Analysis of Product Defect Causes in Machine Fabrication Process Using Method Failure Mode and Impact Analysis (FMEA): Analisis Penyebab Defect Produk pada Proses Fabrikasi Mesin Menggunakan Metode Failure Mode and Effect Analysis (FMEA)

Dwi Maulana (Program Studi Teknik Industri, Fakultas Sains dan Teknologi, Universitas Muhammadiyah Sidoarjo)
Boy Isma Putra (Program Studi Teknik Industri, Fakultas Sains dan Teknologi, Universitas Muhammadiyah Sidoarjo)

Indonesian Journal of Innovation Studies
Vol. 27 No. 2 (2026): April

General Background Product quality remains a crucial factor in the manufacturing industry because it dictates customer satisfaction, production efficiency, and organizational competitiveness. Specific Background PT. XYZ as a company operating in machine fabrication still encounters high defect levels, recording 42 defective products or an 8.83% defect rate during January–June 2026, which exceeds the corporate target of 4%. Knowledge Gap Comprehensive risk identification and failure prioritization across machine fabrication stages are required to systematically address welding irregularities and inspection oversights. Aims This study aims to identify primary defect causes, determine risk priority levels using Failure Mode and Effect Analysis (FMEA), and establish corrective priorities through Pareto Diagram analysis. Results The FMEA results indicate that porosity in welding represents the highest risk with a Risk Priority Number (RPN) of 270, while Pareto analysis reveals that porosity, inspection escapes, undercut, and distortion account for a cumulative 46.81% contribution among 235 defect events. Novelty The integration of FMEA risk quantification with Pareto prioritization provides a structured multi-criteria approach specifically tailored to machine fabrication production lines. Implications Implementing the proposed corrective actions is expected to diminish defect rates, suppress rework volumes, and elevate overall operational efficiency at PT. XYZ. Key Findings Highlights Porosity defects during the welding process yielded the highest Risk Priority Number of 270, identifying welding operations as the most critical production stage. Pareto Diagram analysis established that porosity, inspection escapes, undercut, and welding distortion contribute a cumulative 46.81% share of total recorded defects. The empirical defect rate reached 8.83% during the observation window, significantly surpassing the organizational benchmark target of 4%. Keywords Product Quality, Failure Mode And Effect Analysis, Risk Priority Number, Pareto Diagram, Product Defects