IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v14y2022i6p3706-d776341.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Study on the Optimization of In-Process Inspection Procedure for Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients Manufacturing Process

Author

Listed:
  • Taho Yang

    (Institute of Manufacturing Information and Systems, National Cheng Kung University, Tainan City 70101, Taiwan)

  • Shin-Yi Lin

    (Institute of Manufacturing Information and Systems, National Cheng Kung University, Tainan City 70101, Taiwan)

  • Yu-Hsiu Hung

    (Department of Industrial Design, National Cheng Kung University, Tainan City 70101, Taiwan)

  • Chung-Chien Hong

    (Department of Industrial Management, National Pingtung University of Science and Technology, Pingtung 912301, Taiwan)

Abstract

The in-process inspection procedure is one of the critical operations in the active pharmaceutical ingredients manufacturing process. This study aims to improve the performance of the IPI service system in terms of three main criteria, namely service level, cycle time, and maximum tardy time. In solving this multiple-criteria decision-making problem, the proposed study seeks to redesign three process control factors, namely the service configuration, the dispatching rule, and the scheduling rule. The problem is solved using the Taguchi robust design methodology. Since the Taguchi method handles parameter design problems with only one criterion, Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to an Ideal Solution, a multiple-criteria decision-making method, is used to provide a surrogate response to the Taguchi method. The numerical results show that the redesigned IPI system improves the service level by 28.75%, the cycle time by 18.32%, and the maximum tardy time by 22.22%.

Suggested Citation

  • Taho Yang & Shin-Yi Lin & Yu-Hsiu Hung & Chung-Chien Hong, 2022. "A Study on the Optimization of In-Process Inspection Procedure for Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients Manufacturing Process," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(6), pages 1-20, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:6:p:3706-:d:776341
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/6/3706/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/6/3706/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kuo, Yiyo & Yang, Taho & Cho, Chiwoon & Tseng, Yao-Ching, 2008. "Using simulation and multi-criteria methods to provide robust solutions to dispatching problems in a flow shop with multiple processors," Mathematics and Computers in Simulation (MATCOM), Elsevier, vol. 78(1), pages 40-56.
    2. Stefansson, Hlynur & Sigmarsdottir, Sigrun & Jensson, Pall & Shah, Nilay, 2011. "Discrete and continuous time representations and mathematical models for large production scheduling problems: A case study from the pharmaceutical industry," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 215(2), pages 383-392, December.
    3. Edwards, Ward & Barron, F. Hutton, 1994. "SMARTS and SMARTER: Improved Simple Methods for Multiattribute Utility Measurement," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 60(3), pages 306-325, December.
    4. Colak, H. Ebru & Memisoglu, Tugba & Gercek, Yasin, 2020. "Optimal site selection for solar photovoltaic (PV) power plants using GIS and AHP: A case study of Malatya Province, Turkey," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 149(C), pages 565-576.
    5. G.K. Koulinas & O.E. Demesouka & P.K. Marhavilas & A.P. Vavatsikos & D.E. Koulouriotis, 2019. "Risk Assessment Using Fuzzy TOPSIS and PRAT for Sustainable Engineering Projects," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-15, January.
    6. Sureeyatanapas, Panitas & Sriwattananusart, Kawinpob & Niyamosoth, Thanawath & Sessomboon, Weerapat & Arunyanart, Sirawadee, 2018. "Supplier selection towards uncertain and unavailable information: An extension of TOPSIS method," Operations Research Perspectives, Elsevier, vol. 5(C), pages 69-79.
    7. Malihe Manzouri & Mohd Nizam Ab-Rahman & Che Rosmawati Che Mohd Zain & Ezad Azraai Jamsari, 2014. "Increasing Production and Eliminating Waste through Lean Tools and Techniques for Halal Food Companies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 6(12), pages 1-26, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Sahoo, Somadutta & Zuidema, Christian & van Stralen, Joost N.P. & Sijm, Jos & Faaij, André, 2022. "Detailed spatial analysis of renewables’ potential and heat: A study of Groningen Province in the northern Netherlands," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 318(C).
    2. Ahrens, Heinz & Kantelhardt, Jochen, 2007. "Integrating Ecological And Economic Aspects In Land Use Concepts: Some Conclusions From A Regional Land Use Concept For Bayerisches Donauried," 81st Annual Conference, April 2-4, 2007, Reading University, UK 7986, Agricultural Economics Society.
    3. Martínez-Martínez, Yenisleidy & Dewulf, Jo & Casas-Ledón, Yannay, 2022. "GIS-based site suitability analysis and ecosystem services approach for supporting renewable energy development in south-central Chile," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 182(C), pages 363-376.
    4. Podinovski, Vladislav V., 2020. "Maximum likelihood solutions for multicriterial choice problems," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 286(1), pages 299-308.
    5. Kavitha, S. & Satheeshkumar, J. & Amudha, T., 2024. "Multi-label feature selection using q-rung orthopair hesitant fuzzy MCDM approach extended to CODAS," Mathematics and Computers in Simulation (MATCOM), Elsevier, vol. 222(C), pages 148-173.
    6. Hou, Yali & Wang, Qunwei & Tan, Tao, 2023. "An ensemble learning framework for rooftop photovoltaic project site selection," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 285(C).
    7. P P Sutton & R H Green, 2007. "Choice is a value statement. On inferring optimal multiple attribute portfolios from non-optimal nominations," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 58(11), pages 1526-1533, November.
    8. Deparis, Stéphane & Mousseau, Vincent & Öztürk, Meltem & Huron, Caroline, 2015. "The effect of bi-criteria conflict on matching-elicited preferences," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 242(3), pages 951-959.
    9. Hayashi, Kiyotada, 1998. "Multicriteria aid for agricultural decisions using preference relations: methodology and application," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 58(4), pages 483-503, December.
    10. Yael Grushka-Cockayne & Bert De Reyck & Zeger Degraeve, 2008. "An Integrated Decision-Making Approach for Improving European Air Traffic Management," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 54(8), pages 1395-1409, August.
    11. Besharati Fard, Moein & Moradian, Parisa & Emarati, Mohammadreza & Ebadi, Mehdi & Gholamzadeh Chofreh, Abdoulmohammad & Klemeŝ, Jiří Jaromír, 2022. "Ground-mounted photovoltaic power station site selection and economic analysis based on a hybrid fuzzy best-worst method and geographic information system: A case study Guilan province," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 169(C).
    12. Andrzej Pacana & Dominika Siwiec & Robert Ulewicz & Malgorzata Ulewicz, 2024. "A Novelty Model Employing the Quality Life Cycle Assessment (QLCA) Indicator and Frameworks for Selecting Qualitative and Environmental Aspects for Sustainable Product Development," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(17), pages 1-24, September.
    13. Yin-Yin Huang & Ruey-Chyn Tsaur & Nei-Chin Huang, 2022. "Sustainable Fuzzy Portfolio Selection Concerning Multi-Objective Risk Attitudes in Group Decision," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 10(18), pages 1-15, September.
    14. Carlos Bana e Costa & Paula Antão da Silva & Francisco Nunes Correia, 2004. "Multicriteria Evaluation of Flood Control Measures: The Case of Ribeira do Livramento," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 18(3), pages 263-283, June.
    15. Mina Alvandi Ghiasvand & Mehran khalaj & Amir Hossein Kamali Dolatabadi, 2024. "Introducing an integrated method for assessing supply chain sustainability based on HF-ARAS and IT2F-BWM," OPSEARCH, Springer;Operational Research Society of India, vol. 61(4), pages 1713-1763, December.
    16. Karen Holm Olsen & Fatemeh Bakhtiari & Virender Kumar Duggal & Jørge Villy Fenhann, 2019. "Sustainability labelling as a tool for reporting the sustainable development impacts of climate actions relevant to Article 6 of the Paris Agreement," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 19(2), pages 225-251, April.
    17. Marttunen, Mika & Haara, Arto & Hjerppe, Turo & Kurttila, Mikko & Liesiö, Juuso & Mustajoki, Jyri & Saarikoski, Heli & Tolvanen, Anne, 2023. "Parallel and comparative use of three multicriteria decision support methods in an environmental portfolio problem," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 307(2), pages 842-859.
    18. Noorollahi, Younes & Ghenaatpisheh Senani, Ali & Fadaei, Ahmad & Simaee, Mobina & Moltames, Rahim, 2022. "A framework for GIS-based site selection and technical potential evaluation of PV solar farm using Fuzzy-Boolean logic and AHP multi-criteria decision-making approach," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 186(C), pages 89-104.
    19. Parreiras, R.O. & Kokshenev, I. & Carvalho, M.O.M. & Willer, A.C.M. & Dellezzopolles, C.F. & Nacif, D.B. & Santana, J.A., 2019. "A flexible multicriteria decision-making methodology to support the strategic management of Science, Technology and Innovation research funding programs," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 272(2), pages 725-739.
    20. Ramiro Sanchez-Lopez & Carlos Bana e Costa & Bernard Baets, 2012. "The MACBETH approach for multi-criteria evaluation of development projects on cross-cutting issues," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 199(1), pages 393-408, October.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:6:p:3706-:d:776341. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.