Risk Evaluation Approaches in Failure Mode and Effects Analysis¶
Liu, H., Liu, L., & Liu, N. (2013). Risk Evaluation Approaches in Failure Mode and Effects Analysis: A Literature Review. Expert Systems with Applications, 40(2), 828-838.
Cited by¶
2 citations across 2 artifacts.
Each citation links to the sentence it supports in the citing article.
Mechanisms¶
- Failure Modes and Effects Analysis
- The Risk Priority Number is an ordinal product with no real arithmetic meaning — a 720 is not "twice as bad" as a 360, and two identical RPNs can hide wildly different severities, so a coarse multiply can rank a catastrophic-but-rare failure below a trivial-but-frequent one.
This sourceDocuments The Risk Priority Number is an ordinal product with no real arithmetic meaning; a 720 is not "twice as bad" as a 360; two identical RPNs can hide wildly different severities; a coarse multiply can rank a catastrophic-but-rare failure below a trivial-but-frequent one.
- The Risk Priority Number is an ordinal product with no real arithmetic meaning — a 720 is not "twice as bad" as a 360, and two identical RPNs can hide wildly different severities, so a coarse multiply can rank a catastrophic-but-rare failure below a trivial-but-frequent one.
- FMEA Dependency Table
- Multiplying three subjective 1–10 guesses yields a crisp-looking number that can lend spurious authority to what is really an opinion, and risk priority numbers are notoriously gameable — nudge one axis and a row moves off the action list, which makes the table easy to run backwards to justify not fixing something
This sourceReviews conventional RPN as the product of three difficult, subjective ratings and documents limitations that can make the resulting numerical ranking misleading.
- Multiplying three subjective 1–10 guesses yields a crisp-looking number that can lend spurious authority to what is really an opinion, and risk priority numbers are notoriously gameable — nudge one axis and a row moves off the action list, which makes the table easy to run backwards to justify not fixing something
Verification¶
Does it exist? Confirmed. This work's DOI resolves to a registered record, which fixes its identity. That is all it fixes.
Does it back the claim? Not recorded. Neither this nor any other of the 2 citations of this work carries a recorded support check.
Support is checked per citation rather than per work — the same source can be cited soundly in one article and wrongly in another. Per-citation recording began recently, so a citation with no recorded check is a gap in the record rather than evidence it went unchecked.
See how references were verified.
Registry ID ref:c496a4761942 · see in the full table