Subriadi Apol Pribadi, Najwa Nina Fadilah
Department of Information Systems, Institut Teknologi Sepuluh Nopember, Surabaya, Indonesia.
Heliyon. 2020 Jan 29;6(1):e03161. doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2020.e03161. eCollection 2020 Jan.
FMEA is as a method for assessing IT risks. This research aimed to examine the consistency of both traditional FMEA and improved FMEA in IT risk assessment. Improved FMEA is the result of a synthesis framework to minimize consistency in traditional FMEA. Two sets of action research cycles (plan, act, observe, reflect) were applied in this research. Action Research 1 was used to examine and prove the consistency of traditional FMEA. On the other hand, Action Research 2 was applied to examine the consistency of improved FMEA. Tests were carried out by two different teams in the same case study. The consistency was observed in the gap of the RPN results in both teams, and the differences result in both action research cycles. Action Research 1 proved that traditional FMEA was not consistent. The gap in the amount of risk at a very high level was four risks. However, Action research 2 had the same amount of risk at a very high level. Based on the correlation test, the consistency of action research 1 was 0.848 (very large correlation), and the action research 2 was 0.937 (near-perfect correlation). The consistency of improved FMEA proved to be more consistent than traditional FMEA. The limitation of this study was memory issues because both action research cycles were carried out by the same team and with similar case studies. Further research is expected to compare traditional FMEA and improved FMEA in different case studies. The theoretical contribution was the improved FMEA synthesis based on limitations of traditional FMEA. The FMEA team may use Improved FMEA Framework.
失效模式与效应分析(FMEA)是一种评估信息技术风险的方法。本研究旨在检验传统FMEA和改进型FMEA在信息技术风险评估中的一致性。改进型FMEA是一个综合框架的成果,以尽量减少传统FMEA中的不一致性。本研究应用了两组行动研究循环(计划、行动、观察、反思)。行动研究1用于检验和证明传统FMEA的一致性。另一方面,行动研究2用于检验改进型FMEA的一致性。在同一案例研究中由两个不同的团队进行测试。在两个团队的风险优先数(RPN)结果差距中观察到一致性,并且在两个行动研究循环中都存在差异。行动研究1证明传统FMEA不一致。在非常高的风险水平上,风险数量的差距为4个风险。然而,行动研究2在非常高的风险水平上具有相同的风险数量。基于相关性测试,行动研究1的一致性为0.848(非常大的相关性),行动研究2的一致性为0.937(近乎完美的相关性)。改进型FMEA的一致性被证明比传统FMEA更一致。本研究的局限性在于记忆问题,因为两个行动研究循环都是由同一团队并使用相似的案例研究进行的。期望进一步的研究在不同的案例研究中比较传统FMEA和改进型FMEA。理论贡献是基于传统FMEA的局限性改进了FMEA综合方法。FMEA团队可以使用改进型FMEA框架。