Build a design risk analysis, DFMEA worksheet, or interface analysis using the AIAG-VDA FMEA Handbook 2019. Covers design intent, interface failures, boundary diagram, and design robustness before manufacturing. Use during new product development, design changes, or when a field failure reveals a design weakness. Required for IATF 16949 §8.3 scope.
インストール
Codex または Claude でインストール この Prompt をコピーして Codex、Claude、または他のアシスタントに貼り付けると、Skill ページを確認してインストールできます。
Build a design risk analysis, DFMEA worksheet, or interface analysis using the AIAG-VDA FMEA Handbook 2019. Covers design intent, interface failures, boundary diagram, and design robustness before manufacturing. Use during new product development, design changes, or when a field failure reveals a design weakness. Required for IATF 16949 §8.3 scope.
Identify and mitigate design risks by analysing functions, interfaces, and failure modes — so that design weaknesses are resolved before release to manufacturing, and the results feed directly into the DVP, PFMEA, and Control Plan.
All interfaces identified — internal (component-to-component), external (environment), and user/assembly
All functions defined with Verb + Noun + Measurable Standard (Step 3)
Each function has a measurable verification method confirmed in the DVP
Failure chain complete: Effect → Mode → Cause for each function (Step 4)
All Failure Causes validated using engineering analysis (FEA, calculation) or test evidence — not assumptions
S/O/D ratings justified using analysis, test data, or design history
All H-AP items have a defined action, named owner, and target date
DFMEA → DVP, PFMEA, and drawing linkage verified before release to manufacturing
When to use
New product development (integrate into APQP Phase 2 — Product Design and Development)
Design change or engineering change request (ECR)
Field failure investigation revealing a design root cause
Periodic design review
Before handoff to manufacturing (DFMEA drives the PFMEA)
Key difference from PFMEA: DFMEA analyses the design intent and design robustness. PFMEA analyses the manufacturing process. DFMEA comes first — its failure effects and severity ratings inform the PFMEA.
Interfaces to the environment (external): heat, vibration, corrosion, electromagnetic
Interfaces to the user or assembly process
Interfaces are where most design failures occur. Each interface must be analysed as a potential failure location in its own right — not just the components that share it. In practice, at least 50% of DFMEA effort should focus on interfaces and interactions; component-only analysis misses the most common field failure modes.
Step 3 — Function Analysis
For each element in the structure, define its design function:
Format: Verb + Noun + Measurable Standard
Examples:
Component function: "Transmit torque of 50 Nm ± 5 Nm without permanent deformation"
Interface function: "Maintain sealing at pressure 2.5 bar across -40°C to +120°C"
System function: "Provide steering angle feedback with latency < 50ms"
Identify Special Characteristics from the drawing — these get S = 9 or 10 in Step 5.
Testability rule: Every function must be measurable and verifiable — a test or analysis method must exist in the DVP. A function with no verification method cannot receive a credible D rating in Step 5.
Step 4 — Failure Analysis
The failure chain for DFMEA: Failure Effect → Failure Mode → Failure Cause
Failure Effect (FE):
End-user effect: safety hazard, loss of primary function, reduced performance
Vehicle/system effect: damage to adjacent components, secondary failures
Manufacturing effect (if component is not to spec): inability to assemble, rework
Failure Mode (FM):
How does this component fail to perform its design function?
Interface design not accounting for assembly variation
Failure Cause validation: Failure Causes must be validated using engineering analysis (FEA, structural calculation, thermal simulation) or test evidence. Unverified assumptions — "probably," "likely," "may be" — are not acceptable as final Failure Causes. Use CAE (FEA, simulation), test data, and field return data to support both the failure modes identified and their causes. For post-field-failure DFMEA updates, the FC must match the validated root cause from the 8D or field investigation.
D = 10 means no design verification for this failure mode. This is common for new features — it drives the DVP.
Ratings justification: All S/O/D ratings must be justified using analysis, test data, or design history. A rating without documented justification will not withstand OEM audit. Where design history exists from similar components, reference it explicitly. Where data is absent, mark O and D as preliminary and flag the DVP entry that will confirm them.
Step 6 — Optimization
For H-AP items in DFMEA, actions typically fall into:
Design change: change geometry, material, tolerance, or coating
Add design verification: add DVP test entry to confirm the design meets the requirement
Add prevention: design guideline, DFM/DFA rule, standard reference
Improve detection: add inspection requirement to DVP or design review checklist
DFMEA → DVP linkage:
Every detection control (D rating improvement) must have a corresponding entry in the Design Verification Plan (DVP). If you improve D because "we will test it," the test must exist in the DVP.
Action tracking: All actions must be tracked to closure with objective evidence — test results, simulation output, or updated analysis. Actions marked "complete" without verification evidence are not acceptable. Open H-AP items past their target date must be escalated to the design review owner or programme manager, with a revised date and documented reason for delay.
Step 7 — Results Documentation
DFMEA outputs that feed other APQP documents:
Special Characteristics identified in DFMEA → transferred to Control Plan and PFMEA
Start DFMEA at APQP Phase 2 — before design freeze. DFMEA initiated after freeze has no corrective value.
Engineering change request (ECR)
Review and update the DFMEA for all functions, failure modes, and interfaces affected by the change — before the change is released.
Design milestone / design review
Present DFMEA status: open H-AP items, actions, and revised ratings. DFMEA must be current at each gate.
Field failure with confirmed design root cause
Update FC, ratings, and actions to match validated root cause from 8D/field investigation. Update DVP to include the failure mode.
A DFMEA that is not updated through the programme lifecycle is a design quality assurance gap — not a living document.
Common mistakes
Starting DFMEA after design is frozen — DFMEA has no value if no changes can be made
Only analysing the component, not the interfaces — most design failures are interface failures
Improving D without adding DVP tests — detection credit without actual testing
DFMEA and PFMEA teams working in silos — they must share severity ratings and special characteristics
Output Format
At the start of each use, ask the user:
"How would you like to receive the output?
A — Structured Markdown (formatted tables and sections, ready to copy)
B — Plain tables (simplified structure for Excel or Word)
C — Narrative report (flowing text for a formal document or email)
Default: A."
Adapt all output sections to the chosen format. If the platform or session context already defines a format preference, skip this question.
