RPN numbers in FMEA - It is not correct to go only by the RPN numbers when doing FMEA

[jasmeet]

Dont you think that it is not correct to go only by the RPN numbers when doing FMEA. Two problems having same RPN numbers would cost the company different amount of money in terms of rectification and lost sales....Moreover it is also possible that for one process the RPN number is low but the cost due to error would be high. In fact combinations of RPN and Quality Costing would be better. I am right now working on combining the RPN number and concept of Quality Costing and your advice can help me in my thesis.

Thanks
Jasmeet

 

[Marc]

There's no problem with that. You can have a line item with an RPN of 300 which would be too expensive, or it may be a technology issue, or what ever, to address beyond what you already do to control and isolate the problem line item. You do not have to operate only on the top numbers. You DO have to be ready to explain which ones you're operating on and why and why any high numbers are not being acted on. I would expect comments within the FMEA.

 

[Marc]

Any contemporary comments appreciated!

 

[Murph095]

Maybe I am not understanding the question here. FMEA's are used as a risk management tool and are a systematic method of identifying and preventing product and process problems before they occur. FMEA's are focused on preventing defects, enhancing safety, and increasing customer satisfaction. They are not put in place to identify which potential failures will incur the greatest cost. Just my .02



Murph

 

[Al Rosen]

Maybe I am not understanding the question here. FMEA's are used as a risk management tool and are a systematic method of identifying and preventing product and process problems before they occur. FMEA's are focused on preventing defects, enhancing safety, and increasing customer satisfaction. They are not put in place to identify which potential failures will incur the greatest cost. Just my .02



Murph

All that is true but, when the cost becomes higher than the benefit of reducing the risk, you draw the line.

 

[Murph095]

All that is true but, when the cost becomes higher than the benefit of reducing the risk, you draw the line.

Al,
I totally agree with that, that is true in any risk management tool. You would still need to identify the risk and have an action plan for it though even if the plan is scrap. If this is that much of a problem I would recommend they look into a little process or product re-engineering and ensure they have optimized their design.

Murph

 

[Al Rosen]

Al,
I totally agree with that, that is true in any risk management tool. You would still need to identify the risk and have an action plan for it though even if the plan is scrap. If this is that much of a problem I would recommend they look into a little process or product re-engineering and ensure they have optimized their design.

Murph

You're right, but after 6 years, it is moot.

 

[Marc]

What about when the 'cost of the failure' is lives instead of money?

 

[Murph095]

What about when the 'cost of the failure' is lives instead of money?

My assumption is other risk mangement tools (safe guards, robots, whatever) would be used.

Murph

 

[Al Rosen]

What about when the 'cost of the failure' is lives instead of money?

Those items require a reduction of the risk to zero, in my opinion. There are companies though, that will still weigh the cost of reducing the risk versus the cost of the law suits that may develop. I don't think I have to mention their names since most of the people in these forums are familiar with them.