Severity, Occurrence, and Detection Criteria for Design FMEA

SEVERITY EVALUATION CRITERIA SUGGESTED DETECTION EVALUATION CRITERIA

EFFECT CRITERIA: Severity of Effect RNK. DETECTION CRITERIA RNK.
Design Control will not and/or cannot detect a potential cause/
Hazardous- Very high severity ranking when a potential failure mode affects safe Absolute
without vehicle operation and/or involves noncompliance with government 10 mechanism and subsequent failure mode; or there is no 10
Uncertainty Design Control.
warning regulation without warning
Very Remote chance the Design Control will detect a potential
Hazardous- Very high severity ranking when a potential failure mode affects safe Very Remote cause/mechanism and subsequent failure mode. 9
with vehicle operation and/or involves noncompliance with government 9
warning regulation with warning Remote chance the Design Control will detect a potential cause/
Remote mechanism and subsequent failure mode. 8
Very High Vehicle/item inoperable (loss of primary function). 8
Very Low chance the Design Control will detect a potential
Vehicle/item operable but at a reduced level of performance.
Very Low cause/mechanism and subsequent failure mode. 7
High
Customer very dissatisfied. 7
Low chance the Design Control will detect a potential
Low cause/mechanism and subsequent failure mode. 6
Vehicle/item operable but Comfort/Convenience item(s) inoperable.
Moderate
Customer dissatisfied. 6
Moderate chance the Design Control will detect a potential cause/
Vehicle/item operable but Comfort/Convenience item(s) operable at a Moderate mechanism and subsequent failure mode. 5
Low
reduced level of performance. Customer somewhat dissatisfied. 5
Moderately Moderately High chance the Design Control will detect a potential
Very Low
Fit & Finish/Squeak & Rattle item does not conform. Defect noticed
4 cause/mechanism and subsequent failure mode. 4
by most customers (greater than 75%). High
High chance the Design Control will detect a potential cause/
Fit & Finish/Squeak & Rattle item does not conform. Defect noticed High 3
Minor
by 50% of customers. 3 mechanism and subsequent failure mode.

Very High chance the Design Control will detect a potential cause/
Fit & Finish/Squeak & Rattle item does not conform. Defect noticed Very High mechanism and subsequent failure mode. 2
Very Minor
by discriminating customers (less than 25%).
2
Almost Design Controls will almost certainly detect a potential cause/
None No discernable effect. 1 mechanism and subsequent failure mode. 1
Certain

SUGGESTED OCCURRENCE EVALUATION CRITERIA RPN THRESHOLD

Probability of Possible Failure Rates Ppk Rank There is no threshold value for RPNs. In other words, there is
Failure no value above which it is mandatory to take a
 100 per thousand vehicles/items <0.55 10 Recommended Action or below which the team is automatically
Very High: Persistent failures
50 per thousand vehicles/items ≥0.55 9 excused from an action.
20 per thousand vehicles/items ≥0.78 8
High: Frequent failures
10 per thousand vehicles/items ≥0.86 7
5 per thousand vehicles/items ≥0.94 6
Moderate: Occasional failures 2 per thousand vehicles/items ≥1.00 5
1 per thousand vehicles/items ≥1.10 4
0.5 per thousand vehicles/items ≥1.20 3
Low: Relatively few failures
0.1 per thousand vehicles/items ≥1.30 2
Remote: Failure is unlikely  0.01 per thousand vehicles/items ≥1.67 1
(248) 280 - 4800
*Note: Zero (0) rankings for Severity, Occurrence or Detection are not allowed www.quality-one.com
 FMEA - Quick Reference Guide
System Potential
Sub System FMEA Number:
X Component: Generic Decision
Failure Mode and Effects Analysis Page 1 of 1
Model Year/Vehicle (s): 98.5 Design Responsibility: QAI, Inc. (Design FMEA) Prepared by: Lee Dawson
Core Team: M. Moore, M. Weber, D. Wojcik, L. Dawson Key Date: Engineering Rel. 2/3/98 FMEA Date (orig.):
Potential O Current
Item Potential Potential S Cl c
D R.
e
Responsibility Action Results
e a Cause(s)/ Design Recommended Actions S O D R.
Failure Effect(s) of c t P. & Target
v s Mechanism(s) u Controls e N. Action(s) Taken e c e P.
Function Mode Failure s r c Completion Date v t N.
Failure Prevent Detect c
Must provide an FMEA FMEA not • Product liability 10 YC Inadequate FMEA 5 •Design 2 100 Call an FMEA Design team leader FMEA performed 10 2 2 40
•Mistake verification,
which determines design adequately • Customer development Proofing facilitator to or project manager; under the supervision
• Cross functional planning
risk and addresses performed; high dissatisfaction reduce time required ASAP and leadership of
and testing
potential significant and risk remains • Reduced performance team not assembled •Training and improve quality an expert/certified
critical characteristic of system or • Facilitation not of the FMEA process FMEA facilitator
selection: component used
Measurable: • Potential risk of • FMEA expertise is
• Reduced RPN injury limited
• Number of significant Actions should: Brief action
and critical characteristics. • eliminate failure • Name of team
Detect result Recalculate RPN, after
• Number of design mode SEV=9/10 member to
Planned tests • eliminate causes description action has been
actions. • Transfer to carry issue.
Customer on YS • Name of Date action taken
or from DV Plan • reduce occurrence taken • occurrence
focus/experience • evaluations champion
• end user • improve tests • detection
Brainstorm causes • builds “detection • Date action
• assembler • man • bucks Note: severity will
• Verb-noun reduction last desired
• maker • material Note: Must have option” likely stay the same
• measurable completion
Anti function • regulatory • method written instructions. unless failure mode is
is desirable • machine Prevent eliminated
for functional body •Reduces Occurrence
• objective • environment
approach Determine Root
• subjective
• full cause if YC
• partial See Occurrence
• intermittent
See Severity See Detection
Chart on Chart on Chart on
• excess function
opposite side opposite side opposite side

Actions are Required: Critical & Significant

(by Priority) Characteristics Action Guidelines

1.) When this exists (initiate 10

Top 20% of Failure
Process FMEA to verify) 1.) Potential Critical Characteristic
9 Modes by RPN
8
S 2.) Potential Significant
2.) When this exists (initiate 7
Characteristic; Action
Process FMEA to verify) e R
v 6 Required P
e 5
N
r
4 ANNOYANCE
3.) For the top 20% Failure i
t ZONE
Modes / Causes (Pareto by 3
3.) RPN-Top
y
RPN) 2 20% by pareto Failure Modes
1
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Occurrence