運用層級分析程序法(AHP)於輔助推進器分離系統之設計風險評估案例研究

Using Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) in Design Risk Assessement for Sub-Booster Separation System – A Case Study

宋德嫻(Der-Shyan Soong)

指導教授 ： 邱裕方

中原大學/電機資訊學院/工業與系統工程研究所/碩士(2013年)

https://doi.org/10.6840/cycu201301079

摘要

摘 要
近年來由於國內、外環境與氣候變遷，以及核災、天災、恐怖組織等風險頻傳，風險管理議題再度受到世界各國重視。失效模式與效應影響分析（Failure Mode and Effect Analysis；FMEA），可以廣泛應用於鑑別系統、次系統與過程可能無法符合其設計目的的預防性、結構化之系統分析技術，可應用於產品生命週期中的各階段，減輕失效對系統之衝擊。傳統的FMEA風險優先數(RPN值)是由嚴重程度、發生頻度、檢測難度三者之乘積所得，由於該項數值頗受爭議，諸如未考慮各評估因子間的相對重要性與不同的組合有相同RPN值時，其隱藏的風險可能會完全不同並有數字重複不易評估等影響，無法確實將失效原因的相對重要性排序。
本研究探討以定性與定量相結合之多屬性決策分析層級分析程序法(Analytic Hierarchy Process；AHP) 經由集體討論與參考文獻方式建立問卷評估因子，由專家評分判定各因子間之權重差異，以專業統計分析軟體(Expert Choice)計算評估因子的權重，與各層級間之相對重要權重，累積計算作為整體評比分數與優先排序。
最後再以發射載具之「輔助推進器分離系統」個案為例，應用設計FMEA技術，執行分離系統之風險辨識，並結合AHP評量分析過程，結果呈現確實可提供設計單位找到關鍵風險項目，依據分析之風險權重，作為專案計畫優先改善項目之決策參考。

關鍵字

失效模式與效應分析 ； 輔助推進器分離系統 ； 層級分析程序

並列摘要

ABSTRACT
In recent years, due to global climate change, nuclear disaster, natural disasters and terrorist attacks, risk management issues once again attract world attention. Failure Mode and Effect Analysis (FMEA) is a system analysis technique that can be widely used in identifying systems, sub-systems and processes that may be unable to meet their designed purposes and have the opportunity to cause failures on the system and also can be used in the product life cycle analysis. Traditional risk priority number (RPN value) includes the severity, frequency of occurrence, and the difficulty of detecting, . But the RPN value is controversial; for instance, the assessment does not consider the relative importance of the factors and different combinations of factors associate with the same RPN value, etc..
In this study, a multi-attribute decision analysis technique - the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) is introduced through the combination of qualitative and quantitative analysis, and using collective discussion and re-ferences way to build questionnaire evaluation factors. The experts then determine the weight of each factor, and this study used a professional statistical software (Expert Choice) to analyze the weight between factors and the relative importance of various levels. Finally, this study introduced the “ Sub-Booster separation system” of a launch vehicle as a case study, applying the design FMEA risk identification together with AHP evaluation analysis, showing it does provide another key approach to find efficient projects, and providing project with the priority of risks for project improvement.

並列關鍵字

failure mode and effect analysis ； sub-booster separation system ； Analytic hierarchy process

參考文獻

28. Schumpeter, J. A. (1942). Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy. Harper Torchbooks: New York 17.

14.曽增玖.(2008). AHP法於失效模式與效應分析之應用-以LCD個案為例，元智大學工業工程與管理研究所，碩士論文。

1. Bowles, J. B., & Peláez, C. E. (1995). Fuzzy logic prioritization of failures in a system failure mode, effects., & criticality analysis , Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 50,(2), 203-213.

3. Chang, K. H., & Cheng, C. H. (2011). Evaluating the risk of failure using the fuzzy OWA and DEMATEL method. Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, 22(2), 113-129.

4. Chapman, C., & Ward, S. (1996). Project risk management: processes, techniques and insights. UK, John Wiley.