Re: [SystemSafety] FMEA draft international standard

From: Braband, Jens < >
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2014 17:39:12 +0000


>From an application-oriented perspective there are some advantages in creating general as well as sector-specific standards, e. g.

The problem I see often standardization committees is that while it would be normal to recruit the best (or at least some pretty good) experts in the field for the project team, often the team is only selected from the committee. When I was about 10 years ago project leader for the revision of IEC 61165 dealing with Markov techniques I invited some good and well known people in the field, and some of them, including Alessandro Birolini, Yoshinobo Sato and Ken Simpson, joined in, but some of them declined.

But I agree with Peter that there should be some minimal quality requirements and some competence management for standards development.

Best regards

Jens Braband

PS The opinion given here is my private, not necessarily that of my employer or other organizations that I represent.

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 16. Juli 2014 13:32
An: systemsafety_at_xxxxxx Betreff: Re: [SystemSafety] FMEA draft international standard

On 2014-07-16 12:58 , Matthew Squair wrote:
> There's already standards released and available for FMEA, see the
> SAE's J standard, and the venerable MIL-STD-1629. So why do we need
> another? Before we go gaily skipping down the primrose path of
> generating another standard, perhaps someone could state clearly why these are inadequate and clearly define what the hoped for improvement is?

Each automobile company has its own internal standard, most of which are technically far more detailed than any of the public standards.

The point is scope. Ford's FMEA standard is for Ford. MIL-STD-1629 is for the US military. SAE is for automotive products. Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if the SAE standard is there simply because FMEA is named in FAR25.1309 as one of the three methods companies may use to show their products conform with the required risk limits (the two others being STs and RBDs).

If you want an FMEA in, say, a chemical plant, or a power plant, or a washing machine, then it is not covered by any of these. And if the IEC doesn't do it, ISO will, so there is some element of competition present (this is fact, BTW, not speculation).

Technical standards aren't necessarily for engineers. They are definitely for management, insurance companies and courts. They are important for product liability and for insurance purposes. They are used in litigation, mediation and arbitration like laws. Jens Braband has warned us about this, and I have actually been involved. It's no fun constructing arguments around something you know is inadequate or inappropriate.

PBL Prof. Peter Bernard Ladkin, Faculty of Technology, University of Bielefeld, 33594 Bielefeld, Germany Tel+msg +49 (0)521 880 7319 www.rvs.uni-bielefeld.de



The System Safety Mailing List
systemsafety_at_xxxxxx

The System Safety Mailing List
systemsafety_at_xxxxxx Received on Wed Jul 16 2014 - 19:39:28 CEST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Thu Apr 25 2019 - 11:17:06 CEST