A Novel Approach to Analyze Quality Cost Using Hybrid Bayesian Networks

Document Type: Research Paper


Department of Industrial Engineering, Bu-Ali-Sina University, Hamedan, Iran


Cost of quality (COQ) is an essential element of total quality management (TQM) system. It generally consists of conformance (preventing poor quality), and non-conformance (failure of product and service) costs. The accurate assessment and analysis of such costs can improve managing the quality of products and services significantly. The prevention–appraisal–failure (PAF) model is one of the most widely used models for analyzing and classifying the cost of quality. This approach identifies the different parameters affecting on COQ, which is generally affected by many parameters. However, the PAF model doesn’t take into account the uncertainty (risk) involved in these parameters. Moreover, the casual relationships among these parameters and also environmental and qualitative factors, are not properly addressed. This paper aims to offer a probabilistic model to assess COQ by mapping the PAF model to Bayesian networks (BNs). BNs provide a framework for presenting inherent uncertainties, formal use of experts’ judgments and probabilistic inference among a variables set. In this approach, first a qualitative model is developed to prioritize PAF groups. Then, in the group with highest priority (i.e. prevention) a quantitative model is presented. The model captures the affecting parameters in more details and provides a probabilistic analysis for qualitative and quantitative factors. The capabilities of the proposed approach are explained using data collected in a chemical products manufacturing company as a case study.


Main Subjects

  1. Harrington, H. J. (1999). “Performance improvement: a total poor-quality cost system”, The TQM Magazine, Vol. 11, No. 4, PP. 221–230.
  2. Teeravaraprug, J. (2004). Quantification of tangible and intangible quality costs. In Proceedings of the Fifth Asia Pacific Industrial Engineering and Management Systems Conference, PP. 1–7.
  3. Heckerman, D., Mamdani, A., and Wellman, M. P. (1995). “Real-world applications of Bayesian networks”, Communications of the ACM, Vol. 38, No. 3, PP. 24–26.
  4. Neil, M., Tailor, M., Marquez, D., Fenton, N., and Hearty, P. (2008). “Modelling dependable systems using hybrid Bayesian networks”, Reliability Engineering & System Safety, Vol. 93,No. 7, PP. 933–939.
  5. Juran, J., and Godfrey, A. B. (1999). Quality handbook, Republished McGraw-Hill.
  6. Feigenbaum, A. V. (1956). “Total quality-control”, Harvard business review, Vol. 34, No. 6, PP. 93–101.
  7. Dale, B. G., and Plunkett, J. J. (1999). Quality costing, Gower Publishing, Ltd.
  8. Juran, J. M., Gryna, F. M., and Bingham, R. (1975). Quality Control Textbook. McGraw-Hill, New York.
  9. Modarress, B., and Ansari, A. (1987). “Two new dimensions in the cost of quality”, International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 4, No.4, PP. 9–20.
  10. Carr, L. P. (2012). Applying the cost of quality to a service business, Image.
  11. Tatikonda, L. U., and Tatikonda, R. J. (1996). “Measuring and reporting the cost of quality”, Production and Inventory Management Journal, Vol. 37, No. 2, PP. 1–7.
  12. Heagy, C. D. (1991). “Determining optimal quality costs by considering cost of lost sales”, Journal of Cost Management, Vol. 5, No. 3, PP. 64–72.
  13. Pearl, J. (1987). “Evidential reasoning using stochastic simulation of causal models”, Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 32, No. 2, PP. 245–257.
  14. Fenton, N. E., and Neil, M. (2007). Managing risk in the modern world: Bayesian networks and the applications, London Mathematical Society, Knowledge Transfer Report.
  15. Heckerman, D. (1997). “Bayesian networks for data mining”, Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery, Vol. 1, No. 1, PP. 79–119.
  16. Nadkarni, S., and Shenoy, P. P. (2004). “A causal mapping approach to constructing Bayesian networks”, Decision Support Systems, Vol. 38, No. 2, PP. 259–281.
  17. Olson, M. S. (1997). “Bayesian procedures for discriminating among hypotheses with discrete distributions: inheritance in the tetraploid Astilbe biternata”, Genetics, Vol. 147, No. 4, PP. 1933–1942.
  18. Van Engelen, R. A. (1997). “Approximating Bayesian belief networks by arc removal”, IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, Vol. 19, No. 8, PP. 916–920.
  19. Heckerman, D., and Breese, J. S. (1996). “Causal independence for probability assessment and inference using Bayesian networks”, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics-Part A: Systems and Humans, Vol. 26, No.6, PP. 826–831.
  20. Van der Gaag, L. C., Renooij, S., Witteman, C. L., Aleman, B. M., and Taal, B. G. (1999). How to elicit many probabilities, In Proceedings of the Fifteenth conference on Uncertainty in artificial intelligence, PP. 647–654.
  21. Pearl, J. (1988). “On probability intervals”, International Journal of Approximate Reasoning, Vol. 2, No.3, PP. 211–216.
  22. Lemmer, J. F., and Gossink, D. E. (2004). “Recursive noisy OR-a rule for estimating complex probabilistic interactions”, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part B (Cybernetics), Vol. 34, No. 6, PP. 2252–2261.
  23. Das, B. (2004). Generating conditional probabilities for Bayesian networks: Easing the knowledge acquisition problem. arXiv preprint cs/0411034.
  24. Monti, S., and Carenini, G. (2000). “Dealing with the expert inconsistency in probability elicitation”, IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, Vol. 12, No.4, PP. 499–508.
  25. Chin, K. S., Tang, D. W., Yang, J. B., Wong, S. Y., and Wang, H. (2009). “Assessing new product development project risk by Bayesian network with a systematic probability generation methodology”, Expert Systems with Applications, Vol. 36, No. 6, PP. 9879–9890.
  26. Birtles, N., Fenton, N., and Neil, M. (2016). Agenarisk software, Online at: http://www.agenarisk.com/.
  27. Galway, L. A. (2007). Subjective probability distribution elicitation in cost risk analysis: A review, Vol. 410. Rand Corporation.
  28. Morgan, M. G., and Henrion, M. (1990). Uncertainty: a Guide to dealing with uncertainty in quantitative risk and policy analysis Cambridge University Press, New York, USA.
  29. Perry, C., and Greig, I. D. (1975). “Estimating the mean and variance of subjective distributions in PERT and decision analysis”, Management Science, Vol. 21, No. 12, PP. 1477–1480.
  30. Selvidge, J. E. (1980). “Assessing the extremes of probability distributions by the fractile method”, Decision Sciences, Vol. 11, No. 3, PP. 493–502.
  31. Keefer, D. L., and Verdini, W. A. (1993). “Better estimation of PERT activity time parameters”, Management Science, Vol. 39, No. 9, PP. 1086–1091.