Search results

Without doubt safety and satisfaction of the end user of food products are the most crucial aspect of food production. However, in order to achieve complete satisfaction, the effectiveness of all interconnected processes of the supply chain should be guaranteed. The purpose of this paper is to emphasise the advantages of using systematic quality improvement tools like QFD and FMEA in every part of the supply chain in food production.

Two quality improvement tools, QFD and FMEA, are described and an integrated application of these quality improvement methodologies on a package material supplier is presented and analysed.

The order‐receiving process requires a very deep and thorough understanding of customer needs and it is by nature an essential part of the quality deployment function itself. Any misunderstanding, mistake or omitted point can result in severe customer dissatisfaction through the order fulfilment process. QFD is a very helpful tool for transforming customer needs into the product design, but there are still many potential dangers in its second phase where the product specifications are determined. This fact is very obvious for the food‐packaging supplier and it is believed to be a threat in every supplier customer relationship. This gap or the potential risks can be eliminated with the help of a downstream control mechanism. Potential failures within the order‐receiving process or any inattention during this period have an important and direct effect on the performance of the order fulfilment. So it is suggested that this process can be improved by analysing the potential failures that can occur during the process of gathering data and transforming them into design issues by the use of a systematic methodology called FMEA.

The managers of any supply chain can improve their understanding of their customer needs by the combined use of the QFD and FMEA methodologies and have a good opportunity to improve their order‐handling process starting from the beginning of the order receiving, by eliminating the potential risks and designing better product specifications by reflecting the knowledge generated through FMEA.

The paper offers a systematic approach to improve the order‐handling process in food package production, and this approach can be generalised to many order‐handling processes to strengthen the supply chain in any industry.

The purpose of this paper is to propose an integrative approach for improving failure modes and effects analysis (FMEA).

An extensive literature review on FMEA has been performed. Then, an integrative approach has been proposed based on literature review. The proposed approach is an integration of FMEA and quality function deployment (QFD). The proposed approach includes a two-phase QFD. In the first phase, failure modes are prioritized based on failure effects and in the second phase, failure causes are prioritized based on failure modes. The proposed approach has been examined in a case example at the blast furnace operation of a steel-manufacturing company.

Results of the case example indicated that stove shell crack in hot blast blower, pump failure in cooling water supply pump and bleeder valves failed to operate are the first three important failure modes. In addition, fire and explosion are the most important failure effects. Also, improper maintenance, over pressure and excess temperature are the most important failure causes. Findings also indicated that the proposed approach with the consideration of interrelationships among failure effects, failure mode and failure causes can influence and adjust risk priority number (RPN) in FMEA.

As manufacturing departments are mostly dealing with failure effects and modes of machinery and maintenance departments are mostly dealing with causes of failures, the proposed model can support better coordination and integration between the two departments. Such support seems to be more important in firms with continuous production lines wherein line interruption influences response to customers more seriously. A wide range of future study opportunities indicates the attractiveness and contribution of the subject to the knowledge of FMEA.

Although the literature indicates that in most of studies the outcomes of QFD were entered into FMEA and in some studies the RPN of FMEA was entered into QFD as importance rating, the proposed approach is a true type of the so-called “integration of FMEA and QFD” because the three main elements of FMEA formed the structure of QFD. In other words, the proposed approach can be considered as an innovation in the FMEA structure, not as a data provider prior to it or a data receiver after it.