Potential Page 1 of 54

Failure Mode and Effects Analysis

http://www.qimacros.com/lean-six-sigma-articles/fmea/ (Design FMEA) AIAG Fourth Edition http://www.aiag.org/ SAE J1739
System: Name/number of system FMEA Number Insert FMEA#
Subsystem Name/number of subsystem Design Page 1 of 1
Component Name/number of component Responsibility: Name Prepared by: who
Model: model years/programs Key Date: 7/15/2008 FMEA Date: 7/15/2008
Core Team: Team members
Item/Function Action Results

Occurrence

Occurrence
Detection
Potential

Severity

Severity
Current Design Current Design R. Responsibility &

Class
Potential Effect(s) Cause(s) / Recommended Actions Taken &
Potential Failure Mode Controls Controls P. Target
of Failure Mechanism(s) of N. Action(s) Completion Date
Prevention Detection Completion Date
Failure
Requirements
Name, Part Manner in which part could Consequences on List every List prevention List detection Design actions to Name of Actions and
Number, or fail: cracked, loosened, other systems, potential cause activities to activities to reduce severity, organization or actual completion
Class deformed, leaking, oxidized, parts, or people: and/or failure assure design assure design occurrence and individual and date
etc. noise, unstable, mechanism: adequacy and adequacy and detection ratings. target completion
Function inoperative, incorrect material, prevent or prevent or Severity of 9 or date
impaired, etc. improper reduce reduce 10 requires
maintenance, occurrence. occurrence. special attention.
fatigue, wear, etc.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Severity of Effect: Occurrence Rating Detection: Stakeholder Effects of Failure Severity
No Effect 1. None 1. Very low <.01/1000 1. Almost Certain Consumer Owner Safety Problem 10
2. Very Minor 2. Low - 1/1000000 2. Very High (e.g., buyer) Major Owner Dissatisfaction 8
Annoyance 3. Minor 3. Low - 1/100000 3. High Moderate Owner Dissatisfaction 6
4. Very Low 4. Moderate - 1/10000 4. Moderate High Minor Owner Dissatisfaction 4
Loss or degradation 5. Low 5. Moderate - 1/2000 5. Moderate Customer Plant Safety Problem 10
of secondary function 6. Moderate 6. Moderate - 1/500 6. Low (Manufacturer) Possible Recal 9
Loss or degradation 7. High 7. High - 1/100 7. Very Low Line Stoppage 8
of primary function 8. Very High 8. High - 1/50 8. Remote Warranty Costs 7
Failure to meet 9. Hazardous with warning 9. Very High 1/20 9. Very Remote AIAG PPAP 4th Scrap 7
safety/regulations 10. Hazardous w/o warning 10. Very High >1/10 10. Almost Impossible Regulatory Penalty 7
Moderate Rework (<25%) 5
Plant Dissatisfaction 4
Minor Rework (<10%) 3
 Page 2 of 54

SAE J1739

Action Results

Detection
R.
P.
N.

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Severity
 Potential Page 3 of 54
Failure Mode and Effects Analysis
http://www.qimacros.com/lean-six-sigma-articles/fmea/ (Design FMEA) AIAG Fourth Edition
System: Name/number of system FMEA Number
Subsystem Name/number of subsystem Design Page
Component Name/number of component Responsibility: Name Prepared by:
Model: model years/programs Key Date: 7/15/2008 FMEA Date:
Core Team: Team members
Item/Part

Occurrence

Detection
Potential

Severity
Current Design Current Design R. Responsibility &

Class
Potential Effect(s) Cause(s) / Recommended
Requirements Potential Failure Mode Controls Controls P. Target
of Failure Mechanism(s) of N. Action(s)
Prevention Detection Completion Date
Failure
Function
Name, Part Requirements Manner in which part could Consequences on List every List prevention List detection Design actions to Name of
Number, or of function fail: cracked, loosened, other systems, potential cause activities to activities to reduce severity, organization or
Class being analyzed deformed, leaking, oxidized, parts, or people: and/or failure assure design assure design occurrence and individual and
etc. noise, unstable, mechanism: adequacy and adequacy and detection ratings. target completion
Function inoperative, incorrect material, prevent or prevent or Severity of 9 or date
impaired, etc. improper reduce reduce 10 requires
maintenance, occurrence. occurrence. special attention.
fatigue, wear, etc.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Severity of Effect: Occurrence Rating Detection: Stakeholder Effects of Failure
No Effect 1. None 1. Very low <.01/1000 1. Almost Certain Consumer Owner Safety Problem
2. Very Minor 2. Low - 1/1000000 2. Very High (e.g., buyer) Major Owner Dissatisfaction
Annoyance 3. Minor 3. Low - 1/100000 3. High Moderate Owner Dissatisfaction
4. Very Low 4. Moderate - 1/10000 4. Moderate High Minor Owner Dissatisfaction
Loss or degradation 5. Low 5. Moderate - 1/2000 5. Moderate Customer Plant Safety Problem
of secondary function 6. Moderate 6. Moderate - 1/500 6. Low (Manufacturer) Possible recall
Loss or degradation 7. High 7. High - 1/100 7. Very Low Line Stoppage
of primary function 8. Very High 8. High - 1/50 8. Remote Warranty Costs
Failure to meet 9. Hazardous with warning 9. Very High 1/20 9. Very Remote AIAG PPAP 4th Scrap
safety/regulations 10. Hazardous w/o warning 10. Very High >1/10 10. Almost Impossible Regulatory Penalty
Moderate Rework (<25%)
Plant Dissatisfaction
Minor Rework (<10%)
 Page 4 of 54

http://www.aiag.org/
Insert FMEA#
1 of 1
who
7/15/2008

Action Results

Occurrence
Detection
Severity
R.
Actions Taken &
P.
Completion Date N.

Actions and
actual completion
date

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Severity
Owner Safety Problem 10
Major Owner Dissatisfaction 8
Moderate Owner Dissatisfaction 6
Minor Owner Dissatisfaction 4
Plant Safety Problem 10
9
8
7
7
Regulatory Penalty 7
Moderate Rework (<25%) 5
Plant Dissatisfaction 4
Minor Rework (<10%) 3
 Potential Page 5 of 54
Failure Mode and Effects Analysis
http://www.qimacros.com/lean-six-sigma-articles/fmea/ (Design FMEA) AIAG Fourth Edition http://www.aiag.org/
System: Name/number of system FMEA Number Insert FMEA#
Subsystem Name/number of subsystem Design Page 1 of 1
Component Name/number of component Responsibility: Name Prepared by: who
Model: model years/programs Key Date: 7/15/2008 FMEA Date: 7/15/2008
Core Team: Team members
Item/Function Action Results

Occurrence

Occurrence
Detection
Potential

Severity

Severity
Current Design Current Design R. Responsibility &

Class
Potential Effect(s) Cause(s) / Recommended Actions Taken &
Potential Failure Mode Controls Controls P. Target
of Failure Mechanism(s) of N. Action(s) Completion Date
Prevention Detection Completion Date
Failure
Requirements
Name, Part Manner in which part could Consequences on List every List prevention List detection Design actions to Name of Actions and
Number, or fail: cracked, loosened, other systems, potential cause activities to activities to reduce severity, organization or actual completion
Class deformed, leaking, oxidized, parts, or people: and/or failure assure design assure design occurrence and individual and date
etc. noise, unstable, mechanism: adequacy and adequacy and detection ratings. target completion
Function inoperative, incorrect material, prevent or prevent or Severity of 9 or date
impaired, etc. improper reduce reduce 10 requires
maintenance, occurrence. occurrence. special attention.
fatigue, wear, etc.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Severity of Effect: Occurrence Rating Detection: Stakeholder Effects of Failure Severity
No Effect 1. None 1. Very low <.01/1000 1. Almost Certain Consumer Owner Safety Problem 10
2. Very Minor 2. Low - 1/1000000 2. Very High (e.g., buyer) Major Owner Dissatisfaction 8
Annoyance 3. Minor 3. Low - 1/100000 3. High Moderate Owner Dissatisfaction 6
4. Very Low 4. Moderate - 1/10000 4. Moderate High Minor Owner Dissatisfaction 4
Loss or degradation 5. Low 5. Moderate - 1/2000 5. Moderate Customer Plant Safety Problem 10
of secondary function 6. Moderate 6. Moderate - 1/500 6. Low (Manufacturer) Possible Recall 9
Loss or degradation 7. High 7. High - 1/100 7. Very Low Line Stoppage 8
of primary function 8. Very High 8. High - 1/50 8. Remote Warranty Costs 7
Failure to meet 9. Hazardous with warning 9. Very High 1/20 9. Very Remote AIAG PPAP 4th Scrap 7
safety/regulations 10. Hazardous w/o warning 10. Very High >1/10 10. Almost Impossible Regulatory Penalty 7
Moderate Rework (<25%) 5
Plant Dissatisfaction 4
Minor Rework (<10%) 3
 Page 6 of 54

Action Results

Detection
R.
P.
N.

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Severity
 Potential Page 7 of 54
Failure Mode and Effects Analysis
http://www.qimacros.com/lean-six-sigma-articles/fmea/ (Design FMEA) AIAG Fourth Edition http://www.aiag.org/
System: Name/number of system FMEA Number Insert FMEA#
Subsystem Name/number of subsystem Design Page 1
Component Name/number of component Responsibility: Name Prepared by: Name/contact info
Model Years: model years/programs Key Date: 7/15/2008 7/15/08 Rev FMEA Date: 7/15/2008
Core Team: Team members
Item/Part Current Design Action Results

Occurrence

Detection
Potential

Severity
Potential Current Design Current Design R. Responsibility &

Class
Potential Failure Cause(s) / Recommended Actions Taken &
Requirements Effect(s) of Controls Controls P. Target
Mode Mechanism(s) of N. Action(s) Completion Date
Failure Prevention Detection Completion Date
Failure
Function
Name, Part Requirements of Manner in which Effects of failure List every List prevention List detection Design actions to Name of Actions and
Number, or function being system/subsystem as perceived by potential cause activities to activities to reduce severity, organization or actual completion
Class analyzed /component could customers. and/or failure assure design assure design occurrence and individual and date
fail: cracked, Consequences mechanism: adequacy and adequacy and detection ratings. target completion
Function loosened, on other incorrect material, prevent or prevent or Severity of 9 or date
deformed, leaking, systems, parts, improper reduce reduce 10 requires
oxidized, etc. or people: noise, maintenance, occurrence. occurrence. special attention.
inoperative, fatigue, wear, etc.
impaired, etc.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Severity of Effect: Occurrence Rating Detection: Stakeholder Effects of Failure
No Effect 1. None 1. Very low <.01/1000 1. Almost Certain Consumer Owner Safety Problem
2. Very Minor 2. Low - 1/1000000 2. Very High (e.g., buyer) Major Owner Dissatisfaction
Annoyance 3. Minor 3. Low - 1/100000 3. High Moderate Owner Dissatisfaction
4. Very Low 4. Moderate - 1/10000 4. Moderate High Minor Owner Dissatisfaction
Loss or degradation 5. Low 5. Moderate - 1/2000 5. Moderate Customer Plant Safety Problem
of secondary function6. Moderate 6. Moderate - 1/500 6. Low (Manufacturer) Possible Recall
Loss or degradation 7. High 7. High - 1/100 7. Very Low Line Stoppage
of primary function 8. Very High 8. High - 1/50 8. Remote Warranty Costs
Failure to meet 9. Hazardous with warning 9. Very High 1/20 9. Very Remote AIAG PPAP 4th Scrap
safety/regulations 10. Hazardous w/o warning 10. Very High >1/10 10. Almost Impossible Regulatory Penalty
Moderate Rework (<25%)
Plant Dissatisfaction
 Page 8 of 54

Potential
Failure Mode and Effects Analysis
http://www.qimacros.com/lean-six-sigma-articles/fmea/ (Design FMEA) AIAG Fourth Edition http://www.aiag.org/
System: Name/number of system FMEA Number Insert FMEA#
Subsystem Name/number of subsystem Design Page 1
Component Name/number of component Responsibility: Name Prepared by: Name/contact info
Model Years: model years/programs Key Date: 7/15/2008 7/15/08 Rev FMEA Date: 7/15/2008
Core Team: Team members
Item/Part Current Design Action Results

Occurrence

Detection
Potential
Severity

Potential Current Design Current Design R. Responsibility &

Class

Potential Failure Cause(s) / Recommended Actions Taken &

Requirements Effect(s) of Controls Controls P. Target
Mode Mechanism(s) of N. Action(s) Completion Date
Failure Prevention Detection Completion Date
Failure
Function
Minor Rework (<10%)
 Page 9 of 54

http://www.aiag.org/

of 1
Name/contact info

Action Results

Occurrence
Detection
Severity
R.
P.
N.

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Severity
10
8
6
4
10
9
8
7
7
7
5
4
 Page 10 of 54

http://www.aiag.org/

of 1
Name/contact info

Action Results

Occurrence
Detection
Severity
R.
P.
N.

3
 Potential Page 11 of 54
Failure Mode and Effects Analysis
http://www.qimacros.com/lean-six-sigma-articles/fmea/ (Design FMEA) AIAG Fourth Edition
System: Name/number of system FMEA Number
Subsystem Name/number of subsystem Design Page
Component Name/number of component Responsibility: Name Prepared by:
Model Years: model years/programs Key Date: 7/15/2008 7/15/08 Rev FMEA Date:
Core Team: Team members
Current Detection
Item/Part Design Controls

Occurrence

Detection
Potential

Severity
Potential Current Design R. Responsibility &

Class
Potential Failure Cause(s) / Recommended
Requirements Effect(s) of Controls Cause Failure Mode P. Target
Mode Mechanism(s) of N. Action(s)
Failure Prevention Completion Date
Failure
Function
Name, Part Requirements of Manner in which Effects of failure List every List prevention List Causes List detection Design actions to Name of
Number, or function being system/subsystem as perceived by potential cause activities to activities to reduce severity, organization or
Class analyzed /component could customers. and/or failure assure design assure design occurrence and individual and
fail: cracked, Consequences mechanism: adequacy and adequacy and detection ratings. target completion
Function loosened, on other incorrect material, prevent or prevent or Severity of 9 or date
deformed, leaking, systems, parts, improper reduce reduce 10 requires
oxidized, etc. or people: noise, maintenance, occurrence. occurrence. special attention.
inoperative, fatigue, wear, etc.
impaired, etc.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Severity of Effect: Occurrence Rating Detection: Stakeholder Effects of Failure
No Effect 1. None 1. Very low <.01/1000 1. Almost Certain Consumer Owner Safety Problem
2. Very Minor 2. Low - 1/1000000 2. Very High (e.g., buyer) Major Owner Dissatisfaction
Annoyance 3. Minor 3. Low - 1/100000 3. High Moderate Owner Dissatisfaction
4. Very Low 4. Moderate - 1/10000 4. Moderate High Minor Owner Dissatisfaction
Loss or degradation 5. Low 5. Moderate - 1/2000 5. Moderate Customer Plant Safety Problem
of secondary function6. Moderate 6. Moderate - 1/500 6. Low (Manufacturer) Possible Recall
Loss or degradation 7. High 7. High - 1/100 7. Very Low Line Stoppage
of primary function 8. Very High 8. High - 1/50 8. Remote Warranty Costs
Failure to meet 9. Hazardous with warning 9. Very High 1/20 9. Very Remote AIAG PPAP 4th Scrap
safety/regulations 10. Hazardous w/o warning 10. Very High >1/10 10. Almost Impossible Regulatory Penalty
Moderate Rework (<25%)
 Page 12 of 54

Potential
Failure Mode and Effects Analysis
http://www.qimacros.com/lean-six-sigma-articles/fmea/ (Design FMEA) AIAG Fourth Edition
System: Name/number of system FMEA Number
Subsystem Name/number of subsystem Design Page
Component Name/number of component Responsibility: Name Prepared by:
Model Years: model years/programs Key Date: 7/15/2008 7/15/08 Rev FMEA Date:
Core Team: Team members
Current Detection
Item/Part Design Controls

Occurrence

Detection
Potential
Severity

Potential Current Design R. Responsibility &

Class
Potential Failure Cause(s) / Recommended
Requirements Effect(s) of Controls Cause Failure Mode P. Target
Mode Mechanism(s) of N. Action(s)
Failure Prevention Completion Date
Failure
Function
Plant Dissatisfaction
Minor Rework (<10%)
 Page 13 of 54

http://www.aiag.org/
Insert FMEA#
1 of 1
Name/contact info
7/15/2008

Action Results

Occurrence
Detection
Severity
R.
Actions Taken &
P.
Completion Date N.

Actions and
actual completion
date

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Severity
Owner Safety Problem 10
Major Owner Dissatisfaction 8
Moderate Owner Dissatisfaction 6
Minor Owner Dissatisfaction 4
Plant Safety Problem 10
9
8
7
7
Regulatory Penalty 7
Moderate Rework (<25%) 5
 Page 14 of 54

http://www.aiag.org/
Insert FMEA#
1 of 1
Name/contact info
7/15/2008

Action Results

Occurrence
Detection
Severity
R.
Actions Taken &
P.
Completion Date N.

Plant Dissatisfaction 4
Minor Rework (<10%) 3
 Potential Page 15 of 54
Failure Mode and Effects Analysis
http://www.qimacros.com/lean-six-sigma-articles/fmea/ (Design FMEA) AIAG Fourth Edition
System: Name/number of system
Subsystem Name/number of subsystem Design
Component Name/number of component Responsibility: Name
Model: model years/programs Key Date: 7/15/2008
Core Team: Team members
Item/Part

Occurrence

Detection
Potential Responsibility

Severity
Current Design Current Design R.

Class
Potential Effect(s) Cause(s) / Recommended & Target
Requirements Potential Failure Mode Controls Controls P.
of Failure Mechanism(s) of N. Action(s) Completion
Prevention Detection
Failure Date
Function
Name, Part Requirements Manner in which part could Consequences on List every List prevention List detection Design actions to Name of
Number, or of function fail: cracked, loosened, other systems, potential cause activities to activities to reduce severity, organization
Class being analyzed deformed, leaking, oxidized, parts, or people: and/or failure assure design assure design occurrence and or individual
etc. noise, unstable, mechanism: adequacy and adequacy and detection ratings. and target
Function inoperative, incorrect material, prevent or prevent or Severity of 9 or completion
impaired, etc. improper reduce reduce 10 requires date
maintenance, occurrence. occurrence. special attention.
fatigue, wear, etc.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Severity of Effect: Occurrence Rating Detection: Stakeholder Effects of Failure
No Effect 1. None 1. Very low <.01/1000 1. Almost Certain Consumer Owner Safety Problem
2. Very Minor 2. Low - 1/1000000 2. Very High (e.g., buyer) Major Owner Dissatisfaction
Annoyance 3. Minor 3. Low - 1/100000 3. High Moderate Owner Dissatisfaction
4. Very Low 4. Moderate - 1/10000 4. Moderate High Minor Owner Dissatisfaction
Loss or degradation 5. Low 5. Moderate - 1/2000 5. Moderate Customer Plant Safety Problem
of secondary function 6. Moderate 6. Moderate - 1/500 6. Low (Manufacturer) Possible Recall
Loss or degradation 7. High 7. High - 1/100 7. Very Low Line Stoppage
of primary function 8. Very High 8. High - 1/50 8. Remote Warranty Costs
Failure to meet 9. Hazardous with warning 9. Very High 1/20 9. Very Remote AIAG PPAP 4th Scrap
safety/regulations 10. Hazardous w/o warning 10. Very High >1/10 10. Almost Impossible Regulatory Penalty
Moderate Rework (<25%)
Plant Dissatisfaction
Minor Rework (<10%)
 Page 16 of 54

http://www.aiag.org/
FMEA Number Insert FMEA#
Page 1 of 1
Prepared by: Name/contact info
FMEA Date: 7/15/2008

Action Results

Occurrence
Detection
Severity
R.
Effective
Actions Taken P.
Date N.

Actions Effective
date

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Effects of Failure Severity
Owner Safety Problem 10
Major Owner Dissatisfaction 8
Moderate Owner Dissatisfaction 6
Minor Owner Dissatisfaction 4
Plant Safety Problem 10
9
8
Warranty Costs 7
7
Regulatory Penalty 7
Moderate Rework (<25%) 5
Plant Dissatisfaction 4
Minor Rework (<10%) 3
 A-1 DESIGN FMEA CHECKLIST
Customer or Internal Part No. Revision Level

Question Yes No N/A Comment / Action Required

Was the DFMEA prepared using the Chrysler, Ford,

and General Motors Potential Failure Mode and
Effects Analysis (FMEA) reference manual, and
1 applicable customer specific requirements?
Have historical campaign and warranty data been
2 reviewed?
Have best practices and lessons learned from similar
3 part DFMEAs been considered?

4 Does the DFMEA identify Special Characteristics?

Have pass-through characteristics (glossary) been
identified and reviewed with affected suppliers for
FMEA alignment and appropriate controls in the
5 supply base?

Have special characteristics designated by the

customer or organization been reviewed with affected
6 suppliers to assure FMEA alignment?
Have design characteristics that affect high risk
7 priority failure modes been identified?
Have appropriate corrective actions been assigned to
8 high risk priority numbers?
Have appropriate corrective actions been assigned to
9 high severity numbers?

Have risk priorities been revised when corrective

10 actions have been completed and verified?

Revision Date

Prepared by:
 Person
Due Date
Responsible
Instructions
While there were originally only two forms of FMEA--design and process,
AIAG 4th has many versions of both form and SAE J1739 adds FMEAs for Machinery

1. Pick the right form (design or process) and type (A-H, simplest to most detailed).
2. For each part or process, work through each column of the form to identify failure modes and effects.

Design FMEAs
DFMEA Checklist
A. Basic Form with minimal information (SAE J1739)
B. Adds Requirements column
C. Form A with Prevention controls to left of Occurrence column
D. Form B with Prevention controls to left of Occurrence column
E. Form D with separate columns for cause/failure mode in Detection Design Controls
F. Form B with separate columns for Responsibility, Target Completion Date, Actions Taken and Completion date

Process FMEAs
PFMEA Checklist
A. Basic Form with minimal information (SAE J1739)
B. Adds Requirements column
C. Form A with Prevention controls to left of Occurrence column
D. Form B with Prevention controls to left of Occurrence column
E. Form D with separate columns for cause/failure mode in Detection Design Controls
F. Form B with separate columns for Responsibility, Target Completion Date, Actions Taken and Completion dat
G. Form B with ID, Product and Process within a bridged Requirements Column
H. Form D and G combined.

Machinery FMEAs (SAE J1739 Aug 2002)

A. Basic Form - Two columns for machinery and design controls
B. Basic Form - One columns for combined machinery and design controls
© 2010 KnowWare International Inc
2253 S Oneida St Ste 3D
Denver, CO 80224

The copyright for this template is owned by KnowWare International Inc.

Licensed users:
May update this file
May copy this file
May share completed files with co-workers, suppliers and customers

Unlicensed users:
May receive and review completed templates created by licensed users
May NOT use this template to perform their own analysis without a license

To purchase a license:
http://www.qimacros.com/store
Email orders@qimacros.com
Call 888 468 1537
Fax a PO to 888 468 1536
 A-7 PROCESS FMEA CHECKLIST
Customer or Internal Part No. Revision Level

Question Yes No N/A Comment / Action Required

Was the Process FMEA prepared by a cross

functional team? Has the team taken into
account all customer specific requirements,
including FMEA methodologies as shown in the
1 current edition of FMEA?
Have all operations including subcontracted or
2 outsourced processes and services been
2 considered?
Have all operations affecting customer
requirements including fit, function, durability,
governmental regulations and safety been
3 identified and listed sequentially?

4 Were similar part/process FMEAs considered?

Have historical campaign and warranty data
5 been reviewed and used in the analysis?

Have you applied the appropriate controls to

address all of the identified failure modes? -—
Were severity, detection and occurrence
revised when corrective action was completed?
Do the effects consider the customer in terms
6 of the subsequent operation, assembly, and

Were severity, detection and occurrence

7 revised when corrective action was completed?
Do the effects consider the customer in terms
of the subsequent operation, assembly, and
8 product?
Were customer plant problems used as an aid
9 in developing the PFMEA?
 Have the causes been described in terms of
10 something that can be corrected or controlled?
Have provisions been made to control the
cause 11 of the failure mode prior to
11 subsequent or the next operation?

Revision Date

Prepared by:
 Person
Due Date
Responsible
 Potential Page 25 of 54
Failure Mode and Effects Analysis
http://www.qimacros.com/lean-six-sigma-articles/fmea/ (Process FMEA) AIAG Fourth Edition http://www.aiag.org/ SAE J1739
FMEA Number Insert FMEA#
Process Page 1 of 1
Item Name/number of item Responsibility: Name Prepared by: who
Model Years: model years/programs Key Date: 7/15/2008 FMEA Date: 7/15/2008
Core Team: Team members
Process Step Action Results

Occurrence

Occurrence
Detection
Potential

Severity

Severity
Current Process Current Process R. Responsibility &

Class
Potential Effect(s) Cause(s) / Recommended Actions Taken &
Potential Failure Mode Controls Controls P. Target
of Failure Mechanism(s) of N. Action(s) Completion Date
Prevention Detection Completion Date
Failure
Requirements
Name, Part Manner in which part could Consequences on List every List prevention List detection Design actions to Name of Actions and
Number, or fail: cracked, loosened, other systems, potential cause activities to activities to reduce severity, organization or actual completion
Class deformed, leaking, oxidized, parts, or people: and/or failure assure process assure process occurrence and individual and date
etc. noise, unstable, mechanism: adequacy and adequacy and detection ratings. target completion
Function inoperative, incorrect material, prevent or prevent or Severity of 9 or date
impaired, etc. improper reduce reduce 10 requires
maintenance, occurrence. occurrence. special attention.
fatigue, wear, etc.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Severity of Effect: Occurrence Rating Detection: Stakeholder Effects of Failure Severity
No Effect 1. None 1. Very low <.01/1000 1. Almost Certain Consumer Owner Safety Problem 10
2. Very Minor 2. Low - 1/1000000 2. Very High (e.g., buyer) Major Owner Dissatisfaction 8
Annoyance 3. Minor 3. Low - 1/100000 3. High Moderate Owner Dissatisfaction 6
4. Very Low 4. Moderate - 1/10000 4. Moderate High Minor Owner Dissatisfaction 4
Loss or degradation 5. Low 5. Moderate - 1/2000 5. Moderate Customer Plant Safety Problem 10
of secondary function 6. Moderate 6. Moderate - 1/500 6. Low (Manufacturer) Possible Recall 9
Loss or degradation 7. High 7. High - 1/100 7. Very Low Line Stoppage 8
of primary function 8. Very High 8. High - 1/50 8. Remote Warranty Costs 7
Failure to meet 9. Hazardous with warning 9. Very High 1/20 9. Very Remote AIAG PPAP 4th Scrap 7
safety/regulations 10. Hazardous w/o warning 10. Very High >1/10 10. Almost Impossible Regulatory Penalty 7
Moderate Rework (<25%) 5
Plant Dissatisfaction 4
Minor Rework (<10%) 3
 Page 26 of 54

SAE J1739

Action Results

Detection
R.
P.
N.

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Severity
 Potential Page 27 of 54
Failure Mode and Effects Analysis
http://www.qimacros.com/lean-six-sigma-articles/fmea/ (Process FMEA) AIAG Fourth Edition
FMEA Number
Process Page
Item Name/number of item Responsibility: Name Prepared by:
Model Years: model years/programs Key Date: 7/15/2008 FMEA Date:
Core Team: Team members
Process Step

Occurrence

Detection
Potential

Severity
Current Process Current Process R. Responsibility &

Class
Potential Effect(s) Cause(s) / Recommended
Requirements Potential Failure Mode Controls Controls P. Target
of Failure Mechanism(s) of N. Action(s)
Prevention Detection Completion Date
Failure
Function
Name, Part Requirements Manner in which part could Consequences on List every List prevention List detection Design actions to Name of
Number, or of function fail: cracked, loosened, other systems, potential cause activities to activities to reduce severity, organization or
Class being analyzed deformed, leaking, oxidized, parts, or people: and/or failure assure process assure process occurrence and individual and
etc. noise, unstable, mechanism: adequacy and adequacy and detection ratings. target completion
Function inoperative, incorrect material, prevent or prevent or Severity of 9 or date
impaired, etc. improper reduce reduce 10 requires
maintenance, occurrence. occurrence. special attention.
fatigue, wear, etc.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Severity of Effect: Occurrence Rating Detection: Stakeholder Effects of Failure
No Effect 1. None 1. Very low <.01/1000 1. Almost Certain Consumer Owner Safety Problem
2. Very Minor 2. Low - 1/1000000 2. Very High (e.g., buyer) Major Owner Dissatisfaction
Annoyance 3. Minor 3. Low - 1/100000 3. High Moderate Owner Dissatisfaction
4. Very Low 4. Moderate - 1/10000 4. Moderate High Minor Owner Dissatisfaction
Loss or degradation 5. Low 5. Moderate - 1/2000 5. Moderate Customer Plant Safety Problem
of secondary function 6. Moderate 6. Moderate - 1/500 6. Low (Manufacturer) Possible Recall
Loss or degradation 7. High 7. High - 1/100 7. Very Low Line Stoppage
of primary function 8. Very High 8. High - 1/50 8. Remote Warranty Costs
Failure to meet 9. Hazardous with warning 9. Very High 1/20 9. Very Remote AIAG PPAP 4th Scrap
safety/regulations 10. Hazardous w/o warning 10. Very High >1/10 10. Almost Impossible Regulatory Penalty
Moderate Rework (<25%)
Plant Dissatisfaction
Minor Rework (<10%)
 Page 28 of 54

http://www.aiag.org/
Insert FMEA#
1 of 1
who
7/15/2008

Action Results

Occurrence
Detection
Severity
R.
Actions Taken &
P.
Completion Date N.

Actions and
actual completion
date

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Severity
Owner Safety Problem 10
Major Owner Dissatisfaction 8
Moderate Owner Dissatisfaction 6
Minor Owner Dissatisfaction 4
Plant Safety Problem 10
9
8
7
7
Regulatory Penalty 7
Moderate Rework (<25%) 5
Plant Dissatisfaction 4
Minor Rework (<10%) 3
 Potential Page 29 of 54
Failure Mode and Effects Analysis
http://www.qimacros.com/lean-six-sigma-articles/fmea/ (Process FMEA) AIAG Fourth Edition http://www.aiag.org/
FMEA Number Insert FMEA#
Process Page 1 of 1
Item Name/number of item Responsibility: Name Prepared by: who
Model Years: model years/programs Key Date: 7/15/2008 FMEA Date: 7/15/2008
Core Team: Team members
Process Step Action Results

Occurrence

Occurrence
Detection
Potential

Severity

Severity
Current Process Current Process R. Responsibility &

Class
Potential Effect(s) Cause(s) / Recommended Actions Taken &
Potential Failure Mode Controls Controls P. Target
of Failure Mechanism(s) of N. Action(s) Completion Date
Prevention Detection Completion Date
Failure
Requirements
Name, Part Manner in which part could Consequences on List every List prevention List detection Design actions to Name of Actions and
Number, or fail: cracked, loosened, other systems, potential cause activities to activities to reduce severity, organization or actual completion
Class deformed, leaking, oxidized, parts, or people: and/or failure assure process assure process occurrence and individual and date
etc. noise, unstable, mechanism: adequacy and adequacy and detection ratings. target completion
Function inoperative, incorrect material, prevent or prevent or Severity of 9 or date
impaired, etc. improper reduce reduce 10 requires
maintenance, occurrence. occurrence. special attention.
fatigue, wear, etc.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Severity of Effect: Occurrence Rating Detection: Stakeholder Effects of Failure Severity
No Effect 1. None 1. Very low <.01/1000 1. Almost Certain Consumer Owner Safety Problem 10
2. Very Minor 2. Low - 1/1000000 2. Very High (e.g., buyer) Major Owner Dissatisfaction 8
Annoyance 3. Minor 3. Low - 1/100000 3. High Moderate Owner Dissatisfaction 6
4. Very Low 4. Moderate - 1/10000 4. Moderate High Minor Owner Dissatisfaction 4
Loss or degradation 5. Low 5. Moderate - 1/2000 5. Moderate Customer Plant Safety Problem 10
of secondary function 6. Moderate 6. Moderate - 1/500 6. Low (Manufacturer) Possible Recall 9
Loss or degradation 7. High 7. High - 1/100 7. Very Low Line Stoppage 8
of primary function 8. Very High 8. High - 1/50 8. Remote Warranty Costs 7
Failure to meet 9. Hazardous with warning 9. Very High 1/20 9. Very Remote AIAG PPAP 4th Scrap 7
safety/regulations 10. Hazardous w/o warning 10. Very High >1/10 10. Almost Impossible Regulatory Penalty 7
Moderate Rework (<25%) 5
Plant Dissatisfaction 4
Minor Rework (<10%) 3
 Page 30 of 54

Action Results

Detection
R.
P.
N.

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Severity
 Potential Page 31 of 54
Failure Mode and Effects Analysis
http://www.qimacros.com/lean-six-sigma-articles/fmea/ (Process FMEA) AIAG Fourth Edition http://www.aiag.org/
FMEA Number Insert FMEA#
Process Page 1
Item Name/number of item Responsibility: Name Prepared by: Name/contact info
Model Years: model years/programs Key Date: 7/15/2008 7/15/08 Rev FMEA Date: 7/15/2008
Core Team: Team members
Process Step Current Design Action Results

Occurrence

Detection
Potential

Severity
Potential Current Process Current Process R. Responsibility &

Class
Potential Failure Cause(s) / Recommended Actions Taken &
Requirements Effect(s) of Controls Controls P. Target
Mode Mechanism(s) of N. Action(s) Completion Date
Failure Prevention Detection Completion Date
Failure
Function
Name, Part Requirements of Manner in which Effects of failure List every List prevention List detection Design actions to Name of Actions and
Number, or function being system/subsystem as perceived by potential cause activities to activities to reduce severity, organization or actual completion
Class analyzed /component could customers. and/or failure assure process assure process occurrence and individual and date
fail: cracked, Consequences mechanism: adequacy and adequacy and detection ratings. target completion
Function loosened, on other incorrect material, prevent or prevent or Severity of 9 or date
deformed, leaking, systems, parts, improper reduce reduce 10 requires
oxidized, etc. or people: noise, maintenance, occurrence. occurrence. special attention.
inoperative, fatigue, wear, etc.
impaired, etc.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Severity of Effect: Occurrence Rating Detection: Stakeholder Effects of Failure
No Effect 1. None 1. Very low <.01/1000 1. Almost Certain Consumer Owner Safety Problem
2. Very Minor 2. Low - 1/1000000 2. Very High (e.g., buyer) Major Owner Dissatisfaction
Annoyance 3. Minor 3. Low - 1/100000 3. High Moderate Owner Dissatisfaction
4. Very Low 4. Moderate - 1/10000 4. Moderate High Minor Owner Dissatisfaction
Loss or degradation 5. Low 5. Moderate - 1/2000 5. Moderate Customer Plant Safety Problem
of secondary function6. Moderate 6. Moderate - 1/500 6. Low (Manufacturer) Possible Recall
Loss or degradation 7. High 7. High - 1/100 7. Very Low Line Stoppage
of primary function 8. Very High 8. High - 1/50 8. Remote Warranty Costs
Failure to meet 9. Hazardous with warning 9. Very High 1/20 9. Very Remote AIAG PPAP 4th Scrap
safety/regulations 10. Hazardous w/o warning 10. Very High >1/10 10. Almost Impossible Regulatory Penalty
Moderate Rework (<25%)
Plant Dissatisfaction
 Page 32 of 54

Potential
Failure Mode and Effects Analysis
http://www.qimacros.com/lean-six-sigma-articles/fmea/ (Process FMEA) AIAG Fourth Edition http://www.aiag.org/
FMEA Number Insert FMEA#
Process Page 1
Item Name/number of item Responsibility: Name Prepared by: Name/contact info
Model Years: model years/programs Key Date: 7/15/2008 7/15/08 Rev FMEA Date: 7/15/2008
Core Team: Team members
Process Step Current Design Action Results

Occurrence

Detection
Potential
Severity

Potential Current Process Current Process R. Responsibility &

Class

Potential Failure Cause(s) / Recommended Actions Taken &

Requirements Effect(s) of Controls Controls P. Target
Mode Mechanism(s) of N. Action(s) Completion Date
Failure Prevention Detection Completion Date
Failure
Function
Minor Rework (<10%)
 Page 33 of 54

http://www.aiag.org/

of 1
Name/contact info

Action Results

Occurrence
Detection
Severity
R.
P.
N.

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Severity
10
8
6
4
10
9
8
7
7
7
5
4
 Page 34 of 54

http://www.aiag.org/

of 1
Name/contact info

Action Results

Occurrence
Detection
Severity
R.
P.
N.

3
 Page 35 of 54
Potential
Failure Mode and Effects Analysis
http://www.qimacros.com/lean-six-sigma-articles/fmea/ (Process FMEA) AIAG Fourth Edition
FMEA Number
Process Page
Item Name/number of item Responsibility: Name Prepared by:
Model Years: model years/programs Key Date: 7/15/2008 7/15/08 Rev FMEA Date:
Core Team: Team members
Current Detection
Process Step Process Controls

Occurrence

Detection
Potential

Severity
Potential Current Process R. Responsibility &

Class
Potential Failure Cause(s) / Recommended
Requirements Effect(s) of Controls Cause Failure Mode P. Target
Mode Mechanism(s) of N. Action(s)
Failure Prevention Completion Date
Failure
Function
Name, Part Requirements of Manner in which Effects of failure List every List prevention List Causes List detection Design actions to Name of
Number, or function being system/subsystem as perceived by potential cause activities to activities to reduce severity, organization or
Class analyzed /component could customers. and/or failure assure design assure design occurrence and individual and
fail: cracked, Consequences mechanism: adequacy and adequacy and detection ratings. target completion
Function loosened, on other incorrect material, prevent or prevent or Severity of 9 or date
deformed, leaking, systems, parts, improper reduce reduce 10 requires
oxidized, etc. or people: noise, maintenance, occurrence. occurrence. special attention.
inoperative, fatigue, wear, etc.
impaired, etc.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Severity of Effect: Occurrence Rating Detection: Stakeholder Effects of Failure
No Effect 1. None 1. Very low <.01/1000 1. Almost Certain Consumer Owner Safety Problem
2. Very Minor 2. Low - 1/1000000 2. Very High (e.g., buyer) Major Owner Dissatisfaction
Annoyance 3. Minor 3. Low - 1/100000 3. High Moderate Owner Dissatisfaction
4. Very Low 4. Moderate - 1/10000 4. Moderate High Minor Owner Dissatisfaction
Loss or degradation 5. Low 5. Moderate - 1/2000 5. Moderate Customer Plant Safety Problem
of secondary function6. Moderate 6. Moderate - 1/500 6. Low (Manufacturer) Possible Recall
Loss or degradation 7. High 7. High - 1/100 7. Very Low Line Stoppage
of primary function 8. Very High 8. High - 1/50 8. Remote Warranty Costs
Failure to meet 9. Hazardous with warning 9. Very High 1/20 9. Very Remote AIAG PPAP 4th Scrap
safety/regulations 10. Hazardous w/o warning 10. Very High >1/10 10. Almost Impossible Regulatory Penalty
 Page 36 of 54

Potential
Failure Mode and Effects Analysis
http://www.qimacros.com/lean-six-sigma-articles/fmea/ (Process FMEA) AIAG Fourth Edition
FMEA Number
Process Page
Item Name/number of item Responsibility: Name Prepared by:
Model Years: model years/programs Key Date: 7/15/2008 7/15/08 Rev FMEA Date:
Core Team: Team members
Current Detection
Process Step Process Controls

Occurrence

Detection
Potential
Severity

Potential Current Process R. Responsibility &

Class
Potential Failure Cause(s) / Recommended
Requirements Effect(s) of Controls Cause Failure Mode P. Target
Mode Mechanism(s) of N. Action(s)
Failure Prevention Completion Date
Failure
Function
Moderate Rework (<25%)
Plant Dissatisfaction
Minor Rework (<10%)
 Page 37 of 54

http://www.aiag.org/
Insert FMEA#
1 of 1
Name/contact info
7/15/2008

Action Results

Occurrence
Detection
Severity
R.
Actions Taken &
P.
Completion Date N.

Actions and
actual completion
date

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Severity
Owner Safety Problem 10
Major Owner Dissatisfaction 8
Moderate Owner Dissatisfaction 6
Minor Owner Dissatisfaction 4
Plant Safety Problem 10
9
8
7
7
Regulatory Penalty 7
 Page 38 of 54

http://www.aiag.org/
Insert FMEA#
1 of 1
Name/contact info
7/15/2008

Action Results

Occurrence
Detection
Severity
R.
Actions Taken &
P.
Completion Date N.

Moderate Rework (<25%) 5

Plant Dissatisfaction 4
Minor Rework (<10%) 3
 Potential Page 39 of 54
Failure Mode and Effects Analysis
http://www.qimacros.com/lean-six-sigma-articles/fmea/ (Process FMEA) AIAG Fourth Edition

Process
Item Name/number of item Responsibility: Name
Model Years: model years/programs Key Date: 7/15/2008
Core Team: Team members
Process Step

Occurrence

Detection
Potential Responsibility

Severity
Current Process Current Process R.

Class
Potential Effect(s) Cause(s) / Recommended & Target
Requirements Potential Failure Mode Controls Controls P.
of Failure Mechanism(s) of N. Action(s) Completion
Prevention Detection
Failure Date
Function
Name, Part Requirements Manner in which part could Consequences on List every List prevention List detection Design actions to Name of
Number, or of function fail: cracked, loosened, other systems, potential cause activities to activities to reduce severity, organization
Class being analyzed deformed, leaking, oxidized, parts, or people: and/or failure assure process assure process occurrence and or individual
etc. noise, unstable, mechanism: adequacy and adequacy and detection ratings. and target
Function inoperative, incorrect material, prevent or prevent or Severity of 9 or completion
impaired, etc. improper reduce reduce 10 requires date
maintenance, occurrence. occurrence. special attention.
fatigue, wear, etc.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Severity of Effect: Occurrence Rating Detection: Stakeholder Effects of Failure
No Effect 1. None 1. Very low <.01/1000 1. Almost Certain Consumer Owner Safety Problem
2. Very Minor 2. Low - 1/1000000 2. Very High (e.g., buyer) Major Owner Dissatisfaction
Annoyance 3. Minor 3. Low - 1/100000 3. High Moderate Owner Dissatisfaction
4. Very Low 4. Moderate - 1/10000 4. Moderate High Minor Owner Dissatisfaction
Loss or degradation 5. Low 5. Moderate - 1/2000 5. Moderate Customer Plant Safety Problem
of secondary function 6. Moderate 6. Moderate - 1/500 6. Low (Manufacturer) Possible Recalll
Loss or degradation 7. High 7. High - 1/100 7. Very Low Line Stoppage
of primary function 8. Very High 8. High - 1/50 8. Remote Warranty Costs
Failure to meet 9. Hazardous with warning 9. Very High 1/20 9. Very Remote AIAG PPAP 4th Scrap
safety/regulations 10. Hazardous w/o warning 10. Very High >1/10 10. Almost Impossible Regulatory Penalty
Moderate Rework (<25%)
Plant Dissatisfaction
Minor Rework (<10%)
 Page 40 of 54

http://www.aiag.org/
FMEA Number Insert FMEA#
Page 1 of 1
Prepared by: Name/contact info
FMEA Date: 7/15/2008

Action Results

Occurrence
Detection
Severity
R.
Effective
Actions Taken P.
Date N.

Actions Effective
date

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Effects of Failure Severity
Owner Safety Problem 10
Major Owner Dissatisfaction 8
Moderate Owner Dissatisfaction 6
Minor Owner Dissatisfaction 4
Plant Safety Problem 10
Possible Recalll 9
8
Warranty Costs 7
7
Regulatory Penalty 7
Moderate Rework (<25%) 5
Plant Dissatisfaction 4
Minor Rework (<10%) 3
 Potential Page 41 of 54
Failure Mode and Effects Analysis
http://www.qimacros.com/lean-six-sigma-articles/fmea/ (Process FMEA) AIAG Fourth Edition
FMEA Number
Process Page
Item Name/number of item Responsibility: Name Prepared by:
Model Years: model years/programs Key Date: 7/15/2008 FMEA Date:
Core Team: Team members
Process Step Requirements

Occurrence

Detection
Potential

Severity
Current Process Current Process R. Responsibility &

Class
Potential Effect(s) Cause(s) / Recommended
ID Product Process Potential Failure Mode Controls Controls P. Target
of Failure Mechanism(s) of N. Action(s)
Prevention Detection Completion Date
Failure
Function
Name, Part Requireme Manner in which part could Consequences on List every List prevention List detection Design actions to Name of
Number, or nts of fail: cracked, loosened, other systems, potential cause activities to activities to reduce severity, organization or
Class function deformed, leaking, oxidized, parts, or people: and/or failure assure process assure process occurrence and individual and
being etc. noise, unstable, mechanism: adequacy and adequacy and detection ratings. target completion
Function analyzed inoperative, incorrect material, prevent or prevent or Severity of 9 or date
impaired, etc. improper reduce reduce 10 requires
maintenance, occurrence. occurrence. special attention.
fatigue, wear, etc.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Severity of Effect: Occurrence Rating Detection: Stakeholder Effects of Failure
No Effect 1. None 1. Very low <.01/1000 1. Almost Certain Consumer Owner Safety Problem
2. Very Minor 2. Low - 1/1000000 2. Very High (e.g., buyer) Major Owner Dissatisfaction
Annoyance 3. Minor 3. Low - 1/100000 3. High Moderate Owner Dissatisfacti
4. Very Low 4. Moderate - 1/10000 4. Moderate High Minor Owner Dissatisfaction
Loss or degradation 5. Low 5. Moderate - 1/2000 5. Moderate Customer Plant Safety Problem
of secondary function 6. Moderate 6. Moderate - 1/500 6. Low (Manufacturer) Possible Recall
Loss or degradation 7. High 7. High - 1/100 7. Very Low Line Stoppage
of primary function 8. Very High 8. High - 1/50 8. Remote Warranty Costs
Failure to meet 9. Hazardous with warning 9. Very High 1/20 9. Very Remote AIAG PPAP 4th Scrap
safety/regulations 10. Hazardous w/o warning 10. Very High >1/10 10. Almost Impossible Regulatory Penalty
Moderate Rework (<25%)
Plant Dissatisfaction
Minor Rework (<10%)
 Page 42 of 54

http://www.aiag.org/
Insert FMEA#
1 of 1
who
7/15/2008

Action Results

Occurrence
Detection
Severity
R.
Actions Taken &
P.
Completion Date N.

Actions and
actual completion
date

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Severity
Owner Safety Problem 10
Major Owner Dissatisfaction 8
Moderate Owner Dissatisfaction 6
Minor Owner Dissatisfaction 4
Plant Safety Problem 10
9
8
7
7
Regulatory Penalty 7
Moderate Rework (<25%) 5
Plant Dissatisfaction 4
Minor Rework (<10%) 3
 Potential Page 43 of 54
Failure Mode and Effects Analysis
http://www.qimacros.com/lean-six-sigma-articles/fmea/ (Process FMEA) AIAG Fourth Edition
FMEA Number
Process Page
Item Name/number of item Responsibility: Name Prepared by:
Model Years: model years/programs Key Date: 7/15/2008 7/15/08 Rev FMEA Date:
Core Team: Team members
Process Step Requirements

Occurrence

Detection
Potential

Severity
Potential Current Process Current Process R. Responsibility &

Class
Potential Failure Cause(s) / Recommended
ID Product Process Effect(s) of Controls Controls P. Target
Mode Mechanism(s) of N. Action(s)
Failure Prevention Detection Completion Date
Failure
Function
Name, Part Requir Manner in which Effects of failure List every List prevention List detection Design actions to Name of
Number, or ement system/subsystem as perceived by potential cause activities to activities to reduce severity, organization or
Class s of /component could customers. and/or failure assure process assure process occurrence and individual and
functio fail: cracked, Consequences mechanism: adequacy and adequacy and detection ratings. target completion
Function n loosened, on other incorrect material, prevent or prevent or Severity of 9 or date
being deformed, leaking, systems, parts, improper reduce reduce 10 requires
analyz oxidized, etc. or people: noise, maintenance, occurrence. occurrence. special attention.
ed inoperative, fatigue, wear, etc.
impaired, etc.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Severity of Effect: Occurrence Rating Detection: Stakeholder Effects of Failure
No Effect 1. None 1. Very low <.01/1000 1. Almost Certain Consumer Owner Safety Problem
2. Very Minor 2. Low - 1/1000000 2. Very High (e.g., buyer) Major Owner Dissatisfaction
Annoyance 3. Minor 3. Low - 1/100000 3. High Moderate Owner Dissatisfactio
4. Very Low 4. Moderate - 1/10000 4. Moderate High Minor Owner Dissatisfaction
Loss or degradation 5. Low 5. Moderate - 1/2000 5. Moderate Customer Plant Safety Problem
of secondary function6. Moderate 6. Moderate - 1/500 6. Low (Manufacturer) Possible Recall
Loss or degradation 7. High 7. High - 1/100 7. Very Low Line Stoppage
of primary function 8. Very High 8. High - 1/50 8. Remote Warranty Costs
Failure to meet 9. Hazardous with warning 9. Very High 1/20 9. Very Remote AIAG PPAP 4th Scrap
safety/regulations 10. Hazardous w/o warning 10. Very High >1/10 10. Almost Impossible Regulatory Penalty
Moderate Rework (<25%)
Plant Dissatisfaction
 Page 44 of 54

Potential
Failure Mode and Effects Analysis
http://www.qimacros.com/lean-six-sigma-articles/fmea/ (Process FMEA) AIAG Fourth Edition
FMEA Number
Process Page
Item Name/number of item Responsibility: Name Prepared by:
Model Years: model years/programs Key Date: 7/15/2008 7/15/08 Rev FMEA Date:
Core Team: Team members
Process Step Requirements

Occurrence

Detection
Potential

Severity
Potential Current Process Current Process R. Responsibility &

Class
Potential Failure Cause(s) / Recommended
ID Product Process Effect(s) of Controls Controls P. Target
Mode Mechanism(s) of N. Action(s)
Failure Prevention Detection Completion Date
Failure
Function
Minor Rework (<10%)
 Page 45 of 54

http://www.aiag.org/
Insert FMEA#
1 of 1
Name/contact info
7/15/2008

Action Results

Occurrence
Detection
Severity
R.
Actions Taken &
P.
Completion Date N.

Actions and
actual completion
date

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Severity
Owner Safety Problem 10
Major Owner Dissatisfaction 8
Moderate Owner Dissatisfaction 6
Minor Owner Dissatisfaction 4
Plant Safety Problem 10
9
8
7
7
Regulatory Penalty 7
Moderate Rework (<25%) 5
Plant Dissatisfaction 4
 Page 46 of 54

http://www.aiag.org/
Insert FMEA#
1 of 1
Name/contact info
7/15/2008

Action Results

Occurrence
Detection
Severity
R.
Actions Taken &
P.
Completion Date N.

Minor Rework (<10%) 3

 Potential Page 47 of 54
Failure Mode and Effects Analysis
http://www.qimacros.com/lean-six-sigma-articles/fmea/ (Machine FMEA) AIAG Fourth Edition
System: Name/number of system FMEA Number
Subsystem Name/number of subsystem Design Page
Component Name/number of component Responsibility: Name Prepared by:
Model: model years/programs Key Date: 7/15/2008 FMEA Date:
Core Team: Team members
Item/Function

Occurrence

Detection
Potential Current

Severity
R. Responsibility &

Class
Potential Effect(s) of Cause(s) / Current Machinery Machinery Recommended
Potential Failure Mode P. Target
Failure Mechanism(s) of Controls Prevention Controls N. Action(s)
Completion Date
Failure Detection
Requirements
Name, Manner in which machinery could Consequences on other List every List prevention List detection Design actions to Name of
Machine fail: bent, cracked, dirty, broken, systems, parts, or potential cause activities to assure activities to reduce severity, organization or
Number, or warped, binding, worn, grounded, people: and/or failure machinery adequacy assure occurrence and individual and
Class short cuircuit, open circuit. Breakdowns, degraded mechanism: tool and prevent or reduce machinery detection ratings. target completion
output, inadequate drift, incorrect occurrence. adequacy and Severity of 9 or date
Function Assumes: torque, intermittent material specified, prevent or 10 requires
1. Incoming parts and materials operation, excessive over-stressing, reduce special attention.
are correct. noise, excessive effort, improper occurrence.
2. Machinery will be built, endangers operator, maintenance,
installed, aadjusted, and increased cycle time, improper
maintained to specifications impared performance, specification,
3. All preceding steps in the loss of production, contamination,
sequence of operations have partial or complete loss excessive heat,
been executed to specifications. of function, excessive wear.
vibration, lack of
repeatability, excessive
backlash.

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Severity of Effect: Occurrence Failure/cycles Detection: Stakeholder Effects of Failure
No Effect 1. None 1. Very low <1/900000 R(t)=98% MTBF=50x 1. Almost Certain Consumer Owner Safety Problem
within spec limits 2. Very Minor 2. Low - 1/900000 R(t)=95% MTBF=20x 2. Very High (e.g., buyer) Major Owner Dissatisfaction
Downtime 0-10 min, no defects 3. Minor 3. Low - 1/540000 R(t)=90% MTBF=10x 3. High Moderate Owner Dissatisfaction
Downtime 10-30 min, no defects 4. Very Low 4. Moderate - 1/360000 R(t)=85% MTBF=6x 4. Moderate High Minor Owner Dissatisfaction
 Page 48 of 54

Potential
Failure Mode and Effects Analysis
http://www.qimacros.com/lean-six-sigma-articles/fmea/ (Machine FMEA) AIAG Fourth Edition
System: Name/number of system FMEA Number
Subsystem Name/number of subsystem Design Page
Component Name/number of component Responsibility: Name Prepared by:
Model: model years/programs Key Date: 7/15/2008 FMEA Date:
Core Team: Team members
Item/Function

Occurrence

Detection
Potential Current

Severity
R. Responsibility &

Class
Potential Effect(s) of Cause(s) / Current Machinery Machinery Recommended
Potential Failure Mode P. Target
Failure Mechanism(s) of Controls Prevention Controls N. Action(s)
Completion Date
Failure Detection
Requirements
Downtime 30-60 min, 1hr of defects 5. Low 5. Moderate - 1/270000 R(t)=78% MTBF=4x 5. Moderate Customer Plant Safety Problem
Downtime and defects 1-2hrs. 6. Moderate 6. Moderate - 1/180000 R(t)=61% MTBF=2x 6. Low (Manufacturer) Possible Recall
Downtime > 4hrs, defects 2-4 hrs 7. High 7. High - 1/90000 R(t)=37% MTBF=Spec 7. Very Low Line Stoppage
Downtime > 8 hrs, defects > 4 hrs 8. Very High 8. High - 1/36000 R(t)=19% MTBF=0.6x 8. Remote Warranty Costs
Affects personnel 9. Hazardous with warning 9. Very High 1/900 R(t)=5% MTBF=0.3x 9. Very Remote AIAG PPAP 4th Scrap
safety/regulations 10. Hazardous w/o warning 10. Very High >1/90 R(t)<1% MTBF=0.1x 10. Almost Impossible Regulatory Penalty
Moderate Rework (<25%)
Plant Dissatisfaction
Minor Rework (<10%)
 Page 49 of 54

SAE J1739 Aug2002

Insert FMEA#
1 of 1
who
7/15/2008

Action Results

Occurrence
Detection
Severity
R.
Actions Taken &
P.
Completion Date N.

Actions and
actual completion
date

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Severity
Owner Safety Problem 10
Major Owner Dissatisfaction 8
Moderate Owner Dissatisfaction 6
Minor Owner Dissatisfaction 4
 Page 50 of 54

SAE J1739 Aug2002

Insert FMEA#
1 of 1
who
7/15/2008

Action Results

Occurrence
Detection
Severity
R.
Actions Taken &
P.
Completion Date N.

Plant Safety Problem 10

9
8
7
7
Regulatory Penalty 7
Moderate Rework (<25%) 5
Plant Dissatisfaction 4
Minor Rework (<10%) 3
 Potential Page 51 of 54
Failure Mode and Effects Analysis
http://www.qimacros.com/lean-six-sigma-articles/fmea/ (Machine FMEA) AIAG Fourth Edition SAE J1739 Aug2002
System: Name/number of system FMEA Number Insert FMEA#
Subsystem Name/number of subsystem Design Page 1 of
Component Name/number of component Responsibility: Name Prepared by: who
Model: model years/programs Key Date: 7/15/2008 FMEA Date: 7/15/2008
Core Team: Team members Re
Item/Function co Action Results
m
m

Occurrence

Detection
Potential Current Machinery

Severity

Severity
R. en Responsibility &

Class
Potential Effect(s) of Cause(s) / Controls Actions Taken &
Potential Failure Mode P. de Target
Failure Mechanism(s) of -Prevention N. d Completion Date Completion Date
Failure -Detection
Requirements Ac
tio
Name, Manner in which machinery could Consequences on other List every List prevention and De
n( Name of Actions and
Machine fail: bent, cracked, dirty, broken, systems, parts, or potential cause detection activities to si
s) organization or actual completion
Number, or warped, binding, worn, grounded, people: and/or failure assure machinery gn individual and date
Class short cuircuit, open circuit. Breakdowns, degraded mechanism: tool adequacy and prevent or ac target completion
output, inadequate drift, incorrect reduce occurrence. tio date
Function Assumes: torque, intermittent material specified, ns
1. Incoming parts and materials are operation, excessive over-stressing, to
correct. noise, excessive effort, improper re
2. Machinery will be built, installed, endangers operator, maintenance, du
aadjusted, and maintained to increased cycle time, improper ce
specifications impared performance, specification, se
3. All preceding steps in the loss of production, contamination, ve
sequence of operations have been partial or complete loss excessive heat, rit
executed to specifications. of function, excessive wear. y,
vibration, lack of oc
repeatability, excessive cu
backlash. rr
en
ce
an
d
de
te
cti
on
ra
tin
gs
.
Se
ve
rit
y
of
0 9
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
 Page 52 of 54

Potential
Failure Mode and Effects Analysis
http://www.qimacros.com/lean-six-sigma-articles/fmea/ (Machine FMEA) AIAG Fourth Edition SAE J1739 Aug2002
System: Name/number of system FMEA Number Insert FMEA#
Subsystem Name/number of subsystem Design Page 1 of
Component Name/number of component Responsibility: Name Prepared by: who
Model: model years/programs Key Date: 7/15/2008 FMEA Date: 7/15/2008
Core Team: Team members Re
Item/Function co Action Results
m
m

Occurrence

Detection
Potential Current Machinery

Severity

Severity
R. en Responsibility &

Class
Potential Effect(s) of Cause(s) / Controls Actions Taken &
Potential Failure Mode P. de Target
Failure Mechanism(s) of -Prevention N. d Completion Date Completion Date
Failure -Detection
Requirements Ac
0 tio
n(
0
s)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Severity of Effect: Occurrence Failure/cycles Detection: Stakeholder Effects of Failure
No Effect 1. None 1. Very low <1/900000 R(t)=98% MTBF=50x 1. Almost CerConsumer Owner Safety Problem
within spec limits 2. Very Minor 2. Low - 1/900000 R(t)=95% MTBF=20x 2. Very High (e.g., buyer) Major Owner Dissatisfaction
Downtime 0-10 min, no defects 3. Minor 3. Low - 1/540000 R(t)=90% MTBF=10x 3. High Moderate Owner Dissatisfaction
Downtime 10-30 min, no defects 4. Very Low 4. Moderate - 1/360000 R(t)=85% MTBF=6x 4. Moderate High Minor Owner Dissatisfaction
Downtime 30-60 min, 1hr of defects 5. Low 5. Moderate - 1/270000 R(t)=78% MTBF=4x 5. Moderate Customer Plant Safety Problem
Downtime and defects 1-2hrs. 6. Moderate 6. Moderate - 1/180000 R(t)=61% MTBF=2x 6. Low (Manufacturer) Possible Recall
Downtime > 4hrs, defects 2-4 hrs 7. High 7. High - 1/90000 R(t)=37% MTBF=Spec 7. Very Low Line Stoppage
Downtime > 8 hrs, defects > 4 hrs 8. Very High 8. High - 1/36000 R(t)=19% MTBF=0.6x 8. Remote Warranty Costs
Affects personnel 9. Hazardous with warning 9. Very High 1/900 R(t)=5% MTBF=0.3x 9. Very RemoAIAG PPAP 4th Scrap
safety/regulations 10. Hazardous w/o warning 10. Very High >1/90 R(t)<1% MTBF=0.1x 10. Almost Impossible Regulatory Penalty
Moderate Rework (<25%)
Plant Dissatisfaction
Minor Rework (<10%)
 Page 53 of 54

SAE J1739 Aug2002

Action Results

Occurrence
Detection
R.
P.
N.

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
 Page 54 of 54

SAE J1739 Aug2002

Action Results

Occurrence
Detection
R.
P.
N.

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Severity
10
8
6
4
10
9
8
7
7
7
5
4
3