Abstract
AbstractThe need to maintain or sustain a product's usefulness to or beyond its initial lifecycle expectancy is often driven by investment costs, market share, sales revenues, new product release schedules, standardization, uninterruptable usage, or declining budgets. A question then arises as to how often to upgrade a product. Aside from these typically discussed rationales, the paper concludes that a viable approach is to consider the upgrade cycle that results in the minimum cost based on quality. A general quality loss function was developed to investigate the expected quality loss for quality characteristics such as nominal‐the‐best, smaller‐the‐best, and larger‐the‐better. It is shown that when a shape parameter is introduced into the loss function, product upgrade cycles can be managed to minimize the expected losses.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
