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.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Reuters (16.09.2015) “GM to pay $900 million, settle U.S. criminal case over ignition switches.” http://www.reuters.com/article/us-gm-probe-idUSKCN0RG2WF20150916, [Accessed 12.07.2016].
The sample, which could be acquired for this research, is obviously far from being representative. Nevertheless, the available physical products offered a valuable first impression on geometric variation of switch components as well as the difference between model years.
For example, Rogers, A. (16.05.2014) “GM to pay record $35 million fine over ignition switch recalls.” http://time.com/102906/gm-fine-ignition-recalls/. [Accessed 12.07.2016].
References
Andersen B, Fagerhaug T (2006) Root cause analysis—simplified tools and techniques. ASQ Quality Press, Milwaukee. ISBN: 978-0-873-89692-4
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
Batchelor R (2010) Assess the cost of quality—and counter those disastrous ‘cost savings’. J Inst Eng Des Sept/Oct:18–20.
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
Blanding DL (1999) Exact constraint machine design using kinematic principles. ASME Press, USA. ISBN: 978–0791800850
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
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
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
Chowdhury S (2002) Design for six sigma. Dearborn Trade Publishing Group, Chicago. ISBN: 978-0-793-15224-7
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
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/Croatia
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
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 427–436
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
Frey C, Patil SR (2002) Identification and review of sensitivity analysis methods. Risk Anal 22(3):553–578. doi:10.1111/0272-4332.00039
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
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.
Gremyr I, Hasenkamp T (2010) Practices of robust design methodology in practice. TQM J 23(1):47–58. doi:10.1108/17542731111097489
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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 87–97
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.
Pahl G, Beitz W, Feldhusen J, Grote K-H (2007) Engineering design—a systematic approach, 3rd edn. Springer Verlag, London/UK. ISBN: 978-1-84628-318-5
Phadke MS (1989) Quality Engineering Using Robust Design. Prentice Hall, New Jersey. ISBN: 978–0137451678
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: 978-0-470-05997-5
Shaout A, Dusute C (2014) Where did General Motors go wrong with the ignition switch recall. IIUM Eng J 15(2): 13–21
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
SPI (1998) Guidelines for molders and their customers, Society of the plastic industry (SPI) Molders Division
Taguchi G, Chowdhury S, Wu Y (2005) Taguchi’s quality engineering handbook. John Wiley & Sons, New Jersey. ISBN: 978-0-471-41334-9
Thornton A (2004) Variation risk management—focusing quality improvements in product development and production. John Wiley & Sons, New Jersey. ISBN: 978-0-471-44679-8
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
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
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to acknowledge Novo Nordisk for the research funding under the DTU-Novo Nordisk Robust Design Programme.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Eifler, T., Howard, T.J. The importance of robust design methodology: case study of the infamous GM ignition switch recall. Res Eng Design 29, 39–53 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00163-017-0251-x
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00163-017-0251-x