The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/1741-038X.htm
JMTM
28,6
822
Received 3 November 2016
Revised 27 May 2017
17 July 2017
Accepted 21 July 2017
Journal of Manufacturing
Technology Management
Vol. 28 No. 6, 2017
pp. 822-848
© Emerald Publishing Limited
1741-038X
DOI 10.1108/JMTM-11-2016-0150
Process-aware FMEA framework
for failure analysis in maintenance
Julio Cesar Battirola Filho
Department of Mechatronics Engineering,
Pontifical Catholic University of Parana, Curitiba, Brazil and
Research and Development Laboratory, Electrolux Brazil S/A, Curitiba, Brazil
Flávio Piechnicki
Instituto Federal do Paraná, Telêmaco Borba, Brazil and
Graduate Program in Industrial Engineering,
Pontifical Catholic University of Parana, Curitiba, Brazil, and
Eduardo de Freitas Rocha Loures and Eduardo Alves Portela Santos
Graduate Program in Industrial Engineering,
Pontifical Catholic University of Parana, Curitiba, Brazil
Abstract
Purpose – 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.
Design/methodology/approach – 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.
Findings – 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.
Practical implications – 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.
Originality/value – 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.
Keywords Decision making, Analytical hierarchy process, Failure mode and effect analysis,
Maintenance, Business processes
Paper type Research paper
1. Introduction
Advances in information technology have enabled more efficient collection, monitoring and
supervision of the production process. However, these factors do not increase process efficiency
without timely interventions and improvements on the appropriate equipment. Maintenance
objectives not only address optimizing equipment availability (uptime) at lower cost, but also
affect the whole business perspective in aspects such as safety, environmental integrity, energy
efficiency and product quality. According to Shafiee (2015), failure analysis of any equipment
or system is a very complex task due to the difficulties in connection with data collection,
diversity of components and functions, and the large number and subjectivity of the criteria
that must be taken into account. In this context, the use of advanced techniques in maintenance
management and decision making have provided increasing levels of control and safety in
production processes, resulting in increased productivity, since they ensure greater equipment
uptime at lower maintenance costs (Chen, 2013; Velmurugan and Dhingra, 2015).
 The applied maintenance policy is expected to be effective and reduce the frequency of PAFMEA
work interruptions and their undesired effects to the process as a whole. The need to increase framework for
reliability has popularized several methods and techniques for minimizing and eliminating failure analysis
failures (Sharma et al., 2007). One of the most widely established approaches is failure mode
effect analysis (FMEA), used in the manufacturing industry to anticipate product/process
failures. These methods and techniques have been developed to improve product and process
reliability, i.e., increase the probability of an item or equipment flawlessly performing its 823
function. However, the qualitative approach of these methods, in particular of FMEA, leads to
many difficulties in implementing these techniques in the maintenance decision-making
process. This process is highly dependent on tacit knowledge under a strong perspective of
uncertainty and consensus, aggravated by the difficulty in obtaining information from
heterogeneous systems and databases (Braaksma et al., 2013; Popovic et al., 2012;
Sharma et al., 2005). The lack of well-defined terms (Lee, 2001) and the reusing knowledge
about failures (Ajayi and Smart, 2008; Lough et al., 2008; Stone et al., 2005) are also difficulties
in implementing FMEA.
Structural, organizational and technological aspects have a direct impact on the
application of FMEA and make decision-making processes difficult. Thus, several
initiatives have been developed by researchers around the world, using adapted, optimized
models, extensions and adaptations, in order to optimize the maintenance policies adopted
by companies.
Laurenti et al. (2012) analyzed publications that used the FMEA application and found
several problems. Popovic et al. (2012) state that FMEA demands time and requires the
necessary resources to be provided in design and process development, stage when design
and process changes can be implemented with least difficulty and lowest financial
requirements. In this sense, Rhee and Ishii (2003) affirm that the main weaknesses of this
method are: FMEA process is tiring and time consuming; there are few overlaps, possibly
even a gap, between design and process FMEA; FMEA represents failures incompletely;
and FMEA does not identify current failures occurring in real time.
Considering these difficulties in developing and deploying FMEA in industrial
maintenance, in particular from the method and decision-making perspectives, this paper
targets introducing a framework for the FMEA development life cycle resulting in a
new risk assessment approach – Process-aware FMEA (PAFMEA). The main FMEA
deficiencies regarding failure analysis in maintenance can be faced by applying a process
approach to FMEA and integrating the Delphi methodology, the analytic hierarchy
process (AHP) decision-making method and the business process management (BPM)
concept base into a business process management system (BPMS) environment. PAFMEA
integrates Delphi to obtain a consensus of specialists’ opinions, AHP to prioritize the
failure modes extending FMEA Risk Priority Number (RPN) perspectives, and BPM to
instantiate the use of these methods and incorporate the specialists’ knowledge through
business process models in a BPMS environment. This paper is structured as follows:
Section 2 presents the literature review regarding research theme; Section 3 proposes the
conceptual development of PAFMEA framework cycle structured in three mains steps:
knowledge discovery and formalization; PAFMEA modeling and implementation; and
execution and analysis providing feedback to maintenance decision makers and input for
PAFMEA specifications. Section 4 refers to an application study of the PAFMEA method
and finally, the results of this study are discussed leading to the conclusions and
perspectives in Section 5.

2. Literature review
Nowadays it is important that the companies use imperative technologies in the industry
maintenance field that can be functional to improve the equipment availability and
JMTM reliability and reduce operational and maintenance costs. In this context, the theory of
28,6 reliability centered maintenance (RCM) is the function of the operating system to recognize
the consequences of the failure by the failure analysis and system function (Gupta and
Mishra, 2016). RCM has been seen as a reliability and risk management methodology used
to determine PM requirements and optimize maintenance system for a physical asset in its
operating environment (Tang, Liu, Jing, Yang and Zou, 2017).
824 Like a core component of RCM is the FMEA that is a powerful tool used by system
safety and reliability engineers to identify critical components/parts/functions whose
failure will lead to undesirable outcomes such as production loss, injury or even an
accident (Sharma and Sharma, 2010). It is used as a prospective risk assessment
technique broadly used in various industries for enhancing the safety and reliability
of systems, products, processes and services (Wang et al., 2016). The main goal of
FMEA is to focus on the most important failure modes in line with resource constraints,
and provide valuable information for achieving continuous quality improvement (Liu, You,
Ding, and Su, 2015).
Despite the popularity of this method, several problems have been reported in
literature regarding its implementation and usefulness, such as lack of understanding of
the basics of FMEA and, so, applying the wrong factors for effective FMEA
(Carlson, 2012). Furthermore, the most often mentioned drawback in literature is the
risk assessment approach of the method, which takes into account only three criteria to
prioritize the failure modes and the improvement actions (Liu, You, Meng, and Shao, 2015).
Thus, when the traditional FMEA is applied in actual situations, it exposes some
important insufficiencies, especially in the evaluation of failure modes, the weighting of
risk factors, and the ranking of failure modes (Wang et al., 2016).
Laurenti et al. (2012) analyzed 106 publications and found 361 problems in FMEA and
grouped them by similarity in 37 problem classes. These were then grouped in the
following classes:
• Risk definition class: considers the calculation and concepts involving the RPN and
the following indexes: severity, occurrence and detection.
• Resource class: refers to the allocation of sufficient resources for the implementation
of FMEA (material, facilitator support, sponsor support, etc.).
• Product development process (PDP) integration class: refers to integrating FMEA
activities, methods and people in process development.
• Temporal class: composed of problems associated to the FMEA execution time, not
consider a solution at first and only implemented late.
• Organizational culture class: considers the organization values and standards shared
by the employees that hinder the deployment of FMEA.
• Information management: comprises the problems in use, registration and reuse of
knowledge about failures and improvement actions.
• Procedure class: deals with limitations associated to the execution of tasks and
activities in improving the index.
• Behavior class: is composed of problems associated with employee behaviors and
attitudes involved in applying FMEA.
From an extension of the study realized by Laurenti et al. (2012), additional
references focused on maintenance were identified in literature and grouped according
to the classes cited above. However, PDP Integration class was not consider due to the
maintenance focus of the study. Table I summarizes these findings relating to the
Class Reference Frequency (%)
PAFMEA
framework for
Risk definition Chemweno et al. (2015), Ben-Daya and Raouf (1996), Bowles (2004), Blivband 30 failure analysis
et al. (2004), Wang et al. (2016), Carmignani (2008), Chao and Ishii (2007),
Chang et al. (2001), Tang, Liu, Jing, Yang and Zou (2017), Chin et al. (2009),
Chang et al. (2001), Gilchrist (1993), Nepal et al. (2008), Puente et al. (2002),
Sankar and Prabhu (2000), Suebsomran and Talabgeaw (2010), Paciarotti
et al. (2014), Adhikary et al. (2014), Liu et al. (2015), Gupta and Mishra (2016) 825
Procedures Aguiar and Salomon (2007), Arcidiacono and Campatelli (2004), Bednarz 23
and Marriott (1988), Blivband et al. (2004), Rausand (2004), Goble and
Brombacher (1999), Liu et al. (2016), Tang, Liu, Jing, Yang and Zou (2017),
Kara-Zaitri et al. (1991), Lee (2001), Oliveira (2010), Rhee and Ishii (2003),
Girubha and Vinodh (2012), Yen and Chen (2005), Chemweno et al. (2015)
Resources Bell et al. (1992), Chemweno et al. (2015), Carmignani (2008), Chao and 17
Ishii (2007), Houten and Kimura (2000), Huang et al. (2000), Nepal et al.
(2008), Palumbo (1992), Popovic et al. (2012), Rhee and Ishii (2003),
Yen and Chen (2000)
Behavior Nepal et al. (2008), Liu et al. (2016), Gupta and Mishra (2016), Palumbo 11
(1992), Chao and Ishii (2007), Yen and Chen (2005), Lolli et al. (2015) Table I.
Information Ajayi and Smart (2008), Lolli et al. (2015), Bell et al. (1992), Lough et al. (2008), 11 Classification of
management Nepal et al. (2008), Palumbo (1992), Stone et al. (2005) FMEA problems
Temporal Gupta and Mishra (2016), Bell et al. (1992), Chao and Ishii (2007), 7 and drawbacks
Nepal et al. (2008), Rhee and Ishii (2003), Wang et al. (2016) related works

classes selected, as well the frequency of the problems and drawbacks according to their
specific perspectives.
Laurenti et al. (2012) shows that risk definition is the most frequent problem related to
FMEA (34 percent of total) and Table I presents the same findings, which are directly
related to the RPN calculation, such as:
• RPN is unable to assign weighing to the three factors, which may exist during the
analysis process and needed by the participants (Braglia et al., 2003; Adhikary et al.,
2014; Liu, You, Ding, and Su, 2015; Liu, You, Meng, and Shao, 2015);
• RPN is unable to estimate the effectiveness of improvement actions (Puente et al., 2002);
• RPN ignores the effect of quantity/volume produced (Ben-Daya and Raouf, 1996;
Chang et al., 2001);
• the mathematical formula for calculation RPN is questionable and there is no
rationale as to why occurrence, severity and detection should be multiple (Liu, You,
Ding, and Su, 2015);
• different sets of the three factors can produce the exact same value for RPN, however,
the hidden implications may be totally different (Sankar and Prabhu, 2000; Liu, You,
Meng, and Shao, 2015); and
• interdependencies of failure modes and effects on the same and different levels
are not taken into account, consequently the risk of a failure can be underestimated
when it has multiple effects on others (Adhikary et al., 2014; Liu, You, Ding, and
Su, 2015).
Furthermore, problems related to FMEA procedures and resource availability are frequently
mentioned in the literature. Besides criticizing FMEA, some works also present possibilities to
overcome some of the drawbacks showed. Thus, efforts have been targeted basically at
FMEA extensions on decision-making aspects (prioritization), refinement of RPN calculation
JMTM and software support for functional FMEA requirements. Table II organizes these attempts
28,6 into five categories in line with their proposals:
(1) Methods: procedures comprising specific knowledge used to solve specific problems.
(2) Guidelines: recommendation that determines the direction of an action. Guidelines
usually transfer knowledge from specialists to users.
826 (3) Software: sequence of instructions performed by computers. The sequence follows a
specific standard that results in an expected behavior.
(4) Frameworks: conceptual structure formed by elements that support the
development of something.
(5) Approaches: high level ways to deal with subjects.
The distribution in Table II shows that frameworks, approaches and tools are found in the
minority of improvements proposed in literature, underpinning a research need to address
poorly investigated areas in FMEA and risk analysis in the maintenance domain. The table
shows that the most often used practices are “Methods,” followed by “Guidelines.” These
practices are being developed in different types of industries such as energy, manufacturing
and product development.
In order to complement and extend the objectives of theses industrial techniques, multi-criteria
decision-making methods like AHP, Analytic Network Process (ANP) and fuzzy reasoning have
recently become the target of a specific effort of the scientific community. Zaim et al. (2012) used
AHP and ANP to select the most appropriate maintenance strategy in a local newspaper printing
facility, which proved to be effective in this case by taking into account organization-specific
requirements through the company’s own available expertise. Chemweno et al. (2015) developed a
risk assessment selection methodology for asset maintenance decision making using an ANP
approach. Applying a different perspective, Zammori and Gabbrielli (2011) reinforce the use of
multi-criteria decision-making methods in calculating risk numbers (RPN) by applying ANP.
Still, it is common to found in the literature others techniques employed to support the
maintenance decisions like computational modeling (Liu et al., 2016), group decision support
system (Lolli et al., 2015), complex proportional assessment (Wang et al., 2016), decision making
trial and evaluation laboratory (Liu, You, Meng, and Shao, 2015), technique for order performance
by similarity to ideal solution (Liu, You, Ding, and Su, 2015), among others.
Delphi method approaches have been widely used in the organizations to aid
decision-making processes, analyzing the probability and the impact of future and

Categories Reference Distribution (%)

Methods Tang, Liu, Jing, Yang and Zou (2017), Arcidiacono and Campatelli (2004), 51
Lolli et al. (2015), Liu et al. (2016), Aguiar and Salomon (2007), Bowles (2004),
Blivband et al. (2004), Carmignani (2008), Chang et al. (2001), Chao and Ishii (2007),
Chin et al. (2009), Gilchrist (1993), Goble and Brombacher (1999), Puente et al.
(2002), Paciarotti et al. (2014), Sankar and Prabhu (2000), Yen and Chen (2005),
Zammori and Gabbrielli (2011), Adhikary et al. (2014), Liu et al. (2015),
Wang et al. (2016), Oliveira (2010), Chemweno et al. (2015)
Guidelines Arcidiacono and Campatelli (2004), Bell et al. (1992), Tang, Fu, Xu, and Yang (2017), 33
Ben-Daya and Raouf (1996), Blivband et al. (2004), Chemweno et al. (2015), Bowles
(2004), Gupta and Mishra (2016), Carmignani (2008), Chang et al. (2001), Chin et al.
Table II. (2009), Nepal et al. (2008), Puente et al. (2002), Nepal et al. (2008), Liu et al. (2016)
Distribution of Software Bell et al. (1992), Lolli et al. (2015), Houten and Kimura (2000), Huang et al. 16
FMEA-related papers (2000), Palumbo (1992), Rigoni (2009), Suebsomran and Talabgeaw (2010)
uncertain events. The main objective is to clarify the issues, identifying areas of PAFMEA
agreement or disagreement seeking consensus, which will allow the basis for decision framework for
making regarding changes in the scope and risk management of the project analyzed. failure analysis
According to Aengenheyster et al. (2017), futures research based on Delphis also relies on
the technological potential to design and conduct the survey in the best suitable way to
generate answers to the specific research question of a study. It is considered a powerful
tool to help organizations forecast the future for the purposes of company strategic 827
management, that includes the production and maintenance policies adopted.
The maintenance business process ensures that maintenance is organized, executed,
analyzed and improved in a systematic and orderly way. Planning, scheduling, execution,
performance analysis, verification of safeguarding equipment, change control, failure
elimination and data capture/information flow are all important parts of this process
(Narayan, 2012). Campos and Márquez (2011) proposes the use of the BPM methodology to
deal with the mentioned integration of maintenance management and enterprise information
systems, to improve efficiency through the management of business processes that are
modeled, automatized, integrated, controlled and continuously optimized. They conclude that
BPM involves managing change in a complete process life cycle.
However, the difficulty involved in establishing and deploying systems for these
methods in industrial environments, which involve human factors, knowledge sharing and
performance requirements in performing the processes involved is not always mentioned.

3. Conceptual development of PAFMEA framework

PAFMEA features two main components: a methodology basis taking into consideration the
development cycle with respect to using FMEA in integration with the AHP and Delphi
methods; and a technology basis based on a BPMS platform, the Bizagi® BPM Suite,
establishing conditions required for development, integration and interfaces with tools
supported in the corporate environment. Figure 1 depicts the scope in research and integration.
The proposed PAFMEA development cycle framework, shown in Figure 2, is based on
IDEF0 notation (integration definition for function modeling), that is a business process
modeling technique used to model the decisions, actions, and activities of an organization.
It helps to represent the above-defined perspectives (methodology and technology bases),
illustrating the mechanisms, resources and controls in performing the actions.
Inspired on BPM life-cycles (Weske, 2012) the framework is divided into three stages:
knowledge discovery and formalization (activities/phases A1, A2); PAFMEA risk analysis
modeling and implementation (activity/phase A3); and PAFMEA execution and analysis
(activities/phases A4-A6).

Decision
Structure
making

FMEA AHP

PAFMEA

Delphi BPM
Knowledge Figure 1.
Process
Consensus PAFMEA
aware
perspectives
JMTM Drawbacks
Barriers
Practices
Structure
28,6 Requirements Concerns Interviews Questionnaries Methodology TI Basis

Concerns Concerns
Literature and Practices Preliminary Barriers PA-FMEA
Research
Software Requirements Consultation with Practices Proposition
Goal
Reviews Experts (Specification)
828 A1
FMEA Problems
A2
FMEA Problems
A3
and Drawbacks and Drawbacks

Scientific Excel
Database Mendeley AHP
Delphi Standards
Qualtrics
FMEA FMEAs
BPMS
Standards Softwares BPMN
FMEA Proposition Feedback (Bizagi)
PA-FMEA
BAM–Business Activity Function Risk
Monitoring Structure Failure Controls Team Scope Customer

Perfor PA-FMEA Guidelines Case Study:

mance Results PA-FMEA Planning and
Results Analysis Parameters
Execution Preparation
Actions
Results
A6 A5 A4

Human Production and

Maintenance
BPMS Team BPMS Team Resources
Scheduling
Information

FMEA Results Improvements: Controls (RPN, S, O, D)/Actions Analysis

Figure 2.
Phases A1, A2 Knowledge Discovering and Formalization
PAFMEA
development Phase A3 PA-FMEA Proposition
cycle framework
Phases A4, A5, A6 PA-FMEA Implementation and Analysis

Knowledge discovery (first stage) is about the study of literature reviews and consultation
with experts in order to identify and formalize any FMEA drawbacks as well as possible
improvements. The information gathered in this stage is used to propose the PAFMEA
method. The second stage presents PAFMEA in detail, comprising the preparation and
development phases. The preparation phase could be interpreted as the strategy and
consolidation of the case for analysis and the development phase as the analysis per se.
The third stage of this framework is the implementation of the method in a real case
scenario with the analysis of the results.

3.1 PAFMEA stage 1 – knowledge discovery and formalization

Figure 3 represents the information flow of phase A1 and A2 activities (Figure 2), whose
final objective is the PAFMEA proposition, comprising the PAFMEA methodology
(business process model) and technology (BPMS platform) bases.
According to Figure 2, the input for phase A1 is the research goal targeted by a review of
literature and software. The software review is a benchmark analysis to check the off-the-shelf
software available to support the development of FMEA. The output of this phase is
characterized by FMEA problems and drawbacks. The objective of Phase 2, called
“Preliminary Consultation with Experts” is to identify the main FMEA problems/drawbacks
and software requirements for a new system to support the development of FMEA from
the experts’ perspective. The specialists come from the manufacture maintenance area,
 PAFMEA
Preliminary
Software
framework for
Literature
Review Base Information
Consultation
with Experts Base Information Review failure analysis
Survey Survey

Problems and Problems and Software Software 829

Drawbacks Drawbacks Requirements Requirements

PA-FMEA PA-FMEA Figure 3.

Methodology BPMS Information flow
of the knowledge
discovery stage

from the academia and the industry. This phase is delivered through an online survey
software called Qualtrics®. The expected output is the validation of the requirements and
attributes to be used in drafting the PAFMEA platform.
The survey is divided into three parts: profile of specialists, to identify the profile of
pertinent specialist; methodology aspects, with the objective of corroborating the FMEA
methodology problems and drawbacks identified in literature; software requirements, in
order to identify the most essential requirements for implementation in a BPMS platform to
support the FMEA development.
3.1.1 Profile and methodology survey. A total of 17 specialists answered the survey and
94 percent of them work in industrial facilities. The specialists are mostly engineers
(47 percent), professors (18 percent) and analysts (18 percent); 88 percent are from the
maintenance and engineering departments. Since this research is focused on the
application of FMEA in the maintenance area, the surveys shows that 41 percent of
the specialists have more than five years of experience and 65 percent have more than
two years of experience in maintenance.
Concerning the methodology aspect, fifteen questions were organized in four categories
in accordance with the main concerns raised in the literature review: resource availability for
development of FMEA; use and calculation of RPN; behavior and treatment of FMEA
participants; others aspects of the FMEA (e.g. skills, terminology, monitoring).
Answers relative to resource availability showed that specialists agreed with the
drawback of resource availability pointed out in the literature such as FMEA is time
consuming and is often delayed due to resource availability constraints. Furthermore,
according to the specialists’ opinion, availability for face-to-face meetings is the biggest
problem in this area. The next set of sentences is related to the use and calculation of the
RPN, the biggest problem according to the literature review. The answers show that
the specialists agreed with the RPN drawbacks mentioned in literature and also exposed the
desire for new RPN criteria, which would help the risk analysis process and minimize
some of the disadvantages of FMEA.
Answers in connection with participant behavior and treatment during the FMEA
development process confirmed that each participant’s personality and behavior could
impact negatively in the FMEA development process. The last set of sentences showed that
knowledge obtained from one FMEA can be used as the starting point for new ones, which
means that the reuse of knowledge is not a problem of the method as had been identified in
literature. On the other hand, the specialists agreed that is usually very difficult to monitor
FMEA improvement actions.
JMTM 3.1.2 PAFMEA platform reviews. FMEA software/platform reviews aim to investigate
28,6 relevant features and functional requirements, survey software requirements and PAFMEA
development systems using BPMS platforms. There is a large variety of off-the-shelf
software to support FMEA implementation and Table III shows some software names, their
main features and missing functions.
The table indicates that none of the software is process-oriented, there are no tips or
830 instructions for developing FMEA and the lack of common standard-based guidelines is
common to all platforms.
3.1.3 FMEA system requirements survey. This survey has the objective of identifying
the most essential requirements to be implemented in an FMEA cycle development support
tool, completing the “Knowledge Discovery and Formalization” stage. In total, 15 sentences
presented to the specialists were based on the literature and software review. This survey
was performed in the same round as the “Profile of Specialists” and “Methodological
Aspects” surveys.
According to the survey responses, the different range of FMEA development support
standards is the only requirement specialists feel is not essential. On the other hand,
according to the survey the most essential requirement is represented by the possibility of
saving the FMEA data in an off-the-shelf software database (SQL Server), which provides
meaning an advantage in reusing this information. The survey also highlighted the need to
provide guidelines and tips during FMEA development, in particular on the ratings of the
RPN criteria (severity, detection and occurrence). Furthermore, a process-oriented approach
could be an essential requirement in helping participants through the FMEA development.

3.2 PAFMEA stage 2 – risk analysis modeling and implementation

According to Ekmekçioğlu and Kutlu (2012), risk assessment in FMEA is responsible for
defining the risk of each failure mode, i.e., the RPN, and is attributed based on evaluating
three criteria: S (Severity of the potential failure effect); O (probability for the occurrence of
the failure cause); and D (probability of detection of the failure cause occurred).
According to the literature review presented previously, definition of the RPN is the most
frequent problem. Some of the drawbacks seen are: different sets of the three factors can
produce identical RPN values, however, the underlying implications may be totally
different; RPN based on a simple multiplication factor is not enough; RPN is unable to

APIS FMEA FMEA RAM Reliasoft

IQ-software executive inspector commander XFMEA

Process-oriented No No No No No
Tips/directions to develop FMEA No No No No No
User control No No No No No
Structural tree view Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
RPN auto calculation Yes Yes No Yes Yes
Generate FMEA form Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
FMEA form based on standards Yes No No No Yes
Guidelines to S/O/D No Yes No Yes Yes
Guidelines according standards No No No No No
Rates to S/O/D already inserted No Yes No No Yes
Development of multiple FMEA Yes Yes Yes No Yes
Table III. Columns to add actions to each FM Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Off-the-shelf FMEA Statistical and graph analysis Yes No No Yes Yes
software/platform Send e-mail to responsible by each action No Yes No No Yes
and features Save data in commercial database No No No No Yes
assign weighing to the three factors, which may exist during the analysis process and are PAFMEA
needed by participants. framework for
Platforms available to support FMEA developments are function-oriented and have no failure analysis
clear coordination of processes. This kind of structure creates the chance that users will
opt for suboptimal choices that effect overall process effectiveness and hinder the
implementation of new processes or changes. On the other hand, BPM comprises
the definition, improvement and management of processes within an organization. The use 831
of BPM in an enterprise can bring several benefits: formalize existing processes and
consequently show points for improvements; facilitate process flow automation and
efficiency; increase production and reduce process imperfections; enable people involved in
the process to solve problems that previously seemed to be impossible; simplify rules.
The use of BPM is closely linked to BPM life-cycles (Weske, 2012) and is supported by
most of the main BPMS platforms. The BPM life-cycle concept describes the various phases
in operational business processes support and is organized as follows:
• Design phase: processes are (re)designed.
• Configuration phase: designs are implemented establishing a process-aware
information system (e.g. a workflow management system).
• Enactment phase: operational business processes are executed using the
system configured.
• Diagnosis phase: the operational processes are analyzed to identify problems and
propose enhancements.
Therefore, in facing the previously mentioned RPN shortcomings, the approach proposes
to use the AHP structure to carry out a new risk analysis modeled and implemented
based on a process approach integrated to the business process of the FMEA development
cycle in a BPM/BPMS environment in formulating a more efficient and effective failure
priority ranking.
3.2.1 PFMEA decision support structure. Integrating the AHP is meant to provide
decision makers with a different and more accurate methodology, wherein as many criteria
as the team members decide can be added to calculate the hierarchical failure modes list.
This way, failure modes analysis is not obligated to use only severity, occurrence and
detection values; users can also use other criteria such as maintenance cost, production
priority, safety, etc. Therefore, instead of multiplication, PAFMEA uses a hierarchical
decision structure based on the AHP represented in Figure 4.

Obtain a Hierarchy of Failure Modes

Severity Detection Ocurrence

Citerion I Citerion II Citerion n Citerion I Citerion II Citerion n Citerion I

Figure 4.
Failure Failure Failure Failure AHP structure
Mode I Mode II Mode III Mode n of PAFMEA
JMTM The objective of AHP is obtaining a new hierarchy of the failure modes using more criteria
28,6 than in the classic RPN calculation. Since severity, detection and occurrence are terms well
established and understandable by users, the proposal is to include sub-criteria under them,
as can be seen in Figure 4.
Since AHP is a decision analysis and multiple criteria planning technique, first the
criteria that will be used must be defined. The sub-criteria of severity, detection and
832 occurrence will then be presented to users and the Delphi method will be applied in reaching
a consensus on the criteria selected to remain the analysis.
According to Vichas (1982), three elements stand out in the Delphi process: the
anonymity, the control feedback and the statistical treatment of the responses collected.
The Delphi approach consists in surveys and questionnaires which is form by seven steps,
as can be seen on Figure 5 (Fowles, 1978).
Before the first round of the Delphi, the goal of the process is to explain the case
scenario with enough background information. Then, the number and the sub-criteria are
presented to the participants to start the Delphi procedures. Based on the literature
review, the sub-criteria presented to the team members are: cost, production priority,
maintenance cost, maintenance duration, profit, man-hour, equipment damage,
environmental damage and employee safety. During the first round, participants can
add more criteria, which will be integrated to the criteria presented before. The second
questionnaire round is responsible for showing the criteria added by the participants
and the quantity of criteria selected for implementation. Participants are then asked to
review their opinions using the results compiled with a view to achieve consensual
agreement. The third round questionnaire is addressed to the specialists with outlier’s
responses with the objective to reach an agreement. The number of rounds may vary
according to the ease of agreement among the participants or the observation that a
consensus will not be reached.

Step 1

Determine and Formulate the Questions

Step 2

Select Specialists

Step 3

Formulate first questionnaire and send to Specialists

Step 4

Analyze the responses of first questionnaire

Step 5

Develop and submit second questionnaire

Step 6
Submit third questionnaire to specialists with outliers
responses
Figure 5. Step 7
The seven steps of
Delphi approach Analyse all responses and develop final report
In carrying on with the new risk assessment approach, AHP is then implemented and the failure PAFMEA
modes applied in this stage should be those selected by the specialists or the ones with the framework for
highest RPN scores obtained by the classical FMEA. The criteria used in this step are the ones failure analysis
chosen by the participants. Briefly, the step-by-step procedure in using AHP is the following:
• Define the decision criteria in the form of a hierarchy of objectives (Figure 4).
• Attribute weighing to the criteria and alternatives as a function of their importance for 833
the corresponding element of the level above. For this purpose, AHP uses simple
comparison in pairs to determine weighting and ratings, allowing analysts to concentrate
on just two factors at a time. The verbal responses are then quantified and translated
into a score via the use of the discrete nine-point scales known as the Saaty scale.
• In order to preserve anonymity and reach a consensus on the comparison of the
failure modes and criteria, a Delphi technique is applied with the participation of
specialists. The number of rounds is not fixed, but at least three rounds must be
performed in order to reach a satisfactory result.
• After a judgment matrix has been developed, a priority vector to provide weighting for
the elements of the matrix is calculated. This is the normalized eigenvector of the matrix.
3.2.2 PFMEA platform implementation – requirements. Platform requirements were chosen
based on the off-the-shelf software analyzed, the FMEA drawbacks based on the literature
review and the preliminary consultation with the experts. The requirements are classified
into the following priority levels:
• Essential: essential for use in operating system; this requirement has mandatory
implementation, since, without it, the system will not work correctly.
• Important: necessary to operate the system; without this requirement, the system can
still be used. However, outcomes are not satisfactory.
• Desirable: adds new values to the system, making it more complete. This type of
requirement could be implemented in later versions of the system, since even without
its implementation the system delivers its basic features.
Table IV shows the requirements of the BPMS with its respective priorities.
3.2.3 PFMEA platform development. The PAFMEA system was developed in the
Bizagi® Suite platform and its main advantages, in terms of BPM life cycle support, are:
BPMN modeling basis; real-time process monitoring and analysis; execution and
performance reports are generated automatically; procedure standardized and centralized
facilitating process assessment and continuous improvement; online access waiving
need for local software.
BPMS platform accept four-step BPM development cycles (Neubauer, 2009): planning the
BPM; process modeling and optimization; process execution; control and data analysis.
The steps illustrated in Figure 6 and explained in sequence.
The BPM cycle starts the planning stage and is the most important phase for the success
of the project, because at this moment the critical processes for the organization are chosen
and processes are aligned with the organization’s strategy. The second step is process
modeling and optimization which is responsible for modeling the current state of the
process and the optimization and modeling of the desired state for the process.
The third step is the execution of the processes, stage in which system users will see the
BPM project. At this stage the deployment of the new process is shown according to the
specifications obtained previously in the planning step. The fourth and final step is data
control and analysis, where existing process-related information can be obtained for
JMTM Name Description Priority
28,6
Login Unique “username” and “password” login to the system feature Essential
Register users Allows registration of participants with full name, username, Essential
password
Generate FMEA report Generate FMEA report and export to PDF Essential
FMEA based on VDA 4.2 FMEA form based on VDA 4.2 Essential
834 Variety of standards FMEA form based on AIAG 4ed. Important
Calculate RPN automatically Automatically calculate RPN value and display to user Essential
Show guidelines for S/O/D Show rating guidelines for severity, occurrence and detection Essential
S/O/D rates inserted User does not have to type in rates for severity, occurrence and Important
previously detection. User only has to choose them
Send e-mail to the responsible Send e-mail to the responsible for improvement actions Desirable
Tips to develop FMEA FMEA development process and continuation tips displayed on Desirable
every screen
Realized the AHP AHP calculation performed by Excel without user intervention Important
automatically
Show consistency ratio of AHP Show user consistency ratio for each pair comparison (AHP) Important
Allow the user do redo AHP Allow user to redo AHP pair comparison Important
with inconsistency
Privacy Only authorized personal should be able to use and interfere in the Essential
FMEA process
Table IV. Tips and directions Texts and technical information used in analysis to help users Important
BPMS tool Process oriented Process oriented software used to guarantee final analysis result Essential
requirements Anonymity User personal identification i.e. name should remain anonymous Essential

Planning BPM
Design and Analysis

Monitoring Implementation
Control and Data Modeling and
analiysis Optimization

Figure 6.
BPMS Execution
development cycle

deployment in developing indicators to compare with the former processes, enabling

understanding and evaluation of targets proposed.
Figure 7 shows the PAFMEA process model. Following the conceptual model proposed
by Battirola et al. (2014), the process model is divided into four steps represented by the
BPMN milestones:
(1) Strategy and planning: activities responsible for defining the process team, scope
and clients.
 Strategy and Planning FMEA Development AHP Development Results Presentation

Define Create report

Define and export to
scope and

Moderator
team PDF
client

No
Complete
FMEA Header

Standard
selection List/choose
Yes
main Failure
Modes Confirm criteria AHP Development
Complete selected
Consistent?
FMEA form

Moderator + Participants

PAFMEA
No

Define AHP
criteria with

Participants
DELPHI Yes

Calculate
Calculate AHP

Analyst
consistency
final priorities
ratio
PAFMEA

failure analysis

835
framework for

Figure 7.

model (BPMN)
PAFMEA process
JMTM (2) FMEA Development comprises three activities: complete the header of the FMEA
28,6 form (based on FMEA industrial standards); complete the FMEA form with the
information obtained from the failure analysis; and list/choose main failure modes – in
this activity, users should choose the failure modes for AHP analysis in the next
PAFMEA step.
(3) AHP Development comprises five activities: define AHP criteria using Delphi;
836 confirm criteria selected; AHP development, whose full process is shown in Figure 8
and is mainly responsible by completing the comparison by pairs between failure
modes and the criteria selected in the previous activity; consistency ratio calculation:
activity responsible for calculating consistency of information collected in the
comparison by pairs; and calculate final AHP priorities: this activity calculates the
final hierarchy list of the failure modes. Figure 9 depicts a user interface extract of
AHP pairwise assessment.
(4) Presentation of results: generates FMEA report comprising the FMEA form
completed by the user and an Excel spreadsheet developed to perform risk
assessment using AHP, using the pairwise comparison and final ranking of the
chosen failure modes.

3.3 PAFMEA stage 3 – execution and analysis

This stage refers to the preparation, planning and conduction of an application study of the
PAFMEA method generated in the previous stages. The last phase of this stage compares
the proposed method and the classic FMEA, where a questionnaire is used to evaluate its
effectiveness and also provide a feedback to the team.

4. PAFMEA application
This section refers to an application study of the PAFMEA method implemented in a
manufacturing company of white goods, as well as a discussion of the results obtained and a
survey used to evaluate the participants’ perceptions of the new method. The company is a
global leader in household appliances with annual sales of over 50 million products to
customers in more than 150 markets. The company focuses on thoughtfully designed
innovations, based on extensive consumer insight, in order to meet the real needs of
consumers and professionals. Product project and maintenance activities are undertaken
with people from different sites, making scheduling a simple meeting very difficult due to
time zone differences and individual workloads.
The system selected to implement the PAFMEA methodology is a set of test rooms
responsible for checking and verifying products at the end of the assembly line.
The system’s main objective is to guarantee correct product operation in different
temperature environments and voltage settings. Figure 10 shows the layout of the system.
The system’s components and their functionalities are: chiller – responsible for cooling
the water; chiller water tube – bringing the water to inside the test rooms; water valve –
allows water from the chiller to enter the test room; fan motor – blow air into the test room to
guarantee the desired temperature; heater – heat the test room; varivolt – changes voltage
according to signal from the PLC; PLC – programmable logic controller responsible for
controlling temperature inside the test room and product voltage supply; data acquisition
system – reads the thermocouples installed inside the products; supervisory – computer
with supervisory control and acquisition system responsible for data acquisition
and analysis.
Table V shows PAFMEA form, adapted to match the company’s FMEA standard
(SAE Standard J-1739, 2002). The form shows the risk assessment results relative to the
 AHP-Pairwise comparison

Show Pairwise Pairwise Pairwise Pairwise

Pairwise Sev, Yes Yes
information severity all severity severity severity
about AHP Det and Ocu
criteria criterion 1: FM criterion 2: FM criterion 3: FM
>1 criteria? >2 criteria?

No No

Pairwise Pairwise Yes Pairwise Yes Pairwise

detection all detection detection detection
criteria criterion 1: FM criterion 2: FM criterion 3: FM
>1 criteria? >2 criteria?
No No

Pairwise
occurrence
criterion 1: FM
PAFMEA

failure analysis

837
framework for

Figure 8.

process model
AHP structure
JMTM AHP -Severity Criteria AHP Information

28,6 Select the level of importance for each criteria below:

Criteria 1 Criteria 2
Employee Safety Production Cost

9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

838 Criteria 1 Criteria 3

Employee Safety Maintenance Cost

9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Criteria 2 Criteria 3
Production Cost Maintenance Cost

9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

AHP Document Generate AHP Excel Document

Figure 9.
User interface AHP
pairwise assessment Save Next

Chiller water tube

Test Test Test Test Test Test Test

Room 1 Room 2 Room 3 Room 4 Room 5 Room 6 Room 7
Chiller

Varivolts
Data Aquisition System
Figure 10.
Layout of the Heater Electrical wires
PAFMEA application
study system Water valve (On/Off)
Motor fan Supervisory PLC

classical FMEA approach, i.e., the ranking of the criteria (severity, occurrence, detection)
and calculation of RPN. These criteria are treated with the same importance and the same
weighting in performing calculation of RPN based on the SAE J1739/2002 standard.
In order to illustrate the PAFMEA method, the four failure modes with the highest RPN
were selected to continue to a more detailed risk assessment. These failure modes are
highlighted in the PAFMEA form shown in Table V.
The next step of the risk assessment is the selection of the sub-criteria relative to
severity, detection and occurrence. This selection was performed using the Delphi
methodology and a consensus was reached after two rounds of questionnaire, performed
using the PAFMEA BPMS features. The final AHP hierarchy structure is shown
in Figure 11. According to the team members, there is no other criterion of interest in
analyzing occurrences, so this criterion will not be divided.
 Number:
PAFMEA form Page:
Type/model/fabrication Item Code: Responsible: Created:
State: Company:
FMEA/system element: Item code: Responsible: Created:
Set of test rooms State: Company: Modified:
Functional Responsible/target/
Function failure Failure mode Effects Severity Cause of failure mode Occurrence Actual controls Detection RPN completion date

Cool room It does not Chiller with problem No temperature control 7 Gas leakage in the 2 Corrective main. 4 56 Dutra
cool compressor
Excess dirt in the 2 Preventive main. 4 56 Dutra
condenser
No water circulation 2 Corrective main. 2 28 Dutra
Energy peak 1 Visual 1 7 Dutra
Refrigeration valve No temperature control 7 Locked valve 2 Corrective main. 5 70 Marcelo
with problem Problem with relay 2 Corrective main. 5 70 Marcelo
valve
PLC with problem No temperature control 8 Energy peak 1 Visual 2 16 Battirola
PT100 with problem No temperature control 4 Misuse of sensor 1 Employee instructions 5 20 Dutra
Room fan with No temperature control 6 Motor fan burned 2 Corrective main. 2 24 Marcelo
problem No energy source for 1 Visual 1 6 Marcelo
motor
Motor broke 2 Corrective main. 3 36 Marcelo
Heat room It does not Resistance burned No temperature control 7 Life time of equipment 5 Quality tests 3 105 Marcelo
heat Bad resistance quality 9 Spare resistance 3 189 Marcelo
No air flow 5 Corrective main. 2 70 Marcelo
Energy peak 3 Visual 2 42 Marcelo
Resistance relay No temperature control 7 Life time of equipment 1 Quality tests 2 14 Marcelo
burned Heaters does not turn Overheat of relay 1 Panel air circulation 3 21 Marcelo
on
PLC with problem No temperature control 8 Energy peak 1 Visual 1 8 Battirola
PT100 with problem No temperature control 4 Misuse of sensor 1 Employee instructions 3 12 Dutra
Room fan with No temperature control 6 Motor fan burned 2 Corrective main. 2 24 Marcelo
problem No energy source for 1 Visual 2 12 Marcelo
motor
Motor broke 2 Corrective main. 3 36 Marcelo

(continued )
PAFMEA

failure analysis

839
framework for

PAFMEA form of
Table V.

application case
 28,6

840
JMTM

Table V.
Number:
PAFMEA form Page:
Type/model/fabrication Item Code: Responsible: Created:
State: Company:
FMEA/system element: Item code: Responsible: Created:
Set of test rooms State: Company: Modified:
Functional Responsible/target/
Function failure Failure mode Effects Severity Cause of failure mode Occurrence Actual controls Detection RPN completion date

Controlled It does not Varivolt with problem No voltage control 7 Wrong installation 4 Visual 3 84 Marcio
voltage controlled End of course triggered 7 Supervisory 2 98 Marcio
voltage Life time of equipment 3 Quality tests 4 60 Marcio
Problem with varivolt 3 Corrective main. 4 84 Marcio
motor
PLC with problem No voltage control 7 Energy peak 1 Visual 2 14 Battirola
Supervisory No voltage control 7 Problem with network 2 Supervisory 2 28 Battirola
communication
problem
Variation of voltage High variation of 7 Quality of energy 5 None 2 70 –
supplier voltage supplier
Temperature It does not Supervisory No data for final test 5 Problem with network 2 Supervisory 2 20 Battirola
acquisition record communication Redo test due to no 5 2 Supervisory 2 20 Battirola
temperature problem data
Problem with data No temperature data 5 Technical problem 1 Supervisory 4 20 Battirola
acquisition equipment for test with DAQ
(DAQ) 5 DAQ locked 2 Supervisory 4 40 Battirola
 Level 0
PAFMEA
Obtain a Hierarchy of Failure Modes
Goal framework for
failure analysis
Level 1
Severity Detection Ocurrence
Criteria

Level 2 Equipment Production Maintenance Visual Detailed Supervisory Failure 841

Sub-Criteria damage priority duration inspection inspection inspection Occurrence

Figure 11.
Refrigeration Variation of PAFMEA AHP
Level 3 Resistance Varivolt with
valve with voltage
Alternative burned problem
problem supplier
structure

The sequence of the approach is characterized by the calculation of the AHP comprising
mainly of the pairwise comparisons in each level of the hierarchy. Figure 12 shows the
results – the eigenvectors and ranking with the relative consistency ratios.

4.1 PAFMEA analysis: discussion of results

One of the PAFMEA proposals is the new risk assessment approach, which uses AHP to
calculate a new ranking for the failure modes. Therefore, Table VI compares the ranking of

Final Ranking
Severity Detection Ocurrence Sev_Det_Occu Final Ranking
FM1 0.346 0.451 0.094 0.280 0.198
FM2 0.141 0.098 0.242 × 0.094 = 0.200
FM3 0.450 0.398 0.612 0.626 0.547
FM4 0.064 0.053 0.052 0.055

0.055 FM4
Final Ranking

0.547 FM3
0.200
FM2
0.198
FM1
Figure 12.
PAFMEA failure
mode final ranking
0.000 0.100 0.200 0.300 0.400 0.500 0.600

Failure mode Classical RPN rank PAFMEA rank

Resistance burned 1 3 Table VI.

Varivolt with problem 2 1 Comparison ranking
Refrigeration valve with problem 3 2 of classical approach
Variation of voltage supply 3 4 and PAFMEA
JMTM the classical RPN approach with the ranking of the PAFMEA approach. The results show
28,6 that the ranking of both approaches are different, which raises a question about the classical
approach and corroborates with literature.
According to the team members, the PAFMEA approach adds new promising
perspectives to the analysis, which can be summarize by adding more criteria and the
different weightings assigned by AHP for these criteria. The PAFMEA ranking caused a
842 deeper discussion among the participants about their priorities in the maintenance area.
In the end, they concluded that the new ranking is more appropriate to their reality
(as compared to the classical FMEA) for the following reasons:
• if a resistance burns, the solution is well known by the team members and the
response action is fast keeping process impact low;
• if the varivolt has a problem, which happens less frequently than a resistance
burning out, the solution is not known and the repair action could take anything
between two hours or two days; and
• if the refrigeration valve has a problem, the solution is also not known and
exchanging the equipment for a new one may take hours to repair or even days.
Another perspective of the final results is the different weightings for criteria and
sub-criteria; according to the results obtained, occurrence is the most important criteria for
the team members, followed by severity and detection. The inversion of importance seen
here, occurrence over severity, is explicable because the system under analysis does not
impact the user safety, thus occurrence is more important because of impacting directly on
the production rate. It is also possible to conclude that detection has a low impact on the
final ranking, mainly because its weighting is much smaller than the other criteria’s.
The structure also shows that duration of maintenance activity is the most important
sub-criteria relative to severity, because the duration of maintenance has a direct effect on
production priority, overall equipment effectiveness and production target. The least
important among the severity criteria is the level of equipment damage. In sub-criteria
detection, visual inspection is the most important, because, according to the team members,
this kind of inspection is the easiest and the first one performed by employees. Detailed
inspection is the least important for taking the longest one and not always giving the
expected results.

4.2 PAFMEA analysis: final survey of case study

In order to analyze the benefits of the PAFMEA implemented, a survey was performed with
the team members. The specialists all work in the maintenance department and the group is
comprised by one supervisor, five engineers and four analysts. The team members have a
good level of experience in the maintenance domain, on average having taken part in over
eight FMEA sections.
The 15 sentences of the survey are related to the PAFMEA functionalities and
requirements that were implemented to overcome some of the FMEA drawbacks identified.
The questions were organized in line with the categories identified in the previous surveys
relative to Figure 3. Table VII shows these questions and their categories.
Specialists evaluated each phase by applying a five-point scale (1 ¼ “Totally Disagree”
and 5 ¼ “Totally Agree”). Therefore, if the mean value of the sentences is 3 or higher, this
means that the majority of the participants agree with the statement. The results are shown
on Table VIII. The first three sentences are in relation to the classified resource drawbacks
that the methodology tries to overcome. The results show that the team members agree that
the PAFMEA eliminates the necessity to have face-to-face meetings and that the method
provides the possibility of better managing the participants’ time.
Question Category
PAFMEA
framework for
1. Since PAFMEA is implemented in an online software, team members do not need Resources failure analysis
to be available at the same time, which improves the analysis
2. The online software allows better time management for users and availability for Resources
future analyses
3. Adding more criteria to evaluate and rank the failure modes provides a more RPN calculation
flexible application of the PAFMEA as compared to the classical FMEA 843
4. By providing the possibility to assign weightings to the criteria, PAFMEA solves RPN calculation
one of the main classical FMEA drawbacks
5. The comparison performed among the criteria provides a more accurate perception RPN calculation
and assessment for a better ranking of the failure modes
6. The online software eliminates discussions that might happen during FMEA
face-to-face meetings participants
7. PAFMEA ensures anonymity for team members and guarantees equal treatment FMEA
for their opinions participants
8. Reaching consensus among participants in ranking criteria is easier with the new FMEA
approach and the software participants
9. The software facilitates team member integration and participation Software
10. The software facilitates standardizing terminology used to describe functions, Software
function failures, failure modes, failure effects and failure causes
11. The software optimizes the time available of the team members by offering the Software
possibility of performing the analysis at any time and from different places
12. The software facilitates the management of analysis input and output data Software
13. The software facilitates the management of the improvement actions recommended Software
14. The use of the software facilitates finding and reuse of important information from Software
previous FMEAs
15. The software facilitates the development of reports to support the Software Table VII.
decision-making process Survey structure

Question Level of agreement Question Level of agreement

1 4.00 9 4.00
2 4.25 10 4.25
3 5.00 11 4.75
4 5.00 12 4.25
5 4.25 13 4.50
6 4.50 14 4.50
7 3.75 15 4.75 Table VIII.
8 4.50 Survey results

The sentences from category “RPN Calculation” are in relation to the new risk assessment
approach, which is the biggest problem according to the literature review. The answers
imply that the addition of more criteria and the different weighting for the criteria were
100 percent accepted and approved by the participants. Team members also agreed that
direct comparison gives a better assessment in ranking failure modes.
Sentences No. 6 until No. 8 are relative to the behavior and treatment of the participants
during PAFMEA development. In this case, the team members also agree with the
advantages of this method, where the online software minimizes the discussion that could
happen during meetings and that the employees’ insights are treated on equal footing by the
moderator due to the anonymity imposed by the system.
JMTM The last sentences were used to evaluate the benefits of the software used to support the
28,6 PAFMEA development. The results show participant agreement with all sentences.
The main sentences that could be highlighted here are:
No. 10: the software facilitates standardizing terminology used to describe functions,
function failures, failure modes, failure effects and failure causes.
No. 11: the software optimizes the time available of the team members by offering the
844 possibility of performing the analysis at any time and from different places.
No. 14: the use of the software facilitates finding and reuse of important information from
previous FMEAs, reducing the efforts required in performing new analyses. Therefore,
these sentences also show that other problems, like the lack of standardization during
different failure analysis, the availability of time and the facilitation for reuse of information
are solved by the PAFMEA system.

5. Conclusion
Despite the popularity and usability of the FMEA method, the literature review
corroborated by the experts’ opinions present a number of drawbacks in connection with the
deployment and implementation of this method. Important contributions through reliability
analysis in maintenance are pointed out and discussed, its versions, approaches and
extensions, with support of tools for analysis, applied in the most diverse types of industrial
systems. In its classical approaches, the gaps presented in risk analysis are noticeable,
especially in the requirements of information quality and effectiveness of its measurement
and failures ranking.
In its classical approach, the gaps presented in risk analysis are perceptible, especially in
the requirements of information quality and effectiveness of its measurement and ranking.
Therefore, the new approach presented in this paper, called PAFMEA, contributes to the
selection of best maintenance strategy, integrating the Delphi methodology, AHP method
and BPM life cycle development in a BPMS platform to face the main shortcomings in
failure analysis in maintenance.
PAFMEA helps team members face the main FMEA shortcomings in relation to failure
analysis in maintenance, such as risk definition and resource availability. The new proposal
can also simultaneously handle the characteristic of multiple and conflicting goals in
decision making for problems such as selection of quality control systems, in facility
allocation and decision-making actions throughout the factory floor.
The execution of the model in an industrial system confirms the effectiveness of the
presented PAFMEA, confronting the traditional FMEA model and identifying important
points in the prioritization of failure analysis. As a result, there is a difference in the ranking
of the traditional vs the proposed model, which culminates in an improvement in the
selection of maintenance policies (type of activity and frequency). Uncovered knowledge
control and maintenance tasks effectiveness analysis support optimization of the program,
eliminating unnecessary activities, increasing system reliability, and reducing costs.
In the final analysis of the practical application are highlighted improvements in the
implementation of the FMEA, including aspects of implementation and interpretation of the
terms and functionalities of the system and the reuse of the information generated.
The possibility of integrating this information into the maintenance system improves the
quality of the generated knowledge and enables the use of this database in all the processes
that involve the maintenance function.
In order to enhance multi-criteria analysis, the ANP could become an extension to the
AHP structure. While AHP breaks down a decision-making problem in the form of a
hierarchy of independent elements, ANP replaces the hierarchies with networks and
makes it possible to structure the decisions that involve functional dependencies. Other
multi-criteria decision analysis methods, such as the Electre family, could also represent a
direction for further research. Electre TRI uses a system of weightings to measure the PAFMEA
importance of each criterion in the decision maker’s vision, aiming to build agreement rates, framework for
used to evaluate the benefits of one alternative over the others, and disagreement rates that failure analysis
measure the disadvantages of one alternative over the others.

References
Adhikary, D.D., Bose, G.K., Bose, D. and Mitra, S. (2014), “Multi criteria FMECA for coal-fired thermal 845
power plants using COPRAS-G”, International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management,
Vol. 31 No. 5, pp. 601-614.
Aengenheyster, S., Cuhls, K., Gerhold, L., Heiskanen-Schüttler, M., Huck, J. and Muszynska, M. (2017),
“Real-time Delphi in practice – a comparative analysis of existing software-based tools”,
Technological Forecasting & Social Change, Vol. 118 No. 2, pp. 15-27.
Aguiar, D.C.D. and Salomon, V.A. (2007), “Evaluation of prevention of failures in processes using
decision-making methods”, Production Journal, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 502-519.
Ajayi, M. and Smart, P. (2008), “Innovation and learning: exploring feedback from service to design”,
Journal of Engineering Manufacture, Vol. 222 No. 9, pp. 1195-1199.
Arcidiacono, G. and Campatelli, G. (2004), “Reliability improvement of a diesel engine using the
FMETA approach”, Quality and Reliability Engineering International, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 143-154.
Battirola, J.C.F., Loures, E.R., Santos, E.A.P. and Rigoni, E. (2014), “FMEA revisited: an integrated
approach with AHP and Delphi methodology”, Proceedings of 7th International Conference on
Production Research, Lima, July 30-31 and August 1-2.
Bednarz, S. and Marriott, D. (1988), “Efficient analysis for FMEA [space shuttle reliability]”, Reliability
and Maintainability Symposium, Proceedings, Annual, IEEE, pp. 416-421.
Bell, D., Cox, L., Jackson, S. and Schaefer, P. (1992), “Using causal reasoning for automated failure
modes and effects analysis (FMEA)”, Reliability and Maintainability Symposium, Proceedings,
IEEE Xplore, Las Vegas, NV, pp. 343-353.
Ben-Daya, M. and Raouf, A. (1996), “A revised failure mode and effects analysis model”, International
Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 43-47.
Blivband, Z., Grabov, P. and Nakar, O. (2004), “Expanded FMEA (EFMEA)”, Reliability and
Maintainability Annual Symposium-RAMS, IEEE Xplore, Los Angeles, CA, pp. 31-36.
Bowles, J.B. (2004), “An assessment of RPN prioritization in a failure modes effects and criticality
analysis”, Journal of the IEST, Vol. 47 No. 1, pp. 51-56.
Braaksma, A.J.J., Klingenberg, W. and Veldman, J. (2013), “Failure mode and effect analysis in asset
maintenance: a multiple case study in the process industry”, International Journal of Production
Research, Vol. 51 No. 4, pp. 1055-1071.
Braglia, M., Frosolini, M. and Montanari, R. (2003), “Fuzzy TOPSIS approach for failure mode,
effects and criticality analysis”, Quality and Reliability Engineering International, Vol. 19 No. 5,
pp. 425-443.
Campos, M.A.L. and Márquez, A.C. (2011), “Modelling a maintenance management framework
based on PAS 55 standard”, Quality and Reliability Engineering International, Vol. 27 No. 6,
pp. 805-820.
Carlson, C. (2012), Effective FMEAs: Achieving Safe, Reliable, and Economical Products and Processes
Using Failure Mode and Effects Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken, NJ.
Carmignani, G. (2008), “An integrated structural framework to cost-based FMECA: the priority cost
FMECA”, Reliability Engineering & System Safety, Vol. 94 No. 4, pp. 861-871.
Chang, C.L., Liu, P.H. and Wei, C.C. (2001), “Failure mode and effects analysis using grey theory”,
Integrated Manufacturing Systems, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 211-216.
Chao, L. and Ishii, K. (2007), “Design process error proofing: failure modes and effects analysis of the
design process”, Journal of Mechanical Design, Transactions ASME, Vol. 129 No. 5, pp. 491-501.
JMTM Chin, K.S., Wang, Y.M., Poon, G.K.K. and Yang, J.B. (2009), “Failure mode and effects analysis using a
28,6 group-based evidential reasoning approach”, Computers & Operations Research, Vol. 36 No. 6,
pp. 1768-1779.
Chemweno, P., Pintelon, L., Horenbeek, A.V. and Muchiri, P. (2015), “Development of a risk assessment
selection methodology for asset maintenance decision making: an analytic network process
(ANP) approach”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 170 No. 28, pp. 663-676.
846 Chen, C. (2013), “A developed autonomous preventive maintenance programme using RCA and
FMEA”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 51 No. 18, pp. 5404-5412.
Ekmekçioğlu, M. and Kutlu, A.C. (2012), “A Fuzzy hybrid approach for fuzzy process FMEA: an
application to a spindle manufacturing process”, International Journal of Computational
Intelligence Systems, Vol. 5 No. 4, pp. 611-626.
Fowles, J. (1978), Handbook of Futures Research, Greenwood Press, Westport, CT and London.
Gilchrist, W. (1993), “Modeling failure modes and effects analysis”, International Journal of Quality
Reliability Management, Vol. 10 No. 5, pp. 16-23.
Girubha, R.J. and Vinodh, S. (2012), “Application of fuzzy VIKOR and environmental impact analysis
for material selection of an automotive component”, Materials & Design, Vol. 37 No. 62,
pp. 478-486.
Goble, W.M. and Brombacher, A.C. (1999), “Using a failure modes, effects and diagnostic analysis
(FMEDA) to measure diagnostic coverage in programmable electronic systems”, Reliability
Engineering & System Safety, Vol. 66 No. 2, pp. 145-148.
Gupta, G. and Mishra, R.P. (2016), “A SWOT analysis of reliability centered maintenance framework”,
Journal of Quality in Maintenance Engineering, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 130-145.
Houten, F.J.A.M. and Kimura, F. (2000), “The virtual maintenance system: a computer- based support
tool for robust design, product monitoring, fault diagnosis and maintenance planning”, CIRP
Annals – Manufacturing Technology, Vol. 49 No. 1, pp. 91-94.
Huang, G., Shi, J. and Mak, K. (2000), “Failure mode and effect analysis (FMEA) over the WWW”,
International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, Vol. 16 No. 8, pp. 603-608.
Kara-Zaitri, C., Keller, A.Z., Barody, I. and Fleming, P.V. (1991), “An improved FMEA methodology”,
Reliability and Maintainability Symposium, Proceedings, Annual, IEEE Xplore, Philadelphia, PA,
pp. 248-252.
Laurenti, R., Villari, B.D. and Rozenfeld, H. (2012), “FMEA problems and improvements: a systematic
literature review”, Research and Development in Production Engineering – Brazilian Association
of Production Engineering, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 59-70.
Lee, B. (2001), “Using Bayes belief networks in industrial FMEA modeling and analysis”, Proceedings
of the Annual Reliability and Maintainability Symposium, IEEE Press, Philadelphia, PA, pp. 7-15.
Liu, H.C., You, J.X., Ding, X.F. and Su, Q. (2015), “Improving risk evaluation in FMEA with a hybrid
multiple criteria decision making method”, International Journal of Quality & Reliability
Management, Vol. 32 No. 7, pp. 763-782.
Liu, H.C., You, J.X., Li, P. and Su, Q. (2016), “Failure mode and effect analysis under uncertainty: an
integrated multiple criteria decision making approach”, IEEE Transactions on Reliability, Vol. 65
No. 3, pp. 1380-1391.
Liu, H.C., You, J.X., Meng, M. and Shao, L.N. (2015), “Failure mode and effects analysis using
intuitionistic fuzzy hybrid TOPSIS approach”, Soft Computing, Vol. 19, pp. 1085-1098.
Lolli, F., Ishizaka, A., Gamberini, R., Rimini, B. and Messori, M. (2015), “FlowSort – GDSS – a novel
group multi-criteria decision support system for sorting problems with application to FMEA”,
Expert Systems with Applications, Vol. 42, pp. 6342-6349.
Lough, G.K., Stone, R.B. and Tumer, I.Y. (2008), “Implementation procedures for the risk in early design
(RED) method”, Journal of Industrial & Systems Engineering, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 126-143.
Narayan, V. (2012), “Business performance and maintenance: how are safety, quality, reliability, productivity
and maintenance related?”, Journal of Quality in Maintenance Engineering, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 183-195.
Nepal, B.P., Yadav, O.P., Conplaisir, L. and Murat, A. (2008), “A framework for capturing and analyzing PAFMEA
the failures due to system/component interactions”, Quality and Reliability Engineering framework for
International, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 265-289.
failure analysis
Neubauer, T. (2009), “An empirical study about the status of business process management”, Business
Process Management Journal, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 166-183.
Oliveira, D.P.R. (2010), Strategic Planning – Concepts, Methodology and Practice, Atlas, São Paulo.
Paciarotti, C., Mazzuto, G. and D’Ettorre, D. (2014), “A revised FMEA application to the quality control 847
management”, International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 31 No. 7, pp. 788-810.
Palumbo, D. (1992), “Using failure modes and effects simulation as a means of reliability analysis”,
IEEE/AIAA Digital Avionics Systems Conference, Proceedings, IEEE Xplore, Seattle, WA, EUA,
pp. 102-107.
Popovic, V.M., Vasic, B.M., Rakicevic, B.B. and Vorotovic, G.S. (2012), “Optimisation of maintenance
concept choice using risk-decision factor – a case study”, International Journal of Systems
Science, Vol. 43 No. 10, pp. 1913-1926.
Puente, J., Pino, R., Priore, P. and de La Fuente, D. (2002), “A decision support system for applying
failure mode and effects analysis”, International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management,
Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 137-150.
Rausand, M. (2004), System Reliability Theory – Models, Statistical Methods and Applications,
John Wiley & Sons Inc., Hoboken, NJ.
Rhee, S. and Ishii, K. (2003), “Using cost based FMEA to enhance reliability and serviceability”,
Advanced Engineering Informatics, Vol. 17 Nos 3-4, pp. 179-188.
Rigoni, E. (2009), “Methodology for reliability-based maintenance implementation: an approach based
on knowledge based systems and Fuzzy Logic”, doctoral thesis, Graduate Program in
Mechanical Engineering, Federal University of Santa Catarina, Florianópolis.
SAE Standard J-1739 (2002), “Potential failure mode and effects analysis in design (Design FMEA)”,
Manufacturing and Assembly Process (Process FMEA), and for Machinery (MFMEA),
Society of Automotive Engineers, Southfield, MI.
Shafiee, M. (2015), “Maintenance strategy selection problem: an MCDM overview”, Journal of Quality in
Maintenance Engineering, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 378-402.
Sankar, N.R. and Prabhu, B.S. (2000), “Modified approach for prioritization of failures in a system
failure mode and effects analysis”, International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management,
Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 324-336.
Sharma, R.K. and Sharma, P. (2010), “System failure behavior and maintenance decision making using,
RCA, FMEA and FM”, Journal of Quality in Maintenance Engineering, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 64-88.
Sharma, R.K., Kumar, D. and Kumar, P. (2005), “Systematic failure mode effect analysis (FMEA) using
fuzzy linguistic modelling”, International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management, Vol. 22
No. 9, pp. 986-1004.
Sharma, R.K., Kumar, D. and Kumar, P. (2007), “Modeling and analysing system failure behaviour
using RCA, FMEA and NHPPP models”, International Journal of Quality & Reliability
Management, Vol. 24 No. 5, pp. 525-546.
Stone, R., Tumer, I. and Stock, M. (2005), “Linking product functionality to historic failures to improve
failure analysis in design”, Research in Engineering Design, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 96-108.
Suebsomran, A. and Talabgeaw, S. (2010), “Critical maintenance of thermal power plant using
the combination of failure mode effect analysis and AHP approaches”, Asian International
Journal of Science and Technology in Production and Manufacturing Engineering, Vol. 3 No. 3,
pp. 1-6.
Tang, X., Fu, C., Xu, D-L. and Yang, S. (2017), “Analysis of fuzzy hamacher aggregation functions
for uncertain multiple attribute decision making”, Information Sciences, Vol. 387 No. 2,
pp. 19-33.
JMTM Tang, Y., Liu, Q., Jing, J., Yang, Y. and Zou, Z. (2017), “A framework for identification of maintenance
28,6 significant items in reliability centered maintenance”, Journal of Energy, Vol. 118 No. 111,
pp. 1295-1303.
Velmurugan, R.S. and Dhingra, T. (2015), “Maintenance strategy selection and its impact in
maintenance function”, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 35
No. 12, pp. 1622-1661.
Vichas, R.P. (1982), Complete Handbook of Profitable Marketing Research Techniques, Pretice-Hall, Inc.,
848 Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Wang, L.E., Liu, H.C. and Quan, M.Y. (2016), “Evaluating the risk of failure modes with a hybrid MCDM
model under interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy environments”, Computers & Industrial
Engineering, Vol. 102 No. 16, pp. 175-185.
Weske, M. (2012), Business Process Management: Concepts, Languages, Architectures, Springer Science
& Business Media, Berlin.
Yen, S.B. and Chen, T. (2005), “An eco-innovative tool by integrating FMEA and TRIZ methods”,
Fourth International Symposium on Environmentally Conscious Design and Inverse
Manufacturing, Eco Design, Tokyo, IEEE Xplore, pp. 678-683.
Zaim, S., Turkyılmaz, A., Acar, M.F., Turki, U.A. and Demirel, O.F. (2012), “Maintenance strategy
selection using AHP and ANP algorithms: a case study”, Journal of Quality in Maintenance
Engineering, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 16-29.
Zammori, F. and Gabbrielli, R. (2011), “ANP/RPN: a multi criteria evaluation of the risk priority
number”, Quality & Reliability Engineering International, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 85-104.

Further reading
Linstone, H. and Turoff, M. (1975), The Delphi Method: Techniques and Applications, Addison-Wesley,
Reading, MA.
Sackman, H. (1975), Delphi Critique, Lexington Books, Boston, MA.

Corresponding author
Flávio Piechnicki can be contacted at: flavio.piechnicki@ifpr.edu.br

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com