Journal of Failure Analysis and Prevention

, Volume 7, Issue 5, pp 321–328 | Cite as

Utility Priority Number Evaluation for FMEA

Csae History

Abstract

Traditionally, decisions on how to improve an operation are based on risk priority number (RPN) in the failure mode and effects analysis (FMEA). Many scholars questioned the RPN method and proposed some new methods to improve the decision process, but these methods are only measuring from the risks viewpoint while ignoring the importance of corrective actions. The corrective actions may be interdependent; hence, if the implementation of corrective actions is in proper order, selection may maximize the improvement effect, bring favorable results in the shortest times, and provide the lowest cost. This study aims to evaluate the structure of hierarchy and interdependence of corrective action by interpretive structural model (ISM), then to calculate the weight of a corrective action through the analytic network process (ANP), then to combine the utility of corrective actions and make a decision on improvement priority order of FMEA by utility priority number (UPN). Finally, it verifies the feasibility and effectiveness of this method by application to a case study.

Keywords

RPN FMEA ISM ANP 

References

  1. 1.
    Hung, G.Q., Nie, M., Mark, K.L.: Web-based failure mode and effect analysis, Comput. Ind. Eng., 37, 177–180 (1999).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Stamatis D.H.: Failure Mode and Effect Analysis: FMEA from Theory to Execution, ASQC Quality Press, Milwaukee, WI (1995).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Onodera, K.: Effective techniques of FMEA at each life-cycle stage, Proceeding Annual Reliability and Maintainability Symposium, 50–56 (1997).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Linton, J.D.: Facing the challenges of service automation: An enabler for e-commerce and productivity gain in traditional services, IEEE Trans. Eng. Manage., 50(4), 478–484 (2003).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Reiling, J.G., Knutzen, B.L., Stoecklein, M.: FMEA—the cure for medical errors, Qual. Progr., 36(8), 67–71 (2003).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Shahin, A.: Integration of FMEA and the Kano model: An exploratory examination, Int. J. Qual. Reliab. Manage., 21(6/7), 731–746 (2005).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Reliey, T.T.: FMEA in preventing medical accidents, ASQ Annual Quality Congress Proceedings, 657–664 (2002).Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Vandenbrande, W.: The FMEA method in environment management systems, Stand. Kach., 2, 98–101 (2003).Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Sawhney, R., Padiyar, A. Li, Y.: FMEA based approach for supplier development, IIE Annual Conference and Exhibition, 7–16 (2004).Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gilchrist, W.: Modeling failure modes and effects analysis, Int. J. Qual. Reliab. Manage., 10(5), 16–23 (1993).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Potential Failure Mode and Effects Analysis, 2nd ed., Automotive Industry Action Group, Chrysler Corporation, Ford Motor Company, General Motors Corporation (1995).Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ben-Daya, M., Raouf, A.: A revised failure mode and effects analysis model, Int. J. Qual. Reliabil. Manage., 13, 43–47 (1993).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kara-Zaitri, C., Fleming, P.V.: Applications of fizzy inference methods to failure modes effects and criticality analysis IFMECA, International Conference on Safety and Reliability, 2403–2414 (1997).Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bowles, J.B.: The new SAE FMECA standard, Proceedings Annual Reliability and Maintainability Symposium, 48–53 (1998).Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Sankar, N.R., Prabhu, B.S.: Modified approach for prioritization of failures in a system failure mode and effects analysis, Int. J. Qual. Reliabil. Manage., 18(3), 324–335 (2001).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bowles, J.B.: An assessment of RPN prioritization in a failure modes effects and criticality analysis, Proceeding Annual Reliability and Maintainability Symposium, 380–386 (2003).Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Warfield, J.N.: On arranging elements of a hierarchy in graphic form, IEEE Trans. Systems, Man, Cybernet., 2, 121–132 (1973).Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Saaty T.L.: Decision Making with Dependence and Feedback: The Analytic Network Process, RWS, Pittsburgh, PA (1996).Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Saaty, T.L.: The Analytic Hierarchical Process, McGraw-Hill, New York (1980).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© ASM International 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Technology ManagementChung Hua UniversityHsin-Chu CityTaiwan, Republic of China

Personalised recommendations