This article was downloaded by: [University of Louisville]

On: 20 December 2014, At: 10:58

Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,
37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

International Journal of Systems Science

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tsys20

Production system with process quality control:

modelling and application
a
Jia-Chi Tsou
a
Department of Business Administration , China University of Technology , No. 530, Sector.
3, Jung Shan Road, Hu Kou Township, Hsinchu County 303, Taiwan, ROC
Published online: 08 Jun 2010.

To cite this article: Jia-Chi Tsou (2010) Production system with process quality control: modelling and application,
International Journal of Systems Science, 41:7, 865-874, DOI: 10.1080/00207720903470130

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00207720903470130

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the Content) contained
in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the
Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and
are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and
should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for
any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever
or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of
the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any
form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://
www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
 International Journal of Systems Science
Vol. 41, No. 7, July 2010, 865874

Production system with process quality control: modelling and application

Jia-Chi Tsou*
Department of Business Administration, China University of Technology, No. 530, Sector. 3, Jung Shan Road,
Hu Kou Township, Hsinchu County 303, Taiwan, ROC
(Received 3 June 2008; final version received 29 October 2009)

Over the past decade, there has been a great deal of research dedicated to the study of quality and the economics
of production. In this article, we develop a dynamic model which is based on the hypothesis of a traditional
economic production quantity model. Taguchis cost of poor quality is used to evaluate the cost of poor quality
in the dynamic production system. A practical case from the automotive industry, which uses the Six-sigma
DMAIC methodology, is discussed to verify the proposed model. This study shows that there is an optimal value
Downloaded by [University of Louisville] at 10:58 20 December 2014

of quality investment to make the production system reach a reasonable quality level and minimise the
production cost. Based on our model, the management can adjust its investment in quality improvement to
generate considerable financial return.
Keywords: Taguchi cost function; six-sigma; economics of production

1. Introduction process reliability into a classic economic order quan-

Product quality is a major concern in todays modern
production systems. Poor quality products decrease
customer satisfaction, reduce operating production,
overall efficiency and increase the cost of business
operation. Accordingly, there have been a vast number
of studies dedicated to the relationship between quality
and economics of production over the past decade.
Porteus (1986) was one of the earliest researchers to
provide a mathematical model to characterise optimal
simultaneous investment in setup cost reduction and
quality improvement. Rosenblatt and Lee (1986)
formulated and analysed a similar model that considers
investment in process improvements. In a subsequent
article, Lee and Rosenblatt (1987) considered the use
of process inspection during the production run so that
a shift to out-of-control state can be detected and
restoration made earlier. Tapiero (1987) linked optimal
quality inspection policies to the resulting improve-
ments in manufacturing costs. Fine (1988) used a
stochastic dynamic programming model to character-
ise optimal inspection policies and added the
quality-based learning effects into the model. Fine
and Porteus (1989) refined Porteus original work to
allow smaller investments overtime with potential
process improvement of random magnitude. Chand
(1989) validated Porteus model when learning effect
is present in setups and process quality. In a series of
papers, Cheng (1989, 1991) included the production
tity model. Hong, Xu, and Hayya (1993) established
the relationship between process quality and invest-
ment. Ng and Hui (1996) developed a cost model to
determine the optimal number of learning actions to be
taken and the optimal action limit. The model offers
insight into the tradeoff of cost of quality and the cost
of prevention. Banker, Khosla, and Sinha (1998)
developed formal models of oligopolistic competition
to investigate whether equilibrium level of quality
increases as competition intensifies. Krishnan, Kriebel,
Kekre, and Mukhopodhayay (2000) examined the
relationship between life-cycle productivity and con-
formance quality in software products. Salameh and
Jaber (2000) considered a special production/inventory
situation where items, received or produced, are of
imperfect quality. Ganeshan, Kulkarni, and Boone
(2001) brought Taguchis cost of poor quality into the
economic production quantity model and linked
lot-size determination to the loss-based quality
accounting system. Jaber and Bonney (2003) investi-
gated the effects that learning and forgetting in set-ups
and product quality have on the economic lot-sizing
problem. Jaber and Guiffrida (2004) considered a
modification of Wrights learning curve with no
discarded defects and constant defect rate. Tsou and
Chen (2005) developed a dynamic model for a defective
production system with Poka-Yoke. Wu and Xie
(2008) analysed the replacement cost for nonrepairable

*Email: jtsou.tw@yahoo.com.tw

ISSN 00207721 print/ISSN 14645319 online

2010 Taylor & Francis
DOI: 10.1080/00207720903470130
http://www.informaworld.com
 866 J.-C. Tsou

services products from a manufacturer perspective. I Investment on quality improvement

Uthayakumar and Parvathi (2009) investigated a during the N-th period planning horizon
continuous review inventory model to reduce lead K Taguchi loss parameter
time, yield variability and setup cost simultaneously L loss of poor quality per unit product
through capital investments. LSL lower specification limits
In this article, there are three significant contribu- N production period
tions to the production and quality research. First, P production cost of unit product
we develop a dynamic model that can help make joint Qi production lot size in period i
decisions on aspects of finance and quality, a task S setup cost per period
which is very difficult for the traditional production- U distance of the target mean from the
quality model. In our model, we focus on the financial specification limits
return of quality investment but not the lot-size USL upper specification limits
optimisation. Second, the Taguchis cost of poor (I) population mean of quality
quality factor has been brought into our model. This characteristic
extension makes it easier to evaluate the cost of poor 0 initial value of population mean of
quality in a dynamic production system. Third, a quality characteristic
Downloaded by [University of Louisville] at 10:58 20 December 2014

practical case in the automotive industry, which obeys t target value of population mean of
the Six-sigma DMAIC methodology, is discussed to quality characteristic function
verify the proposed model. (I) population standard deviation of quality
In the next section, we introduce the model characteristic
proposed in this article. Then, a quality improvement 02 initial level of the variance of the system
case in automotive industry is used to verify this L2 minimum level of the variance of the
model. In this case, the Six-sigma DMAIC methodol- system
ogy will be used in the process of problem solving. X value of the quality characteristic
Then, we analyse the production cost of the case, and
Each term in our objective function is defined
the optimal value of quality investment with minimum
as below:
production cost is found. The last section presents
conclusions for this article. X
N
Production cost Qi  P: 2
i1

The first term in our model is the production cost.

2. The model
We assume a dynamic production line over N-th
periods. The primary goal of this model is to search out
the minimum cost of a production system. I is the
money spent on improving product quality. The total
cost, TC(I), is the combination of the production cost,
the holding cost, the setup cost, the poor quality cost
(PQC) and the cost of improving quality. This com-
bination is based on the hypothesis of the traditional
EPQ model. The total cost, TC(I), can be written as:
TCI Production cost holding cost setup cost
poor quality cost cost of quality investment:
1 the inventory in period i and hGi1 Qi  di  is the
The notation of our model is summarised below.
Notation:
The production cost during the N-th period can be
written as the summation of the lot size multiplied by
production cost of a unit product in every period.
X
N
Holding cost hGi1 Qi  di : 3
i1
The second term in the equation is the holding cost.
The holding cost on the production line is the
summation of the holding cost of the inventory in the
N-th period. In Equation (3), Gi1 is the inventory
carried from pervious period, Qi is the production lot
size in period i and di is the demand. Gi1 Qi  di  is
holding cost in period i. Hence, the total holding cost is
equal to the summation of the holding cost from
period 1 to N.

Cr rejection cost/unit X
N

di : demand in period i Setup cost Qi  S: 4

D(I) quality distribution function; (normal
distribution function)
Gi1 inventory carried from period i to i 1
h holding cost per unit per period
i1
The third term in our objective function is the setup
cost. Setup cost includes the cost to change the mould,
the cost to prepare material, the cost to adjust
 International Journal of Systems Science
machines, etc. In our model, the setup cost is equal to
the summation of the setup cost in every period. In
Equation (4), (Qi) is a function of lot size. (Qi) is
equal to zero when lot size is zero and (Qi) is equal
to one when lot size is larger than zero.
X
N Z1
PQC Qi  L  DI dX: 5 direct PQC encompasses two major types of expendi-
i1 1
The fourth term is the cost of poor quality. This
term is the summation of the product of lot size and
Taguchis PQC of unit product in every period.
In Equation (5), D(I) is the quality distribution
function of production, and we suppose the quality
characteristic performs as a normal distributive func-
tion. Under this hypothesis, we can write the quality
distributive function as:
Downloaded by [University of Louisville] at 10:58 20 December 2014
1 2 2
DI p eXI =2I :
I 2
(I) and (I) are defined as functions of quality
investment, I. The value of (I) has an initial value and
a positive lower bound. The boundary is produced by
the nature of the production system or the limiting of
practice. It is noted as,  0, the initial level of the
variance and,  L, the minimum level.
There is an initial mean of the population of quality
characteristic, 0, and t is the target value of quality
characteristic. Both (I) and (I) are functions of
quality investment, I. The function of (I) and (I) can
be written as (Hong et al. 1993; Ganeshan et al. 2001):
2 I 2t 20  2t eI ,  4 0:
0 is the initial value of population mean of quality
characteristic and t is the target value of population
mean of quality characteristic.
As 0 4.99, t 5 and 0.01, the function,
(I), can be drawn as Figure 1.
2
 I L2 02  L2 bI
e ,
Figure 1. Relationship between population mean and quality
investment.
867
02 is the initial level of the variance of the system and
L2 is the minimum level of the variance of the system.
As  0 0.1,  L 0.05 and b 0.01, the function,
(I), can be drawn as Figure 2.
There are two categories of the cost of poor quality.
One is direct cost and the other is indirect cost. The
ture: controllable PQC and resultant PQC.
Controllable PQC includes prevention cost and
appraisal cost. Resultant PQC includes internal error
cost and external error cost. The other category, the
indirect PQC, includes customer-incurred PQC,
customer-dissatisfaction PQC and loss-of-reputation
PQC (Harrington 1987).
In order to link the costs of poor quality and
quality performance, Taguchi has provided a quadratic
function to describe this relationship. Taguchi defines
quality as, The quality of a product is the (minimum)
loss imparted by the product to the society from the
time product is shipped (Bryne and Taguchi 1986).
Taguchis function directly links to the internal error
cost and external error cost in direct PQC and indirect
PQC. In our model, L has been used to denote
Taguchis function.
In Taguchis function as shown in Figure 3, this cost
reduces to zero when the output of the process exactly
meets the target, and it increases quadratically as the
process moves away from the target. If X is the value of
the quality characteristic, Taguchis PQC function, L,
can be expressed as (Taguchi and Wu 1985):
(
KX  t 2 if LSL  X  USL
L
Cr if X  LSL, X  USL
K Cr =U2
U USL  t t  LSL 6
where K is defined as K Cr =U2 , Cr is the rejection
b 4 0: cost of unit product and U is the distance of mean from
the specification limits. It is assumed that the upper
Figure 2. Relationship between population standard devia-
tion and quality investment.
 868 J.-C. Tsou

Figure 3. Taguchis PQC function.

Downloaded by [University of Louisville] at 10:58 20 December 2014

specification limits (USL) and lower specification

limits (LSL) are equidistant from the mean, i.e.
U USL  t t  LSL. Cr includes the internal
error cost and external error cost in direct PQC and Figure 4. Roadmap of Six-sigma DMAIC methodology.
indirect PQC to reject one unit of product.
Quality investment cost I: 7 3. Six-sigma quality improvement case for the
The fifth term in the objective function is the cost automotive industry
of quality investment. We define the cost invested in In the next section, we will consider a practical
improving the product quality to ensure that only Six-sigma quality improvement case to verify our
customer-acceptable products and services are delivered model. The Six-sigma DMAIC methodology has
to the customer as the cost of quality investment, I. been diversely applied in different kinds of situations
It is believed that the total quality investment, I, will in current business operations, and quality improve-
affect the population mean and standard deviation ment is one of the most suitable conditions to use it
of product quality distribution in the mathematical (Harry and Schroeder 2000). The roadmap of
formula that we mentioned above. Six-sigma DMAIC methodology is shown in Figure 4.
Based on the definition above, we can develop the In the definition phase, things which are critical to
dynamic model of the cost of a defective production consumers (CTC) will be defined. What is the most
system. This is the objective function of our model. important thing to your consumer? What do they care
about? The purpose and goal of the Six-sigma project
X
N X
N
will also be clearly defined in this phase.
Minimise TCI Qi  P hGi1 Qi  di 
i1 i1
In the measurement phase, the performance stan-
X
N X
N dard of the process will be verified and the measure-
Qi  S Qi ment system will also be established to obtain a
i1 i1 baseline for improvement in the future. In the analysis
Z1
phase, the performance objective will be defined and
 L  DI dX I, the key variation sources will be identified. The
1
relationship between variation sources and perfor-
subject to mance objectives will also be established in this stage.
I, P  0, In the improvement phase, all the potential causes
will be screened and possible solutions will be verified.
G0 0
Improvement activities will be proposed in this phase.
and The process capability after improvement will also be
 confirmed in this phase. Finally, the long-term process
0 if Qi 0 control will be implemented in the control phase. The
Qi : 8
1 if Qi 4 0 control plan to maintain progress and verify the
 International Journal of Systems Science
Downloaded by [University of Louisville] at 10:58 20 December 2014
Figure 5. Manufacturing process of a shock absorber.
measurement system in the future will also be
completed. All corrective actions will feedback to the
quality operation system. Now, we introduce a prac-
tical case in the automotive industry.
3.1. Define
MACUTO Co. is a local supplier of shock absorbers.
This company produces vehicle and motorcycle shock
absorbers, selling to both the original equipment
manufacturer (OEM) and after market with its own
brand. Its management has found that the company
loses a great deal of money in warranty claims every
year. In order to decrease warranty cost and increase
customer satisfaction, the production manager has
been assigned to reduce warranty claims, and the
Six-sigma DMAIC method has been used in this
assignment. To provide a clear picture of the related
process, Figure 5 is the flow chart of the manufacturing
process of the shock absorber.
In order to find the root causes, all the warranty
claim parts were recalled for analysis. After analysis, it
was found that 87% of the warranty claims were
caused by oil leakage, 10% were due to noise and 2%
are from other issues. Based on the 80-20 rule, the oil
leakage problem was clearly recognised as the major
concern for the quality issue.
After companys experts opened the cover of
damage shock absorber, they found that the oil had
leaked from the gap between the bottom tube and the
internal tube.
869
3.2. Measure
The production manager gathered a group of experts
to find the root causes of oil leaks. The C&E matrix
and failure mode and effects analysis (FMEA) have
been used to determine the reasons. After analysis, it
was found that the root cause of the oil leakage
problem is defects in the bottom tube diameter. The
operation definition and measure system analysis to
measure the bottom tube diameter were developed in
this phase.
In historical records, the defect rate of this bottom
tube is 4.65%, and this defect rate means a 3.18 sigma
process. In the original design, the diameter of the
bottom tube was 5 cm, and the upper and lower
specifications were 4.8 and 5.2 cm. After analysis, the
short-term process capability of the bottom tube
manufacturing is 1.06 Cpk value. The population
mean of the quality characteristic in present stage is
4.99 cm and the level of the variance of the production
line is 0.01 cm2. In the original design of the production
line, the optimal level of the production variance is
0.0005 cm2.
3.3. Analysis
The drawing of the bottom tube is shown in Figure 6.
According to the process failure mode and effects
analysis (PFMEA) of the shock absorber, the defect
bottom tube will cause the oil leakage problem. We
further check the assembly of the internal tube and the
 870
bottom tube, and found that the assembly of the
defective absorber was too loose. This evidence further
supports our conclusion. We also arranged a series of
tests to verify our logic. According to the conclusion
above, we focus on controlling the dimension of the
bottom tube, which is controlled by the dimension of
the pressing mould in the manufacturing process. A
picture of the pressing mould is shown in Figure 7,
indicating its two pieces: the external mould and the
internal mould. The matching of the external mould
and the internal mould will determine the dimension of
the bottom tube.
3.4. Improve
Downloaded by [University of Louisville] at 10:58 20 December 2014
We use the layout machine to measure the critical
dimension of the pressing mould, bottom tube and
internal tube. After discussion with the master worker
of the mould, we decided to shrink the diameter of the
external mould from 50.8 to 50.3 mm, in order to
decrease the variation and dimension of bottom tube
diameter.
Figure 6. Bottom tube of shock absorber.
Figure 7. Pressing mould of bottom tube: the internal mould (left) and the external mould (right).
J.-C. Tsou
3.5. Control
We identified the bottom tube diameter as the high
impact characteristic (HIC) and drew X-bar R chart to
control the manufacturing process. All these actions
were fed back to the quality control plan of shock
absorber. We also fed back this case to the PFMEA of
the manufacturing process. To sustain the benefit of
quality improvement in the long run, the board decided
to invest some money in quality improvement every
year, and how much money to invest is the topic of the
next section. This money should be spent both in
prevention and in appraisal quality activities.
Prevention activities include: developing and imple-
menting a quality data-collecting and reporting system,
developing the quality process control plan, quality-
related training, job-related training, preventing this
problem from recurring, etc. Appraisal activities
include: quality-assurance audit of the manufacturing
process, review of completed designs, review of test and
inspection data, quality data processing and reporting,
field performance testing, etc.
4. Production cost in the dynamic production system
of shock absorber
In this section, we want to investigate closely the costs
of the absorber assembly line to verify the modifica-
tions proposed. We assume that there are 10 produc-
tion periods and that inventory in the beginning is 0.
The production cost is $12 for each absorber, and the
setup cost per production run is $100. The holding cost
is $0.05 per unit per period. The cost on each quality
claim is $15, including both material cost and labour
cost. We invest $1000 on quality improvement in the
overall production period, and assume that supply and
demand are changing with time. The supply and
demand for each period are listed in Table 1.
As we mentioned above, the target value of bottom
tube diameter is 5 cm and the upper and lower
specifications are 4.8 and 5.2 cm. The population
mean of quality characteristic at the initial stage is
4.99 cm, and the level of the variance of the production
line is 0.01 cm2. In the original design of the production
 International Journal of Systems Science 871

line, the minimum level of the production variance
was 0.0005 cm2.
With this information, the loss of poor quality
function, L, can be written as:
( L2
KX  t 2 if 4:8 cm  X  5:2 cm
L ,
Cr if X  4:8 cm, X  5:2 cm
K Cr =U , 2
U 5:2  5 5  4:8 0:2 cm,
K 15=0:22 375:
The relationship between quality investment and
value of quality characteristic can be expressed as the
functions below:
Downloaded by [University of Louisville] at 10:58 20 December 2014
t target value of population mean of
quality characteristic function 5 cm
02 initial level of the variance of the
system 0.01 cm2
minimum level of the variance of the
system 0.0005 cm2
To calculate the objective function, we use the
computer software Mathematica 4.1 to do the calcu-
lation. The result has been listed in Table 2 and the
computer program to do the calculation has been
shown in the appendix.
The shifting of demand, supply, inventory and cost
is presented in Figures 811. In these figures, it can be
noticed that the supply volume is the major effect too.
With the coefficient above, we can find the

optimisation solution with the minimum production

2 I 2t 20  2t eI , 40 cost. The relationship between quality investment and
0:0001 total cost of production has been shown in Figure 12.
From software computation, the initial value of the
 I L2 M
2 2
 L2 ebI , b40
production cost is $80,755.90 when quality investment
b 0:00035 is zero. We notice that the total cost decreases with the
increasing of quality investment until reaching a
and b are constants to control the equation.
With information above, we find the value of
factors in our objective function as follows:
Table 2. Inventory and cost changing with time.
P production cost of unit product $12
I investment on quality improvement Period Supply Demand Inventory Cost
during the 10 period planning (time) (units) (units) (units) ($)
horizon $1000
1 500 450 50 7566.82
Cr rejection cost per unit $15
2 510 520 40 7713.61
S setup cost per period $100 3 490 510 20 7418.04
h holding cost per unit per period $0.05 4 510 480 50 7714.11
(per unit per period) 5 490 470 70 7420.54
G0 inventory in the beginning 0 6 500 510 60 7567.32
7 550 530 80 8304.76
N production period 10 8 490 510 60 7420.04
USL upper specification limits 5.2 cm 9 500 490 70 7567.82
LSL lower specification limits 4.8 cm 10 510 500 80 7715.61
0 initial value of population mean of Total 5050 4970 80 76,408.7
quality characteristic 4.99 cm

Table 1. Demand in every period.

Period (time) Supply (unit) Demand (unit)

1 500 450
2 510 520
3 490 510
4 510 480
5 490 470
6 500 510
7 550 530
8 490 510
9 500 490
10 510 500
Figure 8. The shifting of supply with time.
 872 J.-C. Tsou
Figure 9. The shifting of demand with time.
Downloaded by [University of Louisville] at 10:58 20 December 2014
Figure 10. The shifting of inventory with time.
minimum cost. Using the computer software
Mathematica, we make the optimisation calculation
to find the minimum cost, as shown in the appendix.
According to the calculation, the minimum production
cost is $70,756.10 when the quality investment is
$5295.47.
Passing through the minimum cost, the total cost
increases with the increase in quality investment to
infinity. In managerial practice, the minimum produc-
tion cost is the ultimate target of business operation
which means the appropriate quality investment to
reach a reasonable quality level and minimise the
production cost.
5. Summary and conclusion
In this article, we develop a dynamic model based on the
hypothesis of a traditional economic production quan-
tity model. Taguchis cost of poor quality has been used
to evaluate the cost of poor quality in the dynamic
production system. According to our research, there
is an optimal value of quality investment which
causes the production system to reach a reason-
able quality level and minimise the production cost.
Figure 11. The shifting of cost with time.
Figure 12. Relationship between quality investment and
total cost of production.
Based on our model, the management can adjust the
investment on quality improvement to generate remark-
able financial return. The model can be diversely
applied in different kinds of quality improvement
cases. Further study in this field can focus on a quality
investment model for a stochastic dynamic production
system. Research also may include more financial
factors or different quality evaluation models into the
model.
Notes on contributors
Jia-Chi Tsou is an Associate Professor
in the Department of Business
Administration at the China
University of Technology, Taiwan.
He received the PhD degree in
Industrial Management from the
National Central University, Taiwan.
He graduated with an MBA in
Entrepreneurship from the University
of Liverpool, UK. He also gained an MS and a BS in
Mechanical Engineering at the National Central University,
Taiwan. His current research interests include supply chain
management and quality improvement in the automotive
industry. Dr Tsou is an IRCA (International Register of
Certificated Auditors) registered ISO 9001 Lead Assessor.
He has worked as six-Sigma master black belt at the Ford
Motor Company.
 International Journal of Systems Science
References
Banker, R., Khosla, I., and Sinha, K. (1998), Quality and
Competition, Management Science, 44, 11791192.
Bryne, D.M., and Taguchi, S. (1986), The Taguchi
Approach to Parameter Design, ASQC Quality Congress
Transactions, 168173.
Chand, S. (1989), Lot Sizes and Setup Frequency with
Learning in Setups and Process Quality, European Journal
of Operations Research, 42, 190202.
Cheng, T.C.E. (1989), An Economic Production Quantity
Model with Flexibility and Reliability Considerations,
European Journal of Operations Research, 39, 174179.
Cheng, T.C.E. (1991), Economic Order Quantity Model with
Demand-Dependent Unit Production Cost and Imperfect
Production Processes, IIE Transactions, 23, 2328.
Fine, C.H. (1988), A Quality Control Model with Learning
Downloaded by [University of Louisville] at 10:58 20 December 2014
Effects, Operations Research, 36, 437444.
Fine, C.H., and Porteus, E.L. (1989), Dynamic Process
Improvement, Operations Research, 37, 580591.
Ganeshan, R., Kulkarni, S., and Boone, T. (2001),
Production Economics and Process Quality: A Taguchi
Perspective, International Journal of Production
Economics, 71, 343350.
Harrington, H.J. (1987), Poor-Quality Cost, Milwaukke,
WI: American Society for Quality Control.
Harry, M., and Schroeder, R. (2000), Six Sigma, the
Breakthrough Management Strategy Revolutionizing the
Worlds Top Corporations, New York: Doubleday Business.
Hong, J., Xu, S.H., and Hayya, J.C. (1993), Process Quality
Improvement and Setup Reduction in Dynamic Lot-
Sizing, International Journal of Production Research, 31,
26932708.
Jaber, M.Y., and Bonney, M. (2003), Lot Sizing with
Learning and Forgetting in Set-Ups and in Product
Quality, International Journal of Production Economics,
83, 95111.
Jaber, M.Y., and Guiffrida, A.L. (2004), Learning
Curves for Processes Generating Defects Requiring
873
Reworks, European Journal of Operational Research,
159, 663672.
Krishnan, M.S., Kriebel, C.H., Kekre, S., and
Mukhopodhayay, T. (2000), An Empirical Analysis of
Productivity and Quality in Software Products,
Management Science, 46, 745759.
Lee, H.L., and Rosenblatt, M.J. (1987), Simultaneous
Determination of Production Cycles and Inspection
Schedules in a Production System, Management Science,
33, 11251137.
Ng, W., and Hui, Y. (1996), Interactive Quality
Improvement of a Process Subject to Complete
Inspection, International Journal of Production Research,
34, 32753284.
Porteus, E.L. (1986), Optimal Lot-Sizing Process Quality
Improvement and Setup Cost Reduction, Operations
Research, 34, 137144.
Rosenblatt, M.J., and Lee, H.L. (1986), Economic
Production Cycles with Imperfect Production Processes,
IIE Transactions, 18, 4855.
Salameh, M.K., and Jaber, M.Y. (2000), Economic
Production Quantity Model for Items with Imperfect
Quality, International Journal of Production Economics,
64, 5964.
Taguchi, G., and Wu, Y. (1985), Introduction to Off-line
Quality Control, Meieki Nakamura-ku Magaya, Japan:
Central Japan Quality Control Association.
Tapiero, C. (1987), Production Learning and Quality
Control, IIE Transactions, 19, 362370.
Tsou, J.-C., and Chen, J.-M. (2005), Dynamic Model for a
Defective Production System with Poka-Yoke, Journal of
the Operational Research Society, 56, 799803.
Uthayakumar, R., and Parvathi, P. (2009), A Continuous
Review Inventory Model with Controllable Backorder
Rate and Investments, International Journal of Systems
Science, 3, 245254.
Wu, S., and Xie, M. (2008), Warranty Cost Analysis for
Nonrepairable Services Products, International Journal of
Systems Science, 3, 279288.
Downloaded by [University of Louisville] at 10:58 20 December 2014

874

Appendix A
J.-C. Tsou