RPN Rating Scale

Action to be taken
Lower
Upper
1
125
Move the X to Control Plan and record existing controls for X
126
300
Take immediate action on X to reduce RPN to less than 125
301
1000
Take X for Graphical and Statistical Analysis
Note: The above cut-off values are used as a thumbrule. Should you want to use
different cut-offs, please change the above values accordingly

Process / Product
Failure Modes and Effects Analysis
(FMEA)

Process or
Product
Name:
Responsible:

Prepared by:

Page ____ of ____

R
R
P
FMEA Date (Orig) ______________ (Rev) _____________
P
N
N

(
%

L
o
a
d
)

Action Results

(
L

Recommended
Action(s)

D
e
n
s
)

What are the actions for reducing the occurrence,

or improving detection, or for identifying the root
cause if it is unknown? ( Should have actions
only for RPN between 125 and 300 and Sev <7.
However, for obvious relationships or if it is
not advisable t

Responsibility

Who is
responsible for
the
recommended
action?

Completion
Date

What is the
completion date
for the
recommended
action?

Actions Taken

List the completed actions

that are included in the
recalculated RPN.
Include the implementation
date for any changes.

S
E
V

O
C
C

D
E
T

R
P
N
Are the detection limits improved?

What are the existing controls and

procedures (inspection and test) that
either prevent failure mode from
occurring or detect the failure should it
occur? Should include an SOP
number.

D
E
T

Recomkpute RPN after actions are

complete.

How can the failure occur?

Describe in terms of something
that can be corrected or controlled.
Be specific. Try identify the causes
that directly impacts the failure
mode, i.e., root causes.

Current
Process
Controls

What is the new severity?

Potential Cause(s)/
O
Mechanism(s) of Failure (Sub C
X's)
C

What is the new process capability?

What is the effect of each failure

mode on the outputs and/or
customer requirements?
The customer could be the next
operation, subsequent operations,
another division or the end user.

S
E
V

SEV x OCC x DET

In what ways might the process

The shortlisted X's from the potentially fail to meet the
C-E Matrix
process requirements and/or
design intent?

Potential Effects
of Failure (Y or Mini-Y)

SEV x OCC x DET

Potential Failure Mode

(How the X fails?)

How well can you detect cause or

FM?

Shortlisted inputs of
the process step
mentioned in Column
A

Characteristic of Input
(KPIV / X)

How often does the cause or failure

mode occur?

The highest
value process
steps from the
C&E matrix.

Input

How Severe is the effect to the

customer?

Process
Function

Major disruption to production line.

Loss of primary function, 100% scrap

Reduced primary function performance.

Product requires sorting, some scrapping

Minor disruption of production. Some Scrap.

Loss of secondary function performance

Minor disruption to produciton. 100% Rework.

Reduced secondary function performance.

Minor defect noticed by most customers

Product requires sorting and some reworked.

Fit& Finish/Squeak & Rattle item. Minor defect

noticed by some customers.

Defects may be reworked on-line.

Minor defect noticed by observant customers.

No effect

High

Moderate

May endanger machine or operator.

Hazardous with warning

Employe

Employ

Employe

Empl

Employe
re
Employe

Minor ch

Low

10

Extreme

Rating

None

Extreme
High
Moderate
Low
None

Severity of Effect
May endanger machine or operator.
Hazardous without warning

Minor

Extreme
High
Moderate
Low
None

Severity of Effect

Rating

Will definitely lead to attrition

10

Employee may complain to superior and express

thoughts about quitting

Employee may become irregular in attendance

Employee's quality of job reduces drastically and

also hinders others' work

Employee's efficiency of operation reduces

Employee might stop co-operating on matters not

related to his performance directly
Employee more vocal with colleagues on matters
leading to negative vibes.
Minor change in behaviour observed by superior
and colleagues
Minor change in behaviour, observed at few
occasions.
Will not lead to attrition
CUSTOMIZED VERSION

5
4
3
2
1

OCCURANCE RANKING TABLE F

Criteria: Possible Number of In
Sr.N Likelihood of Occurrence Rank
(Days)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

occurs every hour

10

occurs every shift

occurs every Day

occurs every week

occurs every Bi week

occurs every month

occurs every 3 months

occurs every 6 months

occurs every year

occurs every 3 years

Note 1: Please change the sensitivity

of the scale by adjusting time unit at
various ratings e.g. converting day to

Criteria: Detection of Cause / Failure Mo

Detection

Criteria

Inspection
Types
A B
C

Almost
Absolute certainty of
Impossible non-detection

Very
Remote

Controls will probably

not detect

Remote

Controls have poor

chance of detection

Very Low

Controls have poor

chance of detection

Low

Controls may detect

Moderate

Controls may detect

Moderately Controls have a good

High
chance to detect.

High

Controls have a good

chance to detect.

Very High

Controls almost certain

to detect.

Very High

Controls certain to
detect

Inspection Types:
A. Error-proofed
B. Gauging
C. Manual Inspection

Criteria: Detection of Cause / Failure Mode

Suggested Range of Detection Methods
Cannot detect or is not checked
Control is achieved with indirect or random checks only.
Control is achieved with visual inspection only.
Control of achieved with double visual inspection only.
Control is achieved with charting methods, such as SPC (Statistical Process Control).
Control is based on variable gauging after parts have left the station, or Go/No Go
gauging performed on 100% of the parts after parts have left the station.
Error detection in subsequent operations, OR gauging performed on setup and firstpiece check (for set-up causes only).
Error detection in-station, or error detection in subsequent operations by multiple
layers of acceptance: supply, select, install, verify. Cannot accept discrepant part.
Error detection in-station (automatic gauging with automatic stop feature). Cannot
pass discrepant part.
Discrepant parts cannot be made because item has been error-proofed by process /
product design.

Ranking
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1