Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (FMEA) remains one of the most essential and structured tools for identifying potential risks in products, processes, or systems. Its strength lies in its proactive approach—helping organizations anticipate and address issues before they escalate into real-world failures.
However, the effectiveness of FMEA is often compromised by common mistakes in its execution. Based on industry observations and practitioner feedback, here are five of the most frequent pitfalls in FMEA—and how to systematically avoid them.
1. Treating FMEA as a One-Time Exercise
The Issue: Many organizations prepare an FMEA during initial project stages and rarely revisit it thereafter.
The Impact: This leads to outdated risk profiles that no longer reflect actual operations or customer feedback.
Recommended Practice: FMEA should be a living document—updated at key milestones such as design changes, process improvements, customer complaints, or non-conformances. Periodic reviews ensure relevance and accuracy.
2. Inconsistent or Subjective Risk Scoring
The Issue: Severity, Occurrence, and Detection (S-O-D) ratings are often assigned based on perception rather than data.
The Impact: Inconsistent scoring can result in misprioritization, causing teams to focus on low-impact risks while ignoring critical ones.
Recommended Practice: Leverage historical data, failure logs, and field performance to inform your ratings. Consider adopting the AIAG-VDA FMEA framework, which introduces the Action Priority (AP) table—a more structured and objective prioritization approach.
3. Limited Cross-Functional Participation
The Issue: FMEA exercises are sometimes conducted in silos—typically within engineering or quality departments.
The Impact: This narrow perspective can overlook valuable input from other key stakeholders, leading to incomplete failure mode identification.
Recommended Practice: Build a cross-functional FMEA team including production, maintenance, design, supply chain, and customer support personnel. Diverse input leads to more comprehensive analysis and realistic mitigation plans.
4. Confusing Failure Modes, Causes, and Effects
The Issue: A lack of clarity in differentiating between what can go wrong (failure mode), why it happens (cause), and the consequence (effect).
The Impact: This weakens the diagnostic quality of the FMEA and complicates corrective actions.
Recommended Practice: Provide structured training to teams. A well-defined approach, supported by clear examples, ensures the FMEA follows a logical and meaningful flow.
5. Disconnect Between FMEA and Corrective Actions
The Issue: FMEA outcomes are often not translated into tangible improvements in processes or control systems.
The Impact: It reduces FMEA to a theoretical document with minimal operational value.
Recommended Practice: Ensure that identified high-priority risks are linked to control plans, process changes, and preventive actions. Regular audits should verify whether these actions are implemented and effective.
Elevate Your FMEA Expertise
To overcome these challenges and implement FMEA effectively, structured training is essential.
We invite professionals and quality leaders to attend the:
👉 FMEA – Failure Mode & Effect Analysis Certification Program
Organized by: Concept Business Excellence Pvt. Ltd. (CBE Learning)
📍 Available in both online and offline formats
🎯 Includes case studies, hands-on templates, and application in manufacturing and service industries
🔧 Covers AIAG-VDA 7-Step Model, Action Priority, and real-time application techniques
📊 Industry Insight:
According to research published by the American Society for Quality (ASQ), over 60% of organizations report inconsistencies or inefficiencies in their FMEA practices, primarily due to lack of standardization or training.
Avoid common missteps. Build FMEA capability that drives performance.
Start by empowering your team with the right tools, methodology, and mindset.
🔗 Learn more & register here: FMEA Certification Program – CBE Learning
