Solution · Customer Experience
OEM field failures by VIN, batch, or component, traced to the upstream process parameters that produced them. Foreman recommends process-change candidates your engineer can adopt — recurrence prevented on the line, not promised in a deck.
The pain
Field-failure reports come back from the OEM in vehicle-fleet language: VINs, mileage at failure, dealer notes, replaced-part part numbers. The process engineer thinks in line language: cycle times, press tonnage, station temperature, batch numbers. Nobody translates between the two, so the field report ends up in a folder and the line keeps producing the same way.
When a pattern finally surfaces — same component, same failure mode, three OEMs over a year — the corrective action is usually a one-time tightening of an inspection that doesn't address the upstream parameter that drifted. The next batch will eventually fail the same way.
The data to close the loop exists: batch genealogy in the MES, parameter history in the historian, field reports on the OEM portal. What's missing is the agent that pulls all three together and gives the process engineer something to actually change.
What Foreman does about it
Given the OEM's field-failure report — VIN, replaced part, failure description — Foreman resolves it to the production batch, station, and shift that made the failed component. The translation engineers used to do manually happens automatically.
Built on · Digital Twin
Foreman pulls station-log parameter history for that batch, compares it against the production windows that didn't fail, and identifies the parameter signature that distinguishes the two — without assuming the failure mode in advance.
Built on · Decision Layer · Agent Engine
When the same parameter signature shows up across three field-failure reports over a year, Foreman flags the pattern. The process engineer gets a 'this isn't one bad batch, this is one bad setpoint' brief — with the evidence linked.
Built on · Decision Layer
Foreman drafts the process-change candidates the engineer would have considered: tighten this control band, change this setpoint, add this SPC rule. Each comes with the predicted impact on throughput and quality, so the trade-off is explicit.
Built on · Agent Engine
What we'd move
Time from a field-failure report landing to a process-change candidate the engineer can evaluate — translation, parameter pull, pattern check, drafted brief.
Reduction in recurring field failures of the same mode within twelve months of corrective action — assuming the parameter change is accepted and held.
Field-failure events linked to a production batch and parameter signature — every report defensible at the OEM next-level escalation.
* Discovery-stage estimates from process-engineering walkthroughs with Tier-1/2 plants. Replaced with measured numbers as pilots run.
The one outcome that matters
Not at the inspection that missed it. Foreman moves the corrective action from 'inspect harder' to 'change the line', with the evidence to justify the change.
Where it lands
MES & batch genealogy
Wonderware, Opcenter, FactoryTalk, Ignition. Foreman reads batch records, serial-to-batch maps, and station routing — read-only by default.
Historian
OSIsoft PI, Aveva, MQTT brokers, OPC-UA. Parameter history for the production window of every implicated batch is available for the agent's comparison.
OEM field-failure portals
Ford WERS, Stellantis field reports, JLR ePQR, GM warranty. Foreman ingests VIN-level failure records and reconciles them against your batch register.
We don't replace your quality system — we make the process engineer running it twice as effective by closing the loop from field failure all the way back to the parameter that needs to change. See the full integration list →
Industry fit
A 30-minute call to walk through your field-failure cadence, your traceability stack, and the line change Foreman would have proposed three reports ago.
