PROCESS FAILURE MODE AND EFFECT ANALYSIS

Planning & Preparation (STEP1)

Company Name: Subject:
Plant location: PFMEA Start Date:
Customer Name: PFMEA Revision Date:
Model/Year/Platform: Cross Functional Team:

CONTINUOUS
STRUCTURE ANALYSIS (STEP 2) FUNCTION ANALYSIS (STEP3) FAILURE ANALYSIS (STEP 4)
IMPROVEMENT

1. Process 1. Function of 2. Function of

Severity (s) of FE
Item 2. Process the Process the Process
3. Function of the 2. Failure 3. Failure
History/ Change Step 3. Process Work Item Step and
ISSUE #

Process Work 1. Failure Mode (FM) Causes

Authorization (As System, Element (Function of Product
Element and Effects of the (FC) of the
Applicable) Subsystem, Station No. System, Characteristics
Process (FE) Process Work
(optional) Part Element and Name of 4M Type Subsystem, (Quantitative
Characteristics Step Element
or Name of Process Step Part Element or Value is
Process process) Optional)
 PROCESS FAILURE MODE AND EFFECT ANALYSIS

PFMEA AID Number:

Process Responsibility:
Confidentiality Level:

RISK ANALYSIS (STEP 5) OPTIMIZATION (STEP 6)

FMEA AP (Action Priority)

Detection (D) of FC/FM

Special Characteristics
Occurrence (O) of FC

Filter Code (Optional)

Special Product

Occurrence (O)
Characteristics

Detection (D)
Severity (s)

PFMEA AP
Current Current Action

Remarks
Prevention Detection Detection Target Taken (with Completion
Prevention Responsible Completion
Status
Control (PC) of Controls (DC) Action Action Person's Name date pointer to date
FC of FC or FM evidence
 Process General Evaluation Criteria Severity (S)
Potential Failure Effects rated according to the criteria below
Impact to Ship to plant Impact to End User
S Effect Impact to Your Plant
(When Known) (When Known)
Failure may result in an acute Failure may result in an acute Affects safe operation of the
10 health and/or safety risk health and/or safety risk for the vehicle and/ or other
High
failure may result in in-plant failure may result in in-plant noncompliance with
9 regulatory non-compliance regulatory non-compliance regulations
100% of production run Line shutdown grater than full Loss of primary vehicle
8
Modera affected may have to be production shift; stopped function necessary for
high scrapped.
Product may have to be sorted Line shutdown from one hour Degradation of primary
7 and a portion( less than up to full production shift; vehicle function necessary
100% of the production run Loss of secondary vehicle
6 may have to reworked offline Line shutdown up to one hour
function
A portion of production run Less than 100% of product Degradation of secondary
5 Modera may have to be reworked affected; strong possibility for vehicle function
100% of production run may Defective product triggers Very objectionable appearance,
4 have to be reworked in significant reaction plan; sound, vibration,
additional
a portion of production run Defective product triggers Moderately objectionable
3 may have to be reworked in minor reaction plan; additional appearance, sound,
Low
Slight inconvenience to Defective product triggers no Slightly objectionable
2
process, operation or operator reaction plan; additional appearance, sound,
defective
 Very No discernible effect or no
1 No discerning effect No discernible effect
effect
 Occurrence potential (O) for the process
Potential Failure Causes rated according to the criteria below. Consider Prevention Controls when determining the
best Occurrence estimate, Occurrence is predictive qualitative rating made at the time of evaluation and may not
reflect the actual occurrence. The occurrence rating number is relative rating within the scope of FMEA (process
being evaluated). For Prevention Controls with multiple Occurrence Ratings, use the rating that best reflects the
robustness of the control.

Prediction
of failure
O Type of controls Prevention controls
cause
occurring
Extremely None No prevention control.
10
High
9 Behavioral Prevention control will have little effect in preventing failure cause
Very high
8
7 Behavioral or Prevention control somewhat effective in preventing failure cause
High technical
6
5 Prevention control are effective in preventing failure cause
Moderate
4
3 Low Best practices: Prevention control are highly effective in preventing failure cause
2 Very Low Behavioral or
technical
Technical Prevention control are extremely effective in preventing failure cause from
Extremely occurring due to design ( e.g. part geometry) or process (e.g. fixture of tooling
1 design). Intent of prevention controls- failure mode cannot be physically
Low
produced due to the failure cause.
 Occurrence potential (O) for the process (ALT1)
Potential Failure Causes rated according to the criteria below. Consider Prevention Controls when determining
the best Occurrence estimate, Occurrence is predictive qualitative rating made at the time of evaluation and may
not reflect the actual occurrence. The occurrence rating number is relative rating within the scope of FMEA
(process being evaluated). For Prevention Controls with multiple Occurrence Ratings, use the rating that best
reflects the robustness of the control.

O Incidents per 100 item/vehicles Type of controls Prevention controls

10 >=100 per thousands 1/=1 in 10 None No prevention control.
9 50 per thousands 1 in 20 Behavioral Prevention control will have little effect in
8 20 per thousands 1 in 50 preventing failure cause
7 10 per 1000 1 in 100 Behavioral or Prevention control somewhat effective in
6 2 per thousand 1 in 500 technical preventing failure cause
5 .5 per thousand 1 in 2000 Prevention control are effective in preventing
4 .1 per thousand 1 in 10000 failure cause
3 .01 per thousand 1 in 100000 Best practices: Prevention control are highly effective in
<.001 per thousand 1 in 1000000 Behavioral or preventing failure cause
2 technical
Failure is eliminated through Technical Prevention control are extremely effective in
prevention control preventing failure cause from occurring due to
design ( e.g. part geometry) or process (e.g.
1 fixture of tooling design). Intent of prevention
controls- failure mode cannot be physically
produced due to the failure cause.
 Occurrence potential (O) for the process (time based failure prediction value) (ALT2)

Potential Failure Causes rated according to the criteria below. Consider Prevention Controls when determining the
best Occurrence

Time based failure cause

O Type of controls Prevention controls
prediction
10 Every time None No prevention control.
9 Almost every time Prevention control will have little effect in preventing
Behavioral failure
8 More than once per shift
7 More than once per day Prevention control somewhat effective in preventing
More than once per week failure
6 Behavioral or
5 More than once per month technical Prevention control are effective in preventing failure
4 More than once per year cause
3 Once per year Best practices: Prevention control are highly effective in preventing
Less than once per year Behavioral or failure
2
Prevention control are extremely effective in preventing
1 Never Technical
 Detection potential (D) for the validation of the process design
Detection control rated according to detection method, maturity and opportunity for detection
Ability to Detection method
D Opportunity for detection
maturity
No testing or inspection
10 method has been the failure mode will not or cannot be detected
established or is known
Very Low
It is unlikely that the
testing or inspection The failure mode is not easily detected through random or sporadic
9
method will detect the audits
Testing or inspection human inspection (visual, tactile, audible), or use of manual gauging
8 method has not been ( attribute or variable) that should detect the failure mode or
Low proven to be effective and
Machine based detection ( automated or semi automated with
7 notification by light, buzzer, etc.) or use of inspection equipment
Test or inspection method human inspection (visual, tactile, audible), or use of manual gauging
6 has been proven to be ( attribute or variable) that will detect the failure mode or
Moderate effective and
Machine based detection (semi automated with notification by light,
5 buzzer, etc.), or use of inspection equipment such as co-
System has been proven to Machine based automated detection method that will detect failure
4 be effective and reliable mode downstream, prevent further processing or system will
(e.g. Plant has Machine based automated detection method that will detect failure
3 mode in-station, prevent further processing or system will
High
 High
Detection method has been
proven effective and Machine based detection method that will detect the cause and
2
reliable (e.g.. Plant prevent the failure mode (discrepant part) from being produced

Failure mode cannot be physically produced as design or process or detection method proven to
1 Very high
always detect the failure mode or failure cause
 Action Priority (AP) for DFMEA and PFMEA
Action priority is based on combinations of Saverty, Occurrence and Detection ratings in Blank until filled
order to prioritize actions for risk reduction. in by user.
Prediction of ACTION
Effect S Failure cause O Ability to Detect D PRIORITY Comments
occurring (AP)
Low - Very low 7-10. H
Moderate 5-6. H
Very high 8-10.
High 2-4. H
Very High 1 H
Low - Very low 7-10. H
Moderate 5-6. H
High 6-7.
High 2-4. H
Product or Very High 1 H
Plant effect 9 - 10. Low - Very low 7-10. H
Very High Moderate 5-6. H
Moderate 4-5.
High 2-4. H
Very High 1 M
Low - Very low 7-10. H
Moderate 5-6. M
Low 2-3.
High 2-4. L
Very High 1 L
Very Low 1 Very high - Very low 1-10. L
 Action Priority (AP) for DFMEA and PFMEA
Action priority is based on combinations of Saverty, Occurrence and Detection ratings in Blank until filled
order to prioritize actions for risk reduction. in by user.
Prediction of ACTION
Effect S Failure cause O Ability to Detect D PRIORITY Comments
occurring (AP)
Low - Very low 7-10. H
Moderate 5-6. H
Very high 8-10.
High 2-4. H
Very High 1 H
Low - Very low 7-10. H
Moderate 5-6. H
High 6-7.
High 2-4. H
Product or Very High 1 M
Plant effect 7 - 8. Low - Very low 7-10. H
High Moderate 5-6. M
Moderate 4-5.
High 2-4. M
Very High 1 M
Low - Very low 7-10. M
Moderate 5-6. M
Low 2-3.
High 2-4. L
Very High 1 L
Very Low 1 Very high - Very low 1-10. L
 Action Priority (AP) for DFMEA and PFMEA
Action priority is based on combinations of Saverty, Occurrence and Detection ratings in Blank until filled
order to prioritize actions for risk reduction. in by user.
Prediction of ACTION
Effect S Failure cause O Ability to Detect D PRIORITY Comments
occurring (AP)
Low - Very low 7-10. H
Moderate 5-6. H
Very high 8-10.
High 2-4. M
Very High 1 M
Low - Very low 7-10. M
Moderate 5-6. M
High 6-7.
High 2-4. M
Product or Very High 1 L
Plant effect 4 - 6. Low - Very low 7-10. M
Moderate Moderate 5-6. L
Moderate 4-5.
High 2-4. L
Very High 1 L
Low - Very low 7-10. L
Moderate 5-6. L
Low 2-3.
High 2-4. L
Very High 1 L
Very Low 1 Very high - Very low 1-10. L
 Action Priority (AP) for DFMEA and PFMEA
Action priority is based on combinations of Saverty, Occurrence and Detection ratings in Blank until filled
order to prioritize actions for risk reduction. in by user.
Prediction of ACTION
Effect S Failure cause O Ability to Detect D PRIORITY Comments
occurring (AP)
Low - Very low 7-10. M
Moderate 5-6. M
Very high 8-10.
High 2-4. L
Very High 1 L
Low - Very low 7-10. L
Moderate 5-6. L
High 6-7.
High 2-4. L
Product or Very High 1 L
Plant effect 2 - 3. Low - Very low 7-10. L
Low Moderate 5-6. L
Moderate 4-5.
High 2-4. L
Very High 1 L
Low - Very low 7-10. L
Moderate 5-6. L
Low 2-3.
High 2-4. L
Very High 1 L
 Very Low 1 Very high - Very low 1-10. L
No
Very Low - Very
discrinible 1 1 - 10. Very high - Very low 1 - 10. L
High
Effect