FAILURE MODE AND EFFECTS ANALYSIS

FMEA TYPE: Supplier Evaluation SUPPLIER: Supplier Name DATE OF ORIGINAL FMEA: 9/30/04 REVISION: 1 REV DATE:

PART /PROCESS FUNCTION & SPECIFICATION

FAILURE MODE

EFFECT OF FAILURE

S E V

CAUSE OF FAILURE

L I K

PREVENTATIVE ACTIONS OR DETECTION

E F F

R P N

IMPROVEMENTS TO PREVENTATIVE ACTIONS

RESPONSIBLE & COMMIT DATE

P I ACTUAL DATE R T I Y O R

S E V

REVISED L I K

Manufacturing equipment capability

Nonconforming parts produced

Increases the chances for bad parts to get through Higher chance of less visible rejects being sent

Parts are simple, stamped parts

First articles performed, process insp every 200 pcs Well documented process inspections

Part quality plans, Nonconforming process setup and parts produced in-process checking and not identified Control of nonconforming material Preventive maintanence and tooling control

Tool wear, broken punches, etc.

20

Nonconforming Higher chance of parts not isolated even visibly and get sent to us unusable material being sent Undetected tool wear We gets parts with burrs or slightly out of spec Unable to deliver parts on time, possible line shutdown Bad parts sent

Well documented system for identification They check for burrs as part of their inspection plans Parts are simple, stamped parts

Isolation area for nonconforming product Preventive maintenance based on #hits and visual wear Machine maintence records

Process breakdown

Material processing Processing steps flow control and missed traceability Corrective action processing Internal or Customer problems not resolved Acceptance of nonconforming product Use of bad or wrong material

Shop traveler / router identifies sequence steps Corrective actions written for all customer problems Simple parts to measure, equipment is capable Material certs reviewed, filed and stored

Traveler sign-offs

Problems repeated

Corrective action process in place, ISO certified Lab has CMM, hardness, standard tools properly trained Material certs reviewed, filed and stored

10

Inspection equipment capability Raw material incoming control

Higher chance of less visible rejects being sent Bad parts sent

PAGE 1

FAILURE MODE AND EFFECTS ANALYSIS

FMEA TYPE: Supplier Evaluation SUPPLIER: Supplier Name DATE OF ORIGINAL FMEA: 9/30/04 REVISION: 1 REV DATE:

PART /PROCESS FUNCTION & SPECIFICATION

FAILURE MODE

EFFECT OF FAILURE

S E V

CAUSE OF FAILURE

L I K

PREVENTATIVE ACTIONS OR DETECTION

E F F

R P N

IMPROVEMENTS TO PREVENTATIVE ACTIONS

RESPONSIBLE & COMMIT DATE

P I ACTUAL DATE R T I Y O R

S E V

REVISED L I K

PAGE 2

9/30/04

REVISED E F F

R P N

PAGE 3

9/30/04

REVISED E F F

R P N

PAGE 4

Rankings

FMEA RANKING VALUES SEV. SEVERITY OF FAILURE EFFECT Insignificant defect may not be noticed at all. Will not result in down-stream processing problems or impair usability. Low: some down-stream effect may occur in processing. l May cause less-than-optimal performance. Moderate: Will likely cause processing problems down-stream or result in degraded performance. Dissatisfaction is probable. Significant serious sown-stream processing problems may occur. Failure is likely. Very high potential failure. Affects safety issues in operation or processing. LIK. LIKELIHOOD OF DEFECT OCCURRENCE Remote possibility. Where similar parts were used for similar functions in previous designs or processes and failures were non-existent. Low failure rate with similar parts having similar functions in previous designs or processes. Moderate failure rate with similar parts having similar functions in previous designs or processes. It is generally a failure that had occurred occasionally in the past. Frequent failure rate with similar parts having similar functions in previous designs or processes. High probability of failure where there is almost certainty the failure will occur in major proportions. EFF. EFFECTIVENESS OF DEFECT DETECTION Very High: The detection of the existence of a defect is almost a certainty. this may be a result of fool-proof fixturing. High: There are controls to detect defects, but there is a small chance of defects not being detected. Low: There is only a small chance of detecting an existing defect. Very Low: Controls in place will not generally detect the existence of a defect. None: A defect will almost certainly escape detection.

RANKING 1

RANKING 1

RANKING 1, 2

2, 3

2, 3

3, 4

4, 5, 6 7, 8

4, 5, 6

7, 8

7, 8

10

9, 10

9, 10

Page 5

103266586.xls.ms_office