International Journal of Quality Innovation

Korean Society for Quality Management (한국품질경영학회)
권호 표지

A TQM case of Centralized Sequential Decision-making Problem

  • Chang, Cheng-Chang (Graduate School of Defense Decision Science National Defense Management College National Defense University) ;
  • Chu, Yun-Feng (Graduate School of Defense Decision Science National Defense Management College National Defense University)
  • Published : 2003.06.01
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

This paper considers that a public department under specialized TQM manpower constraints have to implement multiple total quality management (TQM) policies to promote its service performance (fundamental goal) by adopting a centralized sequential advancement strategy (CSAS). Under CSAS, the decision-makers (DMs) start off by focusing specialized TQM manpower on a single policy, then transfer the specialized TQM manpower to the next policy when the first policy reaches the predetermined implementation time limit (in terms of education and training). Suppose that each TQM policy has a different desirous education and training goal. When the desirous goals for all TQM policies are achieved, we say that the fundamental goal will be satisfied. Within the limitation of total implementation period of time for all policies, assume the desirous goals for all TQM policies cannot be achieved completely. Under this premise, the optimal implementation sequence for all TQM policies must be calculated to maximize the weighted achievement of the desirous goal. We call this optimization problem a TQM case of "centralized sequential decision-making problem (CSDMP)". The achievement of the desirous goal for each TQM policy is usually affected by the experience in prior implemented policies, which makes solving CSDMP quite difficult. As a result, this paper introduces the concepts of sequential effectiveness and path effectiveness. The structural properties are then studied to propose theoretical methods for solving CSDMP. Finally, a numerical example is proposed to demonstrate CSDMP′s usability.

Keywords

References

  1. Badri, M. A. (1999) Combining the analytic hierarchy process and goal programming for global facility location allocation problem, International Journal of Production Economics, 62(3), pp. 237-248 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0925-5273(98)00249-7
  2. Dyer, J. S. (1990) Remarks on the analytic hierarchy process, Management Science, 36(3), pp. 249-258 https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.36.3.249
  3. Finan, J. S. and Hurley, W. J. (1999) Transitive calibration of the AHP verbal scale, European Journal of Operational Research, 112(2), pp. 367-372 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0377-2217(97)00411-6
  4. Frei, F. X. and Harker, P. T. (1999) Measuring aggregate process performance using AHP, European Journal of Operational Research, 116, pp. 436-442 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0377-2217(98)00134-9
  5. Ghodsypour, S. H. and O'Brien, C. (1998) A decision support system for supplier selection using an integrated analytic hierarchy process and linear programming, International Journal of Production Economics, 56, pp. 199-212 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0925-5273(97)00009-1
  6. Hansson, J. (2001) Implementation of total quality management in small organizations: A case study in Sweden, Total Quality Management, 12(7&8), pp. 988-994 https://doi.org/10.1080/09544120100000025
  7. Harker, P. T. and Vargas, L. G. (1990) Reply to "remarks on the analytic hierarchy process," Management Science, 36(3), pp. 269-275 https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.36.3.269
  8. McFarlane, D. G. (2001) Managing improvement in the public sector, Total Quality Management, 12(7&8), pp. 1047-1053 https://doi.org/10.1080/09544120100000033
  9. Oakland, J. S. (1995) TQM Text with Cases, Butterworth-Heinimann, Oxford
  10. Rebai, A. (1993) BBTOPSIS: A bag based technique for order preference by similarity to ideal solution, Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 60, pp. 143-162 https://doi.org/10.1016/0165-0114(93)90343-G
  11. Rebai, A. (1994) Canonical fuzzy bags and bag fuzzy measures as a basis for MADM with mixed non cardinal data, European Journal of Operational Research, 78, pp. 34-48 https://doi.org/10.1016/0377-2217(94)90120-1
  12. Satty, T. L. (1990) An exposition of the AHP in reply to the paper "Remarks on the Analytic Hierarchy Process," Management Science, 36(3), pp. 259-268 https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.36.3.259
  13. Satty, T. L. (1994) How to make a decision: the analytic hierarchy process, European Journal of Operational Research, 24(6), pp. 19-43
  14. Wang, H. (1998) A comparative study of the prioritization matrix method and the analytic hierarchy process technique in quality function development, Total Quality Management, 9(6), pp. 421-430 https://doi.org/10.1080/0954412988361
  15. Xu, X. (2001) The SIR method: A superiority and inferiority ranking method for multiple criteria decision making, European Journal of Operational Research, 131, pp. 587-602 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0377-2217(00)00101-6