Potential Failure Modes and Effects Analysis: A Business Perspective

Hatty, M.; Owens, Norm

doi:10.1080/08982119408918774

Cited by 5 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…An FMEA lists failure causes, failure modes, and failure effects. The failure cause is something going wrong that results in the failure mode, such as a part that has a fracture (Ramachandran et al, 2020), material that has been poorly handled or stored, problems with workmanship (Prashar, 2018), the wrong current setting in a welding machine (Anderson & Kovach, 2014), or a design that has insufficient spacing between two electronic components that cause a short circuit (Hatty and Owens, 1994). Potential sources of failure causes also include customer misuse of a product (Taormina, 2019).…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Management and Production Engineering Review

2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

FMEAs have been prioritized using RPN; however, a new standard has introduced AP for prioritization. This study seeks to determine if the number of required improvement actions increases, decreases, or stays the same when using AP in place of RPN. Statistical software was used to simulate 10,000 combinations of severity, occurrence, and detection. Both AP and RPN were calculated for the 10,000 combinations. Statistical hypothesis testing was performed to determine if there was a difference between RPNs when sorted by AP and to determine if there was a difference in actions required using RPN or AP. There is a statistically significant difference between RPNs when sorted by high, medium, and low AP. Using an RPN threshold equal to or greater than 100 would result in no change in the number of actions required if prioritizing by high and medium, but would result in fewer actions required if only high is used.

show abstract

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Management and Production Engineering Review

2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…While delaying the exercise until this performance could be empirically verified would remove a degree of uncertainty, it is the early, a priori nature of the FMEA assessment that makes it valuable. Hatty and Owens (1994) observe that responding to a defect is 100 times more expensive after launch than if the problem had been addressed in the product design phase. Production problems are ten times more costly after launch than if addressed during the process design phase.…”

Section: Failure Mode and Effects Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

Cost consequence of failure in failure mode and effect analysis

Guinot

Sinn

Badar

et al. 2017

IJQRM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to investigate the possibility of including the cost consequence of failure in the a priori risk assessment methodology known as failure mode and effect analysis (FMEA). Design/methodology/approach A model of the standard costs that are incurred when an electronic control module in an automotive application fails in service was developed. These costs were related to the Design FMEA ranking of the level of severity of the failure mode and the probability of its occurrence. Monte Carlo simulations were conducted to establish the average costs expected for each level of severity at each level of occurrence. The results were aggregated using fuzzy utility sets into a nine-point ordinal scale of cost consequence. The criterion validity of this scale was assessed with warranty cost data derived from a case study. Findings It was found that the model slightly underestimated the warranty costs that accrued, but the fit could be improved with adjustments dictated by actual usage conditions. Research limitations/implications Cost data used in the simulations were derived from government and academic surveys, analyses, and estimates of the manufacturing cost structure; and nominal costs for various quality issues experienced by Tier 2 automotive electronics supplier. Specificity is lacking. The sample size and the type of the failure modes used to validate the model are constrained by the number and type of products which have had demonstrable performance concerns over the past three years, with cost data available to the authors. The power of the validation is limited. The validation is considered a screening assessment. Practical implications This work relates the characterization of risk with its potential cost and develops a scaling instrument to allow the incorporation of cost consequence into an FMEA. Originality/value A ranking scale was developed that related severity and occurrence rank scores to a cost consequence rank that keys to a cost of quality figure (given as percent of sales) that would accompany a realization of the failure mode.

show abstract

Theoretische Analyse der Wirkungen von Event-Marketing

Nufer¹

2002

Wirkungen Von Event-Marketing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Potential Failure Modes and Effects Analysis: A Business Perspective

Cited by 5 publications

References 0 publications

Management and Production Engineering Review

Management and Production Engineering Review

Cost consequence of failure in failure mode and effect analysis

Theoretische Analyse der Wirkungen von Event-Marketing

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About