IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jagris/v10y2020i11p504-d436106.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Agricultural Risk Management Using Fuzzy TOPSIS Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) and Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (FMEA)

Author

Listed:
  • Peyman Zandi

    (Industrial Management Department, Allameh Tabataba’i University, Tehran 1489684511, Iran)

  • Mohammad Rahmani

    (Industrial Management, Bu-ali Sina University, Hamedan 6517838695, Iran)

  • Mojtaba Khanian

    (Young Researchers and Elite Club, Hamedan Branch, Islamic Azad University, Hamedan 6518764811, Iran)

  • Amir Mosavi

    (Faculty of Civil Engineering, Dresden University of Technology, 01069 Dresden, Germany
    School of Economics and Business, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, 1430 Ås, Norway
    Thuringian Institute of Sustainability and Climate Protection, 07743 Jena, Germany
    Kando Kalman Faculty of Electrical Engineering, Obuda University, 1034 Budapest, Hungary)

Abstract

Failure mode and effects analysis (FMEA) is a popular technique in reliability analyses. In a typical FMEA, there are three risk factors for each failure modes: Severity (S), occurrence (O), and detectability (D). These will be included in calculating a risk priority number (RPN) multiplying the three aforementioned factors. The literature review reveals some noticeable efforts to overcome the shortcomings of the traditional FMEA. The objective of this paper is to extend the application of FMEA to risk management for agricultural projects. For this aim, the factor of severity in traditional FMEA is broken down into three sub-factors that include severity on cost, the severity on time, and severity on the quality of the project. Moreover, in this study, a fuzzy technique for order preference by similarity to ideal solution (TOPSIS) integrated with a fuzzy analytical hierarchy process (AHP) was used to address the limitations of the traditional FMEA. A sensitivity analysis was done by weighing the risk assessment factors. The results confirm the capability of this Hybrid-FMEA in addressing several drawbacks of the traditional FMEA application. The risk assessment factors changed the risk priority between the different projects by affecting the weights. The risk of water and energy supplies and climate fluctuations and pests were the most critical risk in agricultural projects. Risk control measures should be applied according to the severity of each risk. Some of this research’s contributions can be abstracted as identifying and classifying the risks of investment in agricultural projects and implementing the extended FMEA and multicriteria decision-making methods for analyzing the risks in the agriculture domain for the first time. As a management tool, the proposed model can be used in similar fields for risk management of various investment projects.

Suggested Citation

  • Peyman Zandi & Mohammad Rahmani & Mojtaba Khanian & Amir Mosavi, 2020. "Agricultural Risk Management Using Fuzzy TOPSIS Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) and Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (FMEA)," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-27, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jagris:v:10:y:2020:i:11:p:504-:d:436106
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0472/10/11/504/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0472/10/11/504/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Govindan, Kannan, 2018. "Sustainable consumption and production in the food supply chain: A conceptual framework," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 195(C), pages 419-431.
    2. Poorvi Iyer & Martina Bozzola & Stefan Hirsch & Manuela Meraner & Robert Finger, 2020. "Measuring Farmer Risk Preferences in Europe: A Systematic Review," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 71(1), pages 3-26, February.
    3. Chen, Chen-Tung & Lin, Ching-Torng & Huang, Sue-Fn, 2006. "A fuzzy approach for supplier evaluation and selection in supply chain management," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 102(2), pages 289-301, August.
    4. Gardas, Bhaskar B. & Raut, Rakesh D. & Narkhede, Balkrishna, 2017. "Modeling causal factors of post-harvesting losses in vegetable and fruit supply chain: An Indian perspective," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 1355-1371.
    5. Kamble, Sachin S. & Gunasekaran, Angappa & Gawankar, Shradha A., 2020. "Achieving sustainable performance in a data-driven agriculture supply chain: A review for research and applications," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 219(C), pages 179-194.
    6. Thun, Jörn-Henrik & Hoenig, Daniel, 2011. "An empirical analysis of supply chain risk management in the German automotive industry," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 131(1), pages 242-249, May.
    7. Elisabete Correia & Helena Carvalho & Susana G. Azevedo & Kannan Govindan, 2017. "Maturity Models in Supply Chain Sustainability: A Systematic Literature Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(1), pages 1-26, January.
    8. Kabir, Golam & Tesfamariam, Solomon & Francisque, Alex & Sadiq, Rehan, 2015. "Evaluating risk of water mains failure using a Bayesian belief network model," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 240(1), pages 220-234.
    9. Syed Mithun Ali & Koichi Nakade, 2017. "Optimal ordering policies in a multi-sourcing supply chain with supply and demand disruptions-a CVaR approach," International Journal of Logistics Systems and Management, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 28(2), pages 180-199.
    10. Singh, Akshit & Shukla, Nagesh & Mishra, Nishikant, 2018. "Social media data analytics to improve supply chain management in food industries," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 398-415.
    11. Sachin Kumar Mangla & Pradeep Kumar & Mukesh Kumar Barua, 2016. "An integrated methodology of FTA and fuzzy AHP for risk assessment in green supply chain," International Journal of Operational Research, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 25(1), pages 77-99.
    12. Reza Zamani & Ali Mohammad Akhond Ali & Abbas Roozbahani, 2020. "Evaluation of Adaptation Scenarios for Climate Change Impacts on Agricultural Water Allocation Using Fuzzy MCDM Methods," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 34(3), pages 1093-1110, February.
    13. Williams, Terry, 1995. "A classified bibliography of recent research relating to project risk management," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 85(1), pages 18-38, August.
    14. Laura Girdziute & Astrida Miceikiene, 2016. "Risk Management at Lithuanian Farms," Eurasian Studies in Business and Economics, in: Mehmet Huseyin Bilgin & Hakan Danis (ed.), Entrepreneurship, Business and Economics - Vol. 1, edition 1, pages 399-409, Springer.
    15. Saeed Nosratabadi & Amirhosein Mosavi & Zoltan Lakner, 2020. "Food Supply Chain and Business Model Innovation," Papers 2001.03982, arXiv.org.
    16. Farhad Zulfiqar & Raza Ullah & Muhammad Abid & Abid Hussain, 2016. "Cotton production under risk: a simultaneous adoption of risk coping tools," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 84(2), pages 959-974, November.
    17. Sunil Luthra & Sachin Kumar Mangla & Felix T. S. Chan & V. G. Venkatesh, 2018. "Evaluating the Drivers to Information and Communication Technology for Effective Sustainability Initiatives in Supply Chains," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 17(01), pages 311-338, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Fujia Li & Kexin Guo & Xiaoyong Liao, 2022. "Risk Assessment of China Rapeseed Supply Chain and Policy Suggestions," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(1), pages 1-14, December.
    2. Manuel Sousa & Maria Fatima Almeida & Rodrigo Calili, 2021. "Multiple Criteria Decision Making for the Achievement of the UN Sustainable Development Goals: A Systematic Literature Review and a Research Agenda," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(8), pages 1-37, April.
    3. Du, Yuxian & Lin, Xi & Pan, Ye & Chen, Zhaoxin & Xia, Huan & Luo, Qian, 2023. "Identifying influential airports in airline network based on failure risk factors with TOPSIS," Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Elsevier, vol. 169(C).
    4. Panyu Tang & Mahdi Aghaabbasi & Mujahid Ali & Amin Jan & Abdeliazim Mustafa Mohamed & Abdullah Mohamed, 2022. "How Sustainable Is People’s Travel to Reach Public Transit Stations to Go to Work? A Machine Learning Approach to Reveal Complex Relationships," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(7), pages 1-18, March.
    5. Babak Daneshvar Rouyendegh & Şeyda Savalan, 2022. "An Integrated Fuzzy MCDM Hybrid Methodology to Analyze Agricultural Production," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(8), pages 1-16, April.
    6. Syed Imran Ali & Shaine Mohammadali Lalji & Javed Haneef & Mohsin Yousufi & Kanza Bashir & Saman Sohail & Laiba Sajid Cheema, 2023. "HSE hazard ranking of chemicals related to Petroleum Drilling Laboratory of University using Fuzzy TOPSIS," OPSEARCH, Springer;Operational Research Society of India, vol. 60(3), pages 1386-1406, September.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Pournader, Mehrdokht & Ghaderi, Hadi & Hassanzadegan, Amir & Fahimnia, Behnam, 2021. "Artificial intelligence applications in supply chain management," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 241(C).
    2. Kamble, Sachin S. & Gunasekaran, Angappa & Gawankar, Shradha A., 2020. "Achieving sustainable performance in a data-driven agriculture supply chain: A review for research and applications," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 219(C), pages 179-194.
    3. Guertler, Benjamin & Spinler, Stefan, 2015. "When does operational risk cause supply chain enterprises to tip? A simulation of intra-organizational dynamics," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 57(PA), pages 54-69.
    4. Jamshed Raza & Yuxin Liu & Jianwei Zhang & Nan Zhu & Zohaib Hassan & Habib Gul & Sikander Hussain, 2021. "Sustainable Supply Management Practices and Sustainability Performance: The Dynamic Capability Perspective," SAGE Open, , vol. 11(1), pages 21582440211, March.
    5. Nishat Alam Choudhary & Shalabh Singh & Tobias Schoenherr & M. Ramkumar, 2023. "Risk assessment in supply chains: a state-of-the-art review of methodologies and their applications," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 322(2), pages 565-607, March.
    6. Abbate, Stefano & Centobelli, Piera & Cerchione, Roberto, 2023. "The digital and sustainable transition of the agri-food sector," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 187(C).
    7. Man Mohan Siddh & Sameer Kumar & Gunjan Soni & Vipul Jain & Charu Chandra & Rakesh Jain & Milind Kumar Sharma & Yigit Kazancoglu, 2022. "Impact of agri-fresh food supply chain quality practices on organizational sustainability," Operations Management Research, Springer, vol. 15(1), pages 146-165, June.
    8. Piera Centobelli & Roberto Cerchione & Emilio Esposito, 2018. "Environmental Sustainability and Energy-Efficient Supply Chain Management: A Review of Research Trends and Proposed Guidelines," Energies, MDPI, vol. 11(2), pages 1-36, January.
    9. Konrád Kiss & Csaba Ruszkai & Katalin Takács-György, 2019. "Examination of Short Supply Chains Based on Circular Economy and Sustainability Aspects," Resources, MDPI, vol. 8(4), pages 1-21, September.
    10. Morteza Yazdani & Dragan Pamucar & Prasenjit Chatterjee & Ali Ebadi Torkayesh, 2022. "“A multi-tier sustainable food supplier selection model under uncertainty”," Operations Management Research, Springer, vol. 15(1), pages 116-145, June.
    11. Jubin Jacob-John & Clare D’Souza & Tim Marjoribanks & Stephen Singaraju, 2021. "Synergistic Interactions of SDGs in Food Supply Chains: A Review of Responsible Consumption and Production," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(16), pages 1-20, August.
    12. Siems, Erik & Land, Anna & Seuring, Stefan, 2021. "Dynamic capabilities in sustainable supply chain management: An inter-temporal comparison of the food and automotive industries," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 236(C).
    13. Ioannis Margaritis & Michael Madas & Maro Vlachopoulou, 2022. "Big Data Applications in Food Supply Chain Management: A Conceptual Framework," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(7), pages 1-21, March.
    14. Tamoor Azam & Songjiang Wang & Muhammad Mohsin & Muhammad Nazam & Muhammad Hashim & Sajjad Ahmad Baig & Muhammad Zia-ur-Rehman, 2021. "Does Stakeholder Pressure Matters in Adopting Sustainable Supply Chain Initiatives? Insights from Agro-Based Processing Industry," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(13), pages 1-30, June.
    15. Wang, Haiyan & Zhan, Sha-lei & Ng, Chi To & Cheng, T.C.E., 2020. "Coordinating quality, time, and carbon emissions in perishable food production: A new technology integrating GERT and the Bayesian approach," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 225(C).
    16. Tadesse Kenea Amentae & Girma Gebresenbet, 2021. "Digitalization and Future Agro-Food Supply Chain Management: A Literature-Based Implications," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(21), pages 1-24, November.
    17. Paulina Golinska-Dawson & Karolina Werner-Lewandowska & Monika Kosacka-Olejnik, 2021. "Responsible Resource Management in Remanufacturing—Framework for Qualitative Assessment in Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises," Resources, MDPI, vol. 10(2), pages 1-17, February.
    18. Vincenzo Varriale & Antonello Cammarano & Francesca Michelino & Mauro Caputo, 2021. "Sustainable Supply Chains with Blockchain, IoT and RFID: A Simulation on Order Management," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(11), pages 1-23, June.
    19. Shuang Yao & Donghua Yu & Yan Song & Hao Yao & Yuzhen Hu & Benhai Guo, 2018. "Dry Bulk Carrier Investment Selection through a Dual Group Decision Fusing Mechanism in the Green Supply Chain," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-19, November.
    20. Panagiotis Trivellas & Georgios Malindretos & Panagiotis Reklitis, 2020. "Implications of Green Logistics Management on Sustainable Business and Supply Chain Performance: Evidence from a Survey in the Greek Agri-Food Sector," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(24), pages 1-29, December.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jagris:v:10:y:2020:i:11:p:504-:d:436106. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.