Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Journalof ManujhcturingSystems
Vol. 23/No. 2
2004
Abstract
Literature Review
Several publications reveal approaches for addressing multiple quality characteristics. Derringer
and Suich (1980) proposed desirability function
models for all quality characteristics to maximize the
combined desirability. Khuri and Conlon (1981), on
the other hand, used an achievement function to
optimize multiple quality characteristics. Logothetis
and Haigh (1988) presented a two-stage procedure
for optimizing multiple quality characteristics.
Pignatiello (1993), meanwhile, derived the expression of expected loss function to minimize the function for multiple quality characteristics. Elsayed and
Chen (1993) have provided a multiple characteristic
model based on the loss function, which is similar to
Pignatiello's approach. Su and Tong (1997) presented
an approach based on principal component analysis. Tong and Su (1997) also employed the fuzzy
theorem to optimize the parameter design. Tong, Su,
and Wang (1997) introduced an approach to standardize the loss of each characteristic by setting standardization values between 0 and 1. Alternatively,
Introduction
Over the years, several industries have employed
the Taguchi method to improve product or process
performance in keeping with sound management
practices. The method is robust for the design and
production stages so that manufacturers can produce
higher quality products at a lower cost and within
less time. The Taguchi method traditionally focused
on one characteristic to optimize a combination of
parameter conditions, yet most products have more
than one quality characteristic. In confronting a product with correlated multiple quality characteristics,
it is difficult to determine the optimal parameter setting for each of the quality characteristics, as each
usually varies according to different combinations
of parameter conditions.
134
q=
_101og(l~
1"
1]
forNTB
(2)
forLTB
(3)
In fact, the SN ratios can be transformed into proportion of quality loss reduction (PQLR) based on
the SN ratio of the starting conditions to obtain the
optimal parameter design for a single quality characteristic. Employing the geometric mean formula
to calculate the average proportion of quality loss
reduction in the PQLR model yields the same results
as are found by the Taguchi traditional method.
+ ( y - m ) z forNTB (1)
1l
n~ 7
=101og m
L' KMSD'
n'-~
PQLR = - - =
- 10 ,0
L KxMSD
for STB
=
MSD =
!~
2
#l i=1 Yi
101ogl0
for LTB
Principal component analysis (PCA) is a multivariate analysis method that was first introduced by
Pearson (1901) and then developed by Hotelling
(1933). PCA involves a mathematical procedure that
reduces the dimensions of a set of variables by reconstructing them into uncorrelated combinations.
The analysis combines the variables that account for
the largest amount of variance to form the first principal component. The second principal component
accounts for the next largest amount of variance,
and so on, until the total sample variance is combined into component groups. The principal components are special linear combinations of the p
random variables X1, 7(2. . . . . Xp. These linear combinations describe the selection of a new coordinate
system obtained by rotating the original system with
X1, X2. . . . . Xp as the coordinate axes. The new axes
where
y = a measurable statistic of quality characteristic
m
=
target value for nominal-the-best quality characteristic
STB = smaller-the-better quality characteristic
NTB = nominal-the-best quality characteristic
LTB = larger-the-better quality characteristic
y
= sample mean of n units
2
S
sample variance of n units
Taguchi used SN ratios as performance measurement and presented the following definitions for
SN ratios.
135
The weight co; is decided by the percent of variance in principal component analysis.
Step 7. Use the geometric average to calculate the
factor effects based on oLj,and then decide the
optimal factor levels by smaller-the-better factor effects.
(4)
eipXp, i = l, 2, ..., p
i=1
Implementation
(5)
(6)
Case 1
Table 1
Control Factors and Their Levels of
Polysilicon Deposition Process
Factor
~
1
A. Depositiontemperature(C) TO- 25
B. Depositionpressure (mttor) P0 - 200
C. Nitrogenflow (seem)
N.~
D. Silaneflow (seem)
So- 100
E. Settingtime (min.)
T__o
E Cleaningmethod
None
(7)
136
2
T_.o
P--o
N o - 150
So - 50
to+ 8
CM2
3
T O+ 25
Po + 200
N o - 75
So
to+ 16
CM3
Table 2
L x 8 0 r t h o g o n a l Array and Factor Assignment for Case 1
Expt.
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
1
e
1
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
A
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
7
e
1
2
3
3
1
2
2
3
1
2
3
1
3
1
2
1
2
3
8
F
1
2
3
3
1
2
3
1
2
1
2
3
2
3
1
2
3
1
Table 3
Surface Defect Data (Defect/Unit Area) for Case 1
Expt. No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
0
2
35
15
1980
360
810
2730
i000
0
0
1620
25
21
1200
6
3500
2500
1
8
106
6
2000
1620
1215
5000
1000
0
1
90
270
162
1800
40
3500
3500
2
180
360
17
487
2430
1620
360
3000
3
5
2t6
810
90
2530
54
1000
5000
0
5
38
20
810
207
117
1
1000
0
0
5
16
6
2080
0
3
1000
0
0
135
16
400
2
30
2
1000
0
0
4
1
1
2080
8
1
1000
i
126
315
15
2020
2500
1800
9999
3000
1
1
270
225
63
1890
14
9999
5000
1
3
50
40
360
270
720
225
2800
0
0
8
3
15
180
1
600
2000
0
1
180
18
13
35
315
1
2000
1
1
3
0
39
25
1
8
2000
Table 4
Thickness and Deposition Rate Data for Case 1
Expt. No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Thickness (TH)
2029
5375
5989
2118
4102
3022
3030
4707
3859
3227
2521
5921
2792
2863
3218
3020
4277
3125
1975
5191
5894
2109
4152
2932
3042
4472
3822
3205
2499
5766
2752
2835
3149
3008
4150
3119
1961
5242
5874
2099
4174
2913
3028
4336
3850
3242
2499
5844
2716
2859
3124
3016
3992
3127
1975
5201
6152
2140
4556
2833
3486
4407
3871
3468
2576
5780
2684
2829
3261
3072
3888
3567
1934
5254
5910
2125
4504
2837
3333
4156
3922
3450
2537
5695
2635
2864
3205
3151
3681
3563
1907
5309
5886
2108
4560
2828
3389
4094
3904
3420
2512
5814
2606
2839
3223
3139
3572
3520
137
1941
5307
5943
2130
5040
2875
3671
4898
4067
3591
2552
5777
2786
2844
3189
3162
4298
4088
1949
5091
5962
2111
5032
2841
3687
4599
4110
3535
2570
5743
2773
2841
3197
3140
4219
4138
14.5
36.6
41.4
36.1
73.0
49.5
76.6
105.4
115.0
24.8
20.0
39.0
53.1
45.7
54.8
76.8
105.3
91.4
Table 5
A
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
B
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
C
1
2
3
1
2
3
2
3
1
3
1
2
2
3
1
3
1
2
D
1
2
3
2
3
1
1
2
3
3
1
2
3
1
2
2
3
1
E
1
2
3
2
3
1
3
1
2
2
3
1
1
2
3
3
1
2
F
1
2
3
3
1
2
3
1
2
1
2
3
2
3
1
2
3
1
Table 6(a)
Summary of Factor Effects for Surface Defect
Surface Defect
0.512
-37.304
-45.168
-25.761
-62.537
-62.231
-59.882
-71.686
-68.154
-3.468
-5.082
-54.854
-49.381
-36.537
-64.176
-27.305
-71.505
-71.996
Thickness
Deposition Rate
35.224
35.754
36.020
42.241
21.431
32.913
21.390
22.838
30.597
26.850
38.804
38.055
32.069
43.353
37.439
31.856
22.011
18.417
23.227
31.270
32.340
31.150
37.266
33.892
37.685
40.457
41.214
27.889
26.021
31.821
34.502
33.198
34.776
37.707
40.449
39.219
Table 7
Estimated /70 of Starting Conditions A2BzC1D3EIF1for Case 1
Quality Characteristics
A
B
C
D
E
F
-24.227 -27.548 -39.028 -39.203 -51.524 -45.558
-50.104 -47.442 -55.992 -46.848 -40.537 -41.576
-61.755 -61.097 -41.066 -50.036 -44.025 -48.951
Table 6(b)
Summary of Factor Effects for Thickness
A
35.118
34.908
24.518
B
31.605
30,698
32.240
C
34.386
27.853
32.305
D
31.684
34.697
28.163
E
30.684
32.869
31,157
B
32.027
34,777
35.544
C
32.806
35.294
34.247
D
32.207
34.530
35.610
E
34.058
33.990
34.299
-56.882 (db)
34.609 (db)
rl0 = A2 + B 2 + C 1 + D 3 + E t +F1 - 5 T
= -50.104-47.442
F
27,033
33,666
33,845
51.524-45.558-
- 39.028 - 50.0365x(-45.362)
=-56.882(db)
Table 6(c)
Summary of Factor Effects for Deposition Rate
A
28,761
34.131
39.455
Surface Defect
Starting
A2B2CID3EIF 1
F
33.806
34.101
34.440
(-37,304-(-56.882))
P Q L R = 10
The computed SN ratios (-q') for all quality characteristics are listed in Table 5, and the main effect
of factors for each quality characteristic are shown
in Tables 6a-6c.
The estimated average SN ratios (q0) under the
starting conditions A2B2CID3E~FI for all quality
characteristics are listed in Table 7. For example,
the ~0 of starting conditions for surface defect is
given by
10
= 0.011
Next, we normalize PQLR 0 and perform the principal component analysis, then take the absolute
value of principal component score and compute %.
The weight toi for this case is 0.707, 0.193, and 0.101
for the first principal component, second principal
component, and third principal component, respectively. The results are listed in Table 9.
Employing Table 9, we finally calculate the main
effects using the geometric average and obtain the
138
Table 8
PQLR of Experimental Conditions for Each Quality Characteristic
Expt. No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
A
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
B
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
C
1
2
3
1
2
3
2
3
1
3
1
2
2
3
1
3
1
2
D
1
2
3
2
3
1
1
2
3
3
1
2
3
1
2
2
3
1
E
1
2
3
2
3
1
3
1
2
2
3
1
1
2
3
3
1
2
F
1
2
3
3
1
2
3
1
2
1
2
3
2
3
1
2
3
1
SD
0.512
-37.304
-45.168
-25.761
-62.537
-62.231
-59.882
-71.686
-68.154
-3.468
-5.082
-54.854
-49.381
-36.537
-64.176
-27.305
-71.505
-71.996
PQLR(sDI
0.000
0.011
0.067
0.001
3.677
3.427
1.995
30.226
13.404
0.000
0.000
0.627
0.178
0.009
5.363
0.001
28.995
32.462
TH
35.224
35.754
36.020
42.241
21.431
32.913
21.390
22.838
30.597
26.850
38.804
38.055
32.069
43.353
37.439
31.856
22.011
18.417
PQLRcr~)
0.195
0.173
0.163
0.039
4.680
0.333
4.725
3.385
0.567
1.344
0.086
0.102
0.404
0.030
0.117
0.424
4.096
9.369
DR
23.227
31.270
32.340
31.150
37.266
33.892
37.685
40.457
41.214
27.889
26.021
31.821
34.502
33.198
34.776
37.707
40.449
39.219
PQLRcoR~
13.745
2.157
1.686
2.217
0.542
1.179
0.493
0.260
0.219
4.699
7.225
1.900
1.025
1.384
0.962
0.490
0.261
0.346
Table 9
Normalized PQLR U and Principal Component Score
Expt. No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
A
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
B
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
C
1
2
3
1
2
3
2
3
1
3
1
2
2
3
1
3
1
2
D
1
2
3
2
3
1
1
2
3
3
1
2
3
1
2
2
3
1
E
1
2
3
2
3
1
3
1
2
2
3
1
1
2
3
3
1
2
Normalized PQLR
SD
TH
DR
0.000
0.018
1.000
0.000
0.015
0.143
0.002
0.014
0.108
0.000
0.00l
0.148
0.113
0.498
0.024
0.106
0.032
0.071
0.061
0.503
0.020
0.931
0.359
0.003
0.413
0.058
0.000
0.000
0.141
0.331
0.000
0.006
0.518
0.019
0.008
0.124
0.005
0.040
0.060
0.000
0.000
0.086
0.165
0.009
0.055
0.000
0.042
0.020
0.893
0.435
0.003
1.000
1.000
0.009
F
1
2
3
3
1
2
3
1
2
1
2
3
2
3
1
2
3
1
Absolute Value of
Principal Component Score
0.281
0.960
0.014
0.033
0.139
0.012
0.022
0.106
0.010
0.043
0.142
0.001
0.356
0.134
0.341
0.080
0.098
0.035
0.319
0.119
0.376
0.925
0.285
0.244
0.355
0.108
0.191
0.019
0.340
0.115
0.148
0.497
0.004
0.017
0.124
0.005
0.008
0.065
0.030
0.025
0.082
0.000
0.118
0.093
0.088
0.017
0.026
0.034
0.937
0.288
0.160
1.331
0.415
0.240
%
0.385
0.052
0.037
0.057
0.312
0.079
0.286
0.733
0.291
0.090
0.200
0.036
0.022
0.034
0.110
0.021
0.734
1.044
Table 10
Summary of Factor Effects (%)
Level . ~
A
Level 1 I 0.089
Level2
10.070
Level 3 I 0.315
C
0.217
0.125
0.072
D
0.198
0.075
0.130
E
0.153
0.118
0.107
F
0.312
0.069
0.090
conditions to optimize multiple quality characteristics among published techniques using this case a r e
displayed in Table 11.
From Table 11, it is found that the obtained average PQLR of optimal conditions for proposed method
is the lowest. Although the result of optimal conditions is the same as those of Tong, Su, and Wang's
method, their method did not consider the correlation between quality characteristics.
139
Vol. 23/No. 2
2004
Table 11
Comparative Analysis Among Methods Published
Optimal Conditions
Tong, Su, and
Su and Tong's
Wang's method
method
PQLR
PQLR
0.06%
0.00%
5.46%
5.20%
153.20%
527.49%
52.91%
177.56%
Phadke's
method
PQLR
0.01%
12.04%
326.78%
112.94%
Quality
Characteristics
Surface defect
Thickness
Deposition rate
Average PQLR
Table 12
Factors and Their Levels for Case 2
Factor
A: Disk writability
B: Magnetization width
C: Gap length
D: Coercivity of media
E: Rotational speed
Level 1
8,000
2.._55
0.3
1,200
3,000
Level 2
10,000
3.0
0....A
1,400
3,500
Proposed
method
PQLR
0.06%
5.46%
153.20%
52.91%
two characteristics: refractive index (RI)-NTB, target value of 2, and deposition thickness (DT)-NTB,
target value of 1,000 A. The factors and their chosen levels are listed in Table 15, and the experiment
data are shown in Table 16.
The starting conditions are AzB1C2D2EzFzG~H2with
estimated average SN ratios for RI and DT being
32.139 db and 26.260 db, respectively. The optimal
parameter conditions for Tong and Su (1997) and
Tong, Su, and Wang (1997) are A1BzC3D2EzF2GzH3
and A1B3CzDzE2F2GzH3, respectively. When the case
is re-analyzed using the proposed optimization procedure, the optimal parameter conditions found are
A~BIC3D2E2FzGzH3. The comparative analysis
among the other methods and proposed method is
shown in Table 17.
From Table 17, although the result of optimal conditions is slightly higher than those of other approaches, the correlation between quality
characteristics was not considered in their methods.
Level 3
3.5
0.5
1,600
4,000
Case 2
Case 4
Case 3
140
Vol. 23/No. 2
2004
Table 13
Data Summary by Experiment for Case 2
Expt. No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
A
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
B
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
Factor
C
D
1
1
2
2
3
3
1
1
2
2
3
3
1
2
2
3
3
1
1
3
2
1
3
2
1
2
2
3
3
1
1
3
2
1
3
2
E
1
2
3
2
3
1
1
2
3
3
1
2
3
1
2
2
3
1
PW
63.5
64.2
65.6
54.5
56.2
87.5
63.6
64.3
65.6
47.7
74.9
74.9
47.7
75.0
74.9
54.5
56.2
87.4
66.0
66.0
67.0
56.6
57.8
89.3
66.1
66.1
66.9
49.5
77.0
76.5
49.5
77.0
76.5
56.6
57.8
89.3
HFA
286.7 257.6
343.0 310.6
381.1 354.4
328.1 295.4
368.3 333.0
234.3 213.5
288.0 259.2
335.8 304.9
312.7 282.8
451.0
393.8
291.6 263.0
346.8 312.4
447.9
393.8
312.8 280.5
271.9 245.4
385.2 336.7
378.7 341.5
270.6 244.6
OW
32.2
34.8
36.2
33.5
36.2
40.0
31.7
35.2
43.7
15.6
33.6
35.1
25.8
29.7
38.4
20.4
35.6
38.5
PS
30.l
33.3
35.5
31.5
34.9
38.4
29.5
33.9
46.5
22.3
32.6
33.8
22.3
28.9
38.9
17.2
34.6
37.0
10.9
11.6
13.6
9.2
10.2
17.8
10.1
10.7
14.4
11.0
16.3
16.9
10.0
14.6
18.0
11.6
12.1
19.4
12.0
13.0
14.7
10.8
11.2
19.1
11.8
12.1
15.4
11.8
17.9
18.6
11.6
16.5
19.2
13.4
13.4
21.3
Table 14
Comparative Analysis for Case 2
Quality
Characteristics
PW
HFA
OW
PS
Average PQLR
Chen's
method
55.66%
80.22%
152.02%
65.81%
88.43%
Table 15
Factors and Their Levels for Case 3
Factor
Level 1
A: Cleaning method
N_._q
B: Chamber temperature 100C
C: Number of runs after
1st
chamber is cleaned
D: Flow rate of Sill 4
6%
E: Flow rate of N2
30%
F: Chamber pressure
160 mtorr
G: R.E power
30 W
H: Deposition time
11.5 rain.
Level 2
Ye._._~s
200C
2nd
Level 3
7%
35%
190 mtorr
35 W
12.5 min.
8%
40%
220 mtorr
40 W
13.5 min.
Proposed
method
76.63%
100.45%
74.14%
86.93
84.54%
300C
3rd
Conclusion
Acknowledgments
T h e T a g u c h i m e t h o d is r o b u s t in the d e s i g n and
p r o d u c t i o n stage s u c h that m a n u f a c t u r e r s c a n use
it to p r o d u c e h i g h e r q u a l i t y p r o d u c t s at a l o w e r c o s t
T h e a u t h o r s w o u l d l i k e to t h a n k Dr. S a e e d
M a g h s o o d l o o o f A u b u r n U n i v e r s i t y f o r helpful and
141
Table 16
Data Summary by Experiment for Case 3
Factor
DT
Expt. No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
2
3
1
3
1
2
2
3
1
3
1
2
1
2
3
2
3
1
1
2
3
3
1
2
3
1
2
2
3
1
1
2
3
2
3
1
3
1
2
2
3
1
1
2
3
3
1
2
1
2
3
3
1
2
2
3
1
2
3
1
3
1
2
1
2
3
1
2
3
3
1
2
3
1
2
1
2
3
2
3
1
2
3
1
RI
4
704
851
958
801
989
833
1150
811
609
966
1392
893
1066
976
976
915
859
760
2.118
2.205
2.677
2.096
2.032
1.860
2.012
1.834
1.719
2.097
1.927
1.963
1.903
2.103
2.182
2.274
1.942
2.077
1.919
2.240
2.643
1.997
2.007
1.838
1.909
1.760
1.707
1.911
1.860
1.881
1.829
2.020
2.080
2.166
1.905
1.961
1.985
2.234
2.714
1.949
1.943
1.842
1.797
1.760
1.676
1.889
1.945
1.812
1.788
2.011
2.071
2.215
1.909
1.985
2.085
2.165
2.456
2.046
2.003
1.999
1.930
1.782
1.704
2.014
1.539
1.923
1.863
2.107
2.179
2.103
1.916
2.101
2.056
2.275
2,565
2.000
1.845
1.858
1.819
1.744
1.675
1.960
1.867
1.899
1.767
1.968
1.968
2.203
1.900
1.980
Table 17
Proposed
method
DT
RI
34.25%
64.31%
83.73%
19.77%
25.28%
84.36%
Average PQLR
49.28%
51.75%
54.82%
Table 18
Factor
A: Mold temperature
B: Injection temperature
C: Hold-on pressure
D: Injection time
E: Hold-on time
F: Cooling time
G: Fill time
Units
Level 1
Level 2
C
kg/cm 2
kg/cm 2
sec.
sec.
sec.
sec.
35
11.._.00
70
30
23
50
7
50
150
120
50
33
100
17
142
Table 19
Data Summary by Experiment for Case 4
OD
Expt. No.
Factor
D
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
1
1
2
2
1
1
2
2
1
1
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
2
1
2
1
1
2
2
1
1
2
2
1
HE
POF
Mean
(mm)
SN ratio
(db)
Mean
(ram)
SN ratio
(db)
Mean
(kg/cm 2)
1
2
2
1
2
1
1
2
329.30
329.41
329.45
329.48
329.48
329.45
329.43
329.60
65.88
65.08
64.02
66.89
60.29
67.89
72.12
69.57
113.21
114.07
113.20
113.54
113.88
114.00
113.85
113.72
52.99
58.83
43.26
45.17
47.79
50.21
52.21
52.75
3.00
1.66
1.69
2.12
2.77
1.48
2.13
2.58
Table 20
Comparative Analysis for Case 4
Quality
Characteristics
OD
HE
POF
Average PQLR
36.69%
25.09%
132.13%
54.82%
Tong, L.-I.; Su, C.-T.; and Wang, C.-H. (1997). "The optimization of
multiresponse problems in the Taguchi method." Int'l Journal of
Quality & Reliability Mgmt. (v14, n4), pp367-380.
Tsui, K. (1999). "Robust design optimization for multiple characteristic problems." lnt'l Journal of Production Research (v37, n2),
pp433-445.
Vining, G.G. (1998). "A compromise approach to multiresponse optimization." Journal of Quali~ Technology (v30, n4), pp309-313.
Wu, E-C. and Chyu, C.-C. (2002). "A comparative study on Taguchi's
SN ratio, minimizing MSD and variance for nominal-the-best
characteristic experiment." Int'l Journal of Advanced Mfg. Technology (v20, n9), pp655-659.
Authors' Biographies
Dr. Ful-Chiang Wu is an associate professor in the Dept. of Industrial Management at Vanung University, Taiwan. He received his BS
in industrial engineering from Chung-Yuan Christian University and
MS and PhD in industrial engineering and management from YuanZe University in Taiwan. His current research activities include quality engineering, quality management, and statistics in industrial
applications.
Dr. Chiuh-Cheng Chyu is an associate professor in the Dept. of
Industrial Engineering and Management at Yuan-Ze University, Taiwan. He received his BS in mechanical engineering from National
Taiwan University, Taiwan, MS in management science from Stevens
Institute of Technology, New Jersey, and PhD in industrial engineering and operations research from the University of California-Berkeley. His current research interests include quality and reliability
engineering, stochastic modeling, production scheduling, and network optimization.
143