Title

DEA在失效風險評估模式之應用

Translated Titles

An Application of DEA to Evaluate Risk Priority of the Failure Modes in FMEA

DOI

10.6459/JCM.201603_13(1).0001

Authors

洪僖黛(H. T. Hung);梁紹任(S. R. Liang)

Key Words

失效模式與效應分析 ; 資料包絡分析法 ; 多準則決策分析 ; 妥協規劃 ; 共同權重 ; Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (FMEA) ; Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) ; Multiple CriteriaDecision Making(MCDM) ; Compromise Programming ; Common Weights

PublicationName

危機管理學刊

Volume or Term/Year and Month of Publication

13卷1期(2016 / 03 / 01)

Page #

1 - 8

Content Language

繁體中文

Chinese Abstract

失效模式與效應分析(failure mode and effects analysis, FMEA)是一種預防性的風險管理技術,主要應用於分析與辨認產品設計系統的潛在失效模式,並根據風險優先指數(risk priority number, RPN)決定失效模式的改善順序,藉由適當的改善措施來降低失效率與提高可靠度。由於傳統RPN 是以嚴重性、發生率、以及難檢度等三個風險因子的乘積來衡量,雖然具有計算簡單與容易比較的優點,但也使FMEA 引發眾多爭議。為了改進RPN 的缺失而使失效模式的評比結果具有代表性,本研究基於資料包絡分析法(data envelopment analysis, DEA)適用於決定多準則決策分析問題(multiple criteria decision making, MCDM)評估屬性權重之特性,將失效模式的嚴重性、發生率、以及難檢度等風險因子視為評估屬性,在DEA 的概念下,考量失效模式風險評估屬性之理想值(ideal) 與反理想值(anti-ideal),建立以距離函數為基礎的妥協規劃共同權重模式來決定嚴重性、發生率、以及難檢度等風險因子的共同權重。採用共同權重來計算失效模式的RPN,不僅使得全部失效模式能在相同的基準下確認改善的先後順序,並且讓全部失效模式不論以理想值或反理想值為評估基準均有一致的排序結果。

English Abstract

Failure mode and effects analysis (FMEA) is a preventive technology of risk management that is applied to analyze and to identify the potential failure modes in a system. The risk priorities of the failure modes are determined through the risk priority number (RPN), and appropriate improvement actions can be taken for decreasing the error. In other words, the failure modes are ranked by their RPN. Failure modes having higher RPN are assumed to be more important and assigned a higher priority than those with lower RPN. Traditionally, the RPN is the multiplication of three risk factors that are the severity, the occurrence, and the detection of a failure mode. It has the advantage of easy calculation and comparison, but the RPN has been criticized to have some drawbacks. In order to improve the disadvantages, this study considers the three risk factors as the attributes of a multiple criteria decision making (MCDM) problem and the RPN is the criterion for comparing different failure modes. The characteristic of data envelopment analysis (DEA) is applied to determine the weights of the attributes. Based on the concepts of DEA and the distance of the failure modes to the ideal and the anti-ideal, a compromise programming model is proposed to determine the common weights of the three risk factors. The RPNs of all failure modes are calculated from the common weights. All failure modes could not only be compared on the same basis, but also have consistent rakings when they are ranked based on the distance to the ideal and the anti-ideal.

Topic Category 社會科學 > 管理學
Reference
  1. Adler, N.,Friedman, L.,Sinuany-Stern, Z.(2002).Review of ranking methods in the data envelopment analysis context.European Journal of Operational Research,140,249-265.
  2. Alirezaee, M.R.,Afsharian, M.(2007).A complete ranking of DMUs using restrictions in DEA models.Applied Mathematics and Computation,189,1550-1559.
  3. Battles, J.B.,Dixon, N.M.,Borotkanics, R.J.,Rabin-Fastmen, B.,Kaplan, H.S.(2006).Sensemaking of patient safety and hazards.Health Services Research,41,1555-1575.
  4. Bernroider, E.,Stix, V.(2007).A method using weight restrictions in data envelopment analysis for ranking and validity issues in decision making.Computers & Operations Research,34,2637-2647.
  5. Chang, K.H.,Cheng, C.H.(2011).Evaluating the risk of failure using the fuzzy OWA and DEMATEL method.Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing,22,113-129.
  6. Chankong, V.,Haimes, Y.Y.(1983).Multiobjective Decision Making: Theory and Methodology.New York:Elsevier Science Publishing Company, Inc..
  7. Charnes, A.,Cooper, W.W.,Lewin, A.Y.,Seiford, L.M.(1994).Data Envelopment Analysis: Theory, Methodology and Applications.Norwell:Kluwer Academic Publishers.
  8. Charnes, A.,Cooper, W.W.,Rhodes, E.(1978).Measuring efficiency of decision making units.European Journal of Operational Research,2,429-444.
  9. Chin, K.S.,Wang, Y.M.,Poon, G.K.K.,Yang, J.B.(2009).Failure mode and effects analysis using a group-based evidential reasoning approach.Computers & Operations Research,36,1768-1779.
  10. Hosseinzadeh Lotfi, F.,Rostamy Malkhalifeh, M.,Aghayi, N.(2013).An improved method for ranking alternatives in multiple criteria decision analysis.Applied Mathematical Modelling,37,25-33.
  11. Jahanshahloo, G.R.,Hosseinzadeh Lotfi, F.,Khanmohammadi, M.,Kazemimanesh, M.,Rezaie, V.(2010).Ranking of units by positive ideal DMU with common weights.Expert Systems with Applications,37,7483-7488.
  12. Kao, C.(2010).Weight determination for consistently ranking alternatives in multiple criteria decision analysis.Applied Mathematical Modelling,34,1779-1787.
  13. Kao, C.,Hung, H.T.(2005).Data envelopment analysis with common weights: the compromise solution approach.Journal of the Operational Research Society,56,1196-1203.
  14. Liu, H.C.,Liu, L.,Liu, N.(2013).Risk evaluation approaches in failure mode and effects analysis: a literature review.Expert Systems with Applications,40,828-838.
  15. Liu, H.C.,Liu, L.,Liu, N.,Mao, L.X.(2012).Risk evaluation in failure mode and effects analysis with extended VIKOR method under fuzzy environment.Expert Systems with Applications,39,12926-12934.
  16. Pillay, A.,Wang, J.(2003).Modified failure mode and effects analysis using approximate reasoning.Reliability Engineering and System Safety,79,69-85.
  17. Pollock, S.(2005).Create a simple framework to validate FMEA performance.Six Sigma Forum Magazine,2005(August),27-34.
  18. Ramezani-Tarkhorani, S.,Khodabakhshi, M.,Mehrabian, S.,Nuri-Bahmani(2014).Ranking decision-making units using common weights in DEA.Applied Mathematical Modelling,38,3890-3896.
  19. Singor, M.C.(2000).School of Computer and Information Sciences, Nova Southeastern University.
  20. Sun, J.,Wu, J.,Guo, D.(2013).Performance ranking of units considering ideal and anti-ideal DMU with common weights.Applied Mathematical Modelling,37,6301-6310.
  21. Teng, S.G.,Ho, S.M.,Shumar, D.,Liu, P.C.(2006).Implementing FMEA in a collaborative supply chain environment.International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management,23,179-196.
  22. Tsou, C.,Huang, D.(2010).On some methods for performance ranking and correspondence analysis in the DEA context.European Journal of Operational Research,203,771-783.
  23. Wang, Y.,Luo, Y.,Lan, Y.(2011).Common weights for fully ranking decision making units by regression analysis.Expert Systems with Applications,38,9122-9128.
  24. Wang, Y.,Luo, Y.,Liang, L.(2009).Ranking decision making units by imposing a minimum weight restriction in the data envelopment analysis.Journal of Computational and Applied Mathematics,223,469-484.
  25. Welborn, C.(2007).Using FMEA to assess outsourcing risk.Quality Progress,40,17-21.
  26. Yu, P.L.(1985).Multiple-Criteria Decision Making, Concepts, Techniques, and Extensions.New York:Plenum Press.
  27. Yu, P.L.(1973).A class of solutions for group decision problems.Management Science,19,936-946.
  28. Zeleny, M.(1982).Multiple Criteria Decision Making.New York:McGraw-Hill.