Pareto Chart Based on Fuzzy-PPI and its Application in Analysis on Quality Data of Equipment Maintenance

Abstract:

To solve the drawbacks that the existing Pareto chart do not consider the fuzzy attribute of quality and imbalance of the improvement opportunities for quality defects, the nonconformity membership analysis method was introduced to lead a classification analysis on quality defects data, which increased the flexibility of data analysis, and Pareto priority index was introduced to assess improvement opportunities for quality defects, which increased the rationality during decision-making for quality defective items to improve. The two ways were both integrated to the analysis instance of equipment maintenance quality data based on fuzzy weighted Pareto chart, then weights and dynamic threshold were set to get different results of the Pareto analysis. The presented method can provide effective method support for organizations to scientifically analyze equipment maintenance quality data and accurately determine the direction of quality improvement.

• Periodical: Advanced Materials Research (Volumes 1006-1007)
• Pages: 381-385
• DOI: https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMR.1006-1007.381
• Online since: August 2014
• Authors: Wei Min Ye*, Wo Ye Liu, De Yong Zhao, Cui Juan Gao, Yong Fen Xie, Chen Chen Yu
• Keywords: Fuzzy Quality, Maintenance Quality Data, Pareto Chart, Pareto Priority Index

References

[1] Wang Yue, Liu Jie, and Guo Peng: Plant Maintenance Engineering, No. 11, 2010, pp.14-16.

[2] He Shaohong: Jiangsu Aviation, No. 2, 2006, pp.31-32.

[3] Sanjay Srikantaiah: A Model of Lean–Sigma to Enhance a Manufacturing System through Integrating Lean Manufacturing and Six Sigma Approaches, The University of Texas at El Paso, August, (2008).

[4] Jerry D. Kahn: The application of 6 in improvement projects of equipment maintenance, International Marketing Congzess, (2006).

[5] Cen Yongting: Fuzzy quality management, Guizhou Science & Technology Publishing House, (1995).

[6] Anghel C: Economic Quality Control, vol. 16, No. 1, 2010, pp.49-63.