Part Name : Guard Assy - Fr Part No :86811 / 12 - 4N000 Wheel Guard LH / RH S.No.
Question
Model : HA Yes
No
Customer : M/s. HMIL
Date : 07.06.2011
Commentment / Action required
Person Responsible
Due Date
C.Stephen
Completed
CFT Leader
Completed
1
Was the PFMEA prepared using the potential failure mode and effects analysis reference manuals?
√
Yes. PFMEA 4th Edition used for PFMEA Preparation
2
Was a multi disciplinary approach used for developing PFMEA
√
Yes. CFT Team ( Quality, Production, Tooling and Operation Team ) involved I making PFMEA
3
Does the PFMEA shows a revision status and is it under document control?
√
Yes. Document control and revision available for this document
C.Stephen
Completed
4
Have all operations affecting fit,funtion,durability,govermental regulations and safety been indendified and listed sequently?
Fit and function identified ( checker fitment and Piece 1 and Piece 2 Mating checkment identified )
C.Stephen
Completed
5
Are special charecteristics considered for impact of potential failure mode?
√
Special Character not mentioned in the drawing. But Internal Critical characteristic idntified for part weight and considered the impact in case of failure
C.Stephen
Completed
6
Were similar part FMEA is considered?
√
Yes. Old Model Wheel Guard FMEA and old problem histories considered
C.Stephen
Completed
7
Have historical campaign and warranty data been reviewed?
No Warranty Complaint recd for this Part.
N.Santhosh
Completed
√
Yes. Appropriate actions initiated to high severity and occurrce
C.Stephen
Completed
√
Yes. Revised after completion of recommended action
C.Stephen
Completed
Design is not in our control. Customer design. When design is changed by customer, Severity revised
C.Stephen
Completed
Yes. Customer end assy and fitment related failure mode considered
C.Stephen
Completed
No Warranty Complaint recd for this Part.
N.Santhosh
Completed
8 9 10
Have appropriate preventive actions been planed or taken for high severity / occurrence / detection categories? Is RPN revised after completion of recommended actions? were high severity numbers revised when design change was completed?
11
Do effects consider the customer in term of the subseqent operations,assembly and product?
12
Was waranty information used as an aid in developing the PFMEA?
√
√
√ √ √
13
Were customer plant problems used as an aid in developing the PFMEA?
√
Yes. Inhouse rej details taken for consideration
N.Santhosh
Completed
Doc.No : F/CFT/17 Rev no:01 dtd 25.09.10
Process FMEA Checklist
Page 2 of 2 Question
S.No.
Yes
No
Commentment / Action required
Person Responsible
Due Date
14
Have the causes been described in terms of something that can be fixed or controlled?
√
Yes. Causes have been identified and actions have been taken for the same through inhouse rej analysis and trouble John Thangaraj shooting methods
Completed
15
Were detection is the major factor,have provisions been made to control the cause prior to the next operation?
√
100% Inspection carried at each operation to control the cause prior to next operation
N.Santhosh
Completed
16
Are current controls reflected on appropriate documents?
√
Yes. Controls reflected in apropriate documents
N.Santhosh
Completed
17
Is responisibilty and target defined for recommended actions?
√
Yes. Responsibility and Target date defined for recommended actions
N.Santhosh
Completed
18
Is there evidence of effective tracking of recommended actions till completion?
√
Yes. For customer complaints, effectiveness of the corrective actions monitored for 6 months time
N.Santhosh
Completed
19
After completion,is PFMEA revised to reflect recommended actions as current controls?
√
Yes. Recommended actions identified as controls after effectiveness monitoring
N.Santhosh
Completed
20
Is the CFT able to relate occurrence rankings to TGW data?
√
Yes. CFT Team records the old problem history and Things gone wrong data stored
