Conference article

Adam Hamrol
Poznan University of Technology, Poland

Agnieszka Kujawinska
Poznan University of Technology, Poland

Maria Pilacinska
Poznan University of Technology, Poland

Michal Rogalewicz
Poznan University of Technology, Poland

Download article

Published in: 11th QMOD Conference. Quality Management and Organizational Development Attaining Sustainability From Organizational Excellence to SustainAble Excellence; 20-22 August; 2008 in Helsingborg; Sweden

Linköping Electronic Conference Proceedings 33:36, p. 421-430

Published: 2008-12-09

ISBN:

ISSN: 1650-3686 (print), 1650-3740 (online)

Methodology/approach: The paper shows the results of a conceptual research concerning the problem of process quality evaluation. The description of the problem; using the terminology of decision sciences; allowed to analyse the multicriteria decision making (MCDM) methods and to choice the apprioprate one.

Findings: It is possible to define the problem of process quality evaluation as the multicriteria decision problem and to apply one of the MCDM methods to its solution. There was indicated that the approach based on decision rules; using rough set theory; is the most applicable tool for the process quality evaluation made in a changeable; dynamic manufacturing environment; also for the sake of the ease of use and results interpretation.

Practical implications: The final aim of the research is to give a process operator a tool to evaluate the process quality online.

Originality/value: The originality of the concept consists in defining the problem of process quality evaluation as a multicriteria decision problem and in pointing out the approach based on decision rules using a rough set theory as the appropriate method of its solution.

1. Benayoun; R; Roy; B; & Sussmann; B; (1966); “ELECTRE: Une méthode pour guider le choix en presence de points de vue multiples” Technical report; SEMA-METRA International; Direction Scientifique; Vol. 49; Paris.

2. Greco; S; Matarazzo; B & Slowinski; R; (1998); “A new rough set approach to multicriteria and multiattribute classification”; Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence 1424; 60-67.

3. Greco; S; Matarazzo; B; & Slowinski; R; (2001); “Rough set theory for multicriteria decision analysis”; European Journal of Operational Research; Vol. 129; No. 1; 1-47.

4. Greco; S; Matarazzo; B; & Slowinski; R; (2004); “Axiomatic characterization of a general utility function and its particular cases in terms of conjoint measurement and rough-set decision rules”; European Journal of Operational Research; Vol. 158; No. 2; 271-292.

5. Hamrol; A; (2000); “Process diagnostics as means of improving the efficiency of quality control”; Production Planning and Control; Vol. 11; No. 8; 797-805.

6. Hamrol; A; (2008); Zarzadzanie jakoscia z przykladami; PWN; Warszawa.

7. Jacquet-Lagreze; E & Siskos; J; (1982); “Assessing a Set of Additive Utility Functions for Multicriteria Decision Making; the UTA Method”; European Journal of Operational Research; Vol. 10; No. 2; 151-164.

8. Jaszkiewicz; A & Slowinski; R; (1995); “The Light Beam Search - outranking based interactive procedure for multiple-objective mathematical programming”; In: Pardalos; PM; Siskos; Y & Zopounidis; C; (ed.); Advances in Multicriteria Analysis; Kluwer Academic Publishers; Dordrecht.

9. Pawlak; Z; (1982); „Rough sets”; International Journal of Information & Computer Sciences; Vol. 11; 341-356.

10. Pawlak; Z & Slowinski; R; (1994); „Rough set approach to multi-attribute decision analysis”; European Journal of Operational Research; Vol. 72; 443-459.

11. Roy; B; (1990); Wielokryterialne wspomaganie decyzji; WNT; Warszawa.

12. Saaty; T; (1980); The Analytic Hierarchy Process: Planning; Priority Setting; Resource Allocation; McGraw-Hill International; New York.

13. Sawicki; P & Zak; J; (2007); “Technical diagnostic of a fleet of vehicles using rough set theory”; European Journal of Operational Research; doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2007.10.053.

14. Shen; L; Tay; F; Qu; L & Shen; Y; (2000); “Fault diagnosis using Rough Sets Theory”; Computers in Industry; Vol. 43; No. 1; 61-72.

15. Slowinski; R; (2007); „Zbiory przyblizone we wspomaganiu decyzji”; In: Kulczycki; P; Hryniewicz; O & Kacprzyk; J; (ed.); Techniki informacyjne w badaniach systemowych; WNT; Warszawa.

16. Smith; GM; (2002); Statistical Process Control and Quality Improvement; Pearson Prentice Hall.

17. Tseng; TL; Jothishankar; MC & Wu; T; (2004); “Quality Control Problem in Printed Cuicuit Board Manufacturing – An Extended Rough Set Theory Approach”; Journal of Manufacturing Systems; Vol. 23; No. 1; 56-72.

18. Vincke; P; (1994); Multicriteria decision-aid; John Wiley&Sons; Chichester.