:::

詳目顯示

回上一頁
題名:DEA在失效風險評估模式之應用
書刊名:危機管理學刊
作者:洪僖黛梁紹任
作者(外文):Hung, H. T.Liang, S. R.
出版日期:2016
卷期:13:1
頁次:頁1-8
主題關鍵詞: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 analysisFMEAData envelopment analysisDEAMultiple criteria decision makingMCDMCompromise programmingCommon weights
原始連結:連回原系統網址new window
相關次數:
  • 被引用次數被引用次數:期刊(0) 博士論文(1) 專書(0) 專書論文(0)
  • 排除自我引用排除自我引用:0
  • 共同引用共同引用:0
  • 點閱點閱:102
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。
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.
期刊論文
1.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。  new window
2.Teng, S. G.、Ho, S. M.、Shumar, D.、Liu, P. C.(2006)。Implementing FMEA in a collaborative supply chain environment。The International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management,23(2),179-196。  new window
3.Welborn, C.(2007)。Using FMEA to assess outsourcing risk。Quality Progress,40,17-21。  new window
4.Pillay, A.、Wang, J.(2003)。Modified failure mode and effects analysis using approximate reasoning。Reliability Engineering and System Safety,79(1),69-85。  new window
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(2),113-129。  new window
6.Charnes, A.、Cooper, W. W.、Rhodes, E.(1978)。Measuring efficiency of decision making units。European Journal of Operational Research,2(6),429-444。  new window
7.Kao, C.(2010)。Weight determination for consistently ranking alternatives in multiple criteria decision analysis。Applied Mathematical Modelling,34(7),1779-1787。  new window
8.Lotfi, F. Hosseinzadeh、Rostamy-Malkhalifeh, M.、Aghayi, N.、Beigi, Z. G.、Gholami, K.(2013)。An improved method for ranking alternatives in multiple criteria decision analysis。Applied Mathematical Modelling,37(1/2),25-33。  new window
9.Sun, J.、Wu, J.、Guo, D.(2013)。Performance ranking of units considering ideal and anti-ideal DMU with common weights。Applied Mathematical Modelling,37(9),6301-6310。  new window
10.Tsou, C. M.、Huang, D. Y.(2010)。On some methods for performance ranking and correspondence analysis in the DEA context。European Journal of Operational Research,203(3),771-783。  new window
11.Alirezaee, M. R.、Afsharian, M.(2007)。A complete ranking of DMUs using restrictions in DEA models。Applied Mathematics and Computation,189,1550-1559。  new window
12.Bemroider, E.、Stix, V.(2007)。A method using weight restrictions in data envelopment analysis for ranking and validity issues in decision making。Computers and Operations Research,34,2637-2647。  new window
13.Jahanshahloo, G. R.、Lotfi, F. Hosseinzadeh、Khanmohammadi, M.、Kazemimanesh, M.、Rezaie, V.(2010)。Ranking of units by positive ideal DMU with common weights。Expert Systems with Applications,37,7483-7488。  new window
14.Kao, C. and Hung, H. T.(2005)。Data envelopment analysis with common weights: the compromise solution approach。Journal of the Operational Research Society,56,1196-1203。  new window
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 fiizzy environment Expert Systems with。Applications,39,12926-12934。  new window
16.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(2),828-838。  new window
17.Ramezani-Tarkhorani, S.、Khodabakhshi, M.、Mehrabian, S.、Nuri-Bahmani, F.(2014)。Ranking decision-making units using common weights in DEA。Applied Mathematical Modelling,38,3890-3896。  new window
18.Wang, Y. M.、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(1),469-484。  new window
19.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。  new window
20.Adler, N.、Friedman, L.、Sinuany-Stern, Zilla(2002)。Review of ranking methods in the data envelopment analysis context。European Journal of Operational Research,140(2),249-265。  new window
21.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 and Operations Research,36(6),1768-1779。  new window
22.Pollock, S.(200508)。Create a simple framework to validate FMEA performance。Six Sigma Forum Magazine August,4(4),27-34。  new window
23.Yu, P. L.(1973)。A class of solutions for group decision problems。Management Science,19(8),936-946。  new window
圖書
1.Chankong, V.、Haimes, Y. Y.(1983)。Multiobjective Decision Making: Theory and Methodology。Elsevier Science Publishing Company, Inc.。  new window
2.Singor, M. C.(2000)。The Failure Analysis Matrix: A Usable Model for Ranking Solutions to Failures in Information Systems。School of Computer and Information Sciences, Nova Southeastern University。  new window
3.Charnes, A.、Cooper, W. W.、Lewin, A. Y.、Seiford, L. M.(1994)。Data Envelopment Analysis: Theory, Methodology, and Applications。Norwell:Boston, MA:London:Kluwer Academic Publishers。  new window
4.Zeleny, M.(1982)。Multiple Criteria Decision Making。New York:North-Holland。  new window
5.Yu, Po-Lung(1985)。Multiple-Criteria Decision Making, Concepts, Techniques, and Extensions。Plenum Press。  new window
 
 
 
 
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
:::
無相關書籍
 
無相關著作
 
QR Code
QRCODE