New approach for failure mode and effect analysis using linguistic distribution assessments and TODIM method
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The conventional RPN method has inherent limitations that weaken its effectiveness.
“However, the conventional RPN method has been criticized for numerous inherent limitations that weaken its effectiveness.”
From Enhancing Pharma Manufacturing Efficiency: Integrating Lean Six Sigma and Fuzzy FMEA for Waste Reduction (2024) · cites this paper as Huang et al., 2017
The arithmetical formula of RPN is too simplistic and is strongly sensitive to assessments' variations, which may not make a precise depiction of a system's risk.
“the arithmetical formula of RPN is too simplistic and is strongly sensitive to assessments' variations, which may not make a precise depiction of a system's risk.”
From Enhancing Pharma Manufacturing Efficiency: Integrating Lean Six Sigma and Fuzzy FMEA for Waste Reduction (2024) · cites this paper as Huang et al., 2017
Only the three RPN elements are considered in the conventional RPN method.
“only the three RPN elements are considered”
From Enhancing Pharma Manufacturing Efficiency: Integrating Lean Six Sigma and Fuzzy FMEA for Waste Reduction (2024) · cites this paper as Huang et al., 2017
The relative weights of RPN elements and FMEA experts are not considered in the conventional RPN method.
“the relative weights of RPN elements and FMEA experts are not considered”
From Enhancing Pharma Manufacturing Efficiency: Integrating Lean Six Sigma and Fuzzy FMEA for Waste Reduction (2024) · cites this paper as Huang et al., 2017
Different evaluation sets of RPN elements may yield the same RPN result.
“different evaluation sets of RPN elements may yield the same RPN result”
From Enhancing Pharma Manufacturing Efficiency: Integrating Lean Six Sigma and Fuzzy FMEA for Waste Reduction (2024) · cites this paper as Huang et al., 2017
Cites
Applying the concept of exponential approach to enhance the assessment capability of FMEA
Chang, K.-H., Chang, Y.-C., & Lai, P.-T. (2014) · Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing · doi:10.1007/s10845-013-0747-9 · Cited by 81 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Li, Y., Liu, P., & Li, G. (2023) · Reliability Engineering & System Safety · doi:10.1016/j.ress.2023.109196 · Cited by 50 · see citing works
Kusumawardani, R., & Widyatmoko, A. A. (2024) · Spektrum Industri · doi:10.12928/si.v22i2.199 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
“According to (Catelani et al., 2018) (Huang et al., 2017) ( Liu et al., 2019) (Liu et al., 2017) and (Wang et al., 2018), the relative weights of RPN elements and FMEA experts are not considered, different evaluation sets of RPN elements may yield the same RPN result, only the three RPN elements…”
- Authors
- Huang, J., Li, Z., & Liu, H.-C.
- Affiliations
- Shanghai University (CN)
- Western New England University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Liu, Hu-Chen
- Venue
- Reliability Engineering & System Safety
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2017-11
- Volume
- 167
- Pages
- 302-309
- ISSN
- 0951-8320 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2624729712
- Cited by
- 250
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 8 · 2025: 18 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 25 · 2022: 35 · 2021: 42 · 2020: 40 · 2019: 38 · 2018: 26 · 2017: 5
- FWCI
- 26.42
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Reliability Engineering & System Safety (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- National Natural Science Foundation of China (71671125, 71402090)
- NSFC (71432007)
- Program for Professor of Special Appointment (QD2015019)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Multi-Criteria Decision Making
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Risk and Safety Analysis
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Safety, Risk, Reliability and Quality › Reliability and Maintenance Optimization
- Keywords
- failure mode and effects analysis, TODIM method, risk priority number, subjective and objective weights, multi-criteria decision making, risk management
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
