Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Promoting Expert Knowledge for Comprehensive Human Risk Management in Industrial Environments

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Applications in Reliability and Statistical Computing

Part of the book series: Springer Series in Reliability Engineering ((RELIABILITY))

  • 292 Accesses

Abstract

This research develops a methodological approach aimed at promoting expert knowledge and, as a consequence, exploiting the strength of practical experience in industry in a scientifically rigorous way. In particular, we make use of Fuzzy Cognitive Maps (FCMs) to organise in a flexible way human knowledge about decision-making problems focused on the topic of human risks management. FCMs enable the representation of causal relations among relevant decision-making elements on the basis of spontaneous human brainstorming stimulated from a single expert or a decision-making team. After leading a comprehensive literature review, aimed at identifying industrial human risks in the most exhaustive way, a FCM will be built to define relations among risks. Specifically, the calculation of the total effect will be supported by means of the use of the Nonlinear Hebbian Learning (NHL) algorithm, something that will be useful to make the approach even more reliable. Risks will be later prioritised by means of a modified Failure Modes, Effects and Criticality Analysis (FMECA): the total effect previously calculated will be considered as an additional criterion for risk prioritisation, apart from the ones traditionally considered by FMECA. Moreover, an alternative calculation way for the Risk Priority Number (RPN) will be proposed: the Multi-Criteria Decision-Making (MCDM) approach making use of the TODIM (an acronym in Portuguese standing for interactive and multi-criteria decision-making) method under Z-environment will be used to perform the final ranking. This technique is indeed useful to deal with the psychological behaviours of decision-makers. A real case study is eventually implemented to provide useful implications for risk management.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 149.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Amenta P, Lucadamo A, Marcarelli G (2020) On the transitivity and consistency approximated thresholds of some consistency indices for pairwise comparison matrices. Inform Sci 507:274–287

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Amirkhani A, Papageorgiou EI, Mohseni A, Mosavi MR (2017) A review of fuzzy cognitive maps in medicine: taxonomy, methods, and applications. Comput Methods Program Biomed 142:129–145

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Axelrod R (1976) Structure of decision. Princeton University Press

    Google Scholar 

  4. Azar A, Dolatabad KM (2019) A method for modelling operational risk with fuzzy cognitive maps and bayesian belief networks. Exp Syst Appl 115:607–617

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Baghery M, Yousefi S, Rezaee MJ (2018) Risk measurement and prioritization of auto parts manufacturing processes based on process failure analysis, interval data envelopment analysis and grey relational analysis. J Intell Manuf 29(8):1803–1825

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Bakhtavar E, Valipour M, Yousefi S, Sadiq R, Hewage K (2020) Fuzzy cognitive maps in systems risk analysis: a comprehensive review. Complex Intell Syst 1–18

    Google Scholar 

  7. Baykasoğlu A, Gölcük İ (2020) Comprehensive fuzzy FMEA model: a case study of ERP implementation risks. Oper Res 20(2):795–826

    Google Scholar 

  8. Behrens TE, Muller TH, Whittington JC, Mark S, Baram AB, Stachenfeld KL, Kurth-Nelson Z (2018) What is a cognitive map? Organizing knowledge for flexible behavior. Neuron 100(2):490–509

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Benítez J, Carpitella S, Certa A, Ilaya-Ayza AE, Izquierdo J (2018) Consistent clustering of entries in large pairwise comparison matrices. J Comput Appl Math 343:98–112

    Google Scholar 

  10. Benítez J, Carpitella S, Certa A, Izquierdo J (2019) Characterization of the consistent completion of analytic hierarchy process comparison matrices using graph theory. J Multi-Criteria Decis Anal 26(1–2):3–15

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Benítez J, Carpitella S, Certa A, Izquierdo J (2020) Constrained consistency enforcement in AHP. Appl Math Comput 380:125–273

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  12. Bertolini M (2007) Assessment of human reliability factors: a fuzzy cognitive maps approach. Int J Ind Ergon 37(5):405–413

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Bevilacqua M, Ciarapica FE (2018) Human factor risk management in the process industry: a case study. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 169:149–159

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Bowles JB, Peláez CE (1995) Fuzzy logic prioritization of failures in a system failure mode, effects and criticality analysis. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 50(2):203–213

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Carlson C (2012) Effective FMEAs: achieving safe, reliable, and economical products and processes using failure mode and effects analysis (Vol 1). Wiley

    Google Scholar 

  16. Carpitella S, Carpitella F, Certa A, Benítez J, Izquierdo J (2018) Managing human factors to reduce organisational risk in industry. Math Comput Appl 23(4):67

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  17. Carpitella S, Izquierdo J (2022) Preference-based assessment of organisational risk in complex environments. In International symposium on integrated uncertainty in knowledge modelling and decision making, pp 40–52

    Google Scholar 

  18. Carpitella S, Mzougui I, Izquierdo J (2021) Fuzzy cognitive maps for knowledge-oriented human risk management in industry. In: 26th ISSAT international conference on reliability and quality in design, pp 134–140

    Google Scholar 

  19. Carpitella S, Ocaña-Levario SJ, Benítez J, Certa A, Izquierdo J (2018) A hybrid multi-criteria approach to GPR image mining applied to water supply system maintenance. J Appl Geophys 159:754–764

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Chen C-T, Chiu Y-T (2021) A study of dynamic fuzzy cognitive map model with group consensus based on linguistic variables. Technol Forecast Soc Change 171120–171948

    Google Scholar 

  21. Chen H, Zhang L, Wu X (2020) Performance risk assessment in public-private partnership projects based on adaptive fuzzy cognitive map. Appl Soft Comput 93:106–413

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Das S, Dhalmahapatra K, Maiti J (2020) Z-number integrated weighted VIKOR technique for hazard prioritization and its application in virtual prototype based EOT crane operations. Appl Soft Comput 94:106–419

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Erbay B, Özkan C (2018) Fuzzy FMEA application combined with fuzzy cognitive maps to manage the risks of a software project. Eur J Eng Formal Sci 2(2):7–22

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Fishburn PC (1991) Nontransitive preferences in decision theory. J Risk Uncertain 4(2):113–134

    Google Scholar 

  25. Flouris T, Yilmaz AK (2010) The risk management framework to strategic human resource management. Int Res J Financ Econ 36(1):25–45

    Google Scholar 

  26. Francés-Chust J, Brentan BM, Carpitella S, Izquierdo J, Montalvo I (2020) Optimal placement of pressure sensors using fuzzy DEMATEL-based sensor influence. Water 12(2):493

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Ghaleh S, Omidvari M, Nassiri P, Momeni M, Lavasani SMM (2019) Pattern of safety risk assessment in road fleet transportation of hazardous materials (oil materials). Saf Sci 116:1–12

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Gomes L, Lima M (1992) From modeling individual preferences to multicriteria ranking of discrete alternatives: a look at prospect theory and the additive difference model. Found Comput Decis Sci 17(3):171–184

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  29. Hassoun MH et al (1995) Fundamentals of artificial neural networks. MIT press

    Google Scholar 

  30. He S-S, Wang, Y-T, Peng J-J, Wang J-Q (2020) Risk ranking of wind turbine systems through an improved fmea based on probabilistic linguistic information and the TODIM method. J Oper Res Soc 1–14

    Google Scholar 

  31. Hebb DO (1949) The first stage of perception: growth of the assembly. Organiz Behav 4:60–78

    Google Scholar 

  32. Hu Y-P, You X-Y, Wang L, Liu H-C (2019) An integrated approach for failure mode and effect analysis based on uncertain linguistic GRA-TOPSIS method. Soft Comput 23(18):8801–8814

    Google Scholar 

  33. Huang J, Liu H-C, Duan C-Y, Song M-S (2019) An improved reliability model for FMEA using probabilistic linguistic term sets and TODIM method. Annals Oper Res 1–24

    Google Scholar 

  34. Huang J, Xu D-H, Liu H-C, Song M-S (2019) A new model for failure mode and effect analysis integrating linguistic Z-numbers and projection method. IEEE Trans Fuzzy Syst 29(3):530–538

    Google Scholar 

  35. IEC-60812-Technical-Committee (2006) Analysis techniques for system reliability: procedure for failure mode and effects analysis (FMEA). IEC 60812

    Google Scholar 

  36. Kahneman D, Tversky A (1980). Prospect theory. Econometrica 12

    Google Scholar 

  37. Kang B, Wei D, Li Y, Deng Y (2012) A method of converting z-number to classical fuzzy number. J Inf Comput Sci 9(3):703–709

    Google Scholar 

  38. Karunathilake H, Bakhtavar E, Chhipi-Shrestha G, Mian HR, Hewage K, Sadiq R (2020) Decision making for risk management: a multi-criteria perspective

    Google Scholar 

  39. Kenter JO, O’Brien L, Hockley N, Ravenscroft N, Fazey I, Irvine KN et al (2015) What are shared and social values of ecosystems? Ecol Econ 111:86–99

    Google Scholar 

  40. Kobis P (2021) Human factor aspects in information security management in the traditional it and cloud computing models. Oper Res Decis 1:61–76

    Google Scholar 

  41. Kosko B (1986) Fuzzy cognitive maps. Int J Man-Mach Stud 24:1,65–75

    Google Scholar 

  42. Kutlu AC, Ekmekçioğlu M (2012) Fuzzy failure modes and effects analysis by using fuzzy TOPSIS-based fuzzy AHP. Exp Syst Appl 39(1):61–67

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Li J, Fang H, Song W (2019) Modified failure mode and effects analysis under uncertainty: a rough cloud theory-based approach modified failure mode and effects analysis under uncertainty: a rough cloud theory-based approach. Appl Soft Comput 78:195–208

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Liu H-C (2016) FMEA using uncertainty theories and MCDM methods. In: FME using uncertainty theories and MCDM methods. Springer, pp 13–27

    Google Scholar 

  45. Liu, H-C, Chen X-Q, Duan C-Y, Wang Y-M (2019) Failure mode and effect analysis using multi-criteria decision making methods: a systematic literature review. Comput Ind Eng 135:881–897

    Google Scholar 

  46. Liu H-C, Liu L, Liu N (2013) Risk evaluation approaches in failure mode and effects analysis: a literature review. Exp Syst Appl 40:2,828–838

    Google Scholar 

  47. Liu H-C, Liu L, Liu N, Mao L-X (2012) Risk evaluation in failure mode and effects analysis with extended VIKOR method under fuzzy environment. Exp Syst Appl 39(17):12926–12934

    Google Scholar 

  48. Liu P, Li Y (2021) An improved failure mode and effect analysis method for multi-criteria group decision-making in green logistics risk assessment. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 107826

    Google Scholar 

  49. Llamazares B (2018) An analysis of the generalized TODIM method. Eur J Oper Res 269(3):1041–1049

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  50. Longo F, Padovano A, Nicoletti L, Fusto C, Elbasheer M, Diaz R (2021) Fuzzy cognitive map-based knowledge representation of hazardous industrial operations. Procedia Comput Sci 180:1042–1048

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Mangeli M, Shahraki A, Saljooghi FH (2019) Improvement of risk assessment in the FMEA using nonlinear model, revised fuzzy TOPSIS, and support vector machine. Int J Ind Ergon 69:209–216

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Mazzuto G, Antomarioni S, Ciarapica F, Bevilacqua M (2021) Health indicator for predictive maintenance based on fuzzy cognitive maps, grey wolf, and k-nearest neighbors algorithms. Math Probl Eng 2021

    Google Scholar 

  53. Mohsen O, Fereshteh N (2017) An extended VIKOR method based on entropy measure for the failure modes risk assessment-a case study of the geothermal power plant (GPP). Saf Sci 92:160–172

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Mourhir A (2020) Scoping review of the potentials of fuzzy cognitive maps as a modeling approach for integrated environmental assessment and management. Environ Modell Softw 104891

    Google Scholar 

  55. Mourhir A (2021) Scoping review of the potentials of fuzzy cognitive maps as a modeling approach for integrated environmental assessment and management. Environ Modell Softw 135:104891

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Mpelogianni V, Groumpos PP (2019) Building energy management system modelling via state fuzzy cognitive maps and learning algorithms. IFAC-PapersOnLine 52(25):513–518

    Google Scholar 

  57. Murray SL, Thimgan MS (2016) Human fatigue risk management: improving safety in the chemical processing industry. Academic Press

    Google Scholar 

  58. Mzougui I, Carpitella S, Certa A, Felsoufi ZE, Izquierdo J (2020) Assessing supply chain risks in the automotive industry through a modified MCDM-based FMECA. Processes 8(5):579

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Mzougui I, Elfelsoufi Z (2019) Improvement of failure mode, effects, and criticality analysis by using fault tree analysis and analytical hierarchy process. J Fail Anal Prevent 19(4):942–949

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Oja E (1991) Learning in non-linear constrained hebbian networks. In: Proceedings of the ICANN’91, pp 385–390

    Google Scholar 

  61. Onari MA, Yousefi S, Rezaee MJ (2021) Risk assessment in discrete production processes considering uncertainty and reliability: Z-number multi-stage fuzzy cognitive map with fuzzy learning algorithm. Artif Intell Rev 54(2):1349–1383

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Panchal D, Singh AK, Chatterjee P, Zavadskas EK, Keshavarz-Ghorabaee M (2019) A new fuzzy methodology-based structured framework for ram and risk analysis. Appl Soft Comput 74:242–254

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Papageorgiou E, Stylios C, Groumpos P (2003) Fuzzy cognitive map learning based on nonlinear hebbian rule. In: Australasian joint conference on artificial intelligence, pp 256–268

    Google Scholar 

  64. Papageorgiou EI (2011) Review study on fuzzy cognitive maps and their applications during the last decade. In: 2011 IEEE international conference on fuzzy systems (fuzz-IEEE), pp 828–835

    Google Scholar 

  65. Papageorgiou EI, Groumpos PP (2005) A weight adaptation method for fuzzy cognitive map learning. Soft Comput 9(11):846–857

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  66. Papageorgiou EI, Stylios C, Groumpos PP (2006) Unsupervised learning techniques for fine-tuning fuzzy cognitive map causal links. Int J Hum-Comput Stud 64(8):727–743

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Papakostas GA, Koulouriotis DE, Polydoros AS, Tourassis VD (2012) Towards Hebbian learning of fuzzy cognitive maps in pattern classification problems. Exp Syst Appl 39(12):10620–10629

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Peer M, Brunec IK, Newcombe NS, Epstein RA (2020) Structuring knowledge with cognitive maps and cognitive graphs. Trends Cogn Sci

    Google Scholar 

  69. Peláez CE, Bowles JB (1996) Using fuzzy cognitive maps as a system model for failure modes and effects analysis. Inf Sci 88(1–4):177–199

    Google Scholar 

  70. Poomagal S, Sujatha R, Kumar PS, Vo D-VN (2020) A fuzzy cognitive map approach to predict the hazardous effects of malathion to environment (air, water and soil). Chemosphere 263:127926

    Google Scholar 

  71. Qin J, Liu X, Pedrycz W (2017) An extended TODIM multi-criteria group decision making method for green supplier selection in interval type-2 fuzzy environment. Eur J Oper Res 258(2):626–638

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  72. Ravasan AZ, Mansouri T (2014) A FCM-based dynamic modeling of ERP implementation critical failure factors. Int J Enterp Inf Syst (IJEIS) 10(1):32–52

    Google Scholar 

  73. Ren P, Xu Z, Gou X (2016) Pythagorean fuzzy TODIM approach to multi-criteria decision making. Appl Soft Comput 42:246–259

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Rezaee MJ, Yousefi S, Valipour M, Dehdar MM (2018) Risk analysis of sequential processes in food industry integrating multi-stage fuzzy cognitive map and process failure mode and effects analysis. Comput Ind Eng 123:325–337

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. Rybalkina A, Enikeev R (2021) Fatigue management methodology in aircraft maintenance as a way of reducing errors related to the human factor. In: Matec web of conferences, vol 341, p 00006

    Google Scholar 

  76. Sagnak M, Kazancoglu Y, Ozen YDO, Garza-Reyes JA (2020) Decision-making for risk evaluation: integration of prospect theory with failure modes and effects analysis (FMEA). Int J Qual Reliab Manag

    Google Scholar 

  77. Salmeron JL, Mansouri T, Moghadam MRS, Mardani A (2019) Learning fuzzy cognitive maps with modified asexual reproduction optimisation algorithm. Knowl-Based Syst 163:723–735

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. Schwartz F, Epinat-Duclos J, Léone J, Poisson A, Prado J (2020) Neural representations of transitive relations predict current and future math calculation skills in children. Neuropsychologia, 107410

    Google Scholar 

  79. Sharma RK, Kumar D, Kumar P (2005) Systematic failure mode effect analysis (FMEA) using fuzzy linguistic modelling. Int J Qual Reliab Manag

    Google Scholar 

  80. Sudjianto A, Hassoun MH (1995) Statistical basis of nonlinear Hebbian learning and application to clustering. Neural Netw 8(5):707–715

    Google Scholar 

  81. Tadić S, Zečević S, Krstić M (2014) A novel hybrid MCDM model based on fuzzy DEMATEL, fuzzy ANP and fuzzy VIKOR for city logistics concept selection. Exp Syst Appl 41(18):8112–8128

    Google Scholar 

  82. Tian X, Li W, Liu L, Kou G (2021) Development of TODIM with different types of fuzzy sets: a state-of the-art survey. Appl Soft Comput 107661

    Google Scholar 

  83. Tversky A (1969) Intransitivity of preferences. Psychol Rev 76(1):31

    Google Scholar 

  84. Wang J, Wei G, Lu M (2018) TODIM method for multiple attribute group decision making under 2-tuple linguistic Neutrosophic environment. Symmetry 10(10):486

    Article  Google Scholar 

  85. Wang L, Liu Q, Dong S, Soares CG (2019) Effectiveness assessment of ship navigation safety countermeasures using fuzzy cognitive maps. Saf Sci 117:352–364

    Article  Google Scholar 

  86. Wang L-E, Liu H-C, Quan M-Y (2016) Evaluating the risk of failure modes with a hybrid MCDM model under interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy environments. Comput Ind Eng 102:175–185

    Google Scholar 

  87. Wang Y (2008) On cognitive properties of human factors and error models in engineering and socialization. Int J Cogn Inform Natural Intell (IJCINI) 2(4):70–84

    Google Scholar 

  88. Wright BC (2012) The case for a dual-process theory of transitive reasoning. Dev Rev 32(2):89–124

    Article  Google Scholar 

  89. Wu Z, Tu J (2021) Managing transitivity and consistency of preferences in AHP group decision making based on minimum modifications. Inf Fusion 67:125–135

    Article  Google Scholar 

  90. Xie X, Guo D (2018) Human factors risk assessment and management: process safety in engineering. Process Saf Environ Protect 113:467–482

    Article  Google Scholar 

  91. Zadeh LA (2011) A note on z-numbers. Inf Sci 181(14):2923–2932

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  92. Zhou Q, Thai VV (2016) Fuzzy and grey theories in failure mode and effect analysis for tanker equipment failure prediction. Saf Sci 83:74–79

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Sciences and Technologies, Abdelmalek Essaadi University, Tangier, Morocco

    Ilyas Mzougui

  2. Department of Manufacturing Systems Engineering and Management, California State University, Northridge, USA

    Silvia Carpitella

  3. Institute for Multidisciplinary Mathematics, Universitat Politècnica de València, Valencia, Spain

    Joaquín Izquierdo

Authors
  1. Ilyas Mzougui
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Silvia Carpitella
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Joaquín Izquierdo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Silvia Carpitella .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, Piscataway, NJ, USA

    Hoang Pham

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Mzougui, I., Carpitella, S., Izquierdo, J. (2023). Promoting Expert Knowledge for Comprehensive Human Risk Management in Industrial Environments. In: Pham, H. (eds) Applications in Reliability and Statistical Computing. Springer Series in Reliability Engineering. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-21232-1_7

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-21232-1_7

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-031-21231-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-031-21232-1

  • eBook Packages: EngineeringEngineering (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation