Integration of FMEA and the Kano model

In almost all of the existing resources of failure mode and effect analysis (FMEA), “severity” is being determined from the designers’ point of view, not from the customers’ side. In this paper, a new approach is proposed to enhance FMEA capabilities through its integration with Kano model. This evolves the current approaches for determination of severity and “risk priority number” (RPN) through classifying severities according to customers’ perceptions. It supports the nonlinear relationship between frequency and severity of failure. Also a new index called “correction ratio” (Cr) is proposed to assess the corrective actions in FMEA. The findings of a short case study highlight the gap between managers and customers in prioritising a set of failures and the difference between RPN and Cr prioritisations, caused by target failure frequencies. The proposed approach enables managers/designers to prevent failures at early stages of design, based on customers who have not experienced their products/services yet.

[1]  Thomas H. Lee,et al.  A New American Tqm: Four Practical Revolutions In Management , 1993 .

[2]  Fiorenzo Franceschini,et al.  A new approach for evaluation of risk priorities of failure modes in FMEA , 2001 .

[3]  A. Rolstadås Performance management : a business process benchmarking approach , 1995 .

[4]  Cary L. Cooper,et al.  Total Quality and Human Resources: An Executive Guide , 1992 .

[5]  Kurt Matzler,et al.  How to make product development projects more successful by integrating Kano's model of customer satisfaction into quality function deployment , 1998 .

[6]  D. Limbrick,et al.  A trivial pursuit , 1993 .

[7]  N. Tang,et al.  An innovative framework for health care performance measurement , 1999 .

[8]  Nune Ravi Sankar,et al.  Modified approach for prioritization of failures in a system failure mode and effects analysis , 2001 .

[9]  Dennis Kehoe,et al.  The Fundamentals of Quality Management , 1995 .

[10]  K. Tan,et al.  Integrating Kano's model in the planning matrix of quality function deployment , 2000 .

[11]  Roger M. Cooke,et al.  Applications of some risk assessment techniques: Formal expert judgement and accident sequence precursors , 1997 .

[12]  Loon Ching Tang,et al.  Fuzzy assessment of FMEA for engine systems , 2002, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf..

[13]  Harrison M. Wadsworth,et al.  Modern methods for quality control and improvement , 1986 .

[14]  Willy W. Vandenbrande,et al.  How to Use FMEA to Reduce the Size of Your Quality Toolbox , 1998 .

[15]  Homer Rahnejat,et al.  The “QFD/FMEA interface” , 1998 .

[16]  Louis Cohen,et al.  Quality Function Deployment: How to Make QFD Work for You , 1995 .

[17]  Sheng‐Hsien Teng,et al.  Failure mode and effects analysis: An integrated approach for product design and process control , 1996 .

[18]  J. B. Bowles,et al.  Fuzzy logic prioritization of failures in a system failure mode, effects and criticality analysis , 1995 .

[19]  Barrie Dale,et al.  Failure mode and effects analysis in the U.K. motor industry: A state-of-the-art study , 1990 .

[20]  N. Kano,et al.  Attractive Quality and Must-Be Quality , 1984 .