PACK-IT SOLUTIONS
|
PACK-IT SOLUTIONS
|
|
TQM 673 projects:
|
KAMIL DZWONKOWSKI ELeARNING ID: IE 673-Fall 2008-70-38 Pack-It-Solutions Collaborating with:
Introduction and Project Objective The process risk analyses implemented in our business are part of a failure mode & effect analysis strategies (FMEA). Synchronized in the production process, they are a part of a total quality management approach with a focus on being environmentally GREEN. It is expressed as a quantitative and open-source computational tactic designed and pre-tested by Professor Ranky. As a first stage it is represented as disassembly method (DFRA), secondly for the following processes (PFRA) to recognize und reduce any opportunities for future failures. In some other instances failures of process in a broad scope like failure of components, parts of the process, disassembled subassemblies and later their effect on a future clients. The Team Oriented Problem Solving method, known as PFRA is targeted to minimize dissatisfaction, and future economical crises in-within the company. It’s strictly oriented around the process related failure risk analysis. While in the planning stages of a process design, PFRA has to be applied. Further, it has to be revised during the process configuration. The main part of PFRA is influenced by negative quality products, furthermore any components of the production line that are low quality, and can not be reliable. In addition, the service of human action and all little pieces of the processing line that could fail are incorporated in the analysis. This assures an accurate detection, and neutralization of an incoming, potential problem. Description of the Methodologies applied Applying the Process Failure Risk Analysis (PFRA) method involved the following methodologies:
The Main Body of the project
The PRFA project of Pack-It-Solutions has been focused of further development of the CORA analysis. 1st we have integrated a new team consisting of members from our co-operative companies:
As we are a team oriented organization, we are dedicated to fallow the PRFA seven key aspects. We self control our-self’s by exchanging documentation, brain-storming and simple visits to the processing line.
The PFRA method focuses at seven key aspects:
2. Identify potential risks and failure modes and their effects: By applying the PFRA technique during the process, the team can locate all potential failures at the earliest possible stage.
4.
Select and manage subsequent actions: In cases in which the risk of
potential failures is high, an immediate control plan must be devised and
actions needs to be taken to control the situation.
5.
Observe and learn: For each system or product/process design, PFRA / DFRA
represent a dynamic, living knowledge-managed document that needs to be updated
so that real data can be used to determine the risks.
6. Document the process:
As well as store the PFRA / DFRA contained information in a widely accessible
format for ease of access and use.
7. Enter the values into
the PFRA / DFRA spreadsheet on a relative scale:
This is determined by the local PFRA / DFRA Team, and are identified by
severity, detection, and occurrence.
Rating = 2:
A Very Slight Effect on the component of process, and/or on system performance.
Over all customer satisfaction shouldn’t be effected. Rating = 3: A Slight Effect on performance, or process operation. The customer is slightly disappointed, but no vital fault will be noticed.
Rating = 5:
A Moderate Effect on performance, or process operation. The customer is
disappointed, and no vital fault will be noticed.
Rating = 6:
A Significant Effect on performance, or process operation. The customer is
significantly disappointed, and a fault will be noticed that may cause part
repair, or rework.
Rating = 7:
A Major Effect on performance, or process operation. The customer is severely
affected, but system is safe and operable. Fault is obvious and will cause part
replacement.
Rating = 8:
An Extreme Effect on performance, or process operation. The device fails to
start, or operate. The customer is severely affected, system is not operable but
is safe and the fault will be obvious
Rating = 9:
A Very Serious, Potentially Hazardous Effect on performance, or process
operation. The customer is severely affected; system is not operable,
potentially unsafe and the fault is obvious. Rating = 10: A Hazardous/ Dangerous Effect on performance, or process operation. The customer is severely affected; system is not operable and unsafe. The fault is obvious, not complying with government regulations, and is hazardous and or dangerous. This kind of rating strategies are implemented on an industry wide scale, which gives different teams an opportunity to compare data and conclude solutions with new, better ideas. In addition to the PFRA analysis, we have interconnected three other rating measurement tools. These rating rules are categorized in 3 segments:
Severity is used to calculate RPN or Risk Priority number. When analyzing RPN, the highest value is analyzed first, trace the cause and then eliminate it. Once completed the same process should be applies to the medium and then the lower values
A potential process failure mode is the manner in which a process operation may fail to meet its purpose expressed in terms of a component/ part/ object characteristics. The cause of a process failure mode is the process deficiency, often with roots to the lack of design for manufacturing/ assembly/ disassembly, lack of professional tools, clamps and fixtures, used during the execution of the process, lack of appropriate operator training, poor workplace conditions, and others, that result in the failure mode. The effects of a failure are the consequence of its failure mode that would be observed by the disassembly operator, or quality control personnel at the subsequent operation, or by a user, and/ or customer.
CLICK HERE TO SEE THE EXCEL FILE
Summary The value of severity is used for calculating the Risk Priority Number, which is the main indicator for risk detection analysis. While recalculating the RPN number, the product supervisor, as well as the TQM engineer, should prioritize first on the highest values, relocate the causes and effects and then eliminate the problem. On the other hand the medium and low RPN values should be analyzed and eliminated in the same way as the highly rated values. In a conclusion we find that the lower the rating the better for the processing line. References and Bibliography "Paul G. Ranky, IE673 Total Quality Management, Fall 2008, e-Learning Pack ID # IE673-FALL2008-70-38" "Paul G. Ranky"
Ranky, P.G.: http://www.cimwareukandusa.com |
|
Send mail to
kd52@njit.edu with
questions or comments about this web site.
|
