Journal of Failure Analysis and Prevention

, Volume 13, Issue 6, pp 712–721 | Cite as

Failure Prevention Through the Cataloging of Successful Risk Mitigation Strategies

  • Daniel Krus
  • Katie Grantham
Technical Article---Peer-Reviewed


The objective of this paper is to introduce the method to add mitigation strategy data to the generated risk event effect neutralization (GREEN) method knowledgebase to improve its ability to effectively mitigate risks. Risk mitigation is the creation and selection of mitigation strategies to reduce, measure, or control risks in a system. Currently, a vast majority of risk mitigation strategies are created based on the engineering expertise of the engineers on a project. The GREEN method provides a means for engineers to supplement their experience by generating risk mitigation strategies based on past successful risk mitigation strategies using the failure modes of the potential risks that the product faces. In order to better aid the engineer in selecting the best possible risk mitigation strategy for a particular risk, more information on mitigation strategies needs to be cataloged in the GREEN knowledgebase. This paper outlines and demonstrates the method for adding new data on mitigation strategies to the knowledgebase, and presents a case study of how this information is added and used to mitigate product risks.


Risk mitigation Failure analysis Risk linguistics 


  1. 1.
    D. Krus, K. Grantham, Generated risk event effect neutralization: identifying and evaluating risk mitigation strategies during conceptual design, in INCOSE 2012, Rome, 2012Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Analyst: recall costs Toyota $155M a week as fix for gas pedal problem underway (Japanese Auto Giant Braces for Public Backlash, 2010), Retrieved 22 Sept 2010
  3. 3.
    J.X. Wang, M.L. Roush, What Every Engineer Should Know About Risk Engineering and Management (Marcel Dekker, New York, 2000)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    D. Krus, K. Grantham, The mitigation strategy taxonomy: organizing and classifying risk mitigation strategies, in ISERC 2012, Orlando, 2012Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    R. Stone, K. Wood, Development of a functional basis for design, in Proceedings of DETC99, DETC99/DTM-8765, Las Vegas, 1999Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    K. Akiyama, Function Analysis: Systematic Improvement of Quality Performance (Productivity Press, Cambridge, 1991)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    L. Miles, Techniques of Value Analysis Engineering (McGraw-Hill, New York, 1972)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Value Analysis Incorporated (VAI), Value Analysis, Value Engineering, and Value Management (Clifton Park, New York, 1993)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    J. Collins, B. Hagan, H. Bratt, The failure-experience matrix—a useful design tool. Trans. ASME B: J. Eng. Ind. 98, 1074–1079 (1976)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    M. Hundal, A systematic method for developing function structures, solutions and concept variants. Mech. Mach. Theory 25(3), 243–256 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    C. Kirschman, G. Fadel, Classifying functions for mechanical design. J. Mech. Des., Trans. ASME 120(3), 475–482 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    G. Pahl, W. Beitz, Engineering Design: A Systematic Approach (Springer, Berlin, 1988)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    A. Little, K. Wood, D. McAdams, Functional analysis: a fundamental empirical study for reverse engineering, benchmarking and redesign, in Proceedings of the ASME Design Theory and Methodology Conference, Sacramento, 1997Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    R. Stone, Towards a theory of modular design, Doctoral Thesis, The University of Texas at Austin, 1997Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    D. McAdams, R. Stone, K. Wood, Functional interdependence and product similarity based on customer needs. Res. Eng. Des. 11(1), 1–19 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    D. McAdams, K. Wood, Quantitative measures for design by analogy, in Proceedings of the 2000 ASME Design Theory and Methodology Conference, Number DETC2000/DTM-14562, Baltimore, Sept 2000Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    D. McAdams, K. Wood, Methods and principles for concurrent functional tolerance design, in Proceedings of the 1999 ASME Design for Manufacturing Conference, Number 99-DETC/DFM49, Las Vegas, 1999Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    T. Kurtoglu, M.I. Campbell, C.R. Bryant, R.B. Stone, D.A. McAdams, Deriving a component basis for computational functional synthesis, in Proceedings of International Conference on Engineering Design, ICED05, Melbourne, 15–18 Aug 2005Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    R.G. Chenhall, Nomenclature for Museum Cataloging: A System for Classifying Man-Made Objects (American Association for State and Local History, Nashville, 1978)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    J. Greer, M. Stock, R. Stone, K. Wood, Enumerating the component space: first steps toward a design naming convention for mechanical parts, Proceedings of DETC2003, Chicago, IL, 2003Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    B. Strawbridge, D. McAdams, R. Stone, A computational approach to conceptual design, in Proceedings of DETC2002, DETC2002/DTM-34001, Montreal, 2002Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    C. Bryant, R. Stone, D. McAdams, T. Kurtoglu, M. Campbell, Concept generation from the functional basis of design, in Proceedings of the International Conference on Engineering Design, ICED 05, Melbourne, 2005Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    I. Tumer, R. Stone, D. Bell, Requirements for a failure mode taxonomy for use in conceptual design, in Proceedings of the International Conference on Engineering Design, ICED 03, Paper 1612, Stockholm, 2003Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    R.A. Roberts, R.B. Stone, I.Y. Tumer, Deriving function-failure information for failure-free rotorcraft component design, in Proceedings of the 2002 ASME Design Engineering Technical Conferences, Design for Manufacturing Conference, DETC2002/DFM-34166, Montreal, 2002Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    I.Y. Tumer, R. Stone, R.A. Roberts, Analysis of JPL’s problem and failure reporting database, in Proceedings of the 2003 ASME Design Engineering Technical Conference, Design for Manufacturing Conference, Chicago, IL, 2003Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    M. Stock, R. Stone, I. Tumer, Going back in time to improve design: the elemental function-failure design method, in Proceedings of DETC2003, DETC2003/DTM-48638, Chicago, 2003Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    K. Grantham Lough, Risk in early design, Unpublished Dissertation, University of Missouri-Rolla, Rolla, 2005Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    D. Krus, K. Grantham, Towards failure free design: an analysis of risk mitigation communication, in IDETC 2011, Washington, DC, 2011Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    K. Grantham Lough et al., Promoting risk communication in early design through linguistic analyses. Res. Eng. Des. 20, 29–40 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    K. Grantham Lough, R. Stone, I. Tumer, Prescribing and implementing the risk in early design (RED) method. J. Ind. Syst. Eng. 2, 126–143 (2008)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    K. Grantham Lough, R. Stone, I. Tumer, Failure prevention through effective cataloguing and utilization of historical failure events. J. Fail. Anal. Preven. 8, 469–481 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    D. Krus, K. Grantham, A step toward risk mitigation during conceptual product design: component selection for risk reduction, in IDETC 2010, Montreal, 2010Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    K.A. Esaklul (ed.), Handbook of Case Histories in Failure, vol. 2 (ASM, Materials Park, 1993)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Y. Hatamura, Learning from Design (Springer, Berlin, 2009)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    R. Miller, Super lightweight tank risk management case study (NASA, 2011), Retrieved 22 June 2011
  36. 36.
    J.F. Manwell, A. Rogers, U. Abdulwahid, A. Ellis, B.P. McNiff, Wind turbine gearbox evaluation, in Proceedings of the European Wind energy Conference, Nice, 1999Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    B. Moser, Turbine failure: fine-tuning turbine gearbox performance (2010), Retrieved 23 Feb 2012

Copyright information

© ASM International 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Missouri University of Science and TechnologyRollaUSA

Personalised recommendations