How to Use FMEA to Reduce the Size of Your Quality Toolbox

H
Method allows adaptation to quality and environmental systems.

THERES A LOT OF TRUTH IN THE SAYING, IF THE only tool you have is a hammer, its amazing how everything looks like a nail. But there is another side to thisyou can end up with a whole lot of tools. This may not be a problem for the quality specialist, but it can become a major burden for the people in operations. They tend to have other, more pressing things to do than study new techniques all the time. Recently there has been much interest in environmental management systems (EMS) and in the link between EMS and quality management systems. The integration of both systems, very often in conjunction with safety, into one general management care system is becoming increasingly popular. As each area develops its own specific tools, quality professionals run the risk of ending up with more tools than we can handle. So why not look for a method that Figure 1. FMEA Flow allows the same techniques to be used for similar problems?

OW BIG SHOULD YOUR TOOLBOX BE?

The potential for FMEA: An analysis of quality risks

Developed in the aerospace industry and rapidly adopted by the automotive industry, failure mode effects analysis (FMEA) has proven to be a useful and powerful tool in assessing potential failures and preventing them from occurring. As very clearly explained in the FMEA manual of the QS9000 standard,1 design FMEA for studying potential failures in new or changed designs can be differentiated from process FMEA for assessing potential failures in new or changed processes. FMEA is a group-oriented, structured, and stepwise approach to quantifying the effects of possible failures, thus allowing a company to set priorities for action. Figure 1 shows the process in a schematic way, and the information in the figure is explained in more detail in the QS-9000 manual.2

Failure mode

Effect Severity: 1-10

by Willy W. Vandenbrande

Causes Occurrence: 1-10 Controls Detection: 1-10 RPN Severity Occurrence Detection 1-1,000

Expanding process FMEA to evaluate environmental risks

When introducing a new process, the classical process FMEA can easily be adapted to a study of the potential environmental risks. By

Quality Progress November 1998

97

Figure 2. Scoring Guidelines for Severity

Severity of Impact Will hardly be noticeable. Very low to negligible impact on the environment. Noncompliance with company policy. Low to very low impact on the environment. Noncompliance with legal and regulatory requirements and possible damage to the reputation of the company. Moderate damage to the environment. The health of people living in the surrounding area could be threatened. Serious damage to the reputation of the company. Serious damage to the environment. Endangers the lives of people living in the surrounding area. The further existence of the company is endangered. Very serious damage to the environment. Ranking 1-2 3-4

5-6 7-8 9-10

shall keep this information up-to-date.3 Figure 4, based on Marilyn R. Blocks Implementing ISO 14001 , 4 gives a few examples to illustrate the difference between aspect and impact. The ISO 14004 standard indicates there are positive and negative environmental impacts.5 Evaluating the negative environmental impacts means performing an analysis of the environmental risks related to an activity, a process, or a product. Evaluating the environmental impact of activities is interesting, but being able to prioritize actions to reduce negative impacts is even more important. This appears to be a problem that can be tackled with an FMEAtype approach.

using a new table for scoring severity, the environmental priority number can be calculated in the same way as the risk priority number. The scoring table (Figure 2) is specifically designed to assess the severity of the environmental impact related to a failure mode/cause combination. Occurrence and detection are scored in exactly the same way as in the FMEA process. Note that we are looking for potential failures that can have an effect on the environment, regardless of product quality. If a process FMEA is performed, this environmental extra could be included. Figure 3 gives a simple example of the method.

Potential negative environmental impacts analysis

In potential negative environmental impacts analysis (PNEIA), the first step is to evaluate the various environmental aspects and impacts of a complete plant. SADACI NV in Gent, Belgium, is a producer of ferroalloys and related products such as ferromanganese, ferromolybdenum, and molybdenum oxides. The plant was willing to test the PNEIA technique on one of its processes. The technique is illustrated using the following example. Note that the scores in the figures are for illustration purposes only and have no relation to the real situation. The severity of the impact of these aspects is scored using the severity table shown in Figure 2. Once all impacts have been determined and scored, an evaluation of individual processes can begin. In this example, two aspects, the generation of molybdenum oxide dust and the generation of sulfur dioxide gas, are observed. The PNEIA study for these aspects and one related impact on the hammer mill used to break molybdenum oxide after roasting are examined. Figure 5 shows a portion of this study and illustrates the method. All further references to column numbers relate to this figure. We start off by filling in the header of the PNEIA form. In column one, the specific element at which we are looking is

One step further: Risk analysis in EMS

The ISO 14001 standard on EMS states in section 4.3.1, Environmental Aspects: The organization shall establish and maintain (a) procedure(s) to identify the environmental aspects of its activities, products or services that it can control and over which it can be expected to have an influence, in order to determine those which have or can have significant impacts on the environment. The organization shall ensure that the aspects related to these significant impacts are considered in setting its environmental objectives. The organization

Figure 3. Process FMEAEnvironmental Risks

Process/activity/product: Gear cutting Team: Production

Responsible: Production Manager Critical Date: 01/01/98

Detection

FMEA No.1 Page 1 of 1 Prepared by: PM FMEA date 11/15/97 (Rev.) 1

Severity

Action(s) taken Special protection New hose material and preventive replacement every 2 years Production 12/97 Maintenance 12/97 OK OK

Cooling of cutting tool

Hose broken or loose

Water pollution by cooling fluid

Hose damaged by lift truck Degraded hose material

5 3

Noticed by driver and operator Preventive maintenance check (2 monthly) Preventive maintenance check (2 monthly)

2 4

60 72

6 2 2 24 6 1 4 24

Fitting comes loose

96

Better fittings; Maintenance check of fittings (12/97) and weekly in operator production maintenance (immediately)

OK

6 2 2 24

* EPN Environmental Priority No.

98

Quality Progress November 1998

Occurrence Detection *EPN

Severity

*EPN

Subprocess/ function

Failure mode

Environmental effect of the failure

Cause of failure mode

Occurrence

Present detection systems

Recommended Responsiblity action(s) and due date

Results

mentioned. In columns two and three, all Figure 4. Examples of Environmental Aspects and Impacts (Based on ISO 14001) aspects and impacts determined for the plant are listed to make sure no possible Process Product Service aspect is overlooked. In column four, the Example Manufacture of acrylonitrile Styrofoam Lawn maintenance severity score for each impact is given. If monomer coffee cup a certain aspect or impact is not present Aspect Ammonium sulfate Not degradable Application of herbicides for the element studied, a horizontal line waste produce. or recyclable and pesticides is drawn through all following columns. In column five, we note the various Impact Possible contamination of Landfill: loss of Pollution of the lawn circumstances or external conditions that soil or water after disposal available land in deep wells can be present. Generally, the following typical scenarios would be assessed: Normal operating conditions Abnormal operating conditions like start-up and shutdown possibility it has of occurring. We score from 1 to 10 in column Emergency situations seven, and Figure 7 gives a scoring proposal. For the example two conditions were evaluated: normal operAlthough the aim is to prevent problems from happening, ation and high-temperature operation related to nonoptimal detecting a situation quickly and reacting to it can reduce the functioning of the roasting furnace. This last condition is preconsequences. For every situation described in the previous sent during about 10% of total operating time. When detected, paragraph, the detection systems that are present must be action is taken. But roasting is a slow process, and it takes some determined. These are then listed in column eight. Dont fortime before normal operating conditions are restored. get that different situations can have different detection levels. During start-up there may be more personnel around, A look at contribution making the chances of detection and action higher. Note that detecting a condition even without being able to do someAt this point in the analysis we deviate from FMEA by thing about it gives a high score for detection. Once again, we introducing a new factorthe contribution. The aim is to estiscore from 1 to 10 in column nine, following the guidelines mate to what extent the element contributes to the overall in Figure 8. impact. In other words, if only this element were in operation, For each impact and all possible conditions, an environment would this influence the severity score for the environmental priority number (EPN) under severity, contribution, occurrence, impact? In the worst-case scenario, the element would have the and detection can be calculated (see column 10). The resulting same impact as the overall plant. Contribution is scored figures can be used as such but could also be combined, for between 0.1 and 1.0 according to the guidelines in Figure 6. In instance to evaluate the overall impact of a specific condition this way, the plant severity score is reduced to a severity score and to compare the impact of various elements. for the function. Based on EPN, corrective action plans can be developed and In addition to scoring contribution, the likelihood that the the EPN can be reevaluated after introduction of the corrective external condition will occur is now scored. This score is related action. This is documented in columns 11, 12, and 13. In the to the amount of time that the condition itself is present or the

Figure 5. PNEIA Form: Environmental FMEA

Process/activity/product: Roasting Team: Sadaci

Responsible: WV Critical Date: 11/15/97

3 4
Severity

PNEIA No.1 Page 1 of 1 Prepared by: WV PNEIA date 10/13/97 (Rev.) 1

5 Condition/ situation Normal operation

6
Controls

7
Occurrence

8 Present detection/ intervention systems

9
Detection

10
*EPN

11 Recommended action(s)

12 Responsibility and due date

13 Results Action(s) taken

Occurrence Detection *EPN Severity

Subprocess/ Environmental Environmental function aspect impact Hammer mill Generation of molybdenum oxide dust Soil contamination

0.5

10

10

300

Elevated temperature

Regular furnace temperature check by the operators

336

Generation of sulfur dioxide gas

Bad smell

Normal operation

0.1

10

10

30

Elevated temperature
* EPN Environmental Priority No.

Regular furnace temperature check by the operators

168

Quality Progress November 1998

99

simple example shown in Figure 5, the following conclusions could be drawn: The generation of dust is a serious problem, even in normal operation. The elevated temperature condition has a very negative influence on environmental impact. These conclusions can lead to appropriate action to lower EPN values, such as looking for methods to avoid or reduce the elevated temperature condition.

Figure 6. Scoring Guidelines for Contribution

Contribution to Impact Remote. The contribution to the impact is hardly noticeable. Low. There is a slight contribution to the overall impact. Moderate. The element has a reasonable contribution to the total impact. High. The impact of the element on the environment is almost as high as the total impact of the plant. Very high. The impact of the element is as high as that of the plant. Ranking 0.1-0.2 0.3-0.4 0.5-0.6 0.7-0.8 0.9-1.0

PNEIA can be updated

A PNEIA document is a living document that can be updated when changes are introduced in a system. It is also a good source of information for future developments on similar systems. By slightly adapting the FMEA method and the scoring guidelines, the tool can be expanded to environmental risk analysis. In this way a factory uses the same principles for handling various problems without reducing the quality of the analysis. It is a simple method to quantify the potential risks and find out objectively what the most critical environmental aspects and impacts of various processes are. It can help readers of this article prioritize actions to be taken to reduce the negative environmental impacts of their companies.

Figure 7. Scoring Guidelines for Occurrence of Condition

Occurrence of Condition Remote. Highly unlikely condition will ever occur Low. The condition occurs in isolated cases, but chances are low. Moderate. The condition has a reasonable chance to occur (could be startup and shutdown). High. The condition occurs very regularly and/or during a reasonable amount of time. Very high. The condition will inevitably occur during long periods (typical for normal operating conditions). Estimated Chance less than 1 in 1,000,000 1 in 20,000 to 1 in 2,000 1 in 80 to 1 in 2,000 1 in 8 to 1 in 80 1 in 2 Ranking 1-2 3-4 5-6

7-8 9-10

Acknowledgment
The author thanks SADACI NV for its cooperation during the writing of this article.

Figure 8. Scoring Guidelines for Detection

Detection of Aspect The current controls will almost certainly immediately detect the aspect, and reaction can be instantaneous. Ranking 1-2 3-4 5-6 7-8 9-10

References

1. Potential Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (FMEA) Reference Manual , second edition Chances are high that the aspect will be detected shortly after occurrence, (Chrysler Corporation, Ford Motor Company, and a quick reaction is possible. General Motors Company, 1995). 2. Ibid. There is a moderate chance the aspect will be detected in a reasonable 3. International Standard, ISO 14001, time frame, and/or it will take some time to react. Environmental Management Systems It is unlikely the aspect will be detected, or it will take a fairly long time Specification with Guidance for Use (Geneva, before action can be taken and results are seen. Switzerland: International Organization for The aspect will not be detected in any reasonable time frame, or there Standardization, 1996). is no reaction possible (normal operating conditions). 4. Marilyn R. Block, Implementing ISO 14001 (Milwaukee, WI: ASQ Quality Press, 1997). 5. International Standard, ISO 14004, Environmental Management SystemsGeneral Guidelines on Principles, Systems and Supporting Techniques (Geneva, Switzerland: International Organization for Standardization, What did you think about this article? 1996). Quality Progress needs your Excellent feedback. On the postage-paid Willy W. Vandenbrande is a consultant in quality management and reader service card inserted Good president of Quality Solutions Consult, Brugge, Belgium. He earned a toward the back of this magamasters degree in total quality management from the University of Fair zine, please circle the number Limburg in Belgium. He is a member of the American Society for that corresponds with your Poor Quality. opinion of the preceding article.

Circle #373 Circle #374 Circle #375 Circle #376

100

Quality Progress November 1998