ABSTRACT The Failures Modes and Effects Analysis (FMEA) method is applied to different activities in order to improve production processes. Its operation allows to analyze failure modes, describe their effects, identify causes and design control systems. In addition to assessing these factors, it contributes to the formulation of various improvement actions; however, it has an intrinsic weakness when it comes to prioritizing these actions. Although recent versions acknowledge that it is convenient to regulate the beginning of the proposed actions, the method does not provide indisputable tools to establish priorities and organize action plans due to the fact that the Risk Priority Level traditional indicator has been questioned. In face of this need, this contribution proposes to complement the application of the FMEA with an individual multi-criteria compensatory method that allows actions to be programmed in a participatory manner to improve their management. This proposal provides an example of a real world application. The results and limitations of this work are presented in the conclusion. (FMEA processes modes effects systems factors however questioned need multicriteria multi criteria management conclusion

Abstract Paper aims The FMEA method (Failure Mode and Effects Analysis) has difficulty in prioritizing actions, verifying agreements among group participants and assessing uncertainty. This paper overcomes these shortcomings. The proposal applies FMEA in traditional format, establishes priorities for improvement actions, updates them periodically with better criteria than the traditional ones and values group agreement. Originality Other contributions claim to change the method, but this is not accepted by the organizations that apply it. In addition, they propose individual approaches, when the FMEA is essentially group-based. In contrast, this proposal establishes priorities without altering the basic requirements of the FMEA. Research method An action-research approach is used. Main findings Ease of application, improved group learning and commitment to action plans are confirmed. Implications for theory and practice A new group decision-making method is applied and a flexible solution is proposed, adaptable to very diverse problems.