Matthew,

I found your article very interesting.  I was surprised you did not spend more time on MIL-STD-1629a.  MIL-STD-1629a is considered by many to be the grandfather of the current FMEA standards.  Originally published on November 24, 1980, it was cancelled without replacement on August 24, 1998, because it was ineffective.  The cancellation notice stated "Users may consult various national and international documents for information regarding failure mode, effects, and criticality analysis."  Despite its cancellation, it can still be found as a requirement in military quotations.  Some of the flaws in this standard continue to be found in the published FMEA standards today that many people follow.

I also found your following comment about the AIAG VDA methodology both interesting and somewhat inaccurate:

"The AIAG FMEA Reference Manual was replaced by the AIAG/VDA FMEA Handbook in 2019, introducing the biggest changes in decades by combining the AIAG approach with the predominantly software-driven approach used by the German VDA."  

The AIAG VDA manual was not a harmonization of the AIAG and VDA methodology but rather an adoption of the flawed VDA methodology.  When the AIAG put a pre-release version of the manual out for public comment in November of 2017, they stated “FMEA Method is described by a planning and preparation activity, followed by a six-step process.  This is similar to the previous five-step FMEA process in VDA Volume 4:2012/3, with the addition of the scope definition.”

Quality Digest published an article I wrote titled "The Case Against the AIAG-VDA DFMEA" where I highlighted the weaknesses of the AIAG-VDA DFMEA" methodology ( https://www.qualitydigest.com/inside/risk-management-column/case-agains… ) . The interesting part of the article were the readers comments.  As you correctly state in your article, the VDA methodology is software based. Mike Bucala, of Daimler Trucks North America and a member of the AIAG VDA Committee, stated in the comments section of the article “Your article concludes that the team should have started with (Excel-based) AIAG 4th Edition methods, and (by inference) expected the Europeans to modify their software-based methods to conform to it.  This in an unrealistic expectation.” 

The VDA and AIAG-VDA Methods have always been about selling software.  The original 1996 VDA FMEA was based on a software package called APIS IQFMEA 2.0.  Jürgen Eilers, Managing Director at APIS and identified in VDA FMEA Manual as one of its authors, stated “Today's APIS IQ software was developed as part of a discussion accompanying the project.”  Daimler-Benz interservices (debis) acted as distributor for APIS IQFMEA 2.0 software from 1992 to 1996.    

In a 2017 review draft of AIAG-VDA FMEA Handbook that was made available for public review stated “When products and processes are complex it is recommended that specialized software be used to apply the FMEA method”.  From 2018 to 2019, the AIAG made multiple attempts to roll back the recommendation that specialized software be used for complex products and processes in response to complaints from auto industry companies currently using Excel for FMEAs.  In 2019, the AIAG began selling Core Tools software.

Although I agree with alot of your article, I disagree with the following statement: “The best approach to FMEAs is the one that gets done and gets done correctly.”

The majority of the FMEA methodologies in use, such as the AIAG VDA, if used exactly as described, will be both ineffective and inefficient in managing risk.  People using these methodologies will never experience the true power of FMEAs.  Everything everybody needs to effectively use FMEAs to manage risk is already available.  They just have to do them correctly.

I enjoyed the article very much,

Rich Harpster