A new approach to select the reliable suppliers for one-shot devices

A Correction to this article was published on 13 March 2021

This article has been updated

Abstract

A one-shot device is referred to as a unit that performs its function only once, hence a one-shot device cannot be used for testing more than once. Missiles, airbags of automobiles, magnetorheological fluids, and thermal batteries are some examples of one-shot devices. Usually, one-shot devices are kept in storage or in the stand-by condition and taken into use when required. As a matter of fact, proper operation of such devices at designated times becomes an important issue. Thus, choosing appropriate and reliable suppliers of one-shot devices in preventive maintenance periods can be regarded as a critical measure. This paper presents a new approach to provide resilience in supplier selection for one-shot devices and its subsystems in response to risks. In this research: (1) an expert team is set up having experience and expertise in one-shot systems, (2) risks of suppliers are estimated using satisfying and simple additive weighting (SAW) methods, (3) risk related to each equipment are determined by a cause and effect matrix, (4) after presenting a novel integrated approach, the best combination for one-shot equipment suppliers is selected by using fault tree analysis, (5) finally, to evaluate the performance of the proposed approach, a real case study is also used. This approach can therefore be used for determining faults in the entire system evaluated along with allocating suppliers to each equipment by considering suppliers and equipment risks as well as making and selecting scenarios.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3:
Fig. 4

Data availability

Some or all data, models, or code that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author.

Change history

Abbreviations

MADM:

Multi-attribute decision making

FTA:

Fault tree analysis

SAW:

Simple additive weighting

SPM:

Scheduled preventive maintenance

RBD:

Reliability block diagram

DEA:

Data envelopment analysis

FIS:

Fuzzy inference system

QFD:

Quality function deployment

CBR:

Case-based reasoning

DSS:

Decision support system

FMEA:

Failure mode and effect analysis

GT:

Group technology

Si :

Total score for the ith supplier

Wj :

weight of the jth attribute (Index)

Sij :

Score of the ith supplier relative to the jth attribute

Ri :

Risk score assigned to the ith supplier

Yj :

The maximum imaginable score for each supplier in the jth attribute

RSk :

Intrinsic risk of the kth subset

SWkz :

Weight of the kth subset in relative to occurrence of the zth top event

EWz :

Weight of the zth top event

MRSk :

Modified risk for the kth subset when it is supplied from the ith supplier

CRz :

Critical level of top event z

Pz :

Probability of the top event z

Lz :

Damage inflicted by the top event z

TR:

Total risk of one-shot system

References

  1. 1.

    Wu S-J, Hsu C-C, Huang S-R (2020) Optimal designs and reliability sampling plans for one-shot devices with cost considerations. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 197:106795

    Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Ling MH, Hu XW (2020) Optimal design of simple step-stress accelerated life tests for one-shot devices under weibull distributions. Reliabil Eng Syst Saf 193:106630

    Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Petrovic S, Petrovic P, Lozanovic Sajic J (2018) Rapid evaluation of maintenance process using statistical process control and simulation. Int J Simul Model 17:119–132

    Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Dunson DB, Dinse GE (2002) Bayesian models for multivariate current status data with informative censoring. Biometrics 58:79–88

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Yates S, Yates A (2006) A bayesian approach to reliability demonstration for aerospace systems. Reliability and Maintainability Symposium, Newport Beach

    Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Vinter Z, Valis D (2008) Reliability modelling of automatic gun with pyrotechnic charging. Adv Military Technol 3(1):33

    Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Fan T, Balakrishnam N, Chang C (2009) The Beysian approach for highly reliable electro-explosive devices using one-shot device testing. J Stat Comput Simul 79(9):1143–1154

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Guo H, Honecker S, Mettes A, Ogden D (2010) Reliability estimation for one-shot systems with zero component test failures. Annu Reliab Maintain Ability Symposium, IEEE

  9. 9.

    Mehrvars A, Sanei Monfared M, Farsi M, Shafiei M (2018) Monitoring the states and maintaining the reliability of the one-shot systems. J Sharif Ind Eng Manage 34–1(1/1):73–85 ([In Persian])

    Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Wu H, Li Y-F (2020) Bérenguer C (2020) Optimal inspection and maintenance for a repairable k-out-of-n: G warm standby system. Reliabil Eng Syst Saf 193:106669

    Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Kaio N, Dohi T, Osaki S (1994) Inspection policy with failure due to inspection. Microelectron Reliabil 34:599–602

    Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Hariga M (1996) A Maintenance inspection model for a single machine with general failure distribution. Microelectron Reliabil 36:353–358

    Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Ito K, Nakagawa T (2000) Optimal inspection policies for a storage system with degradation at periodic tests. Math Comput Model 31:191–195

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Grall A, Bérenguer C, Dieulle L (2002) A condition-based maintenance policy for stochastically deteriorating systems. Reliabil Eng Syst Saf 76:167–180

    Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Li W, Pham H (2005) An inspection-maintenance model for systems with multiple competing processes. IEEE Trans Reliab 54:318–327

    Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Newby M (2008) Monitoring and maintenance of spares and one-shot devices. Reliabil Eng Syst Saf 93:588–594

    Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Yun W, Kim H, Han Y (2012) Simulation-based inspection policies for a one-shot system in storage. In: Proceedings of the 5th Asia-Pacific Int. Symp. Advanced Reliability and Maintenance Modeling (APARM 2012)

  18. 18.

    Yun W, Han Y, J, Kim H, (2014) Simulation-based inspection policies for a one-shot system in storage over a finite time span. Commun Stat Simul Comput 43:1979–2003

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Kitagaw T, Yuge T, Yanagi S (2016) Periodic and non-perodic inspection policies for a one-shot system with minimal repair. J Jpn Ind Manage Assoc 66(4):387–395

    Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Moradi M, Karbasian M, Yousefi O (2017) Providing a mathematical model to determine the optimal time to replace parts in one-shot systems, case study: composite pressure vessel. In: Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Industrial and System Engineering. 13&14, Mashhad, Iran [In Persian]

  21. 21.

    Kitagaw T, Kitagaw T, Yanagi S (2016) Periodic and non-perodic inspection policies for a one-shot system with minimal repair. J Jpn Ind Manage Assoc 66:387–395

    Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Felecia, (2014) Fuzzy logic reliability centered maintenance. J Tek Ind 16(2):121–126

    Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Azimian M, Javadi H, Farshchiha A, Nosohi I (2017) selecting the optimum combination of suppliers using a mixed model of MADM and fault tree analysis. Prod Oper Manage 8(114):45–63 ([In Persian])

    Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Barak S, Javanmard S (2020) Outsourcing modelling using a novel interval-valued fuzzy quantitative strategic planning matrix (QSPM) and multiple criteria decision-making (MCDMs). Int J Prod Econ 222:107494

    Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Garcia Niet P, Garcia-Gonzalo E, Sanchez F, Lasheras F (2015) Hybrid pso-sum-based method for forecasting of the remaining useful life for aircraft engines and evaluation of its reliability. Reliabil Eng Syst Saf 138:209–231

    Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Li W, He M, Sun Y, Cao Q (2019) A novel layered fuzzy petri nets modeling and reasoning method for process equipment failure risk assessment. J Less Prev Process Ind 62:103953

    Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Jianxing Y, Haicheng C, Yang Y, Zhenglong Y (2019) A weakest T-norm based fuzzy fault tree approach for leakage risk assessment of submarine pipline. J Less Prev Process Ind 62:103968

    Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Fartaj S.R, Kabir G, Eghujovbo V, Ali S. M, Paul S. K (2020) Modeling transportation disruption in the supply chain of automotive parts manufacturing company. Int J Prod Econ 222

  29. 29.

    De Oliveria U, Silva Marins F, Rocha H, Salomon V (2017) The ISO 31000 standard in supply chain risk management. Journal of Cleaner Production 151:616–633

    Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Solgi O, Gheidar-Kheljani J, Dehghani E, Taromi A (2019) Resilient supplier selection in complex product and its subsystems’ supply chain under uncertainty and risk disruption: a case study for satellite components. Int J Sci Technol. https://doi.org/10.24200/sci.2019.52556.2773

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Piadeh F, Ahmadi M, Behzadian K (2018) Reliability assessment for hybrid systems of advanced treatment units of industrial wastewater reuse using combined event tree and fuzzy fault tree analyses. J Clean Prod 201:958–973

    Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Chai J, Nagi EW (2020) Decision-making techniques in supplier selection: recent accomplishments and what lies ahead. Expert Syst Appl 140:112903

    Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Abdel-Basset M, Saleh M, Gamal A, Smarandache F (2019) An approach of topsis technique for developing supplier selection with group decision making under type-2 neutrosophic number. Appl Soft Comput 77:438–452

    Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Zaretalab A, Hajipour V, Tavana M (2020) Redundancy allocation problem with multi-state component systems and reliable supplier selection. Reliabil Eng Syst Saf 193:106629

    Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Govindan K, Mina H, Alavi B (2020) A decision support system for demand management in healthcare supply chains considering the epidemic outbreaks: a case study of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Transport Res Part E Logist Transport Rev 138:101967

    Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    Ghahroodi S, Hanbali A, Zijm W, Timmer J (2019) Emergency supply contracts for a service provider limmited local resources. Reliabil Eng Syst Saf 189:445–460

    Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    Rashidi K, Cullinance K (2019) A comparison of fuzzy DEA and fuzzy topsis in sustainable supplier selection: implications for sourcing strategy. Expert Syst Appl 121:266–281

    Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    Babber C, Hassanzadeh Amin S (2018) A multi-objective mathematical model integrating environmental concerns for supplier selection and order allocation based on fuzzy QFD in beverage industry. Expert Syst Appl 92:27–38

    Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    Salimi F, Vahdani B (2018) Designing a bio-fuel network considering links reliability and risk-pooling effect in bio-refineries. Reliabil Eng Syst Saf 174:96–107

    Google Scholar 

  40. 40.

    Segura M, Maroto C (2017) A multiple criteria supplier segmentation using outranking and value function methods. Expert Syst Appl 69:87–100

    Google Scholar 

  41. 41.

    Thakur V, Anbanandam R (2015) Supplier selection using grey theory: a case study from Indian banking industry. J Enterprise Inf Manage 28(6):769–787

    Google Scholar 

  42. 42.

    Tavan M, Fallahpour A, Fallahpour D, Santes-Artega F (2016) A hybrid inteligent fuzzy predictive model with simulation for supplier evaluation and selection. Expert Syst Appl 61:129–144

    Google Scholar 

  43. 43.

    Zeydan M, Zeydan C, Çobanog C (2011) A combined methodology for supplier selection and performance evaluation. Expert Syst Appl 38(3):2741–2751

    Google Scholar 

  44. 44.

    Kuo R, Wang Y, Tien F (2010) integration of artificial neural network and mada methods for green supplier selection. J Clean Prod 18(12):1161–1170

    Google Scholar 

  45. 45.

    Faez F, Ghodsypour S, Ghodsypour C (2009) Vendor selection and order allocation using an integrated fuzzy case-based reasoning and mathematical programming model. Int J Prod Econ 121(2):395–408

    Google Scholar 

  46. 46.

    Wu D (2009) Supplier Selection: A hybrid model using DEA, decision tree and neural network. Expert Syst Appl 36:9105–9112

    Google Scholar 

  47. 47.

    Demirtas A, Ustun O (2009) Analytic network process and multi-period goal programming integration in purchasing decisions. Comput Ind Eng 56:677–690

    Google Scholar 

  48. 48.

    Alikhani R, Torabi S, Altay N (2019) Strategic supplier selection under sustainability and risk criteria. Int J Prod Econ 208:69–82

    Google Scholar 

  49. 49.

    Chen TY (2012) Comparative analysis of SAW and topsis based on interval-valued fuzzy sets: discussion on score function and weight constraints. Expert Syst Appl 39(2):1848–1861

    Google Scholar 

  50. 50.

    Ding L, Wang H, Jin J, Xu A (2017) Sil verification for SRS with diverse redundancy based on system degradation using reliability block diagram. Reliabil Eng Syst Saf 165:170–187

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Golam Kabir.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Azimian, M., Karbasian, M., Atashgar, K. et al. A new approach to select the reliable suppliers for one-shot devices. Prod. Eng. Res. Devel. (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11740-021-01032-8

Download citation

Keywords

  • One-shot
  • Risk assessment
  • Supplier selection
  • Multi-attribute decision making (MADM)
  • Fault tree analysis (FTA)