Ubject: PFMEA Level Up: Quality Marshal Training & Workshop

Quality Marshal training & Workshop
- Subject : PFMEA Level up
26.03.2019
SQA - Procurement Division
Hyundai Motor India
CONTENTS
[ 1 ] Recalling Basics
- Fundamentals of FMEA ,Needs & Benefits
[ 2 ] FMEA failures
- Evaluation outcome
[ 3 ] FMEA in detail - Step by Step approach

- Detailed explanation , Case studies
[ 4 ] Evaluation status
- Evaluation results , Better PFMEA Vs Poor PFMEA
[ 5 ] Requirements from HMI

- How to improve further
Format No : SQM/ Q 5STAR - 18

Rev. No..: : 0
 1. Fundamentals of FMEA
Description About FMEA
Failure modes and effects analysis (FMEA) is a step-by-step approach for
identifying all possible failures in a design, a manufacturing or assembly process
of a Product.
Potential Problem solving tool
Cross Functional team approach

Rev. No..: : 0
Description About PFMEA
More Process FMEA Considerations
PFMEA is a Living Document
Should be continuously updated as changes occur throughout all Phases from
Development to till end of Production
Begin with a flow chart of processes – Receiving till FG
A reduction in Occurrence ranking can only be achieved by implementing
Process controls ( Or ) eliminates one or more causes of the failure mode

Rev. No..: : 0
Description Benefits of FMEA
Benefits
Identifies the Potential Product related Process failure modes
Assesses the Potential Customer effect of the failures
Identifies Potential manufacturing / assembly process causes
Identifies Focus controls for Occurrence reduction and detection of failure conditions
Priority system for Preventive & Corrective actions by ranking a List of Potential failure
modes ranked according to their affect on the Customer ( both External and Internal )
 A Systematic approach to Prevent rejections at Customer end
 Reduces /Controls Inprocess rejections

Rev. No..: : 0
Description Quality Documents Linkages
Drawing PFMEA Control Plan
PROCESS FMEA (Control Plan)
COMPARN NAME : PAGE: /
DIVISION MAIN IMPROVEMENT CONTENTS

COMPANY NAME :
FMEA NO DESIGN REPONSIBILITY DATE MAKE(SIGN & DATE) EXAMINATION(SIGN & DATE) APPROVAL(SIGN & DATE)
EXP STAGE MODEL NO REVISION DATE REVISION REASONS MAKE OUT EXAMINATION APPROVAL DATE :
MODEL FIRST TIME / / / / / /
ECT
6 A MAKR OUT EXAMINATION APPROVAL
MU B EGINNIG PART NAME P
PRODUCTION TUA ○ S T AGE
5
P
APPLICATION L / / / / / / 4 R
DATE FUC PART NO. O
TIO 3
V
N PRODUCTION STAGE 2 A
PART NO. TEA / / / / / / MUTUAL FUCTION TEAM L
M 1
PART NAME / / / / / /
LAT COMPANY CODE CUSTOMER TECHNICAL APPROVAL/DATE(IF IT REQUESTED)
CUSTOMER QUALITY APPROVAL/DATE(IF IT REQUESTED) ETC APPROVAL/DATE(IF IT REQUESTED)
ENT ACTION RESULT
EXPECTE SPE CONTROL
INF
D DATE SE DET PROCESS FOLW CHART CONTROL ITEM CIAL CONTROL CRITERIA
LUE SPECIAL
LATENT
THE PRESENT DETECTIO
R.
ADVICE &MEASURE INCI PROCESS PROCESS FACILITY DIVISION
FUNCTION OF PARTS SERIOUS RATE CAUSE OF INCIDENCE P. TO RIO ECT R. FEA MEASURE FACTS REMARKS
NC FEATURES DESIGN CONTROL N RATE ITEM DE NO. NAME NAME
BREAKDOWN N. COMPLET COUTERMEASURE US ION P. MAI N TUR CONFRIM CONTROL
E NC SUB OUTSOURCE PRODUCT PROCESS STANDARD CYCLE PROD. QA
E RAT RAT N. N O METHOD PLAN
OF E ES
E E
BR
Work / Inspection Standard
EO Master
Regular Change List
If EO change
Master
Reqd.
List
4M
Design
Register Work Station Check Sheet
related
If EO change
Quality issues Not Reqd.
( Customer End + ( Internal 4M )
In-house
Process
Rejections ) related
1. Drawing  PFMEA  Control Plan  Work Std  Check sheet  Actual : NO MISMACTH
AOI  Inspection Std  Check sheet  Actual : NO MISMACTH Allowed
2. If 4M Change ( Internal / External ) , Update : PFMEA  Control Plan  Work Std  Check sheet
If EO Change , Update : Drawing  PFMEA  Control Plan  Work Std  Check sheet
When Quality Issues Occur , Update : PFMEA  Control Plan  Work Std  Check sheet
Rev. No..: : 0
Description Fundamentals of PFMEA
PFMEA ( Sample ) :
Describe How Product
Rating based on Rating based on Rating based on Controls
get failed to perform its
Functions, Failure mode - Effect Defect occurrence rate ( Prevention / Detection )
Ex : Leak ,Noise
Potential Current Responsibility Action Results

Potential Potential S O Process D R
Cause(s)/ Recommende and Target S O D R
Process Failure Effect(s) e c Control e P Actions
Mechanism(s) d Action(s) Completion e c e P
Mode of Failure v c t N Taken
of Failure Prevention Detection Date v c t N
Fool proof Touch
Visual
Struck up in Manual sensor sensor to
Describe the Inspectio 7 196 Compl 7 2 1 14
bowl feeder Checking Feasibility detect nut
Function where n
study before weld
Defect Occurs
Visual
Manual Auto WIP
Inspectio Auto WIP part
Power Cut WIP 7 196 5/4/2018 part 7 2 3 42
n rejection After actions implementation ,
rejection Preventive actions for Higher target rejection
Nut Weld Not Able monitoring of Occurrence/
Welding 7 4 values / failures which need actions
Miss to Fix Visual DetectionTouch
results required.
Manual
Inspectio Alarm and sensor to
Empty Bowl check & 7 196 Compl 7 2 1 14
n M/C Stop detect nut
refill
before weld
Effect of Failure : Visual Cleaning
Oil Presence
Internal / Manual Inspectio Effectiveness 2/Hr once
on weld 7 196 Compl 7 2 6 84
Customer Cleaning n monitor in Monitoring
surface
check sheet
Identify Potential causes Method that have been Method that have been
of Product not perform used to prevent a Cause used to detect a Cause of
its intended function of failure mode failure mode

Rev. No..: : 0
Description Fundamentals of FMEA
Problem Cause Countermeasure
Frequency of
Effect Controls
Problems
Severity Occurrence Detection

rating rating rating
RPN ( Risk Priority Number ) = S x O x D

Rev. No..: : 0
Description Failure mode – Severity rating
 The worst potential consequence

Failure mode Effect Severity of a failure, determined by the
degree of injury, system damage
and/or time lost to repair the
10
Customer failure.
Effect Rank
9 affect
Hazardous without warning 10
8 Hazardous with warning 9
7 100% Production scrapped 8

Process Rejections and
7
6 Decreased line speed
Offline 100% Rework 6
5 Offline rework for Some
5
Production
4 100% In station Rework 4
In station Rework for some
3
3 Production
Slight inconvenience to
Process, Operation or 2
2 operator
No Effect 1
1
Severity rating is High  affects Customer

Rev. No..: : 0
Description Defect Cause - Occurrence rating
Failure Cause of
Effect Severity defect
Occurrence  The Probability of Occurrence of a
mode failure mode .It is determined
from overall rejection PPM.
10 More likely
Defect Ranking
failure
9 100000 PPM
occurs (1 IN 10)
10
50000 PPM
8 9
(1 IN 20)
20000 PPM
7 8
(1 IN 50)
10000 PPM
7
6 (1 IN 100)
2000 PPM
6
(1 IN 500)
5 500 PPM
5
(1 IN 2000)
4 100 PPM
4
(1 IN 10,000)
Less likely 10 PPM
3 3
failure (1 IN 100,000)
1 PPM
2 occurs (1 IN 1000,000)
2
< 1 PPM 1
1
Occurrence rating is High  More frequently failures occur

Rev. No..: : 0
Description Defect Cause Controls – Detection rating
Failure Cause of Manual  The Detection of the Failure mode

Effect Severity Occ Controls Detection
mode defect controls by maintainer, operator or built in
detection system.
10
9 Failure Detection Rank
No Detection capability 10
8
Not easy to detect 9
7
Post Process Visual Inspection 8
6 In Station Visual Inspection 7
5 Post Process Gauge Detection 6
In Station Gauge Detection 5

4
Post Process Auto Detection
4
controls
3 In station Auto Detection
3
controls
2 Mistake Error Detection with Problem
2
Prevention
proof
1 Error Prevention 1
controls
Detection rating is Low  Poka yoke / Fool proof controls

Rev. No..: : 0
 2. FMEA failures
Description Ratings as per Standard
Severity rating not as per Std  Customer affect problems : Less rating
 Critical / Significant parameters : Less rating
Occurrence rating not as per Std Inprocess Defect – PPM not linked ( MAJOR )
 Inprocess defect – Cause not updated ( MAJOR )
 Customer defect updated , But Cause not updated
Detection rating not as per Std   Manual Inspection controls , but rating allocation
for ‘Fool proof control’ rating
 Inprocess defect ,Cause – C.Measure not updated

Rev. No..: : 0
Description Recommended actions ( Preventive actions )
Recommended actions not available   in many cases

Most of the Vendors ( 60% )  though RPN / S x O / Priority zone
 S , O ,D rating not done as per Std
CASE
#1
 Leads to Lesser RPN / S x O Out of Set Target
 So No actions taken
 Target setting itself smartly so that all
Some of the Vendors ( 25% )
 S , O ,D Rating as per Std defect RPN is lesser than set target
CASE  RPN / SO as per Std
#2  Target setting itself loosened  Allot Less rating for ‘Occurrence’
 So No actions taken
though Defect PPM is more
Few of the Vendors ( 15% )
Allot Less rating for ‘Detection’ though
 S , O ,D Rating as per Std
CASE
 RPN / S x O also correct
#3 Manual controls only available
 No actions available for Out of Target
Lead to Less RPN / SO / Priority zone

Rev. No..: : 0
Description CFT approach
No CFT Approach   Quality team only involve
 No Periodical reviews
 Review history updated as Periodical reviews done ,
But No Evidence / back ups.
 No CFT Approval in PFMEA
 No CFT review meeting minutes

Rev. No..: : 0
 3. FMEA in detail
Description Step by Step Detailed approach
FAILURE MODE AND EFFECTS ANALYSIS
Item: Responsibility: FMEA number:

Model: Prepared by: Page :
Core Team: FMEA Date (Orig): Rev:
C Potential O Current D
Action Results
Potential Potential S l Cause(s)/ c Process e R Responsibility
Process Recommended
Failure Effect(s) of e a Mechanis c Prevention Detection t P and Target S O D R
Function Action(s)
Mode Failure v s m(s) of u e N Completion Date Actions Taken e c e P
s Failure r c v c t N
Break
Improper
Hole too through Operator training
Drill Blind Hole 7 machine 3 3 63 0
deep bottom of and instructions
set up
plate
Hole not Improper
Incomplete Operator training
deep 5 machine 3 3 45 0
thread form and instructions
enough set up
Broken Install Tool
5 5 None 9 225 J. Doe 3/1/2008 5 5 1 25
Drill Detectors
1 .PFMEA Updation : New Product / EO Change / Customer Quality Issues

Periodical review for Inhouse Quality issues
Recommended review frequency : minimum 3 months ( Vendor define by Own )
2. Revision History should be maintained for All Revisions
3. Severity , Occurrence , Detection Rating - As per FMEA Std
Recommended Actions for High RPN / High S x O / High Occurrence/detection
 Occurrence rating : Interlinked with Defect wise PPM ( Both Customer end & In process rejections )
 Detection rating : Interlink with Fool Proof controls
Rev. No..: : 0
New Update in“ DEFECT “ Allot “SEVERITY” rating

Defect in resp Process as per FMEA Std
Existing
Check Updated in Check “SEVERITY”
“ DEFECT “ resp rating as per
Process FMEA Std
Update “ CAUSE “
New in resp Allot “OCCURENCE”
Cause
Process - Defect rating as per FMEA Std
Existing
Check Updated in Check “OCCURENCE”
“Cause“ in resp rating as per
Process - Defect FMEA Std
Update in CONTROLS “
New in resp Process-Defect- Allot “DETECTION”
Actions
Controls rating as per FMEA Std
Existing
Check Updated in “
CONTROLS “ resp Check “DETECTION ”
Process –Defect-Controls rating as per FMEA Std

Rev. No..: : 0
Revision History
Revision identification
1
3
CFT Approval
1 Revision 2 CFT
 Revision should be done  CFT Should include All Dept persons
- During EO Change / Customer complaints  CFT Org. should be updated as per Latest manpower
- Inhouse rejections
 CFT Review as per review frequency ( procedure )
 Revision No , Date should be updated ( After revisions )
- Review meeting minutes should be captured
- Revision history should be captured revision details
 CFT Team Approvals should be aval in FMEA
- Revision No should be mentioned in revision area 2 3

Rev. No..: : 0
3 4
Failure mode – Effect in detail
3 Process 4 Failure Mode / Effect
 All Value added Process as per Process flow & Control  Failure mode / Defect include
Plan should be addressed. - Customer end rejection
 If any New process addition, it should be added in - Inprocess rejection
PFMEA  Effect :
- Internal / External

Rev. No..: : 0
5 6
5 Severity 6 Class
 Critical parameters identification
 Severity rating to be allotted based on Defect ( Failure - Both Internal (Vendor Self identification based on Product
mode ) - Effect ( Internal / Customer ) Criticality which affect Customer)&External(Customer specified)
Critical parameters should be identified thru some symbols
 Based on Effect and as per AIAG FMEA Latest Std.,  Critical parameters linkage
- Critical parameters identification (Specific symbols ) :
Severity to be allotted.
PFMEA  Control Plan  SOP/Work Std  Work station
 Critical parameters : Occ / Det rating should be lesser
Rev. No..: : 0
7 8
7 Cause of Defect 8 Occurence
 Customer end rejection (Defect) – Root Cause should be

 Occurrence rating interlinked with PPM
addressed
- Include Customer end & Inprocess rejection
 Inprocess rejection (Defect) – Root cause should be
addressed  Defect – Cause wise Occ. Rating should be updated
 CFT Should ensure both Customer & Inprocess defect – Causes
are addressed during FMEA review as per review frequency
Rev. No..: : 0
9 10
9 Controls 10 Detection
 Detection controls
 Detection rating
- Gage Inspection / Set up control / FML Inspection /
Patrol Inspection / Visual inspection can be addressed - Should be allotted based on FMEA Std
 Prevention controls - Prevention controls : Detection rating is Lesser
- Poka yoke / Fool proof / Error proof controls can be addressed
Manual controls : Detection rating is higher
 Customer end rejection & Inprocess rejection – Root cause –
Countermeasures / Controls to be addressed

Rev. No..: : 0
11 12
11 Recommended actions &

Target for Improvement 12
monitoring
 Target be set based on AIAG Latest requirement  Recommended actions should be taken as Preventive
- RPN Target ( OR ) ( before problem occurs )
SO Target ( OR )  Recommended actions should be taken if not as per Target

Priority Zone 1 ,2
 Recommended actions – Actions implementation status –
 Target should be addressed in procedure
monitoring – Revised Occ – Det - RPN Status to be updated
 Continuous improvement in Target is required
Rev. No..: : 0
 3.1 Case Studies
Description FMEA Control
Potential Current Action Results
Responsibility
Potential Potential S Cause(s)/ O Process D R
Recommended and Target S O D R
Process Failure Effect(s) of e Mechani c Control e P Actions
Action(s) Completion e c e P
Mode Failure v sm(s) of c t N Taken
Prevention Detection Date v c t N
Failure
Fool proof
Struck up Touch sensor
Manual Visual sensor
in bowl 4 7 196 Compl to detect nut 7 2 1 14
Checking Inspection Feasibility
Nut Weld Not Able to feeder before weld
Welding 7 study
Miss Fix
Visual
Power Manual WIP Auto WIP part Auto WIP
3 Inspection 7 196 5/4/2018 7 2 3 42
Cut rejection rejection part rejection
Inhouse rejections are not updated  High Possibility Customer end Rejections
└ Defect , Root cause ,Countermeasure not updated.  Inprocess rejection PPM is High
Customer end rejections ( defects ) are updated in FMEA  Repeat issues possible @ Customer
Occurrence rating : Interlinked with Rejection ( Defect ) PPM.
 Inhouse & Customer end rejection PPM should be interlinked , Defect-cause wise
FMEA table :  Defect – Cause – Countermeasure should be updated.
 Defect means : Inhouse & Customer end rejection both
Inhouse & Customer end Defect – Cause –C/measures to be updated

Rev. No..: : 0
S O Current D R Action Results
Potential Potential Cause(s)/ Responsibility and
Potential Process Recommended
Process Effect(s) of e Mechanism(s) of c e P Target Completion S O D R
Failure Mode Control Action(s) Actions Taken v c t N
Failure v Failure c t N Date e c e P
Prevention Detection
Struck up in bowl Manual Visual
3 7 196
Nut Weld Not Able to feeder Checking Inspection
Welding 7
Miss Fix Oil Presence on Manual Visual
2 7 196
weld surface Cleaning Inspection
Customer end / Inprocess rejection : Nut weld miss
Root cause : Auto NG rejection not working ( Manual WIP rejection) due to Power cut ( Cause : New )
C/Measure : UPS with Power back up provided to avoid Manual WIP rejection
Current Action Results

Potential S Potential Cause(s)/ O D R Responsibility and
Potential Process Recommended S O D R
Process Effect(s) of e Mechanism(s) of c Control e P Target Completion
Failure Mode Action(s) Actions Taken e c e P
Failure v Failure c t N Date
Prevention Detection v c t N
3 7 196
feeder Checking Inspection
Nut Weld Not Able to Oil Presence on Manual Visual

Welding 7 2 7 196
Miss Fix weld surface Cleaning Inspection
UPS with
Visual
Power Cut 4 Power back 4 112
Inspection
up

 Defect – New Cause – New C/measures updated

Rev. No..: : 0
Potential S Potential Cause(s)/ O Current Process D R Responsibility and Action Results
Potential Recommended
Process Effect(s) of e Mechanism(s) of c Control e P Target Completion S O D R
Failure Mode Action(s) Actions Taken v c t N
Failure v Failure c Prevention Detection t N Date e c e P
Struck up in bowl Manual

Visual Insp 7 196
feeder Checking
Nut Weld Not Able to Manual WIP Visual Insp
Welding 7 Power Cut 4 7 196
Miss Fix rejection
Manual
Empty Bowl Visual Insp 7 196
check & refill
Customer end / Inprocess rejection : Nut weld miss

Root cause : Empty bowl due to Manual bowl check & Visual Inspection ( Cause : Existing )
C/Measure : Touch sensor provided to detect Nut before Weld
Potential Potential Cause(s)/ Current Process Responsibility and Action Results
Potential S O D R Recommended
Process Effect(s) of v Mechanism(s) of c Control t N Target Completion S O D R
Failure Mode e c e P Action(s) Actions Taken v c t N
Failure Failure Prevention Detection Date e c e P
Struck up in bowl Manual
Visual Insp 7 196
feeder Checking
Nut Weld Not Able to Manual WIP Visual Insp

Welding 7 Power Cut 4 7 196
Miss Fix rejection
Touch sensor to
Manual Alarm and M/C
Empty Bowl Visual Insp 7 196 Compl detect nut 7 2 1 14
check & refill Stop
before weld

 Defect – Existing Cause – Improved Controls or C/measures updated

Rev. No..: : 0
Potential Potential Cause(s)/ Current Process Responsibility and Action Results
Potential S O D R Recommended
Process Effect(s) of v Mechanism(s) of c Control t N Target Completion
Failure Mode e c e P Action(s) Actions TakenS eO vc Dc e tR P N
Failure Failure Prevention Detection Date
Contamination on Torque FML Visual
4 5 140
Weld surface Conformation inspection
Stud Not able to
7 Alignment
separation assy
Torch alignment 3 - check 7 147
Weekly PM
Improper panel FML Weld drive Visual
Welding 5 5 200
matching check check
Weld
Welding
Noise 8 process
separation Insufficient Weld FML Weld drive
4 parameter 5 160
current parameters check
Hourly
monitoring
Inprocess rejection :
Defect – Missing of Hardwares not addressed in PFMEA ( Defect – Cause – C/Measure not included )

Rev. No..: : 0
Current Action Results
Potential S Potential Cause(s)/ O D R Responsibility and
Potential Process Recommended
Process Effect(s) of e Mechanism(s) of c e P Target Completion S O D R
Failure Mode Control Action(s) Actions Taken v c t N
Failure v Failure c t N Date e c e P
Prevention Detection
Torque FML
Contamination on Visual
4 Conformatio 5 140
Weld surface inspection
Stud Not able to n
7
separation assy Alignment
Torch alignment 3 - check 7 147
Weekly PM
Improper panel FML Weld Visual
5 5 200
matching drive check check
Weld
Welding Welding
Noise 8 process
separation Insufficient Weld FML Weld
4 parameter 5 160
current parameters drive check
Hourly
monitoring
7 196
Nut Weld Not Able to
feeder Checking Inspection RECOMMENDED ACTIONS SHOULD
7 4
Miss Fix
Power Cut
Manual WIP Visual
7 196 BE TAKEN
rejection Inspection
Inprocess rejection :
Defect ( Missing of Nut weld ) - included in respective process ( Severity rating allotted as per Std )
Causes (Cause 1 ~ Cause n ) - included in respective Process – Defect ( Occurence rating allotted as per Std )
C/Measures or Controls - included is respective Process – Defect-Cause wise ( Detection rating allotted as per Std )

Rev. No..: : 0
Case
Study
#1

Rev. No..: : 0
Case
Study
#1
Both Customer end & Inprocess rejection PPM should be interlinked in Occurrence rating

Rev. No..: : 0
Case
Study
#2
But in Checksheet : Not added

Rev. No..: : 0
Case
Study
#2
Inprocess rejection : New root cause , Actions should be updated in PFMEA

Rev. No..: : 0
Case
Study
#3
Both Customer end & Inprocess rejection : New root cause , Actions should be updated in PFMEA

Rev. No..: : 0
 4. Evaluation Status
 Evaluation Questionnaire
Evaluation Scoring
No Category Checkpoints
Observations 0 3 5
1 Is PFMEA Review procedure available
2 Revision/Review carried out
3 Procedure & Revision/Review history available
4 Revision FMEA Review frequency available (addressed in procedure ?)
5 Updated CFT Team
6 CFT Team approval
7 Is Severity rating done as per PFMEA Std
FMEA
8 Standard Is Occurrence rating done as per PFMEA Std
Adherence
9 Is Detection rating done as per PFMEA Std
10 Critical parameters ( Internal & External ) identification
11 RPN ( Occurrence /Detection ) Status for Critical parameters
Target
12 RPN / ( Occurrence /Detection ) reduction Target
Controls
13 Continuous improvement in Target deduction
14 Recommended actions available if not met Target
15 Corrective HMI Inline issues : Defect - Cause - C/Measures are updated in PFMEA
16 approach Occurrence rating : HMI Inline PPM interlinked
17 Vendor Inprocess issues : Defect - Cause - C/Measures are updated in PFMEA
18 Preventive Occurrence rating : Vendor Inprocess defects are interlinked
19 approach PFMEA Audit available ( Process audit / Layered audit check )
20 Prevention controls are addressed in PFMEA

Rev. No..: : 0
POOR PFMEA
No CFT Team members No revisions
No Approval
RPN Shows Less

No Actions
Severity rating
not as per Std
No Critical characteristics Actual PPM not No Fool proof controls,

identification interlinked but Det rating : 3
Rev. No..: : 0
GOOD PFMEA
CFT Approval Revision History
 F/proof controls with

Failure mode – Checklist & Poka yoke No’s
Effect (detail)  Detection rating as per Std
Actual PPM linked with

Occurrence rating
Recommended actions
Detection rating for High target
as per Std
Severity rating
as per Std
Critical chars
identification
Critical chars
High Sev rating

Rev. No..: : 0
 5. Requirements
Severity rating not  If Problem have effect on HMI Inline , Rating : 7,8
as per AIAG  If Problem have effect on Field , Rating : 9,10

Standard
 Identified Critical parameters(Customer specific/Internal ),Rating> 7
Occurrence rating  Inprocess rejection – Cause – Countermeasure should be updated
not as per AIAG  Inprocess rejection PPM / Defect rate should be linked in
Standard
Occurrence rating ( Detailed approach  )
Detection rating
 If Manual controls only , then Rating > 4
not as per AIAG
Standard  Mistake proof / Fool proof controls available , then Rating  4

Rev. No..: : 0
 5. Requirements
 Target should be set internally set and to be addressed in Procedure

Recommended
- Ex.: RPN > 100 ( Or ) S x O Target [ as per AIAG Latest edition ]
Actions not taken
 Ratings ( S O D ) should be allotted as per Standard lead to Actual
RPN ( Or ) S x O
 Recommended actions should be taken if Out of Target
 Target should be set in such a way that Recommended actions to
be taken continuously
( Pbm : RPN Target > 100,Sev > 8 ; But in FMEA Actual, all RPN’s < 100, Sev < 8 )
 Once Results are in Control against Set Target , Continuous Target
improvement is required
( Ex. : RPN Target , ‘18 Yr.: > 100  ‘19 Yr.: > 90  ‘20 Yr.: > 85 etc. )

Rev. No..: : 0
 5. Requirements
 Quality issues @ HMI  C/Measure effective  Update in PFMEA

No Reviews / EO Changes / 4M Changes  Update in PFMEA
No CFT Approach Periodical reviews : 3 Months / 6 Months ( for Inprocess issues )
 Should be addressed in Internal PFMEA review procedure
 CFT Nominated persons for PFMEA Should participate in reviews

└ During reviews , Meeting minutes ( MOM ) should be made –
Points need updation in FMEA to be captured in MOM –
CFT Approval sign
└ Revision history should capture all revisions ( Rev No – Rev date –

Revision details )
└ Rev Nos. should be mentioned in Revisions / Updation areas.
└ Revision FMEA : CFT Approval is required
 FINAL FMEA APPROVAL : FUNCTION TEAM HOD’s – PLANT HEAD - MD

Rev. No..: : 0

Ubject: PFMEA Level Up: Quality Marshal Training & Workshop

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Ubject: PFMEA Level Up: Quality Marshal Training & Workshop

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ubject: PFMEA Level Up: Quality Marshal Training & Workshop

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Quality Marshal training & Workshop

- Subject : PFMEA Level up

[ 3 ] FMEA in detail - Step by Step approach

[ 5 ] Requirements from HMI

Format No : SQM/ Q 5STAR - 18

Failure modes and effects analysis (FMEA) is a step-by-step approach for

identifying all possible failures in a design, a manufacturing or assembly process

Potential Problem solving tool

Cross Functional team approach

Format No : SQM/ Q 5STAR - 18

More Process FMEA Considerations

PFMEA is a Living Document

Should be continuously updated as changes occur throughout all Phases from

Development to till end of Production

Begin with a flow chart of processes – Receiving till FG

A reduction in Occurrence ranking can only be achieved by implementing

Process controls ( Or ) eliminates one or more causes of the failure mode

Format No : SQM/ Q 5STAR - 18

Assesses the Potential Customer effect of the failures

Identifies Potential manufacturing / assembly process causes

 A Systematic approach to Prevent rejections at Customer end

 Reduces /Controls Inprocess rejections

Format No : SQM/ Q 5STAR - 18

DIVISION MAIN IMPROVEMENT CONTENTS

Work / Inspection Standard

Potential Current Responsibility Action Results

Format No : SQM/ Q 5STAR - 18

Problem Cause Countermeasure

Severity Occurrence Detection

RPN ( Risk Priority Number ) = S x O x D

 The worst potential consequence

7 100% Production scrapped 8

Severity rating is High  affects Customer

Occurrence rating is High  More frequently failures occur

Failure Cause of Manual  The Detection of the Failure mode

9 Failure Detection Rank

6 In Station Visual Inspection 7

5 Post Process Gauge Detection 6

In Station Gauge Detection 5

Detection rating is Low  Poka yoke / Fool proof controls

 Critical / Significant parameters : Less rating

 Inprocess defect – Cause not updated ( MAJOR )

 Customer defect updated , But Cause not updated

for ‘Fool proof control’ rating

 Inprocess defect ,Cause – C.Measure not updated

Recommended actions not available   in many cases

Lead to Less RPN / SO / Priority zone

No CFT Approach   Quality team only involve

 Review history updated as Periodical reviews done ,

But No Evidence / back ups.

 No CFT Approval in PFMEA

 No CFT review meeting minutes

Format No : SQM/ Q 5STAR - 18

Item: Responsibility: FMEA number:

1 .PFMEA Updation : New Product / EO Change / Customer Quality Issues

New Update in“ DEFECT “ Allot “SEVERITY” rating

Format No : SQM/ Q 5STAR - 18