 Six Sigma Consultants, 1996

Potential Failure Modes and

Effects Analysis (Information
Sheet)

FMEA Number:

Process Name:

Process Responsibility:

Prepared By:

Affected Product(s):

FMEA Key Date:

FMEA Origination Date:

FMEA Revision Date:

Core Team Members:

PFMEA Information Sheet

 FMEA

Failure Modes and Effects Analysis

(FMEA)

Process or
Prepared by: Page ____ of ____
Product Name:

Responsible: FMEA Date (Orig) ______________ (Rev) _____________

S O D R S O D R
Key Process Actions
Process Step Potential Failure Mode Potential Failure Effects E Potential Causes C Current Controls E P Resp. Actions Taken E C E P
Input Recommended
V C T N V C T N

How often does

What is the What is the Key In what ways does the Key What is the impact on the Key

How Severe is the

effect to the
What causes the Key Input to

cause or FM occur?
What are the existing controls and

How well can you

detect cause or FM?
What are the actions Whose What are the completed

cusotmer?
process step Process Input? Input go wrong? Output Variables (Customer go wrong? procedures (inspection and test) for reducing the Responsible actions taken with the
Requirements) or internal that prevent eith the cause or the occurrance of the for the recalculated RPN? Be
requirements? Failure Mode? Should include an Cause, or improving recommended sure to include
SOP number. detection? Should action? completion month/year
have actions only on
high RPN's or easy
fixes.

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

Page 2
 FMEA – Scale for Severity
Opportunity for improvement.
1 Minor
Corrective action not required

Fault isolation and corrective

2 Low
action required. Not urgent
Product, service, or process
3 Moderate operational with impaired
capability
Product, service, or process
4 Severe severely degraded. Immediate
corrective action required
Product, service, or process is
non-operational or there is a
5 Catastrophic
direct safety risk to personnel,
product or environment
FMEA Scale for Occurrence
1 Remote < 0.1%

2 Low <1.0%

3 Moderate <10%

4 Frequent >10%

5 High >15%
FMEA Scale for Detectability
1 Very High >99%
2 High 96% - 99%
3 Moderate 80% to 95%
4 Low 70% to 79%
5 Very Low Less than 70%
 Risk Rating Scale 1-10

LIKELIHOOD OF
RATING DEGREE OF SEVERITY OCCURRENCE ABILITY TO DETECT
1 Customer will not notice the Likelihood of occurrence is Sure that the potential failure
adverse effect or it is remote will be found or prevented
insignificant before reaching the next
customer
2 Customer will probably Low failure rate with supporting Almost certain that the
experience slight annoyance documentation potential failure will be found or
prevented before reaching the
next customer
3 Customer will experience Low failure rate without Low likelihood that the
annoyance due to the slight supporting documentation potential failure will reach
degradation of performance the next customer
undetected
4 Customer dissatisfaction due to Occasional failures Controls may detect or prevent
reduced performance the potential failure from
reaching the next customer

5 Customer is made
uncomfortable or their
productivity is reduced by the
continued degradation of the
effect
6 Warranty repair or significant
manufacturing or assembly
complaint
7 High degree of customer
dissatisfaction due to
component failure without
complete loss of function.
Productivity impacted by high
scrap or rework levels.
Relatively moderate failure rate Moderate likelihood that the
with supporting documentation potential failure will reach the
next customer
Moderate failure rate without Controls are unlikely to detect
supporting documentation or prevent the potential failure
from reaching the next
customer
Relatively high failure rate with Poor likelihood that the
supporting documentation potential failure will be detected
or prevented before reaching
the next customer

8 Very high degree of High failure rate without Very poor likelihood that the
dissatisfaction due to the loss supporting documentation potential failure will be detected
of function without a negative or prevented before reaching
impact on safety or the next customer
governmental regulations
9 Customer endangered due to Failure is almost certain Current controls probably
the adverse effect on safe based on warranty data or will not even detect the
system performance with significant DV testing potential failure
warning before failure or
violation of governmental
regulations

10 Customer endangered due to Assured of failure based on Absolute certainty that the
the adverse effect on safe warranty data or significant DV current controls will not detect
system performance without testing the potential failure
warning before failure or
violation of governmental
regulations

Page 6
 Control Plan

Project Description:

Current Control Plan

Cpk / Current
Process
Date Measure Control
Process Spec (LSL, %R&R or
Input Output (Sample ment Method
Step USL, P/T
Size) System (from
Target)
FMEA)
Date (Orig):

Date (Rev):

Reaction
Who Where When
Plan
 Key Process Output Variable
Capability Status Sheet

Upper Lower
Customer Requirement Measurement %R&R or P/T
Spec Target Spec Cp
(Output Variable) Technique Ratio
Limit Limit
ble

Sample
Cpk Date Actions
Size