Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (FMEA) remains a fundamental risk management methodology in the automotive industry. This review provides a structured comparative analysis of the classical AIAG FMEA (4th edition, 2008) and the harmonized AIAG & VDA FMEA (1st edition, 2019) across Design (DFMEA), Process (PFMEA), and System (SFMEA) levels. Unlike conventional descriptive reviews, this study presents an integrative analytical synthesis that systematically evaluates methodological differences, decision-making logic, and structural transformations between the two frameworks. The analysis focuses on key developments, including the transition from Risk Priority Number (RPN) to Action Priority (AP), the introduction of a mandatory seven-step methodology, the formalization of structure–function–failure relationships, and enhanced traceability to downstream quality documentation such as Control Plans. The findings demonstrate that the harmonized framework represents a conceptual shift from a primarily scoring-based approach to a structured systems engineering methodology, improving consistency, completeness, and auditability of risk analysis. Particular emphasis is placed on the implications of AP-based prioritization, which alters traditional decision logic by preventing the suppression of safety-critical risks. The paper contributes to the literature by providing a comprehensive cross-level comparison (DFMEA–PFMEA–SFMEA) within a single analytical framework, identifying both strengths and limitations of the harmonized approach, and outlining its practical implications for industrial implementation. Future research directions include quantitative validation, application-based case studies, and integration with digital and AI-driven FMEA systems.
Jeluš et al. (Thu,) studied this question.