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. Podinovski, Vladislav V., 2010. "Set choice problems with incomplete information about the preferences of the decision maker," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 207(1), pages 371-379, November.
    2. 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).
    3. Hossein Yousefi & Saheb Ghanbari Motlagh & Mohammad Montazeri, 2022. "Multi-Criteria Decision-Making System for Wind Farm Site-Selection Using Geographic Information System (GIS): Case Study of Semnan Province, Iran," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(13), pages 1-27, June.
    4. Tom Koch & Mark Ridgley, 2000. "The Condorcet's Jury Theorem in a Bioethical Context: The Dynamics of Group Decision Making," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 9(5), pages 379-392, September.
    5. repec:cup:judgdm:v:17:y:2022:i:6:p:1255-1286 is not listed on IDEAS
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. Jamie P. Monat, 2009. "The benefits of global scaling in multi-criteria decision analysis," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 4(6), pages 492-508, October.
    9. Yang, Taho & Wen, Yuan-Feng & Wang, Fang-Fang, 2011. "Evaluation of robustness of supply chain information-sharing strategies using a hybrid Taguchi and multiple criteria decision-making method," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 134(2), pages 458-466, December.
    10. Podinovski, Vladislav V., 2020. "Maximum likelihood solutions for multicriterial choice problems," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 286(1), pages 299-308.
    11. Adiel Teixeira Almeida & Eduarda Asfora Frej & Lucia Reis Peixoto Roselli, 2021. "Combining holistic and decomposition paradigms in preference modeling with the flexibility of FITradeoff," Central European Journal of Operations Research, Springer;Slovak Society for Operations Research;Hungarian Operational Research Society;Czech Society for Operations Research;Österr. Gesellschaft für Operations Research (ÖGOR);Slovenian Society Informatika - Section for Operational Research;Croatian Operational Research Society, vol. 29(1), pages 7-47, March.
    12. Bijay Halder & Papiya Banik & Hussein Almohamad & Ahmed Abdullah Al Dughairi & Motrih Al-Mutiry & Haya Falah Al Shahrani & Hazem Ghassan Abdo, 2022. "Land Suitability Investigation for Solar Power Plant Using GIS, AHP and Multi-Criteria Decision Approach: A Case of Megacity Kolkata, West Bengal, India," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(18), pages 1-21, September.
    13. Beynon, Malcolm J. & Wells, Peter, 2008. "The lean improvement of the chemical emissions of motor vehicles based on preference ranking: A PROMETHEE uncertainty analysis," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 36(3), pages 384-394, June.
    14. Loetscher, Thomas & Keller, Jurg, 2002. "A decision support system for selecting sanitation systems in developing countries," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 36(4), pages 267-290, December.
    15. 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.
    16. 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.
    17. Hayashi, Kiyotada, 1998. "Multicriteria aid for agricultural decisions using preference relations: methodology and application," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 58(4), pages 483-503, December.
    18. 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.
    19. 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).
    20. Roger Chapman Burk & Richard M. Nehring, 2023. "An Empirical Comparison of Rank-Based Surrogate Weights in Additive Multiattribute Decision Analysis," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 20(1), pages 55-72, March.
    21. 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.

    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.