DFMEA Severity Ranking of Non-Compliance to EMC Standards

[henped]

Hi all,

I'd like your opinion about the severity ranking in DFMEA, for instance of the effect of non-compliance to EMC regulations. I see two possible interpretations:

1. The effect could be interpreted as non-compliance to "government regulations" and thus it would score 9 or 10 on severity
2. I could argue that it would usually not be a problem. In most cases, it would not be discovered, and it might just be an annoyance to a few customers, which means a severity score of 2, 3 or 4.

If I use the first interpretation, I get a lot of very high scoring failure modes in my FMEA, and I lose some of the prioritization, which is part of the reason that I'm doing the FMEA in the first place. Therefore I tend to like the second approach.
What do you think? would you always include all kinds of standards that the product must comply to in the term "government regulations", and thus score non-compliance as 9 or 10...? can we define "government regulations" more limited, e.g. as something that has to do with safety...?

Looking forward to your answers...

BR,
Henrik

 

[Chennaiite]

Hi all,

I'd like your opinion about the severity ranking in DFMEA, for instance of the effect of non-compliance to EMC regulations. I see two possible interpretations:

1. The effect could be interpreted as non-compliance to "government regulations" and thus it would score 9 or 10 on severity
2. I could argue that it would usually not be a problem. In most cases, it would not be discovered, and it might just be an annoyance to a few customers, which means a severity score of 2, 3 or 4.

If I use the first interpretation, I get a lot of very high scoring failure modes in my FMEA, and I lose some of the prioritization, which is part of the reason that I'm doing the FMEA in the first place. Therefore I tend to like the second approach.
What do you think? would you always include all kinds of standards that the product must comply to in the term "government regulations", and thus score non-compliance as 9 or 10...? can we define "government regulations" more limited, e.g. as something that has to do with safety...?

Looking forward to your answers...

BR,
Henrik

I would go with 9 or 10. IMO, Severity ranking alone does not decide the priority. Often it is a combination of Severity with occurrence or RPN. Over and above, the team decision on priority may prevail on which the Top Management can have their say.

 

[reessm01]

Hi all,

I'd like your opinion about the severity ranking in DFMEA, for instance of the effect of non-compliance to EMC regulations. I see two possible interpretations:

1. The effect could be interpreted as non-compliance to "government regulations" and thus it would score 9 or 10 on severity
2. I could argue that it would usually not be a problem. In most cases, it would not be discovered, and it might just be an annoyance to a few customers, which means a severity score of 2, 3 or 4.

If I use the first interpretation, I get a lot of very high scoring failure modes in my FMEA, and I lose some of the prioritization, which is part of the reason that I'm doing the FMEA in the first place. Therefore I tend to like the second approach.
What do you think? would you always include all kinds of standards that the product must comply to in the term "government regulations", and thus score non-compliance as 9 or 10...? can we define "government regulations" more limited, e.g. as something that has to do with safety...?

Looking forward to your answers...

BR,
Henrik

Follow option 1 and in your DVP&R you may justify you have done all that you can to design it out. Also, do not forget to that if its rare enough to qualify for a 2 or 1, pending your detection (RPN < 100). Try not to manipulate the data, but look at it as a duty to mitigate risk to the customer. In the circumstance a lawyer comes knocking, you can show your due dilegence to protect the customer.