Report Information from ProQuest

March 23 2018 04:01

Created by My Research account: COMANIAMELANIE (melanie
comania)

23 March 2018 Page 1 of 11 ProQuest

 Search Strategy

Set# Searched for Databases Results

S9 different ordering process in ProQuest Central 41320*
purchasing
S8 characteristics of reliable ProQuest Central 117938*
suppliers
S7 Difference between ProQuest Central 57220*
purchasing and procurement
S6 diffences between purchasing ProQuest Central 2°
and procurement
S5 diffidences between ProQuest Central 27°
purchasing AND procurement
S4 diffidences between ProQuest Central 27°
purchasing AND procurement
S3 diffidences between ProQuest Central 27°
purchasing AND procurement
S2 diffidences between ProQuest Central 27°
purchasing AND procurement
S1 diffences between purchasing ProQuest Central 2°
and procurement

* Duplicates are removed from your search, but included in your result count.
° Duplicates are removed from your search and from your result count.

23 March 2018 Page 2 of 11 ProQuest

Evaluation of Prosthetics Purchasing Process
at VA Hospitals
Peng, Yidong; Shi, Jing; Farahmand, Kambiz; Masek, Christopher; Woodbridge, Peter . IIE
Annual Conference. Proceedings ; Norcross (2015): 2699-2707.

ProQuest document link

ABSTRACT

Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is the largest prosthetic device provider among all the U.S.
healthcare systems. VA policy requires that all the purchasing requests be handled within 5
business days of request creation. Hence, it is of vital importance to ensure that the agents work
with an efficient purchasing system that considers ergonomic issues to facilitate the purchasing
process. In this study, we conduct a detailed task analysis on the prosthetic purchasing process at
VA hospitals, and identify the issues that may affect the smoothness of the purchasing process.
Furthermore, we develop a survey for the purchasing agents to evaluate the current process, as
well as the usability of the current system. Responses are collected from a total of 30 agents from
various VA hospitals nationwide. Overall, the purchasing agents provide positive feedback about
the current system. It is also found that the more time an agent spends on the system, the more
positive feedback the agent is likely to provide. Also, three existing problems in the current
purchasing process are identified and the corresponding recommendations, which receive high
ratings from the agents, are proposed to address the issues and improve the prosthetics
purchasing system and process at VA.

FULL TEXT

Headnote

Abstract

Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is the largest prosthetic device provider among all the U.S. healthcare systems. VA
policy requires that all the purchasing requests be handled within 5 business days of request creation. Hence, it is of vital
importance to ensure that the agents work with an efficient purchasing system that considers ergonomic issues to facilitate
the purchasing process. In this study, we conduct a detailed task analysis on the prosthetic purchasing process at VA
hospitals, and identify the issues that may affect the smoothness of the purchasing process. Furthermore, we develop a
survey for the purchasing agents to evaluate the current process, as well as the usability of the current system. Responses
are collected from a total of 30 agents from various VA hospitals nationwide. Overall, the purchasing agents provide
positive feedback about the current system. It is also found that the more time an agent spends on the system, the more
positive feedback the agent is likely to provide. Also, three existing problems in the current purchasing process are
identified and the corresponding recommendations, which receive high ratings from the agents, are proposed to address the
issues and improve the prosthetics purchasing system and process at VA.

Keywords
23 March 2018 Page 3 of 11 ProQuest
Prosthetics purchasing, usability, process improvement, Veterans Affairs, survey

1. Introduction

VA healthcare system provides prosthetic devices to eligible Veteran patients free of charge. In fiscal year 2007 alone, VA
provided 8,058 legs ($46 million), 380 arms ($2.5 million), 86,945 wheelchairs, scooters, and accessories ($122 million),
67,8401 orthotics ($33.5 million), 39,1531 orthotic shoes ($27.2 million), 769,522 eyeglasses ($35 million), 348,920
hearing aids ($122 million), and 2.2 million pieces of medical equipment and supplies ($149.8 million), which in total
amounted to $538 million [1]. Although the prosthetic service is costly, VA still promises the Veterans high quality
prosthetic service as a lifelong commitment. VA has an information system to show where every dollar is spent on each
Veteran, and the Congress does not hesitate to provide all the funds needed for prosthetics. To ensure timely and quality
prosthetic services to the Veterans, the purchasing process should be well designed and streamlined, and the purchasing
agents need to reduce the non value-added activities. Meanwhile, the software system that the agents use to place the orders
should be user friendly and easy to be used.

It is well known that human factors engineering provides structured methods to achieve the optimization of the work
systems [2]. It can enhance the human well-being, usability of the products or work devices, overall performance and
safety of the work process. For instance, Martinsons and Chong [3] study the influence of human factors and specialist
involvement on information system success. Their results based on field investigation show that the proactive and
supportive human resource roles are associated with greater user satisfaction, smoother organizational change, and
improved productivity. Or et al. [4] investigate the human factors and ergonomics concern in the setting of home care. In
the study, the health information technologies are proposed as the solution to the existing problems related to the critical
home care tasks of information access, communication, and patient self-monitoring and selfmanagement. Also, the study
analyzes the five elements (i.e., people, tasks, tools, environment and organizations) of a work system based on the System
Engineering Initiative in Patient Safety model (SEIPS), which is proposed by Carayon et al. [5]. Norris [6] adopts human
factors tools to improve the patient safety and summarizes the human factors principles for patient safety, namely, 1) design
for standardization and simplicity; 2) know your users; 3) participative design; 4) design-in safety; 5) understand when and
why things may go wrong; 6) make it easy for staff to do the right thing; 7) procure for safety; 8) understand team work; 8)
think about how it all fits together; and 9) manage change. Zayas-Cabán [7] conducts an s assessment on the health
information management tasks. It is suggested that frequently occurred tasks should be conducted in public space; less
frequent or more time consuming tasks should be performed in private space. Beuscart-Zéphir et al. [8] apply the human
factors approach to a medication administration work system in a hospital medication project. The approach efficiently
identifies and distinguishes the existing unsafe and uncomfortable work situations. Phansalkar et al. [9] analyze the
implementation of human factors principles for the design of alerts in clinical information system and conclude that many
human factors principles are not well followed, which possibly contributes to the lack of acceptance of alerts in clinical
information system.

The integration of human factors in the purchasing process has received attention from researches and practitioners. Studies
show human factors influence the customers' decision during purchasing process [10-13]. Meanwhile, VA prosthetics
purchasing agents use the software system, VistA Prosthetics Application Suite [14], in their daily operations. A key issue is
human-computer interaction (HCI). A well-designed HCI ensures system functionality and usability, provides effective user
interaction support, and enhances a pleasant user experience. The ultimate goal of HCI is to achieve both organizational
and individual user effectiveness and efficiency. Two important concerns of HCI are "perceived usefulness" and "perceived
ease of use". One famous model to address these two concerns is the technology acceptance model (TAM), which can be
used to analyze whether users will accept and use information technology [15]. The existing HCI technologies can be
categorized into 3 groups by the relative human sense, namely, vision, audition, and touch. Currently, methods in HCI are

23 March 2018 Page 4 of 11 ProQuest

trying to combine the existing methods of interaction together with other advancing technologies such as networking and
animation [16].

Although process analysis based on human factors engineering has been widely applied to various healthcare operations,
no evidence has shown that the analysis has been applied to the prosthetic purchasing process. For this purpose, in this
research we apply human factors engineering tools to analyze the prosthetics purchasing process at VA to identify the
opportunities for process re-design and improvement. In the project process, we first carry out a cognitive walkthrough,
which is mainly about working with the clinic staff, including managers, prosthetics representatives, prosthetics purchasing
agents, and prosthetists, in the prosthetics department of a VA hospital, to exam all the forms used by the agents, the input,
the procedure involved, and the required output. Based on that, we develop the initial understandings on usability and
system improvement issues. Thereafter, we develop a survey questionnaire and distribute it to the VA agents system-wide.
More conclusive insights are thus obtained from the survey results.

2. Cognitive Walkthrough

The technique of cognitive walkthrough is a frequently used method for human factors review. For this, we visited the
prosthetics department in a VA hospital to observe the prosthetics purchasing process a couple of times in 2014. The
purpose was to develop the understanding of the prosthetics purchasing process, as well as record the processes for further
task analysis. In the VA healthcare system, prosthetics purchasing orders under $3,000 represent simple orders that can be
handled by the hospital agents alone, while orders over $3,000 need to go through a different channel to be processed. The
entire processes of purchasing prosthetics devices (under/over $3,000) were demonstrated by a leading VA prosthetics
agent during the visits. Therefore, the purchasing processes of both types of orders were observed. Also, the entire
walkthrough process was recorded for further study. The video only contains visual information from the computer screen
and voice information to avoid any privacy issue.

2.1 Orders under $3,000

The purchasing agents have up to 5 days after a request being initiated by providers to take actions for order purchasing. In
general, the purchasing agents follow four major steps to complete a purchasing order. The four steps include information
collection, verifying vendors' credentials, placing the order through the VistA Prosthetics Application Suite, and faxing the
purchasing order to vendors.

1) Information collection

In this step, both patient-related information and vendor-related information are collected. The patient related information
includes patient's demographics and the specifications for the prosthetics orders such as size and colors. The vendor-related
information includes the vendor name, price quotation, and etc. The information collection is the most time-consuming
process in the entire purchasing process. It can take more 80% of entire purchasing time, since the information collection
process mainly rely on the communication among physicians, patients, vendors, prosthetists, and purchasing agents.
Normally, the majority of information collection tasks are performed by clinic staff other than the purchasing agents.
However, the agents may need to contact providers, vendors and prosthetists, if any information is wrong/missing when
he/she is placing the order through the VistA Prosthetics Application Suite.

2) Verifying vendor's credentials

Before purchasing the prosthetics supplies from the vendors, the purchasing agents need to verify the credentials of the
vendors through the website of System for Award Management (SAM) and the website of Office of Inspector General of
U.S. Department of Health &Human Service (HHS). The agent can identify the vendors based on the "DUNS" number to
see if the vendors are registered on "SAM". The Office of Inspector General of U.S. Department of Health &Human
23 March 2018 Page 5 of 11 ProQuest
Service is in charge of identifying and combating waste, fraud, and abuse in the HHS's more than 300 programs, including
Medicare, the Food and Drug Administration, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the National Institutes
of Health. The agents can check the violation records of vendors on the HHS website. The general rule is that the agents
should only buy prosthetics supplies from the vendors that have registered on SAM and have clear records at HHS.

3) Placing the order through the VistA Prosthetics Application Suite

After verifying vendor's credentials, the agents can start to place the order by following the prompts in the VistA
Prosthetics Application Suite. As shown in Figure 1, there are 9 steps to create the purchasing order through the software,
namely "Due Date", "Site", "Purchase Card", "Vendor", "Delivery", "Add Items", "Discount/Shipping", "Submit Order",
and "Post CPRS Note". "Due Date" allows agents to put in or adjust the due date of the purchasing order; "Site" allows
agents to put in or change VA site information, "Purchase Card" allows the agents to put in or change the purchase card
information. If the agents have only one purchase card, the card information will be automatically filled. However, if the
agents have more than one purchase card, they can select one card for this order. "Vendor" allows the agents to put in or
change the vendor information; "Delivery" allows agents to edit the delivery method; "Add Item" allows the agents to add
necessary items to the order; "Discount/Shipping" allows the agents to enter the discount for the item they are ordering and
the shipping amount, if applicable; "Submit Order" allows the agents to submit the order to the system by entering
electronic signature; "Post CPRS Note" allows the agents to enter all the necessary information for the item they are
ordering.

To start creating the purchase order for a patient, the purchasing agents need to select the patient from the purchasing order
control window and click the button "Create PO" on the right of the manager notes box. After clicking the button, a two-
panel purchasing window will pop up, as shown in Figure 2. To complete the entire purchase order creation process, the
purchase agent needs to click the button 1 to 6 on the policy panel one by one and type in the corresponding information in
the pop up window. Once the button is clicked and the corresponding information is entered, a green check mark will
appear on the right of the button and the entered the information will be displayed in the right field on the detailed
information panel. The next step of creating the purchase order is simply clicking the "submit order" button, which will
lead the purchasing agent to electronic signature window. After electronic signature and clicking the button "Send PO", the
purchase order creation process is considered finished. The corresponding records in the purchase order control window
will be updated accordingly.

4) Faxing the purchasing order to vendors

After placing the order in the VistA Prosthetics Application Suite, the agents fax all order related information to the vendors
including the patient-related information, vendor-related information, vendor's credentials, and order summary.

2.2 Orders over $3,000

Compared to the orders under $3,000, the orders over $3,000 are handled differently. The agents in the hospital do not have
the authority to directly place those orders. Instead, they only submit the purchasing request to the officers at the higher
level VA organizations, namely, Veterans Integrated Service Networks (VISN). The officers at the VISN level either
approve the request, or reject the request if more information is needed. To complete this request, the agents at VA hospitals
must complete the "Prosthetic Application and Sensory Aid" form. In addition, the agents have to fill the application
request through the website: eCMS-Epic: Acquisition Planning Module- RequirementOpportunity Details.

3. Survey

Based on the cognitive walkthrough and the discussion with the manager of the prosthetics department, we identified the
potential areas for process improvement and developed a questionnaire in compliance with the QUIS (Questionnaire for
23 March 2018 Page 6 of 11 ProQuest
User Interface Satisfaction) procedure [17]. The questionnaire was distributed to the VA prosthetics purchasing agents
nation-wide with the help of two VA prosthetics officers and the project manager. The purpose of the survey is to verify the
difficulties that VA prosthetic purchasing agents encounter in their daily work and evaluate the usability of the current
VistA Prosthetic Application Suite, in terms of HCI principles, such as visibility, feedback, constraints, and mapping. In
addition, we also included questions for purchasing agent to evaluate the potential action items for process improvement. A
total of 30 completed questionnaires were collected.

In Table 1, the tasks that significantly occupy purchasing agents' time are summarized. Purchasing agents were asked to
evaluate whether a task significantly occupies their work hours on a five point basis, with "1" indicating "Not at all" and
"5" indicating "very significant". It can be seen that, 53.3% of the purchasing agents consider that communication with
vendors occupies their work hours significantly or very significantly. Similarly, it can be found that 40%, 66.7%, 56.7%
and 73.3% of purchasing agents consider "communication with doctors/therapists", "handling phone calls from patients"
and "handling phone calls from patients", "entering purchasing order in the VistA system" and "printing and faxing
purchasing orders" occupy their work hours significantly or very significantly. Clearly, "printing and faxing purchasing
order" is recognized by the highest percentage of purchase agents as the task that occupies their work hours significantly.

In Table 2, the potential difficulties that the purchasing agents may encounter in their daily work are summarized. For
orders under $3,000, 46.7% of the agents consider "Checking venders' credential on websites" as the most difficult task,
6.6% consider "Placing the order within VistA Prosthetics Application Suite" as the most difficult task, and the rest 46.7%
consider other tasks, such as verifying order information and responding to patients' inquiries, as the most difficult task. For
orders over $3,000, 50% of the agents consider it difficult to fill in the required forms through the website: "eCMS-Epic:
Acquisition Planning Module- Requirement-Opportunity Details", while the other 50% do not find it difficult. In addition,
76.7% of the agents indicate that it will affect their work significantly, if the providers do not follow the Mandatory
Contract Compliance List to choose vendors for the prosthetic orders.

In Table 3, the results of the usability evaluation for the VistA Prosthetic Application Suite are summarized. As we can see,
six usability related statements are provided. The prosthetics purchasing agents were asked to evaluate these statements
based on their experience. Each statement was evaluated on a five point basis, with "1" indicating "strongly disagree", and
"5" indicating "strongly agree". The average scores for statements 1 - 6 are 4.1, 4.0, 3.5, 3.0, 4.2, and 3.0 respectively.
Clearly, statement 5 has the highest score; about 86.7% of agents agree or strongly agree that the language, terminology
and tone used are appropriate, consistent and readily understood by the users. On the other hand, statements 4 and 6 receive
the lowest scores. Only 40% of agents agree and strongly agree that the error notification system is well designed, while
only 30% of agents agree and strongly agree that the help document of the software is well designed. Therefore, it can be
concluded that the error notification system and help document have room for improving the usability of the VistA
Prosthetic Application Suite.

In addition, we conduct a correlation analysis to investigate the relationship between the result of usability evaluation and
agents' work time spent on entering purchasing orders in the VistA Prosthetics Application Suite. To be more specific, we
intend to know whether a purchasing agent would give a high score in the usability evaluation if this agent spends most of
his/her working hour entering purchasing orders. As we can see in Table 3, the usability evaluation contains six different
items, namely item 1 - 6. In Table 4, the correlation coefficients between working time spent on purchasing orders and each
of the six items, as well as the corresponding p-values are summarized. In general, a positive/negative correlation
coefficient indicates that more working hours spent on entering purchasing order lead to a higher/lower evaluation,
respectively. In addition, the p-value shows if the positive or negative correlation is statistically significant. A low p-value
(<5%) usually means significant correlation. The results show that the agents' working hours spent on entering purchasing
orders have significant positive correlation with items 2, 3, and 6. Although the correlation coefficient is negative for item 5
and time spent on entering purchasing order, the p-value indicates that this negative correlation is not significant. As a

23 March 2018 Page 7 of 11 ProQuest

result, it can be concluded that a purchasing agent generally gives a high score for items 2, 3, and 6 in the usability
evaluation if the agent spends much time in entering the purchasing orders.

4. Identified Problems and Recommendations

4.1 Problems with adding items to purchasing orders

Adding items to purchasing order is one of the most important steps of placing the order through the VistA Prosthetics
Application Suite. When the agents add items for creating an order in the software, they need to fill in both "billing item"
code and "HCPCS" code. It requires years of experience to match up these codes with actual items. Hence, it could be
time-consuming to find both "billing item" code and "HCPCS" code for one item. Note that HCPCS is the abbreviation for
Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System. However, there is a one-to-one relationship between the "billing item" and
"HCPCS" code, i.e., each "billing item" code corresponds to a unique "HCPCS" code, and vice versa. The proposed action
item 1 is that the system should automatically fill in the "billing item"/"HCPCS" code, once the "HCPCS"/"billing item" is
filled by the purchasing agents.

4.2 Problems with order breakdown

Many orders (such as wheelchairs) are broken down into the component level (i.e., line items) and the purchasing agents
are required to type in these components line by line into the extended description box. We consider it unnecessary to type
in the line items, since the quotes from vendors have already list the detailed information. Hence, the proposed action item
2 is that line item input should be eliminated to save the efforts of agents.

4.3 Problems with verifying vendors' credentials

As mentioned above, the general rule is that the agents should buy prosthetics supplies from the vendors that have
registered on SAM and have clear records at HHS. However, it is inefficient to verify vendors' credential through two
different government systems, especially when the VA Internet connection is slow. As such, the proposed action item 3
recommends that an integrated system should be designed which allow agents to verify vendors credential through a single
source.

In Table 5, purchasing agents' opinions on potential process improvement action items are summarized. The results show
that all proposed improvement action items are highly rated by the purchasing agents. This implies that the majority of
agents believe that the improvement action items can facilitate their work. To be more specific, 83.3% of agents think that
the action item 1 could significantly improve their work efficiency, while 86.6% and 76.7% of agents think that action
items 2 and 3 could significantly improve their work efficiency.

5. Conclusions

In this study, we conduct a task analysis based on human factors engineering for the prosthetic purchasing process at VA
hospitals. The cognitive walkthrough method is used to learn the purchasing process and identify the issues. Thereafter, a
questionnaire is developed and distributed to VA prosthetics purchasing agents, in order to identify (and confirm) the
difficulties that VA prosthetic purchasing agents encounter in their daily work, assess the usability of the current software
for purchasing, namely, the VistA Prosthetic Application Suite, and evaluate the potential action items for process
improvement. In general, the purchasing agents are satisfied with the usability of the purchasing software. Also, the survey
results indicate that the more the purchasing agents use the system, the higher they rate the usability. In addition, existing
issues in the current purchasing process are identified, and recommendations are provided. The recommendations receive
overall high ratings from the purchasing agents participated in our study. Finally, the findings and recommendations have
been submitted to the VA leadership for prosthetics purchasing to develop a pilot and full scale implementation plan.

23 March 2018 Page 8 of 11 ProQuest

References

References

1. Downs Jr., F., 2008, Prosthetics in the VA: Past, Present, and Future. U.S. Naval Institute Proceedings, 134(2):56

2. Sanders, M. S., and McCormick, E. J., 1993, Human Factors in Engineering and Design, 7th Edition. McGraw-Hill.

3. Martinsons, M. G., and Chong, P. K., 1999, "The Influence of Human Factors and Specialist Involvement on Information
Systems Success," Human Relations, 52(1), 123-152.

4. Or, C. K., Valdez, R. S., Casper, G. R., Carayon, P., Burke, L. J., Brennan, P. F., and Karsh, B. T., 2009, "Human Factors
and Ergonomics in Home Care: Current Concerns and Future Considerations for Health Information Technology," Work: A
Journal of Prevention, Assessment and Rehabilitation, 33(2), 201-209.

5. Carayon, P., Hundt, A. S., Karsh, B. T., Gurses, A. P., Alvarado, C. J., Smith, M., and Brennan, P. F., 2006, "Work
System Design for Patient Safety: The SEIPS Model," Quality and Safety in Health Care, 15(suppl 1), i50-i58.

6. Norris, B., 2009, "Human Factors and Safe Patient Care," Journal of Nursing Management, 17(2), 203-211.

7. Zayas-Cabán T., 2012, "Health Information Management in the Home: A Human Factors Assessment," Work, 41(3):315-
28

8. Beuscart-Zéphir, M. C., Pelayo, S., and Bernonville, S., 2010, "Example of a Human Factors Engineering Approach to a
Medication Administration Work System: Potential Impact on Patient Safety," International Journal of Medical Informatics,
79(4), e43-e57.

9. Phansalkar, S., Edworthy, J., Hellier, E., Seger, D. L., Schedlbauer, A., Avery, A. J., and Bates, D. W., 2010, "A Review
of Human Factors Principles for the Design and Implementation of Medication Safety Alerts in Clinical Information
Systems," Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 17(5), 493-501.

10. Lau, L., Vargo, B., and Gieras I., 2008, "Improving Equipment Purchasing Decisions through Human Factors
Engineering," Biomedical Instrumentation &Technology, 42(2), 115-117.

11. Ward, M., and Shafaghi, M., 2009, "Human Factors and Their Influence on the Irish Online Hospitality Consumer
Process" in Gorham, G. and Mottiar, Z. (eds.), Contemporary Issues in Irish and Global Tourism and Hospitality, Dublin
Institute of Technology, Dublin, pp. 188 - 199.

12. Cassano-Piché, A., Cafazzo, J. A., Chagpar, A., and Easty, A. C., 2010, "Choosing Safer Medical Technologies: How
Human Factors Methods can Help in the Procurement Process," Human Factors Horizons 2010, 44(s1), 49-56.

13. Nemeth, C., Nunnally, M., Bitan, Y., Nunnally, S., and Cook, R. I., 2009, "Between Choice and Chance: The Role of
Human Factors in Acute Care Equipment Decisions," Journal of Patient Safety, 5(2), 114-121.

14. Department of Veterans Affairs. (2005). Prosthetics Application Suite User Manual-GUI Version. Available at:
http://www.vistainstitute.com/vdl/VistA_Lib/Clinical/Prothestics/RMPR_3_90UM.pdf

15. Davis, F. D., 1989, "Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Information Technology,"
MIS Quarterly, 319-340.

23 March 2018 Page 9 of 11 ProQuest

16. Karray, F., Alemzadeh, M., Saleh, J. A., and Arab, M. N., 2008, "Human-Computer Interaction: Overview on State of
the Art," International Journal on Smart Sensing and Intelligent Systems, 1(1), 137-159.

17. Chin, J. P., Diehl, V. A., &Norman, K. L., 1988, "Development of An Instrument Measuring User Satisfaction of the
Human-Computer Interface," In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems (pp. 213-
218). ACM.

AuthorAffiliation

Yidong Peng, Jing Shi, Kambiz Farahmand

North Dakota State University

Fargo, ND 58108, USA

Christopher Masek, Peter Woodbridge

Center for Health Engineering

Albuquerque, NM 87108, USA

DETAILS

Subject:
Prostheses; Government agencies; Hospitals;
Purchasing agents; Polls &surveys

Company / organization:
Name: Department of Veterans Affairs; NAICS:
923140

Publication title:
IIE Annual Conference. Proceedings; Norcross

Pages:
2699-2707

Number of pages:
9

Publication year:
2015

Publication date:
2015

Publisher:
Institute of Industrial and Systems Engineers
(IISE)

Place of publication:
Norcross

Country of publication:
Norcross
23 March 2018 Page 10 of 11 ProQuest
Publication subject:
Engineering--Industrial Engineering

Source type:
Scholarly Journals

Language of publication:
English

Document type:
Feature

Document feature:
Tables References

ProQuest document ID:

1792031169

Document URL:
https://search.proquest.com/docview/179203116
9?accountid=31259

Copyright:
Copyright Institute of Industrial Engineers-
Publisher 2015

Last updated:
2016-05-28

Database:
ProQuest Central

Database copyright Ó 2018 ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved.

Terms and Conditions Contact ProQuest

23 March 2018 Page 11 of 11 ProQuest