are developed and finalized: component tolerances,
arrangement, shape and dimensions. Drawings are generated, manufacturing processes are
detailed, the product is tested and approved, and its end of life is planned;
• Preparation of Production: involves the manufacture of a pilot batch, the definition of
manufacturing and maintenance processes seeking to ensure that the company can produce a
quality product, and also meet customer requirements throughout the product life cycle.
• Product Launch: launches the product into the market, in order to ensure acceptance by the
potential customer.
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF TOLEDO LIBRARIES At 18:58 29 June 2018 (PT)

2.2. FMEA - Failure Mode and Effects Analysis

FMEA (Failure Mode and Effects Analysis) is a method used to identify in advance the modes,
effects and potential causes of failures that can occur in systems, products and processes, as well as
establish preventive actions (BS 5760 Part 5, 1991; Teng and Ho, 1996; Sankar and Prabhu, 2001;
Lolli et al., 2015; Dağsuyu et al., 2016; Claxton and Campbell-Allen, 2017). The criticality assessment
of the failure modes is performed by determining the risk priority number (RPN), which is obtained by
multiplying the risk factors likeness of occurrence (O), severity (S), and detectability (D) (Bowles and
Peláez, 1995; Liu et al., 2013, Lolli et al., 2015), and corrective actions are required for failure modes
with a high RPN value (Dağsuyu et al., 2016). FMEA, when properly applied, prevents future design
changes by correcting failures in the product or process, ensuring quality to the customer (Hawkins
and Woolons, 1998; Teoh and Case, 2004).
After defining the function, the failure modes, effects and causes, corrective actions, deadlines
and people responsible for carrying out the actions are established (AIAG, 2008). All these data are
recorded in a document whose layout can be changed according to the criteria adopted by each
company, and the analysis should be reviewed whenever changes occur in the specific product/process
(Stamatis, 2003). A FMEA worksheet adapted from SAE (2002) is shown in Figure 1.
Each field is described below:
• System (1): it refers to the object under study;
• Participants (2): the name of each member who was present in the FMEA meeting;
• Page and Dates (3): page number, start date, and review date;
• Component (4): it identifies the component to be analyzed;
• Function (5): it describes the component function to meet the design scope. The function must
be written clearly and objectively for easy understanding;
• Potential Failure Mode (6): it defines how the component loses its function, i.e. how the
component may fail;

5
 • Potential Failure Effects (7): it describes the consequences of the potential failure mode in terms
of what the customer may notice;
• Class (8): field used to classify any special characteristics of the component, system or
subsystem that may require control;
• Potential Failure Causes (9): reason for occurring the failure mode;
• Recommended Actions (10): improvement measures to be taken to minimize the causes of
failure;
• Person Responsible / Deadline for Completion (11): people responsible for carrying out actions
and the deadlines for their completion.
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF TOLEDO LIBRARIES At 18:58 29 June 2018 (PT)

In this work the design FMEA characteristics are discussed in more detail. For Teng and Ho
(1996), design FMEA is a method to verify if the appropriate materials are being used in order to
comply with customer specifications, and to ensure that government regulations are followed, before
finalizing the product design. Design FMEA is used to analyze products before they are released to
manufacturing (Stamatis, 2003; Goyal et al., 2014). The standard IEC 60812 (2006) highlights the
importance of using FMEA, preferably in the early phases of product development, given that at this
phase the costs of mitigating the failure modes are usually lower.
According to AIAG (2008), FMEA can be performed in one or more sessions supported by a
multidisciplinary team. This multidisciplinary approach enables the involvement of all areas of the
company affected by the analysis. Some of the benefits obtained from the use of this method are the
following (Ford Motor Company, 2000; Stamatis, 2003; Carlson, 2012):
• It contributes to identify critical attributes;
• It facilitates the identification and elimination of potential security failures;
• It enables the identification of failures still in the product development phase;
• It analyzes the initial design with regard to the manufacturing, assembly, services, and recycling
requirements.

Although the application of FMEA has several benefits in minimizing failures, according to
Schmidt et al. (2011) this method has the following limitations:
• FMEA is time consuming and requires significant involvement of engineering and management
personnel;
• Frequently the participants are not interested in getting the benefits, but in finishing the event
quickly;
• Often FMEA is not performed in the early design phase due to the lack of information for filling
out the document correctly.

6
 2.3. A3 method for problem solving

The A3 method for solving problems emerged in the 1960s and is an effective tool to solve
problems, proposals, plans, and status in a structured manner (Liker and Morgan, 2006; Shook, 2009;
Shook, 2010).
Morgan and Liker (2006) define A3 as a standard method of communication, structured on a
single sheet of paper (called A3 Report), which seeks to guide troubleshooting and facilitate
communication between the various specialties in the organization. The leaders and their teams should
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF TOLEDO LIBRARIES At 18:58 29 June 2018 (PT)

detail the problem being faced and how it will be addressed, following the tables that divide the sheet.
This structure enables all those involved to see the problem through the same lens: an A3 sheet ruled
by synthesis and objectivity, preventing the dispersion of information and lengthy reports that very
few people would read (Liker, 2004).
This study uses the A3 report whose definition by Morgan and Liker (2006) is characterized by
the sharing of information related to design development, in which both history and the layout are at
the author's discretion.
An A3 report is divided into the following stages, as shown in Figure 2 (Sobek II and
Jimmerson, 2004; Shook, 2009):
Stage A: All A3 reports contain the date and the names of the author and manager.
Stage 1 – Background: Delimits objectively the subject title and the specific importance of the
problem;
Stage 2 – Current Conditions: Describes in detail the current status of the problem;
Stage 3 – Goals/Targets: Identifies the specific expected results;
Stage 4 – Root Cause Analysis: Analyzes the situation in order to identify the root cause;
Stage 5 – Countermeasures: Proposes improvements;
Stage 6 – Action Plan: Implements the action plan outlining the actions taken, deadlines, and
people responsible;
Stage 7 – Follow-up: Follows up the actions established by comparing the expected results
with the obtained ones.

From the perspective of Sobek II and Jimmerson (2006), in order for the organizations to
improve, both cognitive and behavioral changes are needed: challenge objectively the current level of
understanding, address the causes of the problem (not only the symptoms), involve all participants
affected by the changes proposed, consider who will do what, and when to make the change.

7
 For Shook (2009), the ultimate goal of A3 is not just to solve problems but to provide
knowledge and learning to solve these problems. In this context, Zhu (2012) points out that the A3
report is an easy way to capture knowledge and communicate with others.
Some of the benefits obtained from the use of this method are listed below (Shook, 2009; Sobek
II and Jimmerson, 2004):
• Documentation of the current state through direct observation;
• It takes simple resources such as paper and pencil, and it does not require specialized training;
• Its graphical representation provides accuracy and ease of understanding to those involved;
• It represents a comprehensive approach to solving problems, from identification to
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF TOLEDO LIBRARIES At 18:58 29 June 2018 (PT)

implementation.

These characteristics of the method allow its application in various segments. For example,
Ghosh and Sobek II (2006) applied it to improve the group meal therapy process in a Rehabilitation
Nursing Unit (RNU) in a hospital; Bassuk and Washington (2013) applied A3 in an animal nursery to
standardize log information about sick animals and controls on weekends and holidays for animal
health inspection. Another application of the method was performed by Saad et al. (2013), who
focused on problem solving in product design, including failures in electromagnetic compatibility in
an automotive electrical subassembly.

2.4. Previous works that combined FMEA and A3

Some previous works combined FMEA and A3 to assess possible failures. Lodgaard et al.
(2011) describe a case study involving the combination of FMEA and A3 methods for
troubleshooting, where A3 is used to solve the most critical problems identified in the FMEA. The
method proposed by Lodgaard et al. (2011) was applied to a company that develops high-tech defense
and aerospace products, but no information was provided about the manufacturing approach related to
a received order.
Another case study that combines FMEA and the A3 report is presented by Zhu (2012), who
sought to reduce the design failures and reuse the knowledge acquired in previous analyzes
considering the similarities between the elements that compose the FMEA and A3, as shown in Table
1. The work proposed by Zhu (2012) was applied to a first tier automotive supplier of electrical parts,
in which the bill of materials (BOM) contains a relatively low amount of parts, and the amount of
manufactured products is high.

At the end of the conceptual and detailed designs, a prototype for performance evaluation tests
is produced. If a failure is identified, it is recorded in the documentation of failures based on FMEA.
Then the team responsible for solving the failure uses the A3 method, since the A3 approach enables

8
 task assignment plan and implementation of the solution. Thus, each failure is recorded in an A3
report with practical solutions. Then a checklist with these issues is built, which is provided to the
team to help to avoid the repeated occurrence of the same failure and improve the quality of new
designs.
Due to the limitations of the FMEA method, Lodgaard et al. (2011) and Zhu (2012) consider
that FMEA alone is not sufficient for an effective process of potential failure analysis. However, when
combined with the A3 method, better and more complete results are obtained, because the A3 method
encourages continuous improvement and is associated with the reuse of the knowledge generated in
previous situations.
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF TOLEDO LIBRARIES At 18:58 29 June 2018 (PT)

It can be noticed that both FMEA and A3 generate separate documents for recording the
analysis of failures in the same design: the FMEA document and the A3 report, respectively. This can
weaken the routine maintenance when using these methods, since the interfaces of the documents for
failure analysis are different. Also, depending on the amount of failures, several loose documents (an
A3 report for each failure) are generated, hindering the grouping of the applied countermeasures, and
with such grouping querying and action monitoring would become practical.
This research proposes the combination of the FMEA and A3 for failure analysis with the
following characteristics:
• A standard document in A3 format is developed so as to merge the two methods for failure
analysis in the design phase;
• For the failures identified in the mechanical assembly and testing phases, minor adjustments are
considered in the document in order to facilitate the familiarization of the people who use the
document;
• Multiple occurrences can be recorded in the same report, minimizing the amount of loose
documents.

3. Description of the proposed method

The proposed method is structured in three phases as shown in Figure 3.

In phase I the documents and practices of the company are examined during the process of
failure analysis. A sample is established for failure mapping, and it contains one or more designs of
industrial equipment. Failures are recorded in an electronic spreadsheet shown in Table 2, and
monitoring is carried out together with the person that performs the assembly.
The spreadsheet includes the identification of the sample, drawing number, number of parts
with failures resulting from their drawings, date, phase when the failure takes place (Concept,
Modeling, or Detailing), and brief description of the failure. In this work the failures in each phase are
the following:
9
 • Concept: occurrences that do not allow the assembly and/or operation of the equipment within
the expected parameters.
• Modeling: related to the modeling of the parts to allow the assembly of the equipment.
• Detailing: related to interference, dimensions, and tolerances, mismatch between holes and
threads, constructive form, applied material, and specified roughness.

Phase II takes into account the similarities between the elements of FMEA and A3 shown in
Table 1, and proposes a combination of both methods, generating a single document for recording and
troubleshooting. For the development of the document, the A3 report following the classification
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF TOLEDO LIBRARIES At 18:58 29 June 2018 (PT)

provided by Morgan and Liker (2006) and the structural shape of the FMEA presented by SAE (2002)
are used. Table 3 shows the relationship among the elements in FMEA, and also additional elements
related to the model developed for the A3 report.
The following describes fields 2, 3, 14, and 15 of Table 3, which are specific to the developed
A3 model:
• Phase (2): phase of the design at the moment of analysis: mechanical design or assembly /
testing;
• Description (3): it corresponds to the design title.
• Status (14): field to identify whether the improvement was completed or not: "OK" in the case
of a completed improvement, and "NOK" for an incomplete one.
• Groups (15): used to identify what the failure requires to be eliminated. There are five groups:

1. Amount of Parts: requirement for the addition, removal or alteration of commercial parts.
2. Mechanical Modifications: changes in manufactured mechanical parts.
3. Safety Requirements: safety related issues in operating the equipment.
4. Ergonomics: related to actions to meet ergonomic requirements.
5. Integration: modifications to the mechanical, electrical, and programming integration.

The model shown in Table 4 is configured to the A3 format and does not include the risk
priority number (RPN), since it is considered that all instances recorded in the report need to be
resolved.
In order to apply the method in the assembly and testing phases, some adjustments were
considered in the following fields of the standard document:
• Date (5 and 6): elimination of field 6 and addition of lines to field 5 so as to enable the record of
occurrences on different dates in the same document;
• Groups (15): limited to groups that are related to the occurrence of failures accumulated in the
document, but other groups can be included, if necessary.
10
 • Obtained Results: column added to the side of the Groups column, which lists the status:
“Satisfactory” for actions that lead to a successful implementation and “Unsatisfactory” for
actions that need to be performed again.

In order to minimize breakage failure, a checklist for reviewing the detailing considering the
review items shown in Figure 4 was developed. The review scope was restricted to parts requiring
machining or having a complex geometry, considering important the variables manufacturing time and
cost. The drawings that need to be corrected based on any of the items in the checklist are recorded in
a table with the same format of Table 2.
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF TOLEDO LIBRARIES At 18:58 29 June 2018 (PT)

Finally, phase III comprises:

• Definition of the new sample and application of the A3 method;
• Use of the checklist to review the detailing before releasing the drawings to manufacturing;
• Recording the failures identified in the mechanical assembly phase;
• Identification of occurrences of failures in mechanical concept of the assembly, integration, and
testing phases, and solve them using the A3 method, as shown in the flowchart in Figure 5.

Thus, the history of failures and adopted corrective actions are added continuously during the
period of assembly and testing, and accompanied by the record of successful and unsuccessful
attempts, represented by the dashed line. These data will be used as a source of new knowledge to
enable preventive actions to minimize the occurrence of conceptual failures in future designs with
similar characteristics.

4. Case study

The company where the proposed method was applied is located in Southern Brazil, and it
produces products for industrial automation, which include vision systems, traceability systems,
inspection machines, assembly lines, and robotics equipment. The company has developed products
for customers in the pharmaceutical, cosmetics, automotive, food, beverage, plastics, and packaging
industries. As pointed out previously, the production strategy adopted by studied company is
Engineering to Order (ETO), which designs and manufactures customized products that meet the
needs of each customer.

4.1. Analysis of the current condition in the studied company

The development phases of each product in the studied company follows the chart shown in
Figure 6. Phase I (Development) covers the activities of mechanical design, electrical design, and
offline design of programming. Phase II (Assembly and Integration) encompasses the mechanical
assembly, electrical assembly, programming and integration (startup and testing). Phase III (Delivery)
11
 and IV (Installation) correspond to the shipment and installation of the product (which is a piece of
equipment) at the customer's plant, respectively. The time from development to delivery varies
depending on the complexity and technologies involved, and can range from 60 to 270 days.
In order to identify possible failures still in the design phase, the adopted procedure consists of
gathering together the multidisciplinary technical team to analyze the mechanical design at the end of
modeling. The analysis, identified internally as “FMEA”, is qualitative and is characterized by the
designer’s presentation of the equipment in CAD software.
The meeting has variable duration not exceeding 4.5 hours. During the presentation of the
design, participants interact suggesting or requesting changes, or clarifying doubts about the items
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF TOLEDO LIBRARIES At 18:58 29 June 2018 (PT)

they consider likely to undergo failure. The issues addressed at the meeting are recorded in the
minutes for any future actions resulting from the discussion. The document is stored in the design's
electronic folder, and also sent via email by the design coordinator to the participants in the meeting.
After FMEA is applied, the next steps involve corrections, presentation of the 3D modeling to
the customer, detailing and, finally, the release of the bill of materials (BOM) in order to initiate
purchases.
In general, when examining the minutes from the FMEA analysis of the initial sample, some
weak points were identified in the procedure, which are:

• The multidisciplinary team was not complete, being composed by four mechanical assemblers,
and there was no software developer;
• There was not an approach seeking to identify and prevent possible failures;
• There was no allusion to deadlines and identification of the people responsible for the actions to
be implemented, as envisaged in FMEA.

In order to determine the amount of rework in the mechanical assembly phase in relation to the
total amount of manufactured parts, the total amount of mechanical drawings in different samples
were gathered. The samples in the current condition of the company were identified by letters "A",
"B" and "C" where: (a) sample A corresponds to a device designed for assembly and testing of an
impeller set; (b) sample B refers to an equipment developed to automate measurement, induction
hardening, and diaphragm spring oiling; (c) sample C corresponds to an equipment developed for
automating a rack manufacturing process. Table 5 contains the amount of drawings and parts, and the
number of parts differs from the amount of drawings because a single drawing may contain one or
more parts.
Based on the data in Table 5 and mapping of reworked parts, the percentage of failures related
to all parts in each sample can be determined, which are shown in Figure 7. It can be noticed that the
number of reworked parts may correspond to 23% of parts in a design, which is the case of sample C.
12
 This amount is quite significant considering the impacts related to additional costs resulting from
corrections of parts and delivery delays to the customer.
The graph in Figure 8 details the failures shown in Figure 7, illustrating the reworked parts by
phases of development (concept, modeling, and detailing). Figure 8 shows that the largest number of
failures occurs in the modeling and detailing phases, the latter accounting for over 70% of reworked
parts in sample C.

4.2. Application and results

4.2.1. Development phase

Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF TOLEDO LIBRARIES At 18:58 29 June 2018 (PT)

After gathering information about the reworked parts in samples A, B, and C, samples of new
products were created for the application of the proposed method. As in phase I, a sample of three
designs was monitored, which were identified by letters "D", "E", and "F", and they are shown in
Figure 9.
The application of the method starts with scheduling a meeting for presenting the design and
analysis of failures. In order to compose the team for the event, the presence of at least one
professional from each involved area was required. Sometimes it was necessary to reschedule the
dates of meetings due to the absence of some of these professionals. Moreover, the following
additional issues were observed:
(a) Difficulty in filling out the A3 report due to the very dynamic pace in the meetings;
(b) Although most of the multidisciplinary group members have good level of knowledge and
practical experience, the critical analysis and involvement profiles differ significantly in the
meetings;
(c) The duration of the meetings varied from two hours (samples E and F) to four hours (sample
D), remaining below the maximum of 4.5 hours.

At the end of the failure analysis meeting the personnel responsible for the actions suggest
countermeasures within the prescribed period and, when they are through, they ask the leader of the
area to carry out the review. Once the review is carried out, the A3 report is updated in the Status
column (Table 4), reporting the progress of the countermeasures: "OK" for those that meet the
established scope and “NOK for those that do not. At that moment, the activity of detailing is initiated,
which is not necessarily performed by the designer. Normally, in order to speed up the release of the
bill of materials (BOM) for purchasing and manufacturing, other personnel in the area are assigned to
assist the designer in this activity.
After the details are completed, the next step of the method corresponds to the application of the
review checklist by the leader of the area, or by a designer appointed by the leader. Table 6 shows the
amount of drawings and parts in each sample.
13
 Table 6 can be used to determine the percentage of failures that have been identified and
corrected still in the development phase. In the case of sample D, the 26 corrected parts correspond to
16% of the total amount of parts that were reviewed (= 162), and 4.73% of all parts manufactured in
the sample (= 550). In sample E, the 14 corrected parts correspond to 39% of the reviewed parts (=
36), and to 6.36% of all parts in the sample (= 220). Finally, in sample F the 19 corrected parts
correspond to 28% of the reviewed parts (= 36), and 9.64% of all parts in the sample (= 197). The
failures with higher occurrence rate were the following: dimensions and tolerances (55.5%), and
interferences (33.3%). The list with the review of detailing for sample E is shown in Table 7.
In order to verify the effectiveness of the corrections resulting from the checklist, the numbers
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF TOLEDO LIBRARIES At 18:58 29 June 2018 (PT)

of the corrected drawings were recorded. This information permits checking if the corresponding
physical parts in the assembly phase will present a recurring failure of detailing.

4.2.2. Assembly and integration phase

Similarly to the initial phase, the mapping of rework is done in person with the support of the
assembly personnel. At this time the number of drawings that presented failures are recorded and
compared with the number of drawings that underwent some correction based on the checklist for
review of detailing. In order to represent the percentage of reworked parts in relation to all
manufactured parts, the amount of parts per sample shown in Table 6 was considered, and also the
number of reworked parts in the assembly in each sample. Figure 10 illustrates the gains obtained with
the use of the method.
In order to obtain the percentages shown in Figure 10(a), the number of parts corrected in the
review of detailing was added to the number of reworked parts in the assembly phase. Thus, Figure
10(a) represents the percentage of parts that would be reworked if the checklist had not been applied.
On the other hand, in Figure 10(b) the percentages depict the condition obtained with the use of the
checklist, which leads to results that contributed up to 10% reduction in reworked parts, such as
sample F. Figure 11 shows the percentage of rework per sample for the phases of detailing and
concept/modeling.
With regard to Figure 11, it can be noticed that from the 7% reworked parts in sample D, 6%
refer to failures in detailing, and 1% refer to problems in modeling the parts. In sample E, from the
19% of the reworked parts used in assembly, 12% correspond to failures in detailing, whereas 7%
correspond to concept and modeling. In this case, a high percentage can be a result of a review
procedure that was not completed due to the unavailability of a trained professional to complete the
review. Finally, for sample F, 5% of the reworks are related to detailing, whereas 3% are due to
modeling.

14
 It was also observed that the application of the checklist influences the modeling events. For
instance, when applying step 1 of the checklist (interference) (Figure 4), the designer can anticipate
the correction of modeling, which includes design recesses, correct fixturing points, relocate drilling
positions, among others.
Due to the requirement of labor, the review of detailing of all the drawings that compose each
product is not feasible in the current condition of the company. The criteria in the studied samples
have become alternatives for the implementation of the method, which resulted in reducing the amount
of reworked parts. Another option for the review of detailing lies in using the assembly simulation
tools provided by CAD software in order to identify cases of more criticality and, then, perform the
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF TOLEDO LIBRARIES At 18:58 29 June 2018 (PT)

necessary corrections.
If a concept failure occurs, it becomes more evident during equipment integration and testing,
since at this point the mechanical, electrical, and programming elements establish simultaneous
communication in order for the system to operate. From this moment on, the functional and
performance conditions of the equipment are explored and tested to attain stability, repeatability,
quality, short cycle time, among other conditions that can be related to the equipment delivery to the
customer.
Usually, the first people to become familiar with the failure are the mechanical assembler and
the programmer. In this first moment, some attempts to solve the failure are performed, and if the
result is not adequate there is the need to involve the designer.
In order to guide the application of the method, the following steps were established with the
help of the design leader:
(a) Observe the system in operation;
(b) Separate the part with the failure;
(c) Identify the factors that may interfere with the performance (e.g. programming logic,
operating pressure, robustness of parts, product characteristics);
(d) Identify and implement possible adjustments;
(e) Make new tests. If the result is unsatisfactory: identify the root cause, discuss the actions
to be implemented, and analyze the potential impacts;
(f) Run and follow the plan;
(g) Check the effectiveness of the action.

The above steps can be used as a checklist for a group of people to consider all possibilities
before performing conceptual modifications. Moreover, in the case of a professional without
experience, it encourages investigative sense and the search for ways to improve system performance.
Analyses involving conceptual failures were performed next to the equipment being produced.
After applying the steps of the method and the exchange of information, a decision is made regarding
15
 the actions to be implemented. The actions taken are written in a copybook and, later, copied to the
standard document for tracking. Table 8 shows part of the A3 report with a history of failures and
countermeasures implemented in sample E.
When analyzing the records of each sample, a failure was identified in an item in sample D, and
other failures in six different items in sample E. The solution implemented in sample D was quick and
successful, and it was not necessary to establish additional actions. On the other hand, two of the six
items in sample E (collet and polishing tool) that presented conceptual failures required more effort
and dedication by technical personnel in order for the items to achieve the required functional and
operating conditions. In the case of the collet, it presented an eccentricity resulting from the
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF TOLEDO LIBRARIES At 18:58 29 June 2018 (PT)

manufacturing process, which deformed the collet due to its ductility. In order to solve this failure, six
conceptual changes were made to the collet so as to attain the appropriate performance condition.
After solving the failure, knowledge is created based on the results of the analysis of the cause
and the implemented solutions, as shown in Figure 5. Therefore, it is critical that the teams share with
each other the knowledge acquired. This can be done through specific events for this purpose,
prepared with the history of attempts and illustrative images depicting the experiences of each team.
The group event encourages the use of acquired knowledge, which contributes to a practice of making
decisions to prevent recurring failures in less costly phases. However, the results of this practice will
be achieved in the long term, as the body of knowledge is increased and its contents are used
constantly. Another factor that can be influenced by the method is the schedule for product
(equipment) delivery. This is so because, with the prevention of failures and rework still in the
development phase, the waiting time for the part to be corrected or manufactured is reduced, which
directly influences equipment delivery.
The feedback from participants involved in the research was positive, mainly in aspects related
to practices that required group analysis. Regarding the use of the standard document for failure
analysis and recording of knowledge (Table 4), there is the need for some cultural changes in order for
the adoption of methods for process improvement to be effective.

5. Conclusions

This work aimed to combine FMEA and A3 in a standard document for failure analysis in
product development and recording the generated knowledge resulting from actions to solve the
failures. The study was applied to a company of the industrial automation sector that manufactures
engineering to order products.
The developed method provides a flexible and objective structure, without losing the essence
that drives FMEA and A3: the search for the root cause, and the continuous improvement of quality of
products and processes.
16
 Analyzing the information collected in phase I on current practices and the reworks in the three
initial samples, the lowest amount of rework was equal to 16%, whereas the largest amount was 23%,
mostly due to detailing and modeling failures. Failures of concept identified in the assembly phase did
not exceed 1.5%. With the development and implementation of a checklist for review of design
detailing, a reduction of reworks between 5% and 10% can be obtained, which is a very significant
amount when the reworks are associated with additional costs resulting from product corrections,
reduced productivity due to the time waiting for the corrected part, delays in delivery, and harm to the
image of the organization. It is worth noting that the review was limited to part drawings with higher
added value, which correspond to 10% to 30% of all drawings in each sample.
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF TOLEDO LIBRARIES At 18:58 29 June 2018 (PT)

Regarding the integration of the FMEA and A3 methods in a standard document containing
minor changes in the layout from the design phase to the assembly and testing phase, it contributed to
the understanding of the people who participated in performing each phase. In addition, the method
provides convenience for queries and updates, since it allows the inclusion of different failures in a
single A3 report, reducing the number of separate documents. On the other hand, the method proposed
by Zhu (2012) differs considerably in that respect as it adopts FMEA documentation in the design
phase and the A3 report as a complementary tool for troubleshooting failures in the testing phase,
requiring an A3 report for each occurred failure.
It can be concluded that: (a) the approach of the method to ensure quality was well accepted by
the personnel in the company, but the implementation requires changing habits and establishing new
practices in the organization; (b) the checklist for review of detailing was a significant contribution to
the prevention of failures in manufactured parts, reducing rework up to 10%; (c) the combination of
FMEA and A3 in a standard document encourages group thinking and monitoring the implemented
actions. However, the document may require modifications to provide users with a friendly interface
and process efficiency; (d) it should be ensured the participation of experienced individuals with a
proactive assertiveness who encourage the exchange of knowledge, preventing recurring failures from
occurring in the conceptual phase.
As a future work it is recommended a study of the costs related to the failures, which could
include compliance to delivery deadline, labor costs, and materials used in the product.

Acknowledgement

The authors would like to thank the company that participated in this research.

17
 References

Agus, A. and Hajinoor, M.S. (2012),"Lean production supply chain management as driver towards
enhancing product quality and business performance", International Journal of Quality &
Reliability Management, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 92-121
AIAG (2008), “Potential failure mode and effects analysis (FMEA) Reference Manual”, 4th Edition,
Automotive Industry Action Group.
Al-Ashaab, A., Howell, S., Usowicz, K., Anta, P.H. and Gorka, A. (2009), “Set-based concurrent
engineering model for automotive electronic/software systems development”, Proceedings of
the 19th CIRP Competitive Design Conference, Cranfield University, Bedford, UK, pp. 464-468.
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF TOLEDO LIBRARIES At 18:58 29 June 2018 (PT)

Albin, S.L. and Crefeld III, P.J. (1994), “Getting started: concurrent engineering for a medium-sized
manufacturer”, Journal of Manufacturing Systems, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 48-58.
Altabbakh, H., Murray, S., Grantham, K. and Damle S. (2013), “Variations in risk management
models: a comparative study of the space shuttle challenger disaster”, Engineering Management
Journal, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 13-24.
Amaral, D.C. and Rozenfeld, H. (2007), “Integrating new product development process references
with maturity and change management models”, Proceedings of the International Conference
on Engineering Design (ICED), Paris, France.
Arabian-Hoseynabadi, H., Oraee, H. and Tavner, P.J. (2010), "Failure Modes and Effects Analysis
(FMEA) for wind turbines", Electrical Power and Energy Systems, Vol. 32, pp. 817-824.
Bassuk, J.A. and Washington, I.M. (2013), “The A3 problem solving report: a 10-step scientific
method to execute performance improvements in an academic research vivarium”, PLoS ONE,
Vol. 8 No. 10.
Behún, M., Kleinová, J. and Kamaryt, T. (2014), “Risk assessment of non repetitive production
processes”, Procedia Engineering, Vol. 69, pp. 1281-1285.
Beiter, K.A., Cheldelin, B. and Ishii, K. (2000), “Assembly quality method: a tool in aid of product
strategy, design, and process improvements”, Proceedings of the ASME Design Engineering
Technical Conference (DETC), Baltimore, MD, USA.
Bowles, J.B. and Peláez, C.E. (1995), "Fuzzy logic prioritization of failures in a system failure mode,
effects and criticality analysis", Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Vol. 50, No. 2, pp.
203-213.
BS 5760 Part 5 (1991), “Reliability of systems, equipment and components. Guide to failure modes,
effects and criticality analysis (FMEA and FMECA)”, British Standards Institution, London,
UK.

18
 Carrillo, J.E. and Franza, R.M. (2006), “Investing in product development and production capabilities:
the crucial linkage between time-to-market and ramp-up time”, European Journal of
Operational Research, Vol. 171 No. 2, pp. 536-556.
Carlson, C.S. (2012), “Effective FMEAs: achieving safe, reliable and economical products and
processes using Failure Mode and Effect Analysis”, 1st Edition, John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken,
NJ, USA.
Carmignani, G. (2009), “An integrated structural framework to cost-based FMECA: the priority-cost
FMECA”, Reliability Engineering and Systems Safety, Vol. 94, pp. 861–871.
Chanamool, N. and Naenna, T. (2016), "Fuzzy FMEA application to improve decision-making process
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF TOLEDO LIBRARIES At 18:58 29 June 2018 (PT)

in an emergency department", Applied Soft Computing, Vol. 43, pp. 441-453.

Chao, P.L. and Ishii, K. (2007), “Design process error proofing: failure modes and effects analysis of
the design process”, Journal of Advanced Mechanical Design, Vol. 129, pp. 491–501.
Claxton, K. and Campbell-Allen, N.M. (2017), "Failure modes effects analysis (FMEA) for review of
a diagnostic genetic laboratory process", International Journal of Quality & Reliability
Management, Vol. 34, No. 2, pp. 265-277.
Dağsuyu, C., Göçmen, E., Narli, M. and Kokangül, A. (2016), "Classical and fuzzy FMEA risk
analysis in a sterilization unit", Computers and Industrial Engineering, Vol. 101, pp. 286-294.
De Souza, R.V.B. and Carpinetti, L.C.R. (2014), "A FMEA-based approach to prioritize waste
reduction in lean implementation", International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management,
Vol. 31, No. 4, pp. 346-366.
Elmqvist, J. and Nadjm-Tehrani, S. (2008), “Tool support for incremental failure mode and effects
analysis of component-based systems”, Proceedings of the Design, Automation and Test in
Europe Conference (DATE), Munich, Germany, pp. 921-927.
Erkoc, M., Wu, S.D. and Gurnani, H. (2008), “Delivery-Date and Capacity Management in a
Decentralized Internal Market”, Naval Research Logistics, Vol. 55 No. 5, pp. 390–405.
Ford Motor Company (2000), “FMEA handbook with robustness linkages”, Ford Design Institute,
Dearborn, MI, USA.
Ghosh, M. and Sobek II, D.K. (2006), “Pragmatic problem-solving for healthcare: principles, tools,
and applications”, Proceedings of the 2006 Annual Society of Health Systems Conference, San
Diego, CA, USA.
Goyal, P., Liang, F. and Oberg, O. (2014), “Methodology to identify and minimize the risks associated
with future design changes in the transmission of wheel-loader”, SAE Technical Paper 2014-01-
1715.
Hassan, A., Siadat, A., Dantan, J.-Y. and Martin, P. (2009), “Interoperability of QFD, FMEA, and
KCs methods in the product development process”, Proceedings of the IEEE International

19
 Conference on Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management (IEEM), Hong Kong,
China, pp. 403-407.
Hawkins, P.G. and Woollons, D.J. (1998), “Failure mode and effects analysis of complex engineering
systems using functional models”, Artificial Intelligence Engineering, Vol. 12, pp. 375-397.
Hoppmann, J., Rebentisch, E., Dombrowski, U. and Zahn, T. (2011), “A framework for organizing
lean product development”, Engineering Management Journal, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 3-15.
Huang, G.Q., Shi, J. and Mak, K.L. (2000), “Failure mode and effect analysis (FMEA) over the
WWW”, International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, Vol. 16 No. 8, pp. 603-
608.
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF TOLEDO LIBRARIES At 18:58 29 June 2018 (PT)

Husejnagic, D. and Sluga, A. (2015), "A conceptual framework for a ubiquitous autonomous work
system in the Engineer-To-Order environment", International Journal of Advanced
Manufacturing Technology, Vol. 78 No. 9, pp. 1971-1988.
IEC 60812 (2006), “Analysis techniques for system reliability: procedure for failure mode and effect
analysis (FMEA)”, International Electrotechnical Commission, 2nd Edition, Geneva,
Switzerland.
Jenab K. and Dhillon, B.S. (2005), “Group-based failure effects analysis”, International Journal of
Reliability, Quality and Safety Engineering, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 291-307.
Kalpic, B. and Bernus, P. (2002), “Business process modeling in industry - the powerful tool in
enterprise management”, Computers in Industry, Vol. 47 No. 3, pp. 299-318.
Kara-Zaitri, C., Keller, A.Z., Barody, I. and Fleming, P.V. (1991), “An improved FMEA
methodology”, Proceedings of the Annual Reliability and Maintainability Symposium (RAMS),
Orlando, FL, USA, pp. 248-252.
Karim, M.A., Smith, A.J.R., Halgamuge, S.K. and Islam, M.M. (2008), “A comparative study of
manufacturing practices and performance variables”, International Journal of Production
Economics, Vol. 112 No. 2, pp. 841–859.
Koufteros, X., Vonderembse, M. and Doll, W. (2001), “Concurrent engineering and its
consequences”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 19, pp. 97–115.
Letens, G., Farris, J.A. and Van Aken, E.M. (2011), “A multilevel framework for lean product
development system design”, Engineering Management Journal, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 69-85.
Liker, J.K. (2004), “The Toyota Way”, 1st Edition, McGraw-Hill.
Liker, J.K. and Morgan, J.M. (2006), “The Toyota way in services: the case of lean product
development”, Academy of Management Perspectives, Vol. 20, pp. 5-20.
Liu, H.-C., Liu, L. and Liu, N., (2013), “Risk evaluation approaches in failure mode and effects
analysis: a literature review”, Expert Systems with Applications, Vol. 40, pp. 828–838.

20
 Lodgaard, E., Pellegard Ø., Ringen, G., Klokkehaug, J.A. (2011), “Failure mode and effects analysis
in combination with the problem-solving A3”, Proceedings of the 18th International Conference
on Engineering Design (ICED11), Technical University of Denmark, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Lolli, F., Ishizaka, A., Gamberini, R., Rimini, B. and Messori, M. (2015), "FlowSort-GDSS - A novel
group multi-criteria decision support system for sorting problems with application to the
FMEA", Expert Systems with Applications, Vol. 42, pp. 6342-6349.
Lolli, F., Gamberini, R., Rimini, B. and Pulga, F. (2016), "A revised FMEA with application to a blow
moulding process", International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 33, No. 7,
pp. 900-919.
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF TOLEDO LIBRARIES At 18:58 29 June 2018 (PT)

Morgan, J.M. and Liker, J.K. (2006), “The Toyota product development system: integrating people,
process and technology”, 1st Edition, Productivity Press.
Oldenhof, M.T., van Leeuwen, J.F., Nauta, M.J., de Kaste, D., Odekerken-Rombouts, Y.M.C.F.,
Vredenbregt, M.J., Veda, M. and Barends, D.M. (2011) "Consistency of FMEA used in the
validation of analytical procedures", Journal of Pharmaceutical and Biomedical Analysis, Vol.
54, pp. 592-595.
Peres, R., Muller, E. and Mahajan, V. (2010), “Innovation diffusion and new product growth models:
a critical review and research directions”, International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol.
27, pp. 91-106.
Roy, S.K., Sarkar, A.K. and Mahanty, B. (2016), "Fuzzy risk assessment for electro-optical target
tracker", International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 33, No. 6, pp. 830-
851.
Saad, N.M., Al-Ashaab, A., Maksimovic, M., Zhu, L., Shehab, E., Ewers, P. and Kassam, A. (2013)
“A3 thinking approach to support knowledge-driven design”, International Journal of Advanced
Manufacturing Technology, Vol. 68, pp. 1371-1386.
SAE (2002), “J1739: Potential failure mode and effects analysis”, Society of Automotive Engineers
International, USA.
Sankar, N.R. and Prabhu, B.S. (2001), “Modified approach for prioritization of failures in a system
failure mode and effects analysis”, International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management,
Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 324-336.
Schmidt, R., Riedel, G.J. and Kangas, K. (2011), “Risk assessment using design review based on
failure mode”, Proceedings of the Annual Reliability and Maintainability Symposium (RAMS),
Orlando, FL, USA.
Scipioni, A., Saccarola, G., Centazzo, A. and Arena, F. (2002) "FMEA methodology design,
implementation and integration with HACCP system in a food company", Food Control, Vol.
13, pp. 495-501.

21
 Shina, S.G. (2012), “Concurrent engineering and design for manufacture of electronics products”,
Springer.
Shook, J. (2009), “Toyota's secret: the A3 report”, MIT Sloan Management Review, Vol. 50 No. 4, pp.
30-33.
Shook, J. (2010), “Managing to learn”, Lean Enterprise Institute, Cambridge, MA, USA.
Slack, N., Chambers, S. and Johnston, R. (2006) “Operations management”, 5th Edition, Prentice Hall.
Smith R.P. and Morrow J.P. (1999), “Product development process modeling”, Design Studies, Vol.
20, pp. 237-261.
Sobek II, D.K. and Jimmerson, C. (2004), “A3 reports: tool for process improvement”, Proceedings of
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF TOLEDO LIBRARIES At 18:58 29 June 2018 (PT)

the Industrial Engineering Research Conference, Houston, TX, USA.

Sobek II, D.K. and Jimmerson, C. (2006), “A3 reports: tool for organizational transformation”,
Proceedings of the Industrial Engineering Research Conference, Orlando, FL, USA.
Sohlenius, G. (1992), “Concurrent Engineering”, CIRP Annals, Vol. 41 No. 2, pp. 645-655.
Stamatis, D.H. (2003), “Failure mode and effect analysis: FMEA from theory to execution”, American
Society for Quality (ASQ) Press, 2nd Edition, Milwaukee, WI, USA.
Swink, M.L. (1998), “A tutorial on implementing concurrent engineering in new product development
programs”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 16, pp. 103-116.
Teng, S.-H. and Ho, S.-Y. (1996), “Failure mode and effects analysis: an integrated approach for
product design and process control”, International Journal of Quality & Reliability
Management, Vol.13 No. 5, pp. 8-26.
Teng, S.G., Ho, S.M., Shumar, D. and Liu, P.C. (2006), “Implementing FMEA in a collaborative
supply chain environment”, International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol.
23 No. 2, pp.179-196.
Teoh, P.C. and Case, K. (2004), "Failure modes and effects analysis through knowledge modelling",
Journal of Materials Processing Technology, Vol. 153–154, pp. 253–260.
Thakor, A. (2013), “Innovation and growth: what do we know?”, World Scientific Publishing
Company.
Von Corswant, F. and Tunälv, C. (2002), “Coordinating customers and proactive suppliers A case
study of supplier collaboration in product development”, Journal of Engineering Technology
Management, Vol. 19 No. 3-4, pp. 249–261.
Vesey, J.T. (1992), “Time-to-market: put speed in product development”, Industrial Marketing
Management, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 151-158.
Wheelwright, S.C. and Clark, K.B. (1992), “Revolutionizing product development–quantum leaps in
speed, efficiency, and quality”, The Free Press, New York, NY, USA.

22
 Yan, W., Chen, C.-H. and Chang, W. (2011), “A functional–commercial analysis strategy for product
conceptualization”, Expert Systems with Applications, Vol. 38, pp. 9879-9887.
Zhu, L. (2012), “Integrating failure documentation with A3 template to improve product design
quality”, M.Sc. Thesis, Cranfield University, UK.
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF TOLEDO LIBRARIES At 18:58 29 June 2018 (PT)

23
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF TOLEDO LIBRARIES At 18:58 29 June 2018 (PT)

Figure 1. FMEA worksheet. Adapted from SAE (2002)

Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF TOLEDO LIBRARIES At 18:58 29 June 2018 (PT)

Figure 2. A3 report. Adapted from Shook (2009)

Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF TOLEDO LIBRARIES At 18:58 29 June 2018 (PT)

Figure 3. Structure of the implementation of the proposed method

Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF TOLEDO LIBRARIES At 18:58 29 June 2018 (PT)

Figure 4. Items in the checklist to review the detailing

 Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF TOLEDO LIBRARIES At 18:58 29 June 2018 (PT)

Figure 5. Flowchart of the generated knowledge

Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF TOLEDO LIBRARIES At 18:58 29 June 2018 (PT)

Figure 6. Phases of the product development process in the studied company

Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF TOLEDO LIBRARIES At 18:58 29 June 2018 (PT)

Figure 7. Amount of parts X Amount of reworked parts

Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF TOLEDO LIBRARIES At 18:58 29 June 2018 (PT)

Figure 8. Number of reworked parts in different phases

 Sample Description 3D view of one design

Robot cell for automatic

D
deburring an engine block
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF TOLEDO LIBRARIES At 18:58 29 June 2018 (PT)

Two machines for polishing

E
battery terminals

F Two vision systems

Figure 9. Samples D, E, and F

Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF TOLEDO LIBRARIES At 18:58 29 June 2018 (PT)

Figure 10. Amount of rework in samples D, E, and F: (a) without review of detailing, (b) with review
of detailing
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF TOLEDO LIBRARIES At 18:58 29 June 2018 (PT)

Figure 11. Amount of reworks in different samples and phases

 Table 1. Similarities between FMEA and the A3 report. Adapted from Zhu (2012)

Elements FMEA A3
1 Function / Requirement Background
2 Potential Failure Mode Current Condition
3 Potential Effect of Failure Future Goal
4 Potential Failure Cause Identify the Root Cause
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF TOLEDO LIBRARIES At 18:58 29 June 2018 (PT)

5 Recommended Action(s) Propose Countermeasures

6 Responsibility and Target Completion Date Implement the Action Plan
7 Results of Actions Follow up the Actions

1
 Table 2. Table for mapping failures

Sample Drawing Parts Data Phase Description

Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF TOLEDO LIBRARIES At 18:58 29 June 2018 (PT)

1
 Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF TOLEDO LIBRARIES At 18:58 29 June 2018 (PT)

Table 3. Elements of the A3 report and its relation to FMEA

1
 Table 4. Standard document for analyzing the failures in the design phase
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF TOLEDO LIBRARIES At 18:58 29 June 2018 (PT)

1
 Table 5. Drawings and the manufactured parts in samples A, B, and C

Sample Drawings Parts

A 206 301
B 391 1085
C 301 619
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF TOLEDO LIBRARIES At 18:58 29 June 2018 (PT)

1
 Table 6. Drawings and parts in samples D, E, and F

Data from Samples Data from Reviews Data from Corrections

Samples Drawings Corresponding Reviewed Corresponding Corrected Corresponding
Parts Drawings Parts Drawings Parts
D 220 550 63 162 17 26
E 185 220 19 36 8 14
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF TOLEDO LIBRARIES At 18:58 29 June 2018 (PT)

F 105 197 34 67 13 19

1
 Table 7. List with the review of detailing for sample E

Drawing Number of Parts Item Verification Checklist

1 – Interference
E.010.10.00.02 2
2 – Dimensions and Tolerances

E.010.10.00.04 2 2 – Dimensions and Tolerances

2 – Dimensions and Tolerances

E.010.10.00.07 2
6 – Roughness
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF TOLEDO LIBRARIES At 18:58 29 June 2018 (PT)

E.010.10.00.16 2 2 – Dimensions and Tolerances

E.010.30.00.02 1 3 – Incompatibility between holes and threads

2 – Dimensions and Tolerances

E.010.30.00.05 2
3 – Incompatibility between holes and threads
2 – Dimensions and Tolerances
E.010.30.00.08 2
3 – Incompatibility between holes and threads

E.010.30.00.08 1 3 – Incompatibility between holes and threads

Total = 8 Total = 14
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF TOLEDO LIBRARIES At 18:58 29 June 2018 (PT)

Table 8. A3 report with failures of concept in sample E