IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/apsmbi/v28y2012i3p206-221.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A case study to demonstrate a Pareto Frontier for selecting a best response surface design while simultaneously optimizing multiple criteria

Author

Listed:
  • Lu Lu
  • Christine M. Anderson‐Cook
  • Timothy J. Robinson

Abstract

Experimenting with limited resources often means that we are trying to get more out of a single experiment and balance competing goals. Selecting a best response surface design when simultaneously optimizing multiple criteria requires carefully choosing measures and scales of different design criteria and then balancing the trade‐offs between the criteria. This paper illustrates a decision‐making process using a Pareto frontier to identify good design candidates and a Utopia point approach for selection of an optimal design based on several competing criteria. The Pareto approach shows substantial improvement over the classic desirability function method by offering the user greater flexibility in quantifying the robustness of designs to weight specifications and the sensitivity of the solutions to different choices of weights, scales, and metrics. Graphical methods are used for summarizing and extracting useful information for improved decision‐making. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Suggested Citation

  • Lu Lu & Christine M. Anderson‐Cook & Timothy J. Robinson, 2012. "A case study to demonstrate a Pareto Frontier for selecting a best response surface design while simultaneously optimizing multiple criteria," Applied Stochastic Models in Business and Industry, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(3), pages 206-221, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:apsmbi:v:28:y:2012:i:3:p:206-221
    DOI: 10.1002/asmb.940
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/asmb.940
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/asmb.940?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:apsmbi:v:28:y:2012:i:3:p:206-221. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1002/(ISSN)1526-4025 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.