Table 1: Process Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (FMEA)

FMEA Type: Process Project Name/Description: Pencil Date: February 10, 2015
Responsibility/Function: to make a black mark Prepared By: Kate Gilland
Process FMEA Potential Potential S Potential O Current D R Recommended Actions S O D R
(Function/ Failure Effect(s) of e Cause(s)/ c Controls e P E C E P
Requirements) Mode Failure v Mechanism(s) of c Detection t N V C T N
Failure u e U E
r c R C
To make a Makes no -loss of 8 -graphite missing 4 -test station 3 96 -have mid-procedure check 8 2 3 48
mark mark primary in pencil for marking station after graphite
function - wooden outside installation to make sure it was
-customer doesn’t properly installed correctly
very expose graphite
dissatisfied
Marks a black Mark is not -customer 7 -bad graphite 3 -test station 6 126 -check graphite mixture before 7 2 2 28
color black in dissatisfied; mixture for marking it is inserted into wooden casing
color expecting -human error with -make sure test section is color
black mixture sensitive if it is a machine
-reduced level
of primary
function
Intermittenly Marks -operable but 5 -graphite not 7 -test station 8 280 -check graphite mixture before 5 4 5 100
fails to mark intermittenly inconvenient installed correctly for marking it is inserted into wooden casing
-bad graphite -test the final product for a long
mixture enough time to account for
intermitten marks

Table 2: Severity Evaluation Criterion

Effect Customer Effect Manufacturing/Assembly Effect Ranking

 Harzardous Very high severity when a potential failure mode affects Or may endanger operator without warning. 10
without safe operations and/or involves noncompliance with
warnig government regulation without warning.
Hazardous Very high severity when a potential failure mode affects Or may endanger operator with warning. 9
with safe operations and/or involves noncompliance with
warning government regulation with warning.
Very high Item inoperable (loss of primary function). Or 100% of product may have to be scrapped, or item repaired 8
in repair department with a repair time greater than one hour.
High Item inoperable but at a reduced level of performance. Or product may have to be sorted and a portion (less than 7
Customer very dissatisfied. 100%) scrapped, or item repaired in repair department with a
repair time between a half-hour and an hour.
Moderate Item operable but comfort/convenience item inoperable. Or a portion (less than 100%) of the product may have to be 6
Customer dissatisfied. scrapped with no sorting, or item repaired in repair department
with a repair time less than a half-hour.
Low Item operable but comfort/convenience item inoperable Or 100% of product may have to be reworked, or item repaired 5
at reduced level of performance. off-line but does not go to repair department.
Very low Item does not conform. Defect noticed by greater than Or the product may have to be sorted, with no scrap, and a 4
75% of customers. portion (less than 100%) reworked.
Minor Item does not conform. Defect noticed by 50% of Or a portion (less than 100%) of the product may have to be 3
customers. reworked, with no scrap, on-line but out-of-station.
Very minor Item does not conform. Defect noticed by less than 25% of Or a portion (less than 100%) of the product may have to be 2
customers. reworked, with no scrap, on-line but in-station.
None No discernible effect. Or slight inconvenience to operation or operator, or no effect. 1

Table 3: Occurrence Evaluation Criterion

Probability Likely Failure Rates Ranking

Very high: Persistent failures ≥ 100 per thousand items 10
50 per thousand items 9
High: Frequent failures 20 per thousand items 8
10 per thousand items 7
Moderate: Occasional failures 5 per thousand items 6
2 per thousand items 5
 1 per thousand items 4
Low: Relatively few failures 0.5 per thousand items 3
0.1 per thousand items 2
Remote: Failure unlikely ≤ 0.01 per thousand items 1

Table 4: Detection Evaluation Criterion

Detection Criteria Suggestion Range of Detection Methods Ranking

Almost Absolute certainty of no detection Cannot detect or is not checked 10
impossible
Very remote Controls will probably not detect Control is achieved with indirect or random checks only 9
Remote Controls have poor chance of detection Control is achieved with visual inspection only 8
Very low Controls have poor chance of detection Control is achieved with double visual inspection only 7
Low Controls may detect. Control is achieved with charting methods, such as SPC (Statistical Process 6
Control)
Moderate Controls may detect. Control is based on variable gauging after parts have left the station, or Go/No 5
Go gauging performed on 100% of the parts after parts have left the station.
Moderately Controls have a good chance to detect. Error detection in subsequent operations, OR gauging performed on setup and 4
high first-piece check (for setup causes only)
High Controls have a good chance to detect. Error detection in-station, or error detection in subsequent operations by 3
multiple layers of acceptance: supply, select, install, verify. Cannot accept
discrepant part.
Very high Controls almost certain to detect. Error detection in-station (automatic gauging with automatic stop feature). 2
Cannot pass discrepant part.
Very high Controls certain to detect. Discrepant parts cannot be made because item has been error-proofed by 1
process/product design