Scuba Modern Pfra Method

A
1
2
A Component-oriented Process Failure Risk Analysis Method (Ver. 1) by Matthew Negron
3
4
5
6
7
Product Name and Appearance Before Process

Name of Organization Responsible for the Process
8
9
Other Organizations Involved in the Process

Subcontractors, process Plants Effected
Product Serial Number and Optional Image Map
10
11
12
13
14
Process ID
Describe the Process for Each Process Step and

Optionally Illustrate the State of the Device/ Part/
Subassembly/ Object AFTER the Process is
Complete
Cell Phone Case

Scuba Modern
Sunnen, Super Mill
N/A
N/A
Specify the Tool(s) Used in Each Process

Step
PFRA Study ID Number
Date of This Study (mm/dd/yy)
11/23/2014
Orignal Date of This Study

Revision Number
Comments
2/12/2012
Rev. 01
none
Specify the Fixtures / Clamps Used in

Each Process Step
List / Identify the Parts / Components

Retrieved (if any) in Each Process Step
Process Code
Engineering Release Date of Process
Methodology
Type of Product Processed
Product Group Classifier
Engineering Release Date of the Product
Process
Time
Process
Cost
18.00
15
[sec]
[USD]
16
1
Product Ideation & Development
Human Hand, Sketching, & Computer
Human hand
Potential Parts for Sourcing
432000
2160.00
Choosing Materials & Components
Human Research
Human hand
Suppliers and Vendors with Contractual

Agreements
86400
432.00
Working Prototype Test
3D Printing
Human hand
Sample Order of Parts
28800
144.00
Market Survey & Testing
Adult Human Hand & Eye
Human hand
None
7200
36.00
Product Revisions
Human Hand
Human hand
Final Order of Parts
144000
720.00
Product CTL (Consumer Testing Laboratory)

Compliance
Machine Testing, Adult Human Hand & Eye
Human hand & Testing Laboratory
None
14400
72.00
Custom Mold Design
3D Modeling
Human hand & Computer Analysis
Metal Mold
36000
180.00
Tooling for Mold
Machinery
Human hand & Machinery
Tools for Mold Making
26000
130.00
Product Branding/Logo (Screen Printing)
Human hand
Screen Print Die for Logo
8000
40.00
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
9
B
Product Branding/Logo (Screen Printing)

C

D
Human hand
E
Screen Print Die for Logo

F
8000
G
40.00
H
10
Packaging Product
Human Hand
Biodegradable Packaging
20000
100.00
11
Palletizing
Adult Human Hand & Eye & Forklift
Human Hand
Rapid Renewable Wood for Pallets
6000
30.00
12
Delivery
Truck and/or Ship
Human Hand, Trucks & Ships
None
50000
250.00
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
Max. RPN
Tooling
Factor
1
Copyright by Paul G. Ranky, 1992-2002
2
Copyright by Paul G. Ranky, 2002 to date
3
4
5
6
Process Code
7
Engineering Release Date of Process
8
Methodology
9
Type of Product Processed
Product Group Classifier
10
11 Date of the Product
Engineering Release
12
13
14
15
Accumulated
Process Cost
22
23
2592.00
2736.00
2772.00
3492.00
30
31
32
33
34
35
3564.00
3744.00
36
37
38
39
40
41
ID 1.2
Detection
Rating
Occurrence
Rating
(1-10)
(1-10)
(1-10)
112
30
Failure Mode(s) and Effect(s)
designers overlooks user need

engineers do not review correct manufacturability
3914.00
Clamping/
Fixturing Skill Factor
Factor
Other
Accumulated
Factor:
RPN
Design
Experience
Risk
Associated
0.12,1=100%
0.12,1=100%
0.12,1=100%
0.12,1=100%
112
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.80
201.60
HIGH
42
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.80
75.60
Low
28
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.80
50.40
Low
120
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.80
216.00
HIGH
64
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
64.00
Low
56
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
56.00
Low
80
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
80.00
Low
120
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
120.00
Low
60
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
60.00
Low
ID 2.1
suppliers do not agree to our contract
12
ID 2.2
ID 2.3
raw materials received does not meet quality standards

suppliers materials do not meet the required quality
7
7
2
2
2
3
28
42
ID 3.1
product does not have proper quality
28
ID 3.2
product fails under testing
24
ID 4.1
survey sampling is incorrect
10
30
ID 4.2
ID 4.3
product does not meet market needs
10
120
0
ID 5.1
revisions chosen incorrectly
36
ID 5.2
ID 5.3
product revisions tooled wrong

materiality can not have changes necessary
8
8
4
6
2
1
64
48
ID 6.1
fails CTL testing
56
ID 6.2
ID 6.3
incorrect information sent for testing
56
0
ID 7.1
mold designer is wrong type for proper release
80
ID 7.2
mold design exceed budget
80
ID 7.3
3874.00
RPN (Risk
Priority
Number)
Severity
Rating
ID 3.3
27
28
29
The PFRA Team Describes / Illustrates the Potential Process

Failure Mode and the Effect; the Risk of Failure
ID 1.3
24
25
26
Responsible Organization/ Department

Comments
N/A
ID 1.1
17
18
20
21
Cell phone case to protect phone
Proc.ID
2160.00
Matthew Negron
PFRA Team
[USD]
16
19
This PFRA Study was Prepared By
ID 8.1
mold is the wrong quality
108
ID 8.2
ID 8.3
mold does not have proper lifecycle

mold has wrong materials which causes warping
120
0
ID 9.1
logo does not adhere to product
48
ID 9.2
die has the incorrect lifecycle
10
60
3914.00
I
42
43
44
4014.00
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
4044.00
J
ID 9.3
O
0
ID 10.1
packaging is not biodegrabable
18
ID 10.2
does not protect product
40
ID 10.3
excess packaging for less units per delivery
28
ID 11.1
pallets breaks
54
ID 11.2
no properly stacked for container
24
ID 12.1
product delivered with wrong lead time
28
ID 12.2
devlivery causes damage or loss of product
30
ID 11.3
4294.00
ID 12.3
60
P
1.00
Q
1.00
R
1.00
S
1.00
T
60.00
U
Low
V
40
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
40.00
Low
54
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
54.00
Low
30
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
30.00
Low
AA
The Effect of Each Process Step Failure

Risk on Other Processes
The Effect of Each Process Step Failure

Risk on Other Parts (I.e. components/
objects)
Detection Mode
Recommended Corrective Action(s)
Corrective Action(s) Taken and Date

(mm/dd/yr)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16 Faulty end product: phone case

18
compsition of phone case relationship

critical
critical
critical
Human inspection
Human inspection
critical
Immediate Action Need
proper audintg
communicate with suppliers

quality testing and inspection

critical
Human inspection

critical
Human inspection
quality testing and inspection

proper
inspection
fromtotrained
validation
carried out
ensureemployee
optimum
performance
24
multi-point review
user results properly anaylzed

information cataloged and sorted
27
33

critical
Human inspection
Revisions tracked and dated

critical
Human inspection
pre-testing to ensure compliance

create testing checklist

critical
Human inspection
computer analysis
contact collaborators for assistance

critical
Human inspection
contact multiple tool makers

check quality of tools

critical
Human inspection
employee carried
knowledge
and
training
validation
out to
ensure
optimum
performance
36

42

critical
Human inspection
proper inspection
fromtotrained
validation
carried out
ensureemployee
optimum
performance

critical
Human inspection
proper inspection from trained employee

48
51
52
train employee on proper storage method

critical
Human inspection
train employee on proper storage method

proper inspection from trained employee
AA
AB
AC
AD
AE
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
0
RPN
40
20
for Each
Failure
60
80 Mode100
13
14
120
140
50
100 for Each150
200
Accumulated
RPN
Failure Mode
250
ID 1.1
ID 1.2
15
ID 1.3
16
ID 2.1
17
18
ID 2.2
19
ID 3.1
ID 2.3
20
21
ID 3.2
ID 3.3
22
23
ID 4.1
ID 4.2
24
ID 4.3
25
26
ID 5.1
27
ID 5.2
ID 5.3
28
29
31
ID 6.1
30
ID 6.2
ID 6.3
32
33
ID 7.1
ID 7.2
34
35
ID 7.3
37
38
39
ID 8.2
ID 8.3
ID 9.1
40
41
ID 8.1
36
ID 9.2
ID 9.3
ID 9.3
AB
AC
AD
42
10
ID 10.1
43
44
ID 10.2
ID 10.3
45
11
ID 11.1
46
47
48
ID 11.2
ID 11.3
ID 12.1
49
50
51
52
ID 12.2
ID 12.3
12
AE

Scuba Modern Pfra Method

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Scuba Modern Pfra Method

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

A

A Component-oriented Process Failure Risk Analysis Method (Ver. 1) by Matthew Negron

Product Name and Appearance Before Process

Other Organizations Involved in the Process

Describe the Process for Each Process Step and

Cell Phone Case

Specify the Tool(s) Used in Each Process

PFRA Study ID Number

Date of This Study (mm/dd/yy)

Orignal Date of This Study

Specify the Fixtures / Clamps Used in

List / Identify the Parts / Components

Product Ideation & Development

Human Hand, Sketching, & Computer

Potential Parts for Sourcing

Choosing Materials & Components

Suppliers and Vendors with Contractual

Working Prototype Test

Sample Order of Parts

Market Survey & Testing

Adult Human Hand & Eye

Final Order of Parts

Product CTL (Consumer Testing Laboratory)

Machine Testing, Adult Human Hand & Eye

Human hand & Testing Laboratory

Custom Mold Design

Human hand & Computer Analysis

Tooling for Mold

Human hand & Machinery

Tools for Mold Making

Product Branding/Logo (Screen Printing)

Adult Human Hand & Eye

Screen Print Die for Logo

Product Branding/Logo (Screen Printing)

Adult Human Hand & Eye

Screen Print Die for Logo

Adult Human Hand & Eye

Adult Human Hand & Eye & Forklift

Rapid Renewable Wood for Pallets

Truck and/or Ship

Human Hand, Trucks & Ships

Copyright by Paul G. Ranky, 2002 to date

Failure Mode(s) and Effect(s)

designers overlooks user need

suppliers do not agree to our contract

raw materials received does not meet quality standards

product does not have proper quality

product fails under testing

survey sampling is incorrect

product does not meet market needs

revisions chosen incorrectly

product revisions tooled wrong

fails CTL testing

incorrect information sent for testing

mold designer is wrong type for proper release

mold design exceed budget

The PFRA Team Describes / Illustrates the Potential Process

Responsible Organization/ Department

Cell phone case to protect phone

This PFRA Study was Prepared By

mold is the wrong quality

mold does not have proper lifecycle

logo does not adhere to product