A critical analysis of the AIAG-VDA FMEA; does the newly released AIAG-VDA method offer improvements over the former AIAG method?

Abstract

After several years of collaboration, The Automotive Industry Action Group (AIAG) and The German Association of the Automotive Industry (VDA) completed a harmonized version of their respective FMEA methods. Previous to the joint initiative, each organization had their own Failure Modes and Effects Analysis (FMEA) recommended methods & guidelines. The differing methods posed confusion among those automotive suppliers that supplied both markets. As a result, the AIAG & VDA FMEA 1st edition Handbook (2019) was created to mitigate the confusion, improve the overall FMEA development process, and to improve efficiency developing accurate, robust and effective FMEA's. The AIAG-VDA 1st edition (2019) may or may not have improved the method or offered efficiency gains to the FMEA development process. Early critique of the new method offered by Harpster (2018) stated "If the AIAG-VDA DFMEA methodology (which uses structure, function, and failure analyses to determine critical DFMEA content) is implemented, it will result in an automotive DFMEA process that is both considerably less effective and much more inefficient than the current methodology described in the AIAG 4th Edition FMEA manual". This result of this research is a critical, holistic review of the recently published (June 2019) AIAGVDA FMEA Handbook along with summarized advantages and disadvantages associated with the new automotive FMEA development process. While the new FMEA AIAG-VDA process offers several advantages, and results in a more robust FMEA, the increased complexity, need for dedicated software, and the learning curve associated with the new process may represent a significant barrier to improving the FMEA development process in the automotive community.