Kaizen
Johnnetwork 
CnEtoFMEAAirQualitybySteveZinkgraftosharewithstudents-1module2B.xlsxInstructions
| Instructions on using Spreadsheet | ||
| Steps: | Special Editing Instructions | |
| Whole facility Process Map: | ||
| Enter name of project/process in cell A1. | ||
| Fill in Process Map | ||
| Per Process Map: | Action | Procedure |
| Fill in Process Map | Add to Process Map | Add information as needed |
| Click "Transfer to C & E" button on Process Map sheet | Add to Process Map (after C & E started) | Add information as needed. Click "Transfer to C & E" button to update C & E Matrix |
| Remove Input (after C & E Started) | Select Input to be removed | |
| Click "Delete Input (x)" button | ||
| C & E Matrix: | Action | Procedure |
| Fill in C & E Matrix | Sort C & E Matrix | Click "Sort C & E Matrix" button |
| Sort Matirx to determine breakpoint | ||
| Decide on breakpoint. Enter it in cell C3 ("Enter C&E Break Point:"). | ||
| Click "Sort & Move to FMEA" button. This will copy four instances of each Process-Input to the FMEA Form that has a total at or above the breakpoint. | ||
| FMEA: | ||
| Fill in FMEA: | ||
| Failure Mode | ||
| Effects | ||
| Causes | ||
| Current Controls | ||
| Determine RPN by scoring FMEA items: | ||
| Enter SEV (Severity) for each effect | ||
| Enter OCC (Occurance) for each Cause | ||
| Enter DET (Detection) for each Control | ||
| Sort FMEA by RPN by clicking "Sort FMEA" button |
Whole facility Process Map
| Improve Air Quality in the ECM Disassembly area | ||||
| Inputs (Xs) | Outputs (Ys) | |||
| C/U/S Nancy Lunsford: C = Controllable U = Uncontrollable S = SOP |
||||
| Operators | c | Improve Air Cleaning System in the ECM Disassembly area | Air Quality | |
| Orbital sander | c | Operator Ergonomics | ||
| Hand Grinder | c | Costs of air cleaning | ||
| Bench Grinder | c | Time to implement | ||
| Process to Clean | c | Maintain/improve productivity | ||
| Air Quality Measures | c | |||
| Core | u | |||
| Fume Extractors | c | |||
| Environment | c | |||
| C = Controllable | ||||
| U = Uncontrollable | ||||
| S = SOP | ||||
per Process Map
| Improve Air Quality in the ECM Disassembly area | ||||
| Inputs (Xs) | Process | Outputs (Ys) | ||
| C/U/S Nancy Lunsford: C = Controllable U = Uncontrollable S = SOP |
||||
| Core | u | Hand Grinder Operation | coarse dirt removal | |
| Operator | c | airborne dust particles | ||
| Grinder | c | airborne silica particles | ||
| workstation | c | airborne aluminum particles | ||
| Process | c | |||
| Air Nozzles | c | |||
| Core | u | Orbital Sander | fine dirt removal | |
| Operator | c | airborne dust particles | ||
| Sander | c | airborne silica particles | ||
| workstation | c | smooth surface finish | ||
| Process | c | airborne aluminum particles | ||
| Air Nozzles | c | |||
| Core | u | Bench Grinder | Paint removal | |
| Operator | c | fine dirt removal | ||
| Bench Grinder | c | airborne dust particles | ||
| workstation | c | airborne silica particles | ||
| Process | c | airborne paint particles | ||
| Air Nozzles | c | smooth surface finish | ||
| airborne aluminum particles | ||||
| Air Cleaner | Air Cleaning System | Clean Air | ||
| Ducting | clean work area | |||
| Workstation design | ergonimicaly friendly process | |||
| Dust masks | ||||
| Fans | ||||
Transfer to C&E
Delete Input (x)
C&E Matrix
| Enter C&E Break Point: | 110 | ||||||||
| Rating of Importance to Customer | 9 | 7 | 1 | 5 | 3 | ||||
| Process Step | Process Inputs | Step/Input | Air Quality | Operator Ergonomics | Costs of air cleaning | Time to implement | Maintain/improve productivity | Total | |
| 1 | Hand Grinder Operation | workstation | Hand Grinder Operationworkstation | 9 | 9 | 5 | 1 | 5 | 169 |
| 2 | Orbital Sander | workstation | Orbital Sanderworkstation | 9 | 9 | 5 | 1 | 5 | 169 |
| 3 | Bench Grinder | workstation | Bench Grinderworkstation | 9 | 9 | 5 | 1 | 5 | 169 |
| 4 | Air Cleaning System | Workstation design | Air Cleaning SystemWorkstation design | 9 | 9 | 5 | 1 | 5 | 169 |
| 5 | Air Cleaning System | Dust masks | Air Cleaning SystemDust masks | 9 | 9 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 153 |
| 6 | Hand Grinder Operation | Process | Hand Grinder OperationProcess | 9 | 5 | 1 | 1 | 9 | 149 |
| 7 | Orbital Sander | Process | Orbital SanderProcess | 9 | 5 | 1 | 1 | 9 | 149 |
| 8 | Bench Grinder | Process | Bench GrinderProcess | 9 | 5 | 1 | 1 | 9 | 149 |
| 9 | Hand Grinder Operation | Operator | Hand Grinder OperationOperator | 5 | 9 | 1 | 1 | 9 | 141 |
| 19 | Orbital Sander | Air Nozzles | Orbital SanderAir Nozzles | 9 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 97 |
| 23 | Bench Grinder | Core | Bench GrinderCore | 5 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 61 |
| Total | First Process | First Input | |||||||
| First Process | Second input | ||||||||
| Second process | First input |
Cause and Effect Matrix
This table provides the initial input to the FMEA. When each of the output variables (requirements) are not correct, that represents potential "EFFECTS". When each input variable is not correct, that represents "Failure Modes". 1. List the Key Process Output Variables 2. Rate each variable on a 1-to-10 scale to importantance to the customer 3. List Key Process Input Variables 4. Rate each variables relationship to each output variable on a 1-to-10 scale 5. Select the top input variables to start the FMEA process; Determine how each selected input varable can "go wrong" and place that in the Failure Mode column of the FMEA.
Sort & Move To FMEA
Sort C & E Matrix
FMEA
| C&E Break Point | 110 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Process or Product Name: | Improve Air Quality in the ECM Disassembly area | Prepared by: | Page | of | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| Responsible: | FMEA Date (Orig): | (Rev): | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Process Step | Key Process Input | Failure Modes - What can go wrong? | Effects | SEV Nancy Lunsford: How Severe is the effect to the customer? 10 = Hazardous without warning 9 = Hazardous with warning 8 = Loss of primary function 7 = Reduced primary function performance 6 = Loss of secondary function 5 = Reduced secondary function performance 4 = Minor defect noticed by most customers 3 = Minor defect noticed by some customers 2 = Minor defect noticed by discriminating customers 1 = No effect | Causes | OCC Nancy Lunsford: How often does cause or FM occur? 9 - 10 = Very high: Failure is almost inevitable 7 - 8 = High: Repeated failures 4 - 6 = Moderate: Occasional failures 2 - 3 = Low: Relatively few failures 1 = Remote: Failure is unlikely | Current Controls | DET Nancy Lunsford: How well can you detect cause or FM? 10 = Can not detect 9 = Very remote chance of detection 8 = Remote chance of detection 7 = Very low chance of detection 6 = Low chance of detection 5 = Moderate chance of detection 4 = Moderately high chance of detection 3 = High chance of detection 2 = Very high chance of detection 1 = Almost certain detection | RPN | Actions Recommended Nancy Lunsford: What are the actions for reducing the occurrence of the Cause, or improving detection? Should have actions only on high RPN's or easy fixes. | Resp. Nancy Lunsford: Who Is Responsible for the recommended action? | Actions Taken Nancy Lunsford: What are the completed actions taken with the recalculated RPN? Be sure to include completion month/year |
Nancy Lunsford: How Severe is the effect to the customer? 10 = Hazardous without warning 9 = Hazardous with warning 8 = Loss of primary function 7 = Reduced primary function performance 6 = Loss of secondary function 5 = Reduced secondary function performance 4 = Minor defect noticed by most customers 3 = Minor defect noticed by some customers 2 = Minor defect noticed by discriminating customers 1 = No effect |
Nancy Lunsford: How often does cause or FM occur? 9 - 10 = Very high: Failure is almost inevitable 7 - 8 = High: Repeated failures 4 - 6 = Moderate: Occasional failures 2 - 3 = Low: Relatively few failures 1 = Remote: Failure is unlikely | SEV | OCC | DET | RPN | Step/Input | ||||||||
| Air Cleaning System | Workstation design | poor extraction of particulates | poor air quality / employees must wear masks | 9 | poor cell design (need hood to create negative pressure) | 9 | none | 3 | 243 | Air Cleaning SystemWorkstation design | |||||||||||||||||
| Air Cleaning System | Workstation design | Air Duct wrong size | poor extraction | 9 | duct size too small | 8 | None | 3 | 216 | Air Cleaning SystemWorkstation design | |||||||||||||||||
| Air Cleaning System | Workstation design | air duct system design wrong | poor extraction | 9 | perpendicular joints- create turbulance | 8 | None | 3 | 216 | Air Cleaning SystemWorkstation design | |||||||||||||||||
| Air Cleaning System | Workstation design | Fans blow particles away from duct | eliminates current efficiencies of duct system | 7 | improper positioning of fans | 8 | None | 3 | 168 | Air Cleaning SystemWorkstation design | |||||||||||||||||
| Air Cleaning System | Dust masks | masks don’t fit properly | reduced efficiency of mask | 8 | no training on how to wear mask | 5 | process documentation | 2 | 80 | Air Cleaning SystemDust masks |
Process/Product Failure Modes and Effects Analysis (FMEA)
Sort FMEA
Print FMEA
FMEA Scale
| FMEA RPN SCALE | |||||
| Severity | Occurrence | Detection | |||
| Hazardous without warning | 10 | Very high: Failure is almost inevitable | 10 | Can not detect | |
| Hazardous with warning | 9 | 9 | Very remote chance of detection | ||
| Loss of primary function | 8 | High: Repeated failures | 8 | Remote chance of detection | |
| Reduced primary function performance | 7 | 7 | Very low chance of detection | ||
| Loss of secondary function | 6 | Moderate: Occasional failures | 6 | Low chance of detection | |
| Reduced secondary function performance | 5 | 5 | Moderate chance of detection | ||
| Minor defect noticed by most customers | 4 | 4 | Moderately high chance of detection | ||
| Minor defect noticed by some customers | 3 | Low: Relatively few failures | 3 | High chance of detection | |
| Minor defect noticed by discriminating customers | 2 | 2 | Very high chance of detection | ||
| No effect | 1 | Remote: Failure is unlikely | 1 | Almost certain detection | |
