How to fill a Process FMEA - Three columns - Severity, occurrence and Detection

[Didgeridoo_]

Hello,

I have a doubt regarding how to fulfill a PFMEA. there are three colums, severity, occurrence and Detection.
Severity is clear.
Occurrence ussually is a 5 in case you don't have real numbers.
Detection: In case I apply a poka-yoke...then what colum have decreased? Occurrence because is something that you have avoid to happen, or Detection because you detect 100%?

Another question...in case we have more than 1 way to detect the issue for the same problem...then I have to put all of them in the same row? Or should I create more than one? For me have more sense the first option.

Please let me know!!

Thanks,

 

[Sebastian]

Sorry for not responding directly to your request, but are you before or after FMEA training?
What I find very impressive so far, you have no problem with severity, what requires good understanding of how your product interacts with counterpart and its function to determine consequences of your product failure to final user.

 

[tori2432]

The AIAG manual for PFMEA should clearly state how to calculate each row. When I was doing them years ago, it was pretty cut and dried.

 

[Golfman25]

The AIAG manual for PFMEA should clearly state how to calculate each row. When I was doing them years ago, it was pretty cut and dried.

The problem with the aiag manual is its examples are limited to end users of autos. Not a lot of help when you make some non-descript component.

 

[Didgeridoo_]

hello Sebastian,

Thanks for your promt reply, let me try to explain myself a bit better.
I know quite well the values I should use for each issue. My question is how to apply in case we have more than 1 way to detect in several ways the same problem...then, I have to put all of the methids in the same row? Or should I create more than one? For me have more sense the first option.

For example:
Problem: Material too heavy
Occurency: X (i.e. 5)
For detection, we use a automatic machine that stops the process --> Detection 3 (for example)
In adition to this, we also use a second operator to do 100% checking afterwards --> Detection 5 (for example).

Then, I will have diferent grades of RPN for the very same problem, and the actions done are both to solve the same problem. Why should I add another corrective action if I already applied the first action?
Should I put both actions in the same row?

Thanks,

 

[Miner]

When you have multiple means of detection, use the best detection rating from the group.

 

[Sebastian]

It is a pity you have not answered my question. Let it be that way.
Examples in AIAG FMEA manual show all prevention and detection activities combine in one cell and with common rank. I do not see any problem in dividing actions on individual rows, what helps team developing control plan to discrim them much easily. What have to be assured in this layout - action column for higher rank activities have to include clarification for non recommending any actions e.g. "no action required due to lower rank activities in place".

 

[Didgeridoo_]

It is a pity you have not answered my question. Let it be that way.
Examples in AIAG FMEA manual show all prevention and detection activities combine in one cell and with common rank. I do not see any problem in dividing actions on individual rows, what helps team developing control plan to discrim them much easily. What have to be assured in this layout - action column for higher rank activities have to include clarification for non recommending any actions e.g. "no action required due to lower rank activities in place".

helo Sebastian, thanks for your help. Then, how can I get the AIAG FMEA manual? Or, at least, the examples you have mentioned? It could be really helpful.

Also, I have another doubt regarding Poka-Yoke solutions. Imagine you have to assembly 2 different elements in an assembly machine. You can put one of them on the wrong orientation (180º). But, you cannot assembly it because there is a poka-yoke from the part desing, so you will not be able to fianlly assemble them together.
Then...how to specify it on the PFMEA? I have several options, let's see:
a)
-Issue: "To assembly the parts in a wrong orientation"
-Severity: 4 (Appearence in customer)
-Occurrence: 0 (because it cannot happen from the design)
-Detection: 0 (100% of the times because it cannot happen)
b)
-Issue: "Try to assembly the parts in the opposite orientation"
-Severity: 2 (Minor disruption during process, because the operator will realise this cannot be assembly and will change it)
-Ocurrence: 5 (because the issue is to try to assemble)
-Detection: 1 (100% of the times)

Please let me know what do your think about!

Thanks in advance!

 

[howste]

Then, how can I get the AIAG FMEA manual?

Available from AIAG here.

 

[Didgeridoo_]

Available from AIAG here[/URL].

Uhm...nothing but paying, right?