Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
www.emeraldinsight.com/2040-4166.htm
Improving
Improving process improvement: process
executing the analyze and improvement
improve phases of DMAIC better
231
Pathik Mandal
Indian Statistical Institute, Kolkata, India
Abstract
Purpose – This paper aims to highlight that a define, measure, analyze, improve, and control
(DMAIC) project should be carried out keeping the broader business goal of achieving continuous
improvement in mind and that a design of experiment (DOE) based improvement approach should be
preferred to achieve this goal.
Design/methodology/approach – “Ease of control” of the improved process and “gain in process
knowledge” from a DMAIC study are identified as two measures for judging the contribution of a
DMAIC project towards continuous improvement. Various improvement approaches are classified
into seven groups and the likely impact of each of these seven approaches on the above two quality
measures are discussed.
Findings – The improvement approach adopted during the improve phase is partially determined by
the nature of the root cause(s) – type X or type Y. The type Y root cause leads to the adoption of the
“innovation-prioritization” approach, which is very popular but has many limitations. Accordingly, an
“analysis strategy” is proposed for efficient identification of the X-type root causes.
Practical implications – The above findings suggest that one should try to identify as many
X-type root causes as possible. However, in case of service and transactional processes one finds it
difficult to do so. Much more research is necessary in the area of service process design before the path
of continuous improvement of such processes can be embarked on effectively.
Originality/value – It is expected that an awareness of the broader goal of continuous improvement,
the classification of the end states of the analyze phase, the proposed “analysis strategy” and the
practical guidelines provided for selecting an appropriate improvement approach will be helpful in
executing the analyze and improve phases of DMAIC better.
Keywords DMAIC project quality measures, Analysis strategy, Improvement approaches,
Improve phase road map, Service and transactional process improvement, Continuous improvement,
Process analysis
Paper type Research paper
1. Introduction
In Six Sigma, the process improvement projects are carried out following the well
known define-measure-analyze-improve-control (DMAIC) or define-measure-analyze-
design-verify (DMADV) disciplines (Harry and Schroeder, 2000). The discipline of
DMAIC is used to improve an existing process/product, while the DMADV is used for
designing a new process/product. Many organizations all over the world have derived
significant financial benefits from effective deployment of Six Sigma and many of these
are well documented by Harry and Schroeder (2000). However, our experience of guiding International Journal of Lean Six
and evaluating many Six Sigma projects suggests that the manner in which the process Sigma
Vol. 3 No. 3, 2012
improvement is achieved in many DMAIC studies is far from satisfactory. For example, pp. 231-250
the design of experiment (DOE) is supposed to be the primary tool to be used during the q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
2040-4166
improve phase of DMAIC. But only a very few DMAIC studies make use of DOE for DOI 10.1108/20401461211282727
IJLSS process optimization. Moreover, even when the DOE is used, the application is usually of
3,3 a low order full factorial experiment. This scenario is more prevalent in case of service
process improvement (Table III). In fact, there are Six Sigma Black Belt courses targeted
towards service, information technology and related industry that do not include DOE
as a subject in their course curricula! These service providers perhaps believe that the
DOE, as a Six Sigma tool, may not be useful to their customers. Such an assumption is
232 obviously not true since we already have many DOE success stories in a
non-manufacturing set up (Antony et al., 2011; Almquist and Wyner, 2001). Our
experience also suggests that there are both opportunities and challenges in using DOE
for improving non-manufacturing processes (Section 7).
It must however be emphasized that the absence of DOE per se is not of much
concern. There can be cases where the use of DOE may not be required or may not be
feasible even if desired. But the widespread neglect and failure to harness the power of
DOE in DMAIC projects is definitely a cause for major concern. Here an attempt has been
made to address this concern by redefining the larger goals of a process improvement
exercise and illustrating the role of DOE and the related concepts in achieving these
goals. It is argued that the judicious use of DOE can facilitate continuous process
improvement. The pitfalls of a non-DOE based approach for improving a process and
the safeguards needed to avoid these pitfalls are also discussed in detail.
Overview
A brief summary of the rest of the material is given below in a question-answer format.
How do we measure the quality of a DMAIC project? It is argued that the quality of a
DMAIC project should be judged based on its contribution towards continuous
improvement. Accordingly, “quantum gain in process knowledge” and “ease of control
of the improved process” are proposed as the two important DMAIC project quality
measures (Section 2).
What is the present status of DMAIC projects with respect to the above two measures?
It is observed that in a large majority of cases, DMAIC projects are not focused on
achieving the above two goals. Some evidence from Indian industries is also provided
(Table III) in support of this observation.
What do we mean by executing a DMAIC study better? It means improving the
present status so that one remains in the path of continuous improvement (as judged
by the above two measures). All the five phases of DMAIC play an important role in
achieving this goal. But our scope here is limited to the two most critical phases, i.e. the
analyze and the improve phase.
How to execute the analyze phase better? The related issues are discussed in Sections
3 and 4. In Section 3, we discuss about the various elements of process analysis as a
foundation for Section 4 (and also for Section 5). The proposed “analysis strategy”
(Section 4) is expected to lead us to the desirable end state of the analyze phase efficiently.
How to execute the improve phase better? Various improvement approaches are
classified in seven groups (Section 5). It is argued that the approach of robust design
using a dynamic characteristic should be the most preferred approach for process
improvement. The innovation-prioritization approach, which is most commonly used
in practice, particularly for improving non-manufacturing processes has many pitfalls
and hence should be avoided, wherever possible. The “risk analysis” step of the
improve phase (Section 6) becomes critical whenever this later approach is used.
Apart from the above, the challenges in adopting the robust design approach for Improving
improving service and transactional processes are discussed in Section 7. The main process
conclusions of the study are summarized in Section 8, which also indicates the possible
directions of future research for improving services processes. improvement
(mm)
101
0.73
100
234 Optimum Optimum
0.71 99
170 190 210 230 250 89 93 97 101
Chute temperature (C) Extrusion temperature (C)
(a) (b)
Average coil diaameter (mm)
5.81
5.8
5.79
5.78
5.77 Optimum
5.76
1,175 1,225 1,275
Soaking temperature (C)
Figure 1.
Effect of processing (c)
temperature on robustness Notes: (a) Backward extrusion of zinc alloy; (b) forward extrusion of soap granules;
of three deformation (c) hot rolling of steel; process setting in each case remained same during the period
processes
of data collection
Mould Holding Melt temperature, mould Cavity Small variations of the control
dimension pressureb temperature, injection velocity, location factors, environmental
type of material, holding time, condition, operator skill, etc.
type of feed system, etc.
Notes: aIn case of a dynamic characteristic experiment, the cavity location and order of production
may be treated as systematic noise factors; bif, during operation, the holding pressure is used for Table I.
adjusting part dimension to the target, then it becomes an operational signal factor; however, for the Classification of factors
purpose of experimentation, the mould dimension should be used as the signal factor; experimental affecting the performance
results and operational convenience may suggest that either holding pressure (most likely) or some of a multi-cavity injection
other control factor be used as an adjustment factor molding process
IJLSS to distinguish between two types of root causes – types X and y. A root cause will be
3,3 called of type X if it refers to the non-optimality of an individual factor and the optimality
can be achieved by taking direct action on the factor (usually following a known
procedure). Note that since the control action is direct, it is expected to be very effective
and also will not involve any changes in the basic system design. On the other hand, a
y-type root cause refers to the occurrence or non-occurrence of an event. Thus, the action
236 to remove the root cause will necessarily be indirect in nature. However, the action may
or may not involve any changes in the system design. For example, the delay in getting
the signature of an intermediate authority may be a y-type root cause for the delay in
making payments. A possible action to remove the root cause may be to send a reminder
at an appropriate time. Such a control action does not involve any change in the system
design. However, in order to remove the root cause, one may also think of changing the
system design so that there will be no need for the signature. It is obvious that the
reminder may not be effective while the other solution, i.e. to modify the system design
will remove the root cause with certainty but will also involve the risk of affecting other
critical to quality characteristics. This is the general feature of removing y-type root
causes. There will usually be several options to remove the cause but the
solutions will differ in terms of their effectiveness, cost of implementation and the
risks involved.
However, so far as the y-type root causes related to human error are concerned, the
approach of “fool proofing” (Shingo, 1986) is likely to provide an effective, economic, as
well as risk-free solution, particularly in case of manufacturing problems.
Note that the concept of a y-type root cause is just an extension of the “big Y – little y”
framework, where the big Y refers to a business goal and the little y to the corresponding
project goal. The X and y type root causes lead us to the Y ¼ f (X, y) framework, where Y
is the project Y.
4. Analysis strategy
Having defined the elements of process analysis in the previous section, we now
propose an “analysis strategy” (Figure 2) that is expected to take us to either S1 or S2 in
the best possible manner, i.e. either the root causes or the important factors, a few of
which may have hitherto been ignored, are identified efficiently. The state S3 is not
considered here since it requires a completely different approach. It may be noted from
Figure 2 that the proposed strategy is just an ordering of the five types of factors
discussed in Section 3. The rationale behind the proposed ordering is explained below
with the help of case examples.
Block Factor
Control Factor
Figure 2.
Noise Factor Analysis strategy
IJLSS In practice we encounter many problems having a single root cause. If any such problem
3,3 results from the unwanted variation of the signal factor, it should be easy to identify and
correct such problems. To illustrate, consider a casting process where about 22 percent
of the balls it produced were getting rejected due to lower weight than specified. Now,
since the porosity and blow holes are known to be very common defects in aluminium
castings, the concerned persons held a strong belief that the lower weight was due to the
238 high level of porosity and/or blow holes present in the castings. However, the rejection
level remained the same despite many efforts to reduce the level of porosity and blow
holes. At this stage a systematic study was initiated. The study revealed that the lower
weight was not due to the presence of porosity/blow holes as suspected but because the
diameter of two of the ten cavities was smaller than the rest! In other words, the
unwanted variation in the potential signal factor (diameter of the mould cavity) was
found to be the root cause. The corrective action, of course, was straightforward. Note
that thinking in terms of porosity amounts to thinking in terms of control and noise
factors, which are at the bottom of the analysis strategy (Figure 2). Had we begun our
search at the beginning, i.e. with the signal factor then the problem would not have lasted
for long.
Let us now consider another example (iodization of edible salt) to highlight the
importance of potential adjustment factors. In this process, an iodine solution is
injected into a centrifuge where it gets mixed with the brine solution. It is important to
control the variation of iodine content in the salt to minimize consumption of iodine. In
practice, the iodine content is controlled by varying the flow rate of the iodine solution
(the signal factor). It is easy to see that the concentration of the iodine solution can be
used as an adjustment factor. In this particular case since the adjustment error was
found to be the major source of variation, the concentration of the iodine solution was
reduced and this reduced the process variation considerably.
The block factors have been placed ahead of the control factors primarily because of
their ability to throw up important but unknown control factors. For example, the clue
to the solution of the casting problem discussed above was obtained by treating the
cavity location as a block factor and comparing the average weight of ten balls from
each cavity. In general, the variations of control factors are usually monitored under
routine process checks. So if the main effect of any control factor is responsible for a
problem, it usually gets identified and corrected. Any problem arising out of the
interactions among the control factors is however difficult to solve.
The implication of placing the block factors ahead of the control factors is that the
cause-and-effect diagram (if desired) should be constructed only after studying the
block factors and not at the beginning of the analyze phase. Note that “brainstorming”
is a tool for promoting creative thinking, while identification of signal and adjustment
factors calls for critical thinking and problem formulation skills. Note further that a
good cause-and-effect diagram should contain a large number of potential control
factors, identified through brainstorming or otherwise. An analysis of the block factors
first will facilitate this task. Of course, some important but not so obvious block factors
may also be identified through brainstorming. In that case, these should be analyzed
first before moving on to the control factors.
The noise factors have been placed last for obvious reason of poor cost-benefit ratio.
However, if the approach of robust design is adopted then selection of the appropriate
noise conditions becomes as important as any other aspects of experimentation.
5. Improvement approaches Improving
Depending on the status (S1-S3) of the problem at the end of the analyze phase, the process
nature of the process and our ability to innovate, we may adopt any one or a hybrid
version of the seven basic improvement approaches as shown in Figure 3. The improvement
rationale behind such a classification of the improvement approaches is explained in
Figure 4. Here we will not discuss the methodological aspects of the approaches.
However, the concepts and the special features of each of the seven approaches are 239
discussed below in brief.
Root cause (s) established Important factors short listed Theoretical Y = f (X) established
S1 S2 S3
Type y or y No Select
Feasible ?
type X? approach
X Yes
Examine the optimal Decide the type of Yes
Innovative?
value of X characteristic
No
No Yes
Known? Dynamic?
Yes No
A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 Figure 3.
Seven improvement
Notes: A1 – obvious solution; A2 – innovation-prioritization; A3 – experimentation (static approaches (A1-A7)
characteristic); A4 – experimentation (dynamic characteristic); A5 – non-experimental corresponding to three end
straightforward data analysis; A6 – non-experimental innovative approach; A7 – quantitative states (S1-S3) of the
analyze phase
optimization
IJLSS Nature of Process Analysis
3,3
Empirical Theoretical/
Semi-empirical
240 Nature of Process Improvement
A7
Experimental Non-experimental
(Happenstance data)
Static Dynamic
A2 A5 A6
characteristic characteristic
Figure 4.
Classification of the seven A3 A4
improvement approaches
(A1-A7) from a Notes: aUsually comparison is made with the existing process condition;
methodological situations requiring multiple comparisons (for comparing more than two
perspective
solutions) are rare
Further, so far as the ease of control and the gain in process knowledge are concerned,
these will depend on the nature of the solution and the manner in which the solution is
obtained. But more often than not the solution is likely to score poorly in these respects.
Apart from the inherent weaknesses as above, our experience suggests that the Improving
“innovation-prioritization” approach is not used properly in many cases. The most process
commonly observed flaw is that neither the genuineness of the root cause nor the
effectiveness of the proposed solution is properly validated with data. For example, improvement
the root cause is arrived at only through a mental why-why analysis starting from a
symptom of the problem or from the significance of a block factor. Note also that if the
final solution consists of several (non-validated) process modifications aimed at 241
eliminating one or more root causes then implementing all the changes together is
particularly problematic. This is because the solution set may work as a whole but we
cannot say anything about the effectiveness of the individual solutions/modifications.
An effective way to validate several solutions will be to conduct an experiment using
the individual solutions as factors.
A difficult problem
Consider a highly unstable continuous chemical process, which needs to be improved.
The improvement team takes a 30,000 ft. view of the process but still finds the process to
be unstable. But the team somehow estimates the approximate sigma level of the process
and then proceeds to the analyze phase. In this phase, quite a few control factors are
identified easily, since these are monitored on a regular basis. However, the team finds it
extremely difficult to establish the effects of these control factors. They also observe that
the levels of some of these factors are adjusted frequently in response to the unstable
behavior of the process. Although the standard operating limits are available, these
limits are sometimes violated in course of such adjustments. More surprisingly, in most
cases, such violations apparently had no impact on the process performance.
Occasionally however, the process performance did improve after adjustments.
Note that the status of the project at the end of the analyze phase is S2, i.e. the
important factors are short listed but their effects are yet to be fully established. Also,
the feasibility of field experimentation is ruled out given the nature of the process. So
the team tries to develop a regression model based on the process data collected from
past QC records. Some live data are also collected by observing the process. However,
the team fails to develop any useful model. But it becomes clear to the team that there
are strong interactions among the Xs, the noise factors included. What should the team
do next? The team needs to be really innovative enough to tackle the interactions
among the Xs.
Type of process
Analyze phase statusa Improvement approachb Manufacturing Transactional Service Total
S1 A2 5 2 4 11 Table III.
A3 1 – – 5 Distribution of
S2 A3 4 – – improvement approaches
A5 1 – – 1 in 17 DMAIC projects
carried out in Indian
a b
Notes: S1 – root cause(s) established; S2 – important factors short listed; A2 – innovation- industries and presented
prioritization approach; A3 – experimentation using static characteristics; A5 – non-experimental in a Six Sigma project
straightforward data analytic approach competition
IJLSS
3,3 A1-A7
Conduct Confirmatory
Trials
Assess Risks
Pilot Solution
Develop Implementation
Plan
Figure 5.
Improve phase road map
Exit to Control Phase
(1) redesigning the activity sequence, including elimination of the non-value added
activities; and
(2) the use of information technology.
Note that both the above actions involve making changes in the system design.
Therefore, one needs to be careful if such actions are identified following the
innovation-prioritization approach (A2).
It should also be recognized that the extent of systemic changes that may be made is
not unlimited. The amount of capital needed or other constraints may come in the way
of making the desired changes. In general, the system design needs to be followed up by
the parameter and tolerance design to realize the full potential of a given system. This
is a standard practice followed in case of manufacturing process design and there is no
reason why the same cannot be adopted in case of service and transactional processes.
Unfortunately, we do not find many applications of service process improvement
using the approaches A3-A6. This is primarily due to the failure to identify important
control factors and the difficulty of field experimentation. In particular, the case studies
on service process improvement following the dynamic characteristic approach (A4) Improving
appear to be non-existent. This is not only because the approach A4 requires a process
comparatively larger number of trials but also due to the fact that it requires the use of a
signal factor. As an example of a signal factor of a transactional process, let us consider improvement
the data entry process of a marketing research organization. For this process, one may
consider the time allotted for data entry as the signal factor and the number of entries
made in the schedules within the allotted time as the process response. However, note 247
that the process response here is a path variable (as opposed to being a state variable). So
it is necessary to verify that the effect of the path variation is not excessive and can be
considered as random. If not, the path needs to be controlled so that its effect becomes
negligible. Fortunately, for the data entry process, the time taken to fill up a schedule was
found to be directly proportional to the number of entries made in the schedule for
various types of audits. Also there was no obvious sign of the presence of significant
systematic component. Thus, a linear relationship between the time allotted and the
number of entries made within the allotted time can be safely considered as the ideal
function for the data entry process. It is obvious from the above discussion that the
identification of a proper signal factor for a service process is not easy. Nevertheless, it
will be worthwhile to make the effort and adopt the approach A4, wherever feasible.
Let us now examine the generic factors involved in a service process design. Das
and Canel (2006) provide a list of the same. Modifying this list a little, the general model
for a service process may be written as:
8. Conclusion
Any breakthrough study should be considered as a contribution towards the journey of
“continuous improvement”. Accordingly, we propose the following two as important
IJLSS DMAIC project quality measures: “quantum gain in (portable) process knowledge” and
3,3 “ease of control” of the improved process. The project team should keep these two
criteria in mind while selecting the improvement approach and making many other
decisions in course of the DMAIC journey.
A process can be improved in many ways. We have classified various process
improvement approaches in seven classes (A1-A7). Apart from the nature of the
248 process, the suitability of a particular approach for a given situation is determined also
by the nature of the problem and availability of data. However, there will be many
occasions where more than one approaches may be suitable for improving the process.
It is argued that, wherever possible, the approach (A4) of robust design using a signal
factor should be selected since it has the greatest potential to have significant positive
impact on the two project quality measures stated above. The approaches A7 (computer
experimentation), A3 (field experimentation using a static characteristic) and
A6 (innovative data analysis) can also be used as a substitute of A4.
It is obvious that in order to be able to use the above approaches, it is necessary to
analyze the process properly. The proposed “analysis strategy” is expected to facilitate
adoption of the approaches A3, A4 and A6.
However, it may not be easy to adopt an approach like A4 for improving a service
or a transactional process. Identification of an appropriate signal factor is likely to be a
very challenging task in such cases. Further research is necessary in the broader area
of “service process design” for improving the technical content of a service process and
thereby promoting the use of an advanced approach like A4 for its improvement.
Another problem that is commonly encountered in improving a service or a
transactional process is that many of the factors identified are psychological in nature.
A great deal of further research is necessary to understand the role of the psychological
factors affecting the performance of a service/transactional process. For example, one
may find (through a suitable experiment) that sending a reminder after five days is
optimal for reducing the delay in receiving a reply or a payment against an invoice.
However, it is important to realize that todays optimal of five days may not remain
optimal the next year. It is necessary to have a clear understanding of the psychology
of an “accounts receivable” process so that the improvements made are sustainable.
As Deming (1993) says, “[. . .] there is no knowledge without theory [. . .] without theory
you have nothing to revise, nothing to learn from [. . .]”.
References
Almquist, E. and Wyner, G. (2001), “Boost your marketing ROI with experimental design”,
Harvard Business Review, Vol. 79 No. 9, pp. 135-41.
Antony, J., Coleman, S., Montgomery, D.C., Anderson, M.J. and Silvestrini, R.T. (2011), “Design of
experiments for non-manufacturing processes: benefits, challenges and some examples”,
Journal of Engineering Manufacture, Vol. 225 No. 11, pp. 2078-87.
Chase, R.B. (1978), “Where does the customer fit in a service operation?”, Harvard Business
Review, Vol. 56 No. 6, pp. 137-42.
Chase, R.B. (1981), “The customer contact approach to services: theoretical bases and practical
extensions”, Operations Research, Vol. 29 No. 4, pp. 698-706.
Das, S.R. and Canel, C. (2006), “Designing service processes: a design factor based process
model”, International Journal of Services Technology and Management, Vol. 7 No. 1,
pp. 85-107.
Deming, W.E. (1993), The New Economics – For Industry, Government and Education, Improving
MIT Center for Advanced Engineering Study, Cambridge, MA.
process
Draper, N.R. and Smith, H. (1996), Applied Regression Analysis, Wiley, New York, NY.
Hamada, M. and Wu, C.F.J. (1995), “The treatment of related experimental factors by sliding
improvement
levels”, Journal of Quality Technology, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 45-55.
Harry, M. and Schroeder, R. (2000), Six Sigma: The Breakthrough Management Strategy
Revolutionizing the World’s Top Corporations, Currency/Doubleday, New York, NY. 249
Hiller, F.S. and Lieberman, G.J. (2005), Introduction to Operations Research, McGraw-Hill,
New York, NY.
Hou, X. (1998), “Robust parameter design with monotone loss function”, Statistica Sinica, Vol. 8
No. 1, pp. 87-100.
Huschka, T.R., Denton, B.T., Narr, B.J. and Thompson, A. (2008), “Using simulation in the
implementation of an outpatient procedure center”, Proceedings of the 2008 Winter
Simulation Conference, The Society for Computer Simulation International, San Diego, CA.
ISI-QCI (2007), Guidebook for Six Sigma Implementation with Real Time Applications, Indian
Statistical Institute, Bengaluru.
Jensen, P.A. and Bard, J.F. (2003), Operations Research Models and Methods, Wiley,
New York, NY.
Lehman, J.S., Santner, T.J. and Notz, W.I. (2004), “Designing computer experiments to determine
robust control variables”, Statistica Sinica, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 71-590.
McCarthy, B.M. and Stauffer, R. (2001), “Enhancing six sigma through simulation with iGrafx
process for six sigma”, Proceedings of the 2001 Winter Simulation Conference,
The Society for Computer Simulation International, San Diego, CA.
Mandal, P. (2011), “Factor classification tree, roles of signal and adjustment factors and robust
design with nonlinear signal”, in Handa, S.S., Umashankar, C. and Chakraborty, A.K. (Eds),
Proceedings of the International Congress on Productivity, Quality, Reliability, Optimization
and Modeling, Vol. I, Allied Publishers, New Delhi, pp. 669-85.
Montgomery, D.C. (1984), Design and Analysis of Experiments, Wiley, New York, NY.
Phadke, M.S. (1989), Quality Engineering Using Robust Design, Prentice-Hall,
Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Rivera, A. and Marovich, J. (2001), “Use of six sigma to optimize cordis sales administration and
order and revenue management process”, Proceedings of the 2001 Winter Simulation
Conference, The Society for Computer Simulation International, San Diego, CA.
Shingo, S. (1986), Mistake Proofing for Operators Learning Package: Zero Quality Control: Source
Inspection and the Poka-yoke System, Productivity Press, Madison, NY.
Taguchi, G. (1987), System of Experimental Design, Vol. 1 and 2, Krass International
Publications, White Plains, NJ.
Taguchi, G. and Wu, Y. (1985), Introduction to Off-line Quality Control, Central Japan Quality
Control Association, Nagoya.
Taguchi, G., Chowdhury, S. and Taguchi, S. (2000), Robust Engineering, McGraw-Hill,
New York, NY.
Taguchi, G., Chowdhury, S. and Wu, Y. (2005), Taguchi’s Quality Engineering Handbook,
Wiley, Hoboken, NJ.
Tang, L.C., Goh, T.N., Lam, S.W. and Zhang, C.W. (2007), “Fortification of six sigma: expanding
the DMAIC tool set”, Quality and Reliability Engineering International, Vol. 23 No. 1,
pp. 3-18.
IJLSS Timm, N.H. (2002), Applied Multivariate Analysis, Springer, New York, NY.
3,3 Villarreal, M.G., Mulyana, R., Castro, J.M. and Cabrera-Rios, M. (2008), “Simulation modeling
applied to injection molding”, Proceedings of the 2008 Winter Simulation Conference, The
Society for Computer Simulation International, San Diego, CA.
Further reading
250 Taguchi, G. (1993), “Robust technology development”, in Kuo, W. (Ed.), Quality Through
Engineering, Elsevier, Amsterdam.
Corresponding author
Pathik Mandal can be contacted at: pathik58@hotmail.com