• Save
QM-085-Design Andd Process Fmea
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

QM-085-Design Andd Process Fmea

on

  • 7,897 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
7,897
Views on SlideShare
7,886
Embed Views
11

Actions

Likes
16
Downloads
0
Comments
1

2 Embeds 11

http://www.slideshare.net 10
http://www.search-results.com 1

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
  • am would like show to my gruop team en the school, can yuo send me the file please, Since mexico.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

QM-085-Design Andd Process Fmea Presentation Transcript

  • 1. Design & Process FMEA Grow & Innovate Eliminate Reduce Waste Variability © 2005 Textron Inc. Design & Process FMEA V5.0 [1/2005] 1
  • 2. Module Objectives • By end of this module participants will: - Review Failure Mode & Effects Analysis to analyze and communicate risk and plans to manage it - Understand how to construct a complete FMEA to analyze, communicate, and manage design risk and process risk © 2005 Textron Inc. Design FMEA V5.0 [1/2005] 2
  • 3. Key Concepts/Tool Road Map Phase 1 Gate 0 Gate 1 Customer and Define Customer CTS Validate Business Case Business Requirements Requirements Assess Technology Definition CTS Risk Phase 2 Gate 2 Functional Conceptual Generate Ideas Evaluate Concepts Requirements (FR) Design and Segment Specific Deliverables Feasibility Phase 3 N Gate 3 Requirement Map FR to Design Interface Y Preliminary Req Met? DFx* Textron Deliverables Flow Down Parameters (DP) Management Design Simulation Map Phase 4 Y Design Transfer Noise Y Gate 4 Detail Simulation FRs 6σ DP to Function Management Design Viable? Capable? Process DP Variables N Model DOE Return to Phases 1 or 2 N Build Pilot / Prototype DOE - Function Verification Gate 5 Phase 5 Pilot/ Test OK? Y Prototype Improve Pilot / Prototype N Phase 6 Product & Implement Design Process capable? Y Waste Elimination Gate 6 Process Solution at Production N Validation / Service Environment Focus/Error Proof DFSS/Improve Process Phase 7 Gate 7 Supply Chain Implement Design Transition Readiness & Process Controls DFx* = Design For (Manufacturability, Assembly, Reliability, etc.) © 2005 Textron Inc. Design FMEA V5.0 [1/2005] 3
  • 4. Key Concepts/Tool Road Map © 2005 Textron Inc. Design FMEA V5.0 [1/2005] 4
  • 5. Design & Process FMEA Summary What is it? Why Used? • A systematic approach to KEY PRINCIPLE: prioritize risks associated with Risk Management specific causes, identify ways • Enhance probability of success of eliminating or reducing the in realizing product and service specific causes, and document goals a plan to prevent the possible • Avoid costly rework, defects failures of a product or service. and failure by proactively focusing on potential risky areas early in the project NP&SI Deliverable(s) • Risk Assessment / Management © 2005 Textron Inc. Design FMEA V5.0 [1/2005] 5
  • 6. Types Of FMEA • Types of FMEA - Project/Program: Identifies what can go wrong with a major project - Design: Identifies what can go wrong with the design of a product or service. Consideration for System, Subsystem, Component. - Process: Identifies what can go wrong with a process - Service: Identifies what can go wrong with a service function - Application: Identifies what can go wrong with customers using your product or service © 2005 Textron Inc. Design FMEA V5.0 [1/2005] 6
  • 7. FMEA Steps © 2005 Textron Inc. Design FMEA V5.0 [1/2005] 7
  • 8. Blank FMEA Form 1 2 3 4 5 6 1. System/Component: process being analyzed 2. Design Responsibility: function updating FMEA over time 3. Prepared By: person currently responsible for FMEA 4. FMEA Date (Orig): original FMEA release date 5. (Rev.): date of latest revision of FMEA 6. Item/Process/Function: specific part of program being analyzed and function © 2005 Textron Inc. Design FMEA V5.0 [1/2005] 8
  • 9. Blank FMEA Form 7 9 11 12 8 10 7. Potential Failure Mode: how component can fail to function 8. Potential Effects: customer impact of failure mode 9. Severity (Sev): magnitude of effect of failure mode 10. Potential Causes: failure point 11. Occurrence (Occur): rates frequency of failure mode 12. Detection (Detec): how well can failure be detected © 2005 Textron Inc. Design FMEA V5.0 [1/2005] 9
  • 10. Blank FMEA Form 13 15 16 17 14 13. Detection (Detec): how well can failure be detected 14. Risk Priority Number: Severity x Occurrence x Detection; (RPN) 15. Recommended Actions: actions which will lower RPN rating 16. Responsibility: individual taking recommended action 17. Actions Taken: system changes lowering RPN © 2005 Textron Inc. Design FMEA V5.0 [1/2005] 10
  • 11. Risk Priority Numbers, RPN • The risk priority number (RPN) is the product of the rankings for: - Severity (SEV) - Probability of Occurrence (OCC) - Difficulty to Detect (DET) • High RPN’s are flags to take effort to reduce the calculated risk • High severity ratings should be given special attention (regardless of RPN) RPN = SEV x OCC x DET Effects Causes Controls © 2005 Textron Inc. Design FMEA V5.0 [1/2005] 11
  • 12. Rating Definitions Severity Occurrence Detection Rating Hazardous Hazardous Very high and Very high and Cannot detect Cannot detect High 10 without almost or detection without almost or detection warning warning inevitable inevitable with very low with very low probability probability Loss of primary Loss of primary High repeated High repeated Remote or low Remote or low function function failures failures chance of chance of detection detection Loss of Loss of Moderate Moderate Low detection Low detection secondary secondary failures failures probability probability function function Minor defect Minor defect Occasional Occasional Moderate Moderate failures failures detection detection probability probability No effect No effect Failure unlikely Failure unlikely Almost certain Almost certain Low 1 detection detection © 2005 Textron Inc. Design FMEA V5.0 [1/2005] 12
  • 13. Getting Started • Utilize Concept Design, Process Maps, Quality Function Deployment, and any other pertinent information • Select people from functions directly upstream and downstream from system under analysis - Engineering - Manufacturing - Quality Assurance - Marketing - Suppliers and other required business functions © 2005 Textron Inc. Design FMEA V5.0 [1/2005] 13
  • 14. Method To Complete Design FMEA 1. For each Risk Item, determine the ways in which the Design can go wrong (These are Failure Modes) 2. For each Failure Mode associated with the item, determine Effects 3. Identify potential Causes of each Failure Mode 4. List the Current Controls for each Cause 5. Assign Severity, Occurrence and Detection ratings to each Cause 6. Calculate RPN 7. Determine Recommended Actions to reduce High RPN’s 8. Take appropriate Actions and Document 9. Recalculate RPN’s © 2005 Textron Inc. Design FMEA V5.0 [1/2005] 14
  • 15. DFMEA Example E-mail Response How could design inputs fail and cause outputs not to meet customer requirements? Process Map Inputs Outputs Customer E-mail Answer with E-mailed Response Question E-mail Responses We will review a portion of DFMEA together using hypothetical E-mail Response process and file DFMEA.xls. © 2005 Textron Inc. Design FMEA V5.0 [1/2005] 15
  • 16. Internet E-mail Response MEASUREMENTS SUPPLIES PEOPLE Backlog Transfers to Right Team Phone Support Unit Cycle Time Available Marketing Training Volume Materials PC Delays Quality Customer Satisfaction Respond to E-mail within 48 hours Service Centers Research Facilities Archives ENVIRONMENT PLACES POLICIES & PROCEDURES © 2005 Textron Inc. Design FMEA V5.0 [1/2005] 16
  • 17. DFMEA Example E-mail Response Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (Design FMEA) Determine the ways in which the Design can go wrong © 2005 Textron Inc. Design FMEA V5.0 [1/2005] 17
  • 18. DFMEA Example E-mail Response Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (Design FMEA) Item / Process Potential Failure Mode Function Receive customer Respond with question and determine wrong/incorrect answer appropriate answer For each Failure Mode associated with the item, determine Effects © 2005 Textron Inc. Design FMEA V5.0 [1/2005] 18
  • 19. DFMEA Example E-mail Response Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (Design FMEA) Item / Process Potential Failure Potential Effect(s) of Mode Failure Function Receive customer Respond with Customer receives mis- question and determine wrong/incorrect answer information appropriate answer Identify potential Causes of each Failure Mode © 2005 Textron Inc. Design FMEA V5.0 [1/2005] 19
  • 20. DFMEA Example E-mail Response Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (Design FMEA) Item / Potential Cause(s)/ Process Potential Failure Potential Effect(s) of Mechanism(s) of Mode Failure Failure Function Unfamiliar question-- Receive customer Respond with Customer receives mis- inexperience of question and determine wrong/incorrect answer information technical response appropriate answer staff Data entry error for response choice Unknown - Different language List the Current Controls for each Cause © 2005 Textron Inc. Design FMEA V5.0 [1/2005] 20
  • 21. DFMEA Example E-mail Response Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (Design FMEA) Item / Process Potential Failure Mode Function Receive customer Respond with question and determine wrong/incorrect answer appropriate answer Assign Severity, Occurrence and Detection ratings to each Cause © 2005 Textron Inc. Design FMEA V5.0 [1/2005] 21
  • 22. DFMEA Example E-mail Response Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (Design FMEA) O D Item / S Potential Cause(s)/ c e Process Potential Failure Potential Effect(s) of Current Design Current Design e Mechanism(s) of c t Mode Failure Controls Prevention Controls Detection v Failure u e Function r c Unfamiliar question-- Receive customer Manual supervisor Respond with Customer receives mis- inexperience of question and determine 7 8 New hire training review during OJT 6 wrong/incorrect answer information technical response appropriate answer phase staff Data entry error for 7 7 none 10 response choice Six languages currently Unknown - Different 7 5 represented in 5 language response team Calculate RPN © 2005 Textron Inc. Design FMEA V5.0 [1/2005] 22
  • 23. DFMEA Example E-mail Response Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (Design FMEA) O D Item / S Potential Cause(s)/ c e R. Process Potential Failure Potential Effect(s) of Current Design Current Design e Mechanism(s) of c t P. Mode Failure Controls Prevention Controls Detection v Failure u e N. Function r c Unfamiliar question-- Receive customer Manual supervisor Respond with Customer receives mis- inexperience of question and determine 7 8 New hire training review during OJT 6 336 wrong/incorrect answer information technical response appropriate answer phase staff Data entry error for 7 7 none 10 490 response choice Six languages currently Unknown - Different 7 5 represented in 5 175 language response team Determine Recommended Actions to reduce High RPN’s © 2005 Textron Inc. Design FMEA V5.0 [1/2005] 23
  • 24. DFMEA Example E-mail Response Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (Design FMEA) O D Item / S Potential Cause(s)/ c e R. Responsibility & Process Potential Failure Potential Effect(s) of Current Design Current Design Recommended e Mechanism(s) of c t P. Target Completion Mode Failure Controls Prevention Controls Detection Action(s) v Failure u e N. Date Function r c Unfamiliar question-- Receive customer Manual supervisor Respond with Customer receives mis- inexperience of Build automated Response team: question and determine 7 8 New hire training review during OJT 6 336 wrong/incorrect answer information technical response response database 6/1/01 appropriate answer phase staff Data entry error for Build automated Response team: 7 7 none 10 490 response choice response database 6/1/01 Add four additional Six languages currently Unknown - Different language capabilities: 7 5 represented in 5 175 Chris P. Owner: 4/1/01 language Dutch, Japanese, response team Hindi, Swahili Take appropriate Actions and Document Recalculate RPN’s © 2005 Textron Inc. Design FMEA V5.0 [1/2005] 24
  • 25. Design FMEA Used Throughout Design Process Design FMEA is living document and should be: • Initiated before or at design concept finalization • Continually updated as changes occur • Fundamentally completed before product/service is released to production (production drawings are released for tooling) • Revisited during pre-production and production (Process FMEA) © 2005 Textron Inc. Design FMEA V5.0 [1/2005] 25
  • 26. Relationship To Other Tools • Metrics Identification • Process Map • C & E Diagrams • C & E Matrix/QFD • Kano Diagram • Pugh Matrices Design FMEA (Product or Service) Process FMEA (Product or Service) • Multivariate analysis • Identification of vital few inputs • Design reviews • Quality Control Plan © 2005 Textron Inc. Design FMEA V5.0 [1/2005] 26
  • 27. Team Exercise • Pick an item from your project or an example from every day life and build a simple FMEA around it • Flipchart a Pareto of rpn’s versus PIV’s © 2005 Textron Inc. Design FMEA V5.0 [1/2005] 27
  • 28. Lessons Learned / Pitfalls to Avoid • Do not try alone, use a group • Time consuming process • Activities are required for completion • Train team • Proper preparation for meetings • Summarize often • Independent voting • Negotiate issues © 2005 Textron Inc. Design FMEA V5.0 [1/2005] 28
  • 29. Example Report Page © 2005 Textron Inc. Design FMEA V5.0 [1/2005] 29
  • 30. Key Module Learning Points • • • • • © 2005 Textron Inc. Design FMEA V5.0 [1/2005] 30
  • 31. Module Objectives Revisited • By end of this module participants will: - Review Failure Mode & Effects Analysis to analyze and communicate risk and plans to manage it - Understand how to construct a complete FMEA to analyze, communicate, and manage design risk and process risk © 2005 Textron Inc. Design FMEA V5.0 [1/2005] 31
  • 32. Appendix Grow & Innovate Eliminate Reduce Waste Variability © 2005 Textron Inc. Design & Process FMEA V5.0 [1/2005] 32
  • 33. One Page Pullout Design & Process FMEA • Utilize Concept Design, Process Maps, Quality Function Deployment, and any other pertinent information • Select people from functions directly upstream and downstream from system under analysis - Engineering - Manufacturing - Quality Assurance - Marketing - Suppliers and other required business functions © 2005 Textron Inc. Design FMEA V5.0 [1/2005] 33
  • 34. Transactional Process FMEA Example Item Process Step Key Process Input Potential Failure Mode Potential Failure Effects SEV Potential Causes OCC Current Controls DET RPN EOC cause or FM occur? detect cause or FM? customer? What is the What is the Function How can this process What are the effects of A w hat causes the What are the existing How Severe is the effect to the How often does How well can you process step of the Process Step step go w rong? this step going w rong? process step to go controls and procedures (Key Process w rong? (inspection and test) that Input)? prevent either the cause or the Failure Mode? Should include an SOP number. 1 Annually Establish Clear expectations Customers and Lack of training Sales Training establish annualized of the customer are Salespeople will not Customer forecasting by not established have a foundation of Business Plan model during the discussion related 9 9 1 81 9 development of the to forecasting Customer Business accuracy. Plan Manage the Monthly review Regular follow up Forecast data will Priority and time to Sales Training forecasting to analyze and questioning not be accurate meet with all the element of the performance to does not happen 9 dealers. (face to 9 9 729 9 Customer estimated face or by phone) Business Plan forecast Customer does not Dealer termination Lack of training Sales/Dealer cooperate Training to improve 3 3 1 9 9 expectations of dealers Gather Data Collect a rolling Inaccurate Inaccurate forecast Economic changes None from customers 12 month information given to during the month. forecast by the salesperson 9 3 1 27 9 customer, by model Customer does not None 9 analyze his needs. 3 1 27 9 2 No contact made Inaccurate forecast Salesperson None with the customer managing time and 9 priorities 3 3 81 9 4 National account Understatement of Salesperson input None does not include all forecast to the quot;national inputs 9 account 9 9 729 3 salespersonquot; 6 Electronically To accumulate Saleperson enters Lack of or Salesperson Submit and review Summarize and summarize wrong data in wrong excessive inventory selecting the wrong reports. Double data data in a month, customer, of Finished Goods, item. check entry before 3 1 3 9 0 standard format model, etc. Raw, WIP submission that is tied to Oracle 8 Customer is not set Customer forecast Credit process Credit approval up with credit cannot be entered. 3 holds up entry of 1 process and Pending 1 3 0 approval new customers report. 9 Summarize Acccumulate Missing information Poor understanding Changing priority None Demand information that of the and schedule by Planning supports the recommendation 3 new development 1 3 9 0 Cookbook recommendation team of the forecast 10 Poor correlation Incorrect Communication to None data used recommendation 3 salespeople not 3 3 27 0 © 2005 Textron Inc. clear or, not done. Design FMEA V5.0 [1/2005] 34
  • 35. Manufacturing Process FMEA Example S O D R Key Process Item # Process Step Potential Failure Mode Potential Failure Effects E Potential Causes C Current Controls E P Input V C T N How Severe is the effect to the How often does cause cusotmer? or FM occur? How well can you detect cause or FM? What is the What is the Key In what ways does the Key What is the impact on the What causes the Key Input to What are the existing controls process step Process Input? Input go wrong? Key Output Variables go wrong? and procedures (inspection and (Customer Requirements) or test) that prevent either the cause internal requirements? or the Failure Mode? Should include an SOP number. 1 Basecoat Paint Supplier Customer specifies difficult Lower yeilds, lower transfer Specification of only one none Supplier as single source efficiency, higher costs, poor 9 approved source. Inability to 10 10 900 service (frieght and material) qualify additional sources. 2 Basecoat Paint Supplier Customer specifies difficult Transfer Efficiency and % Solids and/or viscosity? none Supplier as single source Yeilds vary by supplier 8 10 10 800 3 Topcoat Paint Supplier Customer specifies difficult Transfer Efficiency and % Solids and/or viscosity? none Supplier as single source Yeilds vary by supplier 8 10 36 key process inputs 10 800 4 Basecoat Consistent Fluid Too much high thickness, out of spec Improper set up or monitoring Process check sheet were reduced to 13. Flow color, appearance 10 10 Lessons learned, 8 800 5 Basecoat Consistent Fluid tool little low thickness, out of spec Improper set up or monitoring Process check however = tried to fix too sheet Flow color, appearance 10 10 8 800 much with this first 6 Gun Setup Booth Dynamics Improper Fan settings Create particulates, te Poor discipline or adherence to none 8 procedures 10 FMEA. 10 800 Performed a 7 Gun Setup Fluid Flowrate excess variation in fluid inconsistent film thickness unknown? second, more focused, fluid flow meter, visual inspection flow 7 10 FMEA 10 700 8 Receiving % Solids too low lower transfer efficiecies Manufacturer specifications none Inspection 6 10 10 600 9 Load Operators improperly loaded paint thickness consistency condition of six up or plastic none from painting at two different 8 fixtures 7 10 560 heights and parts fall off too 10 Load Operators improperly loaded easily paint thickness consistency poor plastic fixture design none from painting at two different 8 7 10 560 heights and parts fall off too 11 Basecoat Cap and Tip Cap and tip either plug or easily Low fluid flow, low thickness, Operator error none Cleanliness greatly reduce flow and fan offspec color 10 5 10 500 12 Basecoat Stress in plastic Chemical attack of high color variation, high stress Improperly developed and Receiving Inspection stress areas. areas etched by solvent 10 defined molding process 8 5 400 (gating?). © 2005 Textron Inc. Design FMEA V5.0 [1/2005] 35
  • 36. Manufacturing Process FMEA Example D R S O Key Process E P Process Step Potential Failure Mode Potential Failure Effects E Potential Causes C Current Controls Input T N V C How well can you detect cause or FM? How Severe is the effect to the How often does cause cusotmer? or FM occur? What is the What is the Key In what ways does the Key What is the impact on the What causes the Key Input to What are the existing controls process step Process Input? Input go wrong? Key Output Variables go wrong? and procedures (inspection and (Customer Requirements) or test) that prevent either the cause internal requirements? or the Failure Mode? Should include an SOP number. Loading Fixture Sixups dirty High particulates, lower Not cleaned often enough None • Second pass FMEA; Cleanliness yeilds 10 10 10 1000 Gun Set Gun Orientation Overspray from bottom gun High particulates, lower Bottom gun first instead of last none focused on #1 source settling on unpainted parts yeilds 10 10 10 1000 of scrap; particulates Paint Application Paint Supplier Customer specifies difficult Lower yeilds, lower transfer Specification of only one none Supplier as single source efficiency, higher costs, poor service (frieght and material) 9 approved source. Inability to qualify additional sources. 10 10 900 • 6 Key Process Inputs Gun Set Gun Orientation Overspray from bottom gun High particulates, lower settling on unpainted parts yeilds 10 Improper gun setup creating dryer spray and particulate contamination 8 setup sheet or none 10 800 identified, fixture Paint Application Booth Dynamics Increase airborne and cleanliness contamination higher than normal particulate scrap at the start 8 Unstable process. Needs to reach equilibrium 10 none 10 800 cleanliness, gun Loading/Unloading Fixture Cleanliness Sixups dirty High particulates, lower yeilds Not cleaned well enough None 10 700 orientation, paint 10 7 Gun Set Gun Orientation Spraying walls of booth High particulates, lower Improperly defined process none supplier, yeilds 10 700 10 7 booth dynamics, Paint Application Booth Dynamics Doors to booth open Create particulates, te Poor discipline or adherence to none 8 procedures 8 10 640 operator and paint Gun Setup Operator Inadequate preventive maintenance High particulates, lower yeilds 9 Inadequate cleaning of the booth 7 None 10 630 removal filter. Basecoat Paint Removal Improperly Sized High particulates, lower Improper Specification none Filter yeilds 8 7 10 560 Basecoat Paint Removal Filter dirty High particulates, lower Operator error. Filter not none Filter yeilds 8 changed enough. 7 10 560 Gun Setup Booth Dynamics unbalanced or improper Create particulates, te improperly setup, poor booth none airflow (turbulence, wrap 8 design 7 10 560 back) Gun Setup Booth Dynamics Improper Fan settings Create particulates, te Poor discipline or adherence to none 8 procedures 7 10 560 Gun Setup Booth Dynamics Air filter plugging Create particulates, te Poor discipline or adherence to maintenance log 8 procedures 7 10 560 © 2005 Textron Inc. Design FMEA V5.0 [1/2005] 36
  • 37. Industrial Example Grow & Innovate Eliminate Reduce Waste Variability © 2005 Textron Inc. Design & Process FMEA V5.0 [1/2005] 37
  • 38. DFMEA Example Wireless E-mail Device How could design fail and cause outputs not to meet customer requirements? Case Thumb Answer with Screen “keyboard” E-mail Responses Electrical “components” We will review a portion of DFMEA together using hypothetical E-mail Response process and file DFMEA.xls. © 2005 Textron Inc. Design FMEA V5.0 [1/2005] 38
  • 39. DFMEA Example Wireless E-mail Device Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (Design FMEA) Determine the ways in which the Design can go wrong © 2005 Textron Inc. Design FMEA V5.0 [1/2005] 39
  • 40. DFMEA Example Wireless E-mail Device Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (Design FMEA) Item / Process Potential Failure Mode Function Thumb quot;keyboardquot; -- Plastic key hinges provides input device break for composing e-mail For each Failure Mode associated with the item, determine Effects © 2005 Textron Inc. Design FMEA V5.0 [1/2005] 40
  • 41. DFMEA Example Wireless E-mail Device Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (Design FMEA) Item / Process Potential Failure Potential Effect(s) of Mode Failure Function Thumb quot;keyboardquot; -- Plastic key hinges Keys fall off -- provides input device break preventing input for composing e-mail Identify potential Causes of each Failure Mode © 2005 Textron Inc. Design FMEA V5.0 [1/2005] 41
  • 42. DFMEA Example Wireless E-mail Device Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (Design FMEA) Item / Potential Cause(s)/ Process Potential Failure Potential Effect(s) of Mechanism(s) of Mode Failure Failure Function Thumb quot;keyboardquot; -- Plastic key hinges Keys fall off -- Device used beyond provides input device break preventing input design life for composing e-mail Chemical attack of plastic by solvents Plastic molding done with incorrect material List the Current Controls for each Cause © 2005 Textron Inc. Design FMEA V5.0 [1/2005] 42
  • 43. DFMEA Example Wireless E-mail Device Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (Design FMEA) Item / Process Potential Failure Mode Function Thumb quot;keyboardquot; -- Plastic key hinges provides input device break for composing e-mail Assign Severity, Occurrence and Detection ratings to each Cause © 2005 Textron Inc. Design FMEA V5.0 [1/2005] 43
  • 44. DFMEA Example Wireless E-mail Device Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (Design FMEA) O D Item / S Potential Cause(s)/ c e Process Potential Failure Potential Effect(s) of Current Design Current Design e Mechanism(s) of c t Mode Failure Controls Prevention Controls Detection v Failure u e Function r c Thumb quot;keyboardquot; -- Design life established Plastic key hinges Keys fall off -- Device used beyond provides input device 7 6 at 99.5% of focus 4 break preventing input design life for composing e-mail group usage Cleaning Chemical attack of recommendations 7 7 5 plastic by solvents printed in owners manual Plastic molding done 7 3 none 10 with incorrect material Calculate RPN © 2005 Textron Inc. Design FMEA V5.0 [1/2005] 44
  • 45. DFMEA Example Wireless E-mail Device Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (Design FMEA) O D Item / S Potential Cause(s)/ c e R. Process Potential Failure Potential Effect(s) of Current Design Current Design e Mechanism(s) of c t P. Mode Failure Controls Prevention Controls Detection v Failure u e N. Function r c Thumb quot;keyboardquot; -- Design life established Plastic key hinges Keys fall off -- Device used beyond provides input device 7 6 at 99.5% of focus 4 168 break preventing input design life for composing e-mail group usage Cleaning Chemical attack of recommendations 7 7 5 245 plastic by solvents printed in owners manual Plastic molding done 7 3 none 10 210 with incorrect material Determine Recommended Actions to reduce High RPN’s © 2005 Textron Inc. Design FMEA V5.0 [1/2005] 45
  • 46. DFMEA Example Wireless E-mail Device Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (Design FMEA) O D Item / S Potential Cause(s)/ c e R. Responsibility & Process Potential Failure Potential Effect(s) of Current Design Current Design Recommended e Mechanism(s) of c t P. Target Completion Mode Failure Controls Prevention Controls Detection Action(s) v Failure u e N. Date Function r c Thumb quot;keyboardquot; -- Design life established Plastic key hinges Keys fall off -- Device used beyond Extend design life to Design Team: provides input device 7 6 at 99.5% of focus 4 168 break preventing input design life include 99.9% of usage 4/1/01 for composing e-mail group usage Cleaning Change material Chemical attack of recommendations Casey T. Member: 7 7 5 245 specification to improve plastic by solvents printed in owners 3/1/01 chemical resistance manual Plastic molding done Require supplier's 7 3 none 10 210 Jo T. Member: 6/1/01 with incorrect material control plan Take appropriate Actions and Document Recalculate RPN’s © 2005 Textron Inc. Design FMEA V5.0 [1/2005] 46
  • 47. General Scoring Designs Grow & Innovate Eliminate Reduce Waste Variability © 2005 Textron Inc. Design & Process FMEA V5.0 [1/2005] 47
  • 48. General Rating Scales RATING DEGREE OF SEVERITY LIKELIHOOD OF OCCURRENCE ABILITY TO DETECT 1 Customer will not notice the adverse effect or Likelihood of occurrence is remote Sure that the potential failure will be it is insignificant found or prevented before reaching the next customer 2 Customer will probably experience slight Low failure rate with supporting Almost certain that the potential annoyance documentation failure will be found or prevented before reaching the next customer 3 Customer will experience annoyance due to Low failure rate without supporting Low likelihood that the potential the slight degradation of performance documentation failure will reach the next customer undetected 4 Customer dissatisfaction due to reduced Occasional failures Controls may detect or prevent the performance potential failure from reaching the next customer 5 Customer is made uncomfortable or their Relatively moderate failure rate Moderate likelihood that the potential productivity is reduced by the continued with supporting documentation failure will reach the next customer degradation of the effect 6 W arranty repair or significant manufacturing Moderate failure rate without Controls are unlikely to detect or or assembly complaint supporting documentation prevent the potential failure from reaching the next customer 7 High degree of customer dissatisfaction due Relatively high failure rate with Poor likelihood that the potential to component failure without complete loss of supporting documentation failure will be detected or prevented function. Productivity impacted by high scrap before reaching the next customer or rework levels. 8 Very high degree of dissatisfaction due to the High failure rate without supporting Very poor likelihood that the potential loss of function without a negative impact on documentation failure will be detected or prevented safety or governmental regulations before reaching the next customer 9 Customer endangered due to the adverse Failure is almost certain based on Current controls probably will not effect on safe system performance with warranty data or significant DV even detect the potential failure warning before failure or violation of testing governmental regulations 10 Customer endangered due to the adverse Assured of failure based on Absolute certainty that the current effect on safe system performance without warranty data or significant DV controls will not detect the potential warning before failure or violation of testing failure governmental regulations © 2005 Textron Inc. Design FMEA V5.0 [1/2005] 48
  • 49. Detection Criteria For Design FMEA RANK EXAMPLE 1-2 Will be detected prior to releasing for production 3-4 Will be detected after release but prior to mass production is started 5-6 Will be detected prior to shipping out the finished product or service 7-8 The failure mode will be detected prior to a catastrophe in application 9-10 Undetectable until catastrophic occurrence in application © 2005 Textron Inc. Design FMEA V5.0 [1/2005] 49
  • 50. Software FMEA Scoring Example Severity Guidelines 1,2 Cosmetic Error No loss in product functionality. Includes incorrect documentation 3,4 Product Performance Reduction - Temporary Through time-out or system load the problem will “go away” after a period of time 5,6 Functional Impairment / Loss The problem will not resolve itself, but a “work around” can temporarily bypass the problem area until fixed without losing operation 7,8 Functional Impairment / Loss The problem will not resolve itself and no “work around” can bypass the problem. Functionality has either been impaired or lost but the product can still be used to some extent 9,10 Product Halts / Process Taken Down / Reboot Required The product is completely hung up, all functionality has been lost and system reboot is required © 2005 Textron Inc. Design FMEA V5.0 [1/2005] 50
  • 51. Software FMEA Scoring Example Rate of Occurrence Scale 1 1 per 100 units- years (1/50m) 2 1 per 10 unit-years (1/5m) 3 1 per 1 unit-year (1/525k) 4 1 per 1 unit-month (1/43k) 5 1 per week (1/10k) 6 1 per day (1/1440) 7 1 per shift (1/480) 8 1 per hour (1/60) 9 1 per 10 min (1/10) 10 1+ per min (1/1) Detection Scale 1,2 Requirements / Design Reviews 3,4 Code Walkthroughs / Unit Testing 5,6 System Integration & Test 7,8 Installation & Start-up 9,10 Detectable only once “on line” © 2005 Textron Inc. Design FMEA V5.0 [1/2005] 51
  • 52. Example of Program FMEA Category Perspective S O D RPN Comment S1 O1 D1 High Quality Service Offerings WANT 9 9 9 729 Complete focus 9 1 3 Market Place Awareness WANT 9 9 9 729 Complete focus 9 4 6 Unplanned competitive pressures DON'T WANT 9 9 9 729 Complete focus 7 8 4 Retain Key Resources WANT 9 3 9 243 Reduce Severity or Improve Detection 7 3 7 New Orginizational Identity WANT 9 3 9 243 Reduce Severity or Improve Detection 7 2 7 Services Growth WANT 9 3 3 81 Reduce Severity Profitable NOI WANT 9 3 3 81 Reduce Severity Enable Innovation WANT 3 9 3 81 Reduce Occurrence Unrealistic Expectations DON'T WANT 9 9 1 81 Reduce Severity and or Occurence Misaligned #'s DON'T WANT 9 9 1 81 Reduce Severity and or Occurence Confusion DON'T WANT 3 9 3 81 Reduce Occurrence Terrorsit Stand against Business Plan / Identity DON'T WANT 3 9 3 81 Reduce Occurrence Compelling Business Plan with Organization Buy-in WANT 9 1 1 9 Reduce Severity Market Place Acceptance WANT 9 1 1 9 Reduce Severity Geographical Critical Mass WANT 9 1 1 9 Reduce Severity Stable Stakeholder Mindset WANT 9 1 1 9 Reduce Severity Mass Employee Exodus DON'T WANT 9 1 1 9 Reduce Severity Operating Plan Misses DON'T WANT 9 1 1 9 Reduce Severity Connection to Negative Actions (RIF) DON'T WANT 3 3 1 9 Don't worry about it Scape Goat - not hitting #'s DON'T WANT 3 3 1 9 Don't worry about it © 2005 Textron Inc. Design FMEA V5.0 [1/2005] 52
  • 53. Automotive Industry Action Group (AIAG) Definitions Grow & Innovate Eliminate Reduce Waste Variability © 2005 Textron Inc. Design & Process FMEA V5.0 [1/2005] 53
  • 54. Severity Definitions (AIAG) Effect Criteria: Severity of Effect Defined Ranking May endanger operator. Failure mode affects safe vehicle operation and / or Hazardous: involves noncompliance with government regulation. Failure will occur WITHOUT 10 Without Warning warning. May endanger operator. Failure mode affects safe vehicle operation and / or Hazardous: With involves noncompliance with government regulation. Failure will occur WITH 9 Warning warning. Major disruption to production line. 100% of product may have to be scrapped. Very High 8 Vehicle / item inoperable, loss of primary function. Customer very dissatisfied. Minor disruption to production line. Product may have to be sorted and a portion High (less than 100%) scrapped. Vehicle operable, but at a reduced level of 7 performance. Customer dissatisfied. Minor disruption to production line. A portion (less than 100%) may have to be Moderate scrapped (no sorting). Vehicle / item operable, but some comfort / convenience 6 item(s) inoperable. Customers experience discomfort. Minor disruption to production line. 100% of product may have to be reworked. Low Vehicle / item operable, but some comfort / convenience item(s) operable at 5 reduced level of performance. Customer experiences some dissatisfaction. Minor disruption to production line. The product may have to be sorted and a Very Low portion (less than 100%) reworked. Fit / finish / squeak / rattle item does not 4 conform. Defect noticed by most customers. Minor disruption to production line. A portion (less than 100%) of the product may Minor have to be reworked on-line but out-of-station. Fit / finish / squeak / rattle item 3 does not conform. Defect noticed by average customers. Minor disruption to production line. A portion (less than 100%) of the product may Very Minor have to be reworked on-line but in-station. Fit / finish / squeak / rattle item does 2 not conform. Defect noticed by discriminating customers. None No effect. 1 © 2005 Textron Inc. Design FMEA V5.0 [1/2005] 54
  • 55. Occurrence Probability (AIAG) Probability of Failure Possible Failure Rates Cpk Ranking Very High: ≥ 1 in 2 < 0.33 10 Failure is almost inevitable 1 in 3 ≥ 0.33 9 High: Generally associated with 1 in 8 ≥ 0.51 8 processes similar to previous processes that have often failed 1 in 20 ≥ 0.67 7 Moderate: Generally associated 1 in 80 ≥ 0.83 6 with processes similar to previous processes which have 1 in 400 ≥ 1.00 5 experienced occasional failures, 1 in 2,000 ≥ 1.17 4 but not in major proportions Low: Isolated failures associated 1 in 15,000 ≥ 1.33 3 with similar processes Very Low: Only isolated failures associated with almost identical 1 in 150,000 ≥ 1.5 2 processes Remote: Failure is unlikely. No failures ever associated with ≤ 1 in 1,500,000 ≥ 1.67 1 almost identical processes © 2005 Textron Inc. Design FMEA V5.0 [1/2005] 55
  • 56. Detection Probabilities (AIAG) Detection Criteria: Liklihood the existence of a defect will be Ranking detected by test content before product advances to next or subsequent process Almost Impossible Test content detects < 80 % of failures 10 Very Remote Test content must detect 80 % of failures 9 Remote Test content must detect 82.5 % of failures 8 Very Low Test content must detect 85 % of failures 7 Low Test content must detect 87.5 % of failures 6 Moderate Test content must detect 90 % of failures 5 Moderately High Test content must detect 92.5 % of failures 4 High Test content must detect 95 % of failures 3 Very High Test content must detect 97.5 % of failures 2 Almost Certain Test content must detect 99.5 % of failures 1 © 2005 Textron Inc. Design FMEA V5.0 [1/2005] 56
  • 57. Configuration Management Revision Date Author Description of Change 3.0 8/2004 S. Ford et al Block Change Release 5.0 1/2005 N.C. Zimba Update Roadmaps Block Change Release © 2005 Textron Inc. Design FMEA V5.0 [1/2005] 57