Intelligent Use of FMEA Presented By: Quality Associates International

FMEA
Intelligent use of FMEA
Presented by
Quality Associates International
Visit us at:
www.quality-one.com
This guideline is for training purposes only; Not ISO controlled
Potential
__ System
Failure Mode and Effects Analysis
__ Subsystem (Design FMEA)
__ Component FMEA Number:
Page 1 or 1
Model Year/Vehicle(s): Design Responsibility Prepared by: Lee Dawson
FMEA Date (Orig.):
Core Team: Key Date:
Item C Potential O Current Current D Responsibility Action Results

Potential Potential S L C E R. Recommended
Cause(s)/ Design Design & Target
Failure Effect(s) of E A Mechanism(s) C T P. S O D R.
Controls Controls Action(s) Completion Actions
Mode Failure V S U E N.
Date
E C E P.
Function S Of Failure R Prevention Detection C Taken V C T N.
www.quality-one.com 2
What Is An FMEA?
 Opportunity to Defeat Murphy’s Law

MURPHY’S
 Focus on Prevention LAW
 Failure Mode And Effects Analysis is
An assessment of Risk
Safety
Regulatory
Customer Satisfaction
Program
Coordinated/Documented team effort
To determine what can go wrong
A method to determine the need and priority of actions
It is not designed to record previously designed elements
FMEA Deployment
 A layered approach is highly recommended

as FMEAs can get complex.
 FMEAs are like ONIONS/LAYERS.
Each layer is closer to the root cause
Each layer is more detailed
The closer to core the more detail
Core gets to the root cause
Do too many and you will cry.
FMEA Strategy
Strategic Deployment of
FMEA to support DFSS
(Design for Six Sigma)
The requirements cascade to
achieve success
Life Cycle
CPPDM Overview
Plan
Approved & Phase 0 Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Phase 4
Project
Started
PPAP/IPPAP,
Equipment, Tooling
Definition Complete & Design, Development, and Processes Ready, Project Close
Concept Developed / Design Feasibility Vehicle Integration and FPE Vehicles Built, Out and Make
Business Rationale Demonstrated Parts Authorized Approved to Launch Good
Business Business Rationale Business Project Plan Business Case Business Case After Action
Developed Case Complete Confirmation Confirmation Reviews
Developed
Resources
Initial Motorcycle
Assigned Systems, Sub-
Service Life Make vs. Buy Support
systems, and
Cycle Costs decisions & Information
Components are Make Good
sources
Qualified Regulatory Req’s Reports
selected
Base E.O. Complete &
Assigned Design Risk Documented
Assessment Product
(FMEAs) Validation
Research of System, Sub-

Design System, & Vehicle PPAP/IPPAP Make Good
existing knowledge Reports
Specs. Developed
Full Vehicle Process Risk Plant Training
Requirements Defined Styling Inputs Assessment
(PFMEA) Operation After Action
Visual or Physical Instructions Reviews
Process
Rep. of Concept Manufacturing Control Plan
Process Definition FPE Vehicles Built
Training Plans
Containers, Crating,
Prelim. Mfg Material Handling Process Production
Process Assessment Verification System Validation
Reqmnts.
Project Records / Documentation Collected

Project Reviews / Technical Reviews Ongoing
CPPDM Summary (Verification vs. Validation)
Phase 0 Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Phase 4
PPAP/IPPAP,
Equipment, Tooling
Definition Complete & Design, Development, and Processes Ready, Project Close
Concept Developed / Design Feasibility Vehicle Integration and FPE Vehicles Built, Out and Make
Business Rationale Demonstrated Parts Authorized Approved to Launch Good
Business
Product
Concept Verification Validation
Design
Process
Concept Verification Validation
Process
Plan & Define Section 1 RELIABILITY BY DESIGN
IDEA
APQP Tool Linkage
Opportunity Design & Development - Section II
Defined
GD & T
Process Design & Development - Section III
- Drawings
Form Team - Math Data Process Flow
- Timing Finalized
- Resources
f?
Prototype Control
DFMEA Special Characteristics
oo
DFMEA Plan Characteristic
Pr
Customer Matrix Pre - Launch
ke
Collect
sta
Wants/Needs/Desires Control Plan
Market Research
Mi
- QFD - Risk/Action
PFMEA YES
- Special Characteristics
- Manufacturing IF
- Assembly
- Current Controls Process Validation - Section IV
Priorities Develop Concepts Packaging
Input Design Test Plans NO
Design Actions Designs Process Trial
From Wants/Needs/ - Product Change - Design Verification
Special Run
5 Desires - Process
Controls Min 300 pcs/Hits/shots Validation
Process Validation Plan
- Failure Mode IF Testing
No - Gage Plan
Analysis Design Plan
- Capability Plan
- History Develop Product OK
Feasibility Instructions GR & R
- Past Performance Specifications
- Team Yes - Initial - Gage Plan Repeatability OK?
- Lessons Learned - Linked to Customers
Reproducibility
Design Risk Assessment IF

NO
IF No - Open Issues
Feasible - Spec. Agreements Statistics
- Materials Revisit III YES
- Via Control Plans
Yes - Budget PFMEA
- Capability Plan
- Manufacturing For Additional
Process Risk Assessment
- Program Risks Potential
- Equipment Failures STABLE?
Process Development
- Gages
IF
- Controls NO
- Instructions YES
- Equipment Installation - Plans Can we change YES
Initial Process Kick Off Tools / Equipment Gages - Tooling Progress - Status of Open Issues process to IF
CAPABLE?
- Gage Design & Progress contain? NO
IF
NO
Concept
Initiation/Approval Design YES
Program Change Sample The Process
Approval Prototype Pilot Launch Back to II
Create Production - Source Warrants
Control Plan - Supporting Documentation
PLANNING PLANNING - Level of PPAP
- Reduced (n)
PRODUCT DESIGN AND DEV. - Reduced (f)
- Optimizing Characteristics
PROCESS DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT.
PRODUCT AND PROCESS VALIDATION.
PRODUCTION
FEEDBACK ASSESSMENT AND CORRECTIVE ACTION
CONTROL PLANS
Open Issues / Time Line

Requirements
Cascade
How Fmea fits into Product and
Process Development

Phase I QFD Product
Specifications
Phase
Progression
Systems / Sub-Systems /
Phase II Components
QFD
Customer
Wants
(Marketing
Information)
DFMEA Failure Modes
Product
Specifications System DFMEA
Sub-System DFMEA
Component DFMEA
Inputs
•Drawings •Boundary Diagram
•Warranty •P-Diagram
•FMA •Interface Matrix
QFD Phase Progression

Potential Critical and Significant
SEAL
FACE
SHOULDER
SERATION DAMAGE
Matrix
JACK SHAFT SEAL AGAINST
SEAL COMPRESSION HEIGHT
www.quality-one.com
Relative Importance
DOWEL PINS 0.260 TO 0.270 " TO
Weighted Importance
BUSHING TO FACE OF JACK SHAFT
Special Characteristics
Direction of Improvement
BEARING FLUSH TO SNAP RING FACE
PRIMARY GASKET SEAL SURFACE FINISH

1.090 TO 1.110 " FACE OF PRIMARY HOUSING
5
9
9
3
9
3
5
Severity
DFMEA
and Critical
0 Receive Material
81 Material handling
F
Characteristics from
Potential Significant
81 Shipping Damage
F
72 Component Manufacture
H
Y
0 Vehicle Assembly
Op 100 Step 1
9 PRE-LOAD DOWEL PINS TO
relative to risk
FIXTURE
of process steps
Op 100 Step 2
Prioritized ranking
41 PRE-LOAD JACK SHAFT
G
G
SEAL TO FIXTURE
Op 100 Step 3
PRE-LOAD PRIMARY
0
HOUSING BUSHING TO
FIXTURE
Op 110
0 Pre-load bearing to fixture #2
Op 120
27 Pre-load main shaft oil seal to
H
mandrel
Importance
Op 200
54
Characteristics
H
H
Housing to fixture #1
Op 210
Ranked in order of
261
F
F
F
F
Operate press
Op 220
3
G
Retaining ring to top groove

Op 230
0
Reload fixture #1
Op 300
54
H
H
Op 310
81
F
H
H
Operate press
Process Steps
Op 320
3
G

Op 330
0
Mandrel to main shaft bore I.D.
OP 340
0
Operate press
Op 350
0
Re-load fixture #2 and mandrel
Op 400
27
H
Housing to table
Op 410
0 Reserved
Primary Drive Manufacturing Process Steps
Op 420
45
F
Chain adj sub assy to housing

Op 430
9
G
Lubricate bushing & seal

Op 445
9
G
Move or stage for final assy

Op 10
0
O-ring to shifter tube
Op 500
0
Shifter tube to housing
PFMEA
Op 510
0
Clamp to shifter tube
Process Operation
Op 20
from Process Flow
0
Assemble shifter lever
0 Op 520
Wave washer to shifter lever
Op 530
0
causes/failure modes in
Shifter lever to shifter tube

Op 535
0
Que for final assy line
High/Medium Interactions are
Customer
Assessment
11
The Completed Characteristics Matrix
Phase III Process
System DFMEA
Sub-System DFMEA
QFD Operations
Component DFMEA
Phase IV
QFD
Process
Parameters /
High Priority Process Variables
Operations
SC’s & CC’s

Classification
of Characteristics Causes from
DFMEA’s
Special Characteristics Matrix

10 CRITICAL CHARACTERISTICS
S 9 Safety/Regulatory
E 8 SIGNIFICANT
V 7 CHARACTERISTICS
E 6 Customer Dissatisfaction
R 5
I 4 ANNOYANCE
T 3 ZONE
SC’s & CC’s
ALL OTHER CHARACTERISTICS
Y 2 Appropriate actions /
1 controls already in place
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
OCCURRENCE
Process Related
SC’s & CC’s Failure Modes Causes on
From all DFMEA’s on PFMEA PFMEA Key Control
Characteristics
Process FMEA
Inputs
•Failure Data •Process Flow
Control Plan
•Process •Line Layout
Capability •MFMEA
www.quality-one.com
QFD Phase Progression 12
Potential Key Characteristic Development
Requirements Documents
•Regulatory
•Dimensional
•Cosmetic
Robustness Tools
Req. Spec. Document
Drawings Boundary Diagram
Warranty History P-Diagram Item / C O D Action Results
Process Potential Current Response &
Potential Potential S l c e R
Interface Matrix
Step Cause(s)/ Design Recommended Target
Failure Effect(s) of e a c Controls t P S O D R
Mechanism(s) Actions Complete Action
Mode Failure v s
Of Failure
u e N
Date Taken E C E P
Function
s r c V C T N
Prevent Detect
DFMEA

10 POTENTIAL CRITICAL CHARACTERISTICS
E 8 POTENTIAL
V 7 SIGNIFICANT
Cascade Technical E
R
6
5
CHARACTERISTICS
Customer Dissatisfaction
Requirements Into Special T

I 4
3
ANOYANCE
ZONE
Product Characteristics
Y 2
Appropriate actions /
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
OCCURRENCE
www.quality-one.com
Special
Sources
•Drawings
•Regulations
•DFMEA (Potential
Characteristics
SEAL
FACE
KPCs: Significant and
SHOULDER
Critical Characteristics)
SERATION DAMAGE
Matrix
Relative Importance
Weighted Importance

5
9
9
3
9
3
5
Severity
0 Receive Material
F
81 Shipping Damage
F
Y
H
0 Vehicle Assembly
Op 100 Step 1
H
FIXTURE
Op 100 Step 2
G
G
SEAL TO FIXTURE
IF
Op 100 Step 3
END
0 PRE-LOAD PRIMARY
HOUSING BUSHING TO
START
YES
FIXTURE
Op 110
0
OPERATION
OPERATION
Pre-load bearing to fixture #2

NO
Op 120
H
mandrel
54 Op 200
H
261 Op 210
H
F
F
F
F
Operate press
Process Flow
Op 220
3
G
0 Op 230
Reload fixture #1
54 Op 300
H
H
81 Op 310
F
Operate press
Process Steps
Op 320
3
G
0 Op 330
0 OP 340
Operate press
0 Op 350
27 Op 400
Housing to table
0 Op 410
Reserved
Op 420
45
F
Op 430
9
G
9 Op 445
G
0 Op 10
0 Op 500
0 Op 510
Op 20
0
0 Op 520
Op 530
0
0 Op 535
Customer
Assessment
14
Characteristics Matrix Development
SEAL
FACE
SHOULDER
SERATION DAMAGE
Matrix
Sources
www.quality-one.com
Relative Importance
Weighted Importance

from DFMEA & Other
Critical Characteristics
5
9
9
3
9
3
5
Potential Significant and
Severity
0 Receive Material
F
81 Shipping Damage
F
H
Y
0 Vehicle Assembly
Op 100 Step 1
relative to risk
FIXTURE
of process steps
Op 100 Step 2
Prioritized ranking
G
G
SEAL TO FIXTURE
Op 100 Step 3
PRE-LOAD PRIMARY
0
HOUSING BUSHING TO
FIXTURE
Op 110
Op 120
H
mandrel
Importance
Op 200
54
Characteristics
H
H
Op 210
Ranked in order of
261
F
F
F
F
H Operate press
Op 220
3
G

Op 230
0
Reload fixture #1
Op 300
54
H
H
Op 310
81
F
H
H
Operate press
Process Steps
Op 320
3
G

Op 330
0
OP 340
0
Operate press
Op 350
0
Op 400
27
H
Housing to table
Op 410
0 Reserved
Op 420
45
F

Op 430
9 Lubricate bushing & seal
Op 445
9
G G

Op 10
0
Op 500
0
PFMEA
Op 510
0
Process Operation
Op 20
from Process Flow
0
0 Op 520
Op 530
0

Op 535
0
Customer
Assessment
15
Characteristics Matrix
FMEA Preparation Vertical Approach
 Key Elements of Efficient Development

 Identify all functions/process steps
Boundary Diagram
P Diagram
 Identify all failure modes via
brainstorming/data/warranty/COQ
 Identify all effects via brainstorming/data
Customer focus
 Develop data pools for
Failure Modes, Effects and Causes for future/ faster
FMEA development
System/Subsystem/ Design FMEA
 Failure Mode: Pure anti-function
FUNCTION
(ANTI)
System/Subsystem/ Design FMEA
 Effect
Customer view/customers words
Regulation violation
Level of dissatisfaction
 Consider All Customers
End User
Engineering Community
Manufacturing Community
(Operators/Employees)
Regulatory Body
Severity Column
Item / C O D Action Results

Potential Potential S l c Process e R
Step Cause(s)/ Recommended Traget S O D R
Failure Effect(s) of e a c Controls t P Action
Mechanism(s) Actions Complete E C E P
Mode Failure v s u e N Taken
Of Failure Date V C T N
s r c
Function Prevent Detect
Severity
Column
AUTOMOTIVE EXAMPLE SEVERITY EVALUATION CRITERIA
SEVERITY EVALUATION CRITERIA

EFFECT CRITERIA: Severity of Effect RNK.
Hazardous- Very high severity ranking when a potential failure mode affects safe vehicle
without operation and/or involves noncompliance with government regulation without
10
warning
warning
Hazardous- Very high severity ranking when a potential failure mode affects safe vehicle
with operation and/or involves noncompliance with government regulation with warning
9
warning
Very High Vehicle/item inoperable (loss of primary function). 8
Vehicle/item operable but at a reduced level of performance. Customer very

High dissatisfied. 7
Vehicle/item operable but Comfort/Convenience item(s) inoperable. Customer

Moderate dissatisfied. 6
Vehicle/item operable but Comfort/Convenience item(s) operable at a reduced

Low level of performance. Customer somewhat dissatisfied. 5
Fit & Finish/Squeak & Rattle item does not conform. Defect noticed by most
Very Low customers (greater than 75%). 4
Fit & Finish/Squeak & Rattle item does not conform. Defect noticed by 50% of
Minor customers. 3
Fit & Finish/Squeak & Rattle item does not conform. Defect noticed by
Very Minor discriminating customers (less than 25%). 2
None No discernable effect. 1
FMEA General
For High Severity 9/10
Failure Mode/Cause Relationship
In Different FMEA Levels
Inadequate
Electrical
Connection
Failure
Cause Mode
Motor
Stops
Failure
Mode Inadequate
Electrical Connection
Inadequate Causes Harness

Locking Too Short
Feature
Causes
 Causes from P-Diagram

Noise factors
Continue through all failure modes.
 Note that many causes are recurring.
Occurrence Column
Item / C O D Action Results

Potential Potential S l c Process e R
Step Cause(s)/ Recommended Traget S O D R
Failure Effect(s) of e a c Controls t P Action
Mechanism(s) Actions Complete E C E P
Mode Failure v s u e N Taken
Of Failure Date V C T N
s r c
Function Prevent Detect
Occurrence
Column
Occurrence Evaluation Criteria
SUGGESTED OCCURRENCE EVALUATION CRITERIA

Probability of Likely Failure Rates Over Design Life Ranking
Failure
 100 per thousand vehicles/items 10

Very High: Persistent failures
50 per thousand vehicles/items 9

High: Frequent failures

Moderate: Occasional failures 2 per thousand vehicles/items 5
0.5 per thousand vehicles/items 3

Low: Relatively few failures
0.1 per thousand vehicles/items 2
Remote: Failure is unlikely  0.01 per thousand vehicles/items 1
*Note: Zero (0) rankings for Severity, Occurrence or Detection are not allowed
Occurrence Rating
 If an action would effectively eliminate the

possibility of the cause occurring, the action
is listed as described earlier.
Occurrence of 1 or 2 require proof using a
surrogate product or mistake proofing.
DATA HARD FACTS

Example of Significant/ Critical Threshold
10 POTENTIAL CRITICAL
9 CHARACTERISTICS Safety/Regulatory
S
E 8 POTENTIAL
V 7 SIGNIFICANT
E 6 CHARACTERISTICS
R 5
I 4 ANOYANCE
T 3 ZONE
Y 2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
OCCURRENCE
www.quality-one.com *Used by permission of Ford Motor Company 27
Classification And Definition Column
C O D Action Results
Item Potential Response &
Potential Potential S l c Current e R. Recommended
Cause(s) / Target
Failure Effect(s) of e a c Design t P. Actions Actions S O D R.
Mechanism(s) Complete
Mode Failure v s u Controls e N. Taken e c e P.
of Failure Date
Function s r c v c t N.
Classification and
Definition Column
Design Verification (Current Design Controls)
 Think of Design Control in two ways; Prevention

and Detection. List them separately.
 To save time, add any new (untried)
prevention/detection ideas to the document under
Recommended Actions column.
Prevention is specifically related to reduction or
elimination of a cause.
Detection is how well the test or series of tests may find
the design flaw
Causes
Failure Mode
Detection Rating
SUGGESTED DETECTION EVALATION CRITERIA
DETECTION CRITERIA RNK.
Design Control will not and/or cannot detect a potential cause/ mechanism and
Absolute
subsequent failure mode; or there is no 10
Uncertainty Design Control.
Very Remote chance the Design Control will detect a potential cause/mechanism and
Very Remote 9
subsequent failure mode.
Remote chance the Design Control will detect a potential cause/ mechanism and
Remote 8
Very Low chance the Design Control will detect a potential cause/mechanism and
Very Low 7
Low chance the Design Control will detect a potential cause/mechanism and
Low 6
Moderate chance the Design Control will detect a potential cause/ mechanism and
Moderate 5
Moderately Moderately High chance the Design Control will detect a potential cause/mechanism
4
High and subsequent failure mode.
High chance the Design Control will detect a potential cause/ mechanism and
High 3
Very High chance the Design Control will detect a potential cause/ mechanism and
Very High 2
Almost Design Controls will almost certainly detect a potential cause/ mechanism and
1
Certain subsequent failure mode.
Analysis Of Risk
 RPN / RISK PRIORITY NUMBER

 What Is Risk?
 Probability of danger
 Severity/Occurrence/Cause
RPN / Risk Priority Number
Top 20% of Failure

Modes by RPN
R
P
N
Failure Modes
Evaluation by RPN Only
 Case 1
S=5 O=5 D=2 RPN = 50
 Case 2
S=3 O=3 D=6 RPN = 54
WHICH ONE
 Case 3
S=2 O=10, D=10 = 200
IS WORSE?
 Case 4
S=9 O=2 D=3 = 54
Example
 Extreme Safety/Regulatory Risk

=9 & 10 Severity
 High Risk to Customer Satisfaction
Sev. > or = to 5 and Occ > or = 4
 Consider Detection only as a measure of
Test Capability.
Example of Significant/ Critical Threshold
10 POTENTIAL CRITICAL
9 CHARACTERISTICS Safety/Regulatory
S
E 8 POTENTIAL
V 7 SIGNIFICANT
E 6 CHARACTERISTICS
R 5
I 4 ANOYANCE
T 3 ZONE
Y 2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
OCCURRENCE
www.quality-one.com *Used by permission of Ford Motor Company 35
Actions
Your Company Name Here Potential

System (Design FMEA) FMEA Number:
Subsystem Page of
Component: Design Responsibility: Prepared by:
Key Date: FMEA Date (Orig.): (Rev.):
Model Year/Vehicle (s):
Core Team:
Item Action Results
c Potential Responsibility
Potential Potential s l o Current D R.
e a Cause (s)/ c P. Recommended & Target Actions
Failure Effect (s) of c Design e
v s Mechanism (s) t N. Action(s) Completion Taken
Mode Failure s u Controls s o D R.
Failure r e Date
c e c e P.
Function v c t N.
Actions
EXAMPLE:
Project: Date Of
Meeting:
Issue Issue Status/ Issue Action Action Action Person Resp. Completion
Number Open Date Champion Number Date Team Date
143
Re-rating RPN After Actions Have Occurred
Your Company Name Here Potential

System (Design FMEA) FMEA Number:
Subsystem Page of
Component: Design Responsibility: Prepared by:
Key Date: FMEA Date (Orig.): (Rev.):
Model Year/Vehicle (s):
Core Team:
Item Action Results

Potential Potential S C Potential O Current D R. Recommended Responsibility
e l c e P.
Failure Effect (s) of v a Cause (s)/ c Design t N. Action(s) & Target S O D R.
Actions
Mode Failure s Mechanism (s) u Controls e Completion e c e P.
s r c Taken v c t N.
Failure Date
Function
Re-rating RPN After Actions Have Occurred
 Severity typically stays the same.

 Occurrence is the primary item to reduce / focus
on.
 Detection is reduced only as a last resort.
 Do not plan to REDUCE RPN with detection
actions!!!
100% inspection is only 80% effective!
Reducing RPN with detection does not eliminate failure
mode, or reduce probability of causes
Detection of 10 is not bad if occurrence is 1
FMEA & Requirement/Specification
Cascades for CPPDM

V Model
V Model
The V Model shows the path a product follows

from concept to completion specific to FMEA
integration
It follows the path of the CPPDM
It provides a natural way to cascade critical items
through the entire design FMEA process from
Concept
System
Sub-System
Component
Voice of the Customer/Market
The true customer’s wants,

needs, desires, and delights
must be represented to
assure Excitement Quality,
i.e. Customer Satisfaction
This is typically captured
from surveys, market
research, customer
feedback, etc.
Added to Vehicle
Requirements if cost and
value are demonstrated
Vehicle Requirements
Vehicle performance
and features with
measures are listed
Developed directly
from Voice of the
Customer/Market
Legacy
Engineering and styling
inputs
Concept FMEA
The various vehicle

concepts are compared
by risk of not meeting
vehicle or system
requirements
The Concepts come
directly from the
Vehicle requirements
phase
System Specifications
All specifications are

determined for each of
the high level vehicle
systems cascaded from
the vehicle
requirements
The system
specifications will be
generated directly from
the vehicle
requirements
System FMEA
 To create effective Design

FMEA’s, the design must have
between 50-75% design content
 The System FMEA will highlight
sub-system and components that
have the most risk, based on
safety, regulatory, etc.
 The system specifications will
provide the necessary functions
for the System FMEA
 Part of the FMEA process is the
creation of the boundary
diagram, the p-diagram, and the
interface matrix – these ensure
that robustness is achieved
Example Boundary Diagram
Engine Mounting System
Engine Lubrication System Electrical System Evaporative Emissions
-breather System
Carburetor
External Shift Linkage
Vehicle Frame Primary Drive System

System
Exhaust System & Mounts
(All Subsystems)
Crank Case
(Big Twin) Secondary Drive System
(All Subsystems)
Starter System
Instrumentation
(Speedometer & Sensor)
Rear Brake
Line Lubrication System
-Dyna/FLT; physical interface Engine Management
-Buell; material exchange System
Rider Interface (ECM)
(Foot Pegs) Transmission/Gearing Shift Mechanism

Transmission Case/Covers/Gaskets Shifter Cam Assembly DFMEA
Main shaft Bearings/Bushings/Seals Shifter Forks/Rails/Drums Boundary
Main shaft Gears Synchronizers Interfaces
Countershaft/Bearings/Bushings/Seals Shifter Controls/Shafts/Links/Pedals Physical
Countershaft Gears Shift Mechanism Accessories Energy
Transmission/Gearing Accessories Crank Case System (Mid Weight) Data
Materials
Example P-Diagram
Noise Factors
1. Piece to piece variation 2. Other systems 3. Customer usage/duty cycle

Case variation
-center variation
Case and Bearings
Speed Sensor
Overloaded
Aftermarket changes / Performance modifications
Potential
Fork variation Primary drive / clutch Poor service practices Causes
Drum variation Secondary Drive Poor quality oil
Lubricant quality External Shift Linkage Oil change freq.
Speed Sensor Engine Lubrication system Abusive shifting
Bearing plate variation Hydraulic Clutch Low oil
Gear variation Cover System Extreme duty cycle in high heat
Assembly Process Variation Exhaust
Frame variation
Torque on fasteners
4. Deterioration/degredation over time 5. Environment
Self generated debris Poor road conditions
Gear wear / Dog and teeth wear Spacer wear Contamination
Fork Wear Seal / Gasket wear Air and temp changes
Bearing wear Oil degradation
Shaft wear Thrust surface wear
Design Clamp Load loss
Function Shifter componenet fatigue
Fatigue failures
(Detail)
Input Ideal function (musts)
Engine RPM and torque Transmission System Transfer power from engine to rear wheel
Gear selection / shift input Meet noise regulation requirements (NVH) Design
Rear wheel input on coast
Clutch drag torque
Reduce speed from engine to rear wheel
Can not effect current emissions performance
Function
Heat and vibration from engine Error states No measurable decrease in shift quality
Secondary drive belt tension Does not transfer power from engine to rear wheel Must meet Durability requirements
Vibration Energy Does not meet noise regulations requirements Provide a clean signal to the vehicle speed sensor
Vehicle inputs - Strain, twist, vibration Fails to reduce speed from engine to rear wheel Must maintain clearance to other engine components
Effects current emissions performance Must interface with vehicle frame system
Control factors Change in shift quality Must interfece with engine management system
Does not meet durability requirements Must interface with external shifter linkages
Emissions Regulations Does not provide a clean signal to the vehicle speed sensor Must interface with starter system
NVH Passby Regulations Interference with other engine components Must interface with engine lube system
- EEC 97/24/Ch. 9 - Europe Does not interface with other vehicle components Must interface with secondary drive system
Design - Australia ADR 39/00 Does not provide electrical ground Must interface with primary drive system
Controls - Japan MOT articles 30 & 31
- Korean EPA Notice 91-26
poor rider ergonimics
excessive social noise
must interface with evaporative emisions system
Must provide acceptable ground for electrical system
- Mexican Noise Emission Standard NOM-082-ECOL-1994 poor handling characteristics Must maintain acceptable rider interface ergonomics
- USA F76a – 40 CFR Ch. 1 (7-1-86 Ed.) does not meet assemblability requirements Must have approiate gear ratios for vehicle applications
Launch timing-MW MY05 Big Twin MY06 damage during shipping Must meet styling requirements
Homologation requirements cannot operate in required ambient temps Must meet current cosmetic zoning reqs.
Jed Program deliverables
Failure Must meet social noise reqs.
Must deliver acceptable handling characteristics
Modes Design meets the needs of the shipping duty cycle
Example Interface Matrix
High voltage power leads (negative)

High voltage power leads (positive)
Park Mechanism Acuation
Shield Motor Power leads

Power Conversion Unit
Mounting sub frame #1
PCU Signal Connector

Motor / Gear Box
Halfshafts (2)
2 2 2 2 2
Power Conversion Unit
2
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Motor / Gear Box
2 2
Park Mechanism Acuation
2 2
Halfshafts (2)
2 2
2 2
2 2
2 2
PCU Signal Connector
2
2
Shield Motor Power leads
2 2 -2
High voltage power leads (positive)
-2
High voltage power leads (negative)
P E P: Physically touching E: Energy transfer

I M I: Information exchange M: Material exchange
Required 2 Necessary for function

Desired 1 Beneficial, but not absolutely necessary for functionality
Indifferent Does not affect functionality
Undesired -1 Causes negative effects but does not prevent functionality
Detrimental -2 Must be prevented to achieve functionality
System Verification Testing (DVP&R)
The outputs from the System FMEA will drive the

DVP&R, which are noise factors which must be
considered in the testing strategy
Risk Strategy
The Risk Strategy is

generated from the System
FMEA
It highlights critical
characteristics with
severities of 9’s and 10’s
and significant
severities from 5 to 8 with
probabilities high enough
to warrant consideration
These characteristics are
nominated for KPC’s
Sub-System FMEA
The Sub-System FMEA is

similar to the System FMEA
It may not be necessary in
all instances, as the System
FMEA may be cascaded
directly to the Component
FMEA
Example
System = Styled surfaces
Sub-System
Fenders
Tour Pack
Sub-System Verification Testing (DVP&R)
The outputs from the Sub-System FMEA will drive

the DVP&R and reliability studies
Noise factors which must be considered in the
testing strategy are potential causes of failure
Component Specifications
All component
specifications are cascaded
from the System
Specifications, the System
FMEA, and the Sub-System
FMEA
The component
specifications will be used
to determine, in conjunction
with the risk strategy from
the Sub-System FMEA,
which component FMEA’s
need to be completed.
Risk Strategy
The Risk Strategy is

generated from the Sub-
System FMEA
and significant
Component FMEA
 The Component FMEA will highlight

characteristics that have the most
risk, based on safety, regulatory, etc.
 Component FMEA’s are only
necessary for components that
contribute to higher level failure
system/sub-system
New technology
Changed product
Past failures
New environment for use
 The boundary diagram, the p-
diagram, and the interface matrix are
also created for components similar
to system/sub-systems
 The Risk Strategy, Sub-System
FMEA, and Component
Specifications dictate which
components need to be addressed
Component Bench Testing (DVP&R)
The outputs from the Component FMEA will drive

the component DVP&R
Bench tests
Risk Strategy
The Risk Strategy used in

the Component FMEA
determines which
characteristics need to be
addressed
and significant
These become KPC/KCC at
manufacturing
Prototype Control Plan
The characteristics that

are required to be
correct for appropriate
design verification are
listed on the prototype
control plan
The prototype control
plans are used by those
producing the
prototypes
Design Review
There are vehicle level

design reviews which focus
on vehicle level indicators,
such as cost, timing, weight,
etc.
There are system level
design reviews which focus
on timing and systems level
issues
There are technical design
reviews which are related
to specifications and
performance
Action reviews from
FMEA’s/test results are
addressed in design review
Phase I QFD Product
Specifications
Phase
Progression
Systems / Sub-Systems /
Phase II Components
QFD
Customer
Wants
(Marketing
Information)
DFMEA Failure Modes
Product
Specifications System DFMEA
Sub-System DFMEA
Component DFMEA
Inputs
•Drawings •Boundary Diagram
•Warranty •P-Diagram
•FMA •Interface Matrix
QFD Phase Progression

SEAL
FACE
SHOULDER
SERATION DAMAGE
Matrix
www.quality-one.com
Relative Importance
Weighted Importance

5
9
9
3
9
3
5
Severity
DFMEA
and Critical
0 Receive Material
F
Characteristics from
Potential Significant
81 Shipping Damage
F
H
Y
0 Vehicle Assembly
Op 100 Step 1
relative to risk
FIXTURE
of process steps
Op 100 Step 2
Prioritized ranking
G
G
SEAL TO FIXTURE
Op 100 Step 3
PRE-LOAD PRIMARY
0
HOUSING BUSHING TO
FIXTURE
Op 110
Op 120
H
mandrel
Importance
Op 200
54
Characteristics
H
H
Op 210
Ranked in order of
261
F
F
F
F
Operate press
Op 220
3
G

Op 230
0
Reload fixture #1
Op 300
54
H
H
Op 310
81
F
H
H
Operate press
Process Steps
Op 320
3
G

Op 330
0
OP 340
0
Operate press
Op 350
0
Op 400
27
H
Housing to table
Op 410
0 Reserved
Op 420
45
F

Op 430
9
G

Op 445
9
G

Op 10
0
Op 500
0
PFMEA
Op 510
0
Process Operation
Op 20
from Process Flow
0
0 Op 520
Op 530
0

Op 535
0
Customer
Assessment
63
The Completed Characteristics Matrix
Phase III Process
System DFMEA
Sub-System DFMEA
QFD Operations
Component DFMEA
Phase IV
QFD
Process
Parameters /
High Priority Process Variables
Operations
SC’s & CC’s

Classification
of Characteristics Causes from
DFMEA’s

10 CRITICAL CHARACTERISTICS
E 8 SIGNIFICANT
V 7 CHARACTERISTICS
E 6 Customer Dissatisfaction
R 5
I 4 ANNOYANCE
T 3 ZONE
SC’s & CC’s
Y 2 Appropriate actions /
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
OCCURRENCE
Process Related
SC’s & CC’s Failure Modes Causes on
From all DFMEA’s on PFMEA PFMEA Key Control
Characteristics
Process FMEA
Inputs
•Failure Data •Process Flow
Control Plan
•Process •Line Layout
Capability •MFMEA
www.quality-one.com
QFD Phase Progression 64
Summary
FMEA can be used creatively in continuous

processing.
Linking key customer requirements to process

outputs instead of standard product grade is
valuable.
Future customer requirements will drive new and

modified processes to achieve specialty results as a
normal practice
Training and Facilitation
Fmea benefits certainly outweigh the

obvious difficulty in developing them.
To maintain efficiency, FMEA must be
deployed with several methods of varying
degrees of intensity.
Methods to consider
Computer based training
Pin point Facilitation for Family groups.
Database approach to legacy

Intelligent Use of FMEA Presented By: Quality Associates International

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Intelligent Use of FMEA Presented By: Quality Associates International

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Intelligent Use of FMEA Presented By: Quality Associates International

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

What is an FMEA used for?

What is an FMEA used for?

How should FMEAs be deployed?

How should FMEAs be deployed?

FMEA

Intelligent use of FMEA

Item C Potential O Current Current D Responsibility Action Results

 Opportunity to Defeat Murphy’s Law

 A layered approach is highly recommended

Research of System, Sub-

Project Records / Documentation Collected

Phase 0 Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Phase 4

Design Risk Assessment IF

PROCESS DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT.

PRODUCT AND PROCESS VALIDATION.

FEEDBACK ASSESSMENT AND CORRECTIVE ACTION

Open Issues / Time Line

This guideline is for training purposes only; Not ISO controlled

DFMEA Failure Modes

QFD Phase Progression

JACK SHAFT SEAL AGAINST

SEAL COMPRESSION HEIGHT

BEARING FLUSH TO SNAP RING FACE

PRIMARY GASKET SEAL SURFACE FINISH

Retaining ring to top groove

Retaining ring to top groove

Chain adj sub assy to housing

Lubricate bushing & seal

Move or stage for final assy

Shifter lever to shifter tube

SC’s & CC’s

Special Characteristics Matrix

Special Characteristics Matrix

Requirements Into Special T

JACK SHAFT SEAL AGAINST

SEAL COMPRESSION HEIGHT

BUSHING TO FACE OF JACK SHAFT

BEARING FLUSH TO SNAP RING FACE

PRIMARY GASKET SEAL SURFACE FINISH

Pre-load bearing to fixture #2

Retaining ring to top groove

Retaining ring to top groove

Chain adj sub assy to housing

Lubricate bushing & seal

Move or stage for final assy

JACK SHAFT SEAL AGAINST

SEAL COMPRESSION HEIGHT

BEARING FLUSH TO SNAP RING FACE

PRIMARY GASKET SEAL SURFACE FINISH

Retaining ring to top groove

Retaining ring to top groove

Chain adj sub assy to housing

Move or stage for final assy

Shifter lever to shifter tube

 Key Elements of Efficient Development

 Failure Mode: Pure anti-function

Item / C O D Action Results

SEVERITY EVALUATION CRITERIA