Volume 4, Issue 1

Reliability Edge Home

Examining Risk Priority Numbers in FMEA

The Risk Priority Number (RPN) methodology is a technique for analyzing the risk associated with potential problems identified during a Failure ode and !ffects "nalysis (F !")# This article presents a brief o$er$iew of the basic RPN method and then e%amines some additional and alternati$e ways to use RPN ratings to e$aluate the risk associated with a product or process design and to prioritize problems for correcti$e action# Note that this article discusses RPNs calculated at the level of the potential causes of failure (Severity x Occurrence x Detection). However, there is a calculation !ethods. !er!ie" o# Risk Priority Numbers reat deal of variation a!on "#$% practitioners as to the specific analysis procedure and so!e analyses !ay include alternative

"n F !" can be performed to identify the potential failure modes for a product or process# The RPN method then requires the analysis team to use past e%perience and engineering &udgment to rate each potential problem according to three rating scales' $e!erity( which rates the se$erity of the potential effect of the failure# %%urren%e( which rates the likelihood that the failure will occur# &ete%tion( which rates the likelihood that the problem will be detected before it reaches the end)user*customer# Rating scales usually range from + to , or from + to +-( with the higher number representing the higher seriousness or risk# For e%ample( on a ten point .ccurrence scale( +- indicates that the failure is $ery likely to occur and is worse than +( which indicates that the failure is $ery unlikely to occur# The specific rating descriptions and criteria are defined by the organization or the analysis team to fit the products or processes that are being analyzed# "s

an e%ample( Figure + shows a generic fi$e point scale for /e$erity 0/tamatis( 11,2#

Figure 1' (eneri% #i!e )oint $e!erity s%ale "fter the ratings ha$e been assigned( the RPN for each issue is calculated by multiplying /e$erity % .ccurrence % 3etection#

The RPN $alue for each potential problem can then be used to compare the issues identified within the analysis# Typically( if the RPN falls within a pre)determined range( correcti$e action may be recommended or required to reduce the risk ( i.e. to reduce the likelihood of occurrence( increase the likelihood of prior detection or( if possible( reduce the se$erity of the failure effect)# 4hen using this risk assessment technique( it is important to remember that RPN ratings are relati$e to a particular analysis (performed with a common set of rating scales and an analysis team that stri$es to make consistent rating assignments for all issues identified within the analysis)# Therefore( an RPN in one analysis is comparable to other RPNs in the same analysis but it may not be comparable to RPNs in another analysis# The rest of this article discusses related techniques that can be used in addition to or instead of the basic RPN method described here# Re!ised RPNs and Per%ent Redu%tion in RPN

5n some cases( it may be appropriate to re$ise the initial risk assessment based on the

assumption (or the fact) that the recommended actions ha$e been completed# This pro$ides an indication of the effecti$eness of correcti$e actions and can also be used to e$aluate the $alue to the organization of performing the F !"# To calculate re$ised RPNs( the analysis team assigns a second set of /e$erity( .ccurrence and 3etection ratings for each issue (using the same rating scales) and multiplies the re$ised ratings to calculate the re$ised RPNs# 5f both initial and re$ised RPNs ha$e been assigned( the percent reduction in RPN can also be calculated as follows'

For e%ample( if the initial ratings for a potential problem are / 6 7( . 6 8 and 3 6 , and the re$ised ratings are / 6 7( . 6 9 and 3 6 1( then the percent reduction in RPN from initial to re$ised is (:8-)+98)*:8-( or 1-;# This indicates that the organization was able to reduce the risk associated with the issue by 1-; through the performance of the F !" and the implementation of correcti$e actions#

%%urren%e*$e!erity

Matrix

<ecause the RPN is the product of three ratings( different circumstances can produce similar or identical RPNs# For e%ample( an RPN of +-- can occur when / 6 +-( . 6 : and 3 6 ,= when / 6 +( . 6 +- and 3 6 +-= when / 6 1( . 6 , and 3 6 ,( etc# 5n addition( it may not be appropriate to gi$e equal weight to the three ratings that comprise the RPN# For e%ample( an organization may consider issues with high se$erity and*or high occurrence ratings to represent a higher risk than issues with high detection ratings# Therefore( basing decisions solely on the RPN (considered in isolation) may result in inefficiency and*or increased risk#

The .ccurrence*/e$erity matri% pro$ides an additional or alternati$e way to use the rating scales to prioritize potential problems# This matri% displays the .ccurrence scale $ertically and the /e$erity scale horizontally# The points represent potential causes of failure and they are marked at the location where the /e$erity and .ccurrence ratings intersect# The analysis team can then establish boundaries on the matri% to identify high( medium and low priorities# Figure : displays a matri% chart generated with Relia/oft>s ?fmea software# 5n this e%ample( the .ccurrence and 3etection ratings were set based on a ten point scale( the high priority issues are identified with a red triangle (up)( the medium priority issues are identified with a yellow circle and the low priority issues are identified with a green triangle (down)# 4ithin the software( when the user clicks a point in the matri%( the description of the potential problem is displayed# For presentation in other documents( a te%t legend can be used to accompany the matri% graphic#

Figure +' Rank

%%urren%e*$e!erity Matrix generated "it, -#mea.s Plot Vie"er by $e!erity, %%urren%e or &ete%tion

Issues

Ranking issues according to their indi$idual /e$erity( .ccurrence or 3etection ratings is another way to analyze potential problems# For e%ample( the organization may determine that correcti$e action is required for any issue with an RPN that falls within a specified range and also for any issue with a high se$erity rating# 5n this case( a potential problem may ha$e an RPN of 1- (/e$erity 6 +-( .ccurrence 6 : and 3etection 6 :)# This may not be high

enough to trigger correcti$e action based on RPN but the analysis team may decide to initiate a correcti$e action anyway because of the $ery high se$erity of the potential effect of the failure# Figure @ presents a graphical $iew of failure causes ranked by likelihood of occurrence in a pareto (bar) chart generated by ?fmea# This chart pro$ides the ability to click a bar to display the issue description and to generate a detailed legend for print)ready output# ?fmea also pro$ides this information in a print)ready tabular format and generates similar charts and reports for /e$erity and 3etection ratings#

Figure /' 0,arts o# %auses ranked by Risk

%%urren%e rating generated "it, -#mea1 2ables

Ranking

5n addition to( or instead of( the other risk assessment tools described here( the organization may choose to de$elop risk ranking tables to assist the decision)making process# These tables will typically identify whether correcti$e action is required based on some combination of /e$erity( .ccurrence( 3etection and*or RPN $alues# "s an e%ample( the table in Figure 1 places /e$erity horizontally and .ccurrence $ertically 0 cAollin( @B2#

Figure 4' $am)le risk ranking table The letters and numbers inside the table indicate whether a correcti$e action is required for each case# N 6 No correcti$e action needed# 0 6 Aorrecti$e action needed# 3 6 Aorrecti$e action needed if the 3etection rating is equal to or greater than the gi$en number# For e%ample( according to the risk ranking table in Figure 1( if /e$erity 6 9 and .ccurrence 6 ,( then correcti$e action is required if 3etection 6 1 or higher# 5f /e$erity 6 B or +-( then

correcti$e action is always required# 5f .ccurrence 6 + and /e$erity 6 8 or lower( then correcti$e action is ne$er required( and so on# .ther $ariations of this decision)making table are possible and the appropriate table will be determined by the organization or analysis team based on the characteristics of the product or process being analyzed and other organizational factors( such as budget( customer requirements( applicable legal regulations( etc# Hig,er 4e!el RPNs

Finally( it may be desirable to assign RPNs at higher le$els in the analysis based on the RPNs calculated for the causes of failure# For e%ample( 5tem RPNs might be useful as a way to compare components to determine priority for correcti$e action or to determine which component will be selected for inclusion in the design# The higher le$el RPN can be calculated by obtaining the sum of all RPNs for all associated causes of failure# For e%ample( to calculate the 5tem RPN( it is necessary to calculate the RPNs for each cause associated with the item and then to obtain the sum of those RPNs( as shown ne%t'

4ithin ?fmea( users ha$e the option to roll up the RPN from the cause le$el to the effect( failure( function and*or item le$els of the analysis# Figure , shows these calculated $alues in the hierarchical $iew of the analysis within ?fmea#

Figure 5' -#mea )ro6e%t "it, ,ig,er le!el RPNs %al%ulated1 0on%lusion "s this article demonstrates( the Risk Priority Number (RPN) methodology can be used to assess the risk associated with potential problems in a product or process design and to prioritize issues for correcti$e action# " particular analysis team may choose to supplement or replace the basic RPN methodology with other related techniques( such as re$ised RPNs( the .ccurrence*/e$erity matri%( ranking lists( risk ranking tables and*or higher le$el RPNs# "ll of these techniques rely hea$ily on engineering &udgment and must be customized to fit the product or process that is being analyzed and the particular needs*priorities of the organization# Relia/oft>s ?fmea software facilitates analysis( data management and reporting for all types of F !"( with features to support most of the RPN techniques described here# .n the 4eb at http'**www#Relia/oft#com*%fmea# Re#eren%es The following references relate directly to the e%amples presented in this article# Numerous

other resources are a$ailable on F !" techniques and styles# Arowe( 3ana and "lec Feinberg( Desi n for Relia&ility( Ahapter +: CFailure "nalysis#C ARA Press( <oca Raton( FD( :--+# cAollin( Ahris( C4orking "round Failure#C #anufacturin @7)1-# /tamatis( 3#E#( "ailure #ode and $ffect %nalysis' "#$% fro! (heory to $xecution # "merican /ociety for Fuality ("/F)( ilwaukee( 4isconsin( +BB,# $n ineer( February +BBB# Pages odes and !ffects