Suchergebnisse

AbstractInstead of measuring a Wiener degradation or performance process at predetermined time points to track degradation or performance of a product for estimating its lifetime, we propose to obtain the first‐passage times of the process over certain nonfailure thresholds. Based on only these intermediate data, we obtain the uniformly minimum variance unbiased estimator and uniformly most accurate confidence interval for the mean lifetime. For estimating the lifetime distribution function, we propose a modified maximum likelihood estimator and a new estimator and prove that, by increasing the sample size of the intermediate data, these estimators and the above‐mentioned estimator of the mean lifetime can achieve the same levels of accuracy as the estimators assuming one has failure times. Thus, our method of using only intermediate data is useful for highly reliable products when their failure times are difficult to obtain. Furthermore, we show that the proposed new estimator of the lifetime distribution function is more accurate than the standard and modified maximum likelihood estimators. We also obtain approximate confidence intervals for the lifetime distribution function and its percentiles. Finally, we use light‐emitting diodes as an example to illustrate our method and demonstrate how to validate the Wiener assumption during the testing. © 2008 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Naval Research Logistics, 2008

AbstractPurchased materials often account for more than 50% of a manufacturer's product nonconformance cost. A common strategy for reducing such costs is to allocate periodic quality improvement targets to suppliers of such materials. Improvement target allocations are often accomplished via ad hoc methods such as prescribing a fixed, across‐the‐board percentage improvement for all suppliers, which, however, may not be the most effective or efficient approach for allocating improvement targets. We propose a formal modeling and optimization approach for assessing quality improvement targets for suppliers, based on process variance reduction. In our models, a manufacturer has multiple product performance measures that are linear functions of a common set of design variables (factors), each of which is an output from an independent supplier's process. We assume that a manufacturer's quality improvement is a result of reductions in supplier process variances, obtained through learning and experience, which require appropriate investments by both the manufacturer and suppliers. Three learning investment (cost) models for achieving a given learning rate are used to determine the allocations that minimize expected costs for both the supplier and manufacturer and to assess the sensitivity of investment in learning on the allocation of quality improvement targets. Solutions for determining optimal learning rates, and concomitant quality improvement targets are derived for each learning investment function. We also account for the risk that a supplier may not achieve a targeted learning rate for quality improvements. An extensive computational study is conducted to investigate the differences between optimal variance allocations and a fixed percentage allocation. These differences are examined with respect to (i) variance improvement targets and (ii) total expected cost. For certain types of learning investment models, the results suggest that orders of magnitude differences in variance allocations and expected total costs occur between optimal allocations and those arrived at via the commonly used rule of fixed percentage allocations. However, for learning investments characterized by a quadratic function, there is surprisingly close agreement with an "across‐the‐board" allocation of 20% quality improvement targets. © John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Naval Research Logistics 48: 684–709, 2001

ABSTRACTConventionally, elements of a multiattribute utility model characterizing a decision maker's preferences, such as attribute weights and attribute utilities, are treated as deterministic, which may be unrealistic because assessment of such elements can be imprecise and erroneous, or differ among a group of individuals. Moreover, attempting to make precise assessments can be time consuming and cognitively demanding. We propose to treat such elements as stochastic variables to account for inconsistency and imprecision in such assessments. Under these assumptions, we develop procedures for computing the probability distribution of aggregate utility for an additive multiattribute utility function (MAUF), based on the Edgeworth expansion. When the distributions of aggregate utility for all alternatives in a decision problem are known, stochastic dominance can then be invoked to filter inferior alternatives. We show that, under certain mild conditions, the aggregate utility distribution approaches normality as the number of attributes increases. Thus, only a few terms from the Edgeworth expansion with a standard normal density as the base function will be sufficient for approximating an aggregate utility distribution in practice. Moreover, the more symmetric the attribute utility distributions, the fewer the attributes to achieve normality. The Edgeworth expansion thus can provide a basis for a computationally viable approach for representing an aggregate utility distribution with imprecisely specified attribute weights and utilities assessments (or differing weights and utilities across individuals). Practical guidelines for using the Edgeworth approximation are given. The proposed methodology is illustrated using a vendor selection problem.

AbstractToday, many products are designed and manufactured to function for a long period of time before they fail. Determining product reliability is a great challenge to manufacturers of highly reliable products with only a relatively short period of time available for internal life testing. In particular, it may be difficult to determine optimal burn‐in parameters and characterize the residual life distribution. A promising alternative is to use data on a quality characteristic (QC) whose degradation over time can be related to product failure. Typically, product failure corresponds to the first passage time of the degradation path beyond a critical value. If degradation paths can be modeled properly, one can predict failure time and determine the life distribution without actually observing failures. In this paper, we first use a Wiener process to describe the continuous degradation path of the quality characteristic of the product. A Wiener process allows nonconstant variance and nonzero correlation among data collected at different time points. We propose a decision rule for classifying a unit as normal or weak, and give an economic model for determining the optimal termination time and other parameters of a burn‐in test. Next, we propose a method for assessing the product's lifetime distribution of the passed units. The proposed methodologies are all based only on the product's initial observed degradation data. Finally, an example of an electronic product, namely contact image scanner (CIS), is used to illustrate the proposed procedure. © 2002 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Naval Research Logistics, 2003

AbstractAccelerated life testing (ALT) is commonly used to obtain reliability information about a product in a timely manner. Several stress loading designs have been proposed and recent research interests have emerged concerning the development of equivalent ALT plans. Step‐stress ALT (SSALT) is one of the most commonly used stress loadings because it usually shortens the test duration and reduces the number of required test units. This article considers two fundamental questions when designing a SSALT and provides formal proofs in answer to each. Namely:(1)can a simple SSALT be designed so that it is equivalent to other stress loading designs?(2)when optimizing a multilevel SSALT, does it degenerate to a simple SSALT plan? The answers to both queries, under certain reasonable model assumptions, are shown to be a qualified YES. In addition, we provide an argument to support the rationale of a common practice in designing a SSALT, that is, setting the higher stress level as high as possible in a SSALT plan. © 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Naval Research Logistics, 2013