Processing, Please wait...

  • Home
  • About Us
  • Search:
  • Advanced Search

Growing Science » Management Science Letters » On the fuzzy evaluation of measurement system analysis in a manufacturing and process industry environment: A comparative study

Journals

  • IJIEC (747)
  • MSL (2643)
  • DSL (668)
  • CCL (508)
  • USCM (1092)
  • ESM (413)
  • AC (562)
  • JPM (271)
  • IJDS (912)
  • JFS (96)
  • HE (32)
  • SCI (26)

MSL Volumes

    • Volume 1 (70)
      • Issue 1 (10)
      • Issue 2 (15)
      • Issue 3 (20)
      • Issue 4 (25)
    • Volume 2 (365)
      • Issue 1 (51)
      • Issue 2 (32)
      • Issue 3 (40)
      • Issue 4 (44)
      • Issue 5 (42)
      • Issue 6 (52)
      • Issue 7 (53)
      • Issue 8 (51)
    • Volume 3 (426)
      • Issue 1 (40)
      • Issue 2 (47)
      • Issue 3 (40)
      • Issue 4 (40)
      • Issue 5 (27)
      • Issue 6 (50)
      • Issue 7 (51)
      • Issue 8 (30)
      • Issue 9 (24)
      • Issue 10 (25)
      • Issue 11 (25)
      • Issue 12 (27)
    • Volume 4 (387)
      • Issue 1 (34)
      • Issue 2 (30)
      • Issue 3 (34)
      • Issue 4 (42)
      • Issue 5 (33)
      • Issue 6 (43)
      • Issue 7 (42)
      • Issue 8 (40)
      • Issue 9 (39)
      • Issue 10 (20)
      • Issue 11 (18)
      • Issue 12 (12)
    • Volume 5 (129)
      • Issue 1 (15)
      • Issue 2 (10)
      • Issue 3 (10)
      • Issue 4 (12)
      • Issue 5 (14)
      • Issue 6 (14)
      • Issue 7 (8)
      • Issue 8 (8)
      • Issue 9 (11)
      • Issue 10 (8)
      • Issue 11 (9)
      • Issue 12 (10)
    • Volume 6 (74)
      • Issue 1 (9)
      • Issue 2 (6)
      • Issue 3 (6)
      • Issue 4 (7)
      • Issue 5 (6)
      • Issue 6 (6)
      • Issue 7 (8)
      • Issue 8 (6)
      • Issue 9 (5)
      • Issue 10 (5)
      • Issue 11 (5)
      • Issue 12 (5)
    • Volume 7 (54)
      • Issue 1 (5)
      • Issue 2 (5)
      • Issue 3 (5)
      • Issue 4 (5)
      • Issue 5 (5)
      • Issue 6 (5)
      • Issue 7 (4)
      • Issue 8 (4)
      • Issue 9 (4)
      • Issue 10 (4)
      • Issue 11 (4)
      • Issue 12 (4)
    • Volume 8 (119)
      • Issue 1 (5)
      • Issue 2 (5)
      • Issue 3 (5)
      • Issue 4 (5)
      • Issue 5 (22)
      • Issue 6 (20)
      • Issue 7 (6)
      • Issue 8 (6)
      • Issue 9 (8)
      • Issue 10 (10)
      • Issue 11 (11)
      • Issue 12 (16)
    • Volume 9 (208)
      • Issue 1 (16)
      • Issue 2 (14)
      • Issue 3 (11)
      • Issue 4 (12)
      • Issue 5 (12)
      • Issue 6 (16)
      • Issue 7 (16)
      • Issue 8 (16)
      • Issue 9 (16)
      • Issue 10 (16)
      • Issue 11 (19)
      • Issue 12 (20)
      • Issue 13 (24)
    • Volume 10 (448)
      • Issue 1 (24)
      • Issue 2 (25)
      • Issue 3 (24)
      • Issue 4 (25)
      • Issue 5 (26)
      • Issue 6 (26)
      • Issue 7 (25)
      • Issue 8 (27)
      • Issue 9 (27)
      • Issue 10 (30)
      • Issue 11 (33)
      • Issue 12 (30)
      • Issue 13 (30)
      • Issue 14 (30)
      • Issue 15 (30)
      • Issue 16 (36)
    • Volume 11 (251)
      • Issue 1 (36)
      • Issue 2 (39)
      • Issue 3 (40)
      • Issue 4 (40)
      • Issue 5 (29)
      • Issue 6 (27)
      • Issue 7 (20)
      • Issue 8 (12)
      • Issue 9 (8)
    • Volume 12 (33)
      • Issue 1 (6)
      • Issue 2 (6)
      • Issue 3 (8)
      • Issue 4 (13)
    • Volume 13 (27)
      • Issue 1 (7)
      • Issue 2 (8)
      • Issue 3 (5)
      • Issue 4 (7)
    • Volume 14 (22)
      • Issue 1 (6)
      • Issue 2 (6)
      • Issue 3 (5)
      • Issue 4 (5)
    • Volume 15 (24)
      • Issue 1 (5)
      • Issue 2 (5)
      • Issue 3 (5)
      • Issue 4 (9)
    • Volume 16 (6)
      • Issue 1 (6)

Keywords

Supply chain management(166)
Jordan(161)
Vietnam(149)
Customer satisfaction(120)
Performance(113)
Supply chain(111)
Service quality(98)
Competitive advantage(95)
Tehran Stock Exchange(94)
SMEs(87)
optimization(86)
Trust(83)
TOPSIS(83)
Financial performance(83)
Sustainability(82)
Job satisfaction(80)
Factor analysis(78)
Social media(78)
Artificial intelligence(77)
Knowledge Management(77)


» Show all keywords

Authors

Naser Azad(82)
Mohammad Reza Iravani(64)
Zeplin Jiwa Husada Tarigan(63)
Endri Endri(45)
Muhammad Alshurideh(42)
Hotlan Siagian(39)
Jumadil Saputra(36)
Dmaithan Almajali(36)
Muhammad Turki Alshurideh(35)
Barween Al Kurdi(32)
Ahmad Makui(32)
Basrowi Basrowi(31)
Hassan Ghodrati(31)
Mohammad Khodaei Valahzaghard(30)
Sautma Ronni Basana(29)
Shankar Chakraborty(29)
Ni Nyoman Kerti Yasa(29)
Sulieman Ibraheem Shelash Al-Hawary(28)
Prasadja Ricardianto(28)
Haitham M. Alzoubi(27)


» Show all authors

Countries

Iran(2184)
Indonesia(1290)
India(788)
Jordan(786)
Vietnam(504)
Saudi Arabia(453)
Malaysia(441)
United Arab Emirates(220)
China(206)
Thailand(153)
United States(111)
Turkey(106)
Ukraine(104)
Egypt(98)
Canada(92)
Peru(88)
Pakistan(85)
United Kingdom(80)
Morocco(79)
Nigeria(78)


» Show all countries

Management Science Letters

ISSN 1923-9343 (Online) - ISSN 1923-9335 (Print)
Quarterly Publication
Volume 8 Issue 4 pp. 201-216 , 2018

On the fuzzy evaluation of measurement system analysis in a manufacturing and process industry environment: A comparative study Pages 201-216 Right click to download the paper Download PDF

Authors: Kapil Mittal, Puran Chandra Tewari, Dinesh Khanduja

DOI: 10.5267/j.msl.2018.3.001

Keywords: MSA, Automotive Industry Action Group (AIAG), Wheeler’s Method, ANOVA, Fuzzy TOPSIS

Abstract: Variation exists in all processes. There is not even a single process that is completely true. Measuring the trueness of the process is itself a process which can also imitate the process variation. Therefore, measurement system should be strong enough to wager on the trueness of the process. This paper is an attempt to indicate the true method and substantiate the use of measurement system analysis (MSA) by using it in two different environments i.e. in manufacturing as well as process industry. Also, a comparison among various analyzing techniques has been drawn for authenticating the candid method followed by an evaluation using fuzzy TOPSIS for authenticating the results of comparison. The organization’s type, also, strongly influences the performance of MSA as revealed in the conclusion of the article. The results calculated by various methods and in both environments were discussed and as a result ANOVA comes out to be the best method. The application of correct MSA is highly required which ultimately results in increased organizations’ performance. The study is one of its type and will motivate the researchers and industrialists to use and explore the new and efficient ways of MSA.

How to cite this paper
Mittal, K., Tewari, P & Khanduja, D. (2018). On the fuzzy evaluation of measurement system analysis in a manufacturing and process industry environment: A comparative study.Management Science Letters , 8(4), 201-216.

Refrences
Awad, M., Erdmann, T. P., Shanshal, Y., & Barth, B. (2009). A Measurement System Analysis Approach for Hard-to-Repeat Events. Quality Engineering, 21(3), 300–305.
Chen, C. (2000). Extensions of the TOPSIS for group decision-making under fuzzy environment. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 114(1), 1–9.
Chen, C., & Klein, C. (1997). An efficient approach to solving fuzzy MADM problems. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 88(1), 51–67.
Dearden, H. T. (2014). Comparison Alarms for Detection of Measurement Faults. Measurement and Control, 47(9), 273–275.
Göndör, V., & Koczor, Z. (2010). Improvement of the Measurement System Analysis Using Experimental Design. Obuda University E-Bulletin, 1(1), 35–42.
Hajipour, V., Kazemi, A., & Mousavi, S. M. (2013). A fuzzy expert system to increase accuracy and precision in measurement system analysis. Measurement, 46(8), 2770–2780.
Hwang, C.-L., Lai, Y.-J., & Liu, T.-Y. (1993). A new approach for multiple objective decision making. Computers & Operations Research, 20(8), 889–899.
Jones, B. E. (2013). Measurement: Past, Present and Future: Part 1 Measurement History and Fundamentals. Measurement and Control, 46(4), 108–114.
Kahraman, C., Beskese, A., & Kaya, I. (2010). Selection among ERP outsourcing alternatives using a fuzzy multi-criteria decision making methodology. International Journal of Production Research, 48(2), 547–566.
Kaushik, P., Khanduja, D., Mittal, K., & Jaglan, P. (2012). A case study: Application of Six Sigma methodology in a small and medium-sized manufacturing enterprise. The TQM Journal, 24(1), 4–16.
Kooshan, F. (2012). Implementation of Measurement System Analysis System ( MSA ): In the Piston Ring Company “ Case Study .” International Journal of Science and Technoligy, 2(10), 749–761.
Kwong, C., & Bai, H. (2003). Determining the importance weights for the customer requirements in QFD using a fuzzy AHP with an extent analysis approach. Iie Transactions, 35, 619–626.
Liu, H., Liu, L., Liu, N., & Mao, L. (2012). Risk evaluation in failure mode and effects analysis with extended VIKOR method under fuzzy environment. Expert Systems with Applications, 39(17), 12926–12934.
Mittal, K., Tewari, P. C., & Khanduja, D. (2017a). On the Right Approach to Selecting a Quality Improvement Project in Manufacturing Industries. Operation Research and Decisions, 27(1), 105–124.
Mittal, K., Tewari, P. C., & Khanduja, D. (2017b). Productivity improvement under manufacturing environment using Shainin system and fuzzy analytical hierarchy process: a case study. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 92(1-4), 407-421.
Mittal, K., Tewari, P. C., Khanduja, D., & Kaushik, P. (2016). Application of Fuzzy TOPSIS MADM approach in ranking & underlining the problems of plywood industry in India. Cogent Engineering, 3, 1–11.
Opricovic, S., & Tzeng, G.-H. (2004). Compromise solution by MCDM methods: A comparative analysis of VIKOR and TOPSIS. European Journal of Operational Research, 156(2), 445–455.
Rathi, R., Khanduja, D., & Sharma, S. K. (2015). Six Sigma Project selection using fuzzy TOPSIS decision making approach. Management Science Letters, 5, 447–456.
Saaty, T. (1990). How to make a decision: the analytic hierarchy process. European Journal of Operational Research, 48(1), 9–26.
Sadjadi, S & Sadi-Nezhad, S. (2017). Ranking Canadian oil and gas projects using TOPSIS. Journal of Project Management, 2(3), 87-92.
Smith, M. R. R. D., McCrary, S. W., & Callahan, R. N. (2007). Gauge repeatability and reproducibility studies and measurement system analysis: A multimethod exploration of the state of practice. Journal Of Industrial Technology, 23(1), 1–12.
Wheeler, D. J. (2009). An Honest Gauge R&R Study. ASQ/ASA Fall Technical Conference, (189), 1–19.
Yadollahi Farsi, J., SiahkaliMoradi, J., & Jamali, B. (2012). Which product would be chosen? A fuzzy VIKOR method for evaluation and selection of products in terms of customers’ point of view; Case study: Iranian cell phone market. Decision Science Letters, 1(1), 23–32.
Zanobini, A., Sereni, B., Catelani, M., & Ciani, L. (2016). Repeatability and Reproducibility techniques for the analysis of measurement systems. Measurement, 86, 125–132.
  • 0
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Journal: Management Science Letters | Year: 2018 | Volume: 8 | Issue: 4 | Views: 2219 | Reviews: 0

Related Articles:
  • Statistics for industries: A sophisticated approach
  • A fuzzy model for exploiting customer requirements
  • A fuzzy MADM approach for project selection: a six sigma case study
  • Synergy of fuzzy AHP and Six Sigma for capacity waste management in Indian ...
  • An application of fuzzy TOPSIS for ranking strategies

Add Reviews

Name:*
E-Mail:
Review:
Bold Italic Underline Strike | Align left Center Align right | Insert smilies Insert link URLInsert protected URL Select color | Add Hidden Text Insert Quote Convert selected text from selection to Cyrillic (Russian) alphabet Insert spoiler
winkwinkedsmileam
belayfeelfellowlaughing
lollovenorecourse
requestsadtonguewassat
cryingwhatbullyangry
Security Code: *
Include security image CAPCHA.
Refresh Code

® 2010-2026 GrowingScience.Com