Article Per Year (5 Year)
p-Index From 2021 - 2026
0
P-Index
This Author published in this journals
All Journal Journal Industrial Servicess
ulfah, maria
Teaching Staff of Industrial Engineering of Sultan Ageng Tirtayasa University
Computer Science & IT Control & Systems Engineering Decision Sciences, Operations Research & Management Economics, Econometrics & Finance Engineering Industrial & Manufacturing Engineering Mechanical Engineering Transportation

Published : 1 Documents Claim Missing Document
Claim Missing Document
Check
Articles

Found 1 Documents
Search

 1 
Teaching Staff of Industrial Engineering of Sultan Ageng Tirtayasa University ulfah, maria
Journal Industrial Servicess Vol 2, No 1 (2016): Oktober 2016
Publisher : Fakultas Teknik Jurusan Teknik Industri Universitas Sultan Ageng Tirtayasa

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.36055/jiss.v2i1.1511

Abstract

Nowadays refined sugar supply chain is often occured risk (disruption)that the complained by food industry, beverage and pharmaceutical industries as consumer of refined sugar. The purpose of this research is to design a risk management model of  refined sugar supply chain and realized in the framework  of risk mitigation actions.The method used in the identification and evaluation constitute development of  method  Failure Modes and Effect Analysis (FMEA) and Quality Function Deployment (QFD), while the determination of the criteria in the process business was using Supply Chain Operation Reference (SCOR) dimension. Of the research methods used  will be developed a formulation the value potential risks for determining priority  risks agent will be mitigated by the approach  House of Risk (HOR).HOR1 is used to rank each risk agent based on their aggregate risk potentials. HOR2 is intended to prioritize the proactive actions that the company should pursue to maximize the cost-effectiveness of the effort in dealing with the selected risk agents in HOR1. The results of the HOR model was to handle 24 risk agent by implementing 22  risk mitigation actions.
Co-Authors