A reliable risk analysis approach using an extension of best-worst method based on democratic-autocratic decision-making style

Mohammad Yazdi , Arman Nedjati, Esmaeil Zarei , Rouzbeh Abbassi

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle


The procedure of decision making in failure mode and effect analysis (FMEA) as an effective and reliable risk assessment method needs a team of experts to deal with considerable uncertainties related to risk evaluation process. Thus, an increasing number of FMEA models according to multi criteria decision making (MCDM) have been widely covered. However, a large number of developed methods have not cautiously examined the process of allocating importance weights to the risk factors nor satisfying both democratic and autocratic decision making styles. This paper aims to improve the efficiency of conventional FMEA by proposing novel integrated MCDM approaches. To tackle the mentioned gaps, first a senior decision maker (DM) commonly used a team of junior DMs (DM panel) as a supportive team to ensure the reliability of final decisions. The junior DMs typically have different expertise levels based on their knowledge, experience, and proficiency which therefore have different weights. Next, a novel extension to the best-worst method is developed to obtain the weight of risk factors as well as failure modes to compute the risk priority number (RPN). To present the applicability and effectiveness as well as validation of the developed model, a realistic risk analysis on a supercritical water gasification (SCWG) is considered. The outcome of sensitivity and comprehensive analyses indicates that the introduced model provides valuable information to assist risk management decision makers.
Original languageEnglish
Article number120418
Pages (from-to)1-20
Number of pages20
JournalJournal of Cleaner Production
Publication statusPublished - 20 May 2020



  • Best-worst method (BWM)
  • FMEA
  • Multi criteria decision making (MCDM)
  • Uncertainty
  • Supercritical water gasification (SCWG)

Cite this