Potential Failure Mode & Effects Analysis Nº 1

Process/Product: Mal servicio entregado FMEA Date:

FMEA Team: Operaciones ALFA (original)
(Revised)
Responsibility: Miguel Angel Page:
Prepared By: Miguel Angel

Process
Process Potential Failure Potential Effects of Severity Potential Occurrence Current Controls Detection Risk
Steps or Mode Failure (1-10) Cause(s) of (1-10) (1-10) Priority
Product Failure Number
Functions (RPN)

1 Registro de datos Demora en la ejecución 8 Falla del digitador 8 No hay 9 576

incorrectos del servicio (es manual)

8 Opreación sin 7 No hay 8

procedimiento

1 Registro duplicado Demora en la ejecución 8 Falla del digitador 7 No hay 9 504

de datos del servicio (es manual)

2 Hoja de servicios Demora en la atención 6 Falla de la 5 Visual 3 90

ilegible de solicitud Impresora

10 Mala manipulación Daño a la mercaderia 10 Falla del operario 5 No hay 4 200

10 Maquinaria Daño al 10 Falla de la 4 Mantenimiento preventivo 2 80

defectuosa contenedor/mercaderia maquinas
portacontenedor
7 Programación No se entrega el servicio 10 Falla del planner 6 No hay 6 360
incorrecta
15 Falla en el Información incorrecta 9 Falla del operario 7 No hay 8 504
inventario de la
mercaderia
14 Falla en la camara documentación faltante 7 Falla del equipo 3 No hay 2 42
fotografica fotografico

16 Falla en el registro información incorrecta 8 Falla del operario 4 No hay 9 288

del precinto
Score Severity Guidelines
AIAG Six Sigma
10 Hazardous without warning Injure a customer or employee Bad
9 Hazardous with warning Be illegal
8 Very High Render product or service unfit for use
7 High Cause extreme customer dissatisfaction
6 Moderate Result in partial malfunction
5 Low Cause a loss of performance which is likely to result in a complaint
4 Very Low Cause minor performance loss
3 Minor Cause a minor nuisance but can be overcome with no performance loss
2 Very Minor Be unnoticed and have only minor effect on performance
1 None Be unnoticed and not affect the performance Good

Score Occurrence Guidelines

AIAG Six Sigma
10 Very High: Persistent Failures, Ppk < 0.55 More than once per day > 30% Bad
9 Very High: Persistent Failures, Ppk >= 0.55 Once every 3-4 days < 30%
8 High: Frequent Failures, Ppk >= 0.78 Once every week < 5%
7 High: Frequent Failures, Ppk >= 0.86 Once per month < 1%
6 Moderate: Occasional Failures, Ppk >= 0.94 Once every 3 months < 0.03%
5 Moderate: Occasional Failures, Ppk >= 1.00 Once every 6 months < 1 per 10,000
4 Moderate: Occasional Failures, Ppk >= 1.10 Once per year < 6 per 100,000
3 Low: Relatively Few Failures, Ppk >=1.20 Once every 1-3 years < 6 per million
2 Low: Relatively Few Failures, Ppk >=1.30 Once every 3-6 years < 3 per 10 million
1 Remote: Failure is Unlikely, Ppk >=1.67 Once every 6-9 years < 2 per billion Good

Score Detection Guidelines

AIAG
10 Almost Impossible: Absolute certainty of non-detection
9 Very Remote: Controls will probably not detect
8 Remote: Controls have poor chance of detection
7 Very Low: Controls have poor chance of detection
6 Low: Controls may detect
5 Moderate: Controls may detect
4 Moderately High: Controls have a good chance to detect
3 High: Controls have a good chance to detect
2 Very High: Controls almost certain to detect
1 Very High: Controls certain to detect
Six Sigma
Defect caused by failure is not detectable Bad
Occasional units are checked for defects
Units are systematically sampled and inspected
All units are manually inspected
Manual inspection with mistake-proofing modifications
Process is monitored (SPC) and manually inspected
SPC is used with an immediate reaction to out of control condi
SPC as above, 100% inspection surrounding out of control con
All units are automatically inspected
Defect is obvious and can be kept from affecting the customer Good
SigmaXL Copyright © 2004 - 2008
 of

Actions Results
Recommended Action Responsibility and Target Action Taken Revised Revised Revised Revised
Completion Date Severity Occurrence Detection Risk
(1-10) (1-10) (1-10) Priority
Number

Desarrollar un aplicativo que permita IT Manager - 15/01/2013 Se realizo el analisis de

registrar la información de manera los requerimientos para el
sistematizada y que esté integrada al diseño e implementación
sistema de control de patios

Implementar procedimiento, urgente. Con

indicadores de control

Desarrollar un aplicativo que permita IT Manager - 15/01/2013 Se realizo el analisis de

registrar la información de manera los requerimientos para el
sistematizada y que este integrada al diseño e implementación
sistema de control de patios

Desarrollar un aplicativo que permita IT Manager - 01/04/2013

mediante un dispositivo movil registrar el
inventario de la mercaderia
AMEF, FMEA, FAILURE MODE AND EFFECTS ANALYSIS

Este procedimiento permite identificar las fallas potenciales de un producto o de un proceso, y

a partir de un análisis de su frecuencia, formas de detección y el efecto que provocan; éstas
fallas se jerarquizan, y para las fallas que vulneran mas la confiabilidad del producto o el
proceso, será necesario generar acciones para atenderlas.

ACTIVIDADES GENERALES PARA EJECUTAR UN AMEF

1.-Formar el equipo que realizará el AMEF y delimitar al producto - proceso que se le aplicará
2.-identificar y examinar todas las formas poibles en que pueda ocurrir fallas de un producto
o proceso (identificar los modos potenciales de falla)
3.-Para cada falla, identificar su efecto y estimar la SEVERIDAD del mismo.
Para cada falla potencial
4.-Encontrar las causas potenciales de la falla y estimar la frecuencia de OCURRENCIA de
falla debido a cada causa.
5.-Hacer una lista de los controles o mecanismos que existen para detectar la ocurrencia de
la falla, antes de que el producto o el servicio salga hacia procesos posteriores o antes de que
salga del área de manufactura o ensamble.
Además estimar la probabilidad de que los controles hagan la DETECCIÓN de la falla.
6.-Calcular el número prioritario de riesgo (RPN), que resulta de multiplicar la severidad, por la
ocurrencia, y por la detección.
7.-Establecer prioridades de acuerdo al RPN
Todo debe quedar documentado en el formato y anexos si fuera necesario.
8.-Decidir acciones, anotar fecha de término de ejecución de mejoras y responsables
9.-En fase 2, con tareas ejecutadas, volver a calcular RPN.
Hasta el logro de los resultados previstos
un proceso, y

se le aplicará

antes de que

veridad, por la
Potential Failure Mode & Effects Analysis Nº 2
Process/Product: FMEA
FMEA Team: Date:
(Revi
Responsibility: (origin
sed)
Page: of
Prepared By: al)

Process Actions
Proc Potential Failure Potential Effects of S Potential O Current Controls D (RPN) Recommend Responsibility and Action Taken Revised
ess Mode Failure e Cause(s) of c et Severity
ed Action Target Completion FECHA DE (1-10)
Step v Failure c ec
Date TÉRMINO
s or e u tio
Prod ri rr n
uct t e (1
Func y n -
tions ( c 1
1 e 0)
- (
1 1
0 -
) 1
0
)

Score Severity Guidelines

AIAG Six Sigma
10 Hazardous without warning Injure a customer or employee Bad
9 Hazardous with warning Be illegal
8 Very High Render product or service unfit for use
7 High Cause extreme customer dissatisfaction
6 Moderate Result in partial malfunction
5 Low Cause a loss of performance which is likely to result in a compla
4 Very Low Cause minor performance loss
3 Minor Cause a minor nuisance but can be overcome with no performan
2 Very Minor Be unnoticed and have only minor effect on performance
1 None Be unnoticed and not affect the performance Good
Score Occurrence Guidelines
AIAG Six Sigma
10 Very High: Persistent Failures, Ppk < 0.55 More than once p > 30% Bad
9 Very High: Persistent Failures, Ppk >= 0.55 Once every 3-4 d < 30%
8 High: Frequent Failures, Ppk >= 0.78 Once every week< 5%
7 High: Frequent Failures, Ppk >= 0.86 Once per month < 1%
6 Moderate: Occasional Failures, Ppk >= 0.94 Once every 3 mon< 0.03%
5 Moderate: Occasional Failures, Ppk >= 1.00 Once every 6 mon< 1 per 10,000
4 Moderate: Occasional Failures, Ppk >= 1.10 Once per year < 6 per 100,000
3 Low: Relatively Few Failures, Ppk >=1.20 Once every 1-3 y < 6 per million
2 Low: Relatively Few Failures, Ppk >=1.30 Once every 3-6 y < 3 per 10 million
1 Remote: Failure is Unlikely, Ppk >=1.67 Once every 6-9 y < 2 per billion Good

Score Detection Guidelines

AIAG Six Sigma
10 Almost Impossible: Absolute certainty of non-detection Defect caused by failure is not detectable Bad
9 Very Remote: Controls will probably not detect Occasional units are checked for defects
8 Remote: Controls have poor chance of detection Units are systematically sampled and inspected
7 Very Low: Controls have poor chance of detection All units are manually inspected
6 Low: Controls may detect Manual inspection with mistake-proofing modifications
5 Moderate: Controls may detect Process is monitored (SPC) and manually inspected
4 Moderately High: Controls have a good chance to dete SPC is used with an immediate reaction to out of contr
3 High: Controls have a good chance to detect SPC as above, 100% inspection surrounding out of con
2 Very High: Controls almost certain to detect All units are automatically inspected
1 Very High: Controls certain to detect Defect is obvious and can be kept from affecting the Good

SigmaXL Copyright © 2004 - 2008

 Results
Revised Revised Revised
Occurrence Detection Risk Priority
(1-10) (1-10) Number