Optimization and Strategy

  • Theodore T. AllenEmail author


The selection of confirmed key system input (KIV) settings is the main outcome of a six sigma project. The term “optimization problem” refers to the selection of settings to derive to formally maximize or minimize a quantitative objective. Chapter  6 described how formal optimization methods are sometimes applied in the assumption phase of projects to develop recommended settings to be evaluated in the control or verify phases.


  1. Aizawa AN, Wah BW (1994) Scheduling of genetic algorithms in a noisy environment. Evol Comput 2:97–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Allen TT, Bernshteyn M (2003) Supersaturated designs that maximize the probability of finding the active factors. Technometrics 45:1–8MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Andradóttir S (1998) A review of simulation optimization techniques. In: Proceedings of the 1998 winter simulation conference, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  4. Bernshteyn M (2001) Simulation optimization methods that combine multiple comparisons and genetic algorithms with applications in design for computer and supersaturated experiments. Ph.D. dissertation. The Ohio State University, Columbus, OhioGoogle Scholar
  5. Boesel J (1999) Search and selection for large-scale stochastic optimization. Ph.D. dissertation. Department of Industrial Engineering and Management Sciences, Northwestern University, Evanston, IllinoisGoogle Scholar
  6. Chelouah R, Siarry P (2000) A continuous genetic algorithm designed for the global optimization of multimodal functions. J Heuristics 6:191–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. De Jong KA (1975) An analysis of the behavior of a class of genetic adaptive systems. Ph.D. dissertation. The University of Michigan, Ann ArborGoogle Scholar
  8. Holland J (1975) Adaptation in natural and artificial systems. University of Michigan Press, Ann ArborGoogle Scholar
  9. Ittiwattana W (2002) A method for simulation optimization with applications in robust process design and locating supply chain operations. Ph.D. dissertation. The Ohio State University, Columbus, OhioGoogle Scholar
  10. Mühlenbein H, Schomish M, Born J (1991) The parallel genetic algorithm as function optimizer. In: Proceedings of the international conference on genetic algorithms, pp 271–278Google Scholar
  11. Papadimitriou CH (1994) Computational complexity. Addison-Wesley, Boston, MAzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. Rechenberg I (1964) Kybernetische losungsansteuerung einer experimentellen forschungsaufgabe. Hermann-Fottinger-Institut fur Stromungstechnik der Technische Universitat, Berlin, SeminarvortragGoogle Scholar
  13. Rudolph G (1996) Convergence of evolutionary algorithms in general search spaces. In: Proceedings of the third IEEE conference on evolutionary computation. IEEE Press, Piscataway, NJ, pp 50–54Google Scholar
  14. Swisher TR, Hyden PD, Jacobson SH, Schruben LW (2000) A survey of simulation optimization techniques and procedures. In: Joines JA, Barton RR, Kang K, Fishwick PA. Proceedings of the 2000 winter simulation conference, vol 1, pp 119–128Google Scholar
  15. Yu L (2000) Expected modeling errors and low cost response surface methods. Ph.D. dissertation. The Ohio State University, Columbus, OhioGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Industrial and Systems EngineeringThe Ohio State UniversityColumbusUSA

Personalised recommendations