Which one is more important for FMEA CC or SC,

#1
As title, I am wondering which one is important for FMEA CC or SC?
Recently our customer audit and question about our spec definition, we have define that if severity exceed 7 will be as SC and severity exceed 8 will be as CC. But customer think that SC is more important, we need to define it reverse.
 
Elsmar Forum Sponsor

Miner

Forum Moderator
Staff member
Admin
#2
It depends on your perspective, but most reasonable people would consider CC (Critical Characteristic) to be the most important because this controls a product safety aspect where injury/death may be impacted. SC (Significant Characteristic) controls a performance/functional/etc. characteristic that impacts customer satisfaction. While maintaining customer satisfaction is important, most would agree that preventing injury/death is more important.
 

Ron Rompen

Trusted Information Resource
#3
I agree with Miner. CC is generally considered to affect safety, whereas SC relates to fit/form/function (degraded performance, premature failure).
 
#4
It depends on your perspective, but most reasonable people would consider CC (Critical Characteristic) to be the most important because this controls a product safety aspect where injury/death may be impacted. SC (Significant Characteristic) controls a performance/functional/etc. characteristic that impacts customer satisfaction. While maintaining customer satisfaction is important, most would agree that preventing injury/death is more important.
Thanks for your reply, but it has be defined in clause?
I want to persuade customer by clause.
 

Cephissus

Involved In Discussions
#6
SC and CC are particular categories of characteristics used to discriminate the "special ones" vs. "the regular ones".

Each company is free to define and invent their own classification of characteristics, and do not necessarily need to use "SC" or "CC", unless when some customer imposed Customer Specific Requirements.

Volvo, Ford and VDA propose standard methodologies for classifying characteristics but they are not compulsory.

Note that the classification column in the DFMEA form of previous Manual editions was not necessarily intended to display special characteristics. It was also almost scrapped entirely in the new VDA/AIAG Manual.
 
#7
When properly used, the class column (aka Residual Risk column) of the PFMEA is used to identify lines of the PFMEA whose failure cause will expose the customer to an objectionable level of risk. Risk has two components, the severity of harm and probability of exposure to the harm. If you place a CC (aka Critical Characteristic) in the class column of the PFMEA, you are stating that the type of Harm the customer will be exposed to due to the process failure cause at an unacceptable probability is safety related or government regulation violation related. If you place an SC (aka Significant Characteristic) in the class column, you are stating the type of Harm the customer will be exposed to due to the process failure cause at an unacceptable probability is not safety related or a violation of a government regulation but is a returnable issue that will cost the company money. One can remove a CC or SC from a PFMEA by improving the Prevention Control to reduce the probability of the failure cause which is the source or risk exposure. CC and SC are Ford Symbols. Other companies have different symbols to indicate similar information. Due to the auto companies investment in training in their own symbols, they have never agreed harmonize the class symbols.

The Ford symbol for safety related objectionable residual risk in a DFMEA is YC (aka Potentially Critical). The symbol for non-safety objectionable residual risk in a DFMEA is SC (aka Potentially Significant). When properly used in the Design FMEA, the symbols identify product hardware specifications that are improperly specified and consequently leading to unacceptable risk exposure.

The removal of the class column (residual risk) column from the AIAG VDA DFMEA is just one of the reasons why the AIAG VDA DFMEA methodology leads to DFMEAs that are ineffective for managing risk.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
A What is more important - Head office OR Factory? ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 3
Statistical Steven Accuracy vs. Precision - What is more important for Process Capability Statistical Analysis Tools, Techniques and SPC 55
Marc Which is more important to a Quality Professional - MBA or Six Sigma Black Belt? Professional Certifications and Degrees 44
K Gage R&R with more than 3 appraisers Gage R&R (GR&R) and MSA (Measurement Systems Analysis) 2
K More than one importer for the same device EU Medical Device Regulations 3
S Two or more predicates suitable? 510K submission US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 5
E Received a Major finding during IATF Surveillance audit for loss of BIQS Level 3 (more than 6 SPPS in 6 months)...how should we address SYSTEMIC CA? IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 11
M UDI-PI on a package that contains more devices EU Medical Device Regulations 3
M Informational Update – MDR and IVDR implementing measures rolling plan – 2 more NBs designated under the new regulations Medical Device and FDA Regulations and Standards News 0
B More than one Risk Report per Medical Device ISO 14971 - Medical Device Risk Management 3
Ed Panek Can a single supplier fit two or more categories for risk? ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 2
Sidney Vianna More allegations of unethical behavior in the Aerospace Sector AS9100, IAQG, NADCAP and Aerospace related Standards and Requirements 1
N Technical File Reviewer has requested more testing to ISO 10993 Other Medical Device Related Standards 10
M Informational FDA Panel: Too early to pull textured breast implants over cancer risk, need more data Medical Device and FDA Regulations and Standards News 0
M BSI – Want to know more about the Notified Body? Registrars and Notified Bodies 0
Marc Renewables, led by wind, provided more power than coal in Germany in 2018 Sustainability, Green Initiatives and Ecology 2
Marc Forums - "Watching" One or More Forums for New Threads and New Posts Elsmar Xenforo Forum Software Instructions and Help 1
A MSA When an Instrument Measures More than One Parameter Gage R&R (GR&R) and MSA (Measurement Systems Analysis) 7
M Vernier Calibrations & more General Measurement Device and Calibration Topics 5
bobdoering Contingency Plans Likely to be Scrutinized More Now IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 9
Q How can you justify using a more accurate Pin Gage class? General Measurement Device and Calibration Topics 16
JoshuaFroud Addressing wet ink signatures when more than one site is involved 21 CFR Part 820 - US FDA Quality System Regulations (QSR) 8
G More on IATF 8.5.6.1.1 - Temporary Change of Process Controls IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 4
Sidney Vianna IAF Ruling - No more ISO 9001:2008 nor ISO 14001:2004 audits after 2018-03-15 ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 6
P Tool for Measuring - Do I have to do more than one Gage R&R for the PPAP? Gage R&R (GR&R) and MSA (Measurement Systems Analysis) 2
T ISO 14001:2015 cover more than 1 company or business unit? ISO 14001:2015 Specific Discussions 13
L How to get more Auditing Experience Career and Occupation Discussions 11
C Squeeze in one more - Rate of failure Statistical Analysis Tools, Techniques and SPC 6
M Is it possible to have more than one authorized representative in Saudi Arabia? Other Medical Device Regulations World-Wide 6
somashekar People are more than just ?resources? Book, Video, Blog and Web Site Reviews and Recommendations 1
ncwalker More Central Limit Theorem Questions Six Sigma 4
M More than canned audit check-sheets? Auditing the Engineering Department Process Audits and Layered Process Audits 5
Marc Explore - Movies, audios and more! An Online Library Coffee Break and Water Cooler Discussions 2
B Share ideas to make Management Review more interesting Management Review Meetings and related Processes 4
Wes Bucey More Phishing Emails! Coffee Break and Water Cooler Discussions 7
O Rebuilding Quality Manual to be more relevant to our business Quality Management System (QMS) Manuals 7
Stijloor Toyota recalls more than 6 million vehicles. World News 5
cscalise Separate Forms or Procedure Attachments - What's more common? Document Control Systems, Procedures, Forms and Templates 2
T Promotion with Less Pay and more hours Career and Occupation Discussions 37
S FDA CDRH Premarket Review Submission Cover Sheet - adding more products 21 CFR Part 820 - US FDA Quality System Regulations (QSR) 2
T More than One Original Test Report - Original Print General Measurement Device and Calibration Topics 4
Hershal More about Teddy bears Coffee Break and Water Cooler Discussions 0
B Calculating Combined DPMO and Sigma Level for Two or More Different Work Areas Six Sigma 3
G More than one Marketing Authorization Holder (MAH) in Japan Japan Medical Device Regulations 2
M Is information required on more than one side of box? 21 CFR Part 820 - US FDA Quality System Regulations (QSR) 1
J Attribute Data MSA for more than 3 Operators Gage R&R (GR&R) and MSA (Measurement Systems Analysis) 4
M ISO/TS 16949:2009 Follow-up Audit Visits to create more Revenue IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 12
G Improve final GR&R value by taking average of more measurements? Gage R&R (GR&R) and MSA (Measurement Systems Analysis) 11
K Calibration Standards - Master weight having more tolerance than our gram scale General Measurement Device and Calibration Topics 3
S K-stand definition and more information about it Manufacturing and Related Processes 1

Similar threads

Top Bottom