Process Failure Mode and Effect Analysis

Customer Part Number Customer PFMEA Original Date #VALUE! PFMEA Issuer #VALUE!

Showa Part Number PFMEA Revision Date #VALUE!

Part Name PFMEA Approvers #VALUE!

PFMEA Title #VALUE!
Model & Model Type
Model Year(s) Core Team #VALUE!
Process Step / Function Current Process Controls Action Results

Drawing Characteristic Rank

Potential Effects of Failure

ASIL Ranking (ISO 26262)

Past problem Hisotry

Risk Priority Number

Process Number

Risk Priority Number

(Classification)

Occurrence

Detection
Severity

Occurrence
Potential Causes or Mechanisms Responsibility and Target

Detection
Potential Failure Mode Recommended Actions Actions Taken

Severity
Requirement (Effect on End User, External Customer, Internal of Failure Completion Date
Customer, Internal Process) Prevention Detection

QA003011-PFMEA Template - Uncontrolled Rev #: 9

Page 1 of 5 Rev. Date: 4/17/2018
 Highest Severity 0
Highest RPN 5

Severity Severity Severity

RPN RPN RPN
1 1 1
2 2 2
3 3 3
4 4 4
5 5 5

Severity Severity Severity

RPN RPN RPN
1 1 1
2 2 2
3 3 3
4 4 4
5 5 5

Severity Severity Severity

RPN RPN RPN
1 1 1
2 2 2
3 3 3
4 4 4
5 5 5

Severity Severity Severity

RPN RPN RPN
1 1 1
2 2 2
3 3 3
4 4 4
5 5 5

QA003011-PFMEA Template - Uncontrolled Rev #: 9

Page 2 of 5 Rev. Date: 4/17/2018
Severity Severity Severity
RPN RPN RPN
1 1 1
2 2 2
3 3 3
4 4 4
5 5 5

Severity Severity Severity

RPN RPN RPN
1 1 1
2 2 2
3 3 3
4 4 4
5 5 5

Severity Severity Severity

RPN RPN RPN
1 1 1
2 2 2
3 3 3
4 4 4
5 5 5

Severity Severity Severity

RPN RPN RPN
1 1 1
2 2 2
3 3 3
4 4 4
5 5 5

QA003011-PFMEA Template - Uncontrolled Rev #: 9

Page 3 of 5 Rev. Date: 4/17/2018
 Severity - End User Severity - External Customer, Internal Customer, Internal Process
(to be used as guidelines - (to be used as guidelines - Occurrence Detection
do not use on actual PFMEA as Potential Effects of Failure) do not use on actual PFMEA as Potential Fffects of Failure)
Effect on External Customer, Internal Customer, Risk Priority Number (RPN) =
Rank Effect End User Effect Rank Effect Rank Probability of Failure Likely Failure Rate Ppk Rank Criteria and Detection Methods Opportunity For Detection Inspection Method Severity X Occurrence X
Internal Process
Detection
Potential failure mode affects safe vehicle
May endanger operator (machine or assembly) Almost
10 operation and/or involves noncompliance with 10 Failure to 10 Very High > 100 per 1,000 < 0.55 10 No current process control; Cannot detect or is not analyzed. No detection opportunity Manual
without warning. Impossible
Failure to meet safety government regulation without warning. meet safety
and/or regulatory and/or
requirements Potential failure mode affects safe vehicle regulatory
May endanger operator (machine or assembly) with 50 per 1,000 Failure mode and/or error (cause) is not easily detected (eg. random
9 operation and/or involves noncompliance with 9 requirements 9 > 0.55 9 Very remote Not likely to detect at any stage Manual
warning. 1 in 20 audits).
government regulation with warning.
Loss of primary function (vehicle inoperable, does Major 100% of product may have to be scrapped. 20 per 1,000 Failure mode detection post-processing by operator through Problem detection in post
8 8 8 > 0.78 8 Remote Manual
not affect safe vehicle operation). Disruption Line (ASI/Customer) shutdown or stop shipment. 1 in 50 visual/tactile/audible means. processing
High
Loss or degradation of A portion of the production run may have to be
primary function Failure mode detection in-station by operator through
Degradation of primary function (vehicle operable, Significant scrapped. 10 per 1,000
7 7 7 > 0.86 7 Very Low visual/tactile/audible means or post processing through use of Problem detection at source Manual
but at a reduced level of performance). Disruption Deviation from the primary process including 1 in 100
attribute gauging (go/no-go, manual torque check, etc).
decreased line speed or added manpower.

100% of production run may have to be reworked off Failure mode detection post-processing by operator through use of
Loss of secondary function (vehicle operable, but 2 per 1,000 Problem detection in post
6 6 line and accepted. 6 > 0.94 6 Low variable gauging or in-station by operator through use of attribute Manual & Gauging
comfort/convenience functions inoperable). 1 in 500 processing
(Stop/Go rule limit may be reached) gauging (go/no-go, manual torque check, etc).
Loss or degradation of
secondary function Failure mode or error (cause) detection in-station by operator through
Degradation of secondary function (vehicle A portion of the production run may have to be
0.5 per 1,000 use of variable gauging or by automated controls in-station that will
5 operable, but comfort/convenience functions at 5 reworked off line and accepted. 5 > 1.00 5 Moderate Problem detection at source Gauging
Moderate 1 in 2,000 detect discrepant part and notify operator (light, buzzer, etc). Gauging
reduced level of performance). (Stop/Go rule limit may be reached)
Moderate performed on setup and first piece check
Disruption
Appearance or audible noise, vehicle operable, 100% of production run may have to be reworked in-
0.1 per 1,000 Failure mode detection post-processing by automated controls that Problem detection in post
4 item does not conform and noticed by most 4 station before it is processed. 4 > 1.10 4 Moderately High Error proofing & Gauging
1 in 10,000 will detect discrepant part and lock part to prevent further processing. processing
customers (›75%). (Stop/Go rule limit may be reached)

Appearance or audible noise, vehicle operable, A portion of the production run may have to be Failure mode detection in-station by automated controls that will
Annoyance 0.01 per 1,000
3 item does not conform and noticed by many 3 reworked in-station before it is processed. 3 > 1.20 3 High detect discrepant part and automatically lock part in station to prevent Problem detection at source Error proofing & Gauging
1 in 100,000
customers (50%). (Stop/Go rule limit may be reached) further processing.
Low
Appearance or audible noise, vehicle operable,
Minor ≤ 0.001 per 1,000 Error (cause) detection in-station by automated controls that will Error detection and/or problem
2 item does not conform and noticed by 2 Slight inconvenience to process, operation, operator. 2 > 1.30 2 Very High Error proofing & Gauging
Disruption 1 in 1,000,000 detect error and prevent discrepant part from being made. prevention
discriminating customers (<25%).

Failure is eliminated Error (cause) prevention as a result of fixture design, machine design,
Detection not applicable; Error
1 No effect No discernible effect. 1 No Effect No discernible effect. 1 Very Low through preventive > 1.67 1 Almost Certain or part design. Discrepant parts cannot be made because item has Error proofing
prevention
control. been error-proofed by process /product design.

Blue Font Final Customer (End User)

Green Font Applicable to customer processes (and to be considered, but not the final determiner, for internal severity rankings)
Normal Font Applicable to internal and customer processes

Table 2 Based on FMEA results, the team shall prioritize the actions to be taken using below table as
reference and implement them. Table 1 Honda Error Proofing Requirements related to PFMEA
Implementation criteria for Concept of "implementation of recommended actions PFMEA Identify areas that require error For HS / HA / HB Safety ranked and / or regulation parts (FMVSS, CCC, etc), all locations that can
Category
recommended actions (Reduction of ranks)"
proof application. cause a Safety or Regulation failure must be identified, and scored with a severity of 9 or 10 on
If the severity rank is 9 or higher, "recommended actions" shall the PFMEA as per the latest AIAG Severity Evaluation Criteria and HES A3050.
be implemented, which basically requires a change of design
or process. Error proof prevention / detection type must be properly scored as per the latest AIAG Detection
(Prevent problems where "a single failure is likely to cause the Evaluation Criteria.
Severity (9) 9 or Higher failure of vehicle's basic functions (e.g. run, turn and stop) and
the (unexpected) loss of control which could involve human
Only processes with detection scores of 4 or less can be considered error proof.
lives or critical failure of the vehicle and the problem where NOTE: if Severity is 9 or 10 Detection must be 4 or less without Honda approval
vehicle's functional loss could cause fire/smoke which may
lead to an accident.) Error proofing applied to PFMEA locations with severity 9 or 10.
If error proofing cannot be applied to these locations, gaps must be identified and process
Occurrence Showa Group standard for process capability (Cp and Cpk) is controls approved by Honda.
Frequency 4 or Higher 1.33 or higher; if this is met, the rank of "occurrence
(O) frequency" is 3 or below.

Those factors that lead to a critical loss of function must be

Severity of 7 or higher and
detection of 6 or higher (Case 1)
Detection
(D)
Severity of 6 or lower for non-
sensory test and detection of 7 or
higher (Case 2)
improved by implementing corrective actions to reduce
detection levels to 5 or lower.
(Reason to exclude "sensory test": sensory tests are
conducted to test the merchantability and the items tested are
less likely to affect functions.)

v  If the above-mentioned implementation criteria of recommended actions cannot be adhered to,

record the comments and signature of the approver on “QA004485 FMEA Review Results Summary”

QA003011-PFMEA Template - Uncontrolled Rev #: 9

Page 4 of 5 Rev. Date: 4/17/2018
 Process Failure Mode and Effect Analysis
Customer Part Number Customer PFMEA Original Date PFMEA Issuer
Showa Part Number PFMEA Revision Date
Part Name PFMEA Approvers
PFMEA Title
Model & Model Type
Model Year(s) Core Team
Process Step / Function

Drawing Characteristic Rank

Current Process Controls Action Results
Potential Effects of Failure

ASIL Ranking (ISO 26262)

Risk Priority Number

Past problem Hisotry
(Classification)

Risk Priority Number

Occurrence

Detection
Severity
Potential Causes or Responsibility and

Occurrence
Requirement

Process Number

Detection
Potential Failure Mode Recommended Actions Actions Taken

Severity
(Effect on External Customer, Internal Customer, Mechanisms of Failure Target Completion Date
Prevention Detection
Internal Process)

Process name Defect or Reject Select the "Customer" The effect this defect or reject What is the root What is in place to prevent the What is in place to detect What actions could be Asssign PIC and Descibe Action(s)

Add Characteristic Rank from Drawing (S, R, A, B, C )From most recent Model drawing

*How easily can we detect the failure mode?(Select theranking that reflects the higher of thetow options (Prevention / Detection)

Risk Number = Occurrence X Severity X Detection

*How likely is this to happen?
cause of the failure? (before taken to reduce the

After Action Taken: Risk Number = Occurrence X Severity X Detection

that is affected by the has on the customer. cause of the defect or the cause of the failure Due Date Taken to improve

After Action Taken: *How severe is the failure mode?

After Action Taken: *How severe is the failure mode?

Select the ASIL Ranking - from Drawings, specification, and DFMEA
*How severe is the failure mode? See Table 1 below for info for Honda PFEMAs
Each process being Why would final Potential Effects of reject discrepant part is produced) mode and/or detect the occurrence of the failure? process

New Sverity Ranking -Severity can only change if desing is changed

Add the Process Numnber

If the PFMEA was updated as an output of a Corrective Action marked with "O"
analyzed inspection not pass this Failure: What would the discrepant product?
product? End User, internal/external customer This must be a Include verification of set-up (assume discrepant part What actions could be
Process function and External Customer, complain about? measurable condition of Poka Yoke (is used) has been made) taken to increase the
Requirement Internal Customer, of the process. detection of the failure?
Internal Process This should be an action, it is Include verification of
never a document or chart. set-up of Poka Yoke (is
used) See Table 2 below for
See Table 1 below for info requirements
for Honda PFEMAs
This should be an action, it
is never a document or
chart.

See Table 1 below for

See Table 1 below for info for Honda PFEMAs

info for Honda PFEMAs
For detailed instruction on
completion of PFMEA refer to
GL SQS0811 Appendix 4

* Refer to PFMEA Rankings tab to help determine the

appropriate Severity, Occurence, and Detection numbers

QA003011-PFMEA Template - Uncontrolled Rev #: 9

Page 5 of 5 Rev. Date: 4/17/2018