Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Hi everyone,

 

I have noticed in the corporate world that Detection rating in FMEA has multiple interpretations. Let us explore this.

 

When you assess detection rating, what is the question you ask? 

 

A. What is the probability of the failure being detected and corrected before impacting the customer 

 

OR 

 

B. What is the probability of failure being detected (irrespective of timely correction) before customer is impacted? 

 

OR 

 

C. What is the probability of failure being detected or prevented (through detection of cause) before customer is impacted? 

 

OR 

 

D. What is the probability of the cause of failure being detected and corrected before failure occurs?

 

OR 

 

E. What is the probability of the cause of failure being detected (irrespective of correction) without impacting the customer? 

 

Do mention your views. Remember, you may get on the leaderboard of this forum if your response is liked a lot by others. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

B. What is the probability of failure being detected (irrespective of timely correction) before customer is impacted

 

As far as I know we only detect the probability of the failure and how severe it can Impact our end customer. We use other tools such as Why Analysis to find the RC and action/control plan can be deployed accordingly. The Crux is Detection can be done by FMEA but not Control 

 

* Personal view not to offend anyone

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/5/2017 at 3:13 PM, Manish Ghadigaokar said:

D

Hi Manish, 

 

Good to see your response. There is no right or wrong here and interpretation and the way FMEA is applied may vary. In many instances, the cause of failure is unknown and therefore cannot be detected. What will be your take about detection ranking on such situations? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/5/2017 at 5:54 PM, togyjose said:

B

Hi Togy, 

 

Good to see your response. Failure being detected before customer impact is really good. Let us explore more - If we are able to detect failures but not able to carry out any timely corrections, would you consider it as a reasonable detection approach? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have done couple of Design FMEA. My view is that S*O*D take care of risk. But as far as Detection is considered i dont assume you are bothered about control action/correction at any point of process. Its purely the ability of a system to detect and reporting of the error alone.if you think of correction in reality mostly a calibration is involved which would impact probability of occurrence.

Let me know if you dont agree with my view 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree, as per situation we can select any of the option, keeping the severity, occurrence in mind. We also sometimes think based on the financial impact of failure of any step on company. 

as per my view : Steps with high "S" and "O" option A seems to be appropriate.

General approach is option B.

 

Any comments or suggestions:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Both B and E. strictly speaking detection is for each cause and also can be for the failure mode as the case may be. Correction is not related to the topic. It is understood that once we detect the organization would take actions to correct both product and use this information to increase Occurrence rating for that cause and increase the level of detection to reduce risk as a cycle. The organization should constantly find ways to prevent cause/failure. 

Edited by Sathish_skumar2002
Spell error
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Sathish_skumar2002 said:

Both B and E. strictly speaking detection is for each cause and also can be for the failure mode as the case may be. Correction is not related to the topic. It is understood that once we detect the organization would take actions to correct both product and use this information to increase Occurrence rating for that cause and increase the level of detection to reduce risk as a cycle. The organization should constantly find ways to prevent cause/failure. 

 

Valid point there. i agree that detection of failure or cause, both should be admissible. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 years later...

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Who's Online (See full list)

    There are no registered users currently online

  • Forum Statistics

    • Total Topics
      2,877
    • Total Posts
      14,579
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      55,093
    • Most Online
      888

    Newest Member
    Mahtab Khan
    Joined
×
×
  • Create New...