Search results1 – 2 of 2
The purpose of this paper is to establish a Process-aware FMEA (PAFMEA) development environment in order to face the main Failure Mode Effect Analysis (FMEA) deficiencies…
The purpose of this paper is to establish a Process-aware FMEA (PAFMEA) development environment in order to face the main Failure Mode Effect Analysis (FMEA) deficiencies concerning failure analysis in maintenance.
The proposed framework integrates Delphi methodology to obtain consensus of specialists’ opinions, analytic hierarchy process (AHP) to perform multiple criteria-based risk assessment and a business process management system to instantiate the development cycle. A conceptual model is presented and analyzed through a case study.
PAFMEA reveals a new perception in the evaluation and prioritization of failure modes during maintenance failure analysis, such as risk definition and resource availability, dealing with conflicting characteristics in decision-making approaches.
The PAFMEA environment includes requirements that are grouped with a process instantiation of an AHP structure, providing a high degree of applicability and performance to the development cycles of the FMEA. The new method confronts the classical risk assessment approach and contributes to the literature, adding new perspectives to the FMEA analysis.
PAFMEA brings new and promising perspectives to the FMEA development cycle, which, in short, means adding on a multi-criteria failure analysis method (AHP) through a process-aware platform, with performance impacts in FMEA knowledge sharing, decision making and delivery.
World-class total productive maintenance (TPM) status depends on critical success factors (CSF) to be properly implemented. The relevant literature has identified several…
World-class total productive maintenance (TPM) status depends on critical success factors (CSF) to be properly implemented. The relevant literature has identified several CSF; however, researchers have not investigated the degree of importance of each phase of the process. The purpose of this paper is to prioritize the CSFs that influence TPM implementation during each phase of the process in order to aid decision making in companies.
The main CSF are identified from a literature review. This paper focusses on the judgments of managers who are experts in TPM implementation in companies which have received TPM awards for excellence. The judgments are processed using the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) method. Three aggregation methods (geometric mean, Copeland and fuzzy) are employed for comparative analysis.
Although the literature highlights some important CSF, the relevance of these factors is not the same in each phase of TPM implementation. Analysis shows that ranking using the Copeland method is most coherent.
This research was carried out in some Brazilian companies.
If managers are aware of the CSF to be prioritized in each phase, this facilitates decision making, resulting in a more effective implementation of TPM.
If TPM implementation is effective, this stimulates the personnel involved and avoids the possibility of the program being abandoned.
The originality of this paper consists in the proposed model to prioritize CSF during each phase of the implementation of TPM.