Severity, Occurance and Detection ratings seem qualitative

R

raghav571

#1
Hello all

I am an industrial engineering student and I learned FMEA in school. My question is the ratings given to severity, occurance and detecion seems like qualitative, like something which one knows based on experience with process or product or design. Is FMEA primarily a brain storming session with persons from all levels sit together to discuss possible failures. This forum is really helping me understand things. Thanks for all your help and knowledge sharing.

Thank you
Raghav
 
Elsmar Forum Sponsor
G

Gert Sorensen

#2
Re: Severity, Occurance and Detection

My question is the ratings given to severity, occurance and detecion seems like qualitative, like something which one knows based on experience with process or product or design.
In short, yes. However, there are guidelines/standards available relating to the use of FMEA in specific areas, i.e. automotive and medical devices. Keep in mind, that it is a good idea to use the ratings in the guideline, since we have a tendancy to consider the risks etc. lower than they should be, if we have been involved with the production or development of a product/process.

Is FMEA primarily a brain storming session with persons from all levels sit together to discuss possible failures.
Yes, it is basically a structured brainstorm - resulting in a list of possibilities for improvement. FMEA is a iterative process, and the benefit and the output of a FMEA session is entirely up to the team involved and the management's support of the process.
 
R

raghav571

#3
Re: Severity, Occurance and Detection

Thank you. I am sure my learning curve is going up through this forum, Thanks for your time and guidance.

In short, yes. However, there are guidelines/standards available relating to the use of FMEA in specific areas, i.e. automotive and medical devices. Keep in mind, that it is a good idea to use the ratings in the guideline, since we have a tendancy to consider the risks etc. lower than they should be, if we have been involved with the production or development of a product/process.

Yes, it is basically a structured brainstorm - resulting in a list of possibilities for improvement. FMEA is a iterative process, and the benefit and the output of a FMEA session is entirely up to the team involved and the management's support of the process.
 
P

Pazuzu - 2009

#4
Hello all

I am an industrial engineering student and I learned FMEA in school. My question is the ratings given to severity, occurance and detecion seems like qualitative, like something which one knows based on experience with process or product or design. Is FMEA primarily a brain storming session with persons from all levels sit together to discuss possible failures. This forum is really helping me understand things. Thanks for all your help and knowledge sharing.

Thank you
Raghav
You are correct. All the numbers generated are fairly arbitrary but should, with the right amount of analysis, be fairly accurate. Take the guidelines to heart.

The important thing to remember is to set a standard for re-evaluation of the process. Not being from the auto industry I'm not 100% positive but I think the generally accepted RPN number is 100. Anything higher (or if occurance and/or detection are high, such as >7) should prompt a reassessment of the process.

Good luck!
 

Jim Wynne

Staff member
Admin
#5
The important thing to remember is to set a standard for re-evaluation of the process. Not being from the auto industry I'm not 100% positive but I think the generally accepted RPN number is 100. Anything higher (or if occurance and/or detection are high, such as >7) should prompt a reassessment of the process.
No! RPN thresholds are not a good idea. RPNs should be viewed as relative, not absolute numbers, and there will be many times when something can be improved even though the RPN is less than the "trigger" number. There will also be cases where the RPN is higher than the threshold, but there will be nothing that can be done to improve the situation, and there might be several opportunities for improvement where the RPN is lower.

RPN is mostly useless, to tell the truth, and causes a lot more problems than it helps to solve.
 
P

Pazuzu - 2009

#6
there will be many times when something can be improved even though the RPN is less than the "trigger" number. There will also be cases where the RPN is higher than the threshold, but there will be nothing that can be done to improve the situation, and there might be several opportunities for improvement where the RPN is lower.

RPN is mostly useless, to tell the truth, and causes a lot more problems than it helps to solve.
Agreed that it should be taken as reference because of the possible situations you mentioned...but is there not typically a limit as which point it should be evaluated? The threshold I'm referring to is a generic number...not an absolute. Understood that sometimes things cannot be done...and understood that sometimes you can improve it when it "seems" there is no need to...but if there is no threshold then what's the point of putting a numbering system against it?
 

Jim Wynne

Staff member
Admin
#7
Agreed that it should be taken as reference because of the possible situations you mentioned...but is there not typically a limit as which point it should be evaluated? The threshold I'm referring to is a generic number...not an absolute. Understood that sometimes things cannot be done...and understood that sometimes you can improve it when it "seems" there is no need to...but if there is no threshold then what's the point of putting a numbering system against it?
Again, they're relative values. This means that if you look down the RPN column on a FMEA document, and see (for example) 20, 28, 30, 31, 25 and then 108, there's something going on with the 108 that needs to be considered. But if the threshold were 100, and that last number were 90, there would be no requirement for action. At the same time, and at the risk of repetition, there might well be something in one of those first five cases (or some combination of them) that can be improved.

In most instances, people who participate in FMEAs are already aware of what they need to look out for. The RPNs just provide a method, in many instances, of documenting relative risks. The fact that there are risks doesn't mean, however, that there is always going to be a reasonable strategy to prevent bad things from happening. In my view, the FMEA process, and the document that comes out of it, serve as evidence of due diligence, and not much more.
 
R

raghav571

#8
Thanks for all those who replied and started a discussion. Couple of them in the replies mentioned follow the GUIDELINES, are these AIAG guidelines or the guidelines of severity, occurence and detection with number 1,2,3...,10 mentioning for example hazardous with warning, hazardous with out warning in severity. Thank you all for your time.

raghav
 
K

Keith Childers

#9
I completely agree with Jim Wynne on this one.
You have to look at the overall picture, not just the RPN.

Which of the two scenarios has the greatest need to be addressed?
1. Severity 10 x Occurrence 1 x Detection 9 = RPN 90
or
2. Severity 1 x Occurrence 10 x Detection 10 = RPN 100

In scenario 1, although the failure doesn't occur very often, it is extremely severe and has a great probability of not being detected.
Scanario 2 the failure mode happens often, is undetectable, but has no real effect.
If a RPN threshold of 100 were set, you would spend all your time trying to reduce the amount of insignificant failures while potentially harmful product was beins shipped to your customer.
 
P

Pazuzu - 2009

#10
Thanks for all those who replied and started a discussion. Couple of them in the replies mentioned follow the GUIDELINES, are these AIAG guidelines or the guidelines of severity, occurence and detection with number 1,2,3...,10 mentioning for example hazardous with warning, hazardous with out warning in severity. Thank you all for your time.

raghav
Yes they are.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
J DFMEA SOD Rating Scale - Severity, Occurance, and Detection FMEA and Control Plans 1
R DFMEA/PFMEA mitigation of high severity (9-10) in low volume products IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 1
silentmonkey How to measure severity if my product is designed for emergency use and failure would result in death? ISO 14971 - Medical Device Risk Management 9
J On PFMEA for danger labels - Label always should be assigned severity 10 ? FMEA and Control Plans 3
S The Severity of a Medical Device Hazard - Risk Analysis Clarification ISO 14971 - Medical Device Risk Management 6
MrTetris Informational Risk Register - Same hazardous situation, different severity of harms ISO 14971 - Medical Device Risk Management 7
A PFMEA severity score different applications FMEA and Control Plans 11
X Customer Service FMEA - Specifically Customer Care / Severity Rankings Service Industry Specific Topics 3
D How to fill a Process FMEA - Three columns - Severity, occurrence and Detection FMEA and Control Plans 16
R DFMEA Severity 9-10 with Occurrence 3 and Detection 3 - Actions FMEA and Control Plans 3
S What should the FMEA Severity for SC & CC Characteristics be? FMEA and Control Plans 4
N AIAG 4th ed. FMEA Manual "Fit" Changed to "Appearance" - Fit severity? FMEA and Control Plans 2
G Severity in Process FMEA for Rework Process FMEA and Control Plans 1
O PFMEA - Reducing Severity (S) Ranking - Manufacturing Process Design Changes FMEA and Control Plans 4
S FMEA's - Severity and Classification of Print Characteristics FMEA and Control Plans 1
N Risk Severity Estimation for Medical Devices as per ISO 14971 ISO 14971 - Medical Device Risk Management 12
C Determining PFMEA Severity for Armored Parts FMEA and Control Plans 5
C FMEA DOGMA about Severity - Am I right or Wrong? FMEA and Control Plans 2
K 4th Edition AIAG FMEA Occurrence, Severity and Detection Criteria for Plastics FMEA and Control Plans 1
F Risk = Likelihood * Severity - Can we mitigate the Severity? Occupational Health & Safety Management Standards 44
M Severity Reduction in a Design FMEA (DFMEA) FMEA and Control Plans 25
E Risk Management selection Probability of Occurrence and Severity ISO 14971 - Medical Device Risk Management 24
S Severity of 9 or 10 should be identified as Special characteristic? FMEA and Control Plans 10
G Internal vs. External PFMEA Severity Rankings FMEA and Control Plans 12
R Risks which must be Distinctly Identified - Harm, Hazard, Severity ISO 14971 - Medical Device Risk Management 7
C Severity of Effect on Process (Manufacturing/Assembly Effect) Scrap or Reworking FMEA and Control Plans 3
W Severity Rating CORRECTIVE ACTIONS - Opinions Wanted Please Nonconformance and Corrective Action 15
H DFMEA Severity Ranking of Non-Compliance to EMC Standards FMEA and Control Plans 2
P Chemical Purity Testing - FMEA Severity Scale FMEA and Control Plans 2
T FMEA Severity 9 &10 - Example of "with warning?" FMEA and Control Plans 6
E Harms Severity Scoring - Combination of Hazards ISO 14971 - Medical Device Risk Management 4
B The Distribution that represents the Severity of Nonconformances Nonconformance and Corrective Action 2
A AIAG Design FMEA Severity Rankings - Noncompliance Government Regulation? FMEA and Control Plans 9
D Severity or Occurrence? Performing an FMEA on Motorcycle Operation FMEA and Control Plans 9
L FMEA Occurrence, Severity and Detection Criteria FMEA and Control Plans 3
I Ford FMEA requirements for Severity and Occurrence Rankings Customer and Company Specific Requirements 1
G FMEA Severity Ranking for an Automotive Audio System FMEA and Control Plans 9
Chennaiite FMEA Severity Rating for Potential Manufacturing Effect mentioned in the FMEA manual FMEA and Control Plans 9
kedarg6500 FMEA Severity Scale - Higher for Failure at Customer's or End-Customer's place? FMEA and Control Plans 19
M FMEA Severity Ratings for Health Care Information System FMEA and Control Plans 10
C Does the PFMEA Severity have to match the DFMEA Severity? FMEA and Control Plans 3
P Measuring Severity of Construction Nonconformance Report Nonconformance and Corrective Action 3
L Standard for process control level depending on gravity (severity)? FMEA and Control Plans 7
I Defining a Severity Level of a non-conformance Nonconformance and Corrective Action 13
Y Severity, Occurrence and Detection FMEA Ranking Tables - Guidelines? FMEA and Control Plans 8
L FMEA - Should a severity of 9 or 10 be always followed by recommended actions? FMEA and Control Plans 2
J Severity of Finding for "Past Due Gage" found on the shop floor General Measurement Device and Calibration Topics 40
S FMEA Severity of 9 or 10 - Shower does not operate FMEA and Control Plans 13
J Ranking Severity of Non-Conforming Material Defects Nonconformance and Corrective Action 5
V Emphasizing Severity more than Occurrence and Detection vs. Overall RPN FMEA and Control Plans 20

Similar threads

Top Bottom