IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/ijsaem/v13y2022i5d10.1007_s13198-022-01672-8.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Identifying and ranking risks using combined FMEA-TOPSIS method for new product development in the dairy industry and offering mitigation strategies: case study of Ramak Company

Author

Listed:
  • Farzad Sharifi

    (Yazd university)

  • Mohammad Ali Vahdatzad

    (Yazd university)

  • Behrad Barghi

    (Rochester Institute of Technology)

  • Nasibeh Azadeh-Fard

    (Rochester Institute of Technology)

Abstract

Food industry as one of the most important and influential industries plays an important role in the health and well-being of the community. It is also important for the country’s economy, export, and inter-state relations. As the industry expands and competition becomes tougher, the development of new products that can compete in this competitive market has become a major concern for manufacturers but the production of new products is always associated with uncertainties and risks, the management of which is the core of the new product development process and plays an important role in the success of industries. Risks occur in different shapes at every stage of the new product development process from design to consumption. In this study, the new product development process in a dairy company is investigated. A quantitative approach is proposed to identify and rank the risks affecting this process using the combined Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (FMEA) and Technique for Order of Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) method. Shannon entropy method is also used to weight the criteria in the TOPSIS method. Identified risks by considering expert’s opinion were scored from 0 to 10 regarding FMEA method factors (Severity, Occurrence, Detective), then by utilizing Shannon entropy method in TOPSIS each risk was weighted and ranked. 14 risks are first identified and then ranked based on 30 experts opinions from different parts of the company such as marketing, accounting, engineering, staff, management etc. and prior studies. The results show that ’Mismatching product Specifications with costumer needs and tastes’ and ’The emergence of a new rival’ are the most important risk factors for new product development. Risk reduction strategies based on the standard of project management, firm strengths and weaknesses and expert opinions on all risk factors are provided. At the end, some recommendations are provided to the managers of the company. The proposed approach is applied in Ramak Company and the results are approved by experts, more importantly, they are agree that the proposed approach can be used to identify, evaluate and present risk reduction strategies in the food industry.

Suggested Citation

  • Farzad Sharifi & Mohammad Ali Vahdatzad & Behrad Barghi & Nasibeh Azadeh-Fard, 2022. "Identifying and ranking risks using combined FMEA-TOPSIS method for new product development in the dairy industry and offering mitigation strategies: case study of Ramak Company," International Journal of System Assurance Engineering and Management, Springer;The Society for Reliability, Engineering Quality and Operations Management (SREQOM),India, and Division of Operation and Maintenance, Lulea University of Technology, Sweden, vol. 13(5), pages 2790-2807, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:ijsaem:v:13:y:2022:i:5:d:10.1007_s13198-022-01672-8
    DOI: 10.1007/s13198-022-01672-8
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s13198-022-01672-8
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s13198-022-01672-8?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kuei-Hu Chang & Yung-Chia Chang & Yu-Tsai Lee, 2014. "Integrating TOPSIS and DEMATEL Methods to Rank the Risk of Failure of FMEA," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 13(06), pages 1229-1257.
    2. Antonella Certa & Mario Enea & Giacomo Maria Galante & Joaquín Izquierdo & Concetta Manuela La Fata, 2018. "Food safety risk analysis from the producers' perspective: prioritisation of production process stages by HACCP and TOPSIS," International Journal of Management and Decision Making, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 17(4), pages 396-414.
    3. Tai-Wu Chang & Huai-Wei Lo & Kai-Ying Chen & James J. H. Liou, 2019. "A Novel FMEA Model Based on Rough BWM and Rough TOPSIS-AL for Risk Assessment," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 7(10), pages 1-20, September.
    4. Aven, Terje, 2016. "Risk assessment and risk management: Review of recent advances on their foundation," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 253(1), pages 1-13.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Aven, Terje & Renn, Ortwin, 2018. "Improving government policy on risk: Eight key principles," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 176(C), pages 230-241.
    2. repec:arp:tjssrr:2019:p:69-75 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. Mussard, Stéphane & Pi Alperin, María Noel, 2021. "Accounting for risk factors on health outcomes: The case of Luxembourg," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 291(3), pages 1180-1197.
    4. Jen-Jen Yang & Yen-Ching Chuang & Huai-Wei Lo & Ting-I Lee, 2020. "A Two-Stage MCDM Model for Exploring the Influential Relationships of Sustainable Sports Tourism Criteria in Taichung City," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(7), pages 1-16, March.
    5. Zio, E., 2018. "The future of risk assessment," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 177(C), pages 176-190.
    6. Tasneem Bani-Mustafa & Nicola Pedroni & Enrico Zio & Dominique Vasseur & Francois Beaudouin, 2020. "A hierarchical tree-based decision-making approach for assessing the relative trustworthiness of risk assessment models," Journal of Risk and Reliability, , vol. 234(6), pages 748-763, December.
    7. Aigner, Philipp & Schlütter, Sebastian, 2023. "Enhancing gradient capital allocation with orthogonal convexity scenarios," ICIR Working Paper Series 47/23, Goethe University Frankfurt, International Center for Insurance Regulation (ICIR).
    8. Mangirdas Morkunas & Gintaras Cernius & Gintare Giriuniene, 2019. "Assessing Business Risks of Natural Gas Trading Companies: Evidence from GET Baltic," Energies, MDPI, vol. 12(14), pages 1-14, July.
    9. Scholz, Roland W. & Czichos, Reiner & Parycek, Peter & Lampoltshammer, Thomas J., 2020. "Organizational vulnerability of digital threats: A first validation of an assessment method," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 282(2), pages 627-643.
    10. Dr Jason Mwanza & Nothando Tshuma, 2023. "Mitigating Business Risk in Manufacturing SMEs: A nexus between informal and formal business risk management: A case of Bulawayo, Zimbabwe," International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science, International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science (IJRISS), vol. 7(1), pages 1107-1138, January.
    11. Badir Yousif Rafee Alharmoodi & Muhammad Modi Lakulu, 2022. "The Formulation and Validation of a Conceptual Framework for the Transition from E-government to M-government," European Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies Articles, Revistia Research and Publishing, vol. 8, January -.
    12. Don Pagach & Monika Wieczorek-Kosmala, 2020. "The Challenges and Opportunities for ERM Post-COVID-19: Agendas for Future Research," JRFM, MDPI, vol. 13(12), pages 1-10, December.
    13. KeumJi Kim & SeongHwan Yoon, 2018. "Assessment of Building Damage Risk by Natural Disasters in South Korea Using Decision Tree Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(4), pages 1-22, April.
    14. Aven, Terje, 2020. "Three influential risk foundation papers from the 80s and 90s: Are they still state-of-the-art?," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 193(C).
    15. Tatiana Yu. Kudryavtseva & Angi E. Skhvediani & Maiia S. Leukhina & Alexandra O. Schneider, 2023. "A Fuzzy Model for Personnel Risk Analysis: Case of Russian-Finnish Export-Import Operations of Small and Medium Enterprises," Journal of Applied Economic Research, Graduate School of Economics and Management, Ural Federal University, vol. 22(3), pages 683-709.
    16. Marcin Nowak & Rafał Mierzwiak & Marcin Butlewski, 2020. "Occupational risk assessment with grey system theory," Central European Journal of Operations Research, Springer;Slovak Society for Operations Research;Hungarian Operational Research Society;Czech Society for Operations Research;Österr. Gesellschaft für Operations Research (ÖGOR);Slovenian Society Informatika - Section for Operational Research;Croatian Operational Research Society, vol. 28(2), pages 717-732, June.
    17. Kjell Hausken, 2019. "Principal–Agent Theory, Game Theory, and the Precautionary Principle," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 16(2), pages 105-127, June.
    18. Kayode Ajewole & Elliott Dennis & Ted C. Schroeder & Jason Bergtold, 2021. "Relative valuation of food and non‐food risks with a comparison to actuarial values: A best–worst approach," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 52(6), pages 927-943, November.
    19. Simon Ashby & Trevor Buck & Stephanie Nöth-Zahn & Thomas Peisl, 2018. "Emerging IT Risks: Insights from German Banking," The Geneva Papers on Risk and Insurance - Issues and Practice, Palgrave Macmillan;The Geneva Association, vol. 43(2), pages 180-207, April.
    20. Tosoni, E. & Salo, A. & Govaerts, J. & Zio, E., 2019. "Comprehensiveness of scenarios in the safety assessment of nuclear waste repositories," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 188(C), pages 561-573.
    21. Wu, Di & Yan, Xiangbin & Peng, Rui & Wu, Shaomin, 2020. "Risk-attitude-based defense strategy considering proactive strike, preventive strike and imperfect false targets," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 196(C).

    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:spr:ijsaem:v:13:y:2022:i:5:d:10.1007_s13198-022-01672-8. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.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.