POTENTIAL FAILURE MODE AND EFFECTS ANALYSIS IN MANUFACTURING

AND ASSEMBLY PROCESSES (PROCESS FMEA)

FMEA Number:
Item: Page of
Model Year(s)/Program(s): / Process Responsibility: Prepared by:
Core Team: Key Date: FMEA Date (Orig.): (Rev.):

Process C O Current Process D Action Results

Function Potential Potential S l Potential Cause(s) / c e R. Responsibility
Failure Effect(s) of Mechanism(s) Controls Recommended & Target
e a c t P. Action(s) Actions S O D R.
Mode Failure v s of Failure u Prevention Detection e N. Completion Date e c e P.
s r c Taken v c t N.
Requirements

What are What can

How bad be done?
the
is it ?
effect(s)? Design
Changes
Step 1
What can Process
go wrong? Changes
No What are How often Special
Function the does it Controls
Partial/
Step 2 Cause(s)? happen?
Changes
Over/ to Stan-
What Degraded dards
are the Function Procedure
Functions, or Guides
Features or Inter- How can How good
Require- mittent this be is this
ments? Function prevented method
Uninten- Step 3 and at
ded detected? detecting?
Effects List: Process FMEA
Function Operator Next Down- Machines/ Vehicle Ultimate Compliance
safety user stream Equip- operation Custo- with
users ment mer Government
regulations

Failure
Mode

Revision Date: 1/15/2004

 PROCESS FMEA
Suggested PFMEA Severity Evaluation Criteria Suggested PFMEA Occurrence Evaluation Criteria Suggested PFMEA Detection Evaluation Criteria
Criteria: Severity of Effect: This ranking results when a potential failure mode results
in a final customer and/or manufacturing/assembly plant defect. The final customer Probability
Effect should always be considered first. If both occur, use the higher of the two severities. Ranking Likely Failure Rates Ranking Detection Criteria A B C Suggested Range of Detection Methods Ranking
of Failure
(Customer Effect) (Manufacturing/Assembly Effect)
Hazardous Very high severity ranking when a Or may endanger operator Almost Absolute Cannot detect or is not checked.
potential failure mode affects safe (machine or assembly) without 100 per thousand
without
Warning
vehicle operation and/or involves
noncompliance with government
warning.
10 Very High:
Persistent pieces 10 Impossible certainty
of non- X 10
regulation without warning. failures detection.
Hazardous Very high severity ranking when a Or may endanger operator Very Controls will Control is achieved with indirect or
potential failure mode affects safe (machine or assembly) with
with
Warning
vehicle operation and/or involves
noncompliance with government
warning.
9 50 per thousand
pieces 9 Remote probably
not detect. X
random checks only.
9
regulation with warning.
Very High Vehicle/item inoperable (loss of Or 100% of product may have Remote Controls Control is achieved with visual inspection
primary function). to be scrapped, or vehicle/ have poor
item repaired in repair depart-
ment with a repair time greater 8 High:
Frequent
20 per thousand
pieces 8 chance of
detection.
X
only.
8
than one hour. failures
High Vehicle/item operable but at a Or product may have to be sorted and Very Low Controls Control is achieved with double visual
reduced level of performance. a portion (less than 100%) scrapped, or
Customer very dissatisfied. vehicle/item repaired in repair depart-
ment with a repair time between half an 7 10 per thousand
pieces 7 have poor
chance of X
inspection only.
7
hour and an hour. detection.
Moderate Vehicle/item operable but Or a portion (less than 100%) of the Low Controls Control is achieved with charting
comfort/ convenience item(s) product may have to be scrapped with Moderate: 5 per thousand
inoperable. Customer dissatisfied. no sorting, or vehicle/item repaired in re-
pair department with a repair time less
6 Occasional pieces
failures
6 may detect.
X X methods, such as SPC (Statistical
Process Control). 6
than half an hour.
Low Vehicle/item operable but com- Or 100% of product may have Moderate Controls Control is based on variable gauging after
fort/convenience item(s) operable to be reworked, or vehicle/
at a reduced level of performance.
Customer somewhat dissatisfied.
item repaired off-line but does
not go to repair department.
5 2 per thousand
pieces 5 may detect.
X X
parts have left the station, OR Go/No Go
gauging performed on 100% of the parts 5
after parts have left the station.
Very Low Fit & finish/squeak & rattle item Or the product may have to Moderately Controls Error detection in subsequent operations,
does not conform. Defect noticed be sorted, with no scrap, and 1 per thousand
by most customers (greater than
75%).
a portion (less than 100%)
reworked.
4 pieces 4 High have a good
chance to X X
OR gauging performed on setup and first-
piece check (for setup causes only). 4
detect.
Minor Fit & finish/squeak & rattle item Or a portion (less than 100%) High Controls Error detection in-station, OR error detec-
does not conform. Defect noticed of the product may have to Low: 0.5 per thousand
by 50% of customers. be reworked, with no scrap,
on-line but out-of-station.
3 Relatively
few
pieces 3 have a good
chance to X X
tion in subsequent operations by multiple
layers of acceptance: supply, select, install, 3
detect. verify. Can not accept discrepant part.
failures
Very Minor Fit & finish/squeak & rattle item Or a portion (less than 100%) Very High Controls Error detection in-station (automatic
0.1 per thousand
does not conform. Defect noticed
by discriminating customers (less
than 25%).
of the product may have to be
reworked, with no scrap, on-
line but in-station.
2 pieces 2 almost
certain to X X
gauging with automatic stop feature).
Can not pass discrepant part. 2
detect.
None No discernible effect. Or slight inconvenience to Remote: Very High Controls Discrepant parts can not be made
operation or operator, or no 0.01 per thousand
effect. 1 Failure is
unlikely pieces 1 certain to
detect.
X because item has been error proofed by
process/ product design. 1
Inspection Types: A = Error Proofed B = Gauging C = Manual Inspection