Talk:DFMEA

½ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.237.11.117 (talk) 07:34, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AIAQ reference?

Found this section in the article:

(quote) The DFMEA is considered one of the core quality tools by the Automotive Industry Action Group (AIAG). (end quote)

It points to a site which has no meaningful information about DFMEA or quality tools, it is examinations page where I can register for a costly certification.

As the referenced link is meaningless for informative processes, I consider this line to be advertising and therefore will remove it. --80.152.162.81 (talk) 09:16, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

There is really no new or additional information in this article that is not adequately covered in the FMEA page —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bassplr19 (talk • contribs) 13:37, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The FMEA article seems reasonably complete, and I agree that the content of the DFMEA article is covered in the FMEA article. As I recall, I created the DFMEA article because the FMEA article was much more generic and did not contain the detail that it does today. I think the only question I have is whether or not there should be anything in the DFMEA in that wouldn't belong in the FMEA article. What, if anything, contributes to the encyclopedic knowledge of DFMEA that is not generic to FMEA or easily covered in a few sentences?

Off the top of my head, candidate knowledge includes

the DFMEA focus on product and assumption of correct assembly/manufacture;
details of the meaning of each of the columns, which differ slightly from PFMEA and other FMEA formats (e.g. "what is a design functional requirement?").

At the moment, I'm not coming up with anything else, and I'm not convinced that such items as these would be worth their own article, even if the list were longer.

If we do the merge, we should be sure that searches for "DFMEA" redirect to the FMEA article. Tom Hopper (talk) 09:31, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]