You are on page 1of 24

 Six Sigma Consultants, 1996

Failure Modes and Effects An


TM

FMEA Number:

Process Name:

Process Responsibility:

Prepared By:

Affected Product(s):

PFMEA Key Date:

FMEA Origination Date:

FMEA Revision Date:

Team Members:

PFMEA Information Sheet


 Six Sigma Consultants, 1996

lure Modes and Effects Analysis

PFMEA Information Sheet


 Six Sigma Consultants, 1996

Potential
Potential Potential
Process Failure S O Current D R Responsible

Class
Failure Causes of Recomme
# Function Modes E C Process E P Person &
Effects Failure nd Actions
(Step) (process V C Controls T N Target Date
(KPOVs) (KPIVs)
defects)

1 0

2 0

3 0

4 0

5 0

6 0

7 0

8 0

9 0

10 0

11 0

12 0

13 0

14 0

15 0

16 0

17 0

FMEA Page 3
 Six Sigma Consultants, 1996

Potential
Potential Potential
Process Failure S O Current D R Responsible

Class
Failure Causes of Recomme
# Function Modes E C Process E P Person &
Effects Failure nd Actions
(Step) (process V C Controls T N Target Date
(KPOVs) (KPIVs)
defects)

18 0

19 0

20 0

21 0

22 0

23 0

24 0

25 0

26 0

27 0

28 0

29 0

30 0

31 0

32 0

33 0

34 0

35 0

36 0

FMEA Page 4
 Six Sigma Consultants, 1996

Potential
Potential Potential
Process Failure S O Current D R Responsible

Class
Failure Causes of Recomme
# Function Modes E C Process E P Person &
Effects Failure nd Actions
(Step) (process V C Controls T N Target Date
(KPOVs) (KPIVs)
defects)

37 0

38 0

39 0

40 0

41 0

42 0

43 0

44 0

45 0

46 0

47 0

48 0

49 0

50 0

FMEA Page 5
 Six Sigma Consultants, 1996

S O D R
Taken
E C E P
Actions
V C T N

0 `

FMEA Page 6
 Six Sigma Consultants, 1996

S O D R
Taken
E C E P
Actions
V C T N

FMEA Page 7
 Six Sigma Consultants, 1996

S O D R
Taken
E C E P
Actions
V C T N

FMEA Page 8
Severity

Effect
Hazardous: Without Warning

Hazardous: With Warning

Very High

High

Moderate

Low

Very Low

Page 9
Severity

Minor

Very Minor

None

Page 10
Severity

Criteria: Severity of Effect Defined


May endanger operator. Failure mode affects safe vehicle operation and / or involves
noncompliance with government regulation. Failure will occur WITHOUT warning.
May endanger operator. Failure mode affects safe vehicle operation and / or involves
noncompliance with government regulation. Failure will occur WITH warning.
Major disruption to production line. 100% of product may have to be scrapped. Vehicle / item
inoperable, loss of primary function. Customer very dissatisfied.

Minor disruption to production line. Product may have to be sorted and a portion (less than 100%)
scrapped. Vehicle operable, but at a reduced level of performance. Customer dissatisfied.

Minor disruption to production line. A portion (less than 100%) may have to be scrapped (no
sorting). Vehicle / item operable, but some comfort / convenience item(s) inoperable. Customers
experience discomfort.
Minor disruption to production line. 100% of product may have to be reworked. Vehicle / item
operable, but some comfort / convenience item(s) operable at reduced level of performance.
Customer experiences some dissatisfaction.
Minor disruption to production line. The product may have to be sorted and a portion (less than
100%) reworked. Fit / finish / squeak / rattle item does not conform. Defect noticed by most
customers.

Page 11
Severity

Minor disruption to production line. A portion (less than 100%) of the product may have to be
reworked on-line but out-of-station. Fit / finish / squeak / rattle item does not conform. Defect
noticed by average customers.
Minor disruption to production line. A portion (less than 100%) of the product may have to be
reworked on-line but in-station. Fit / finish / squeak / rattle item does not conform. Defect noticed by
discriminating customers.

No effect.

Scale from AIAG FMEA-3:Potential Failure Effects Analysis Third Edition

Page 12
Severity

Ranking
10

Page 13
Severity

Page 14
Occurance

Page 15
Occurance

Page 16
Occurance

Probability of Failure

Very High:

Failure is almost inevitable


High: Generally associated with processes similar
to previous

processes that have often failed

Moderate: Generally associated with processes


similar to

previous processes which have

experienced occasional failures, but not in major


proportions

Low: Isolated failures associated with similar


processes

Very Low: Only isolated failures associated with


almost identical processes

Page 17
Occurance

Remote: Failure is unlikely. No failures ever


associated with almost identical processes

Scale from AIAG FMEA-3:Potential Failure Effects Analys

Page 18
Occurance

Possible Failure
Cpk Ranking
Rates

≥ 1 in 2 < 0.33 10

1 in 3 ≥ 0.33 9

1 in 8 ≥ 0.51 8

1 in 20 ≥ 0.67 7

1 in 80 ≥ 0.83 6

1 in 400 ≥ 1.00 5

1 in 2,000 ≥ 1.17 4

1 in 15,000 ≥ 1.33 3

1 in 150,000 ≥ 1.5 2

Page 19
Occurance

≤ 1 in 1,500,000 ≥ 1.67 1

A-3:Potential Failure Effects Analysis Third Edition

Page 20
Detection

Page 21
Detection

Detection

Almost Impossible

Very Remote
Remote
Very Low
Low
Moderate
Moderately High
High
Very High
Almost Certain

Scale from AIAG FMEA-3:Potential Failure Effects Analysis

Page 22
Detection

Criteria: Liklihood the existence of a defect will be


detected by test content before product advances to
next or subsequent process
No known control(s) available to detect failure mode

Test content must detect 60 % of failures


Test content must detect 65 % of failures
Test content must detect 70 % of failures
Test content must detect 75 % of failures
Test content must detect 80 % of failures
Test content must detect 85 % of failures
Test content must detect 90 % of failures
Test content must detect 95 % of failures
Test content must detect 99.5 % of failures

FMEA-3:Potential Failure Effects Analysis Third Edition

Page 23
Detection

Ranking

10

9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1

Page 24

You might also like