A NEW HYBRID MODEL PROPOSAL FOR FMEA ANALYSIS WITH FUZZY MULTI-CRITERIA DECISION-MAKING TECHNIQUES

Abstract

Businesses apply various strategies to increase customer satisfaction and to get ahead of their competitors in the market. One of the methods used within the framework of this strategy is the Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (FMEA) method, which enables the discovery of errors in products or services before they occur. In the FMEA method, the severity, probability and discoverability of potential errors are determined and scored. However, it is possible to state that the FMEA method may be insufficient in cases where more sensitive analysis is required due to the limited nature of the measures used in the scoring process. In order to prevent this, a hybrid study was conducted in which a new ranking was made using classical FMEA and multiple fuzzy multi-criteria decision making techniques. In the literature, no study has been found in which more than two fuzzy multi-criteria decision making techniques have been used, and it is aimed to reach the most accurate result by using 5 different methods by eliminating the disadvantages of each method. This study was carried out in the heat treatment process of the fasteners industry, and in addition to classical FMEA, errors were listed with DEMATEL-weighted, fuzzy TOPSIS, fuzzy VIKOR, fuzzy Gray Relational Analysis and fuzzy MOORA methods. As a result of the 5 rankings, a new model was developed and the final ranking was made.

Keywords

• FMEA
• Multi-Criteria Decision Making Techniques
• Fuzzy Logic

References

1. [1] Doshi J, Desai, DA. Application of failure mode & effect analysis (fmea) for continuous quality improvement – multiple case studies in automobile smes. International Journal for Quality Research, 2017;11(2), 345–360.
2. [2] Efe, B. An integrated fuzzy approach based failure mode and effects analysis for a risk assessment. Bitlis Eren Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Dergisi, 2022; 11(2), 678-693.
3. [3] Shao J, Zhong S, Tian M, Liu Y. Combining fuzzy MCDM with Kano model and FMEA: a novel 3-phase MCDM method for reliable assessment. Springer, 2024.
4. [4] Özveri O, Kabak M. The usage of mcdm techniques in failure mode and effect analysis. Journal of Economics and Management Research, 2015; 4 (2): 94-108.
5. [5] Safari H, Faraji, Z, et al. Identifying and evaluating enterprise architecture risks using FMEA and fuzzy VIKOR. Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, 2016; 27: 475-486.
6. [6] Hajiagha S, Hashemi S, etc. Fuzzy belief structure based VIKOR method: an application for ranking delay causes of Tehran metro system by FMEA criteria. Transport, 2016; 31 (1).
7. [7] Yang H, Li G, et al. Improved FMEA based on IVF and fuzzy VIKOR method: A case study of workpiece box system of CNC gear milling machine. Quality and Reliability Engineering International, 2021; 37 (6): 2478-2498.
8. [8] Arabsheybani A, Mahdi M, et al. An integrated fuzzy MOORA method and FMEA technique for sustainable supplier selection considering quantity discounts and supplier's risk. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2018; 190 (20): 577-591.

9. [9] Mete S. Assessing occupational risks in pipeline construction using FMEA-based AHP-MOORA inteGRAted approach under Pythagorean fuzzy environment. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment: An International Journal, 2019; 25 (7).
10. [10] Emovon I, Mgbemena C. Enhancing the FMEA technique using a combination of Expectation interval, TAGUCHI, MOORA, and Geometric mean methods. Industrial Engineering Journal of Engineering Research, 2019; 7 (4).
11. [11] Liu H, Nan L, et al. Risk evaluation in failure mode and effects analysis with extended VIKOR method under fuzzy environment. Expert Systems with Applications, 2015; 39 (17): 12926-12934.
12. [12] Shi S, Fei H, et al. Application of an FMEA method combining interval 2-tuple linguistic variables and grey relational analysis in preoperative medical service process. IFAC, 2019; 52 (13): 1242-1247.
13. [13] Turan M, Ocaktan D. Use of Fuzzy HTEA in Risk Analysis in a Transformer Manufacturing Company and Development of Application Software. BAUN Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü Dergisi, 2019; 21 (1): 474-487.
14. [14] Kuei H, Yung C, et al. InteGRAting TOPSIS and DEMATEL Methods to Rank the Risk of Failure of FMEA. International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making, 2014; 13: 1229-1257.
15. [15] Hu C, Li E, et al. Improving Risk Evaluation in FMEA With Cloud Model and Hierarchical TOPSIS Method. IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems, 2019; 27 (1).
16. [16] Mangelia M, Shahrakia A, et al. Improvement of risk assessment in the FMEA using a nonlinear model, revised fuzzy TOPSIS, and Support Vector Machine. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 2019; 69: 209-216.
17. [17] Ersadi M, Forouzandeh M. Information Security Risk Management of Research Information Systems: A hybrid approach of Fuzzy FMEA, AHP, TOPSIS, and Shannon Entropy. Journal of Digital Information Management, 2019; 17 (6).
18. [18] Hwang CL, Yoon K. Multiple Attribute Decision Making: Methods and Applications. Springer-Verlag; 1981.
19. [19] Brauers WK, Zavadskas EK. Modeling in management and decision-making: The MOORA method. Technological and Economic Development of Economy. 2006;12(4):445-469.
20. [20] Deng H. Multicriteria analysis with grey systems. Proceedings of the 1999 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics. 1999;3:3072-3076.
21. [21] Opricovic S, Tzeng GH. Defuzzification within a multicriteria decision model. International Journal of Uncertainty, Fuzziness and Knowledge-Based Systems. 2004;12(3):293-301.
22. [22] Kabak M, Çınar Y. Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Methods: Applications Solved with MS Excel. 1st Edition. Ankara: Nobel Yayıncılık; 2020.
23. [23] Gürbüz F, Çavdarcı S. Evaluation of Problem Areas Related to the Recycling Sector Using the DEMATEL and Grey DEMATEL Method. Sakarya Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü Dergisi. 2018;22(2):285-301.
24. [24] Battal Ü. Financing Problems of Air Transportation in Turkey: Application of the DEMATEL Method. Ömer Halisdemir Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi. 2018;11(2):96-111.
25. [25] Ünal Z, Çetin E. Selection of CRM Software in Accommodation Enterprises Using the Integrated DEMATEL and TODIM Method. Pamukkale Üniversitesi Mühendislik Bilimleri Dergisi, 2020; 26 (4): 779-788.
26. [26] Ünal, Z., & Çetin, E. (2020). Selection of CRM software in accommodation enterprises through the integrated DEMATEL and TODIM method. Pamukkale Üniversitesi Mühendislik Bilimleri Dergisi, 26(4), 779–788.
27. [27] Badem E, Özel A. Evaluation of Factors Affecting Consumer Choice in Restaurant Selection Using the DEMATEL Method: An Application. Journal of Management Economics Literature Islamic and Political Sciences. 2018;3(1):70-89.
28. [28] Gök C, Perçin S. DEMATEL-ASS-VIKOR Approach in the Evaluation of Electronic Shopping (E-Shopping) Sites in Terms of E-Service Quality. Anadolu Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi. 2016;16(2):131-144.
29. [29] Sarı İ, Ervural B, et al. Investigation of Supplier Evaluation Criteria in Sustainable Supply Chain Management Using the DEMATEL Method and an Application in the Healthcare Sector. Pamukkale Üniversitesi Mühendislik Bilimleri Dergisi. 2017;23(4):477-485.
30. [30] Kabak M. A Fuzzy Approach to Determining Unit Air Defense Priorities. Savunma Bilimleri Dergisi. 2011;10(2):1-17.
31. [31] Kurt Z, Aytaç Y. Fuzzy TOPSIS Based Decision Model for Evaluating and Prioritizing R&D / Innovation Projects. Electronic Letters on Science & Engineering, 2020; 16 (2): 93-107.
32. [32] Ögel S, Kerim N. Financial Performance Analysis of Defense Industry Companies Traded on Borsa Istanbul Using the Fuzzy TOPSIS Method. BIMJ. 2021;9(1):307-326.
33. [33] Unvan Y. Financial Performance Analysis of Banks with TOPSIS and Fuzzy TOPSIS Approaches. Gazi University Journal of Science, 2020; 33 (4): 904-923.
34. [34] Şişman B, Doğan M. Evaluation of the Financial Performance of Turkish Banks Using Fuzzy AHP and Fuzzy MOORA Methods. Yönetim ve Ekonomi Dergisi. 2016;23(2):353-371.
35. [35] Şişman B. Selection and Evaluation of Green Supplier Development Programs Using the Fuzzy MOORA Method. Journal of Yasar University. 2016;11(44):302-315.
36. [36] Organ A, Kenger M. Application of the Integrated Fuzzy AHP–Fuzzy MOORA Approach to the Problem of Market Staff Selection. Anemon Muş Alparslan Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi. 2018;6(18):271-280.
37. [37] Dinler S. Performance Evaluation of Non-Life Insurance Companies Operating in Turkey Using Grey Relational Analysis. Oltu Beşeri ve Sosyal Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi. 2021;2(2):200-212.
38. [38] Şenocak A. A Multi-Criteria Decision-Making and Linear Programming-Based Application for the Sustainable Supplier Selection Problem in a Fuzzy Environment [master’s thesis]. Denizli (Türkiye): Pamukkale Üniversitesi, Endüstri Mühendisliği Anabilim Dalı; 2016.
39. [39] Akyurt İ, Kabadayı N. Cargo Aircraft Type Selection Using Fuzzy AHP and Fuzzy Grey Relational Analysis Methods: An Application in a Turkish Airline Company. Journal of Yasar University. 2020;15(57):38-55.
40. [40] Yıldız A, Deveci M. Based on Fuzzy VIKOR Approach to Personnel Selection Process. Ege Academic Review, 2013; 13 (4): 427-436.
41. [41] Yavuz S, Deveci M. Selection of Shopping Center Location with The Methods of Fuzzy VIKOR and Fuzzy TOPSIS and An Application. Ege Academic Review, 2014; 14 (3): 463-480.
42. [42] Yıldız A, Deveci M. Based on Fuzzy VIKOR Approach to Personnel Selection Process. Ege Academic Review, 2013; 13 (4): 427-436.
43. [43] Akyüz G. Supplier Selection Using the Fuzzy VIKOR Method. Atatürk Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi. 2012;26(1):197-215.
44. [44] Akyol G. Evaluation of Banks’ Corporate Sustainability Performance Using the Fuzzy VIKOR Method [master’s thesis]. Kocaeli (Türkiye): Kocaeli Üniversitesi, Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü; 2019.
45. [45] Faydalı R, Erkan E. Investigation of the Machine Selection Problem Using the Fuzzy VIKOR Method. Journal of Intelligent Systems: Theory and Applications. 2020;3(1):7-12.