Potential Causes - Fassmer D M A I C

Packing
Glass Demouldin Cutting& Reciving
Gelcoating Infusion Assembly and
layup g Drilling nacelle
shipping

Crack/Blo
w holes FM1

Manpower Machine Method

insufficient workplace training

faulty machine for infusion dropping pressure during the process RC2
RC3 (15%)
lack of pressing of glass no milling of excess resin after the infusion
(35%)
reinforcement by the lack of cyclical inspections of the machine process
employee
no guidelines for milling excess resin
lack of experience lack of knowledge about correctly
incorrect location of technological materials
RC1
machine working
lack of familiarization with the instructions not using the right tools to tap layers (50%)
Inaccurate placement of delamination (peel ply) in the difficult area (internal r
lack of supervision
lack of knowledge about machine using
incorrect location of mats / basis weight
Crack/Blo
w holes
lack of control point by QC/ foreman
improper resin viscosity

improper temperature of the resin

hole in the foil

improper temperature on the production hall

Measurement Mother Nature Materials

See tutorial regarding confidentiality

disclosures. Delete if not needed. 1
REPEAT THIS FOR EACH FAILURE MODE
Potential Causes - Fassmer D M A I C

Demouldin Packing Reciving

Glass Cutting& Final
Gelcoating Infusion g Assembly and nacelle
layup Drilling inspec
shipping

FM2
Incoming
Goods Defective
FM2 parts
FM2

RC1
Manpower Machine Method
(40%)
Brak kontroli wejściowej
lack of supervision

N/A no guidelines for the use of

lack of experience
appropriate assembly tools
the use of unsuitable tools

no tool for assembly

RC3(40% use of incorrect screws without galvanizing

lack of incoming goods & final control )

Brak punktu kontr w kontr wyjściowej 40
RC2
lack of supervision – Production Dept.
(20%)
Defective
Parts
N/A
use of incorrect screws without galvanizing

N/A

Measurement Mother Nature Materials

See tutorial regarding confidentiality

disclosures. Delete if not needed. 2
REPEAT THIS FOR EACH FAILURE MODE
Potential Causes - Fassmer D M A I C

Packing
Glass Demouldin Cutting& Reciving
Gelcoating Infusion Assembly and
layup g Drilling nacelle
shipping

Threed
missing/Damage
FM3

Manpower Machine Method

RC2
lack of knowledge about problem N/A Incorrect use threading method
RC1 (30%)
lack of control thread
(70%)
lack of final inspection no guidelines for input / output control

lack of supervision - final inspection

Threed
missing/Damag
e
incorrect thread gauge

damage thread gauge

N/A

N/A

Measurement Mother Nature Materials

See tutorial regarding confidentiality

disclosures. Delete if not needed. 3
REPEAT THIS FOR EACH FAILURE MODE
Potential Causes - Fassmer D M A I C

Packing
Glass Demouldin Cutting& Reciving
Gelcoating Infusion Assembly and
layup g Drilling nacelle
shipping

Improper
Alignment FM4

Manpower RC1 Machine Method

(70%)
Lack of final inspection
N/A
Lack of experience
Lack of knowledge about problem RC2
incorrect measuring method
Wrong interpretation (30%)
of the technical drawing

Lack of supervision production dpt.

Employee did not understand the
information sent to him (technical drawing)
Improper
Alignment

The measuring equipment had N/A

verification of measuring instruments
N/A

Measurement Mother Nature Materials

See tutorial regarding confidentiality

disclosures. Delete if not needed. 4
REPEAT THIS FOR EACH FAILURE MODE
Overview of Potential Causes D M A I C

Failure Practical
Root Causes What makes you say that?
Mode Contribution in %

• RC1 - improper using of the tools 50% RC1 - Process analysis

• RC2 - no milling of excess resin after the 35% RC2 - Process analysis
FM1
infusion process
• RC3 - improper location of the foil 15% RC3 – Expert opinion

• RC1 - no guidelines for input / output RC1 - Process analysis / Expert

control 80% opinion
FM2 • RC2 - lack of supervision – Production 20 % RC2 - Process analysis / Expert
Dept. opinion

RC1 - Process analysis / Expert

opinion
• RC1 - lack of control thread 70%
FM3 RC2 - Process analysis / Expert
• RC2 - Incorrect use threading method 30%
opinion

FM4 • RC1 - Incorrect use threading method 80% RC1 - Process analysis / Expert
• RC2 - incorrect measuring method 20% opinion
RC2 - Process analysis / Expert
opinion

See tutorial regarding confidentiality

disclosures. Delete if not needed. 5
Improve
Mitigating Impact of Failure Modes D M A I C

Current Process
Process

Severity
Potential Prevention Detection

Occurrence
Function/ Potential Potential Cause(s)

Detection
Operation Step Requirements Effect(s) of RPN
Description Failure Mode of Failure
Failure
Controls Controls

infusion 3 Peel ply According Cracs/ blow Strenth nacelle There were no
aplication to TL 2004 -1 holes impact 5 guidelines in the No prevention 10 No detection 10 500
instructions regarding
the correct position of
the delamination
fabric

Infusion 3 Peel ply

aplication According Cracs/ blow Strenth nacelle 5 No match between
to TL 2004 -1 holes impact GE specification and No prevention 10 No detection 10 500
check list

infusion 3 Peel ply 5

GE client not
aplication According Cracs/ blow Strenth nacelle
required PFMEA
to TL 2004 -1 holes impact No prevention 10 No detection 10 500
analysis

See tutorial regarding confidentiality

disclosures. Delete if not needed. 7
Mitigating Impact of Failure Modes D M A I C

Current Process

Process Prevention Detection

Severity
Potential

Occurrence
Function/ Potential

Detection
Operation Step Requirements Effect(s) of Potential Cause(s) of Failure RPN
Description Failure Mode
Failure
Controls Controls

Cutting & Drilling 5 Grinding of parts according to GE Cracs/ blow Strenth nacelle 5 No prevention 10 No detection 10 500
requirement holes impact The milling operation was not
included in the Building Book

The product maintainer has

Cutting & Drilling 5 Grinding of parts according to GE Cracs/ blow Strenth nacelle 5 not defined the milling No prevention 10 No detection 10 500
requirement holes impact operation as a critical process
and has not provided
guidelines

Cutting & Drilling 5 Grinding of parts according to GE Cracs/ blow Strenth nacelle 5 because the person creating No prevention 10 No detection 10 500
requirement holes impact the ITL did not consider milling
operation

See tutorial regarding confidentiality

disclosures. Delete if not needed. 8
Mitigating Impact of Failure Modes D M A I C

Current Process
Process

Severity
Potential Prevention Detection

Occurrence
Function/ Potential Potential Cause(s)

Detection
Operation Step Requirements Effect(s) of RPN
Description Failure Mode of Failure
Failure
Controls Controls

Cutting & Drilling 5 Grinding of parts According Cracs/ blow Strenth nacelle 5 No prvention 10 No detection 10 500
to ITL 2004 -1 holes impact
Lack of cyclic
workplace training in
Markos facilitie

Cutting & Drilling 5 Grinding of parts According Cracs/ blow Strenth nacelle 5 based on the sample No prvention 10 No detection 10 500
to ITL 2004 -1 holes impact of the new
employee's work
check - for a small
sample

Cutting & Drilling 5 Grinding of parts According Cracs/ blow Strenth nacelle 5 No prvention 10 No detection 10 500
becouse we based
to ITL 2004 -1 holes impact
on our experience

See tutorial regarding confidentiality

disclosures. Delete if not needed. 9
Mitigating Impact of Failure Modes D M A I C

Current Process
Process

Severity
Potential Prevention Detection

Occurrence
Function/ Potential Potential Cause(s)

Detection
Operation Step Requirements Effect(s) of RPN
Description Failure Mode of Failure
Failure
Controls Controls

assembly process 6 assembly of According to Defective estetic aspects, 3 No prevention 10 No detection 10 300
components GE parts H&S
requirement because at the
beginning of the
project life we are not
aware of what
deviations are
acceptable

assembly process 6 assembly of According to Defective estetic aspects, 3 No prevention 10 No detection 10 300
components GE parts H&S because we do not
requirement have such control
standards

assembly process 6 assembly of According to Defective estetic aspects, 3 No prevention 10 No detection 10 300
components GE parts H&S
because the GE
requirement
client did not require
PFMEA analysis

See tutorial regarding confidentiality

disclosures. Delete if not needed. 10
Mitigating Impact of Failure Modes D M A I C

Current Process
Process

Severity
Potential Prevention Detection

Occurrence
Function/ Potential Potential Cause(s)

Detection
Operation Step Requirements Effect(s) of RPN
Description Failure Mode of Failure
Failure
Controls Controls

assembly process 6 assembly of According to Defective estetic aspects, 3 because no one has No prevention 10 No detection 10 300
components GE parts H&S specified the
requirement standards of
supervision over an
employee

because we have
3 assumed that the No prevention 10 No detection 10 300
assembly process 6 assembly of According to Defective estetic aspects, current working
components GE parts H&S standards and
requirement guidelines are known
and sufficient for
properly functioning
processes
supervised by a
supervisor - Master

3 No prevention 10 No detection 10 300

assembly process 6 assembly of According to Defective estetic aspects, Because the
components GE parts H&S employee evaluation
requirement system (master) no
one predicted such a
critical aspect of the
supervision of an
employee

See tutorial regarding confidentiality

disclosures. Delete if not needed. 11
Mitigating Impact of Failure Modes D M A I C

Current Process
Process

Severity
Potential Potential Prevention Detection

Occurrence
Function/ Potential Cause(s)

Detection
Operation Step Requirements Failure Effect(s) of RPN
Description of Failure
Mode Failure
Controls Controls

Assembly 6 assembly of According to GE thread repair is 5 No prevention 10 No detection 10 500

components requirement missing lack required -cost,
of thread claims, client because at the
satisfaction beginning of the life
of the project there
is no standard to
agree with the
Customer on the
critical points of
control, including
thread control

Assembly 6 assembly of According to GE thread repair is 5

because we have
components requirement missing lack required -cost, No prevention 10 No detection 10 500
not received any
of thread claims, client
comments from the
satisfaction
customer regarding
irregularities

Assembly 6 assembly of According to GE thread repair is 5

components requirement missing lack required -cost, No prevention 10 No detection 10 500
of thread claims, client
satisfaction Control Planie
Thread inspection in
term of damage or
lack of thread were
not including in
Control Plan

See tutorial regarding confidentiality

disclosures. Delete if not needed. 12
Mitigating Impact of Failure Modes D M A I C

Current Process
Process

Severity
Potential Prevention Detection

Occurrence
Function/ Potential Potential Cause(s)

Detection
Operation Step Requirements Effect(s) of RPN
Description Failure Mode of Failure
Failure
Controls Controls

drilling of According to thread missing repair is 5 No detection 10 500

cutting & drilling 5 components GE lack of thread required - because the main 10
requirement cost, claims, processes are critical No prevention
client to us
satisfaction

5
cutting & drilling 5 drilling of According to thread missing repair is Based on previous 10 No detection 10 500
components GE lack of thread required - experience, it was No prevention
requirement cost, claims, found that the
client method control is not
satisfaction required

5
cutting & drilling 5 drilling of According to thread missing 10 No detection 10 500
components GE lack of thread No prevention
During the process
requirement
planning It was
determined that this
is not a significant
problem and
potential repairs are
not taken into
account

See tutorial regarding confidentiality

disclosures. Delete if not needed. 13
Mitigating Impact of Failure Modes D M A I C

Current Process
Process

Severity
Potential Prevention Detection

Occurrence
Function/ Potential Potential Cause(s)

Detection
Operation Step Requirements Effect(s) of RPN
Description Failure Mode of Failure
Failure
Controls Controls

assembly 6 assembly of According to GE Improper repair is

components requirement Alingment required -cost, 5 because at the No prevention 10 No detection 10 500
claims, client beginning of the
satisfaction project life we are
not aware of what
deviations are
acceptable

assembly 6 assembly of According to GE Improper repair is

because we do not
components requirement Alingment required -cost, 5 No prevention 10 No detection 10 500
have such control
claims, client
standards to detect
satisfaction
such non-
compliance

assembly 6 assembly of According to GE Improper repair is 5

components requirement Alingment required -cost, No prevention 10 No detection 10 500
claims, client because the GE
satisfaction client did not require
PFMEA analysis

See tutorial regarding confidentiality

disclosures. Delete if not needed. 14
Mitigating Impact of Failure Modes D M A I C

Current Process
Process

Severity
Potential Prevention Detection

Occurrence
Function/ Potential Potential Cause(s)

Detection
Operation Step Requirements Effect(s) RPN
Description Failure Mode of Failure
of Failure
Controls Controls

assembly 6 assembly of According to GE Improper repair is 5 No prevention 10 No detection 10 500

components requirement Alingment required - because based on
cost, our experience, we
claims, assumed that our
client measurement
satisfaction methods are
sufficient

assembly 6 assembly of According to GE Improper 5 No prevention 10 No detection 10 500

components requirement Alingment
repair is
because the GE
required -
client did not require
cost,
PFMEA analysis
claims,
client
satisfaction

See tutorial regarding confidentiality

disclosures. Delete if not needed. 15
Mitigating Impact of Failure Modes D M A I C

Action Results
Responsibility

Occurrence

Detection
Actions Taken

Severity
Potential Failure Potential Effect(s) of Failure & Target
RPN Recommended Action
Mode Completion RPN
Completion
Date
Date

Determining the correct

31/10/2018
positioning of the
Maja Andrzejewska -
delamination fabric during the Technologist
glass-laying process
Cracs/ blow holes Strenth nacelle impact 31/10/2018
500 Implementation of visual Krzysztof Pozorski -
control by team leader and QM
QC according to GE Jarosław Dyś -
specification (114W5494) Production Manager

Implementation of PFMEA 31/12/2018

analysis on GE projects Krzysztof Ćmil - QA
31/10/2018
Cracs/ blow holes Strenth nacelle impact 500 Adding of milling operation to Maja Andrzejewska -
building Book and finish process Technologist

Adding of point about visual 31/10/2018

Cracs/ blow holes Strenth nacelle impact 500 control of milling operation Jarosław Dyś -
after the infusion process to Production Manager
the checklist
Consider of milling operation in 31/10/2018
500 instruction Maja Andrzejewska -
Cracs/ blow holes Strenth nacelle impact
Technologist

See tutorial regarding confidentiality

disclosures. Delete if not needed. 16
Mitigating Impact of Failure Modes D M A I C

Action Results

Occurrence
Responsibility

Detection
Severity
Potential Failure Potential Effect(s) of Failure & Target Actions Taken
RPN Recommended Action
Mode Completion RPN
Date Completion Date

31/10/2018
Implementation of workplace
Robert
Cracs/ blow holes Strenth nacelle impact 500 training in Markos facilitie
Wawrzyniak -
acc. To ITL-2004-1
PM
increasing the frequency of 31/10/2018
verification of the new Jarosław Dyś -
Cracs/ blow holes Strenth nacelle impact 500 employee's work Production
Manager

Quarterly review of the

31/10/2018Maja
management system
Andrzejewska -
Cracs/ blow holes Strenth nacelle impact 500 documentation -
Technologist
technological instructions in
terms of their timeliness

See tutorial regarding confidentiality

disclosures. Delete if not needed. 17
Mitigating Impact of Failure Modes D M A I C

Action Results

Occurrence
Responsibility

Detection
Severity
Potential Failure Potential Effect(s) of Failure & Target Actions Taken
RPN Recommended Action
Mode Completion RPN
Date Completion Date

31/10/2018
Implementation of work Robert
standard, so that in the first Wawrzyniak -
phase of the life of the PM
project, determine with client
Defective parts estetic aspects, H&S 300
the guidelines of incoming
and final inspection and
transfer this information to
the Quality/ Production
Department
Implementation of work 31/10/2018
standard to conduct Robert
Defective parts estetic aspects, H&S 300 inspection concerning Wawrzyniak -
presence of guidelines of PM
incoming and final inspection
Implementation of PFMEA 31/12/2018
analysis on GE projects Krzysztof Ćmil -
Defective parts estetic aspects, H&S 300
QA

See tutorial regarding confidentiality

disclosures. Delete if not needed. 18
Mitigating Impact of Failure Modes D M A I C

Action Results

Occurrence
Responsibility

Detection
Severity
Potential Failure Potential Effect(s) of Failure & Target Actions Taken
RPN Recommended Action
Mode7 Completion RPN
Date Completion Date

31/10/2018
Implementation of work
Jarosław Dyś -
standard to supervision of
Defective parts estetic aspects, H&S 300 Production
worker with emphasis to
Manager
Clients requirement
Elaboration and 31/10/2018
implementation of the Jarosław Dyś -
Master's cyclic control Production
Defective parts estetic aspects, H&S 300 schedule (once a month) by Manager
the supervisor in terms of
supervision over the
employee
Revision of the employee 31/10/2018
evaluation system (Master) in Jarosław Dyś -
Defective parts estetic aspects, H&S 300 terms of critical aspects such Production
as supervising employees Manager

See tutorial regarding confidentiality

disclosures. Delete if not needed. 19
Mitigating Impact of Failure Modes D M A I C

Action Results

Occurrence
Responsibility

Detection
Severity
Potential Failure Potential Effect(s) of Failure & Target Actions Taken
RPN Recommended Action
Mode7 Completion RPN
Date Completion Date

Implementation of the 31/10/2018

standard to determine at the Robert
beginning of the project life Wawrzyniak -
thread missing lack repair is required -cost, claims,
500 with the customer which PM
of thread client satisfaction
threads need to be controlled
by using the go / ngo test.
Determination of CTQ
Adding to checklist the thread 31/10/2018
control in terms of thread Krzysztof
thread missing lack repair is required -cost, claims,
500 damage - using the thread Pozorski - QM
of thread client satisfaction
gauge or lack of thread -
visual inspection
The inclusion of thread 31/10/2018
control in the Control Plan for Krzysztof
thread damage - Checking the Pozorski - QM
thread missing lack repair is required -cost, claims,
500 gauge or missing thread -
of thread client satisfaction
visual inspection and delivery
of the Control Plan to the
Production Department

See tutorial regarding confidentiality

disclosures. Delete if not needed. 20
Mitigating Impact of Failure Modes D M A I C

Action Results

Occurrence
Responsibility

Detection
Severity
Potential Failure Potential Effect(s) of Failure & Target Actions Taken
RPN Recommended Action
Mode7 Completion RPN
Date Completion Date

31/10/2018
Implementation of auxiliary Maja
thread missing lack repair is required -cost, claims,
500 process validation standard Andrzejewska -
of thread client satisfaction
(threading methods) Technologist

31/10/2018
Implementation of the Maja
thread missing lack repair is required -cost, claims,
500 method control and the result Andrzejewska -
of thread client satisfaction
of the threading process Technologist

Inclusion during the design of 31/10/2018

auxiliary processes - Maja
thread missing lack repair is required -cost, claims,
500 threading Andrzejewska -
of thread client satisfaction
Technologist

See tutorial regarding confidentiality

disclosures. Delete if not needed. 21
Mitigating Impact of Failure Modes D M A I C

Action Results

Occurrence
Responsibility

Detection
Severity
Potential Failure Potential Effect(s) of Failure & Target Actions Taken
RPN Recommended Action
Mode Completion RPN
Date Completion Date

Implementation of work
standard, so that in the first
phase of the life of the 31/10/2018
project, determine with client Robert
Improper repair is required -cost, claims,
500 the guidelines of incoming Wawrzyniak -
Alignement client satisfaction
and final inspection and PM
transfer this information to
the Quality/ Production
Department
Implementation of work
31/10/2018
standard to conduct
Improper repair is required -cost, claims, Krzysztof
500 inspection concerning
Alignement client satisfaction Pozorski - QM
presence of guidelines of
incoming and final inspection
31/12/2018
Improper repair is required -cost, claims, Implementation of PFMEA Krzysztof Ćmil -
500
Alignement client satisfaction analysis on GE projects QA

See tutorial regarding confidentiality

disclosures. Delete if not needed. 22
Mitigating Impact of Failure Modes D M A I C

Action Results

Occurrence
Responsibility

Detection
Severity
Potential Failure Potential Effect(s) of Failure & Target Actions Taken
RPN Recommended Action
Mode Completion RPN
Date Completion Date

Improper repair is required -cost, claims, we cannot occur of failure in

500 -
Alignement client satisfaction Markos facilities
31/12/2018
Improper repair is required -cost, claims, Implementation of PFMEA Krzysztof Ćmil -
500
Alignement client satisfaction analysis on GE projects QA

See tutorial regarding confidentiality

disclosures. Delete if not needed. 23