Project Name

Team: Start Date: TARGETS (Desired Situation) CHECK

Team Leader: Consultant: Target Results Eval

PROBLEM/NEED

BACKGROUND
PLAN

CURRENT SITUATION

ROOT CAUSES

Materials Process/Methods
Why? Why?
Why? Why? Problem Statement

Why? Why?

Why? Why? During (time),

Pareto accounted for
Why? 50% of problem
Why? which
DO was 3X higher ACT
Why? Why? than desired and
caused customer
Action Who When Future Action Who When
Why? Why? dissatisfaction.

Why? Why?

People Machines

REFLECTIONS
 Action Plan
Type What How Who When
Strategy

People

Organization

Process

Technology
Where Why

Problem Statement:
Root Cause
Lack of hands on assistance
Lack of hands on assistance
During (time), major contributor accounted for 40% of problem which was 2X higher than
desired.
Feasibility
Countermeasure/Proposed Solutions Specific Actions
Project Manager to ensure the
Website to be updated with all issues website to be setup with all necessary
and solutions 4 documentation
Special team to be setup which will Operations Manager to identify key
handle escalated or difficult situations 3 employees to be a part of L2 team
Feasibility: 1-low, 5-high
1-Expensive & Difficult to implement
5-Inexpensive and easy to implement
ch was 2X higher than

Value ($/period)
Action (Who?)
Effectiveness

Effectiveness & Feasibility-Ease of Implementation

Overall

Effectiveness
5
4.5
4
4 16 PM $2000
3.5
3
5 15 OM $3000
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5

Feasibility-Ease of Implementation

Effectiveness: 1-low, 5-high

1-Not very effective
5-Very Effective
4.5 5
 A-7 PROCESS FMEA CHECKLIST
Customer or Internal Part No.
Question Yes No N/A

Was the Process FMEA prepared by a cross

functional team? Has the team taken into
account all customer specific requirements,
including FMEA methodologies as shown in the
1 current edition of FMEA?
Have all operations including subcontracted or
2 outsourced processes and services been
2 considered?

Have all operations affecting customer

requirements including fit, function, durability,
governmental regulations and safety been
3 identified and listed sequentially?

4 Were similar part/process FMEAs considered?

Have historical campaign and warranty data
5 been reviewed and used in the analysis?

Have you applied the appropriate controls to

address all of the identified failure modes? -—
Were severity, detection and occurrence
revised when corrective action was completed?
Do the effects consider the customer in terms
6 of the subsequent operation, assembly, and

Were severity, detection and occurrence

7 revised when corrective action was completed?
Do the effects consider the customer in terms
of the subsequent operation, assembly, and
8 product?
Were customer plant problems used as an aid
9 in developing the PFMEA?

Have the causes been described in terms of

10 something that can be corrected or controlled?
Have provisions been made to control the
cause 11 of the failure mode prior to
11 subsequent or the next operation?
A-7 PROCESS FMEA CHECKLIST
Revision Level
Person
Comment / Action Required Due Date
Responsible

Revision Date

Prepared by:
 Potential
Failure Mode and Effects Analysis
(Process FMEA)

Process
Item Name/number of item Responsibility: Name
Model Years: model years/programs Key Date: 7/15/2008
Core Team: Team members
Process Step

Occurrence
Potential Cause(s) / Current Process

Severity
Potential Effect(s) of

Class
Potential Failure Mode Mechanism(s) of Controls
Failure
Failure Prevention
Requirements
Name, Part Manner in which part could Consequences on List every potential List prevention
Number, or fail: cracked, loosened, other systems, cause and/or failure activities to
Class deformed, leaking, oxidized, parts, or people: mechanism: assure process
etc. noise, unstable, incorrect material, adequacy and
Function inoperative, improper prevent or
impaired, etc. maintenance, reduce
fatigue, wear, etc. occurrence.

Part #103 Deformed Part Part cannot be fit 10 Improper fitting 7 No Quality
into wheels procedure and Controls on
screwing time current fitting
process
Severity of Effect: Occurrence Rating
No Effect 1. None 1. Very low <.01/1000
2. Very Minor 2. Low - 1/1000000
Annoyance 3. Minor 3. Low - 1/100000
4. Very Low 4. Moderate - 1/10000
Loss or degradation 5. Low 5. Moderate - 1/2000
of secondary function 6. Moderate 6. Moderate - 1/500
Loss or degradation 7. High 7. High - 1/100
of primary function 8. Very High 8. High - 1/50
Failure to meet 9. Hazardous with warning 9. Very High 1/20
safety/regulations 10. Hazardous w/o warning 10. Very High >1/10
ntial
d Effects Analysis
FMEA)
FMEA Number Insert FMEA#
Page 1 of 1
Prepared by: who
FMEA Date: 7/15/2008

Action Results

Occurrence
Detection

Detection
Current Process Responsibility &

Severity
Recommended Actions Taken &
Controls R. P. N. Target Completion R. P. N.
Action(s) Completion Date
Detection Date

List detection Design actions to Name of Actions and actual

activities to reduce severity, organization or completion date
assure process occurrence and individual and
adequacy and detection ratings. target completion
prevent or Severity of 9 or 10 date
reduce requires special
occurrence. attention.

0 0
None as of now 10 Processing line Plant Manager 10 3 3
training provided
and additional
Jidoka check to be
done by Level 1
workers

700 90
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
Detection: Stakeholder Effects of Failure Severity
1. Almost Certain Consumer Owner Safety Problem 10
2. Very High (e.g., buyer) Major Owner Dissatisfaction 8
3. High Moderate Owner Dissatisfaction 6
4. Moderate High Minor Owner Dissatisfaction 4
5. Moderate Customer Plant Safety Problem 10
6. Low (Manufacturer) Possible Recall 9
7. Very Low Line Stoppage 8
8. Remote Warranty Costs 7
9. Very Remote AIAG PPAP 4th Scrap 7
10. Almost Impossible Regulatory Penalty 7
Moderate Rework (<25%) 5
Plant Dissatisfaction 4
Minor Rework (<10%) 3
 RISK ASSESSMENT MATRIX
Business Probability of
Risk Description Priority
Impact Occurance
(1, 3, 5) (1, 3, 5)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1-low, 5-high