Process FMEA (PFMEA)
When to Activate This Skill
- "Create a PFMEA for [process]"
- "What are the failure modes for [operation]?"
- "Calculate RPN for [risk scenario]"
- "Rate severity/occurrence/detection for [failure]"
- "Identify process risks"
- "FMEA analysis for [part/process]"
AIAG-VDA 7-Step Methodology
Step 1: Planning and Preparation
- Define scope and boundaries
- Identify team members (cross-functional)
- Gather documentation (process flow, control plan, drawings)
- Review lessons learned from similar processes
Step 2: Structure Analysis
- Define process steps from process flow diagram
- Create process tree (System > Sub-system > Process Element)
- Identify interfaces between steps
- Link to product characteristics
Step 3: Function Analysis
- Define function of each process step
- Identify product/process requirements
- Link to customer/engineering specifications
- Document special characteristics (CC/SC)
Step 4: Failure Analysis
- Identify failure modes (how can step fail to perform function?)
- Determine failure effects (consequences to customer/next operation)
- Identify failure causes (why would failure mode occur?)
- Chain: Cause → Failure Mode → Effect
Step 5: Risk Analysis
- Rate Severity (S) of effects: 1-10
- Rate Occurrence (O) of causes: 1-10
- Rate Detection (D) of controls: 1-10
- Calculate Action Priority (AP) or RPN
Step 6: Optimization
- Prioritize high-risk items
- Develop countermeasures (hierarchy: Eliminate > Substitute > Engineer > Admin > Detect)
- Assign responsibility and target dates
- Re-rate after countermeasures
Step 7: Results Documentation
- Document all analysis
- Track countermeasure completion
- Update Control Plan linkage
- Archive for lessons learned
Rating Scales (MNMUK Standard)
Severity (S) - Effect on Customer/Process
| Rating |
Criteria |
MNMUK Examples |
| 10 |
Affects safety without warning |
Brake component failure, no containment possible |
| 9 |
Affects safety with warning |
Safety critical dimension OOS, detectable at assembly |
| 8 |
Product inoperable, 100% scrap |
Part cannot be reworked, total loss |
| 7 |
Product operable but degraded, customer dissatisfied |
Performance below spec, customer complaint |
| 6 |
Product operable, comfort/convenience affected |
Cosmetic defect, minor fit issue |
| 5 |
50% of product may need rework |
Significant rework required |
| 4 |
Product requires sorting/rework |
Sorting operation needed |
| 3 |
Minor rework at station |
In-station repair possible |
| 2 |
Slight inconvenience |
Minor adjustment |
| 1 |
No effect |
No discernible impact |
Occurrence (O) - Likelihood of Cause
| Rating |
Failure Rate |
Cpk Equivalent |
MNMUK Examples |
| 10 |
Very high: ≥100/1000 |
<0.33 |
New process, no controls |
| 9 |
High: 50/1000 |
≥0.33 |
Known problem process |
| 8 |
High: 20/1000 |
≥0.51 |
Similar process had failures |
| 7 |
Moderately high: 10/1000 |
≥0.67 |
Occasional failures observed |
| 6 |
Moderate: 2/1000 |
≥0.83 |
Infrequent failures |
| 5 |
Moderately low: 0.5/1000 |
≥1.00 |
Controlled process, some failures |
| 4 |
Low: 0.1/1000 |
≥1.17 |
Well-controlled process |
| 3 |
Very low: 0.01/1000 |
≥1.33 |
Capable and controlled |
| 2 |
Remote: 0.001/1000 |
≥1.50 |
Proven design and controls |
| 1 |
Nearly impossible: ≤0.001/1000 |
≥1.67 |
Failure eliminated by design |
Detection (D) - Ability to Detect Before Customer
| Rating |
Detection Capability |
MNMUK Examples |
| 10 |
No detection possible |
No inspection, no opportunity to detect |
| 9 |
Unlikely to detect |
Random sampling only, infrequent |
| 8 |
Low: Visual inspection by operator |
100% visual check, variable attention |
| 7 |
Very low: Double visual inspection |
Two operators check |
| 6 |
Low: Charting/SPC |
Control charts, trend monitoring |
| 5 |
Moderate: Attribute gaging |
Go/No-go gaging |
| 4 |
Moderately high: Variable gaging |
Measurement with limit checking |
| 3 |
High: Automated in-process test |
Automatic measurement, alarm |
| 2 |
Very high: Error-proofing |
Poka-yoke prevents defect production |
| 1 |
Almost certain: Error-proofing prevents cause |
Design makes failure impossible |
Action Priority (AIAG-VDA Approach)
Instead of or in addition to RPN, use Action Priority:
| Priority |
Criteria |
Action Required |
| HIGH |
S=9-10 (any O, D) OR S=7-8 with O≥4 AND D≥4 |
Immediate action required |
| MEDIUM |
S=5-8 with O≥4 OR D≥4 |
Action recommended |
| LOW |
All others |
Monitor and document |
RPN Thresholds (MNMUK Standard)
| RPN Range |
Priority |
Required Action |
| ≥120 |
Critical |
Immediate countermeasure, cannot ship without action |
| 80-119 |
High |
Countermeasure required before PPAP |
| 40-79 |
Medium |
Countermeasure recommended |
| <40 |
Low |
Monitor, no immediate action |
Note: Any Severity ≥8 requires action regardless of RPN.
Countermeasure Hierarchy
When addressing failure modes, apply controls in this priority order:
- Eliminate - Design out the failure mode entirely
- Substitute - Replace with less hazardous process/material
- Engineer - Install physical safeguards, poka-yoke
- Admin - Procedures, training, work instructions
- Detect - Inspection, testing, monitoring
Special Characteristics
Critical Characteristics (CC)
- Safety or regulatory impact
- Marked with shield symbol or (CC)
- Requires enhanced controls
- Mandatory documentation
Significant Characteristics (SC)
- Fit, function, or durability impact
- Marked with diamond or (SC)
- Requires appropriate controls
- SPC typically required
Output Format
When generating PFMEA content:
# PFMEA: [Part/Process Name]
**Part Number**: [P/N]
**Process**: [Description]
**FMEA Number**: PFMEA-[DEPT]-[SEQ]
**Revision**: [Rev] | **Date**: [YYYY-MM-DD]
**Team**: [Names/Roles]
## Process Step: [Step Name]
### Failure Mode 1: [Description]
**Function**: [What the step should do]
**Effect**: [What happens if it fails]
**Cause**: [Why it would fail]
| S | O | D | RPN | AP |
|---|---|---|-----|-----|
| X | X | X | XXX | H/M/L |
**Current Controls**:
- Prevention: [Current prevention measures]
- Detection: [Current detection measures]
**Recommended Actions**:
- [ ] [Action description] - Owner: [Name] - Due: [Date]
**After Action**:
| S | O | D | RPN | AP |
|---|---|---|-----|-----|
| X | X | X | XXX | H/M/L |
Department-Specific Guidance
Machine Shop
- Common failure modes: Dimensional OOS, surface finish, tool wear
- Focus on: Fixturing, program parameters, tool life management
- Key controls: First piece inspection, SPC, gage R&R
Damper Assembly
- Common failure modes: Leak, incorrect torque, missing component
- Focus on: Seal integrity, fastener torque, component presence
- Key controls: Leak test, torque verification, poka-yoke
LVA (Low Volume Assembly)
- Common failure modes: Wrong component, incorrect orientation, damage
- Focus on: Part identification, assembly sequence, handling
- Key controls: Visual verification, traveler documentation
FML (Final Manufacturing Line)
- Common failure modes: Test failure, labeling error, packaging damage
- Focus on: Final test parameters, traceability, packaging
- Key controls: Automated test, barcode verification, packaging audit
Integration with Related Skills
ControlPlan
PFMEA feeds directly into Control Plan:
- High S/O items require enhanced inspection
- Detection controls become Control Plan methods
- Special characteristics flow to Control Plan
Load: read ~/.claude/skills/Controlplan/SKILL.md
AutomotiveManufacturing
Work instructions should reflect PFMEA findings:
- High-risk steps highlighted
- Operator controls documented
- Quality checkpoints specified
Load: read ~/.claude/skills/Automotivemanufacturing/SKILL.md
A3criticalthinking
When PFMEA reveals issues:
- Use 5 Whys for root cause analysis
- Fishbone diagram for cause identification
- A3 format for countermeasure planning
Load: read ~/.claude/skills/A3criticalthinking/SKILL.md
Supplementary Resources
For detailed guidance:
read ~/.claude/skills/Pfmea/CLAUDE.md
For templates:
ls ~/.claude/skills/Pfmea/templates/
For rating scales:
read ~/.claude/skills/Pfmea/reference/rating-scales.md
For common failure modes:
read ~/.claude/skills/Pfmea/reference/common-failure-modes.md
1---2name: pfmea3description: Generate AIAG-VDA compliant Process FMEAs with proper Severity/Occurrence/Detection ratings, RPN calculations, and countermeasure recommendations. Covers MNMUK departments (Machine Shop, Damper, LVA, FML). USE WHEN user says 'PFMEA', 'FMEA', 'failure mode', 'risk analysis', 'RPN', 'severity occurrence detection', or 'process risk assessment'. Integrates with AutomotiveManufacturing, ControlPlan, and A3criticalthinking skills.4---56# Process FMEA (PFMEA)78## When to Activate This Skill9- "Create a PFMEA for [process]"10- "What are the failure modes for [operation]?"11- "Calculate RPN for [risk scenario]"12- "Rate severity/occurrence/detection for [failure]"13- "Identify process risks"14- "FMEA analysis for [part/process]"1516## AIAG-VDA 7-Step Methodology1718### Step 1: Planning and Preparation19- Define scope and boundaries20- Identify team members (cross-functional)21- Gather documentation (process flow, control plan, drawings)22- Review lessons learned from similar processes2324### Step 2: Structure Analysis25- Define process steps from process flow diagram26- Create process tree (System > Sub-system > Process Element)27- Identify interfaces between steps28- Link to product characteristics2930### Step 3: Function Analysis31- Define function of each process step32- Identify product/process requirements33- Link to customer/engineering specifications34- Document special characteristics (CC/SC)3536### Step 4: Failure Analysis37- Identify failure modes (how can step fail to perform function?)38- Determine failure effects (consequences to customer/next operation)39- Identify failure causes (why would failure mode occur?)40- Chain: Cause → Failure Mode → Effect4142### Step 5: Risk Analysis43- Rate Severity (S) of effects: 1-1044- Rate Occurrence (O) of causes: 1-1045- Rate Detection (D) of controls: 1-1046- Calculate Action Priority (AP) or RPN4748### Step 6: Optimization49- Prioritize high-risk items50- Develop countermeasures (hierarchy: Eliminate > Substitute > Engineer > Admin > Detect)51- Assign responsibility and target dates52- Re-rate after countermeasures5354### Step 7: Results Documentation55- Document all analysis56- Track countermeasure completion57- Update Control Plan linkage58- Archive for lessons learned5960## Rating Scales (MNMUK Standard)6162### Severity (S) - Effect on Customer/Process6364| Rating | Criteria | MNMUK Examples |65|--------|----------|----------------|66| 10 | Affects safety without warning | Brake component failure, no containment possible |67| 9 | Affects safety with warning | Safety critical dimension OOS, detectable at assembly |68| 8 | Product inoperable, 100% scrap | Part cannot be reworked, total loss |69| 7 | Product operable but degraded, customer dissatisfied | Performance below spec, customer complaint |70| 6 | Product operable, comfort/convenience affected | Cosmetic defect, minor fit issue |71| 5 | 50% of product may need rework | Significant rework required |72| 4 | Product requires sorting/rework | Sorting operation needed |73| 3 | Minor rework at station | In-station repair possible |74| 2 | Slight inconvenience | Minor adjustment |75| 1 | No effect | No discernible impact |7677### Occurrence (O) - Likelihood of Cause7879| Rating | Failure Rate | Cpk Equivalent | MNMUK Examples |80|--------|--------------|----------------|----------------|81| 10 | Very high: ≥100/1000 | <0.33 | New process, no controls |82| 9 | High: 50/1000 | ≥0.33 | Known problem process |83| 8 | High: 20/1000 | ≥0.51 | Similar process had failures |84| 7 | Moderately high: 10/1000 | ≥0.67 | Occasional failures observed |85| 6 | Moderate: 2/1000 | ≥0.83 | Infrequent failures |86| 5 | Moderately low: 0.5/1000 | ≥1.00 | Controlled process, some failures |87| 4 | Low: 0.1/1000 | ≥1.17 | Well-controlled process |88| 3 | Very low: 0.01/1000 | ≥1.33 | Capable and controlled |89| 2 | Remote: 0.001/1000 | ≥1.50 | Proven design and controls |90| 1 | Nearly impossible: ≤0.001/1000 | ≥1.67 | Failure eliminated by design |9192### Detection (D) - Ability to Detect Before Customer9394| Rating | Detection Capability | MNMUK Examples |95|--------|---------------------|----------------|96| 10 | No detection possible | No inspection, no opportunity to detect |97| 9 | Unlikely to detect | Random sampling only, infrequent |98| 8 | Low: Visual inspection by operator | 100% visual check, variable attention |99| 7 | Very low: Double visual inspection | Two operators check |100| 6 | Low: Charting/SPC | Control charts, trend monitoring |101| 5 | Moderate: Attribute gaging | Go/No-go gaging |102| 4 | Moderately high: Variable gaging | Measurement with limit checking |103| 3 | High: Automated in-process test | Automatic measurement, alarm |104| 2 | Very high: Error-proofing | Poka-yoke prevents defect production |105| 1 | Almost certain: Error-proofing prevents cause | Design makes failure impossible |106107## Action Priority (AIAG-VDA Approach)108109Instead of or in addition to RPN, use Action Priority:110111| Priority | Criteria | Action Required |112|----------|----------|-----------------|113| **HIGH** | S=9-10 (any O, D) OR S=7-8 with O≥4 AND D≥4 | Immediate action required |114| **MEDIUM** | S=5-8 with O≥4 OR D≥4 | Action recommended |115| **LOW** | All others | Monitor and document |116117## RPN Thresholds (MNMUK Standard)118119| RPN Range | Priority | Required Action |120|-----------|----------|-----------------|121| ≥120 | Critical | Immediate countermeasure, cannot ship without action |122| 80-119 | High | Countermeasure required before PPAP |123| 40-79 | Medium | Countermeasure recommended |124| <40 | Low | Monitor, no immediate action |125126**Note:** Any Severity ≥8 requires action regardless of RPN.127128## Countermeasure Hierarchy129130When addressing failure modes, apply controls in this priority order:1311321. **Eliminate** - Design out the failure mode entirely1332. **Substitute** - Replace with less hazardous process/material1343. **Engineer** - Install physical safeguards, poka-yoke1354. **Admin** - Procedures, training, work instructions1365. **Detect** - Inspection, testing, monitoring137138## Special Characteristics139140### Critical Characteristics (CC)141- Safety or regulatory impact142- Marked with shield symbol or (CC)143- Requires enhanced controls144- Mandatory documentation145146### Significant Characteristics (SC)147- Fit, function, or durability impact148- Marked with diamond or (SC)149- Requires appropriate controls150- SPC typically required151152## Output Format153154When generating PFMEA content:155156```markdown157# PFMEA: [Part/Process Name]158**Part Number**: [P/N]159**Process**: [Description]160**FMEA Number**: PFMEA-[DEPT]-[SEQ]161**Revision**: [Rev] | **Date**: [YYYY-MM-DD]162**Team**: [Names/Roles]163164## Process Step: [Step Name]165166### Failure Mode 1: [Description]167**Function**: [What the step should do]168**Effect**: [What happens if it fails]169**Cause**: [Why it would fail]170171| S | O | D | RPN | AP |172|---|---|---|-----|-----|173| X | X | X | XXX | H/M/L |174175**Current Controls**:176- Prevention: [Current prevention measures]177- Detection: [Current detection measures]178179**Recommended Actions**:180- [ ] [Action description] - Owner: [Name] - Due: [Date]181182**After Action**:183| S | O | D | RPN | AP |184|---|---|---|-----|-----|185| X | X | X | XXX | H/M/L |186```187188## Department-Specific Guidance189190### Machine Shop191- Common failure modes: Dimensional OOS, surface finish, tool wear192- Focus on: Fixturing, program parameters, tool life management193- Key controls: First piece inspection, SPC, gage R&R194195### Damper Assembly196- Common failure modes: Leak, incorrect torque, missing component197- Focus on: Seal integrity, fastener torque, component presence198- Key controls: Leak test, torque verification, poka-yoke199200### LVA (Low Volume Assembly)201- Common failure modes: Wrong component, incorrect orientation, damage202- Focus on: Part identification, assembly sequence, handling203- Key controls: Visual verification, traveler documentation204205### FML (Final Manufacturing Line)206- Common failure modes: Test failure, labeling error, packaging damage207- Focus on: Final test parameters, traceability, packaging208- Key controls: Automated test, barcode verification, packaging audit209210## Integration with Related Skills211212### ControlPlan213PFMEA feeds directly into Control Plan:214- High S/O items require enhanced inspection215- Detection controls become Control Plan methods216- Special characteristics flow to Control Plan217218**Load:** `read ~/.claude/skills/Controlplan/SKILL.md`219220### AutomotiveManufacturing221Work instructions should reflect PFMEA findings:222- High-risk steps highlighted223- Operator controls documented224- Quality checkpoints specified225226**Load:** `read ~/.claude/skills/Automotivemanufacturing/SKILL.md`227228### A3criticalthinking229When PFMEA reveals issues:230- Use 5 Whys for root cause analysis231- Fishbone diagram for cause identification232- A3 format for countermeasure planning233234**Load:** `read ~/.claude/skills/A3criticalthinking/SKILL.md`235236## Supplementary Resources237238For detailed guidance:239`read ~/.claude/skills/Pfmea/CLAUDE.md`240241For templates:242`ls ~/.claude/skills/Pfmea/templates/`243244For rating scales:245`read ~/.claude/skills/Pfmea/reference/rating-scales.md`246247For common failure modes:248`read ~/.claude/skills/Pfmea/reference/common-failure-modes.md`