Expert Systems with Applications 36 (2009) 7142–7147

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Expert Systems with Applications

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/eswa

Risk evaluation of green components to hazardous substance using FMEA and FAHP
Allen H. Hu a,*, Chia-Wei Hsu b, Tsai-Chi Kuo c, Wei-Cheng Wu a
a
Institute of Environmental Engineering and Management, National Taipei University of Technology, Taipei, Taiwan, ROC
b
Institute of Engineering Technology, National Taipei University of Technology, Taipei, Taiwan, ROC
c
Department of Industrial Engineering and Management, Ming Hsin University of Science and Technology, Hsinchu, Taiwan, ROC

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Keywords: This study utilized the failure modes and effects analysis (FMEA) to analyze the risks of green compo-
Risk evaluation nents in compliance with the European Union (EU) the Restriction of Hazardous Substance (RoHS) direc-
Green component tive in the incoming quality control (IQC) stage, which is based on a case of an OEM/ODM electronic
Hazardous substance manufacturer in Taiwan. There are three indices of FMEA in this work: the occurrence (O) that can be
FMEA
learned from the testing report; the likelihood of being detected (D) that refers to the difficulty of detec-
FAHP
tion; and severity (S) that can be quantified from the declaration statement and the frequency of green
component used by project. The fuzzy analytic hierarchy process (FAHP) was applied to determine the
relative weightings of four factors, then a green component risk priority number (GC-RPN) can be calcu-
lated for each one of the components, which are provided by the suppliers to identify and manage the
risks that may be derived from them. Numerical results indicated that through the use of the proposed
approach, the detected rate of the high risk green components can at least be improved to 20% while
the GC-RPN is above 7, and the highest risk green components can be increased by 46.2% within the
GC-RPN between 9 and 10.
Ó 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction as X-ray fluorescence (XRF) technique. In this paper, we define

Nowadays, manufacturers are facing great challenges with re-
gard to the production of green products due to the emerging issue
of hazardous substance management (HSM). In particular, environ-
mental legislation pressures have yielded to increased risk, manu-
facturing complexity and green components demands ever since
the Restriction of Hazardous Substance (RoHS) directive was
passed by the European Union (EU). This directive prohibited the
use of certain substances in electrical and electronic equipment
(EEE) starting from 1 July 2006 (Cusack & Perr, 2006). Similar reg-
ulation has been spread throughout the world, and the emerging
issue of green product seems to have been picked up rapidly in
Asia, particularly in countries such as Japan, Taiwan, and Korea,
which are the front runners in terms of green electronic products
(Boysère & Beard, 2006). As a result, assembly manufacturers have
worked on the components-contained hazardous substance in or-
der to control the use of certain hazardous substances in EEE
(Ninagawa, Yamamoto, Kumazawa, Ikuzawa, & Hamatsuka,
2005). Currently, practices on risk control for hazardous substance
of green components primarily depend on two approaches: requir-
ing suppliers to submit documentations to guarantee risk control;
and inspecting components by using analytical instruments such
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +886 2 2771 2171x4151; fax: +886 2 2776 4702.
E-mail address: allenhu@ntut.edu.tw (A.H. Hu).
‘‘green components” as those components that fulfill the require-
ments of the RoHS directive, including submission of testing
reporting, declaration statement, and bill of materials (BOM).
Developing the strategy to mitigate the green components risk
with regard to the RoHS compliant, Evans and Johnson (2005)
emphasized that risk-based supply chain compliance programs
should combine the documentation of the components’ RoHS com-
pliance status with limited testing requirements. Both the testing
and compliance documentation should be auditable to ensure
credibility and effectiveness. Also, considering compliance with
the requirements of the RoHS directive, Eveloy, Ganesan, Fukuda,
Wu, and Pecht (2005) suggested that lead-free compliance self-cer-
tification should be supported by ‘‘compliance” documentation
from suppliers. Their investigation also indicated that the Bill of
Materials (BOM) may represent a single product or assembly, or
a group of products, which can be used to recognize the RoHS re-
stricted substances in all materials and components in the final
product. As pointed out in the work of Wright and Elcock (2006),
producers of EEE should request compliance documentations from
their suppliers for any materials, components, assemblies, or
equipment to ensure compliance with RoHS. In addition, Hu and
Hsu (2006) argued that the assembly manufacturers in Taiwan
are using compliance testing report, BOM, and compliance state-
ment as essential requirements to ensure that components do
not contain exceeding chemical substances, as these approaches

0957-4174/$ - see front matter Ó 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2008.08.031
 A.H. Hu et al. / Expert Systems with Applications 36 (2009) 7142–7147
can determine responsibility when products violate environmental
legislation. Apparently, the mentioned studies regarding risk man-
agement of green components may focus on risk and obligation
sharing by requesting suppliers to submit documentations as a
guarantee. In addition, the collection of documentations may still
be limited to confirm whether green components are RoHS compli-
ant, without adopting a systematic approach to assess the green
components’ risks.
In contrast to the aforementioned literature, which discusses
the documentation-oriented risk management for green compo-
nents, another approach involves depending on analytical instru-
ments in the IQC stage. Conducting chemical analysis of the
procured materials, parts, and subassemblies may be necessary
to ensure compliance with legislative requirements (Eveloy et al.,
2005). In the work of Evans and Johnson (2005), a testing plan
should be developed based on the presence of high risk compo-
nents even if educating suppliers and procurement managers is
the first line of defense in a compliance strategy. They suggested
that the portable XRF technique can be used to analyze a wide vari-
ety of product materials, and XRF analysis is considered to be the
best solution for quick non-destructive screening of product parts
and components (Lomax, 2006). In addition, Ninagawa et al.
(2005) argued that quality assurance staffs check components
using an analytical instrument, but this process entails a large
number of man–hours in the analysis of all purchased components.
Such multi-farious checks may cause delays in the design stage and
could also raise the risk of inconformity if the parts are not checked
by reliable analytical instruments. As pointed out by Cusack and
Perr (2006), many manufacturers are asking their suppliers to con-
firm the components’ RoHS compliance. If compliance is in doubt,
they recommend that a random analysis of ‘‘high risk” components
and materials needs to be undertaken. Many electronics companies
are currently adopting this approach as a means of demonstrating
‘‘due diligence” in ensuring that their products are RoHS compliant.
In terms of cost and efficiency, assembly manufacturers may suffer
from inspecting hundreds or thousands of green components with
an analytical instrument.
Regardless of the importance of green components in address-
ing the issue of the growing worldwide environmental regulations
with regard to the restriction on hazardous substance, it appears
that to develop a risk assessment framework to systematically
manage the green components’ suppliers is an urgent need for
manufacturers. In this study, we propose an assessment frame-
work to identify high risk green components. Based on the HSM
in practice for green components, both failure modes and effects
analysis (FMEA) and fuzzy analytic hierarchy process (FAHP) tech-
niques are utilized to recognize risk evaluation criteria mainly
based on the documentation and data provided by the supplier.
The numerical results obtained through this study can be used to
detect high risk green components and to provide an insight to
the IQC staff for improving the efficiency of inspection and to mit-
igate risk.
The rest of this paper is organized as follows: In Sections 2 and
3, we introduce the basic structure of the FMEA and the FAHP. Sec-
tion 4 describes the proposed model and defines the criteria and its
weights using FMEA and FAHP. In Section 5, studies for risk evalu-
ation of green components in an illustrated case of Taiwan and cor-
responding numerical results are presented and discussed.
Concluding remarks along with suggestions for future research
are given in Section 6.
2. Failure modes and effects analysis
Failure modes and effects analysis (FMEA) first emerged from
studies done by NASA in 1963. It eventually spread to the car man-
7143
ufacturing industry where it served to identify and quantify possi-
ble potential defects at the design stage of a product (Puente, Pino,
Priore, & de la Fuente, 2002). Currently, the FMEA is a tool widely
used in the automotive, aerospace, and electronics industries to
identify, prioritize, and eliminate known potential failures, prob-
lems, and errors from systems under design before the product is
released (Stamatis, 1995). Several industrial FMEA standards, such
as those set up by the Society of Automotive Engineers, the US Mil-
itary of Defense, and the Automotive Industry Action Group; em-
ploy Risk Priority Number (RPN) to measure the risk and severity
of failures (Rhee & Ishii, 2003). RPN is an index that can represent
the degree of risks that a product may possess. It consists of three
indicators: Occurrence (O), Severity (S), and Detection (D). Basi-
cally, FMEA consists of two stages; the first phase is to identify
the potential failure modes and decide the value of Severity, Occur-
rence and Detection. In the second phase, the manager should
make recommendations for correct actions, and the RPN needs to
be re-calculated after correct actions (Su & Chou, 2008). The de-
tailed description of the FMEA creation process can be found in
the work of McDermott, Mikulak, and Beauregard (1996). In light
of the advantages mentioned above, it should therefore be appro-
priate to use FMEA to assess the risks associated with green
components.
3. Fuzzy analytic hierarchy process
The analytic hierarchy process (AHP) method introduced by
Saaty (1980) shows the process of determining the priority of a
set of alternatives and the relative importance of attributes in a
multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) problem (Saaty, 1980;
Wei, Chien, & Wang, 2005). The primary advantage of the AHP ap-
proach is the relative ease with which it handles multiple criteria
and performs qualitative and quantitative data (Kahraman, Cebeci,
& Ruan, 2004; Meade & Sarkis, 1998). However, AHP is frequently
criticized for its inability to adequately accommodate the inherent
uncertainty and imprecision associated with mapping decision-
maker perceptions to extract number (Kwong & Bai, 2003; Chan
& Kumar, 2007; Lee, Chen, & Chang, 2008). It is difficult to respond
to the preference of decision-makers by assigning precise numeri-
cal values. To improve the AHP method and to determine the rela-
tive weight of criteria for risk assessment, this study applies the
fuzzy analytic hierarchy process (FAHP) and uses triangular fuzzy
numbers to express the comparative judgments of decision-mak-
ers. Some calculation steps are essential and explained as follows:
Step 1. Establishing the hierarchical structure: Construct the hier-
archical structure with decision elements, decision-mak-
ers are requested to make pair-wise comparisons
between decision alternatives and criteria using a nine-
point scale. All matrices are developed, and all pair-wises
comparisons are obtained from each n decision-maker.
Step 2. Calculating the consistency: To ensure that the priority of
elements is consistent, the maximum eigenvector or rela-
tive weights and kmax are calculated. Then the consistency
index (CI) for each matrix order n using Eq. (1) is com-
puted. Based on CI and random index (RI), the consistency
ratio (CR) is calculated using Eq. (2). The CI and CR are
defined as follows (Saaty, 1980):
kmax  n
CI ¼ ; ð1Þ
n1
CI
CR ¼ ; ð2Þ
RI
where n is the number of items being compared in the
matrix, kmax is the largest eigenvalue, and RI is a random
7144 A.H. Hu et al. / Expert Systems with Applications 36 (2009) 7142–7147

Table 1
Random index (RI) (Saaty, 1980)

N 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
RI 0 0 0.58 0.90 1.12 1.24 1.32 1.41 1.45 1.49 1.51 1.48 1.56 1.57 1.58

  
consistency index obtained from a large number of simu- W kl ¼ ½wkil ; wkil ¼ Skl wkil ; i ¼ 1; 2; . . . ; n; ð9Þ
lation runs, and it varies upon the order of the matrix (see   
W ku ¼ ½wkiu ; wkiu ¼ Sku wkiu ; i ¼ 1; 2; . . . ; n: ð10Þ
Table 1).
  
Step 3. Construct a fuzzy positive matrix: A decision-maker trans-  Aggregating andW kl , W km W ku ,
the fuzzy weight for
forms the score of pair-wise comparison into linguistic decision-maker k can be acquired as follows:
variables via the positive triangular fuzzy number (PTFN)
listed in Table 2. The fuzzy positive reciprocal matrix can
f k ¼ ðwk ; wk ; wk Þ;
W i ¼ 1; 2; . . . ; n: ð11Þ
i il im iu
be defined as (Buckley, 1985)  Applying the geometric average to incorporate the
h i
ek ¼ A
A ek ; ð3Þ opinions of decision-makers is defined as follows:
ij
~ ¼ 1=kð W
W f1  W
f2      W
f n Þ; ð12Þ
where Ae k is a fuzzy position reciprocal matrix of decision- i i i i

maker k, A e k is the relative importance between i and j of where W~ is the fuzzy weight of decision-makers i is
ij i
decision elements f k is the fuzzy
incorporated with K decision-makers; W i

e k ¼ 1 8i ¼ j; e k ¼ 1=Ak 8i; j ¼ 1; 2; . . . ; n: weight of decision element i of k decision-maker; K:

A ij A ij ij number of decision-makers.
Step 4. Calculate fuzzy weights value: According to the Lambda-
Max method proposed by Csutora and Buckley (2001),
4. The proposed methodology
the fuzzy weights of the hierarchy can be calculated. This
process is described as follows:
The proposed methodology consists of three phases for evaluat-
 Let a = 1 to obtain the positive matrix of the decision-
e k ¼ ½aijm  . Then AHP is applied to calculate ing the risk of green components. The first phase emphasizes the
maker A m nn identification of criteria and the formulation of risk assessment
the weight matrix W km .
framework for green components RPN (GC-RPN) based on the
W km ¼ ½wkim ; i ¼ 1; 2; . . . ; n: ð4Þ FMEA method. The second phase encompasses the computations
involved in FAHP and determines the relative importance of each
 Let a = 0 to obtain the lower bound and upper bound of criterion. Lastly, an illustrative example is presented to demon-
the positive matrix of the decision-maker, A e k ¼ ½aijl 
l nn strate how the high risk green components can be identified by
e k
and A u ¼ ½aiju nn . Then AHP is applied to calculate the
k k
using the proposed method.
weight matrix, W l and W u .

W kl ¼ ½wkil ; i ¼ 1; 2; . . . ; n; ð5Þ 4.1. Identifying the risk criteria of FMEA

W ku ¼ ½wkiu ; i ¼ 1; 2; . . . ; n: ð6Þ The inspection priorities of green components at the IQC stage
 To ensure the fuzziness of weight, two constants, Skl and can be determined by their risk, in which an exceeding amount
Sku , are calculated as follows: of hazardous substance may be found in terms of threshold of
( ) the RoHS directive. By interviewing IQC staff and managers of
wkim the green program in the illustrated case, four criteria under the
Skl¼ min j1 6 i 6 n ; ð7Þ
wkil corresponding FMEA were recognized to formulate the green com-
( ) ponents RPN (GC-RPN) as illustrated in Fig. 1.
k wkim For occurrence index, the probability of failure in this study was
Su ¼ min j1 6 i 6 n : ð8Þ
wkiu determined based on the violation of green components as stipu-
  lated in the RoHS directive, which concerns the threshold limits
The lower bound (W kl ) and upper bound (W ku ) of the
of hazardous substance content. The concentration of hazardous
weight matrix are defined as
substance for green components can be detected from the testing
report that the suppliers submitted. Evidently, the report can re-
veal the probability of failure for green components, so we consid-
Table 2 ered as high probability of failure a concentration of restricted
Triangular fuzzy numbers (Lee et al., 2008) substances that is over 75% of the threshold limits as stipulated
Linguistic Positive triangular fuzzy Positive reciprocal triangular fuzzy
by the EU RoHS directive. On the other hand, a testing result be-
variables number number tween 50% and 75% of the threshold limits of the legislation is con-
Extremely (9, 9, 9) (1/9, 1/9, 1/9)
sidered as moderate probability of failure, and finally, one with less
strong than 50% is considered as low probability. The FMEA occurrence
Intermediate (7, 8, 9) (1/9, 1/8, 1/7) evaluation criteria for the testing report are shown in Table 3. Cer-
Very strong (6, 7, 8) (1/8, 1/7, 1/6) tain green components will be excluded from the examination if
Intermediate (5, 6, 7) (1/7, 1/6, 1/5)
they belong to the exemptions of the EU RoHS directive. Moreover,
Strong (4, 5, 6) (1/6, 1/5, 1/4)
Intermediate (3, 4, 5) (1/5, 1/4, 1/3) in actual practice, the points for testing of green components are
Moderately (2, 3, 4) (1/4, 1/3, 1/2) extensive, so we just considered the maximum concentration of
strong the tested results for every controlled hazardous substance.
Intermediate (1, 2, 3) (1/3, 1/2, 1) Traditionally, the detection index is generated on the basis of
Equally strong (1, 1, 1) (1, 1, 1)
the likelihood of detection by relevant design reviews, testing,
 A.H. Hu et al. / Expert Systems with Applications 36 (2009) 7142–7147 7145

Risk Assessment of Green Components

Application of FMEA

Occurrence (O) Detection (D) Severity (S)

The Testing Report Likelihood of Detection by The Declaration The Frequency of Green
(O1) Customhouse (D1) Statement (S1) Component Used By Project (S2)

GC1 GC 2 GC 3 …………... GC n

Fig. 1. Hierarchy structure for green components risk assessment.

Tables 5 and 6. This is because assembly manufacturers usually re-

Table 3 quire all their component suppliers such as first tier suppliers to
FMEA occurrence evaluation criteria – the testing report
submit a declaration statement as a guarantee while supplied com-
Probability of Likely failure rates over threshold limits of legislation Score ponents are incompliant. In this documentation, the suppliers de-
failure clare a statement of legislative obligations and respective
High The concentration of restricted substances for testing 10 compensations, and if the declaration statement can fit in with
report is more than 75% of the threshold limits of the the requirements of assembly manufacturers, they may face lower
RoHS legislation
risk. This is because suppliers can absolutely bear the legal liability
Moderate The concentration of restricted substances for testing 5
report is between 50% and 75% of the threshold limits of of supplied components, which violated the EU RoHS directive. In
the RoHS legislation light of this risk, low effect is defined as the situation in which a
Low The concentration of restricted substances for testing 1 declaration statement has been submitted by the suppliers, which
report is less than 50% of the threshold limits of the RoHS is in full agreement on the requirements of the assembly manufac-
legislation
turers. However, the declaration statement, in practice, may be
partially modified by suppliers with regard to obligations, so
assembly manufacturers still need to shoulder some risks while
Table 4 the end products are incompliant. Hence, the moderate effect is de-
FMEA detection evaluation criteria – likelihood of detection by customhouse
fined as the situation in which a declaration statement was modi-
Detection Likelihood of detection by customhouse Score fied and then was submitted by the component suppliers.
High There is high probability that the customhouse will detect 10 Accordingly, suppliers do not submit whichever declaration state-
potential cause and failure modes without using the ment will be defined to have a high effect.
disassembly technique When looking at the effect of the green components failure in
Moderate There is moderate probability that the customhouse will 5 addition to the declaration statement, another consideration
detect potential cause and failure modes with the disassembly
technique
Low There is low probability that the customhouse will detect 1
potential cause and failure modes with the destructive Table 5
technique FMEA severity evaluation criteria – the declaration statement

Effect Severity of effect Score

High This may cause serious effect if the suppliers do not submit a 10
and quality control measure. In this study, the detection index was declaration statement
Moderate This may cause a moderately serious effect if the declaration 5
determined as the basis of the likelihood of detection by customs
statement is modified by the suppliers
inspection for the contained hazardous substance of green compo- Low This has the least serious effect if the declaration statement the 1
nents as shown in Table 4. When the electrical and electronic prod- suppliers submitted can completely fulfill the requirements of
ucts are shipped to EU countries, the customhouse of EU countries the buyer
will inspect the products using analytical instruments for confirm-
ing the RoHS compliant components. In view of this, if the green
components can directly be inspected without using the disassem- Table 6
bly technique, we deem the components as having high probability FMEA severity evaluation criteria – the frequency of green component used by project
of failure. The same principle can also be applied to moderate and
Effect Severity of effect Score
low probability of failure if the inspection will be needed with dis-
High The frequency of green component used by project is more 10
assembly and destructive techniques, respectively.
than l + 3r
The severity index measures the seriousness of the failure Moderate The frequency of green component used by project is 7
mode’s effects. Considering the efforts of failure mode in terms of high between l + 2r and l + 3r
operating impact and economic loss while end products violate Moderate The frequency of green component used by project is 4
between l + r and l + 2r
the EU RoHS directive, the evaluation criteria for the severity index
Low The frequency of green component used by project is less 1
were defined by the submission of a ‘‘declaration statement” and than l + r
the ‘‘frequency of green component used by project” as shown in
7146 A.H. Hu et al. / Expert Systems with Applications 36 (2009) 7142–7147

should be included, which is the frequency of green component Table 8

used by project. In principle, the operating damage will go along Weights of four criteria

with the frequency of green components that are used by pro- FMEA index Criteria Weights
ject. However, due to the heavy variations in the frequency of Occurrence The testing report (O1) 0.517
green component used by project for each green component cat- Detection Likelihood of detection by customhouse (D1) 0.049
egory, it may be difficult to determine the absolute risk score. In Severity The declaration statement (S1) 0.347
view of the barrier mentioned above, both l (mean) and r (stan- The frequency of green component used by project (S2) 0.087

dard deviation) of the frequency of green component used by kmax = 4.255, CI = 0.0850, CR = 0.0759.
project for each green component category are calculated in ad-
vance. In this study, the frequency of green component used by
project that is more than l + 3r is determined as high effect, Table 9
The 17 categories of green components and their risk ranking
while that less than l + r is determined as low effect as shown
in Table 6. Category Local risk scores GC-RPN Ranking
O1 (0.517) D1 (0.049) S1 (0.347) S2 (0.086)
4.2. Determining the weights of FAHP
GC1 12.00 3 0.93 7.46 7.28 2
GC2 1.15 3 1.95 7.15 2.10 14
The FAHP was utilized to determine the weights of four criteria GC3 3.80 3 0.66 6.86 2.97 11
by two managers who are responsible for the green program in the GC4 3.92 3 3.88 4.56 3.92 7
GC5 7.81 6 8.54 10.00 8.17 1
illustrated case company. The fuzzy comparison judgments of the
GC6 0.20 6 9.52 4.33 4.11 5
four main criteria with respect to the overall goal are shown in Ta- GC7 0.76 9 3.53 3.94 2.45 13
ble 7. The testing report (0.517) is regarded as the most important GC8 1.74 9 0.55 3.76 1.91 15
criterion, followed by the declaration statement (0.347), the fre- GC9 0.53 6 2.19 3.76 1.70 16
quency of green component used by project (0.087), and the likeli- GC10 0.00 3 2.19 3.39 1.24 17
GC11 4.55 3 1.94 3.36 3.46 9
hood of detection by customhouse (0.049) as shown in Table 8.
GC12 10.00 6 0.42 3.28 5.85 3
GC13 1.03 9 6.45 2.92 3.49 8
4.3. The formula for GC-RPN GC14 0.00 9 6.44 2.36 2.92 12
GC15 2.45 9 6.46 1.86 4.12 4
GC16 0.02 9 10.00 1.48 4.07 6
In order to deploy the FMEA and FAHP techniques in the pro-
GC17 2.44 6 3.95 1.16 3.03 10
posed risk evaluation structure, certain modifications from the tra-
ditional FMEA were essential. The weights of the four criteria were
determined by using FAHP, and the formation of GC-RPN was ap-
plied systematically to calculate the risks with regard to each cat- 5.1. Risk of green components in terms of their GC-RPN
egory of green components. The formula of calculation for GC-RPN
is shown in Eq. (13). To evaluate the risk of green components, a total of 35,540 data
are extracted from the database of the case corporation. Once the
GC-RPN ¼ W ðO1 Þ  SðO1 Þ þ W ðD1 Þ  SðD1 Þ þ W ðS1 Þ  SðS1 Þ þ W ðS2 Þ  SðS2 Þ ; local risk scores of the seventeen categories of green components
ð13Þ are generated with respect to the four criteria, they will be aggre-
gated with the weights of criteria into the GC-RPN of each category
where W and S are the weight and score of each criterion of GC-RPN of the green component by Eq. (13). The green component RPN is:
value for each category of green components, respectively. RPNGC1 = 0.517  12.00 + 0.049  3 + 0.347  0.93 + 0.086  7.46 =
7.28. Similarly, the RPN of other categories of green components
5. An illustrated example can be computed and ranked in Table 9. The results show that
the GC5 has the highest risk, which should be prioritized for
The case corporation in Taiwan is a leading assembly maker of inspection. The overall risk priority ranking of the seventeen cate-
personal computers, servers, and mobile communication products. gories for green components is assessed as GC5 > GC2 > GC12
To ensure that products comply with the requirements of the EU > GC15 > GC6 > GC4 > GC13 > GC11 > GC17 > GC3 > GC14 > GC7 > -
RoHS, the IQC staff of the company utilizes the XRF technique to in- GC2 > GC8 > GC9 > GC10. Therefore, the IQC staff can carry out the
spect hundreds and thousands of green components with regard to priority inspection of green components based on the ranking of
hazardous substance content. However, managers are not satisfied the GC-RPN.
with the inspection results because the XRF does not consider the
efficiency of manpower and the costs involved. In addition, there 5.2. Verification of the proposed methodology using inspected data of
has been no regulation or reliable standard of inspection that can the XRF technique
be followed by the IQC staff, and the risks related to green compo-
nents cannot really be presented in place. It is therefore more pref- With the verification of the proposed methodology using in-
erable for them to draw up a risk assessment framework for this spected data of the XRF technique, the proposed framework can
can offer insights to the IQC staff in their inspection of high risk improve the efficiency of inspection at the IQC stage. A total of
green components. 1170 green components data, which have been inspected by the

Table 7
Fuzzy comparison matrices of four criteria

Goal O1 D1 S1 S2
O1 (1, 1, 1) (6.000, 7.000, 8.000) (2, 2.236, 2.449) (4.899, 5.916, 6.928)
D1 (1/8, 1/7, 1/6) (1, 1, 1) (0.144, 0.169, 0.204) (0.250, 0.333, 0.316)
S1 (0.408, 0.447, 0.500) (4.899, 5.916, 6.928) (1, 1, 1) (6.000, 7.000, 8.000)
S2 (0.177, 0.169, 0167) (2.000, 3.000, 4.000) (0.125, 0.143, 0.167) (1, 1, 1)
 A.H. Hu et al. / Expert Systems with Applications 36 (2009) 7142–7147 7147

Table 10 to a certain extent, which is relatively higher than that of the por-
Verification of the proposed methodology using inspected data of XRF table XRF technique.
GC-RPN Inspected by XRF under Exceeding the Improved rate Nevertheless, difficulties in obtaining data and criteria selection
proposed methodology warming level by XRF of detection (%) may still pose as challenges for future research in related areas. The
(1117) (45) criteria setting of risk evaluation with respect to either the bill of
9–10 13 6 46.2 material (BOM) under the occurrence index or the component
8–9 30 6 20.0 source under the severity index to improve the applicability of
7–8 3 1 33.3
6–7 11 0 0.0
the proposed model may entail further research. Specifically, the
5–6 22 2 9.1 criteria of the testing report in the present proposed model only
4–5 747 24 3.2 aims at the threshold of the EU RoHS directive, and similar regula-
3–4 2 0 0.0 tions should need more investigation in future research. Further-
2–3 50 1 2.0
more, it is also worth mentioning that the weights of criteria
1–2 239 5 2.1
0–1 0 0 0.0 determined in this study were based on the FAHP technique; how-
ever, for a more independent result, the analytic network process
(ANP) method is suggested to be adopted due to its feedback and
interdependencies properties. For the purpose of verification, re-
portable XRF technique, are extracted from the database. Consider- sults from the proposed methodology were compared with those
ing the error of the XRF technique, a warning level is assigned from the portable XRF technique, which merely considers Pb, Cd,
when the concentration of detection is more than 75% of the and Hg. Future research may therefore extend its scope of risk
threshold limits of the EU RoHS because it may still give rise to assessment to PBB, PBDE, and Cr+6 if the company utilizes other
products’ failure. Due to the XRF technique limitation on detecting instruments, such as GC-MSD, ICP-OES, and UV–Vis.
heavy metals, we only study the risk situation of Pb, Cd, and Hg.
The results of GC-RPN distribution, which were derived through References
the use of the proposed risk analysis and XRF methods, are tabu-
Boysère, J., & Beard, A. (2006). Halogen-free laminates: Worldwide trend, driving
lated in the second and third columns, respectively. Based on this forces and current status. Circuit World, 32(2), 8–11.
table, there are 45 data inspected by XRF, which are detected to ex- Buckley, J. J. (1985). Fuzzy hierarchical analysis. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 17(3),
ceed the warming level, while a total of 1170 data are identified by 233–247.
Chan, F. T. S., & Kumar, N. (2007). Global supplier development considering risk
the proposed method as risky components. Moreover, in terms of factors using fuzzy extended AHP-based approach. Omega, 35(4), 417–431.
GC-RPN, this result indicates that 13 green components are deter- Csutora, R., & Buckley, J. J. (2001). Fuzzy hierarchical analysis: The Lambda-Max
mined to be at a high risk between 9 and 10 using the proposed method. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 120(2), 181–195.
Cusack, P., & Perr, T. (2006). The EU RoHS Directive and its implications for the
methodology, as opposed to only 6 out of 13 by the XRF technique. plastics industry. Plastics, Additives and Compounding, 8(3), 46–49.
Apparently, the detected rate of the highest risk components can Evans, H., & Johnson, J. (2005). 10 Steps toward RoHS directive compliance. Circuits
be improved up to 46.2% with respect to a GC-RPN of 9 and 10. Assembly, 16(2), 68–70.
Eveloy, V., Ganesan, S., Fukuda, Y., Wu, J., & Pecht, M. G. (2005). Are you ready for
In general, when the GC-RPN is above 7 in accordance with high lead-free electronics? IEEE Transactions on Components and Packaging
risk, the detected rate can at least be increased by 20%. Certainly, Technologies, 28(4), 884–894.
such an assessment framework using FMEA and FAHP can improve Hu, A. H., & Hsu, C. W. (2006). Empirical study in the critical factors of green supply
chain management (GSCM) practice in the Taiwanese electrical and electronics
efficiency in recognizing the high risk green components (see Table
industries. In Proceeding of 2006 IEEE international conference on management of
10). innovation and technology (pp. 853–857).
Kahraman, C., Cebeci, U., & Ruan, D. (2004). Multi-attribute comparison of catering
service companies using fuzzy AHP: The case of Turkey. International Journal of
6. Conclusion Production Economics, 87(2), 171–184.
Kwong, C. K., & Bai, H. (2003). Determining the important weights for the customer
requirement in QFD using a fuzzy AHP with an extent analysis approach. IIE
A risk-based conceptual framework and operational model Transaction, 35, 619–626.
incorporating hazardous substance into green components has Lee, H. I., Chen, W. C., & Chang, C. J. (2008). A fuzzy AHP and BSC approach for
evaluating performance of IT department in the manufacturing industry in
been presented. By identifying the four criteria under FMEA and Taiwan. Expert Systems with Applications, 34(1), 96–107.
determining the relative weights using FAHP, the proposed frame- Lomax, P. (2006). Getting ready for RoHS: X-ray fluorescence measurement
work was applied in the given example. instruments aid EU Directive compliance efforts. Metal Finishing, 104(1), 28–31.
McDermott, R., Mikulak, R., & Beauregard, M. (1996). The basics of FMEA. USA:
Compared to previous investigations, the proposed method has Productivity.
the following contributions. First, a new model for evaluating Meade, L., & Sarkis, J. (1998). Strategic analysis of logistics and supply chain
green components risk with emphasis on hazardous substance is- management systems using analytic network process. Transportation Research
Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 34(3), 201–215.
sues has been developed. Such a framework has never been found
Ninagawa, N., Yamamoto, N., Kumazawa, T., Ikuzawa, M., & Hamatsuka, Y. (2005).
in previous literature. Based on the example, this model shows its Chemical substance management for EEE evaluation method of chemical data
potential advantage in detecting high risk green components sys- contained in parts. In: Proceedings of fourth international symposium on
environmentally conscious design and inverse manufacturing (pp. 828–833).
tematically and effectively. Second, incorporating the FMEA and
Puente, J., Pino, R., Priore, P., & de la Fuente, D. (2002). A decision support system for
FAHP methodology to assess the risk of green components can applying failure mode and effects analysis. International Journal of Quality &
hardly be found in previous studies. The proposed methodology Reliability Management, 19(2), 137–150.
may offer an insight for IQC staff to improve the efficiency of Rhee, S. J., & Ishii, K. (2003). Using cost based FMEA to enhance reliability and
serviceability. Advanced Engineering Informatics, 17, 179–188.
inspection for hundreds and thousands of green components. It is Saaty, T. L. (1980). The analytic hierarchy process. New York: McGraw-Hill.
evident that the proposed model not only can reduce manpower Stamatis, D. H. (1995). Failure mode and effect analysis. Milwaukee, WI: ASQ Quality
investment but also mitigate the risk associated with green Press.
Su, C. T., & Chou, C. J. (2008). A systematic methodology for the creation of Six Sigma
components. projects: A case study of semiconductor foundry. Expert Systems with
The results of this numerical analysis have indicated that the Applications, 34(4), 2693–2703.
detected rate of high risk green components can be improved up Wei, C. C., Chien, C. F., & Wang, M. J. (2005). An AHP-based approach to ERP system
selection. International Journal of Production Economic, 96, 47–62.
to 46.2% within the GC-RPN range between 7 and 10 by using Wright, R., & Elcock, K. (2006). The RoHS and WEEE directives: Environmental
the proposed methodology. Specifically, the resulting performance challenges for the electrical and electronic products sector. Environmental
of the inspected efficiency for green components can be improved Quality Management, 15(4), 9–24.