Severity, Occurrence, and Detection Criteria for Process FMEA

SUGGESTED DETECTION EVALUATION CRITERIA

SEVERITY EVALUATION CRITERIA
DETECTION CRITERIA SUGGESTED RANGE OF
EFFECT CRITERIA: Severity of Effect RNK RNK.
This ranking results when a potential failure mode results in a final Almost Absolute certainty of Non A B C Cannot
DETECTION METHODS
-Detection
detect or is not checked. 10
customer and/or a manufacturing/assembly plant defect. The final Impossible
customer should always be considered first. If both occur, use the Controls will probably not Control is achieved with indirect or random
Very Remote detect. checks only.
9
higher of the two severities.
Customer Effect Manufacturing/Assembly Effect Controls have poor chance
Remote of detection. Control is achieved with visual inspection only. 8
Hazardous- Very high severity ranking when a potential Or may endanger operator (machine or
10 Controls have poor chance Control is achieved with double visual
7
without
failure mode effects safe vehicle operation assembly) without warning. Very Low of detection. inspection only.
and/or involves noncompliance with
warning Control is achieved with charting methods,
government regulation without warning. Low Controls may detect.
such as SPC (Statistical Process Control).
6
Hazardous- Very high severity ranking when a potential Or may endanger operator (machine or
failure mode effects safe vehicle operation assembly) with warning.
9
with Control is based on variable gauging after parts have
and/or involves noncompliance with Moderate Controls may detect. left the station, OR Go/No Go gauging performed on 5
warning government regulation with warning. 100% of the parts after parts have left the station.
Vehicle/item inoperable (loss of primary Or 100% of product may have to be scrapped, 8 Error Detection in subsequent operations, OR
Very High function) or vehicle/item repaired in repair department Moderately Controls have a good
with a repair time greater than one hour. chance to detect.
gauging performed on set-up and first-piece 4
High check (for set-up Causes only).
Vehicle/item operable but at a reduced level of Or product may have to be sorted and a portion
performance. Customer very dissatisfied. (less than 100%) scrapped or vehicle/item
7 Error Detection in-station, OR error Detection
High repaired in repair department with a repair time High
Controls have a good in subsequent operations by multiple layers of
3
between half an hour and an hour. chance to detect. acceptance; supply, select, install,
Vehicle/item operable but Comfort/Convenience Or a portion (less than 100%) of the product
verify.Cannot accept discrepant part.
item(s) inoperable. Customer dissatisfied. may have to be scrapped with no sorting, or
6 Error Detection in-station (automatic gauging
Moderate Controls almost certain to
vehicle /item repaired in repair department with Very High detect.
with automatic stop feature). Cannot pass 2
a repair time less than half an hour. discrepant part.
Discrepant parts cannot be made because item
Vehicle/Item operable but Comfort/Convenience Or 100% of product may have to be reworked,
items operable at a reduced level of or vehicle/item repaired off-line but does not go
5 Very High Controls certain to detect. has been error proofed by process/product 1
Low design.
performance. Customer somewhat dissatisfied. to repair department.

Fit & Finish/Squeak & Rattle item does not Or the product may have to be sorted with no
Very Low conform. Defect noticed by most customers scrap, and a portion (less than 100%) reworked.
4 Inspection Types: A = Error Proofed NOTE: The ranking value of 1 is reserved
B = Gauging for “Almost Certain.”
(greater than 75%).
C = Manual Inspection
Fit & Finish/Squeak & Rattle item does not Or a portion (less than 100%) of the product 3
Minor conform. Defect noticed by 50% of customers. may have to be reworked with no scrap, on-line
but out- of-station. SUGGESTED OCCURRENCE EVALUATION CRITERIA
Very
Fit & Finish/Squeak & Rattle item does not
conform. Defect noticed by discriminating
Or a portion (less than 100%) of the product
may have to be reworked with no scrap, on-line
2 Probability of Likely Failure Rates Ppk Rank
Minor customers (less than 25%). but in-station. Failure
No discernible effect. Or slight inconvenience to operation or
None 1  100 per thousand pieces 10
operator, or no effect. <0.55
Very High: Persistent failures
50 per thousand pieces ≥0.55 9
RPN THRESHOLD 20 per thousand pieces 8
0.78
There is no threshold value for RPNs. In other words, there is no High: Frequent failures
10 per thousand pieces 0.86 7
value above which it is mandatory to take a Recommended Action
or below which the team is automatically excused from an action. 5 per thousand pieces 0.94 6
Moderate: Occasional failures 2 per thousand pieces 1.00 5
1 per thousand pieces 1.10 4
0.5 per thousand pieces 1.20 3
Low: Relatively few failures
*Note: Zero (0) rankings 0.1 per thousand pieces 2
1.30
for Severity, Occurrence
(248) 280 - 4800 or Detection are not allowed Remote: Failure is unlikely  0.01 per thousand pieces 1.67 1
www.quality-one.com
 FMEA - Quick Reference Guide
Potential
ITEM: FMEA Number:
Failure Mode and Effects Analysis Page 1 of 1
Model Year/Vehicle (s): Process Responsibility: (Process FMEA) Prepared by: Lee Dawson
Core Team: M. Moore, M. Weber, D. Wojcik, L. DawsonKey Date: FMEA Date (orig.):
Process C Potential O Current D Action Results
Potential Potential S l c e R. Responsibility
e a Cause(s)/ c Process t P. Recommended Actions S O D R.
Failure Effect(s) of & Target e c e P.
Mode Failure v ss Mechanism(s) u
r Controls e N.
c
Action(s)
Completion Date
Taken
v
Function Prevent Detect c t N.
Failure
OP#10 must assemble cross FMEA not • Product liability Inadequate FMEA • Mistake • APQP Call an FMEA Process engineer team FMEA performed
10 CC Checklist 250
functional Team and adequately • Customer development 5 Proofing 5 facilitator to leader or project under the supervision 10 1 2 20
• Automatic • FMEA Review
Develop performed; dissatisfaction • Cross functional reduce time required manager; and leadership of
Visual Process
FMEA. • Reduced team not Systems • Management and improve quality ASAP an expert/certified
•SAEJ 1739 Guidelines performance assembled • Proximity Review Process of the FMEA process FMEA facilitator
•APQP Specific Team of system or • Facilitation not Switch • Control Plan
Members component used entries
Must provide an FMEA • Potential risk of • FMEA expertise is Actions should:
• Name of team Brief action
which determines process injury limited • eliminate failure
result Recalculate RPN, after
risk and addresses • Reduce level of • Lack of adequate mode SEV=9/10 member to
confirmed significant analysis of process FMEA Training • eliminate causes description action has been
Detect carry issue.
characteristic selection: • Inconsistent product/ on CC Date action taken
Measurable: highCustomer
return rate
Planned Evaluation • reduce occurrence • Name of taken • occurrence
Method to/from • improve evaluation champion
• Torque Brainstorm causes • Control Plan • detection
focus/experience • man “detection • Date action
• Verb-noun • end user • material • Tools reduction last Note: severity will
• Mistake Proofing desired
• measurable • assembler • method option” likely stay the same
Anti function Note: must have written completion
is desirable • maker • machine Instruction unless failure mode is
for functional • environment Prevent
• objective • regulatory • Reduce Occurrence eliminated
approach Determine Root
• subjective body cause if CC
• full
• partial See Occurrence See Detection
• intermittent See Severity Chart on Chart on
• excess function Chart on opposite side opposite side
opposite side
Actions are Required:
Critical & Significant
(by Priority) Characteristics Action Guidelines

1.) Confirmed CC is a Critical 10 Top 20% of Failure

Characteristic to be 1.) Confirmed Critical Characteristic
9 Modes by RPN
addressed on Control
Plan) 8
S 2.) Confirmed Significant
7
e Characteristic; Action R
2.) An SC is a confirmed v 6 Required P
Significant Characteristic to e 5 N
be addressed on Control r
Plan) i
4 ANNOYANCE
t 3
ZONE
3.) RPN-Top
y 2 20% by pareto Failure Modes
3.) For the top 20% Failure 1
Modes / Causes (Pareto by 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
RPN) Occurrence
© 1998 (REV: 11/2000)