Accendo Reliability

Your Reliability Engineering Professional Development Site

  • Home
  • About
    • Contributors
    • About Us
    • Colophon
    • Survey
  • Reliability.fm
  • Articles
    • CRE Preparation Notes
    • NoMTBF
    • on Leadership & Career
      • Advanced Engineering Culture
      • ASQR&R
      • Engineering Leadership
      • Managing in the 2000s
      • Product Development and Process Improvement
    • on Maintenance Reliability
      • Aasan Asset Management
      • AI & Predictive Maintenance
      • Asset Management in the Mining Industry
      • CMMS and Maintenance Management
      • CMMS and Reliability
      • Conscious Asset
      • EAM & CMMS
      • Everyday RCM
      • History of Maintenance Management
      • Life Cycle Asset Management
      • Maintenance and Reliability
      • Maintenance Management
      • Plant Maintenance
      • Process Plant Reliability Engineering
      • RCM Blitz®
      • ReliabilityXperience
      • Rob’s Reliability Project
      • The Intelligent Transformer Blog
      • The People Side of Maintenance
      • The Reliability Mindset
    • on Product Reliability
      • Accelerated Reliability
      • Achieving the Benefits of Reliability
      • Apex Ridge
      • Field Reliability Data Analysis
      • Metals Engineering and Product Reliability
      • Musings on Reliability and Maintenance Topics
      • Product Validation
      • Reliability by Design
      • Reliability Competence
      • Reliability Engineering Insights
      • Reliability in Emerging Technology
      • Reliability Knowledge
    • on Risk & Safety
      • CERM® Risk Insights
      • Equipment Risk and Reliability in Downhole Applications
      • Operational Risk Process Safety
    • on Systems Thinking
      • Communicating with FINESSE
      • The RCA
    • on Tools & Techniques
      • Big Data & Analytics
      • Experimental Design for NPD
      • Innovative Thinking in Reliability and Durability
      • Inside and Beyond HALT
      • Inside FMEA
      • Institute of Quality & Reliability
      • Integral Concepts
      • Learning from Failures
      • Progress in Field Reliability?
      • R for Engineering
      • Reliability Engineering Using Python
      • Reliability Reflections
      • Statistical Methods for Failure-Time Data
      • Testing 1 2 3
      • The Manufacturing Academy
  • eBooks
  • Resources
    • Accendo Authors
    • FMEA Resources
    • Glossary
    • Feed Forward Publications
    • Openings
    • Books
    • Webinar Sources
    • Podcasts
  • Courses
    • Your Courses
    • Live Courses
      • Introduction to Reliability Engineering & Accelerated Testings Course Landing Page
      • Advanced Accelerated Testing Course Landing Page
    • Integral Concepts Courses
      • Reliability Analysis Methods Course Landing Page
      • Applied Reliability Analysis Course Landing Page
      • Statistics, Hypothesis Testing, & Regression Modeling Course Landing Page
      • Measurement System Assessment Course Landing Page
      • SPC & Process Capability Course Landing Page
      • Design of Experiments Course Landing Page
    • The Manufacturing Academy Courses
      • An Introduction to Reliability Engineering
      • Reliability Engineering Statistics
      • An Introduction to Quality Engineering
      • Quality Engineering Statistics
      • FMEA in Practice
      • Process Capability Analysis course
      • Root Cause Analysis and the 8D Corrective Action Process course
      • Return on Investment online course
    • Industrial Metallurgist Courses
    • FMEA courses Powered by The Luminous Group
    • Foundations of RCM online course
    • Reliability Engineering for Heavy Industry
    • How to be an Online Student
    • Quondam Courses
  • Calendar
    • Call for Papers Listing
    • Upcoming Webinars
    • Webinar Calendar
  • Login
    • Member Home
  • Barringer Process Reliability Introduction Course Landing Page
  • Upcoming Live Events
You are here: Home / Articles / Is There a Better Way Than RPN?

by Carl S. Carlson Leave a Comment

Is There a Better Way Than RPN?

“Number rules the universe.” – Pythagoras

Risk Priority Number (RPN) . . . by definition, a single number that represents relative risk for prioritizing issues in an FMEA. Sounds simple. But, how well does it work in practice? And, is there a better way?

This article highlights shortcomings and concerns when using RPN in FMEA, and discusses an alternative. It is a companion article to “Prioritizing risk for corrective actions in an FMEA.”

Refresh: What is RPN?

As covered in the above referenced article:

In an FMEA, Risk Priority Number (RPN) is a numerical ranking of the risk of each potential failure mode and associated cause, made up of the arithmetic product of the three elements: severity of the effect, likelihood of occurrence of the cause, and likelihood of detection of the cause.

How well does RPN prioritize risk?

The following are the primary shortcomings and concerns when using RPN.

1. High severity – low RPN can be high risk. Therefore, if you use RPN as the primary method to prioritize risk, high-severity issues can be under-represented. The work around is to always address high-severity first, regardless of RPN. Safety and regulatory risk must be addressed by first attempting to reduce severity (if possible), followed by driving occurrence and detection risk as low as possible. High-risk issues should always be reviewed with management.

2. RPN thresholds are not advised. They can devolve into a numbers game. International FMEA standards have discouraged this practice for years.

3. RPN has been replaced by “Risk Prioritization” in international FMEA standards. The new AIAG/VDA FMEA Handbook does not use RPN. The new SAE J1739 FMEA Standard considers RPN as one of three possible approaches to risk prioritization.

Is there a better way?

The objective of Risk Prioritization is to sequence the risk associated with each of the failure modes, effects and causes to determine which are highest priority for corrective actions. One alternative worth considering is called Action Priority (AP).

What is Action Priority (AP)?

The Action Priority (AP) method of risk prioritization accounts for all combinations of S, O, and D. This allows more emphasis on severity, and adjusts for the shortcoming in RPN. The combinations for S, O, and D are represented in an Action Priority Table.

According to SAE J1739 (2021):

Action Priority (AP) table combines Severity (S), Occurrence (O), and Detection (D) ratings with suggested priority levels for identification of potential actions to reduce risk based on High (H), Medium (M), and Low (L) assessments. Individual companies may develop their own criteria for H, M, and L and make the company-specific Action Priority table available to the DFMEA team and customer or supplier.

The benefit of action priority is that it does not treat severity, occurrence, and detection as equal values (as RPN, SO does). The AP table provides an action prioritization system to focus the team’s time and resources.

Management can provide guidance and should be kept informed on all high-risk issues.

What does an AP Table look like?

Here is an example AP Table. Note, in this example, S, O, and D scales are 1 to 10. The same type of table can be done with other scales, such as 1 to 5.

Example of Action Priority Table.

The AP Table should be company-specific, based on the risk considerations of the company.

How is AP Table applied?

In an FMEA, as soon as the FMEA team assesses the risk associated with Severity, Occurrence and Detection, the next step is Risk Prioritization. The FMEA team finds the applicable column in the AP Table, and identifies the corresponding AP value. For example, if S = 8, O = 3, and D = 5, the AP in the above table would be “M.” This means the team would first address all of failures / causes that are “H,” before considering action for failures / causes that are “M” or “L.”

As noted in SAE J1739, “It is recommended that potential Severity 9-10 and potential effect(s) regardless of Action Priority assessment be reviewed by management including any recommended actions that were identified.” [The same note applies to Severity 5, when using a 1 to 5 Severity scale.]

Tip

An AP assessment of Low does not mean action should not be considered. The High, Medium or Low assessment should be used to prioritize action, not presume action is not necessary.

Next Article

This concludes the Inside FMEA “Special Topics” series of articles. Next month will begin a new series called “Current FMEA Topics.” The first discussion topic will be “FMEA: Automated or Team-Based.”

 

[display_form id=415]

Filed Under: Articles, Inside FMEA, on Tools & Techniques

About Carl S. Carlson

Carl S. Carlson is a consultant and instructor in the areas of FMEA, reliability program planning and other reliability engineering disciplines, supporting over one hundred clients from a wide cross-section of industries. He has 35 years of experience in reliability testing, engineering, and management positions, including senior consultant with ReliaSoft Corporation, and senior manager for the Advanced Reliability Group at General Motors.

« Ballistic Setting Tools
How One Person Can Change the Reliability Culture »

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Articles by Carl Carlson
in the Inside FMEA series

[popup type="" link_text="Logo Info" ]

Information about FMEA Icon

Inside FMEA can be visually represented by a large tree, with roots, a solid trunk, branches, and leaves.

- The roots of the tree represent the philosophy and guiding principles for effective FMEAs.
- The solid trunk of the tree represents the fundamentals for all FMEAs.
- The branches represent the various FMEA applications.
- The leaves represent the valuable outcomes of FMEAs.
- This is intended to convey that each of the various FMEA applications have the same fundamentals and philosophical roots.

 

For example, the roots of the tree can represent following philosophy and guiding principles for effective FMEAs, such as:

1. Correct procedure         2. Lessons learned
3. Trained team                 4. Focus on prevention
5. Integrated with DFR    6. Skilled facilitation
7. Management support

The tree trunk represents the fundamentals of FMEA. All types of FMEA share common fundamentals, and these are essential to successful FMEA applications.

The tree branches can include the different types of FMEAs, including:

1. System FMEA         2. Design FMEA
3. Process FMEA        4. DRBFM
5. Hazard Analysis     6. RCM or Maintenance FMEA
7. Software FMEA      8. Other types of FMEA

The leaves of the tree branches represent individual FMEA projects, with a wide variety of FMEA scopes and results. [/popup]

Join Accendo

Receive information and updates about articles and many other resources offered by Accendo Reliability by becoming a member.

It’s free and only takes a minute.

Join Today

Recent Posts

  • Gremlins today
  • The Power of Vision in Leadership and Organizational Success
  • 3 Types of MTBF Stories
  • ALT: An in Depth Description
  • Project Email Economics

© 2025 FMS Reliability · Privacy Policy · Terms of Service · Cookies Policy