Criteria for Evaluating the FMEA.
1. Completeness
a. Are all critical failure identified and included in the FMEA? (Focus on capturing all
potential failure modes)
b. Have all potential causes and effects been considered for each failure mode? (Evaluate
the comprehensiveness of the analysis)
c. Are all failure modes associated with potential causes and effects? (Ensure that all
failure modes are properly linked to their respective causes and effects.)
d. Are there any failure modes that might have been overlooked or omitted? (Look for any
gaps in the identified failure modes)
2. Accuracy:
a. Are the failure modes accurately identified and described? (Assess the clarity and
specificity of the descriptions)
b. Are the assigned severity rating supported by historical data or expert knowledge?
(Evaluate the basis for severity assessments)
c. Are the causes identified based on root causes analysis or supported by evidence?
(Assess the credibility of the identified causes)
d. Are the causes accurately linked to each failure mode? (Ensure the causes are plausible
and well-supported.)
e. Are the effects accurately described, and their impact adequately assessed? (Evaluate
the severity and consequences)
3. Consistency:
a. Are the assigned severity rating consistent across different sections and levels of the
FMEA? (Check for uniformity in rating scales)
b. Are the assigned occurrence ratings consistent with the likelihood of failure events
occurring? (Evaluate if the assigned ratings align with the probability of occurrence.)
c. Do the assigned detection ratings reflect the effectiveness of current controls and
detection mechanism? (Assess the reliability of detection measures)
d. Are the assigned detection ratings based on realistic assumptions about the
effectiveness of current detection methods? (Assess the reliability of the assigned
detection ratings.)
4. Depth
a. Have potential causes been thoroughly explored for each failure mode? (Evaluate the
depth of analysis for root cause)
b. Are the potential effect and impacts of failure mode well-understood? (Assess the
consequence on system, or end-user)
5. Risk Prioritization:
a. Is the method used for prioritizing risk clear and well-defined? (Evaluate the method’s
objectivity and reliability)
b. Are the severity, occurrence, and detection ranking appropriately weighted and
combined? (Assess the rationale behind the weighting scheme)
c. Is there a clear methodology for determining the Risk Priority Number (RPN)? (Evaluate
the transparency and objectivity of the calculation method.)
d. Are the severity, occurrence, and detection ratings appropriately prioritized based on
their relative importance? (Assess if the most critical factors are appropriately
weighted.)
e. Does the Risk Priority Number (RPN) effectively identify the most critical failure modes?
(Evaluate the consistency of RPN rankings.)
6. Mitigation Measures
a. Are the proposed mitigation measure adequate for addressing the identified failure
modes? (Assess the appropriateness and effectiveness of the proposed actions)
b. Do the measures effectively reduce the severity, occurrence, or detection of failures?
(Evaluate the potential impact of mitigation measures)
c. Are the proposed actions feasible and cost-effective? (Assess the practicality and
financial implications of implementation)
7. Documentation:
a. Is the FMEA documentation clear, organized, and easy to understand? (Evaluate the
structure and readability of the document)
b. Is all relevant information presented in a structured manner? (Assess the consistency of
formatting and section organization.)
c. Are there any missing or ambiguous details that could impact the usefulness of the
FMEA? (Look for gaps in information or unclear descriptions)
FMEA RUBRICS:
1. Completeness (20 points)
a. All critical failures identified and included: (5 points)

1 point: Missing all critical failures

2-4 points: Partial identification of critical failures

5 points: All critical failures identified and included
b. Potential causes and effects considered: (5 points)

1-2 points: Superficial analysis with limited consideration of potential causes
and effects

3-4 points: Partial consideration of potential causes and effects

5 points: Comprehensive consideration of potential causes and effects
c. Failure modes properly linked to causes and effects: (5 points)

1-2 points: Failure modes not linked to their respective causes and effects

3-4 points: Partial or inaccurate linkage of failure modes to causes and effects

5 points: Proper linkage of failure modes to their respective causes and
effects
d. No overlooked or omitted failure modes: (5points)

1 point: Significant failure modes overlooked or omitted

2-3 points: Some failure modes may have been overlooked or omitted

4-5 points: No major gaps or omissions in the identified failure modes
2. Accuracy (20 points)
a. Failure modes accurately identified and described: (5 points)

1-2 points: Failure modes inaccurately identified or described with vague or
ambiguous descriptions

3-4 points: Partial accuracy or clarity in identifying and describing failure modes

5 points: Failure modes accurately identified and clearly described
b. Severity ratings supported by data/expert knowledge: (2 points)

0 points: Severity ratings unsupported or arbitrarily assigned

1 points: Partial support for severity ratings with limited data or expert
knowledge

2 points: Severity ratings strongly supported by historical data or expert
knowledge
c. Causes identified based on root cause analysis or evidence: (3 points)

1 points: Causes identified without root cause analysis or evidence

2 points: Partial root cause analysis or limited supporting evidence for causes

3points: Causes accurately identified based on thorough root cause analysis or
strong supporting evidence
d. Causes accurately linked to each failure mode: (5 points)

1 -2 points: Inconsistent or incorrect linkages between causes and failure modes

3-4 point: Partial accuracy in linking causes to failure modes

5 points: Accurate linkage of causes to failure modes
e. Effects accurately described and impact assessed: (5 points)

1-2 points: Incomplete or vague descriptions of effects with limited impact
assessment

3 points: Partially accurate descriptions and moderate impact assessment

5 points: Effects accurately described with comprehensive impact assessment
3. Consistency (15 points)
a. Consistent severity ratings across different sections/levels: (4 points)

1 points: Inconsistent severity ratings across different sections or levels

2-3 points: Partial consistency in severity ratings

4 points: Consistent severity ratings across different sections and levels
b. Occurrence ratings aligned with likelihood of failure: (4 points)

0 points: Occurrence ratings misaligned with the likelihood of failure events

1-3 points: Partial alignment between occurrence ratings and likelihood of failure

4 points: Occurrence ratings accurately aligned with the likelihood of failure
events
c. Detection ratings reflect effectiveness of controls: (4 points)

1 points: Detection ratings not reflective of the effectiveness of controls

2-3 points: Partial reflection of control effectiveness in detection ratings

4 points: Detection ratings accurately reflect the effectiveness of controls
d. Detection ratings based on realistic assumptions: (3 points)

1 points: Detection ratings based on unrealistic or unfounded assumptions

2 points: Partially realistic assumptions underlying detection ratings

3 points: Detection ratings based on realistic assumptions about the effectiveness
of current detection methods
4. Depth (15 points)
a. Thorough exploration of potential causes for each failure mode: (10 points)

1 - 4 points: Superficial exploration of causes with limited depth

5 - 8 points: Partial exploration of causes with moderate depth

9 -10 points: Thorough exploration of potential causes for each failure mode
b. Understanding of potential effects and impacts of failure: (5points)

1-2 points: Limited understanding of potential effects and their impacts

3-4 points: Partial understanding of effects and their impacts

5 points: Clear understanding of potential effects and their impacts on the system
or end-user
5. Risk Prioritization (5 points)
a. Clear and well-defined method for prioritizing risk: (2points)

0 points: Unclear or subjective method for prioritizing risk

1 point: Partial clarity in the method for prioritizing risk

2 points: Clear and well-defined method for prioritizing risk
b. Appropriate weighting and combination of severity, occurrence, and detection rankings:
(1 point)

0 points: Inappropriate or unbalanced weighting and combination of rankings

1 point: Appropriate weighting and combination of severity, occurrence, and
detection rankings
c. Clear methodology for determining the Risk Priority Number (RPN): (2 points)

1 points: Lack of transparency or subjective methodology for calculating the RPN

2 point: Clear methodology for determining the Risk Priority Number
6. Mitigation Measures (10 points)
a. Adequacy of proposed mitigation measures for failure modes: (4points)

1 points: Inadequate or ineffective proposed mitigation measures

2-3 points: Partial adequacy of proposed mitigation measures

4 points: Well-suited and effective proposed mitigation measures
b. Effectiveness of measures in reducing severity, occurrence, or detection: (5 points)

1 point: Minimal impact of measures on reducing severity, occurrence, or
detection

2-4 points: Partial effectiveness of measures in reducing severity, occurrence, or
detection

5 points: Significant impact of measures on reducing severity, occurrence, or
detection
c. Feasibility and cost-effectiveness of proposed actions: ( 3 points)

1 points: Infeasible or impractical proposed actions with high costs

2 points: Partial feasibility and cost-effectiveness of proposed actions

3 points: Proposed actions are feasible and cost-effective
7. Documentation (15 points)
a. Clear, organized, and easy-to-understand documentation: (10 points)

1-4 points: Documentation lacks clarity, organization, and readability

5-8 points: Partial clarity, organization, and readability in documentation

10 points: Documentation is clear, well-organized, and easy to understand
b. Structured presentation of all relevant information: (3 points)

1 points: Inconsistencies or gaps in the presentation of relevant information

2 point: Partially structured presentation of relevant information

3 points: Structured presentation of all relevant information
c. Absence of missing or ambiguous details impacting usefulness: (2 points)

0 points: Missing or ambiguous details that significantly impact the usefulness of
the FMEA
Total: 100 points

1points: Partial missing or ambiguous details affecting the usefulness

2 points: No missing or ambiguous details impacting the usefulness of the FMEA