Development of Quality Cost Models within a Supply Chain Environment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Determining the quality cost is one of the best ways that can assist industrial or business organizations to know clearly the investment and return of their quality improvement efforts. The information provided by accurate quality cost calculation is also a significant tool that can assist our assessment of the effectiveness of quality management system, as well as identification of quality issues within the organization and creation of opportunities for improvement. It has been noted that there is insufficient research regarding calculating cost of quality using a standard cost elements model .There is a need for a methodology to describe and develop a quality cost model using international standard. The purpose of this research is to show the development of a quality cost model that includes all possible quality cost components such as Prevention, Appraisal and Failure (P.A.F). This research studies various quality cost models, based on reviewing and analyzing these models a generic quality cost model is developed. The proposed model can be used as a tool to calculate various quality costs. In addition, it is used to determine the most failure cost. A case study is used to validate the proposed model. In this case, the implementation shows that the model is able to identify and quantify the hidden cost related to the quality in products assembly plant. Also, it identify the potential improvement opportunities within the plant. The expected significance of this research is to develop a quality cost model that can bring a light to the status of a quality system .The analysis of the outcome will be a significant management tool that helps to identify the non-value adding activities.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".