Introduction
Due to its importance in keeping many organizations safe, dependable, and efficient, risk assessment and management have garnered attention. FTA and FMEA are commonly used to assess hazards. They rectify faults in various ways and for different reasons. Effective risk management requires practitioners and decision-makers to understand the similarities and differences between FTA and FMEA. This study compares FTA with FMEA. It highlights their evolution and how it affects risk management and access.
Statement of the Problem
Risk assessment and reduction are hard to do with today’s systems and technology. This is why you need Failure Mode Effect Analysis (FMEA) and Fault Tree Analysis (FTA). To use these methods in other fields, you need to know how they work in those unique fields. In the 1960s, the aerospace and nuclear industries devised FTA as a methodical way to look into possible system breakdowns and their reasons (Yazdi et al., 202 2). In the 1940s, the car industry came up with FMEA to figure out how manufacturing processes could go wrong. The aerospace, automotive, industrial, and healthcare sectors have all gained from both methods. In order to deal with dangerous situations, this study looks at the problem’s size, background, causes, effects, possible solutions, and broader effects across many areas. This article explains the pros, cons, and uses of FTA and FMEA.
Literature Review
According to Guan (2023), Failure Mode Effect Analysis (FMEA) and Fault Tree Analysis (FTA) are famous in business and academia because they can be used to find problems and stop them before they happen. FTA uses a picture resembling a tree to find the main reason for a big event, like a system failure. FMEA, however, rates failure chances based on how bad they are, how often they happen, and how easy they are to find before deciding how to run the system. FTA and FMEA may help you analyze complex systems, identify failure mechanisms, assess severity, and create prevention targets. These approaches assist firms in detecting and addressing security flaws in their systems and processes by tracking and studying risks, according to Li et al. (2023). However, their breadth, depth, and specialization vary.
Cause/Effect
Risk assessment tools like FTA and FMEA are needed because failure points are more likely to appear in complicated and linked systems. As Tang et al. (2023) say, properly handling mistakes can put lives in danger, cost you money, and hurt your image. Accidents involving nuclear plants, airplanes, and medical tools that did not work right have shown how vital risk management is.
In the past and now, bad things have happened because risk assessment and avoidance were not good enough. Problematic systems can lead to disasters like the Challenger space shuttle accident and Three Mile Island (Li et al., 2022). Cyberattacks, problems with critical assets, and issues in the supply chain show how vital risk management is in today’s electronically connected world.
Possible Solutions
For risk management to work, it needs to be aggressive. As Zhu et al. (2023) say, this method needs to include a full risk assessment, putting safety first, and ongoing tracking and improvement. Even though they could be better, FMEA and FTA can help you find mistakes that might happen. FMEA can be helpful only if the data is correct and the expert knows what they are doing. FTA might be better for systems that are closely connected.
Some ways to deal with these problems are using advanced modeling and simulation tools, training in business risk analysis, and combining FTA and FMEA into a more significant risk management plan (Zhu et al., 2023). To encourage proactive risk management and lower failure rates, people need to think about safety, responsibility, and constant growth.
References
Yazdi, M., Mohammadpour, J., Li, H., Huang, H. Z., Zarei, E., Pirbalouti, R. G., & Adumene, S. (2023). Fault tree analysis improvements: a bibliometric analysis and literature review. Quality and Reliability Engineering International.
Zhu, C., Jiang, Y., Liu, G., & Zhang, T. (2023). Integration frameworks and intelligent research in dynamic fault tree: A comprehensive review and future perspectives. Quality and Reliability Engineering International.
Tang, M., Xiahou, T., & Liu, Y. (2023). Mission performance analysis of phased-mission systems with cross-phase competing failures. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 234, 109174.
Guan, X., Sun, H., Hou, R., Xu, Y., Bao, Y., & Li, H. (2023). A deep reinforcement learning method for structural dominant failure modes searching based on self-play strategy. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 233, 109093.
Li, Y., Liu, P., & Li, G. (2023). An asymmetric cost consensus-based failure mode and effect analysis method with personalized risk attitude information. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 235, 109196.
write