Tom I'm using these for interview prep, and they are a lifesaver! A great way to learn this material. Sincerely appreciate the effort you've put in to make this content engaging and easy to absorb.
I agree that you cannot prioritize by RPN alone, but your example was poor. If your Sev=10 and your Occur=10, your Det could NOT = 1. The only way you can give a Detection value of 1 or 2 is if you have a Poke Yoke or some type of error proof in place where 1 equals "you cannot MAKE" the feature bad, or a detection value of 2 where "you cannot PASS a part with that feature being bad". So, this could never happen. You should simply say that all Severities equaling 10 should be addressed.
I deeply appreciate your constructive feedback regarding my prior commentary in the DFMEA video. I wholeheartedly acknowledge your perspective on the matter of risk prioritization through the utilization of Risk Priority Numbers (RPNs). Allow me to address the salient points you have raised: RPN Calculation Validity: It is astutely observed that conventional Risk Priority Number (RPN) calculations tend to yield significantly elevated RPN values when both the severity (Sev) and occurrence (Occur) parameters are assigned the maximum value of 10. This, in turn, often renders the assignment of low detection values (Det=1 or Det=2) improbable, given the inherent inverse relationship between these variables. I must underscore that the extreme example presented was employed deliberately to underscore the limitations associated with an exclusive reliance on RPN as a means of risk assessment. While such occurrences are rare, it is plausible for a "1" to be allocated within a DFMEA, bearing in mind that the determination of detection may occasionally be influenced by the expertise level of the engineer engaged in this manual assessment. The Role of Detection: Your emphasis on the pivotal role of detection within the RPN calculation is well-founded. The detection factor assumes a critical function within the purview of risk assessment, serving to pinpoint areas necessitating heightened attention and control measures to avert the actualization of the identified risks. Addressing All Severities: Your proposition that all instances of severity attaining a rating of 10 warrant immediate consideration is a valid assertion. In numerous risk assessment frameworks, the sheer gravity of a high-severity scenario in isolation is sufficient to warrant prioritization, regardless of other influencing factors. It is imperative to recognize that not all situations neatly align with the confines of the RPN calculation model, and instances exist wherein the mere existence of a high-severity issue mandates expeditious action. Context Matters: It is paramount to acknowledge that risk assessment is a bespoke undertaking, devoid of universal applicability. The suitability of employing RPNs is intrinsically contingent upon the specific context, industry, and organizational nuances. While RPNs prove advantageous in many scenarios, some contexts may indeed incline towards an emphasis on severity, as you have aptly surmised. In summary, I concur with your appraisal of the example provided and your accentuation of the primacy of addressing high-severity concerns. It is imperative to comprehend that risk assessment is a multifaceted discipline, wherein RPNs, while undoubtedly valuable, may not emerge as the panacea for all situations. The choice of approach should be judiciously determined by the contextual factors, the industry domain, and the unique intricacies of the risk under consideration. I extend my sincere appreciation for your discerning insights and the elucidation provided on this matter. Thanks for watching!
