Skip to main content

Advertisement

Springer Nature Link
Log in

A model integrating fuzzy AHP with QFD for assessing technical factors in aviation safety

  • Original Article
  • Published:
International Journal of Machine Learning and Cybernetics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

We developed a model that integrates fuzzy logic, the analytic hierarchy process (AHP), and quality function deployment (QFD) to evaluate the importance weighting of the technical factors in aviation safety, as defined by the International Air Transport Association. AHP evaluates the technical factors using pairwise comparisons, and QFD categorizes the relationship between the criteria and subcriteria using expert knowledge. Based on a questionnaire given to aviation professionals, the model shows that the importance weightings of technical factors “Extensive engine failure, uncontained engine fire,” “Design, manufacture,” and “Engine overheat, propeller failure” are most significant. The result also shows that the over-valued and/or under-valued factors predicted by the conventional AHP model can be better described by the integrated fuzzy AHP and QFD models.

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
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9

Similar content being viewed by others

Explore related subjects

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

References

  1. Boeing (2009) Accident rates and onboard fatalities by year. Statistical summary of commercial jet airplane accidents, p 18

  2. Braithwaite GR, Caves RE, Faulkner JPE (1998) Australian aviation safety—observations from the ‘lucky’ country. J Air Transp Manag 4:55–62

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Gill GK, Shergill GS (2004) Perceptions of safety management and safety culture in the aviation industry in New Zealand. J Air Transp Manag 10:233–239

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. McFadden KL, Towell ER (1999) Aviation human factors: a framework for the new millennium. J Air Transp Manag 5:177–184

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Chen CC, Chen J, Lin PC (2009) Identification of significant threats and errors affecting aviation safety in Taiwan using the analytical hierarchy process. J Air Transp Manag 15:261–263

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Liou JJH, Tzeng GH, Chang HC (2007) Airline safety measurement using a hybrid model. J Air Transp Manag 13(4):243–249

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Netjasov F, Janic M (2008) A review of research on risk and safety modelling in civil aviation. J Air Transp Manag 14:213–220

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Yang TH, Yan S, Chen HH (2003) An airline maintenance manpower planning model with flexible strategies. J Air Transp Manag 9:233–239

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Wiegmann D, Shappell S (2003) A human error approach to aviation accident analysis: the human factors analysis and classification system. Ashgate, Aldershot

    Google Scholar 

  10. Edwards E (1972) Man and machine: systems for safety. In: The BALPA technical symposium, London

  11. Heinrich HW (1931) Industrial accident prevention. McGraw-Hill Insurance Series, USA

    Google Scholar 

  12. Reason J (1990) Human error. Cambridge University Press, England

    Book  Google Scholar 

  13. Herrera IA, Nordskag AO, Myhre G, Halvorsen K (2009) Aviation safety and maintenance under major organizational changes, investigating non-existing accidents. Accid Anal Prev 41:1155–1163

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. IATA (2007) IATA’s accident classification system. IATA Safety Report, Annex 1, A1, pp 67–71

  15. Steuer RE, Na P (2003) Multiple criteria decision making combined with finance: a categorized bibliographic study. Eur J Oper Res 150(3):496–515

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  16. Vaidya OS, Kumar S (2006) Analytic hierarchy process: an overview of applications. Eur J Oper Res 169(1):1–29

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  17. Ho W (2008) Integrated analytic hierarchy process and its applications—a literature review. Eur J Oper Res 186(1):211–228

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  18. Ho W, Xu X, Dey PK (2010) Multi-criteria decision making approaches for supplier evaluation and selection: a literature review. Eur J Oper Res 202(1):16–24

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  19. Bhattacharya A, Geraghty J, Young P (2010) Supplier selection paradigm: an integrated hierarchical QFD methodology under multiple-criteria environment. Appl Soft Comput 10(4):1013–1027

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Ho W, He T, Lee CKM, Emrouznejad A (2012) Strategic logistics outsourcing: an integrated QFD and fuzzy AHP approach. Expert Syst Appl 39:10841–10850

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Myint S (2003) A framework of an intelligent quality function deployment (IQFD) for discrete assembly environment. Comput Ind Eng 45(2):269–283

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Lin YH, Cheng HP, Tseng ML, Tsai CC (2010) Using QFD and ANP to analyze the environmental production requirements in linguistic preferences. Expert Syst Appl 37(3):2186–2196

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Wang YM, Chin KS (2011) Technical importance ratings in fuzzy QFD by integrating fuzzy normalization and fuzzy weighted average. Comput Math Appl 62(11):4207–4221

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  24. Bhattacharya A, Sarkar B, Mukherjee SK (2005) Integrating AHP with QFD for robot selection under requirement perspective. Int J Prod Res 43(17):3671–3685

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Partovi FY (2006) An analytic model for locating facilities strategically. Int J Manag Sci Omega 34(1):41–55

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Hanumaiah N, Ravi B, Mukherjee NP (2006) Rapid hard tooling process selection using QFD–AHP methodology. J Manuf Technol Manag 17(3):332–350

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Cheung A, Ip WH, Lu D (2005) Expert system for aircraft maintenance services industry. J Qual Maint Eng 11(4):348–358

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Saaty TL (1990) How to make a decision: the analytic hierarchy process. Eur J Oper Res 48:9–26

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  29. Xue Z, Xiao Y, Liu W, Cheng H, Li Y (2012) Intuitionistic fuzzy filter theory of BL-algebras. Int J Mach Learn Cybern. doi:10.1007/s13042-012-0130-8

    Google Scholar 

  30. Katagiri H, Uno T, Kato K, Tsuda H, Tsubaki H (2012) Random fuzzy bilevel linear programming through possibility-based value at risk model. Int J Mach Learn Cybern. doi:10.1007/s13042-012-0126-4

    Google Scholar 

  31. Wang X, Chen A, Feng H (2011) Upper integral network with extreme learning mechanism. Neurocomputing 74(16):2520–2525

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Wang X, Fang SF, Zhai JH (2007) A nonlinear integral defined on partition and its application to decision trees. Soft Comput 11(4):317–321

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  33. Cheng CH, Mon DL (1994) Evaluating weapon system by analytic hierarchy process based on fuzzy scales. Fuzzy Sets Syst 63:1–10

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  34. Shillito ML (1994) Advanced QFD. Wiley, USA

    Google Scholar 

  35. Saaty TL (1996) Decision making with dependence and feedback: the analytic network process. RWS, Pittsburgh

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful to the reviewers for their exceptional efforts in enhancing the style and clarity of this paper.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Air Transportation Management, Aletheia University, No. 70-11, Beishiliao, Madou Dist., Tainan City, 72147, Taiwan, ROC

    Chuen-Jyh Chen

  2. Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics, National Cheng Kung University, No. 1, University Road, Tainan City, 701, Taiwan, ROC

    Shih-Ming Yang & Shih-Chuan Chang

Authors
  1. Chuen-Jyh Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  2. Shih-Ming Yang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  3. Shih-Chuan Chang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Chuen-Jyh Chen.

Appendix: Questionnaire of assessing the technical factors in aviation safety

Appendix: Questionnaire of assessing the technical factors in aviation safety

See Tables 7 and 8.

Table 7 The first stage. If you consider that the criteria of ⌈Airframe/Systems⌋ is an important factor in aviation safety, please mark in ⌈Agree⌋, otherwise ⌈Disagree⌋
Full size table
Table 8 The second stage
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Chen, CJ., Yang, SM. & Chang, SC. A model integrating fuzzy AHP with QFD for assessing technical factors in aviation safety. Int. J. Mach. Learn. & Cyber. 5, 761–774 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13042-013-0169-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13042-013-0169-1

Keywords