Deutsch Chinese

● English
Russi
Check list for FMEA evaluation
an

Supplier
Company
Address
Date
ZF Part No. /
Revision Level

Part description

Content
0. General requirements
1. Organization
2. Structure analysis
3. Function and failure analysis
4. Analysis of evaluation
5. Action analysis
6. Failure simulation
7. Optimization
Evaluation
0 General requirements (green/yellow/red)
Have all process steps in the FMEA been taken into account and
0.1 evaluated from the process flowchart / work plan?
Have all internal complaints been analyzed and taken into account for the
0.2 last 6 months?
Have all customer complaints (8D) of the last 12 months been analyzed
0.3 and taken into account?
Have all replacement and avoidance processes been taken into account
0.4 and evaluated in the FMEA?
Has the process been analyzed for the segregation of not ok parts and
0.5 are this failure modes evaluated in the FMEA?
1 Organization
Has the need for action to conduct an FMEA been identified by a
1.1 systematic procedure?

Have the objectives and inspection scope been dertmined for the FMEA?
1.2
Was the FMEA started at the right time and carried out in coordination
1.3 with the project plan?

Have the FMEA responsibilities for the inspected scopes been appointed?
1.4
Has the preperation of the FMEA been firmly integrated in the
development/production/project plan and have resources been
1.5 appointed?
Have team members been appointed by name with functions, and have
the tasks, such as moderation, action tracing, documentation, updating
1.6 and escalation, been assigned?

Does the state of the FMEA reflect the current product / process status?
1.7
Has the interface coordination and the distribution and archiving of, and
1.8 the acess to the documentation been regulated?

QD83 - F2.15 FMEA_Checklist - Rev 1.2 - May 2019 Seiten 1 of 7

 Have the sub-suppliers been universally integrated in terms of the FMEA
1.9 preperation?
1.10 Has the type of documentation and the media been determined?
Have the symbols for the special characteristics of the organization been
1.11 determined?

QD83 - F2.15 FMEA_Checklist - Rev 1.2 - May 2019 Seiten 2 of 7

2 Structure analysis
Is a tracebale process description available, and are the requierements
2.1 completly recorded/known?
Have the boundaries of the inspection been clearly determined within the
2.3 structure?
2.4 Have interfaces been defined and coordinated?
Has the inspection scope in terms of depth of inspection been
2.5 represented in a clearly comprehensible way?
3 Function and failure analysis
Have the functions been completly specified according to the objectives?
3.1
Have the functions been described in a way that can be verified and
3.2 validated?
Have the failures been completely derived from the functions in
3.3 accordance wiht the objectives?
Have the failures been significantly and comprehensibly described?
3.4
4 Analysis of evaluation
Was the ZF ranking catalog used for the assessment of severity /
occurance / detection according to DCF 17-02 "Special Characteristics"?
4.1
Is the effect of failures known or questioned in case of unclear
4.2 assessment at ZF?
5 Action analysis
Have preventive and detection actions been specified for all failure
5.1 causes, failures and/or their failure modes?
5.2 Have the actions been phrased comprehensibly and clearly?
5.3 Is the status of all actions specified and current?
5.4 Have responsibilities and deadlines been specified for all actions?
Are actions executed that they can be implemented with regard to product
development, process or service planning at the latest until the initial
5.5 sampling?

Are there ranking standards for S, O and D available?

5.6
Are there distinctions between product- and process-specific assessment
5.7 criteria?

Are the rankig standards agreed with ZF?

5.8
5.9 Are the ranking standards applied continiously in the FMEA?
Have O and D rankings been updated after impelementation of actions for
5.10 all failure causes?
Have all actions been implemented and has the effectiveness been
5.11 checked and documented?
6 Failure simulation
Has a failure simulation been carried out in the line to demonstrate the
6.1 effectiveness of the actions?
Did an analysis of possible malfunctions, which are not yet contained in
6.2 the FMEA, take place during the failure simulation?

QD83 - F2.15 FMEA_Checklist - Rev 1.2 - May 2019 Seiten 3 of 7

7
Were new actions decided in the case of unacceptable results?
7.1
Have the new actions been implemented and has their effectiveness been
7.2 checked and documented?

Was the risk evaluation updated after implementation of new actions?

7.3
7.4 Have the FMEA results been communicated?
7.5 Has the FMEA documentation been archived?
7.6 Is the FMEA regularly updated in review?

Is the FMEA updated in case of complaints (required in the 8D report)?

7.7
Failed, containment actions and action plans necessary: (min. 15 X
yellow, or 1 X red)
Actions necessary: (max. 14 X yellow, and 0 X red)
FMEA - self assessment / audit passed:
(max. 7 X yellow, and 0 X red)
Evaluation The columns must be filled with "1". 0 0 0

Result Audit passed

Date Supplier, Dept. Supplier Signature

QD83 - F2.15 FMEA_Checklist - Rev 1.2 - May 2019 Seiten 4 of 7

Date of change Rev. No.

3/20/2018 1.0

6/15/2018 1.1

6/15/2018 1.1

6/15/2018 1.1

6/15/2018 1.1

5/21/2019 1.2
Reason for change

First version of revised form

under 4:
Deleted: … and determination of RPZ

add 4.1:
according to DCF 17-02 Special Characteristics

delete (4.2):
Was the ZF ranking catalog used for the assessment of severity / occurance /
detection?
the following was added in the header:
Company, Address, Date, Content

add in the headline ZF Part No. / Revision Level and Part description
Remark