The Effects of Weibull Distribution on Supplier Comparison using Lower Process Capability Index: A Case Study
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.48048/tis.2022.2158Keywords:
Supplier comparison, Process capability indices, Cpl index, Lifetime, Weibull distributionAbstract
In supplier comparison, durability, one of the quality dimensions, is important criterion. Lifetime data is widely used to measure the durability and commonly modeled with Weibull distribution. Many researchers employ process capability indices (PCIs) for comparing suppliers about quality aspect. However, applying these methods bring to some misleading results when lifetime data are considered because the methods are developed under normal distribution. This study attempts to develop the new method for comparing supplier using lower process capability index (Cpl) to apply with the lifetime data. To be guideline for developing the new method, this research aims to study the effects of Weibull distribution on supplier comparison using Cpl via a case study. The effect is studied through 2 performance measures, e.g., producer’s risk and the power of test obtained by Monte Carlo simulation. The simulation results for Weibull distribution indicate that the process’s shape influences on the performance measures obviously. For right-skewed process, the producer’s risks are lower than = 0.05, and power of tests do not exceed 0.10. Although power of tests are close to 1.00 in case of left-skewed process, the risks are greater than = 0.05. For symmetric process, the producer’s risks are close to = 0.05, but the power of tests do not exceed 0.40 in all cases. So, this study points out that the process’s shape is an important factor affecting to the performance of supplier comparison using Cpl leading to the possibly misleading results. To better understand the effects, this paper presents the example of supplier comparison using real data. The example shows that although the popular methods for handling Weibull distribution are applied, the supplier comparison results are not the same. So, manufacturers should be aware in supplier comparison regarding to lifetime data.
HIGHLIGHTS
- Studying the effects of lifetime data modeled with Weibull distribution on the supplier comparison to be guideline for developing the new method
- Presenting the example of supplier comparison via real data
- For Weibull distributed process, the process’s shape is an important factor affecting to the performance of supplier comparison
- The supplier comparison leads to the possibly misleading results although the process is symmetric
GRAPHICAL ABSTRACT
Downloads
Metrics
References
P Sureeyatanapas, K Sriwattananusart, T Niyamosoth, W Sessomboon and S Arunyanart. Supplier selection towards uncertain and unavailable information: An extension of TOPSIS method. Oper. Res. Perspect. 2018; 5, 69-79.
M Abdolshah. A review of quality criteria supporting supplier selection. Qual. Reliab. Eng. Int. 2013; 2013, 621073.
YM Chou. Selecting a better supplier by testing process capability indices. Qual. Eng. 1994; 6, 427-38.
WL Pearn, HN Hung and YC Cheng. Supplier selection for one-side processes with unequal sample sizes. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2009; 195, 381-93.
NF Hubele, A Berrado and ES Gel. A Wald test for comparing multiple capability indices. J. Qual. Technol. 2005; 37, 304-7.
S Manomat and P Sudasna-na-Ayudthya. The method for selecting multiple suppliers using one-sided specification limit’s capability index (in Thai). Khon Kaen Univ. Eng. J. 2009; 36, 313-21.
CM Yu, KS Chen, KK Lai and CH Hsu. Fuzzy supplier selection method based on smaller-the-better quality characteristic. Appl. Sci. 2020; 10, 3635.
WL Pearn and CH Wu. Supplier selection for multiple-characteristics processes with one-sided specifications. Qual. Technol. Quant. Manage. 2013; 10, 133-9.
FK Wang. Supplier selection for multiple linear profiles with one‐sided specifications. Qual. Reliab. Eng. Int. 2016; 32, 257-68.
WL Pearn, CH Wu and CC Chuang. An effective powerful test for one-sided supplier selection problem with multiple independent characteristics. Qual. Technol. Quant. Manage. 2016; 13, 182-96.
EB Prasetyo and N Kurniati. Supplier selection based on capabilities index for multiple characteristics with one sided specification. Sinergi 2018; 22, 113-9.
DA Garvin. Completing in the eight dimensions of quality. Harv. Bus. Rev. 1987; 87, 101-9.
DC Montgomery. Introduction to statistical quality control. 8th eds. John Weiley & Sons, New York, 2020.
B Dodson. The Weibull analysis handbook. 2nd eds. American Society for Quality, Quality Press, Milwaukee, 2006.
O Senvar and B Sennaroglu. Comparing performances of Clements, Box-cox, Johnson methods with Weibull distributions for assessing process capability. J. Ind. Eng. Manage. 2016; 9, 634-56.
VE Kane. Process capability indices. J. Qual. Technol. 1986; 18, 41-52.
R Jiang and DNP Murthy. A study of Weibull shape parameter: Properties and significance. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 2011; 96, 1619-26.
PH Lui and FL Chen. Process capability of non-normal process data using the Burr XII distribution. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 2006; 27, 975-84.
H Wang, J Yang and S Hao. Two inverse normalizing transformation method for the process capability analysis of non-normal process data. Comput. Ind. Eng. 2016; 102, 88-98.
DR Swamy, P Nagesh and Y Wooluru. Process capability indices for non-normal distribution- a review. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Operations Management and Research, Mysuru, India. 2016, p. 1-13.
F Proschan. Theoretical explanation of observed decreasing failure rate. Technometrics 1963; 5, 375-83.
JA Clement. Process capability calculations for non-normal distributions. Qual. Prog. 1989; 22, 95-100.
NL Johnson. System of frequency curves generated by methods of translation. Biometrika 1949; 36, 149-76.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
