Purpose The purpose of this paper is to propose an integrative approach for improving failure modes and effects analysis (FMEA). Design/methodology/approach An extensive literature review on FMEA has been performed. Then, an integrative approach has been proposed based on literature review. The proposed approach is an integration of FMEA and quality function deployment (QFD). The proposed approach includes a two-phase QFD. In the first phase, failure modes are prioritized based on failure effects and in the second phase, failure causes are prioritized based on failure modes. The proposed approach has been examined in a case example at the blast furnace operation of a steel-manufacturing company. Findings Results of the case example indicated that stove shell crack in hot blast blower, pump failure in cooling water supply pump and bleeder valves failed to operate are the first three important failure modes. In addition, fire and explosion are the most important failure effects. Also, improper maintenance, over pressure and excess temperature are the most important failure causes. Findings also indicated that the proposed approach with the consideration of interrelationships among failure effects, failure mode and failure causes can influence and adjust risk priority number (RPN) in FMEA. Research limitations/implications As manufacturing departments are mostly dealing with failure effects and modes of machinery and maintenance departments are mostly dealing with causes of failures, the proposed model can support better coordination and integration between the two departments. Such support seems to be more important in firms with continuous production lines wherein line interruption influences response to customers more seriously. A wide range of future study opportunities indicates the attractiveness and contribution of the subject to the knowledge of FMEA. Originality/value Although the literature indicates that in most of studies the outcomes of QFD were entered into FMEA and in some studies the RPN of FMEA was entered into QFD as importance rating, the proposed approach is a true type of the so-called “integration of FMEA and QFD” because the three main elements of FMEA formed the structure of QFD. In other words, the proposed approach can be considered as an innovation in the FMEA structure, not as a data provider prior to it or a data receiver after it.

PurposeThis paper aims to develop a system dynamics (SD) model to identify causal relationships among the elements of failure modes and effects analysis (FMEA), i.e. failure modes, effects and causes.Design/methodology/approachA causal loop diagram (CLD) has been developed based on the results obtained from interdependencies and correlations analysis among the FMEA elements through applying the integrated approach of FMEA-quality function deployment (QFD) developed by Shaker et al. (2019). The proposed model was examined in a steel manufacturing company to identify and model the causes and effects relationships among failure modes, effects and causes of a roller-transmission system.FindingsFindings indicated interactions among the most significant failure modes, effects and causes. Moreover, corrective actions defined to eliminate or relieve critical failure causes. Consequently, production costs decreased, and the production rate increased due to eliminated/decreased failure modes.Practical implicationsThe application of CLD illustrates causal relationships among FMEA elements in a more effective way and results in a more precise recognition of the root causes of the potential failure modes and their easy elimination/decrease. Therefore, applying the proposed approach leads to a better analysis of the interactions among FMEA elements, decreased system's failure rate and increased system availability.Originality/valueThe literature review indicated a few studies on the application of SD methodology in the maintenance area, and no study was performed on the causal interactions among FMEA elements through an FMEA-QFD based SD approach. Although the interactions of these elements are significant and helpful in risks ranking, researchers fail to investigate them sufficiently.

No abstract