1 Production Part Approval Process[edit]

(PPAP) is used in the automotive supply chain for establishing confidence in suppliers and their production
processes. Actual measurements are taken of the parts produced and are used to complete the various
test sheets of PPAP:
"All customer engineering design record and specification requirements are properly understood by the
supplier and that the process has the potential to produce product consistently meeting these requirements
during an actual production run at the quoted production rate." Version 4 March 1, 2006
Although individual manufacturers have their own particular requirements, the Automotive Industry Action
Group (AIAG) has developed a common PPAP standard as part of the Advanced Product Quality
Planning (APQP) – and encourages the use of common terminology and standard forms to document
project status.
The PPAP process is designed to demonstrate that a supplier has developed their design and production
process to meet the client's requirements, minimizing the risk of failure by effective use of APQP. Requests
for part approval must therefore be supported in official PPAP format and with documented results when
needed [1]
The purpose of any Production Part Approval Process (PPAP) is

 to ensure that a supplier can meet the manufacturability and quality requirements of the parts supplied
to the customer
 to provide evidence that the customer engineering design record and specification requirements are
clearly understood and fulfilled by the supplier
 to demonstrate that the established manufacturing process has the potential to produce the part that
consistently meets all requirements during the actual production run at the quoted production rate

Critical elements of the process approach[edit]

 Design record with all specification.
 Authorized engineering change number (ECN).
 Customer Engineering Approval.
 Process is defined.
 Process is documented.
 Linkages of process are established.
 Process is monitored, analyzed, and improved based on data.
 Records are created, maintained, and retained.
 DFMEA
 PFMEA
 Validation Test Report
 Control Plan
 PFD (Process Flow Diagram)
 LAB TEST REPORT

PPAP approval[edit]
PPAP is a series of documents gathered in one specific location (a binder or electronically) called the
"PPAP Package". The PPAP package is a series of documents which need a formal certification/sign-off by
the supplier and approval/sign-off by the customer. The form that summarizes this package is called PSW
(Part Submission Warrant). The signature in the supplier certification area of the PSW indicates that the
supplier-responsible person (usually the Quality Engineer or Quality Manager) has reviewed this package
and that the customer-responsible person (usually a Customer Quality Engineer or Customer Quality
Manager) has not identified any issues that would prevent its approbation.
The documentation on the PPAP package is closely related to the advanced product quality
planning process used during the design and development of new vehicles and component systems to
reduce the risk of unexpected failure due to errors in design and manufacture. The PPAP manual is
published by the AIAG, and specifies generic requirements for obtaining PPAP approvals. Additional
customer specific requirements may be imposed by particular clients (vehicle manufacturers) and
incorporated in the purchasing contracts. Details of 'customer specific' requirements may be found on
the International Automotive Task Force (IATF) website or supplier portals provided by the vehicle
manufacturers. A new website, developed by customer-specific requirements, LLC, has been created to
help solve problems associated with the distribution and accessibility of customer-specific requirements.
Suppliers are required to obtain PPAP approval from the vehicle manufacturers whenever a new or
modified component is introduced to production, or the manufacturing process is changed. Obtaining
approval requires the supplier to provide sample parts and documentary evidence showing that:[2]

1. The client's requirements have been understood

2. The product supplied meets those requirements
3. The process (including sub suppliers) is capable of producing conforming product
4. The production control plan and quality management system will prevent non-conforming product
reaching the client or compromising the safety and reliability of finished vehicles
PPAP may be required for all components and materials incorporated in the finished product, and may also
be required if components are processed by external sub-contractors.
The term ISIR (initial sample inspection report) is being used by German companies like VW and BMW.
ISIR form is standardized by Verband der Automobilindustrie e. V., short VDA, a German interest group of
the German automobile industry, both automobile manufacturers and automobile component suppliers. The
term is also used by some other companies like Hyundai and Kia. In fact ISIR is like the Warrant and
Inspection Report of PPAP document package. PPAP document package includes some other document
such as PFMEA, control plan, drawing, MSA, capability data etc. Besides ISIR document, other documents
like that of PPAP is normally required by VW and Hyundai for release of a product and process. The PPAP
is like the older ISIR plus a lot more, unless your customer has a specific requirement for using their ISIR
within their system. ISIR is a summary of the initial sample being presented at what ever state. The PSW is
supported and validated by the ISIR. This does not mean the product being presented is under serial
conditions but just states with evidence the current status.
PPAP is the confirmation that the product meets the customer requirements for series production. The
PPAP will be considered signed when a full PSW is approved by your customer and added to the PPAP
folder. The PSW would always be supported with an ISIR but the PPAP is only considered approved when
a FULL PSW is endorsed with an ISIR.
In essence the PSW and ISIR are part of PPAP or VDA and can even be outside of PPAP in cases such as
first off tool parts which should be submitted in most cases with a PSW and ISIR but will not be approved in
PPAP until series conditions are met.

PPAP elements[edit]
Below is the list of all 19 elements, and a brief description of them.

1. Design Records
A printed copy of drawing needs to be provided. If the customer is responsible for designing, this is
 a copy of customer drawing that is sent together with the Purchase Order (PO). If supplier is
responsible for designing this is a released drawing in supplier's release system. "Each and every
feature must be “ballooned” or “road mapped” to correspond with the inspection results (including
print notes, standard tolerance notes and specifications, and anything else relevant to the design of
the part)."[3]
2. Authorized Engineering Change (note) Documents
A document that shows the detailed description of the change. Usually this document is called
"Engineering Change Notice", but it may be covered by the customer PO or any other engineering
authorization.
3. Engineering Approval
This approval is usually the Engineering trial with production parts performed at the customer plant.
A "temporary deviation" usually is required to send parts to customer before PPAP. Customer may
require other "Engineering Approvals".
4. DFMEA
A copy of the Design Failure Mode and Effect Analysis (DFMEA), reviewed and signed-off by
supplier and customer. If customer is design responsible, usually customer may not share this
document with the supplier. However, the list of all critical or high impact product characteristics
should be shared with the supplier, so they can be addressed on the PFMEA and Control Plan.
5. Process Flow Diagram
A copy of the Process Flow, indicating all steps and sequence in the fabrication process, including
incoming components.
6. PFMEA's
A copy of the Process Failure Mode and Effect Analysis (PFMEA), reviewed and signed-off by
supplier and customer. The PFMEA follows the Process Flow steps, and indicates "what could go
wrong" during the fabrication and assembly of each component.
7. Control Plan
A copy of the Control Plan, reviewed and signed-off by supplier and customer. The Control Plan
follows the PFMEA steps, and provides more details on how the "potential issues" are checked in
the incoming quality, assembly process or during inspections of finished products.
8. Measurement System Analysis Studies (MSA)
MSA usually contains the Gauge R&R for the critical or high impact characteristics, and a
confirmation that gauges used to measure these characteristics are calibrated.
9. Dimensional Results
A list of every dimension noted on the ballooned drawing. This list shows the product characteristic,
specification, the measurement results and the assessment showing if this dimension is "ok" or
"not ok". Usually a minimum of 6 pieces is reported per product/process combination.
10. Records of Material / Performance Tests
A summary of every test performed on the part. This summary is usually on a form of DVP&R
(Design Verification Plan and Report), which lists each individual test, when it was performed, the
specification, results and the assessment pass/fail. If there is an Engineering Specification, usually
it is noted on the print. The DVP&R shall be reviewed and signed off by both customer and supplier
engineering groups. The quality engineer will look for a customer signature on this document.
In addition, this section lists all material certifications (steel, plastics, plating, etc.), as specified on
the print. The material certification shall show compliance to the specific call on the print.
11. Initial Sample Inspection Report
The report for material samples which is initially inspected before prototype made
12. Initial Process Studies
Usually this section shows all Statistical Process Control charts affecting the most critical
characteristics. The intent is to demonstrate that critical processes have stable variability and that
is running near the intended nominal value.
 13. Qualified Laboratory Documentation
Copy of all laboratory certifications (e.g. A2LA, TS, NABL) of the laboratories that performed the
tests reported on section 10.
14. Appearance Approval Report
A copy of the AAI (Appearance Approval Inspection) form signed by the customer. Applicable for
components affecting appearance only.
15. Sample Production Parts
A sample from the same lot of initial production run. The PPAP package usually shows a picture of
the sample and where it is kept (customer or supplier).
16. Master Sample
A sample signed off by customer and supplier, that usually is used to train operators on subjective
inspections such as visual or for noise.
17. Checking Aids
When there are special tools for checking parts, this section shows a picture of the tool and
calibration records, including dimensional report of the tool.
18. Customer-Specific Requirements
Each customer may have specific requirements to be included on the PPAP package. It is a good
practice to ask the customer for PPAP expectations before even quoting for a job. North America
auto makers OEM (Original Equipment Manufacturer) requirements are listed on the IATF website.
19. Part Submission Warrant (PSW)
This is the form that summarizes the whole PPAP package. This form shows the reason for
submission (design change, annual revalidation, etc.) and the level of documents submitted to the
customer. There is a section that asks for "results meeting all drawing and specification
requirements: yes/no" refers to the whole package. If there are any deviations the supplier should
note on the warrant or inform that PPAP cannot be submitted.
PPAP requirements are typically distinguished by level as follows:

 Level 1 – Part Submission Warrant (PSW) only submitted to the customer.

 Level 2 – PSW with product samples and limited supporting data.
 Level 3 – PSW with product samples and complete supporting data.
 Level 4 – PSW and other requirements as defined by the customer.
 Level 5 – PSW with product samples and complete supporting data available for review at the
supplier's manufacturing location.Complete documentation.
 2 measurement systems analysis (MSA

A measurement systems analysis (MSA) is a thorough assessment of a measurement process, and

typically includes a specially designed experiment that seeks to identify the components of variation in that
measurement process.
Just as processes that produce a product may vary, the process of obtaining measurements and data may
also have variation and produce incorrect results. A measurement systems analysis evaluates the test
method, measuring instruments, and the entire process of obtaining measurements to ensure the integrity
of data used for analysis (usually quality analysis) and to understand the implications of measurement error
for decisions made about a product or process. MSA is an important element of Six Sigma methodology
and of other quality management systems.
MSA analyzes the collection of equipment, operations, procedures, software and personnel that affects the
assignment of a number to a measurement characteristic.
A measurement systems analysis considers the following:

 Selecting the correct measurement and approach

 Assessing the measuring device
 Assessing procedures and operators
 Assessing any measurement interactions
 Calculating the measurement uncertainty of individual measurement devices and/or measurement
systems
Common tools and techniques of measurement systems analysis include: calibration studies, fixed effect
ANOVA, components of variance, attribute gage study, gage R&R, ANOVA gage R&R, and destructive
testing analysis. The tool selected is usually determined by characteristics of the measurement system
itself. An introduction to MSA can be found in chapter 8 of Doug Montgomery's Quality Control
book. [1] These tools and techniques are also described in the books by Donald Wheeler [2] and Kim
Niles. [3] Advanced procedures for designing MSA studies can be found in Burdick et. al. [4]

Contents

 1Factors affecting a measurement process

 2Goals
 3ASTM Procedures
 4ASME Procedures
 5AIAG Procedures
 6See also
 7References
 8External links

Factors affecting a measurement process[edit]

Factors might include:

 Equipment: measuring instrument, calibration, fixturing.

 People: operators, training, education, skill, care.
 Process: test method, specification.
 Samples: materials, items to be tested (sometimes called "parts"), sampling plan, sample preparation.
 Environment: temperature, humidity, conditioning, pre-conditioning.
 Management: training programs, metrology system, support of people, support of quality management
system.
These can be plotted in a "fishbone" Ishikawa diagram to help identify potential sources of measurement
variation.

Goals[edit]
The goals of a MSA are:

1. Quantification of measurement uncertainty, including the accuracy/bias, precision

including repeatability and reproducibility, the stability and linearity of these quantities over time
and across the intended range of use of the measurement process.
2. Development of improvement plans, when needed IS
.

ASTM Procedures[edit]
The ASTM has several procedures for evaluating measurement systems and test methods, including:

 ASTM E2782 - Standard Guide for Measurement Systems Analysis

 ASTM D4356 - Standard Practice for Establishing Consistent Test Method Tolerances
 ASTM E691 - Standard Practice for Conducting an Interlaboratory Study to Determine the Precision of
a Test Method
 ASTM E1169 - Standard Guide for Conducting Ruggedness Tests
 ASTM E1488 - Standard Guide for Statistical Procedures to Use in Developing and Applying Test
Methods

ASME Procedures[edit]
The American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) has several procedures and reports targeted at
task-specific uncertainty budgeting and methods for utilizing those uncertainty estimates when evaluating
the measurand for compliance to specification. They are:

 B89.7.3.1 - 2001 Guidelines for Decision Rules: Considering Measurement Uncertainty Determining
Conformance to Specifications
 B89.7.3.2 - 2007 Guidelines for the Evaluation of Dimensional Measurement Uncertainty (Technical
Report)
 B89.7.3.3 - 2002 Guidelines for Assessing the Reliability of Dimensional Measurement Uncertainty
Statements

AIAG Procedures[edit]
The Automotive Industry Action Group (AIAG), a non-profit association of automotive companies, has
documented a recommended measurement systems analysis procedure in their MSA manual. [5] This book
is part of a series of inter-related manuals the AIAG controls and publishes, including:
 The measurement systems analysis manual
 The failure mode and effects analysis (FMEA) and Control Plan manual
 The statistical process control (SPC) manual
 The production part approval process (PPAP) manual
Note that the AIAG's website has a list of "errata sheets" for its publications.
 3 Statistical process control (SPC)

Statistical process control (SPC) is a method of quality control which employs statistical methods to
monitor and control a process. This helps to ensure that the process operates efficiently, producing more
specification-conforming products with less waste (rework or scrap). SPC can be applied to any process
where the "conforming product" (product meeting specifications) output can be measured. Key tools used in
SPC include run charts, control charts, a focus on continuous improvement, and the design of experiments.
An example of a process where SPC is applied is manufacturing lines.
SPC must be practised in 2 phases: The first phase is the initial establishment of the process, and the
second phase is the regular production use of the process. In the second phase, a decision of the period to
be examined must be made, depending upon the change in 5M&E conditions (Man, Machine, Material,
Method, Movement, Environment) and wear rate of parts used in the manufacturing process (machine
parts, jigs, and fixtures).
An advantage of SPC over other methods of quality control, such as "inspection", is that it emphasizes
early detection and prevention of problems, rather than the correction of problems after they have occurred.
In addition to reducing waste, SPC can lead to a reduction in the time required to produce the product. SPC
makes it less likely the finished product will need to be reworked or scrapped.

Contents

 1History
o 1.1"Common" and "special" sources of variation
o 1.2Application to non-manufacturing processes
 2Variation in manufacturing
 3Application of SPC
o 3.1Control charts
 3.1.1Stable process
 3.1.2Excessive variations
 3.1.3Process stability metrics
 4Mathematics of control charts
 5See also
 6References
 7Bibliography
 8External links

History[edit]
SPC was pioneered by Walter A. Shewhart at Bell Laboratories in the early 1920s. Shewhart developed the
control chart in 1924 and the concept of a state of statistical control. Statistical control is equivalent to the
concept of exchangeability[1][2] developed by logician William Ernest Johnson also in 1924 in his book Logic,
Part III: The Logical Foundations of Science.[3] Along with a team at AT&T that included Harold Dodge and
Harry Romig he worked to put sampling inspection on a rational statistical basis as well. Shewhart
consulted with Colonel Leslie E. Simon in the application of control charts to munitions manufacture at the
Army's Picatinny Arsenal in 1934. That successful application helped convince Army Ordnance to engage
AT&T's George Edwards to consult on the use of statistical quality control among its divisions and
contractors at the outbreak of World War II.
W. Edwards Deming invited Shewhart to speak at the Graduate School of the U.S. Department of
Agriculture, and served as the editor of Shewhart's book Statistical Method from the Viewpoint of Quality
Control (1939) which was the result of that lecture. Deming was an important architect of the quality control
short courses that trained American industry in the new techniques during WWII. The graduates of these
wartime courses formed a new professional society in 1945, the American Society for Quality Control,
which elected Edwards as its first president. Deming traveled to Japan during the Allied Occupation and
met with the Union of Japanese Scientists and Engineers (JUSE) in an effort to introduce SPC methods
to Japanese industry .[4][5]

"Common" and "special" sources of variation[edit]

Main article: Common cause and special cause (statistics)
Shewhart read the new statistical theories coming out of Britain, especially the work of William Sealy
Gosset, Karl Pearson, and Ronald Fisher. However, he understood that data from physical processes
seldom produced a "normal distribution curve"; that is, a Gaussian distribution or "bell curve". He
discovered that data from measurements of variation in manufacturing did not always behave the way as
data from measurements of natural phenomena (for example, Brownian motion of particles). Shewhart
concluded that while every process displays variation, some processes display variation that is natural to
the process ("common" sources of variation)- these processes were described as 'in (statistical) control'.
Other processes additionally display variation that is not present in the causal system of the process at all
times ("special" sources of variation), and these were described as 'not in control'.[6]

Application to non-manufacturing processes[edit]

In 1988, the Software Engineering Institute suggested that SPC could be applied to non-manufacturing
processes, such as software engineering processes, in the Capability Maturity Model (CMM). The Level 4
and Level 5 practices of the Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI) use this concept.
The notion that SPC is a useful tool when applied to non-repetitive, knowledge-intensive processes such as
research and development or systems engineering has encountered skepticism and remains
controversial.[7][8]
In his seminal article No Silver Bullet, Fred Brooks points out that the complexity, conformance
requirements, changeability, and invisibility of software[9][10] results in inherent and essential variation that
cannot be removed. This implies that SPC is less effective in the domain of software development than in,
e.g., manufacturing.

Variation in manufacturing[edit]
In manufacturing, quality is defined as conformance to specification. However, no two products or
characteristics are ever exactly the same, because any process contains many sources of variability. In
mass-manufacturing, traditionally, the quality of a finished article is ensured by post-manufacturing
inspection of the product. Each article (or a sample of articles from a production lot) may be accepted or
rejected according to how well it meets its design specifications. In contrast, SPC uses statistical tools to
observe the performance of the production process in order to detect significant variations before they
result in the production of a sub-standard article. Any source of variation at any point of time in a process
will fall into one of two classes.
1) "Common Causes" - sometimes referred to as nonassignable, normal sources of variation. It
refers to many sources of variation that consistently acts on process. These types of causes
produce a stable and repeatable distribution over time.
2) "Special Causes" - sometimes referred to as assignable sources of variation. It refers to any
factor causing variation that affects only some of the process output. They are often intermittent and
unpredictable.
Most processes have many sources of variation; most of them are minor and may be ignored. If the
dominant assignable sources of variation are detected, potentially they can be identified and
removed. When they are removed, the process is said to be "stable". When a process is stable, its
variation should remain within a known set of limits. That is, at least, until another assignable
source of variation occurs. For example, a breakfast cereal packaging line may be designed to fill
each cereal box with 500 grams of cereal. Some boxes will have slightly more than 500 grams, and
some will have slightly less. When the package weights are measured, the data will demonstrate
a distribution of net weights. If the production process, its inputs, or its environment (for example,
the machine on the line) change, the distribution of the data will change. For example, as the cams
and pulleys of the machinery wear, the cereal filling machine may put more than the specified
amount of cereal into each box. Although this might benefit the customer, from the manufacturer's
point of view, this is wasteful and increases the cost of production. If the manufacturer finds the
change and its source in a timely manner, the change can be corrected (for example, the cams and
pulleys replaced).

Application of SPC[edit]
The application of SPC involves three main phases of activity:

1. Understanding the process and the specification limits.

2. Eliminating assignable (special) sources of variation, so that the process is stable.
3. Monitoring the ongoing production process, assisted by the use of control charts, to detect
significant changes of mean or variation.
Control charts[edit]
The data from measurements of variations at points on the process map is monitored using control
charts. Control charts attempt to differentiate "assignable" ("special") sources of variation from
"common" sources. "Common" sources, because they are an expected part of the process, are of
much less concern to the manufacturer than "assignable" sources. Using control charts is a
continuous activity, ongoing over time.
Stable process[edit]
When the process does not trigger any of the control chart "detection rules" for the control chart, it
is said to be "stable". A process capability analysis may be performed on a stable process to
predict the ability of the process to produce "conforming product" in the future.
Excessive variations[edit]
When the process triggers any of the control chart "detection rules", (or alternatively, the process
capability is low), other activities may be performed to identify the source of the excessive variation.
The tools used in these extra activities include: Ishikawa diagram, designed experiments,
and Pareto charts. Designed experiments are a means of objectively quantifying the relative
importance (strength) of sources of variation. Once the sources of (special cause) variation are
identified, they can be minimized or eliminated. Steps to eliminating a source of variation might
include: development of standards, staff training, error-proofing, and changes to the process itself
or its inputs.
Process stability metrics[edit]
When monitoring many processes with control charts, it is sometimes useful to calculate
quantitative measures of the stability of the processes. These metrics can then be used to
identify/prioritize the processes that are most in need of corrective actions. These metrics can also
be viewed as supplementing the traditional process capability metrics. Several metrics have been
proposed, as described in Ramirez and Runger. [11] They are (1) a Stability Ratio which compares
the long-term variability to the short-term variability, (2) an ANOVA Test which compares the within-
subgroup variation to the between-subgroup variation, and (3) an Instability Ratio which compares
the number of subgroups that have one or more violations of the Western Electric rules to the total
number of subgroups.

Mathematics of control charts[edit]

Digital control charts use logic-based rules that determine "derived values" which signal the need
for correction. For example,
derived value = last value + average absolute difference between the last N numbers.

See also[edit]
 Process capability index
 Quality assurance
 Industrial engineering
 ANOVA Gauge R&R
 Stochastic control
 Electronic design automation
 Reliability engineering
 Six sigma
 Process Window Index
 4 Advanced product quality planning (APQP)

Advanced product quality planning (APQP) is a framework of procedures and techniques used to
develop products in industry, particularly in the automotive industry. It is similar to the concept of Design for
Six Sigma (DFSS).
According to the Automotive Industry Action Group (AIAG), the purpose of APQP is "to produce a product
quality plan which will support development of a product or service that will satisfy the customer."[1] It is the
process employed by General Motors, Ford, Chrysler and their suppliers for their product development
systems.

Contents

 1History
 2Main content of APQP
 3See also
 4References
 5External links

History[edit]
Advanced product quality planning is a process developed in the late 1980s by a commission of experts
who gathered around the 'Big Three' of the US automobile industry: Ford, GM and Chrysler.
Representatives from the three automotive original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) and the Automotive
Division of American Society for Quality Control (ASQC)* created the Supplier Quality Requirement Task
Force for developing a common understanding on topics of mutual interest within the automotive industry.[2]
This commission invested five years to analyze the then-current automotive development and production
status in the US, Europe and especially in Japan. At the time, the success of the Japanese automotive
companies was starting to be remarkable in the US market.
APQP is utilized today by these three companies and some affiliates. Tier 1 suppliers are typically required
to follow APQP procedures and techniques and are also typically required to be audited and registered
to IATF 16949. This methodology is now being used in other manufacturing sectors as well.
The basis for the make-up of a process control plan is included in the APQP manual.[3] The APQP process
is defined in the AIAG's APQP manual, which is part of a series of interrelated documents that
the AIAG controls and publishes. These manuals include:

 The failure mode and effects analysis (FMEA) manual

 The statistical process control (SPC) manual
 The measurement systems analysis (MSA) manual
 The production part approval process (PPAP) manual
The Automotive Industry Action Group (AIAG) is a non-profit association of automotive companies founded
in 1982.

Main content of APQP[edit]

APQP serves as a guide in the development process and also a standard way to share results between
suppliers and automotive companies. APQP specifies three phases: Development, Industrialization and
Product Launch. Through these phases 23 main topics will be monitored. These 23 topics will be all
completed before the production is started. They cover such aspects as: design robustness, design testing
and specification compliance, production process design, quality inspection standards, process capability,
production capacity, product packaging, product testing and operator training plan, among other items.
APQP focuses on:

 Up-front quality planning

 Determining if customers are satisfied by evaluating the output and supporting continual improvement
APQP consists of five phases:

 Plan and Define Program

 Product Design and Development Verification
 Process Design and Development Verification
 Product and Process Validation and Production Feedback
 Launch, Assessment & Corrective Action
The APQP process has seven major elements:

 Understanding the needs of the customer

 Proactive feedback and corrective action
 Designing within the process capabilities
 Analyzing and mitigating failure modes
 Verification and validation
 Design reviews
 Control special/critical characteristics.

See also

Failure mode and effects analysis (FMEA)—also "failure modes", plural, in many publications—was one
of the first highly structured, systematic techniques for failure analysis. It was developed by reliability
engineers in the late 1950s to study problems that might arise from malfunctions of military systems. An
FMEA is often the first step of a system reliability study. It involves reviewing as many components,
assemblies, and subsystems as possible to identify failure modes, and their causes and effects. For each
component, the failure modes and their resulting effects on the rest of the system are recorded in a specific
FMEA worksheet. There are numerous variations of such worksheets. An FMEA can be a qualitative
analysis,[1] but may be put on a quantitative basis when mathematical failure rate models[2] are combined
with a statistical failure mode ratio database.
A few different types of FMEA analyses exist, such as:

 Functional
 Design
 Process
Sometimes FMEA is extended to FMECA (failure mode, effects, and criticality analysis) to indicate that
criticality analysis is performed too.
FMEA is an inductive reasoning (forward logic) single point of failure analysis and is a core task in reliability
engineering, safety engineering and quality engineering.
 A successful FMEA activity helps identify potential failure modes based on experience with similar products
and processes—or based on common physics of failure logic. It is widely used in development and
manufacturing industries in various phases of the product life cycle. Effects analysis refers to studying the
consequences of those failures on different system levels.
Functional analyses are needed as an input to determine correct failure modes, at all system levels, both
for functional FMEA or Piece-Part (hardware) FMEA. An FMEA is used to structure Mitigation for Risk
reduction based on either failure (mode) effect severity reduction or based on lowering the probability of
failure or both. The FMEA is in principle a full inductive (forward logic) analysis, however the failure
probability can only be estimated or reduced by understanding the failure mechanism. Hence, FMEA may
include information on causes of failure (deductive analysis) to reduce the possibility of occurrence by
eliminating identified (root) causes.

Contents

 1Introduction
o 1.1Functional Failure mode and effects analysis
o 1.2Ground rules
o 1.3Benefits
 2History
 3Basic terms
 4Example of FMEA worksheet
o 4.1Probability (P)
o 4.2Severity (S)
o 4.3Detection (D)
o 4.4Dormancy or Latency Period
o 4.5Indication
o 4.6Risk level (P*S) and (D)
 5Timing
 6Uses
 7Advantages
 8Limitations
 9Types
 10See also
 11References
 12External links

Introduction[edit]
The FME(C)A is a design tool used to systematically analyze postulated component failures and identify
the resultant effects on system operations. The analysis is sometimes characterized as consisting of two
sub-analyses, the first being the failure modes and effects analysis (FMEA), and the second, the criticality
analysis (CA).[3] Successful development of an FMEA requires that the analyst include all significant failure
modes for each contributing element or part in the system. FMEAs can be performed at the system,
subsystem, assembly, subassembly or part level. The FMECA should be a living document during
development of a hardware design. It should be scheduled and completed concurrently with the design. If
completed in a timely manner, the FMECA can help guide design decisions. The usefulness of the FMECA
as a design tool and in the decision-making process is dependent on the effectiveness and timeliness with
which design problems are identified. Timeliness is probably the most important consideration. In the
extreme case, the FMECA would be of little value to the design decision process if the analysis is
performed after the hardware is built. While the FMECA identifies all part failure modes, its primary benefit
is the early identification of all critical and catastrophic subsystem or system failure modes so they can be
eliminated or minimized through design modification at the earliest point in the development effort;
therefore, the FMECA should be performed at the system level as soon as preliminary design information is
available and extended to the lower levels as the detail design progresses.
Remark: For more complete scenario modelling another type of Reliability analysis may be considered, for
example fault tree analysis (FTA); a deductive (backward logic) failure analysis that may handle multiple
failures within the item and/or external to the item including maintenance and logistics. It starts at higher
functional / system level. A FTA may use the basic failure mode FMEA records or an effect summary as
one of its inputs (the basic events). Interface hazard analysis, Human error analysis and others may be
added for completion in scenario modelling.

Functional Failure mode and effects analysis[edit]

The analysis may be performed at the functional level until the design has matured sufficiently to identify
specific hardware that will perform the functions; then the analysis should be extended to the hardware
level. When performing the hardware level FMECA, interfacing hardware is considered to be operating
within specification. In addition, each part failure postulated is considered to be the only failure in the
system (i.e., it is a single failure analysis). In addition to the FMEAs done on systems to evaluate the impact
lower level failures have on system operation, several other FMEAs are done. Special attention is paid to
interfaces between systems and in fact at all functional interfaces. The purpose of these FMEAs is to
assure that irreversible physical and/or functional damage is not propagated across the interface as a result
of failures in one of the interfacing units. These analyses are done to the piece part level for the circuits that
directly interface with the other units. The FMEA can be accomplished without a CA, but a CA requires that
the FMEA has previously identified system level critical failures. When both steps are done, the total
process is called a FMECA.

Ground rules[edit]
The ground rules of each FMEA include a set of project selected procedures; the assumptions on which the
analysis is based; the hardware that has been included and excluded from the analysis and the rationale
for the exclusions. The ground rules also describe the indenture level of the analysis, the basic hardware
status, and the criteria for system and mission success. Every effort should be made to define all ground
rules before the FMEA begins; however, the ground rules may be expanded and clarified as the analysis
proceeds. A typical set of ground rules (assumptions) follows:[4]

1. Only one failure mode exists at a time.

2. All inputs (including software commands) to the item being analyzed are present and at nominal
values.
3. All consumables are present in sufficient quantities.
4. Nominal power is available
Benefits[edit]
Major benefits derived from a properly implemented FMECA effort are as follows:

1. It provides a documented method for selecting a design with a high probability of successful
operation and safety.
2. A documented uniform method of assessing potential failure mechanisms, failure modes and their
impact on system operation, resulting in a list of failure modes ranked according to the seriousness
of their system impact and likelihood of occurrence.
3. Early identification of single failure points (SFPS) and system interface problems, which may be
critical to mission success and/or safety. They also provide a method of verifying that switching
between redundant elements is not jeopardized by postulated single failures.
 4. An effective method for evaluating the effect of proposed changes to the design and/or operational
procedures on mission success and safety.
5. A basis for in-flight troubleshooting procedures and for locating performance monitoring and fault-
detection devices.
6. Criteria for early planning of tests.
From the above list, early identifications of SFPS, input to the troubleshooting procedure and locating of
performance monitoring / fault detection devices are probably the most important benefits of the FMECA. In
addition, the FMECA procedures are straightforward and allow orderly evaluation of the design.

History[edit]
Procedures for conducting FMECA were described in US Armed Forces Military Procedures document
MIL-P-1629[5] (1949); revised in 1980 as MIL-STD-1629A.[6] By the early 1960s, contractors for the U.S.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) were using variations of FMECA or FMEA under a
variety of names.[7][8] NASA programs using FMEA variants
included Apollo, Viking, Voyager, Magellan, Galileo, and Skylab.[9][10][11] The civil aviation industry was an
early adopter of FMEA, with the Society for Automotive Engineers (SAE) publishing ARP926 in
1967.[12] After two revisions, ARP926 has been replaced by ARP4761, which is now broadly used in civil
aviation.
During the 1970s, use of FMEA and related techniques spread to other industries. In 1971 NASA prepared
a report for the U.S. Geological Survey recommending the use of FMEA in assessment of offshore
petroleum exploration.[13] A 1973 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency report described the application of
FMEA to wastewater treatment plants.[14] FMEA as application for HACCP on the Apollo Space Program
moved into the food industry in general.[15]
The automotive industry began to use FMEA by the mid 1970s.[16] The Ford Motor Company introduced
FMEA to the automotive industry for safety and regulatory consideration after the Pinto affair. Ford applied
the same approach to processes (PFMEA) to consider potential process induced failures prior to launching
production. In 1993 the Automotive Industry Action Group (AIAG) first published an FMEA standard for the
automotive industry.[17] It is now in its fourth edition.[18] The SAE first published related standard J1739 in
1994.[19] This standard is also now in its fourth edition.[20]
Although initially developed by the military, FMEA methodology is now extensively used in a variety of
industries including semiconductor processing, food service, plastics, software, and
healthcare.[21] Toyota has taken this one step further with its Design Review Based on Failure
Mode (DRBFM) approach. The method is now supported by the American Society for Quality which
provides detailed guides on applying the method.[22] The standard Failure Modes and Effects Analysis
(FMEA) and Failure Modes, Effects and Criticality Analysis (FMECA) procedures identify the product failure
mechanisms, but may not model them without specialized software. This limits their applicability to provide
a meaningful input to critical procedures such as virtual qualification, root cause analysis, accelerated test
programs, and to remaining life assessment. To overcome the shortcomings of FMEA and FMECA a
Failure Modes, Mechanisms and Effect Analysis (FMMEA) has often been used.

Basic terms[edit]
The following covers some basic FMEA terminology.[23]
Failure
The loss of a function under stated conditions.
Failure mode
The specific manner or way by which a failure occurs in terms of failure of the item (being a part or
(sub) system) function under investigation; it may generally describe the way the failure occurs. It
 shall at least clearly describe a (end) failure state of the item (or function in case of a Functional
FMEA) under consideration. It is the result of the failure mechanism (cause of the failure mode). For
example; a fully fractured axle, a deformed axle or a fully open or fully closed electrical contact are
each a separate failure mode of a DFMEA, they would not be failure modes of a PFMEA. Here you
examine your process, so process step x - insert drill bit, the failure mode would be insert wrong
drill bit, the effect of this is too big a hole or too small a hole.
Failure cause and/or mechanism
Defects in requirements, design, process, quality control, handling or part application, which are the
underlying cause or sequence of causes that initiate a process (mechanism) that leads to a failure
mode over a certain time. A failure mode may have more causes. For example; "fatigue or
corrosion of a structural beam" or "fretting corrosion in an electrical contact" is a failure mechanism
and in itself (likely) not a failure mode. The related failure mode (end state) is a "full fracture of
structural beam" or "an open electrical contact". The initial cause might have been "Improper
application of corrosion protection layer (paint)" and /or "(abnormal) vibration input from another
(possibly failed) system".
Failure effect
Immediate consequences of a failure on operation, function or functionality, or status of some item.
Indenture levels (bill of material or functional breakdown)
An identifier for system level and thereby item complexity. Complexity increases as levels are closer
to one.
Local effect
The failure effect as it applies to the item under analysis.
Next higher level effect
The failure effect as it applies at the next higher indenture level.
End effect
The failure effect at the highest indenture level or total system.
Detection
The means of detection of the failure mode by maintainer, operator or built in detection system,
including estimated dormancy period (if applicable)
Probability
The likelihood of the failure occurring.
Risk Priority Number (RPN)
Severity (of the event) * Probability (of the event occurring) * Detection (Probability that the event
would not be detected before the user was aware of it)
Severity
The consequences of a failure mode. Severity considers the worst potential consequence of a
failure, determined by the degree of injury, property damage, system damage and/or time lost to
repair the failure.
Remarks / mitigation / actions
Additional info, including the proposed mitigation or actions used to lower a risk or justify a risk level
or scenario.

Example of FMEA worksheet[edit]

 (D) Detection Actions for
Potential (P) Detection
Potential Mission Local effects Next higher System Level (Indications Risk Level further Mitigation /
MEA Ref. Item cause(s) / Probability (S) Severity Dormancy
failure mode Phase of failure level effect End Effect to Operator, P*S (+D) Investigation Requirements
mechanism (estimate) Period
Maintainer) / evidence

Severely
Reduced (1) Flight
a) O-ring Aircraft Computer
Require redundant
Compressi deceleratio and
Brake independent brake
Internal on Set n on (V) Maintenanc Check
Manifold Decreased Built-In hydraulic channels
Leakage (Creep) No Left ground and Catastrophi e Dormancy
Ref. pressure to (C) Test Unaccepta and/or Require
1.1.1.1 from failure b) Landing Wheel side drift. c (this is Computer Period and
Designator main brake Occasional interval is 1 ble redundant sealing
Channel A surface Braking Partial loss the worst will indicate probability
2b, channel hose minute and Classify O-
to B damage of runway case) "Left Main of failure
A, O-ring ring as Critical
during position Brake,
Part Class 1
assembly control. Pressure
Risk of Low"
collision

Probability (P)[edit]
It is necessary to look at the cause of a failure mode and the likelihood of occurrence. This can be
done by analysis, calculations / FEM, looking at similar items or processes and the failure modes that
have been documented for them in the past. A failure cause is looked upon as a design weakness. All
the potential causes for a failure mode should be identified and documented. This should be in technical
terms. Examples of causes are: Human errors in handling, Manufacturing induced faults, Fatigue,
Creep, Abrasive wear, erroneous algorithms, excessive voltage or improper operating conditions or
use (depending on the used ground rules). A failure mode is given a Probability Ranking.

Rating Meaning

Extremely Unlikely (Virtually impossible or No known occurrences on similar

A
products or processes, with many running hours)

B Remote (relatively few failures)

C Occasional (occasional failures)

D Reasonably Possible (repeated failures)

E Frequent (failure is almost inevitable)

Severity (S)[edit]
Determine the Severity for the worst-case scenario adverse end effect (state). It is convenient to
write these effects down in terms of what the user might see or experience in terms of functional
failures. Examples of these end effects are: full loss of function x, degraded performance, functions
in reversed mode, too late functioning, erratic functioning, etc. Each end effect is given a Severity
number (S) from, say, I (no effect) to V (catastrophic), based on cost and/or loss of life or quality of
life. These numbers prioritize the failure modes (together with probability and detectability). Below a
typical classification is given. Other classifications are possible. See also hazard analysis.

Rating Meaning

I No relevant effect on reliability or safety

Very minor, no damage, no injuries, only results in a maintenance action (only

II
noticed by discriminating customers)

Minor, low damage, light injuries (affects very little of the system, noticed by
III
average customer)

Critical (causes a loss of primary function; Loss of all safety Margins, 1 failure
IV
away from a catastrophe, severe damage, severe injuries, max 1 possible death )

Catastrophic (product becomes inoperative; the failure may result in complete

V
unsafe operation and possible multiple deaths)

Detection (D)[edit]
The means or method by which a failure is detected, isolated by operator and/or maintainer and the
time it may take. This is important for maintainability control (availability of the system) and it is
especially important for multiple failure scenarios. This may involve dormant failure modes (e.g. No
direct system effect, while a redundant system / item automatically takes over or when the failure only
is problematic during specific mission or system states) or latent failures (e.g. deterioration
failure mechanisms, like a metal growing crack, but not a critical length). It should be made clear how
the failure mode or cause can be discovered by an operator under normal system operation or if it
can be discovered by the maintenance crew by some diagnostic action or automatic built in system
test. A dormancy and/or latency period may be entered.
 Rating Meaning

1 Certain – fault will be caught on test - e.g. Poka-Yoke

2 Almost certain

3 High

4 Moderate

5 Low

6 Fault is undetected by Operators or Maintainers

Dormancy or Latency Period[edit]

The average time that a failure mode may be undetected may be entered if known. For example:

 Seconds, auto detected by maintenance computer

 8 hours, detected by turn-around inspection
 2 months, detected by scheduled maintenance block X
 2 years, detected by overhaul task x
Indication[edit]
If the undetected failure allows the system to remain in a safe / working state, a second failure
situation should be explored to determine whether or not an indication will be evident to
all operators and what corrective action they may or should take.
Indications to the operator should be described as follows:

 Normal. An indication that is evident to an operator when the system or equipment is operating
normally.
 Abnormal. An indication that is evident to an operator when the system has malfunctioned or failed.
 Incorrect. An erroneous indication to an operator due to the malfunction or failure of an indicator
(i.e., instruments, sensing devices, visual or audible warning devices, etc.).
PERFORM DETECTION COVERAGE ANALYSIS FOR TEST PROCESSES AND MONITORING
(From ARP4761 Standard):
This type of analysis is useful to determine how effective various test processes are at the detection
of latent and dormant faults. The method used to accomplish this involves an examination of the
applicable failure modes to determine whether or not their effects are detected, and to determine
the percentage of failure rate applicable to the failure modes which are detected. The possibility that
the detection means may itself fail latently should be accounted for in the coverage analysis as a
limiting factor (i.e., coverage cannot be more reliable than the detection means availability).
Inclusion of the detection coverage in the FMEA can lead to each individual failure that would have
been one effect category now being a separate effect category due to the detection coverage
possibilities. Another way to include detection coverage is for the FTA to conservatively assume
that no holes in coverage due to latent failure in the detection method affect detection of all failures
assigned to the failure effect category of concern. The FMEA can be revised if necessary for those
cases where this conservative assumption does not allow the top event probability requirements to
be met.
After these three basic steps the Risk level may be provided.

Risk level (P*S) and (D)[edit]

Probability /
I II III IV V VI
Severity -->

A Low Low Low Low Moderate High

B Low Low Low Moderate High Unacceptable

C Low Low Moderate Moderate High Unacceptable

D Low Moderate Moderate High Unacceptable Unacceptable

E Moderate Moderate High Unacceptable Unacceptable Unacceptable

Risk is the combination of End Effect Probability And Severity where probability and severity
includes the effect on non-detectability (dormancy time). This may influence the end effect
probability of failure or the worst case effect Severity. The exact calculation may not be easy in all
cases, such as those where multiple scenarios (with multiple events) are possible and detectability
/ dormancy plays a crucial role (as for redundant systems). In that case Fault Tree Analysis and/or
Event Trees may be needed to determine exact probability and risk levels.
Preliminary Risk levels can be selected based on a Risk Matrix like shown below, based on Mil.
Std. 882.[24] The higher the Risk level, the more justification and mitigation is needed to provide
evidence and lower the risk to an acceptable level. High risk should be indicated to higher level
management, who are responsible for final decision-making.

 After this step the FMEA has become like a FMECA.

Timing[edit]
The FMEA should be updated whenever:

 A new cycle begins (new product/process)

 Changes are made to the operating conditions
 A change is made in the design
 New regulations are instituted
  Customer feedback indicates a problem

Uses[edit]
 Development of system requirements that minimize the likelihood of failures.
 Development of designs and test systems to ensure that the failures have been
eliminated or the risk is reduced to acceptable level.
 Development and evaluation of diagnostic systems
 To help with design choices (trade-off analysis).

Advantages[edit]
 Catalyst for teamwork and idea exchange between functions
 Collect information to reduce future failures, capture engineering knowledge
 Early identification and elimination of potential failure modes
 Emphasize problem prevention
 Improve company image and competitiveness
 Improve production yield
 Improve the quality, reliability, and safety of a product/process
 Increase user satisfaction
 Maximize profit
 Minimize late changes and associated cost
 Reduce impact on company profit margin
 Reduce system development time and cost
 Reduce the possibility of same kind of failure in future
 Reduce the potential for warranty concerns

Limitations[edit]
While FMEA identifies important hazards in a system, its results may not be
comprehensive and the approach has limitations.[25][26][27] In the healthcare context,
FMEA and other risk assessment methods, including SWIFT (Structured What If
Technique) and retrospective approaches, have been found to have limited validity
when used in isolation. Challenges around scoping and organizational boundaries
appear to be a major factor in this lack of validity.[25]
If used as a top-down tool, FMEA may only identify major failure modes in a
system. Fault tree analysis (FTA) is better suited for "top-down" analysis. When used
as a "bottom-up" tool FMEA can augment or complement FTA and identify many more
causes and failure modes resulting in top-level symptoms. It is not able to discover
complex failure modes involving multiple failures within a subsystem, or to report
expected failure intervals of particular failure modes up to the upper level subsystem or
system.[citation needed]
Additionally, the multiplication of the severity, occurrence and detection rankings may
result in rank reversals, where a less serious failure mode receives a higher RPN than
a more serious failure mode.[28] The reason for this is that the rankings are ordinal
scale numbers, and multiplication is not defined for ordinal numbers. The ordinal
rankings only say that one ranking is better or worse than another, but not by how
much. For instance, a ranking of "2" may not be twice as severe as a ranking of "1," or
 an "8" may not be twice as severe as a "4," but multiplication treats them as though
they are. See Level of measurement for further discussion. Various solutions to this
problems have been proposed, e.g., the use of fuzzy logic as an alternative to classic
RPN model.[29][30][31]
Process FMEA can be challenging for participants
who have not completed many PFMEAS, often confusing FAILURE MODES with
EFFECTS and CAUSES. To clarify, a Process FMEA shows how the process can go
wrong. Using a detailed Process Map will aid the person filling in the worksheet to
correctly list the steps of the process being reviewed. The FAILURE MODE is then
simply how that step can go wrong. Example, Process Step 1. Pick Up right handed
part. Can they pick up the wrong part? (some manufacturing centers have left and right
handed parts etc.) FAILURE MODE put left hand part in, EFFECT could be wrecked
CNC machine and scrapped part, or hole drilled in wrong location. The cause, keeping
inventory of similar parts at the job. Why is it important to do a PFMEA with regard to
the process? When a process is examined or if we ask what can go wrong with the
process unknown issues are uncovered, solving problems before they occur and
tackling root cause issues or at least 2 Y's deep on a 5 Y. Here the manufacturing
engineer could possibly poke yoke the tooling to prevent a left handed part in the
fixture when running the right handed parts or program a touch off probe in the CNC
programming - all before ever making the mistake the first time. If a PFMEA is set up
where the FAILURE MODE relates to the feature on the print, example FAILURE
MODE drilled hole too big - no further understanding of what caused the problem is
gained. Numerous PFMEA's have been examined and show that little to no value is
gained when reviewing features off of a print as FAILURE MODES - little
understanding of the cause is gained. New PFMEA practitioners often try to relate the
PFMEA FAILURE MODE to the FEATURE, numerous authors list this as trying to
inspect in quality rather than listing the process step determining how it can go wrong
and building in quality through root cause evaluation.
Besides, two shortcomings are

1.complexity of the FMEA worksheet;

2. intricacy of its use. Entries in an FMEA worksheet are voluminous.
The FMEA worksheet is hard to produce, hard to understand and read, as well as
hard to maintain. The use of neural network techniques to cluster and visualise failure
modes were suggested, recently.[32][33][34]

Types[edit]
 Functional: before design solutions are provided (or only on high level) functions can be
evaluated on potential functional failure effects. General Mitigations ("design to" requirements) can
be proposed to limit consequence of functional failures or limit the probability of occurrence in this
early development. It is based on a functional breakdown of a system. This type may also be used
for Software evaluation.
 Concept Design / Hardware: analysis of systems or subsystems in the early design
concept stages to analyse the failure mechanisms and lower level functional failures, specially to
different concept solutions in more detail. It may be used in trade-off studies.
 Detailed Design / Hardware: analysis of products prior to production. These are the most
detailed (in mil 1629 called Piece-Part or Hardware FMEA) FMEAs and used to identify any
possible hardware (or other) failure mode up to the lowest part level. It should be based on
 hardware breakdown (e.g. the BoM = Bill of Material). Any Failure effect Severity, failure
Prevention (Mitigation), Failure Detection and Diagnostics may be fully analyzed in this FMEA.
 Process: analysis of manufacturing and assembly processes. Both quality and reliability
may be affected from process faults. The input for this FMEA is amongst others a work process /
task Breakdown.

See also[edit]
 Design Review Based on
Failure Mode
 Eight Disciplines Problem methods
Solving
 Failure mode resources
 Failure rate
 Fault Tree Analysis chart
 FMECA
 FMEDA
 Hazard analysis and critical
control points
 5. process flow diagram (PFD

process flow diagram (PFD) is a diagram commonly used in chemical and process engineering to
indicate the general flow of plant processes and equipment. The PFD displays the relationship
between major equipment of a plant facility and does not show minor details such as piping details and
designations. Another commonly used term for a PFD is a flowsheet.

Contents

 1Typical content of a process flow diagram

 2Process flow diagram examples
o 2.1Multiple process units within an industrial plant
 3Other items of interest
 4Standards
 5See also
 6Further reading
 7External links

Typical content of a process flow diagram[edit]

Some typical elements from process flow diagrams, as provided by the open sourceprogram, Dia. Click for image
legend.

Typically, process flow diagrams of a single unit process will include the following:

 Process piping
 Major equipment items
 Control valves and other major valves
 Connections with other systems
 Major bypass and recirculation (recycle) streams
 Operational data (temperature, pressure, mass flow rate, density, etc.), often by stream references to
a mass balance.
 Process stream names
Process flow diagrams generally do not include:

 Pipe classes or piping line numbers

 Process control instrumentation (sensors and final elements)
 Minor bypass lines
 Isolation and shutoff valves
 Maintenance vents and drains
 Relief and safety valves
 Flanges
Process flow diagrams of multiple process units within a large industrial plant will usually contain less detail
and may be called block flow diagrams or schematic flow diagrams.

Process flow diagram examples[edit]

The process flow diagram below depicts a single chemical engineering unit process known as an amine
treating plant:
Flow diagram of a typical amine treating process used in industrial plants

Multiple process units within an industrial plant[edit]

The process flow diagram below is an example of a schematic or block flow diagram and depicts the
various unit processes within a typical oil refinery:
A typical oil refinery-SL

Other items of interest[edit]

A PFD can be computer generated from process simulators (see List of Chemical Process Simulators),
CAD packages, or flow chart software using a library of chemical engineering symbols. Rules and symbols
are available from standardization organizations such as DIN, ISO or ANSI. Often PFDs are produced on
large sheets of paper.
PFDs of many commercial processes can be found in the literature, specifically in encyclopedias of
chemical technology, although some might be outdated. To find recent ones, patent databases such as
those available from the United States Patent and Trademark Office can be useful.

Standards[edit]
 ISO 10628: Flow Diagrams For Process Plants - General Rules
 ANSI Y32.11: Graphical Symbols For Process Flow Diagrams (withdrawn 2003)
 SAA AS 1109: Graphical Symbols For Process Flow Diagrams For The Food Industry

See also[edit]
 Hazop
 Piping and instrumentation diagram (P&ID)

Leaders in Diversity and Inclusion: 5 Lessons From Top

Global Companies

David is in charge of workplace diversity management at a global manufacturing

company. He was recently assigned a seemingly basic task. “Focus on minorities,”
the executive sponsor of the initiative told him. “I’d like to see our numbers climb
from 25 to 45 percent,” he said.
Minorities are largely underrepresented at the company, but David knew that was
only a small part of a larger problem. Women are also grossly underrepresented,
especially among senior employees. Additionally, there are no current initiatives to
hire people with disabilities, nor is there a policy in place that promotes diverse
ways of thinking.

Frustrated at the narrowed focus of his duty, David immediately felt discouraged.
Through his experiences, he has learned that to achieve greater diversity and
inclusion (D&I), organizational efforts will need to focus beyond just the numbers.
To effect positive and measurable change within an organization, David knows it is
imperative to focus efforts on a collective and multidimensional solution.

Later that day, David chatted with a team of his coworkers in different countries
during a conference call. Some of them echoed something he has heard plenty of
times in the past. Jason, a colleague in Singapore, stated, “Simply focusing on
hiring minorities isn’t enough. The offices here, for example, employ a huge number
of minorities, but they aren’t included as key decision makers, and they’re rarely
promoted to executive positions.”

David and Jason both agree that their company should continue to hire more
people from underrepresented groups, but that a single focus will not do much to
solve any of the larger problems. They understand that companies with gender,
ethnic and racial diversity are at least 15 percent more likely to experience above-
average financial returns. They also know that companies within the top quartile for
racial and ethnic diversity are 35 percent more likely to do the same.

These statistics imply a significant relationship between competitive profit gains and
diversity, so why, exactly, is focusing on minorities not enough for a global
company?

Why are members of the global workforce — such as David and Jason —
frustrated with one-way initiatives that do nothing more than single out certain
groups of people?

And most importantly: what can we learn from top companies successfully
globalizing workplace diversity and inclusion?

Managing diversity and inclusion in the global workplace is, in many ways, an
unmapped territory. As such, we share five lessons from the following top global
companies:
  BASF. Earning a spot on DiversityInc’s Top 50 in 2015, 2014 and 2013,
BASF is a global force properly leveraging D&I.
 Ford Motor Company. Ford made DiversityInc’s Top 50 an impressive 11
times.
 Sodexo. Sodexo was the recipient of the Catalyst Award in 2012 and earned
a spot on DiversityInc’s Top 50 on eight different occasions.
 AIG. In 2015, AIG earned a spot on DiversityInc’s 25 Noteworthy Companies
list for the second year in a row. The company’s talent pipeline, equitable
talent development, CEO and senior leadership commitment and supplier
diversity were assessed.
 L’Oréal. In 2006, the World Diversity Leadership Council presented L’Oréal
USA with the Corporate Diversity Innovation Award, as well as the DANDI
Award in 2012.
 Deutsche Bank. Named as one of the Top 50 Employers for Women,
Deutsche Bank also won an award for its global sponsorship program
ATLAS, which helps women progress to senior positions.
 Bayer. Known for years for its effective eLearning modules and other non-
traditional strategies for D&I, Bayer was named a Top 10 Company for Asian
Americans, as well as a Top Global Company by DiversityInc.
 Johnson & Johnson. The global healthcare company was listed on
DiversityInc’s Top 50 eleven times.

These leading organizations are paving the way for the future of diversity and
inclusion. Between fostering innovation and learning to properly monitor — and
model — their efforts, we have gleaned from these leading global companies five
important lessons for organizations to successfully implement diversity and
inclusion efforts that will have global relevance.

Lesson 1: Recognize the Shift in Global

Understanding of D&I
As David and Jason realize in the above scenario, diversity today means more than
race and gender. There’s growing significance placed on creating environments
where a variety of different voices are encouraged and heard. These voices come
from people who may or may not be of the same gender, race, or ethnicity.
Diversity in the workplace today can include some of the following:

 Race
 Ethnicity
 Gender
 Sexual orientation
  Religious affiliation
 Generation
 Disability
 Personality type
 Thinking style

This new way of thinking about D&I focuses on meeting the needs of the individual
and not so much on an HR-centered initiative. Today, it is not only about having
diversity within a company but leveraging that diversity to produce better products
and services.

It is crucial to hire and maintain a diverse workforce, so gender and racial/ethnic

initiatives will be launched and maintained into the foreseeable future. There is
much to learn from leaders in diversity and inclusion, but it is important to
remember that every company’s D&I initiatives will look different. You should tailor
your initiatives to address your specific industry and your company’s areas of
weakness. Furthermore, global strategies should be able to be adopted locally.

It is wise to remember that diversity means different things to different people, and
organizations will apply those definitions to their companies respectively. For
example, the percentage of workers of European ancestry in the UK decreased by
almost 10 percentage points over the last ten years. This presents an area of focus
unique to the UK workforce.

Another example is the focus on people with disabilities in India, where many
people suffer from polio or other diseases because medicine was not available to
treat them. Because of this, Deutsche Bank works with a non-governmental
organization to train people with disabilities to work at the company.
It’s clear that the shift in D&I still includes, but stretches beyond, race and gender.
We are in need of a collective push toward recognizing the need for diverse
thinkers coming from a variety of different backgrounds, but companies are only
slowly moving in this direction.

Take the story of Todd Sears as an example. He began his career as a Wall Street
investment banker in an environment that was not accepting of homosexuality. He
eventually found a position in a more welcoming environment, where he flourished
and eventually went on to pursue his own firm in a new market: private banking
focusing on LGBT clients.

Sears’ statement is a testament to the changing forecast of D&I: “For me, it’s
business first, and business as a vehicle to achieve social justice and civil rights.”

His statement provokes further thoughts about for-profit organizations and their
dedication to advancing society on a global level. We all know intuitively that D&I
initiatives are morally right, but realistically speaking, businesses are going to do
what is best for the bottom line. This fact rouses sentiments about social
responsibility, and part of this view naturally considers supplier diversity.

Few companies are as successful as Ford when it comes to supplier diversity. In

November of 2014, The National Minority Supplier Development Council named
Carla Preston of Ford Motor Company a Minority Supplier Development Leader. In
2013, Preston’s efforts led to Ford adding 16 new Tier 1 diverse suppliers to its
network, accounting for $4.8 million in spend. That year, Ford granted $1.08 billion
of new business to diverse suppliers.

This example proves that a global entity can indeed leverage diversity in many
ways and see extremely positive results. This is proof that what is morally right can
also be the best business decision.

There are aspects of running a global business that are the same across the board,
such as making a profit and putting forth efforts into D&I. There are also unique
concerns that come with operating through different cultures and regions.

Lesson 2: Build an Inclusive Environment

Studies show that diversity and inclusion efforts are worthwhile, especially on a
global level. In the United Kingdom, senior executive teams proved a 3.5 percent
increase in earnings before interest and taxes with every 10 percent increase in
gender diversity.

This implies that global business leaders should strive to create an atmosphere
where multiple voices are heard, and their opinions are valued and considered.
This fact should be engrained in the company culture. In the example scenario,
David and Jason realized the importance of an inclusive global workplace, but were
frustrated with the focus on a single group of workers – and frustrated that the
company culture lacked a focus on global talent.

Few senior executives have realized the importance of a diverse workforce

powered with voices of people from different backgrounds, personalities and
thinking styles across the global workplace. It has become important to create
environments where all people are encouraged to draw upon their unique
experiences, perspectives and backgrounds to advance business goals. To
achieve this in a global work setting, it’s crucial to employ effective global
communication and training efforts.

Healthcare provider Johnson & Johnson, for example, realized that to be

successful in global diversity, it needed culturally appropriate efforts launched for
every region. The company was struggling to combine its diversity efforts in the
United States and Europe, so it conducted its first-ever live video conference on
mutual perceptions, diversity and respect. Clients and employees reported
increased productivity, and over 100 survey participants reported the conference
was the most valuable training they had ever experienced.
Another example of a global company realizing the depth and scope of inclusive
environments is Deutsche Bank, a signatory and founding member of diversity
charters in Germany, Spain and Luxembourg. About 42 percent of its employees
are female. Eileen Taylor of Deutsche explained, “We are in 75 countries and
we hire the best talent in each locale. Diverse teams and companies make better
decisions.”

Considering these examples, it’s clear that some of the top organizations around
the world have set an example for diverse and inclusive global work environments.
As these organizations continue their efforts and others follow, how do they
continuously improve? And, more importantly, what areas of D&I are companies
still falling short?

Sixty-five percent of 321 executives of large global companies surveyed by Forbes

Insights claimed to have a plan in place to recruit a diverse workforce — but only
44 percent employ retention programs. This signifies a gap in collective progress
when it comes to retaining diversity and inclusion in the workplace. In other words,
you cannot simply have diversity; you must learn to leverage and nurture it so that it
can thrive.

Lesson 3: Use Multiple Practices and Measures

Diversity and inclusion should not be treated as a ‘one-off’ initiative. Many leaders
struggle with how to manage workplace diversity. Promoting diversity and inclusion
in the workplace is a constant work in progress, and it should be maintained and
nurtured to be effective.
According to a 2014 HUDSON Research & Consulting study that interviewed six
D&I leaders from leading non-U.S.-based companies, there is a need for multiple
initiatives and many sources of feedback.

Instead of looking at turnover rates and other numbers, there is a need for
measuring ROI based on different indicators and granular information, such as
employee responses and consistent feedback about policies.

Chemistry giant BASF employs a talent dashboard that allows leaders to gauge
D&I progress by asking comprehensive questions about their thoughts on the hiring
process and retention trends. This ensures that multiple voices are heard and
encourages employees to voice their opinions. Strategies like this give a voice to
employees who might not otherwise express their opinions.

Another example of a successful global company utilizing multiple practices and

measures is the German chemical and pharmaceutical company Bayer. It uses
eLearning modules as a way of providing ongoing education to employees. This
type of resource provides employees with consistent reminders of the company’s
values and expectations.

David and Jason at the global manufacturing company would likely appreciate such
efforts. A talent dashboard would allow them to voice their concerns in a safe
atmosphere, as well as show them that leadership cares about their concerns. The
eLearning modules would serve as a way to educate employees across the globe,
placing emphasis on things that matter beyond racial and gender diversity.

The takeaway is that your global company should have solutions in place to
monitor and retain a talented and diverse workforce, such as any of the following:

 Global mentoring programs

 Employee resource groups
 Multicultural talent management
 Strategic partnership development
 e-Learning modules

Lesson 4: Ensure Leaders Model Diversity and

Inclusion
It is critical that senior leadership model diversity and inclusion. When senior
leaders own D&I and make themselves a part of the diversity and inclusion
management process, it sets the tone for the rest of the organization to follow suit.
“I have to be the champion of diversity and inclusion,” said L’Oréal USA CEO
Frédéric Rozé. “It is my job to be a role model and show how important this is to
our company.”

BASF is an excellent example of a global company that introduces D&I training

programs to senior executives to promote diversity throughout the organization.
BASF’s Ambassador Network includes over 500 employees worldwide and
encourages the creation of an “open corporate culture that values every individual.”

Is there a secret formula to learning how to manage workplace diversity, especially

considering the breadth of differences between global companies? Here are three
steps imperative to obtaining inclusive leadership.

1. Seek diversity

Companies must pull applicants from a diverse pool using the best techniques.
Most global companies understand this fact, but it is not enough. Best practices
include training hiring managers to ensure the hiring criteria and process is
inclusive.

2. Create inclusion

It is not enough to only hire a diverse workforce. It is crucial to leverage diverse

perspectives for the benefit of the business as a whole. It is important to bring
awareness to unconscious bias and discuss it in terms of the organization. In doing
so, multiple perspectives are shared and considered.

3. Drive accountability

Leaders in diversity and inclusion should make it clear that your global environment
promotes free speaking. Encourage employees to speak out against biases. If
necessary, launch a culture change in which every employee is involved.

This process can be slow and intimidating, but your efforts will pay off when
employees feel empowered to take individual accountability and let you know when
they notice a bias. Diversity and inclusion activities in the workplace are not always
a simple process. In fact, sometimes they can be quite messy. But it is often in
these situations — in which employees step outside of their comfort zones and are
faced with new situations and ideas — that tremendous growth occurs.

A global organization catching on to this need for inclusive leadership is Ford Motor
Company, which recognizes the need for leveraging different skills and
perspectives, and for “respecting each other, and, in doing so, achieving profitable
growth for all.”

Kiersten Robinson, Vice President of Human Resources, Asia Pacific and Africa at
Ford, was born in Ireland and immigrated to Australia as a child. She experienced
cultural differences and was always well aware of her own as an immigrant. She
learned at a young age the positive outcomes born from leveraging diversity and
integrated that knowledge into her career. Robinson believes that organizations
should use varying insights and perspectives as opportunities to increase customer
satisfaction.

Lesson 5: Recognize the Connection Between

Innovation and D&I
Perhaps the most significant lesson is that diversity and inclusion spark innovation.
In AIG’s 2014 corporate citizen report, for example, it included leveraging cognitive
diversity to drive innovation as a D&I principle. According to the global enterprise,
diversity and inclusion increase innovation and reduce business risk.

The enterprise focused its efforts on three areas in 2014:

  Nomination programs. It hosted training for 350 employees in nine
countries representing the enterprise’s every region. The efforts focused on
women and under-represented groups.
 Training programs. A global initiative was launched in over 20 countries to
address general diversity and also train managers in cultural competence,
generation diversity and unconscious bias.
 Employee resource groups. The enterprise’s employee resource groups
experienced a growth rate of 76 percent in one year. It expanded to 10
different dimensions of diversity, added to 36 existing chapters and launched
37 new groups.

This new trend among top global companies fostering innovation in the workplace
encourages other global businesses to do the same.

If you want to begin exploring the concept of cognitive diversity in the workplace,
know that it focuses on diversity of thinking and is composed of four dimensions:

 Perspectives. People represent situations in different ways. In the global

workplace, it will help to have multiple perspectives when it comes to
representing a problem, as they will see different possible solutions.
 Interpretations. Employees interpret situations, problems and other people
in different ways, classifying them accordingly. Through diverse
interpretations, teams can discover multiple resolutions.
 Heuristics. People resolve issues in different ways, proving there are
multiple ways to arrive at a conclusion.
 Predictive models. To make predictions, some people analyze, and others
look for a story. Both are useful to discovering workplace solutions.
Cognitive diversity breeds high performance while completing complex tasks.
Global workforces powered with diverse thinkers hold the ability to foster
innovation. It is important to note that there are two possible roadblocks to this
innovation:

 Unconscious bias
 A corporate culture that doesn’t promote sharing any and all opinions

Unconscious bias is difficult to overcome, but there are steps you can take to
overcome it in the global workplace:

 Realize your tendencies and natural reactions to people different from you in
some way.
 Expand your support network and go to different people for advice.
 Invite more people to make important decisions.

World leader in quality-of-life services Sodexo is well known for its forward thinking
and ability to recognize bias. The company was recognized with one of Canada’s
Best Diversity Employers awards for two years in a row. President of Sodexo
Canada Barry Telford explained, “Diversity is not just about each group getting their
moment. We must all work together to identify bias and make a commitment at all
levels of the organization not to overlook our most talented and resilient team
members.”

Leaders in diversity and inclusion should reward employees who are not afraid to
voice an unpopular opinion or suggest something different than what’s expected.
Dr. Rohini Anand of Sodexo USA said, “Inclusive leadership starts with self-
awareness, being introspective, knowing your blind spots and possessing the ability
to listen and learn.”

The ability to listen and learn can only be valuable if employees are encouraged to
speak their minds, even when they are expressing an unpopular opinion or
suggesting a new idea. Smart, successful global teams understand that differing
opinions spark innovation — and that it is a crucial part of high performance.
Without recognizing bias and considering different viewpoints, growth will likely be
slow moving.

David and Jason’s global manufacturing company would likely benefit from an
amended corporate culture that promotes diverse thinkers and promotes
recognizing unconscious bias. They would likely experience fewer workplace
frustrations as employees are encouraged to voice their opinions and multiple
solutions are considered.
 With so many considerations, it can be difficult to know where to start or where to
focus your efforts. Learning to leverage global workplace diversity is far from
simple, and learning to manage, maintain and measure your efforts will take time.
Leaders in diversity and inclusion have taught us that it is an ongoing process, and
it might require the help of an outside source — one that specializes in global
diversity and inclusion in the workplace.

Putting Diversity & Inclusion Into Practice

Are you ready to take concrete steps and develop your company’s D&I policy and
practices?
Learn how to create an inclusive workplace.

Like What You've Read?

Enter your email to subscribe to our quarterly newsletter.

Terms and Conditions:*Please state that you have read and agree to the Terms of Use
(https://www.aperianglobal.com/terms-of-use) and Privacy Policy (https://www.aperianglobal.com/privacy-policy).

 I agree to the Terms of Use

Submit

12 Responses to “Leaders in Diversity and Inclusion: 5

Lessons From Top Global Companies”

 Parveen Sharma says:

May 5, 2016 at 3:30 pm

Hi
This is an interesting way to look at Diversity and inclusion can we buy
images in this article for our use??

Parveen Sharma
South Central and West Commissioning Support Unit

Reply

o Sarah Cincotta says:

May 6, 2016 at 9:08 pm

Thanks for your interest, Praveen! We’d like to get a better

understanding of where you’re hoping to use these images. If you’re
still interested, please send us an email
at [email protected] a bit more information so we can
get a better idea of what you’re looking for. Thank you!

We shall affect release of your full & final settlement upon completion of the handing over process.