PFMEA Process Failure Modes and Effects Analysis

Potential Failure Modes and
Effects Analysis
(Information Sheet)
PFMEA Number:
Process Name:
Process Responsibility:
Prepared By:
Affected Product(s):
PFMEA Key Date:
PFMEA Origination Date:
PFMEA Revision Date:
Core Team Members:

Process Potential Failure S Potential O Current D R Responsible S O D R
Potential Failure Recommend Taken
Function Modes (process E Causes of C Process E P Person & E C E P
Effects (KPOVs) N Actions Actions
(Step) defects) V Failure (KPIVs) C Controls T Target Date V C T N
Part Failure during No Control after Transfer to

8 Assembly & Aging 4 circuit despatch 10 320 Design Philips
Input Wire Dry Visual Inspection Six Sigma

Project to be
register for
Solder Defects
2 8 3 9 216 ###
Suneel Singh-
Closer March
End
Elacap Dry Touch and Visual

8 3 Inspection 8 192
Input Wire Long Visual Inspection

Lead Shorting
1 Packing
person will
check for I/P
Long lead. Sudha /
8 4 5 160 2. Dixon will Pramod - 15
explore to have Feb
less strip length
at PCB side of
1 Lamp Dead Loss of Product Input wire
Track Broken ATE & Visual

8 2 Inspection 5 80
SMD Missing Non Visual Inspection

8 ATE 2 4 64
Wire Wrong Visual Inspection

8 Mounting 1 7 56
Component Missing Visual Inspection

8 Non ATE 3 2 48
DT Defective
8
Loose Wrapping
8
Solder Short ATE & Visual

8 1 Inspection 2 16
3 Flickering ###
4 High Input Power ###
Not Glowing on Min.

5 ###
Voltage
Lamp Abnormal
6 ###
Behave
Reverse of Polarity ATE inspection

component
Loss of Resource &

Circuit Assembly
1 Low Lumens Material, may be 6 1 1 6
with DT scrap
### ###
### ###
### ###
### ###
### ###
### ###
### ###
### ###
### ###
### ###
### ###
### ###
### ###
### ###
### ###
### ###
### ###
### ###
### ###
### ###
### ###
### ###
### ###
### ###
### ###
### ###
### ###
### ###
### ###
### ###
### ###
### ###
### ###
### ###
### ###
### ###
### ###
### ###
### ###
### ###
### ###
### ###
### ###
### ###
### ###
### ###
### ###
### ###
### ###
### ###
### ###
### ###
### ###
### ###
### ###
### ###
### ###
### ###
### ###
### ###
### ###
### ###
### ###
### ###
### ###
### ###
### ###
### ###
### ###
### ###
### ###
### ###
### ###
### ###
### ###
### ###
### ###
### ###
### ###
### ###
### ###
### ###
### ###
### ###
### ###
### ###
### ###
### ###
### ###
### ###
### ###
### ###
### ###
Severity of Effect
May endanger machine or operator. Hazardous without warning
Extreme
May endanger machine or operator. Hazardous with warning
Major disruption to production line. Loss of primary function, 100% scrap. Possible jig lock and
High
Major loss of Takt Time

Reduced primary function performance. Product requires repair or Major Variance.
Noticeable loss of Takt Time
Medium disruption of production. Possible scrap. Noticeable loss of takt time.
Moderate
Loss of secondary function performance. Requires repair or Minor Variance

Minor disruption to production. Product must be repaired.
Reduced secondary function performance.
Minor defect, product repaired or "Use-As-Is" disposition.
Fit & Finish item. Minor defect, may be reprocessed on-line.
Low
Minor Nonconformance, may be reprocessed on-line.

None
No effect
Rating
warning 10
warning 9
Possible jig lock and
8
Major Variance.
7
of takt time.
Variance 6
ed.
5
sition. 4
on-line. 3
ine. 2
1
Failure
Very High
Likelihood of Occurrence Rate
1 in 2
Failure is almost inevitable
1 in 3
1 in 8
High
Process is not in statistical control.

Similar processes have experienced problems. 1 in 20
1 in 80
Moderate
Process is in statistical control but with isolated failures.

Previous processes have experienced occasional 1 in 400
failures or out-of-control conditions.
1 in 2000
Process is in statistical control. 1 in 15k
Low
Process is in statistical control. Only isolated 1 in 150k

failures associated with almost identical processes.
Remote
Failure is unlikely. No known failures associated 1 in 1.5M

with almost identical processes.
Failure Capability
Rate (Cpk) Rating
1 in 2 < .33 10
1 in 3 > .33 9
1 in 8 > .51 8
1 in 20 > .67 7
1 in 80 > .83 6
1 in 400 > 1.00 5
1 in 2000 > 1.17 4
1 in 15k > 1.33 3
1 in 150k > 1.50 2
1 in 1.5M > 1.67 1

Very Low Likelihood that control will detect failure Rating
No known control(s) available to detect failure mode. 10
9
Low
Controls have a remote chance of detecting the failure.

8
7
Moderate
Controls may detect the existence of a failure 6

5
Controls have a good chance of detecting the existence 4
High
of a failure 3
Very High
The process automatically detects failure. 2

Controls will almost certainly detect the existence of
a failure. 1
Rating

PFMEA Process Failure Modes and Effects Analysis

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

PFMEA Process Failure Modes and Effects Analysis

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Potential Failure Modes and

PFMEA Key Date:

PFMEA Origination Date:

PFMEA Revision Date:

Core Team Members:

Part Failure during No Control after Transfer to

Input Wire Dry Visual Inspection Six Sigma

Elacap Dry Touch and Visual

Input Wire Long Visual Inspection

Track Broken ATE & Visual

SMD Missing Non Visual Inspection

Wire Wrong Visual Inspection

Component Missing Visual Inspection

Solder Short ATE & Visual

4 High Input Power ###

Not Glowing on Min.

Reverse of Polarity ATE inspection

Loss of Resource &

May endanger machine or operator. Hazardous with warning

Major loss of Takt Time

Loss of secondary function performance. Requires repair or Minor Variance

Minor Nonconformance, may be reprocessed on-line.

Process is not in statistical control.

Process is in statistical control but with isolated failures.

Process is in statistical control. Only isolated 1 in 150k

Failure is unlikely. No known failures associated 1 in 1.5M

1 in 150k > 1.50 2

1 in 1.5M > 1.67 1

No known control(s) available to detect failure mode. 10

Controls have a remote chance of detecting the failure.

Controls may detect the existence of a failure 6

The process automatically detects failure. 2

You might also like