Advertisement

Research in Engineering Design

, Volume 29, Issue 1, pp 39–53 | Cite as

The importance of robust design methodology: case study of the infamous GM ignition switch recall

Original Paper
  • 477 Downloads

Abstract

While a systematic quality strategy is of crucial importance for the success of manufacturing companies, the universal applicability and effectiveness of implemented quality management practices were called into question by a number of major product recalls in recent years. This article seeks to illustrate how already simple analyses and early stage design methods can help to better understand one of the potential reasons for these failures, namely the variation inherent in manufacturing, assembly, and use processes. Usually thoroughly controlled in production, it seems as if particularly the risk of unanticipated variation effects remain largely underestimated and thus unaccounted for in design practice, sometimes with disastrous consequences. To foster the awareness of this variation and to illustrate the benefits of its early consideration in product development, this paper reviews one of the most infamous recalls in automotive history, that of the GM ignition switch, from the perspective of Robust Design. It is investigated if available Robust Design methods such as sensitivity analysis, tolerance stack-ups, design clarity, etc. would have been suitable to account for the performance variation, which has led to a number of fatal product defects and the recall of 30 million vehicles. Furthermore, the disclosed legal case files were examined, offering a unique opportunity to examine how technical malfunctioning of the ignition switch could stay undetected long enough to result in fatalities.

Keywords

Root cause analysis Failure diagnosis Robust design Tolerances 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge Novo Nordisk for the research funding under the DTU-Novo Nordisk Robust Design Programme.

References

  1. Andersen B, Fagerhaug T (2006) Root cause analysis—simplified tools and techniques. ASQ Quality Press, Milwaukee. ISBN: 978-0-873-89692-4Google Scholar
  2. Andersson P (1997) On robust design in the conceptual design phase: a qualitative approach. J Eng Des 8(1):75–89. doi: 10.1080/09544829708907953 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Batchelor R (2010) Assess the cost of quality—and counter those disastrous ‘cost savings’. J Inst Eng Des Sept/Oct:18–20.Google Scholar
  4. Bertsche B (2008) Reliability in automotive and mechanical Engineering: determination of component and system reliability. Springer, Berlin. doi: 10.1007/978-3-540-34282-3 Google Scholar
  5. Blanding DL (1999) Exact constraint machine design using kinematic principles. ASME Press, USA. ISBN: 978–0791800850Google Scholar
  6. Booker J (2012) A survey-based methodology for prioritising the industrial implementation qualities of design tools. J Eng Des 23(7):507–525. doi: 10.1080/09544828.2011.624986 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Borgonovo E, Plischke E (2016) Sensitivity analysis: a review of recent advances. Eur J Oper Res 248(3):869–887. doi: 10.1016/j.ejor.2015.06.032 MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. Chiarini A (2011) Japanese total quality control, TQM, Deming’s system of profound knowledge, BPR, Lean and Six Sigma: comparison and discussion. Int J Lean Six Sigma 2(4):332–355. doi: 10.1108/20401461111189425 MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chowdhury S (2002) Design for six sigma. Dearborn Trade Publishing Group, Chicago. ISBN: 978-0-793-15224-7Google Scholar
  10. Ebro M, Howard TJ (2016) Robust design principles for reducing variation in functional performance. J Eng Des 27(1–3):75–92. doi: 10.1080/09544828.2015.1103844 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ebro M, Howard TJ, Rasmussen JJ, (2012) The foundation for robust design—enabling robustness through kinematic design and design for Clarity. In: Proceedings of International Design Conference—DESIGN’12, Dubrovnik/CroatiaGoogle Scholar
  12. Ebro M, Olesen J, Howard TJ (2014) Robust design impact metrics: measuring the effect of implementing and using robust design. In: Proceedings of 1st International Symposium on Robust Design – ISoRD, pp 1–9. doi: 10.4122/dtu:2082
  13. Eifler T, Ebro M, Howard TJ (2013) A classification of the industrial relevance of robust design methods. In: Proceedings of International Conference on Engineering Design—ICED’13, Seoul/South Korea, pp 427–436Google Scholar
  14. Eifler T, Murthy BS, Howard TJ (2016) Toward meaningful manufacturing variation data in design—feature based description of variation in manufacturing processes. In: Proceedings of 14th CIRP Conference on Computer Aided Tolerancing—CAT’16, Gothenburg/Sweden, pp 190–195. doi: 10.1016/j.procir.2016.02.161
  15. Frey C, Patil SR (2002) Identification and review of sensitivity analysis methods. Risk Anal 22(3):553–578. doi: 10.1111/0272-4332.00039 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Göhler M, Eifler T, Howard TJ (2016a) Robustness metrics: consolidating the multiple approaches to quantify robustness. ASME J Mech Des. doi: 10.1115/1.4034112 Google Scholar
  17. Göhler M, Ebro M, Howard TJ (2016b) Mechanisms and coherences of robust design methodology: a robust design process proposal. Total Qual Manag Bus Excell. doi: 10.1080/14783363.2016.1180952.Google Scholar
  18. Gremyr I, Hasenkamp T (2010) Practices of robust design methodology in practice. TQM J 23(1):47–58. doi: 10.1108/17542731111097489 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gremyr I, Arvidsson M, Johannson P (2003) Robust design methodology: status in the Swedish manufacturing industry. Qual Reliab Eng 19:4, 285–293. doi: 10.1002/qre.584.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hearing (2014a) McSwain Engineering INC. project: General Motors Ignition Switch, http://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF02/20140401/102033/HHRG-113-IF02-20140401-SD061.pdf. Accessed 12 July 2016
  21. Hearing (2014b) Delphi Mechatronics division: Design FMEA, http://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF02/20140401/102033/HHRG-113-IF02-20140401-SD071.pdf. Accessed 12 July 2016
  22. Hearing (2014c) Melton v. General Motors, http://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF02/20140401/102033/HHRG-113-IF02-20140401-SD033.pdf. Accessed 12 July 2016
  23. Hearing (2014d) Delphi: Outline-anti-theft ignition switch. http://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF02/20140401/102033/HHRG-113-IF02-20140401-SD045.pdf. Accessed 12 July 2016
  24. Hearing (2014e) Cobalt Pursuit G5 Ignition Switch, http://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF02/20140401/102033/HHRG-113-IF02-20140401-SD049.pdf. Accessed 12 July 2016
  25. Hutcheson RS, McAdams DA (2012) Sensitivity Measures for use during conceptual design. Int J Des Eng 5:(1) 1–20. doi: 10.1504/IJDE.2012.050270.Google Scholar
  26. Jennings M, Trautman LJ (2015) Ethical culture and legal liability: the general motors switch crisis and lessons in governance, Pre-Publication Draft. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2691536. Accessed 12 July 2016
  27. Jugulum R, Frey DD (2007) Toward a taxonomy of concept designs for improved robustness. J Eng Des 18(2):139–156. doi: 10.1080/09544820600731496 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kemmler S, Eifler T, Bertsche B, Howard TJ (2015) Robust reliability or reliable robustness? Integrated consideration of robustness- and reliability-aspects, 27. VDI-Fachtagung Technische Zuverlässigkeit, Stuttgart, pp 87–97Google Scholar
  29. Krogstie L, Ebro M, Howard TJ (2014) How to implement and apply robust design: insights from industrial practice. Total Qual Manag Bus Excell 26:11–12, 1387–1405. doi: 10.1080/14783363.2014.934520.Google Scholar
  30. Pahl G, Beitz W, Feldhusen J, Grote K-H (2007) Engineering design—a systematic approach, 3rd edn. Springer Verlag, London/UK. ISBN: 978-1-84628-318-5Google Scholar
  31. Phadke MS (1989) Quality Engineering Using Robust Design. Prentice Hall, New Jersey. ISBN: 978–0137451678Google Scholar
  32. Saltelli A, Ratto M, Andres T, Campolongo F, Cariboni J, Gatelli D, Saisana M, Tarantola S (2008) Global sensitivity analysis—the primer. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester. ISBN: 978-0-470-05997-5MATHGoogle Scholar
  33. Shaout A, Dusute C (2014) Where did General Motors go wrong with the ignition switch recall. IIUM Eng J 15(2): 13–21Google Scholar
  34. Söderberg R. Lindkvist L, Carlson JS (2006) Managing physical dependencies through location system design. J Eng Des 17(4):325–346. doi: 10.1080/09544820500275685 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. SPI (1998) Guidelines for molders and their customers, Society of the plastic industry (SPI) Molders DivisionGoogle Scholar
  36. Taguchi G, Chowdhury S, Wu Y (2005) Taguchi’s quality engineering handbook. John Wiley & Sons, New Jersey. ISBN: 978-0-471-41334-9MATHGoogle Scholar
  37. Thornton A (2004) Variation risk management—focusing quality improvements in product development and production. John Wiley & Sons, New Jersey. ISBN: 978-0-471-44679-8Google Scholar
  38. Thornton AC, Donnelly S, Ertan B (2000) More than just robust design: why product development organizations still contend with variation and its impact on quality. Res Eng Des 12(3):127–143. doi: 10.1007/s001630050028 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Valukas AR (2014) Report to the board of directors of General Motors Company regarding ignition switch recalls. http://www.nhtsa.gov/staticfiles/nvs/pdf/Valukas-report-on-gm-redacted.pdf. Accessed 12 July 2016

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Technical University of Denmark (DTU)Kgs. LyngbyDenmark

Personalised recommendations