Updating the FMEA Approach with Mitigation Assessment Capabilities—A Case Study of Aircraft Maintenance Repairs

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

First of all, I appreciate the opportunity to review your paper Updating the FMEA approach with mitigation assessment capabilities – A Case Study of Aircraft Maintenance Repairs.  Paper deals with a very interesting problems.

Suggestions are below:

·        The introduction section is too extensive.

·        Make a separate section Literature review with the problem description.

·        Scientific paper writing without "we"; "our" (for example line 163). Correct throughout the paper.

·        New approach results should be compared with the results of existing approaches.

·        When developing a new method it is important to compare results.

·        Demonstrate why the developed approach is better.

• The separate section Practical and theoretical implications is missing. The existing section Discussion is very modest.

·        Conclusion section is not on a satisfactory level. The conclusion in scientific papers is very important.

o   Limitations of your research must be emphasized

 

o   Future research directions. 

Author Response

Reviewer 1

First of all, I appreciate the opportunity to review your paper Updating the FMEA approach with mitigation assessment capabilities – A Case Study of Aircraft Maintenance Repairs.  Paper deals with a very interesting problems.

Dear reviewer, thank you very much for your suggestions, they really helped to improve the article.

Suggestions are below:

1. The introduction section is too extensive. Make a separate section Literature review with the problem description.

The introduction has been shortened. The state-of-the-art information that was in the introduction in the first version of the article has been moved to the "State of the Art" section, which has been added to the article and contains the problem description.

2. Scientific paper writing without "we"; "our" (for example line 163). Correct throughout the paper.

The article was revised to correct the writing style.

 

3. New approach results should be compared with the results of existing approaches. When developing a new method it is important to compare results. Demonstrate why the developed approach is better.

The developed approach, the effective risk model, has been correlated in this paper with an existing model, the RPI model, proposed in a previous paper. In the discussion section, we compared the performance of each model based on the case study. However, we also believe that further correlations are needed. In this sense, we plan to establish further correlations between the proposed model and other approaches in future work.

 

4. The separate section Practical and theoretical implications is missing. The existing section Discussion is very modest.

Additional information has been added to the "Discussion" section. Also, a "Practical and Theoretical Implications" section was created in the "Discussion" section.

5. Conclusion section is not on a satisfactory level. The conclusion in scientific papers is very important. Limitations of your research must be emphasized. Future research directions.

The conclusion was updated with the limitations of the work performed as well as future work.

Reviewer 2 Report

Please see the attached file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Reviewer 2

Dear reviewer, thank you for the pertinent comments and suggestions that helped improve the article.

1. The developed approach, the effective risk model, has been correlated in this paper with an existing model, the RPI model, proposed in a previous paper. In the discussion section, we compared the performance of each model based on the case study. However, we also believe that further correlations are needed. In this sense, we plan to establish further correlations between the proposed model and other approaches in future work.

 

2. The numbering of equations 2 to 4 has been updated at Reviewer’s suggestion. However, I do not understand the suggestion to combine equations 5 and 6, since they are meant to illustrate two different configurations of the RI function. These equations are meant to illustrate the different RI settings depending on the order of importance of the risk variables.

 

3. The first given formula concerns the RPI model fitted for a dimension of four risk variables (A, B, C, D), in the second given formula the RPI model is fitted for only three variables (A, B, C). For this reason, they are different.

 

4. Figure 1 was removed from the article

 

5. The resolution of figures has been improved

 

6. An appendix with information about the calculation method was added to the article

Reviewer 3 Report

Based on the traditional FMEA method, the authors proposes to add a risk variable - risk mitigation ability to make the assessment result more accurate. The applicability of the proposed model is proved by an aircraft maintenance case study. This is an interesting study. I have a few questions that I would like the author to answer.

1.    The ratings in Table 5 were determined through interviews with MRO experts. What is the specific information about these experts?How did they rate it？

2.    How are the weights determined?

3.    What are the specific advantages of the improved model over the traditional model?

4.    Is the model developed in this paper applicable to other different types of projects? Why？

Author Response

Reviewer 3

Based on the traditional FMEA method, the authors proposes to add a risk variable - risk mitigation ability to make the assessment result more accurate. The applicability of the proposed model is proved by an aircraft maintenance case study. This is an interesting study. I have a few questions that I would like the author to answer.

 

1. The ratings in Table 5 were determined through interviews with MRO experts. What is the specific information about these experts? How did they rate it？

These experts must have extensive experience in the field and have a thorough knowledge (technical and human) of the capabilities and limitations of the company that will carry out the project. In situations where it is not possible to obtain statistical information about each risk variable, as in the case study presented, these experts use a scale from 1 to 10 to assign the value of each variable based on their experience and knowledge, as is done in the traditional FMEA method. This information was added to the manuscript.

 

2. How are the weights determined?

Weights can be determined using the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) method or other similar method. This information was added to the manuscript

 

3. What are the specific advantages of the improved model over the traditional model?

The innovative approach of the proposed model is to split the detectability variable from the traditional FMEA model into two components. One component addresses the degree of ability to detect failure modes and the other component deals with the degree of ability to mitigate failure modes. In this way, the proposed model allows not only the ability to detect but also the ability to mitigate to be considered. The conventional FMEA approach does not explicitly consider mitigation capability, i.e., it assumes that it is always possible to mitigate or eliminate a particular failure mode once it is detected. This may not be the case at the beginning of the project or at some point during project execution. This information was added to the article.

 

4. Is the model developed in this paper applicable to other different types of projects? Why？

The model developed can be applied to any type of project, since any type of project can go wrong. Typically, projects are divided into tasks that depend on technical and human requirements that may be missing or whose performance may vary over time. By analyzing these requirements, it is possible to identify the failure modes that affect the performance of these requirements and the options available to mitigate these failure modes. With this information and the application of the proposed model, it is possible to identify the critical failure modes associated with the project requirements and thus implement risk management measures to address potential causes of performance degradation. This information was added to the article.

 

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper should be accepted for publication.

Author Response

The paper was improved