臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

在高速競爭的時代，商品的品質是企業競爭的要素，選用高良率的製程將生產更多合格的產品，若當不良品愈多，後續的品質成本也隨之增加，進而使得製造總成本提高，相對的企業競爭力降低。工業製造可透過替代製程來完成生產，有多個製程能力相當的製程能讓製造商能夠從其中做選擇。製造商需要建立彈性化的生產方式以應對市場需求的變化，本研究目標為在眾多候選製程中選擇製程能力高於現有製程作為替代製程，進行多對一比較。製程能力指標(Process Capability Indices, PCI)能在高良率下有效評估製程能力，由於公司對製程偏移和變異可能設有不同權重，因此本論文選用製程能力指標Cpw來衡量製程能力，此指標可反應製程偏移和變異對品質損失的影響。為達到篩選可替代現有製程之目標，本研究方法建立兩製程Cpw比值的信賴上界，並採用Dunn- Šidák法來校正各別信賴區間之顯著水準，以控制多次比較之總誤差。

In the era of high-speed competition, product quality is the key factor for enterprise competitiveness. Using high-yield processes can produce more qualified products. Conversely, having more defective items increases subsequent quality costs. Thus, the total manufacturing cost will increase and the enterprise competitiveness will decrease. Manufacturing can leverage alternative processes, that is to have several competitive processes to choose from for manufacturers. To meet fluctuating market demands, manufacturers must establish flexible production ways. This study aims to identify alternative processes with capabilities higher than that of the current process from several candidates by conducting many-to-one comparisons. Process Capability Indices (PCI) can effectively evaluate process capabilities under high-yield conditions. Since companies may assign different weights to process shifts and variation, this research employs the Cpw capability index to measure process capability. This index can reflect the impact of process shifts and variation on quality loss. To identify alternative processes, this study constructs the upper confidence bounds for the ratio of Cpw of two processes. The Dunn-Šidák method is used to adjust individual bounds and control overall error in multiple comparisons.

摘要 i
ABSTRACT ii
目錄 iv
表目錄 v
圖目錄 vi
第一章、緒論 1
1.1研究背景與動機 1
1.2研究目的 2
1.3研究架構 3
第二章、文獻探討 5
2.1製程能力指標介紹 5
2.2製程選擇 7
2.3多重比較之校正方法 9
第三章、研究方法 11
第四章、模擬分析 14
4.1型一誤差分析 14
4.1.1模擬設定(一) 14
4.1.2型一誤差結果 16
4.2.檢定力分析 32
4.2.1模擬設定(二) 32
4.2.2檢定力結果 37
第五章、結論與未來研究方向 45
參考文獻 46
附錄 49

1.林育玲(2008)。「製程能力指標Cpw之探討與應用」。碩士論文，淡江大學。
2.范瑜芳(2003)。「以複式模擬法建構兩個皮爾森分配製程之製程能力指標C''pmk差異值之信賴區間」。碩士論文，國立交通大學。
3.許慧先(2000)。「以複式模擬法構建單一製程能力指標Cpmk之信賴下限及兩個製程能力指標Cpmk差異的信賴區間」。碩士論文，國立交通大學。
4.Chan, L. K., Cheng, S. W., & Spiring, F. A. (1988). A new measure of process capability: Cpm. Journal of Quality Technology, 20(3), 162-175.
5.Chen, J. P., & Chen, K. S. (2004). Comparison of two process capabilities by using indices Cpm: an application to a color STN display. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 21(1), 90-101.
6.Chen, K. S. & Chen, K. L. (2006). Supplier selection by testing the process incapability index. International Journal of Production Research, 44(3), 589-600.
7.Chou, Y. M. (1994). Selecting a better supplier by testing process capability indices. Quality Engineering, 6(3), 427-438.
8.Daniels, L., Edgar, B., Burdick, R. K., & Hubele, N. F. (2004). Using confidenceintervals to compare process capability indices. Quality Engineering, 17(1), 23-32.
9.Dickson, G. W. (1966). An analysis of vendor selection systems and decisions. Journal of Purchasing, 2(1), 5–17.
10.Hubele, N. F., Berrado, A., & Gel, E. S. (2005). A Wald test for comparing multiple capability indices. Journal of Quality Technology, 37(4), 304-307.
11.Huang, D. Y. & Lee, R. F. (1995). Selecting the largest capability index from several quality control processes. Journal of Statistical Planning and Inference, 46(3), 335-346.
12.Kane, V. E. (1986). Process capability indices. Journal of Quality Technology, 18(1), 41-52.
13.Lan, Y. J. & Lin, C. J. (2019). An efficient subset selection method for supplier selection under multiple quality characteristics. Quality Technology & Quantitative Management, 16(2), 231-241.
14.Lin, C. J. & Pearn, W. L. (2011). Group selection for production yield among k manufacturing lines. Journal of Statistical Planning and Inference, 141(4), 1510-1518.
15.Lin, C. J. and Kuo, H. H. (2014). Multiple comparisons with the best for supplier selection. Quality and Reliability Engineering International, 30(7), 1083-1092.
16.Lin, C. J., & Shen, Y. L. (2017). Comparing multiple process overall yields from multiple manufacturing lines. Communications in Statistics - Theory and Methods, 46(23), 11764–11775.
17.Pearn, W. L., Kotz, S., Johnson, N. L. (1992). Distributional and inferential properties of process capability indices. Journal of Quality Technology, 24(4), 216-231.
18.Pearn, W. L., Wu, C. W. and Lin, H. C. (2004). Procedure for supplier selection based on Cpm applied to super twisted nematic liquid crystal display processes. International Journal of Production Research, 42(13), 2719-2734, 2004.
19.Pearn, W. L.& Wu, C. H. (2013). Supplier selection critical decision values for processes with multiple independent lines. Quality and Reliability Engineering International, 29(6), 899-909.
20.Šidák, Z. (1967). Rectangular confidence regions for the means of multivariate normal distributions. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 62(318), 626-633.
21.Shaffer, J. P. (1995). Multiple hypothesis testing. Annual Review of Psychology, 46(1), 561-584.
22.Spiring, F. A. (1997). A unifying approach to process capability indices. Journal of Quality Technology, 29(1), 49-58.
23.Stevenson, W. J., Hojati, M., & Cao, J. (2014). Operations Management (p. 182). New York: McGraw-Hill Education.
24.Tseng, S. T. & Wu, T. Y. (1991). Selecting the best manufacturing process. Journal of Quality Technology, 23(1), 53-62.
25.Wu, C. W., Shu, M. H., Pearn, W. L., & Liu, K. H. (2008). Bootstrap approach for supplier selection based on production yield. International Journal of Production Research, 46(18), 5211-5230.