Risk priority number , determination

Determine Risk Priority Number for Each Failure Mode... 

Prioritize the list of potential failure points to determine which ones are most worth your time and effort to prevent. One way to do this is using a Design FMEA (Technique 40) to calculate a Risk Priority Number (RPN), and then address issues with high RPNs as well as those with higher severity ratings. 

Determination It is determined by the risk priority number (RPN) (see Clause 2.0.8) Qualitative Comparing failure mode in criticality matrix (discussed later) Quantitative Item criticality = Smode criticality (MC) where MC = Unreliability x probability of loss X Mode ratio of unreliability Criticality matrix is necessary... 

III 5 Determination of risk priority number (RPN) = SxOxD Criticality = S X O... 

Two methods for determining the risk level in a risk assessment are commonly used in safety standards Risk matrix and Risk Priority Number. 

The marine industry is recognising the need for powerful techniques that can be used to perform risk analysis of marine systems. One technique that has been applied in both national and international marine regulations and operations is Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (FMEA). This risk analysis tool assumes that a failure mode occurs in a system/component through some failure mechanism. The effect of this failure is then evaluated. A risk ranking is produced in order to prioritise the attention for each of the failure modes identified. The traditional method utilises the Risk Priority Number (RPN) ranking system. This method determines the RPN by finding the multiplication of factor scores. The three factors considered are probability of failure, severity and detectability. Traditional FMEA has been criticised to have several weaknesses. These weaknesses are addressed in this Chapter. A new approach, which utilises the fuzzy rules base and grey relation theory, is presented. 

Nevertheless, clinical risk is clearly a major contributor to the potential impact of a fault. Irrespective of other possible outcomes, an adverse effect on patient safety is likely to promote the priority level significantly. Healthcare organisations and manufacturers therefore need to assess reported faults to determine whether or not they are safety-related and, where they are, determine the level of clinical risk. This can be a challenge where large numbers of faults are reported and it may be necessary for filters to be put in place such that service desk staff can escalate faults of greatest concern for a formal risk assessment. 

Guidelines for benchmarking problems with lead in drinking water have been prepared by COST Action 637 in liaison with the EC Joint Research Centre and the World Health Organization (Hoekstra et ai, 2009). These guidelines are based on risk assessment to identify a representative number of water supply areas that are then surveyed by random daytime sampling to determine priorities for corrective action (see Chapters 3 and 6). 

The assessment of lesser risks tends to be qualitative with the assessor making a subjective evaluation. However, for more complex risks or where there are a number of parallel risks some form of quantitative assessment may be necessary to determine priorities. Typical techniques that can be employed are described in annex B of EN 1050 and include ... 

Where a number of residual hazards remain there may be a need to determine priorities for dealing with them. This can be done either subjectively based on the assessor s knowledge of the processes or by evolving, for each residual hazard, a numeric value or risk rating based on a number of factors ... 

---