Journal of Korean Society for Quality Management (품질경영학회지)

Korean Society for Quality Management (한국품질경영학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

An Interactive Process Capability-Based Approach to Multi-Response Surface Optimization

대화식 절차를 활용한 공정능력지수 기반 다중반응표면 최적화

  • Jeong, In-Jun (Department of Business Administration, Daegu University)
  • Received : 2017.03.13
  • Accepted : 2017.06.07
  • Published : 2017.06.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Purpose: To develop an interactive version of the conventional process capability-based approach, called 'Interactive Process Capability-Based Approach (IPCA)' in multi-response surface optimization to obtain a satisfactory compromise which incorporates a decision maker(DM)'s preference information precisely. Methods: The proposed IPCA consists of 4 steps. Step 1 is to obtain the estimated process capability indices and initialize the parameters. Step 2 is to maximize the overall process capability index. Step 3 is to evaluate the optimization results. If all the responses are satisfactory, the procedure stops with the most preferred compromise solution. Otherwise, it moves to Step 4. Step 4 is to adjust the preference parameters. The adjustment can be made in two modes: relaxation and tightening. The relaxation is to make the importance of one of the satisfactory responses lower, which is implemented by decreasing its weight. The tightening is to make the importance of one of the unsatisfactory responses higher, which is implemented by increasing its weight. Then, the procedure goes back to Step 2. If there is no response to be adjusted, it stops with the unsatisfactory compromise solution. Results: The proposed IPCA was illustrated through a multi-response surface problem, colloidal gas aphrons problem. The illustration shows that it can generate a satisfactory compromise through an interactive procedure which enables the DM to provide his or her preference information conveniently. Conclusion: The proposed IPCA has two major advantages. One is to obtain a satisfactory compromise which is faithful to the DM preference structure. The other is to make the DM's participation in the interactive procedure easier by using the process capability index in judging satisfaction/unsatisfaction. The process capability index is very familiar with quality practitioners as well as indicates the process performance levels numerically.

Keywords

References

  1. Ames, A., Mattucci, N., McDonald, S., Szonyi, G., and Hawkins, D. 1997. "Quality Loss Function for Optimization Across Multiple Response Surfaces." Journal of Quality Technology 29:339-346. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224065.1997.11979775
  2. Ardakani, M. K., and Wulff, S. S. 2013. "An Overview of Optimization Formulations for Multiresponse Surface Problems." Quality and Reliability Engineering International 29(1):3-16. https://doi.org/10.1002/qre.1288
  3. Barton, R. S., and Tsui, K. L. 1991. "Multivariate Yield Maximization Using CAD/CAE Models: Efficient Approximations Based on Mean and Variance." Design Theory and Methodology (ASME) 31:31-35.
  4. Biles, W. E. 1975. "A Response Surface Methods for Experimental Optimization of Multi-Response Processes." Industrial and Engineering Chemistry Process Design and Deployment 14:152-158. https://doi.org/10.1021/i260054a010
  5. Chan, L. K., Cheng, S. W., and Spiring, F. A. 1988. "A New Measure of Process Capability Cpm." Journal of Quality Technology 20(3):162-175. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224065.1988.11979102
  6. Chiao, C., and Hamada, M. 2001. "Analyzing Experiments with Correlated Multiple Responses." Journal of Quality Technology 33:451-465. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224065.2001.11980104
  7. Ch'ng, C. K., Quah, S. H., and Low, H. C. 2005. "Index Cpm* in Multiple Response Optimization." Quality Engineering 17:165-171.
  8. Cho, M., and Lim, T. 2002. "The Relation between the Process Capability Index and the Quality Assurance Level Considering Various Conditions." Journal of the Korean Society for Quality Management 30(2):130-151.
  9. Del Castillo, E. 1996. "Multiresponse Process Optimization via Constrained Confidence Regions." Journal of Quality Technology 28:61-70. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224065.1996.11979637
  10. Del Castillo, E., Montgomery, D. C., and McCarville, D. R. 1996. "Modified Desirability Functions for Multiple Response Optimization." Journal of Quality Technology 28:337-345. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224065.1996.11979684
  11. Derringer, G. 1994. "A Balancing Act: Optimizing a Product's Properties." Quality Progress 51-57.
  12. Derringer, G. and Suich, R. 1980. "Simultaneous Optimization of Several Response Variables." Journal of Quality Technology 12:214-219. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224065.1980.11980968
  13. Harrington, E., Jr. 1965. "The Desirability Function." Industrial Quality Control 21:494-498.
  14. Hsiang, T. C., and Taguchi, G. 1985. A Tutorial on Quality Control and Assurance - the Taguchi methods. In: ASA Annual Meeting, Las Vegas, Nevada, USA.
  15. Hwang, C., Masud, A. S. M., Paidy., S. R., and Yoon, K. 1979. Multiple Objective Decision Making. Methods and Applications (Lecture Notes in Economics and Mathematical Systems). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
  16. Jauregi, P., Gilmour, S., and Varley, J., 1997. "Characterisation of Colloidal Gas Aphrons for Subsequent Use for Protein Recovery." Chemical Engineering Journal 65:1-11. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1385-8947(96)03154-3
  17. Jeong, I. 2011. "Multiresponse Optimization: A Literature Review and Research Opportunities." Journal of the Korean Society for Quality Management 39(3):377-390.
  18. Juran, J. M. 1974. Quality Control Handbook (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
  19. Kane, V. E. 1986. "Process Capability Indices." Journal of Quality Technology 18(1):41-52. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224065.1986.11978984
  20. Khuri, A. I. 1996. "Multiresponse Surface Methodology." Handbook of Statistics: Design and Analysis of Experiment (Vol. 13) (eds. A. Ghosh and C. R. Rao) 377-406.
  21. Khuri, A. I., and Conlon, M. 1981. "Simultaneous Optimization of Multiple Responses Represented by Polynomial Regression Functions." Technometrics 23:363-375. https://doi.org/10.1080/00401706.1981.10487681
  22. Kim, K., and Lin, D. 2000. "Simultaneous Optimization of Mechanical Properties of Steel by Maximizing Exponential Desirability Functions." Journal of Royal Statistical Society-Series C 49:311- 325. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9876.00194
  23. Kim, K., and Lin, D. 2006. "Optimization of Multiple Responses Considering Both Location and Dispersion Effects." European Journal of Operational Research 169:133-145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2004.06.020
  24. Ko, Y., Kim, K., and Jun, C. 2005. "A New Loss Function- Based Method for Multiresponse Optimization." Journal of Quality Technology 37:50-59. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224065.2005.11980300
  25. Miro-Quesada, G., Del Castillo, E., and Peterson, J. J. 2004. "A Bayesian Approach for Multiple Response Surface Optimization in the Presence of Noise Variables." Journal of Applied Statistics 31:251-270. https://doi.org/10.1080/0266476042000184019
  26. Myers, R. H. 1999. "Response Surface Methodology - Current Status and Future Directions." Journal of Quality Technology 31(1):30-44. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224065.1999.11979891
  27. Myers, R. H., and Carter, W. H. 1973. "Response Surface Techniques for Dual Response Systems." Technometrics 15:301-317. https://doi.org/10.1080/00401706.1973.10489044
  28. Myers, R. H., Khuri, A., and Carter, W. H., Jr. 1989. "Response Surface Methodology: 1966-1988." Technometrics 31(2):137-157.
  29. Myers, R. H., Montgomery, D. C., Vining, G. G., Borror, C. M., and Kowalski, S. M. 2004. "Response Surface Methodology: A Retrospective and Literature Survey." Journal of Quality Technology 36(1):53-77. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224065.2004.11980252
  30. Park, Y. T. 2014. Quality Management. Seoul: Korean Standards Association Media.
  31. Peterson, J. J. 2004. "A Posterior Predictive Approach to Multiple Response Surface Optimization." Journal of Quality Technology 36:139-153. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224065.2004.11980261
  32. Pignatiello, J. 1993. "Strategies for Robust Multiresponse Quality Engineering." IIE Transactions 25:5-15.
  33. Plante, R. D. 1999. "Multicriteria Models for the Allocation of Design Parameter Targets." European Journal of Operational Research 115:98-112. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0377-2217(98)00119-2
  34. Steuer, R. E. 1986. Multiple Criteria Optimization: Theory, Computation, and Application. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
  35. Sullivan, L. P. 1984. "Targeting Variability - A New Approach to Quality." Quality Progress 17(7):15-21.
  36. Sullivan, L. P. 1985. "Letters." Quality Progress 18(4):7-8.
  37. Tsui, K. L. 1999. "Robust Design Optimization for Multiple Characteristic Problems." International Journal of Production Research 37:433-445. https://doi.org/10.1080/002075499191850
  38. Vining, G. 1998. "A Compromise Approach to Multiresponse Optimization." Journal of Quality Technology 30:309-313. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224065.1998.11979867