Abstract    The decision making on selection of improvement solutions was one of the obstacles hampering the success of process improvement. This paper presents the House of Improvement (HOI) model as a guideline to link decision criteria for the prioritisation of improvement solutions. Three phases in the HOI are applied to facilitate selection and to ensure that suitable and value-added solutions are chosen. Each phase includes procedures for identifying, evaluating, and analysing the elements by establishing a relationship matrix. The reliability of each relationship matrix will be tested in order to proceed to the next phase. The adopted matrices in the HOI serve as decision-making tools for analysing potential and critical problems in the production line, evaluating possible effects of the critical problems, and innovating on the necessary actions for the solution. Using a real-life case study, this paper demonstrates the applicability and suitability of the HOI model in providing prioritised solutions for production problems experienced by small and medium enterprises.

Keywords    Solution Prioritisation, Continuous Process Improvement, Decision Making Analysis, Reliability Test, Linkage Decision Criteria

چکیده    یکی‌ از موانع پیش روی موفقیت در فرایند بهسازی، تصمیم گیری برای گزینش روش مناسب می‌باشد. این مقاله، یک مدل مجموعه بهسازی به عنوان راهنمایهایی برای اولویت بندی شاخصهای تصمیم گیری گزینه‌های بهسازی ارائه میدهد. برای این منظور، از سه‌ فاز در مجموعه مدلسازی برای تسهیل انتخاب گزینه مناسب بهسازی و راه حل‌های با ارزش افزوده استفاده میشود. هر فاز شامل شناسایی، ارزیابی و تحلیل المانها از طریقه ساختن یک ماتریس وابستگی آجزا می‌باشد. میزان اطمینان پذیری هر ماتریس وابستگی به منظور اجرای فاز بعدی امتحان میگردد. ماتریس‌های اتخاذ شده در مجموعه بهسازی به عنوان یک ابزار تصمیم گیری برای تحلیل پتانسیلها و مسائل بحرانی در خطوط تولید، ارزیابی اثرات محتمل و نوآوری به منظور اقدام ضروری برای هر راه حل بکار برده میشود. این مقاله، قابلیت کاربرد و مناسب بودن مدل در آولویت بندی راه حلها برای مشکلاتی که کارآفرینان کوچک و بزرگ ایجاد میشود با استفاده از یک مورد مطالعاتی حقیقی‌ نشان میدهد.

References    1.        Hernandez-Matias, J., Vizan, A., Perez-Garcia, J. and Rios, J., "An integrated modelling framework to support manufacturing system diagnosis for continuous improvement", Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing,  Vol. 24, No. 2, (2008), 187-199. 2.        Adesola, S. and Baines, T., "Developing and evaluating a methodology for business process improvement", Business Process Management Journal,  Vol. 11, No. 1, (2005), 37-46. 3.        Lee, K. and Chuah, K., "A super methodology for business process improvement-an industrial case study in hong kong/china", International Journal of Operations & Production Management,  Vol. 21, No. 5/6, (2001), 687-706. 4.        Varghese, C., "Resolving the process paradox: A strategy for launching meaningful business process improvement", Cost engineering,  Vol. 46, No. 11, (2004), 13-21. 5.        Siha, S.M. and Saad, G.H., "Business process improvement: Empirical assessment and extensions", Business Process Management Journal,  Vol. 14, No. 6, (2008), 778-802. 6.        Boyer, K.K., "Longitudinal linkages between intended and realized operations strategies", International Journal of Operations & Production Management,  Vol. 18, No. 4, (1998), 356-373. 7.        Jiang, J.J. and Klein, G., "Project selection criteria by strategic orientation", Information & Management,  Vol. 36, No. 2, (1999), 63-75. 8.        Saaty, T.L., "How to make a decision: The analytic hierarchy process", European Journal of Operational Research,  Vol. 48, No. 1, (1990), 9-26. 9.        Vargas, L.G., "An overview of the analytic hierarchy process and its applications", European Journal of Operational Research,  Vol. 48, No. 1, (1990), 2-8. 10.     Vaidya, O.S. and Kumar, S., "Analytic hierarchy process: An overview of applications", European Journal of Operational Research,,  Vol. 169, No. 1, (2006), 1-29. 11.     Mohanty, R., Agarwal, R., Choudhury, A. and Tiwari, M., "A fuzzy anp-based approach to r&d project selection: A case study", International Journal of Production Research,  Vol. 43, No. 24, (2005), 5199-5216. 12.     Jharkharia, S. and Shankar, R., "Selection of logistics service provider: An analytic network process (anp) approach", Omega,  Vol. 35, No. 3, (2007), 274-289. 13.     Halog, A., Schultmann, F. and Rentz, O., "Using quality function deployment for technique selection for optimum environmental performance improvement", Journal of Cleaner Production,  Vol. 9, No. 5, (2001), 387-394. 14.     Jalham, I.S. and Abdelkader, W.T., "Improvement of organizational efficiency and effectiveness by developing a manufacturing strategy decision support system", Business Process Management Journal,  Vol. 12, No. 5, (2006), 588-607. 15.     Maritan, D. and Panizzolo, R., "Identifying business priorities through quality function deployment: Insights from a case study", Marketing Intelligence & Planning,  Vol. 27, No. 5, (2009), 714-728. 16.     Chan, L.-K. and Wu, M.-L., "Quality function deployment: A literature review", European Journal of Operational Research,,  Vol. 143, No. 3, (2002), 463-497. 17.     Dror, S. and Barad, M., "House of strategy (hos): From strategic objectives to competitve priorities", International Journal of Production Research,  Vol. 44, No. 18-19, (2006), 3879-3895. 18.     Barad, M. and Gien, D., "Linking improvement models to manufacturing strategies-a methodology for smes and other enterprises", International Journal of Production Research,  Vol. 39, No. 12, (2001), 2675-2695. 19.     Hokstada, P., Øien, K. and Reinertsen, R., "Recommendations on the use of expert judgment in safety and reliability engineering studies. Two offshore case studies", Reliability Engineering & System Safety,  Vol. 61, No. 1, (1998), 65-76. 20.     Ohno, T., Toyota production system. Portland, or. 1988, Productivity Press. 21.     Koufteros, X.A., Vonderembse, M.A. and Doll, W.J., "Integrated product development practices and competitive capabilities: The effects of uncertainty, equivocality, and platform strategy", Journal of Operations Management,  Vol. 20, No. 4, (2002), 331-355. 22.     Bergquist, K. and Abeysekera, J., "Quality function deployment (QFD)—a means for developing usable products", International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics,  Vol. 18, No. 4, (1996), 269-275. 23.     Khandwalla, P.N., "Tools for enhancing innovativeness in enterprises", Vikalpa: The Journal for Decision Makers,  Vol. 31, No. 1, (2006).