Determining the priorities of failure modes is a problem tackled in practice through the application of FMEA analysis. This method has particularly found application in the automotive industry, where its use is both conducted and mandated by standard and various procedures. However, numerous drawbacks and limitations of conventional FMEA analysis have been identified in relevant literature, and authors have proposed several ways to overcome them. The approach defined in this paper relies on the application of the Interval Valued Pythagorean Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process (IPF-AHP) approach and two novel approaches for determining the priorities of failure modes based on Interval Valued Pythagorean Fuzzy Numbers (IVPFNs) algebra and a modified Pareto (ABC) approach. The model was tested on real data, namely an FMEA report originating from a first-tier supplier in the automotive supply chain. The results obtained through the proposed approaches were compared with those obtained through traditional FMEA analysis. The comparative analysis showed that the proposed models provide a holistic approach to determining the priorities of failure modes and offer a better way to analyze the considered failure modes.
IATF 16949:2016. Quality management system requirements for automotive production and relevant service parts organizations. 1st edition.
2.
CarlsonCS.Understanding and applying the fundamentals of FMEAs. In Annual reliability and maintainability symposium, Colorado Springs, CO, 27 January 2014, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 1–35.
3.
CaoXDengY.A new geometric mean FMEA method based on information quality. IEEE Access2019; 7: 95547–95554.
4.
AIAG and VDA. Failure Mode and Effects Analysis - FMEA Handbook: design FMEA, process FMEA, supplemental FMEA for monitoring & system response. Southfield, Michigan: Automotive Industry Action Group, 2019.
5.
BandukaNAleksićAKomatinaN, et al. The prioritization of failures within the automotive industry: the two-step failure mode and effect analysis integrated approach. Proc MechE, Part B J: Engineering Manufacture2020; 234: 1559–1570.
6.
KomatinaNTadićDAleksićA, et al. The integrated PFMEA approach with interval type-2 fuzzy sets and FBWM: a case study in the automotive industry. Proc IMechE, Part: J Automobile Engineering2022; 236: 1201–1212.
7.
KocabaşCSavaşAF.Reducing energy losses of steam boilers caused by blowdown with using the FMEA method. Smart Sci2021; 9: 70–79.
8.
MutluNGAltuntasS.Hazard and risk analysis for ring spinning yarn production process by integrated FTA-FMEA approach. Tekst Ve Konfeksiyon2019; 29: 208–218.
9.
ParkG-YKimDHLeeDY.Software FMEA analysis for safety-related application software. Ann Nucl Energy2014; 70: 96–102.
10.
SaatyTL. The analytical hierarchy process, planning, priority. Mcgraw-Hill, New York: RWS Publications.
11.
ZandiPRahmaniMKhanianM, et al. Agricultural risk management using fuzzy TOPSIS analytical hierarchy process (AHP) and failure mode and effects analysis (FMEA). Agriculture2020; 10: 504.
12.
ÐurićGMitrovićČKomatinaN, et al. The hybrid MCDM model with the interval Type-2 fuzzy sets for the software failure analysis. J Intell Fuzzy Syst2019; 37: 7747–7759.
13.
IlbaharEKahramanCCebiS.Risk assessment of renewable energy investments: a modified failure mode and effect analysis based on prospect theory and intuitionistic fuzzy AHP. Energy2022; 239: 121907.
14.
AyyildizETaskin GumusA. Interval-valued Pythagorean fuzzy AHP method-based supply chain performance evaluation by a new extension of SCOR model: SCOR 4.0. Complex Intell Syst2021; 7: 559–576.
15.
ZammoriFGabbrielliR.ANP/RPN: a multi criteria evaluation of the risk priority number. Qual Reliab Eng Int2012; 28: 85–104.
16.
BandukaNTadicDMacuzicI, et al. Extended process failure mode and effect analysis (PFMEA) for the automotive industry: the FSQC-PFMEA. Adv Prod Eng Manag2018; 13: 206–215.
17.
AleksićAMilanovićDDKomatinaN, et al. Evaluation and ranking of failures in manufacturing process by combining best-worst method and VIKOR under Type-2 fuzzy environment. Expert Syst2023; 40: e13148.
18.
DevarajanBLakshminarasimhanRMuruganA, et al. Recent developments in natural fiber hybrid composites for ballistic applications: a comprehensive review of mechanisms and failure criteria. Facta Univ Ser Mech Eng2024; 22(2): 343–383.
19.
XuD-YCuiH-QWangT-Y, et al. Interactions and influences on coal miners’ safety attention: an evaluation using an improved DEMATEL-ISM approach. Facta Univ Ser Mech Eng2024; 22: 139–153.
20.
BaşhanVYucesanMDemirelH, et al. Health, safety, and environmental failure evaluation by hybridizing fuzzy multi-attribute decision-making methods for maritime scrubber systems. Environ Monit Assess2022; 194: 641.
21.
YucesanMBaşhanVDemirelH, et al. An interval type-2 fuzzy enhanced best–worst method for the evaluation of ship diesel generator failures. Eng Fail Anal2022; 138: 106428.
22.
BaşhanVDemirelHGulM.An FMEA-based TOPSIS approach under single valued neutrosophic sets for maritime risk evaluation: the case of ship navigation safety. Soft Comput2020; 24: 18749–18764.
23.
KumarPRajuNNavaneethaM, et al. Reliability analysis of dumpers through FMEA-TOPSIS integration. Int J Mod Trends Sci Technol2021; 7: 110–118.
24.
SafariHFarajiZMajidianS.Identifying and evaluating enterprise architecture risks using FMEA and fuzzy VIKOR. J Intell Manuf2016; 27: 475–486.
25.
TadićDKomatinaN.A hybrid interval Type-2 Fuzzy DEMATEL-MABAC approach for strategic failure management in automotive manufacturing. J Eng Manag Syst Eng2025; 4: 21–38.
26.
KomatinaNMarinkovićDTadićD, et al. Advancing PFMEA decision-making: FRADAR based prioritization of failure modes using AP, RPN, and multi-attribute assessment in the automotive industry. Teh Glas J2025; 19(3): 442–451.
27.
KomatinaN.A compromise-based MADM approach for prioritizing failures: integrating the RADAR method within the FMEA framework. J Sist Dan Manaj Ind2024; 8: 73–88.
28.
SudžumRNestićSKomatinaN, et al. An intuitionistic fuzzy multi-criteria approach for prioritizing failures that cause overproduction: a case study in process manufacturing. Axioms2024; 13: 357.
29.
IlbaharEKaraşanACebiS, et al. A novel approach to risk assessment for occupational health and safety using Pythagorean fuzzy AHP & fuzzy inference system. Saf Sci2018; 103: 124–136.
30.
MeteS.Assessing occupational risks in pipeline construction using FMEA-based AHP-MOORA integrated approach under Pythagorean fuzzy environment. Hum Ecol Risk Assess Int J2019; 25: 1645–1660.
31.
LiHLvLLiF, et al. A novel approach to emergency risk assessment using FMEA with extended MULTIMOORA method under interval-valued Pythagorean fuzzy environment. Int J Intell Comput Cybern2020; 13: 41–65.
32.
Almeraz-DuránSPérez-DomínguezLALuviano-CruzD, et al. A proposed framework for developing FMEA method using pythagorean fuzzy CODAS. Symmetry2021; 13: 2236.
33.
AguirrePAGPerez-DominguezLLuviano-CruzD, et al. Risk assessment with value added pythagorean fuzzy failure mode and effect analysis for stakeholders. IEEE Access2021; 9: 149560–149568.
34.
AkramMLuqmanAAlcantudJCR. Risk evaluation in failure modes and effects analysis: hybrid TOPSIS and ELECTRE I solutions with Pythagorean fuzzy information. Neural Comput Appl2021; 33: 5675–5703.
35.
Mardani ShahriMEshraghniaye JahromiAHoushmandM. Failure mode and effect analysis using an integrated approach of clustering and MCDM under pythagorean fuzzy environment. J Loss Prev Process Ind2021; 72: 104591.
36.
LyuH-MSunW-JShenS-L, et al. Risk assessment using a new consulting process in fuzzy AHP. J Constr Eng Manag2020; 146: 04019112.
37.
KomatinaNTadićDAleksićA, et al. The assessment and selection of suppliers using AHP and MABAC with type-2 fuzzy numbers in automotive industry. Proc IMechE, Part O, J Risk and Reliability2023; 237: 836–852.
38.
PerçinS.Circular supplier selection using interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy sets. Environ Dev Sustain2022; 24: 5551–5581.
39.
YucesanMKahramanG.Risk evaluation and prevention in hydropower plant operations: a model based on Pythagorean fuzzy AHP. Energy Policy2019; 126: 343–351.
40.
ErdebilliBYilmazİAksoyT, et al. An interval-valued Pythagorean fuzzy AHP and COPRAS hybrid methods for the supplier selection problem. Int J Comput Intell Syst2023; 16: 124.
41.
KarasanAIlbaharEKahramanC.A novel pythagorean fuzzy AHP and its application to landfill site selection problem. Soft Comput2019; 23: 10953–10968.
42.
KoseYCivanHNAyyildizE, et al. An interval valued pythagorean fuzzy AHP–TOPSIS integrated model for ergonomic assessment of setup process under SMED. Sustainability2022; 14: 13804.
43.
SumritD.Evaluating readiness degree for Industrial Internet of Things adoption in manufacturing enterprises under interval-valued Pythagorean fuzzy approach. Prod Manuf Res2022; 10: 226–256.
44.
MiloševićMRMiloševićDMStevićDM, et al. Interval valued pythagorean fuzzy AHP integrated model in a smartness assessment framework of buildings. Axioms2023; 12: 286.
45.
YagerRR.Pythagorean membership grades in multicriteria decision making. IEEE Trans Fuzzy Syst2014; 22: 958–965.
46.
ZhangXXuZ.Extension of TOPSIS to multiple criteria decision making with Pythagorean fuzzy sets: extension of TOPSIS to multiple criteria decision making. Int J Intell Syst2014; 29: 1061–1078.
47.
YagerRR.Properties and applications of Pythagorean fuzzy sets. In: AngelovPSotirovS (eds) Imprecision and uncertainty in information representation and processing. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2015, pp.119–136.
48.
ZengSChenJLiX.A hybrid method for Pythagorean fuzzy multiple-criteria decision making. Int J Inf Technol Decis Mak2016; 15: 403–422.
49.
GargH.A novel accuracy function under interval-valued Pythagorean fuzzy environment for solving multicriteria decision making problem. J Intell Fuzzy Syst2016; 31: 529–540.
50.
PengXYangY.Fundamental properties of interval-valued Pythagorean fuzzy aggregation operators: interval-valued Pythagorean fuzzy aggregation operations. Int J Intell Syst2016; 31: 444–487.
51.
ChangK-HChangY-CLaiP-T.Applying the concept of exponential approach to enhance the assessment capability of FMEA. J Intell Manuf2014; 25: 1413–1427.
52.
LiuH-CLiuLLiuN.Risk evaluation approaches in failure mode and effects analysis: a literature review. Expert Syst Appl2013; 40: 828–838.
53.
LiuHC.FMEA using uncertainty theories and MCDM Methods. In: LiuH-C (ed.) FMEA using uncertainty theories and MCDM methods. Singapore: Springer Science+Business Media Singapore Pte Ltd, 2016, pp.13–27.
54.
SaatyTL.Decision-making with the AHP: why is the principal eigenvector necessary. Eur J Oper Res2003; 145: 85–91.
55.
KomatinaN.A novel BWM-RADAR approach for multi-attribute selection of equipment in the automotive industry. Spectr Mech Eng Oper Res2025; 2: 104–120.
