In this chapter, the results and advantages of research will be integrated results and into conclusions. First, the results of research will be summarized. Then advantages of research will be drawn. Finally, some suggestions and research limitations for future studies will be offered.
Section 1 Results of research summarized
In this study, we firstly evaluate the structure of hierarchy and interdependence structure by Interpretive Structural Model (ISM), and then calculate the weight of corrective action through Analytic Network Process (ANP). Furthermore, combine the utility of corrective actions, and to determine the improvement priority order of FMEA by Utility Priority Number (UPN). Via an empire case study, the finding of comparison is indeed obtained a different priority order of corrective actions. Follow the new priority order, it is not only involving the utility of corrective actions, but also may maximizes the improvement effect, even may brings the favorable result in the shortest time at lowest cost.
Secondly, we implemented a further exploration. In general, researchers evaluate with crisp values to present their feelings and subjective perceptions. In fact, due to intangible and subjective information often appearing in the evaluation process, crisp values are inadequate to present the evaluation ratings of customers, so people would have difficulties in understanding the difference and uncertainties in human’s semantic expression. Therefore, we proposed a Fuzzy ISM method to not only taking account of the relationship of hierarchy and even interdependence of the
44
corrective action to fit in with real complicated situation, and then to compare the hierarchical structure between hierarchical relation consideration and Fuzzy linguistic consideration via the same illustration case. The result of hierarchy structure is same as the hierarchy relation consideration, that is ISM none Fuzzy linguistic consideration. Hence, it indicates the Fuzzy ISM indeed can be used, and involve Fuzzy linguistic consideration might obtain more accurate priority of corrective action, then to maximizes the improvement effect.
Finally, we implement another further exploration. From deeper perspective, though ISM can clarify the relationship between different hierarchies and the corresponding effects of corrective action, it cannot explain their causal relationships and influence strength. We used DEMATEL method to analyze the causal relationship and influence strength of corrective actions, then to effectively integrate ANP to get a more complete weight of corrective action considering influence strength. At last, the finding of comparison is indeed obtained a different priority order of corrective actions.
Section 2 Research Limitations
Although this study provides theoretical substantive explanations, it still suffers from several limitations, as following:
1. We use ISM to evaluate the structure of hierarchy and interdependence structure, and then calculate the weight of corrective action through ANP. Furthermore, combine the utility of corrective actions, and to determine the improvement priority order of FMEA by UPN instead of RPN. This method can maximizes the
45
improvement effect, and brings the favorable result in the shortest time should be implicit, but whether it can at lowest cost need to be further explored from cost study.
2. We continually to further explore the Fuzzy linguistic consideration to compare the hierarchy structure of corrective actions and causal relationship consideration, to obtain and to compare the different priority order of corrective action. However, we’ve not further combine these two considerations to be a completed concept, that is, to develop Fuzzy DEMATEL method is possible future research direction.
46
REFERENCES
AIAG. (1995). Potential failure mode and effects analysis. Chrysler Corporation, Ford Motor Company and General Motors Corporation.
Barsky, L., & Dutta, S. P. (1997). Cost assessment for ergonomic risk (CAFER).
International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 20, 307-315.
Ben-Daya, M., & Raouf, A. (1993). A revised failure mode and effects analysis model. International Journal of Quality Reliability Management, 13, 43-47.
Bowes, J. B. (1998). The new SAE FMECA standard. Proceeding Annual Reliability and Maintainability Symposium, USA, 48-53.
Bowles, J. B. (2003). An assessment of RPN prioritization in a failure modes effects and criticality analysis. Proceeding Annual Reliability and Maintainability Symposium, USA, 380-386.
Chang, C. L., Liu, P.H., & Wei, C. C. (2001). Failure mode and effect analysis and grey theory. Integrated Manufacturing Systems, 12, 211-216.
Chiu, Y. J., Chen, H. C., Tzeng. G. H. & Shyu, J. Z. (2006). Marketing strategy based on customer behaviour for the LCD-TV. International Journal of Management and Decision Making, 7(2), 143-165.
Dhillon, B. S. (1992). Failure modes and effects analysis - bibliography.
Microelectronics Reliability, 32(5), 719-731.
Franceschini, F., & Galetto, M. (2001). A new approach for evaluation of risk priorities of failure modes in FMEA. International Journal of Production Research, 39(13), 2991-3002.
Fontela, E., & Gabus, A. (1974). DEMATEL, innovative methods- Structural analysis
47
of the world problematique (methods). Switzerland: Battelle Geneva Research Institute.
Fontela, E., & Gabus, A. (1976). The DEMATEL observer. Switzerland: Geneva, Battelle Geneva Research Center.
Gabus, A., & Fontela, E. (1973). Perceptions of the world problematique:
Communication procedure, communicating with those bearing collective responsibility. Switzerland: Battelle Geneva Research Centre, Geneva.
Gilchrist, W. (1993). Modeling failure modes and effects analysis. International Journal of Quality Reliability Management, 10(5), 16-23.
Hori, S., & Shimizu, Y. (1999). Designing methods of human interface for supervisory control systems. Control Engineering Practice, 7, 1413-1419.
Hsieh, C. H., & Chen, S. H. (1998). Graded mean integration representation distance of generalized fuzzy number. Proceeding of 6th Conference on Fuzzy Theory and Its Applications, Taiwan, 50-66.
Hung, G. Q., Nie, M., & Mark, K. L. (1999). Web-based failure mode and effect analysis. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 37, 177-180.
Jordan, W. E. (1972). Failure model effects and criticality analysis. Proceedings Annual Reliability and Maintainability Symposium, USA, 30-37.
Kara-Zaitri, C., & Fleming, P. V. (1997). Applications of fizzy inference methods to failure modes effects and criticality analysis IFMECA. International Conference on Safety and Reliability, UK, 2403-2414.
KEMA. (1996). International standard of ISO 13488. German: KEMA Co.
Linton, J. D. (2003). Facing the challenges of service automation: An enabler for E-commerce and productivity gain in traditional services. IEEE Transactions on
48
Engineering Management, 50(4), 478-484.
Loch, L. (1998). Information system supporting FMEA method. Information Systems Architecture and Maintainability Symposium, USA, 30-37.
Onodera, K. (1997). Effective techniques of FMEA at each life-cycle stage.
Proceeding Annual Reliability and Maintainability Symposium, USA, 50-56.
Puente, J., Pino, R., Priore, P., & De la Fuente. (2002). A decision support system for applying failure mode and effects analysis. The International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 19(2/3), 137-150.
Reifer, D. J. (1979). Software failure modes and effects analysis. IEEE Transactions on Reliability, 28(3), 247-249.
Reiling, J. G.., Knutzen, B. L., & Stoecklein, M. (2003). FMEA - the cure for medical errors. Quality Progress, 36(8), 67-71.
Reliey, T. T. (2002). FMEA in preventing medical accidents. ASQ Annual Quality Congress Proceedings, USA, 657-664.
Russomano, D. J., Bonnell, R. D., & Bowles, J. B. (1994). Viewing computer-aided failure modes and effects analysis from an artificial intelligence perspective.
Integrated Computer-Aided Engineering, 1(3), 209-228.
Saaty, T. L. (1980). The analytic hierarchical process. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Saaty, T. L. (1996). Decision making with dependence and feedback: The analytic network process. Pittsburgh, PA: RWS.
Sankar, N. R., & Prabhu, B. S. (2001). Modified approach for prioritization of failures in a system failure mode and effects analysis. The International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 18(3), 324-335.