Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

Failure mode and effects analysis: an integrated approach based on rough set theory and prospect theory

  • Methodologies and Application
  • Published:
Soft Computing Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Failure mode and effect analysis (FMEA), a bottom-up method, is one of risk assessment tools to eliminate or reduce failures in design and process. It has been applied to many industries due to its flexibility and effectiveness. However, the conventional FMEA considers less about the subjectivity and vagueness in the process of risk assessment and assumes that three risk factors’ importance is the same. Although a lot of approaches based on fuzzy logic are proposed to deal with vague information in previous literature, they need priori assumptions leading to fixed intervals to express vagueness. In addition, most of the previous methods suppose that decision makers are totally rational without considering their psychological factors. To solve the problems, an extended technique for order performance by similarity to ideal solution (TOPSIS) is developed to improve FMEA approach, which combines the advantage of variable precision rough number in dealing with vague information and the strength of prospect theory (PT) in considering decision maker’s bounded rationality. The proposed method consists of two stages: one is the determination of risk factors’ weight function values; and the other is ranking risk priority of failure modes with the PT-based TOPSIS. Finally, a case study of a steam valve system is used to demonstrate the effectiveness and efficiency of the proposed method.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

Explore related subjects

Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.

References

  • Afshari H, Issa MH, Radwan A (2016) Using failure mode and effects analysis to evaluate barriers to the greening of existing buildings using the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design rating system. J Clean Prod 127:195–203

    Google Scholar 

  • Ahn J, Noh Y, Park SH, Choi BI, Chang D (2017) Fuzzy-based failure mode and effect analysis (FMEA) of a hybrid molten carbonate fuel cell (MCFC) and gas turbine system for marine propulsion. J Power Sources 364:226–233

    Google Scholar 

  • Bao T, Xie X, Long P, Wei Z (2017) MADM method based on prospect theory and evidential reasoning approach with unknown attribute weights under intuitionistic fuzzy environment. Expert Syst Appl 88:305–317

    Google Scholar 

  • Beaudouin F, Munier B (2009) A revision of industrial risk management: decisions and experimental tools in risk business. Risk Decis Anal 1(1):3–20

    Google Scholar 

  • Braglia M, Frosolini M, Montanari R (2003) Fuzzy TOPSIS approach for failure mode, effects and criticality analysis. Qual Reliab Eng Int 19(5):425–443

    Google Scholar 

  • Carmignani G (2009) An integrated structural framework to cost-based FMECA: the priority-cost FMECA. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 94(4):861–871

    Google Scholar 

  • Carpitella S, Certa A, Izquierdo J, La Fata CM (2018) A combined multi-criteria approach to support FMECA analyses: a real-world case. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 169:394–402

    Google Scholar 

  • Certa A, Hopps F, Inghilleri R, La Fata CM (2017) A Dempster–Shafer theory-based approach to the failure mode, effects and criticality analysis (FMECA) under epistemic uncertainty: application to the propulsion system of a fishing vessel. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 159:69–79

    Google Scholar 

  • Chin KS, Wang YM, Poon GKK, Yang JB (2009) Failure mode and effects analysis by data envelopment analysis. Decis Support Syst 48(1):246–256

    Google Scholar 

  • Fattahi R, Khalilzadeh M (2018) Risk evaluation using a novel hybrid method based on FMEA, extended MULTIMOORA, and AHP methods under fuzzy environment. Saf Sci 102:290–300

    Google Scholar 

  • Franceschini F, Galetto M (2001) A new approach for evaluation of risk priorities of failure modes in FMEA. Int J Prod Res 39(13):2991–3002

    Google Scholar 

  • Franceschini F, Rossetto S (1995) QFD: the problem of comparing technical/engineering design requirements. Res Eng Des 7(4):270–278

    Google Scholar 

  • Gargama H, Chaturvedi SK (2011) Criticality assessment models for failure mode effects and criticality analysis using fuzzy logic. IEEE Trans Reliab 60(1):102–110

    Google Scholar 

  • Huang J, Li ZS, Liu HC (2017) New approach for failure mode and effect analysis using linguistic distribution assessments and TODIM method. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 167:302–309

    Google Scholar 

  • Jong CH, Tay KM, Lim CP (2013) Application of the fuzzy failure mode and effect analysis methodology to edible bird nest processing. Comput Electron Agric 96:90–108

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman D, Tversky A (1979) Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica 47(2):263–292

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Khoo LP, Zhai LY (2001) A prototype genetic algorithm-enhanced rough set-based rule induction system. Comput Ind 46(1):95–106

    Google Scholar 

  • Lange K, Leggett S, Baker B (2001) Potential failure mode and effects analysis (FMEA) reference manual. Daimler Chrysler, Auburn Hills, Michigan, USA

    Google Scholar 

  • Liu HC (2016) FMEA using uncertainty theories and MCDM methods. Springer, Singapore, pp 13–27

    Google Scholar 

  • Liu HC, Liu L, Bian QH, Lin QL, Dong N, Xu PC (2011a) Failure mode and effects analysis using fuzzy evidential reasoning approach and grey theory. Expert Syst Appl 38(4):4403–4415

    Google Scholar 

  • Liu P, Jin F, Zhang X, Su Y, Wang M (2011b) Research on the multi-attribute decision-making under risk with interval probability based on prospect theory and the uncertain linguistic variables. Knowl-Based Syst 24(4):554–561

    Google Scholar 

  • Liu HC, Liu L, Liu N (2013) Risk evaluation approaches in failure mode and effects analysis: a literature review. Expert Syst Appl 40(2):828–838

    Google Scholar 

  • Liu HC, Fan XJ, Li P, Chen YZ (2014) Evaluating the risk of failure modes with extended MULTIMOORA method under fuzzy environment. Eng Appl Artif Intel 34:168–177

    Google Scholar 

  • Liu HC, Li Z, Song W, Su Q (2017) Failure mode and effect analysis using cloud model theory and PROMETHEE method. IEEE Trans Reliab 66(4):1058–1072

    Google Scholar 

  • Liu HC, You JX, Shan MM, Su Q (2019) Systematic failure mode and effect analysis using a hybrid multiple criteria decision making approach. Total Qual Manag Bus Excell 30(5–6):537–564

    Google Scholar 

  • Lourenzutti R, Krohling RA (2013) A study of TODIM in a intuitionistic fuzzy and random environment. Expert Syst Appl 40(16):6459–6468

    Google Scholar 

  • Luo SH, Lee GG (2015) Applying failure mode and effects analysis for successful knowledge management. Total Qual Manag Bus Excell 26(1–2):62–75

    Google Scholar 

  • Ozdemir Y, Gul M, Celik E (2017) Assessment of occupational hazards and associated risks in fuzzy environment: a case study of a university chemical laboratory. Hum Ecol Risk Assess Int J 23(4):895–924

    Google Scholar 

  • Park GY, Kim DH, Lee DY (2014) Software FMEA analysis for safety-related application software. Ann Nucl Energy 70:96–102

    Google Scholar 

  • Pawlak Z (1982) Rough sets. Int J Parallel Prog 11(5):341–356

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Safari H, Faraji Z, Majidian S (2016) Identifying and evaluating enterprise architecture risks using FMEA and fuzzy VIKOR. J Intell Manuf 27(2):475–486

    Google Scholar 

  • Seyed-Hosseini SM, Safaei N, Asgharpour MJ (2006) Reprioritization of failures in a system failure mode and effects analysis by decision making trial and evaluation laboratory technique. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 91(8):872–881

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon HA (1971) Administrative behavior—a study of decision making processes in administrative organization. Macmillan Publishing Co, lnc, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Song W, Ming X, Wu Z, Zhu B (2013) Failure modes and effects analysis using integrated weight-based fuzzy TOPSIS. Int J Comput Integr Manuf 26(12):1172–1186

    Google Scholar 

  • Song W, Ming X, Wu Z, Zhu B (2014) A rough TOPSIS approach for failure mode and effects analysis in uncertain environments. Qual Reliab Eng Int 30(4):473–486

    Google Scholar 

  • Song W, Xu Z, Liu HC (2017) Developing sustainable supplier selection criteria for solar air-conditioner manufacturer: an integrated approach. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 79:1461–1471

    Google Scholar 

  • Stamatis DH (2003) Failure mode and effect analysis: FMEA from theory to execution. ASQ Quality Press, Mexico

    Google Scholar 

  • Tversky A, Kahneman D (1992) Advances in prospect theory: cumulative representation of uncertainty. J Risk Uncertain 5(4):297–323

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • von Ahsen A (2008) Cost-oriented failure mode and effects analysis. Int J Qual Reliab Manag 25(5):466–476

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhai LY, Khoo LP, Zhong ZW (2010) Towards a QFD-based expert system: a novel extension to fuzzy QFD methodology using rough set theory. Expert Syst Appl 37(12):8888–8896

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhang Z, Xu D, Ostrosi E, Yu L, Fan B (2019) A systematic decision making method for evaluating design alternatives of product service system based on variable precision rough set. J Intell Manuf 30(4):1895–1909

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This study was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant Number 71971012, 71501006), Major Project of Social Science Foundation of Beijing (Grant Number 15ZDA49), and the Academic Excellence Foundation of BUAA for PhD Students.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Economics and Management, Beihang University, Beijing, 100191, China

    Hong Fang, Jing Li & Wenyan Song

  2. Key Laboratory of Complex System Analysis, Management and Decision (Beihang University), Ministry of Education, Beijing, 100191, China

    Wenyan Song

Authors
  1. Hong Fang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jing Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  3. Wenyan Song
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Wenyan Song.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

Hong Fang declares that she has no conflict of interest. Jing Li declares that she has no conflict of interest. Wenyan Song declares that he has no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Additional information

Communicated by V. Loia.

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

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Fang, H., Li, J. & Song, W. Failure mode and effects analysis: an integrated approach based on rough set theory and prospect theory. Soft Comput 24, 6673–6685 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00500-019-04305-8

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00500-019-04305-8

Keywords