A novel fuzzy risk matrix based risk assessment approach

Abstract

Purpose Traditional risk assessment (RA) methodologies cannot model vagueness in risk and cannot prioritize corrective-preventive measures (CPMs) by considering effectiveness of those on risk types (RTs). These cannot combine and reflect accurately different subjective opinions and cannot be used in a linguistic manner. Risk factors (RFs) are assumed to have the same importance and interrelations between RFs are not considered. This study aims to overcome these disadvantages by combining fuzzy logic with multi-criteria decision-making in a dynamic manner. Design/methodology/approach This study proposes a novel three-stage fuzzy risk matrix-based RA integrating fuzzy decision-making trial and evaluation laboratory (F-DEMATEL) and fuzzy multi-attributive border approximation area comparison (F-MABAC). At the first stage, importance weights of RFs are computed by F-DEMATEL. At the second stage, risk degrees of RTs are computed via using fuzzy risk matrix. At the third stage, CPMs are ranked by F-MABAC. Finally, a numerical example for RA in a warehouse is given. Findings Results show that developing instructions for material loading or unloading is the most important CPM and severity is the most important RF for the warehouse. Originality/value This study has originality in terms of having fuzzy dynamic structure. At first, RFs are assumed to be criteria sets then, RTs are assumed to be criteria set considering their risk degrees to rank CPMs in a fuzzy manner. Risk degrees of RTs are used for weights of RTs and effectiveness of CPMs are used for performance values of CPMs.

RAPOT: An Adaptive Multifactor Risk Assessment Framework on Public Opinion for Trial Management

“…The theory of fuzzy numbers has been widely applied in risk analysis [10], approximate reasoning [11], and risk pattern recognition [12]. For risk analysis, the existing methods can be divided into the fuzzy ranking-based [13], fuzzy inference-based [14,15], fuzzy matrix-based [16,17], and fuzzy number similarity-based [9] risk assessment models. Zhang et al [13] figure out the risky area based on a water security evaluation framework by comparing the risk of related areas.…”

“…However, fuzzy inferencebased methods are usually used in industry and are not suitable for trial applications. Can et al [16] present a three-stage fuzzy risk matrix-based risk assessment and dynamically combine multicriteria decision-making with fuzzy logic. Though fuzzy matrix-based methods can reduce risk ties [19] efficiently, they still provide a qualitative assessment that is not precise enough.…”

Developing an integrated conceptual framework for monitoring and controlling risks related to occupational health and safety

“…Moreover, Marhavilas et al (2011) classified the classic risk analysis and evaluation methods into three classes: qualitative, quantitative, and hybrid approaches. According to literature, the classical methods do not meet the requirements and must be enhanced to analyze the risks of work environments, which have become more complex (Can & Toktas, 2018, Goerlandt et al, 2017, Mohsen & Feresteh, 2017& Mutlu & Altuntas, 2019b. Some researchers have suggested that classical risk analysis and evaluation methods should be developed by hybridizing the methods with fuzzy logic, multi-criteria decision-making methods (Dabbagh & Yousefi, 2019, Tepe & Kaya, 2019, Gul, 2019, Akyildiz & Mentes, 2017& Gürcanlı & Müngen, 2009.…”

Cosmetic Surgery Industry in Brazil: An Assessment Using Cause and Effect Model and Risk Assessment Matrix

“…Range of likelihood and consequences are grouped together to form a ranking for the risks (Bucelli et al, 2018). Likelihood is described as the probability of potential consequences to occur throughout the life of the individuals; whilst, consequence is refers to the impact of the event and the severity of the impact to an individual if it happen (Can & Toktas, 2018).…”

“…Identified risks are often assessed in terms of consequences and likelihood (Pfitzer & Clemens, 2006). Risk is assesses by assigning values to each of the risks through the defined criteria (Can & Toktas, 2018). Subsequently, the priorities of risk are determined by comparing the level of risk against predetermined target risk levels and acceptance thresholds (Curtis & Carey, 2012).…”