CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 4Software Engineering Techniques and PracticesMulti-Criteria Decision MakingSoftware Reliability and Analysis Research

The DOI matches its Crossref record; the references it cites are not checked yet.

Risk Prioritizing with Weighted Failure Mode and Effects Analysis and Fuzzy Step-Wise Weight Assessment Ratio Analysis: An Application Software Service Provider Company in the Defense Industry

Open access
Korkusuz Polat, Tulay, Pamuk Candan, Işılay·2024·Applied Sciences
DOI 10.3390/app142411573
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

With the development of technology, the need for software and software products to manage, control, and develop activities in many sectors is increasing daily. In order to create suitable software that will meet the needs of businesses and customers, the software application must be tested in detail before reaching the end user. For this reason, software testing processes are gaining importance in software development activities. This article discusses which errors are critical to solve in complex situations for the reliability and quality of the software product and the relationship between errors. In this study, the classical FMEA method was primarily used to identify and prioritize errors in an ongoing project of a company that provides software services in the defense industry. Later, to eliminate the shortcomings of the classical FMEA method, a new model, the weighted FMEA method (which calculates the risk priority score with five sub-severity components), was developed and applied. In the newly developed weighted FMEA method, the weights were determined by the fuzzy SWARA (Step-Wise Weight Assessment Ratio Analysis) method since the weights of the severity subcomponents were not the same. The risk priority number (RPN) of error types was calculated using classical FMEA and weighted FMEA. Since the RPNs calculated with weighted FMEA are calculated with more subcomponents, the chances of the RPNs’ errors appearing the same are much less than the RPNs calculated with classical FMEA. This situation indicates that the RPNs calculated with weighted FMEA are obtained from a more profound analysis.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3390/app142411573

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 75 · Cited by 4

Research works printed but not linked: 79

  1. Singh, 2023, A hybrid novel fuzzy AHP-TOPSIS technique for selecting parameter-influencing testing in software development, Decis. Anal. J., 6, 100159, 10.1016/j.dajour.2022.100159 · DOI
  2. Nath, 2023, AI and Blockchain based source code vulnerability detection and prevention system for multiparty software development, Comput. Electr. Eng., 106, 108607, 10.1016/j.compeleceng.2023.108607 · DOI
  3. Lee, 2020, Optimization of software development life cycle quality for NPP safety software based on a risk-cost model, Ann. Nucl. Energy, 135, 106961, 10.1016/j.anucene.2019.106961 · DOI
  4. Pinciroli, 2022, Systematic mapping study: On the coverage of aspect-oriented methodologies for the early phases of the software development life cycle, J. King Saud Univ. Comput. Inf. Sci., 34, 2883
  5. Rhmann, 2020, Software fault prediction based on change metrics using hybrid algorithms: An empirical study, J. King Saud Univ. Comput. Inf. Sci., 32, 419
  6. Kumar, 2015, A Probabilistic Software Risk Assessment and Estimation Model for Software Projects, Procedia Comput. Sci., 54, 353, 10.1016/j.procs.2015.06.041 · DOI
  7. Souza, 2022, Prioritizing risks with composition of probabilistic preferences and weighting of FMEA criteria for fast decision-making in complex scenarios, Int. J. Manag. Proj. Bus., 15, 572, 10.1108/IJMPB-01-2021-0007 · DOI
  8. Liu, 2024, An improved FMEA method based on the expert trust network for maritime transportation risk management, Expert Syst. Appl., 238, 121705, 10.1016/j.eswa.2023.121705 · DOI
  9. Tooranloo, 2016, A model for failure mode effect analysis based on intuitionistic fuzzy approach, Appl. Soft Comput., 49, 238, 10.1016/j.asoc.2016.07.047 · DOI
  10. Ghoushchi, 2024, Applying hesitant q-rung orthopair fuzzy sets to evaluate uncertainty in subsidence causes factors, Heliyon, 10, e29415, 10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e29415 · DOI
  11. Aydin, 2022, A new risk assessment framework for safety in oil and gas industry: Application of FMEA and BWM based picture fuzzy MABAC, J. Pet. Sci. Eng., 219, 111059, 10.1016/j.petrol.2022.111059 · DOI
  12. Ghiaci, 2023, Assessment of barriers to IoT-enabled circular economy using an extended decision-making-based FMEA model under uncertain environment, Internet Things, 22, 100719, 10.1016/j.iot.2023.100719 · DOI
  13. Moyano, 2022, Uses of business process modeling in agile software development projects, Inf. Softw. Technol., 152, 107028, 10.1016/j.infsof.2022.107028 · DOI
  14. Najihi, 2022, Software Testing an Agile and Traditional View, Procedia Comput. Sci., 203, 775, 10.1016/j.procs.2022.07.116 · DOI
  15. Ouriques, 2023, The role of knowledge-based resources in Agile Software Development contexts, J. Syst. Softw., 197, 111572, 10.1016/j.jss.2022.111572 · DOI
  16. Monika, 2022, A framework for evaluating cloud computing services using AHP and TOPSIS approaches with interval valued spherical fuzzy sets, Clust. Comput., 25, 4383, 10.1007/s10586-022-03679-z · DOI
  17. Nazim, 2022, A comparison between fuzzy AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS methods to software requirements selection, Alex. Eng. J., 61, 10851, 10.1016/j.aej.2022.04.005 · DOI
  18. Ranjbar, 2022, Multi-mode project portfolio selection and scheduling in a build-operate-transfer environment, Expert Syst. Appl., 189, 116134, 10.1016/j.eswa.2021.116134 · DOI
  19. 2017, Bir tedarikçi problemi için SWARA ve WASPAS yöntemlerine dayanan karar verme yaklaşımı, Int. Rev. Econ. Manag., 5, 56
  20. Kersuliene, 2010, Selection of rational dispute resolution method by applying new step-wise weight assessment ratio analysis (SWARA), J. Bus. Econ. Manag., 11, 243, 10.3846/jbem.2010.12 · DOI
  21. Zolfani, 2015, Technology Foresight about R&D Projects Selection: Application of SWARA method at the policy making level, Eng. Econ., 26, 571
  22. Alimardani, 2013, A novel hybrid SWARA and VIKOR methodology for supplier selection in an agile environment, Technol. Econ. Dev. Econ., 19, 533, 10.3846/20294913.2013.814606 · DOI
  23. Naeemah, 2023, Sustainability metrics and a hybrid decision-making model for selecting lean manufacturing tools, Resour. Environ. Sustain., 13, 100120
  24. Sarkodie, 2022, Decision optimization techniques for evaluating renewable energy resources for power generation in Ghana: MCDM approach, Energy Rep., 8, 13504, 10.1016/j.egyr.2022.10.120 · DOI
  25. Seker, 2022, IoT based sustainable smart waste management system evaluation using MCDM model under interval-valued q-rung orthopair fuzzy environment, Technol. Soc., 71, 2, 10.1016/j.techsoc.2022.102100 · DOI
  26. Lohakare, 2022, Benchmark using multi criteria decision making (MCDM) technique to optimally select piston material, Eng. Anal. Bound. Elem., 142, 52, 10.1016/j.enganabound.2022.05.025 · DOI
  27. Sarkar, 2022, Watershed prioritization using morphometric analysis by MCDM approaches, Ecol. Inf., 70, 101763, 10.1016/j.ecoinf.2022.101763 · DOI
  28. Chodha, 2022, Selection of industrial arc welding robot with TOPSIS and Entropy MCDM techniques, Mater. Today Proc., 50, 709, 10.1016/j.matpr.2021.04.487 · DOI
  29. Zakeri, 2021, The vital-immaterial-mediocre multi-criteria decision making method, Kybernetes, 52, 937, 10.1108/K-05-2021-0403 · DOI
  30. Zorlu, 2023, Assessment of glacial geoheritage by multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) methods in the Yalnızçam Mountains, Northeastern Türkiye, Int. J. Geoheritage Parks, 11, 100, 10.1016/j.ijgeop.2023.01.001 · DOI
  31. Sengul, 2020, Bulanık SWARA ve Bulanık Analitik Hiyerarşi Prosesi Yöntemi ile İş Değerlemesi, Dicle Univ. J. Eng., 11, 965
  32. KorkusuzPolat, 2021, Application of Fuzzy DEMATEL and Fuzzy VIKOR Methods in Personnel Selection, Eur. J. Sci. Technol., 23, 376
  33. Ansari, 2020, Evaluation and ranking of solutions to mitigate sustainable remanufacturing supply chain risks: A hybrid fuzzy SWARA-fuzzy COPRAS framework approach, Int. J. Sustain. Eng., 13, 473, 10.1080/19397038.2020.1758973 · DOI
  34. Abdullah, 2023, Multi-criteria decision making for nuclear power plant selection using fuzzy AHP: Evidence from Indonesia, Energy AI, 14, 100263, 10.1016/j.egyai.2023.100263 · DOI
  35. Rabia, 2023, Collaborative intuitionistic fuzzy-AHP to evaluate simulation-based analytics for freight transport, Expert Syst. Appl., 225, 120116, 10.1016/j.eswa.2023.120116 · DOI
  36. Abusaeed, 2023, A fuzzy AHP based approach for prioritization of cost overhead factors in agile software development, Appl. Soft Comput., 133, 109977, 10.1016/j.asoc.2022.109977 · DOI
  37. Abdullah, 2023, Barriers and strategies for sustainable manufacturing implementation in SMEs: A hybrid fuzzy AHP-TOPSIS framework, Sustain. Manuf. Serv. Econ., 2, 100012
  38. Esmaelnezhad, 2023, International strategic alliance for collaborative product innovation: An agent-based scenario analysis in biopharmaceutical industry, J. Bus. Res., 158, 113663, 10.1016/j.jbusres.2023.113663 · DOI
  39. Keshteli, 2023, Pythagorean fuzzy TOPSIS method green supplier selection in the food industry, Expert Syst. Appl., 224, 120036, 10.1016/j.eswa.2023.120036 · DOI
  40. Abdul, 2023, Prioritization of ecopreneurship barriers overcoming renewable energy technologies promotion: A comparative analysis of novel spherical fuzzy and pythagorean fuzzy AHP approach, Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change, 186, 122133, 10.1016/j.techfore.2022.122133 · DOI
  41. KorkusuzPolat, T., and Baran, E. (2024). A Blockchain-Based Quality 4.0 Application for Warehouse Management System. Appl. Sci., 14. · DOI
  42. Tomak, 2022, Risk prioritization model driven by success factor in the light of multi-criteria decision making, Open Chem., 20, 759, 10.1515/chem-2022-0188 · DOI
  43. Taheriyoun, 2015, Reliability analysis of a wastewater treatment plant using fault tree analysis and Monte Carlo simulation, Environ. Monit. Assess., 187, 4186, 10.1007/s10661-014-4186-7 · DOI
  44. Andrade, 2022, A multi-criteria decision tool for FMEA in the context of product development and industry 4.0, Int. J. Comput. Integr. Manuf., 35, 36, 10.1080/0951192X.2021.1992664 · DOI
  45. Akyuz, 2018, A quantitative risk analysis by using interval type-2 fuzzy FMEA approach: The case of oil spill, Marit. Policy Manag., 45, 979, 10.1080/03088839.2018.1520401 · DOI
  46. Chen, 2019, Failure mode and effects analysis of dual leveling valve airspring suspensions on truck dynamics, Int. J. Veh. Mech. Mobil., 57, 617
  47. Shafiee, 2022, An integrated FMEA and MCDA based risk management approach to support life extension of subsea facilities in high-pressure–high-temperature (HPHT) conditions, J. Mar. Eng. Technol., 21, 189, 10.1080/20464177.2020.1827486 · DOI
  48. Takahashi, 2022, A creation method of comprehensive cases and specifications for hardware and software combined test to detect undesirable events of an industrial product using HAZOP, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf., 15, 50
  49. Wang, 2012, A novel knowledge database construction method for operation guidance expert system based on HAZOP analysis and accident analysis, J. Loss Prev. Process Ind., 25, 905, 10.1016/j.jlp.2012.05.001 · DOI
  50. Shaw, 2008, WASOP, a qualitative methodology for waste Minimization Systems thinking, HAZOP principles and nuclear waste, Int. J. Energy Sect. Manag., 2, 231, 10.1108/17506220810883234 · DOI
  51. Xie, 2021, A novel risk evaluation method for fire and explosion accidents in oil depots using bow-tie analysis and risk matrix analysis method based on cloud model theory, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf., 215, 107791, 10.1016/j.ress.2021.107791 · DOI
  52. Cebi, 2022, Operational risk analysis in business processes using decomposed fuzzy sets, J. Intell. Fuzzy Syst., 43, 2485, 10.3233/JIFS-213385 · DOI
  53. Zhang, 2017, A fuzzy risk matrix method and its application to the installation operation of subsea collet connector, J. Loss Prev. Process Ind., 45, 147, 10.1016/j.jlp.2016.11.014 · DOI
  54. Yener, 2021, A FMEA based novel intuitionistic fuzzy approach proposal: Intuitionistic fuzzy advance MCDM and mathematical modeling integration, Expert Syst. Appl., 183, 115413, 10.1016/j.eswa.2021.115413 · DOI
  55. Unlukal, 2021, Risk analysis application in aviation sector with intuitionistic fuzzy TOPSIS method, Dumlupınar Univ. J. Soc. Sci., 70, 97
  56. Liu, 2023, Risk assessment based on FMEA combining DEA and cloud model: A case application in robot-assisted rehabilitation, Expert Syst. Appl., 214, 119119, 10.1016/j.eswa.2022.119119 · DOI
  57. Pourmadadkar, 2020, An integrated approach for healthcare services risk assessment and quality enhancement, Int. J. Qual. Reliab. Manag., 37, 1183, 10.1108/IJQRM-11-2018-0314 · DOI
  58. Khalilzadeh, 2020, Multi-objective mathematical model based on fuzzy hybrid multi-criteria decision-making and FMEA approach for the risks of oil and gas projects, J. Eng. Des. Technol., 18, 1997
  59. Chen, 2022, Assessment of red tide risk by integrating CRITIC weight method, TOPSIS-ASSETS method, and Monte Carlo simulation, Environ. Pollut., 314, 120254, 10.1016/j.envpol.2022.120254 · DOI
  60. Yu, 2023, A novel FMEA approach for submarine pipeline risk analysis based on IVIFRN and ExpTODIM-PROMETHEE-II, Appl. Soft Comput., 136, 110065, 10.1016/j.asoc.2023.110065 · DOI
  61. Koohathongsumrit, 2023, Route selection in multimodal supply chains: A fuzzy risk assessment model-BWM-MARCOS framework, Appl. Soft Comput., 137, 110167, 10.1016/j.asoc.2023.110167 · DOI
  62. Marhavilas, 2020, An expanded HAZOP-study with fuzzy-AHP (XPA-HAZOP technique): Application in a sour crude-oil processing plant, Saf. Sci., 124, 104590, 10.1016/j.ssci.2019.104590 · DOI
  63. Zhang, 2021, Research on risk management of medical and health care integration projects based on fuzzy WINGS-G1, Kybernetes, 52, 729, 10.1108/K-07-2021-0578 · DOI
  64. Alvand, 2021, Identification and assessment of risk in construction projects using the integrated FMEA SWARA-WASPAS model under fuzzy environment: A case study of a construction project in Iran, Int. J. Constr. Manag., 23, 392
  65. Ilbahar, 2022, Risk assessment of renewable energy investments: A modified failure mode and effect analysis based on prospect theory and intuitionistic fuzzy AHP, Energy, 239, 121907, 10.1016/j.energy.2021.121907 · DOI
  66. Ahsan, 2022, Evaluation of manufacturing process in low variety high volume industry with the coupling of cloud model theory and TOPSIS approach, Qual. Eng., 35, 222, 10.1080/08982112.2022.2107934 · DOI
  67. Ok, 2022, Prioritization of radiological accident scenarios during decommissioning of nuclear power plants by risk matrix and AHP method, Ann. Nucl. Energy, 175, 109239, 10.1016/j.anucene.2022.109239 · DOI
  68. Fattahi, 2018, Risk evaluation using a novel hybrid method based on FMEA, extended MULTIMOORA, and AHP methods under fuzzy environment, Saf. Sci., 102, 290, 10.1016/j.ssci.2017.10.018 · DOI
  69. Kumari, 2023, Failure mode and effects analysis of common effluent treatment plants of humid sub-tropical regions using fuzzy based MCDM methods, Eng. Fail. Anal., 145, 107010, 10.1016/j.engfailanal.2022.107010 · DOI
  70. KorkusuzPolat, 2024, Risk Prioritization in A Manufacturing Project with Fuzzy SWARA and Fuzzy MOORA Methods, Erzincan Univ. J. Sci. Technol., 17, 16
  71. Emovon, 2020, Application of MCDM method in material selection for optimal design: A review, Results Mater., 7, 100115, 10.1016/j.rinma.2020.100115 · DOI
  72. Stanujkic, 2015, A framework for the selection of a packaging design based on the SWARA method, Eng. Econ., 26, 181, 10.5755/j01.ee.26.2.8820 · DOI
  73. Mardani, 2017, A systematic review and meta-analysis of SWARA and WASPAS methods: Theory and applications with recent fuzzy developments, Appl. Soft Comput., 57, 265, 10.1016/j.asoc.2017.03.045 · DOI
  74. Agarwal, 2020, Evaluating solutions to overcome humanitarian supply chain management barriers: A hybrid fuzzy SWARA—Fuzzy WASPAS approach, Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct., 51, 101838, 10.1016/j.ijdrr.2020.101838 · DOI
  75. Zadeh, 1968, Fuzzy Algorithms”, Information and Control, Inf. Control, 12, 94, 10.1016/S0019-9958(68)90211-8 · DOI
  76. Pradhan, 2022, Selection of electric vehicle using integrated fuzzy-MCDM approach with analysis on challenges faced in hilly terrain, Energy Sources Part A: Recovery Util. Environ. Eff., 44, 2651, 10.1080/15567036.2022.2056665 · DOI
  77. Liu, 2015, Improving risk evaluation in FMEA with a hybrid multiple criteria decision making method, Int. J. Qual. Reliab. Manag., 32, 763, 10.1108/IJQRM-10-2013-0169 · DOI
  78. Rezaee, 2020, Risk analysis of health, safety and environment in chemical industry integrating linguistic FMEA, fuzzy inference system and fuzzy DEA, Stoch. Environ. Res. Risk Assess., 34, 201, 10.1007/s00477-019-01754-3 · DOI
  79. Yesilcayir, 2024, Transit warehouse location selection by IF AHP-TOPSIS integrated methods for disaster logistics: A case study of Turkey, Res. Transp. Bus. Manag., 57, 101232

Metadata

Authors
Korkusuz Polat, T., & Pamuk Candan, I.
Affiliations
  • Department of Industrial Engineering, Sakarya University, Sakarya 54050, Turkey
  • Institute of Natural Sciences, Sakarya University, Sakarya 54050, Turkey
ORCID
Korkusuz Polat, Tulay
Venue
Applied Sciences
Publisher
MDPI AG
Published
2024-12-11
Volume
14
Issue
24
Pages
11573
ISSN
2076-3417 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.3390/app142411573
OpenAlex
W4405282620
Cited by
4
References
75
Citations by year
2026: 3
FWCI
0.79
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Applied Sciences (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Software Engineering Techniques and Practices
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Multi-Criteria Decision Making
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Software › Software Reliability and Analysis Research
Keywords
fuzzy SWARA, risk prioritization, risk priority number, software testing, software reliability

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Risk Prioritizing with Weighted Failure Mode and Effects Analysis and Fuzzy Step-Wise Weight Assessment Ratio Analysis: An Application Software Service Provider Company in the Defense Industry. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.3390/app142411573
The paper
Korkusuz Polat, T., & Pamuk Candan, I. (2024). Risk Prioritizing with Weighted Failure Mode and Effects Analysis and Fuzzy Step-Wise Weight Assessment Ratio Analysis: An Application Software Service Provider Company in the Defense Industry. Applied Sciences. https://doi.org/10.3390/app142411573