IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v8y2016i6p559-d72164.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Strategic Part Prioritization for Quality Improvement Practice Using a Hybrid MCDM Framework: A Case Application in an Auto Factory

Author

Listed:
  • Fuli Zhou

    (Department of Industrial Engineering, Chongqing University, Chongqing 400044, China)

  • Xu Wang

    (Department of Industrial Engineering, Chongqing University, Chongqing 400044, China
    State Key Laboratory of Mechanical Transmission, Chongqing University, Chongqing 400044, China)

  • Yun Lin

    (Department of Industrial Engineering, Chongqing University, Chongqing 400044, China
    State Key Laboratory of Mechanical Transmission, Chongqing University, Chongqing 400044, China)

  • Yandong He

    (Department of Industrial Engineering, Chongqing University, Chongqing 400044, China)

  • Lin Zhou

    (Department of Industrial Engineering, Chongqing University, Chongqing 400044, China
    Department of Electrical, Electronic, and Information Engineering “Guglielmo Marconi” (DEI), University of Bologna, Via Venezia, Cesena 52-47521, Italy)

Abstract

Quality improvement practice (QIP), as a competitive strategy, is increasingly vital for auto factories to improve the product quality and brand reputation. Quality activity on selected automotive parts among a variety of competing candidates is featured by prioritization calculation. It arouses our interest how to select the appropriate auto part to perform quality improvement action based on the collected data from the after-sale source. Managers usually select the QIP part by the rule of thumb that is based on the quantitative criterion or the subjective preference of individuals. The total quality management (TQM) philosophy requires multiple stakeholders’ involvement, regarded as a multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) issue. This paper proposes a novel hybrid MCDM framework to select the best quality improvement solution combining the subjective and objective information. The rough set-based attribute reduction (RSAR) technique was employed to establish the hierarchy structure of influential criteria, and the decision information was collected with triangular fuzzy numbers (TFNs) for its vagueness and ambiguity. In addition, the novel hybrid MCDM framework integrating fuzzy DEMATEL (decision making trial and evaluation laboratory) method, the anti-entropy weighting (AEW) technique and fuzzy VlseKriterijumska Optimizacija I Kompromisno Resenje (VIKOR) was developed to rank the alternatives with the combined weight of criteria. The results argue that the optimal solution keeps a high conformance with Shemshadi’s and Chaghooshi’s methods, which is better than the existing determination. Besides, the result analysis shows the robustness and flexibility of the proposed hybrid MCDM framework.

Suggested Citation

  • Fuli Zhou & Xu Wang & Yun Lin & Yandong He & Lin Zhou, 2016. "Strategic Part Prioritization for Quality Improvement Practice Using a Hybrid MCDM Framework: A Case Application in an Auto Factory," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(6), pages 1-17, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:8:y:2016:i:6:p:559-:d:72164
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/8/6/559/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/8/6/559/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Mirhedayatian, Seyed Mostafa & Azadi, Majid & Farzipoor Saen, Reza, 2014. "A novel network data envelopment analysis model for evaluating green supply chain management," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 147(PB), pages 544-554.
    2. Murthy, D. N. P. & Djamaludin, I., 2002. "New product warranty: A literature review," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 79(3), pages 231-260, October.
    3. Huiru Zhao & Sen Guo, 2015. "External Benefit Evaluation of Renewable Energy Power in China for Sustainability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(5), pages 1-23, April.
    4. Miguel F. Salvado & Susana G. Azevedo & João C. O. Matias & Luís M. Ferreira, 2015. "Proposal of a Sustainability Index for the Automotive Industry," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(2), pages 1-32, February.
    5. D.N. Prabhakar Murthy & Wallace R. Blischke, 2006. "Warranty Management and Product Manufacture," Springer Series in Reliability Engineering, Springer, number 978-1-84628-258-4, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Youdong Jia & Jianxiong Liu & Zhengfang Li, 2023. "Research on Magnetic Rollers for Recovering Non-Ferrous Metals from End-of-Life Vehicles Employing Machine Learning," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(18), pages 1-16, September.
    2. Srđan Dimić & Dragan Pamučar & Srđan Ljubojević & Boban Đorović, 2016. "Strategic Transport Management Models—The Case Study of an Oil Industry," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(9), pages 1-27, September.
    3. Chen Liang & Dongshi Sun & Danlan Xie, 2023. "Identifying Waste Supply Chain Coordination Barriers with Fuzzy MCDM," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(6), pages 1-23, March.

    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. Liu, Yiliu & Liu, Zixian & Wang, Yukun, 2013. "Customized warranty offering for configurable products," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 1-7.
    2. Shafiee, Mahmood & Chukova, Stefanka, 2013. "Maintenance models in warranty: A literature review," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 229(3), pages 561-572.
    3. Wu, Shaomin, 2013. "A review on coarse warranty data and analysis," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 1-11.
    4. Xiaolin Wang & Wei Xie, 2018. "Two-dimensional warranty: A literature review," Journal of Risk and Reliability, , vol. 232(3), pages 284-307, June.
    5. Zhao, Xiujie & He, Shuguang & Xie, Min, 2018. "Utilizing experimental degradation data for warranty cost optimization under imperfect repair," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 177(C), pages 108-119.
    6. Appelbaum, Elie, 1992. "Bankruptcy, Warranties and the Firm's Capital Structure," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 33(2), pages 399-412, May.
    7. Zhou, Chongwen & Chinnam, Ratna Babu & Dalkiran, Evrim & Korostelev, Alexander, 2017. "Bayesian approach to hazard rate models for early detection of warranty and reliability problems using upstream supply chain information," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 193(C), pages 316-331.
    8. 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.
    9. Zhongdong Yu & Wei Liu & Liming Chen & Serkan Eti & Hasan Dinçer & Serhat Yüksel, 2019. "The Effects of Electricity Production on Industrial Development and Sustainable Economic Growth: A VAR Analysis for BRICS Countries," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(21), pages 1-13, October.
    10. Degirmenci, Tunahan & Yavuz, Hakan, 2024. "Environmental taxes, R&D expenditures and renewable energy consumption in EU countries: Are fiscal instruments effective in the expansion of clean energy?," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 299(C).
    11. P A Scarf & H A Majid, 2011. "Modelling warranty extensions: a case study in the automotive industry," Journal of Risk and Reliability, , vol. 225(2), pages 251-265, June.
    12. Luo, Ming & Wu, Shaomin, 2019. "A comprehensive analysis of warranty claims and optimal policies," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 276(1), pages 144-159.
    13. Wang, Xiaolin & Liu, Bin & Zhao, Xiujie, 2021. "A performance-based warranty for products subject to competing hard and soft failures," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 233(C).
    14. Ionica Oncioiu & Anca Gabriela Petrescu & Eugenia Grecu & Marius Petrescu, 2017. "Optimizing the Renewable Energy Potential: Myth or Future Trend in Romania," Energies, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-14, May.
    15. Tavana, Madjid & Izadikhah, Mohammad & Toloo, Mehdi & Roostaee, Razieh, 2021. "A new non-radial directional distance model for data envelopment analysis problems with negative and flexible measures," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 102(C).
    16. Hyoung Jun Kim & Su Jung Jee & So Young Sohn, 2021. "Cost–benefit model for multi-generational high-technology products to compare sequential innovation strategy with quality strategy," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(4), pages 1-17, April.
    17. Joaquín Coleff, 2020. "Can consumer complaints reduce product reliability? Should we worry?," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 29(1), pages 74-96, January.
    18. Magdalena Tutak & Jarosław Brodny & Peter Bindzár, 2021. "Assessing the Level of Energy and Climate Sustainability in the European Union Countries in the Context of the European Green Deal Strategy and Agenda 2030," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(6), pages 1-32, March.
    19. S. Maryam Masoumi & Nima Kazemi & Salwa Hanim Abdul-Rashid, 2019. "Sustainable Supply Chain Management in the Automotive Industry: A Process-Oriented Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(14), pages 1-30, July.
    20. Victoria Vicario-Modroño & Rosa Gallardo-Cobos & Pedro Sánchez-Zamora, 2023. "Sustainability evaluation of olive oil mills in Andalusia (Spain): a study based on composite indicators," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 25(7), pages 6363-6392, July.

    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:8:y:2016:i:6:p:559-:d:72164. 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.