Proceedings of the 2007 11th International Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work in Design

An Effective Chromosome Representation for Optimising Product Quality
Chen-Fang Tsai1; Kuo-Ming Chao2 Department of Industrial Management, Aletheia University, Taiwan, R.O.C. 2 Department of Computer and Network Systems, Coventry University, Coventry, CV1 5FB, UK

Optimising variables in the quality control of production can be a complex issue, as it may involve many different constraints and expectations on the quality of products which are normally provided from different organisations to form a multiple supply chain. The challenge of measuring product interdependence across various supply chains and identifying a trade-off between quality and cost is not trivial. In this research, which applies dynamic Genetic Algorithms, we propose a new approach to representing the problem domain within the chromosome which takes advantage of schema evolution and domain knowledge to refine the chromosome structure. As a result, different weightings can be derived and applied to the genes in order to improve searching efficiency of the Genetic Algorithms (GA). An example of multiple supply chains has been used to evaluate the proposed approach. The results show that the proposed approach outperforms traditional GA approaches. Keywords: multiple supply chain optimizations; dynamic genetic algorithms; weight rankings and contribution ratio.

it is a very effective and efficient approach in identifying solutions in a large and complex search space. Genetic algorithms have had success in single function optimizations [1]. Multiple optimizations problems are difficult to solve because of the complexity generated by multiple inputs and outputs [2]. Multiple supply chains management is a broad field which aims to optimise supply chain operations by preventing and correcting corporation problems [13]. It attempts to seek a balance between the quality and the cost reduction in multiple chain environments. However, due to the multiple variables and objectives involved in the applications, existing search algorithms are not appropriate. Therefore, this research proposes a chromosome refinement procedure to adjust the structure and order of the genes within the chromosome to improve GA searching efficiency. This paper is structured as follows: Section 2 proposes a dynamic tuning mechanism for improving the performance of genetic algorithms. Section 3 presents the structures of supply multi-chains. Section 4 validates experimental result of Chromosome Refinement for GA evolutions. Section 5 concludes the finding of this research and discusses our possible future work.

1. Introduction
A Genetic Algorithm (GA) is a directed randomized search procedure. The basic structure processed by GA is a chromosome which includes a number of genes to represent the problem and solution domains. A schema is a pattern of genes consisting of a subset of genes located at certain positions. The presence of schemata explains the power of the GA search because they improve its efficiency and effectiveness The better a schema contributes, the more of its genes will be preserved for the next generation. It is assumed that an individual's high fitness chromosome owes its fitness to the fact that it contains good schemata. By passing on more of these good schemata to the next generation, the likelihood of finding better solutions increases in the search process. The applications of GAs to optimization problems have been very successful due to the fact that

2. The Schemata behaviours of Genetic Algorithms
Genetic algorithms utilized the Darwinian notion of ‘survival of the fittest’ and are embedded in the hypothesis of evolution and natural genetics. They are population-based search techniques and engaged randomised search trials. Previous studies illustrated that a good way to explore the search space is to assign reproductive trials to individuals in proportion to their fitness function relative to the rest of the population. In this manner, good schemata obtain an exponentially increasing number of trials in successive generations [11]. Schemata are implicitly handled by the GA in parallel, which justifies claims for the efficiency and effectiveness of their performance in search [4]. The intent of the schema theory is to form the basis for a

1-4244-0963-2/07/$25.00 ©2007 IEEE.


the system attempts to recognise the beneficial genes and fix values for these genes as well as their positions in order to refine search space. these are often necessary for complex problems with a rugged fitness landscape. Hence. Gene Grouping (GG) and Gene Ordering (GO). 1033 . the approach applied three operations: Gene Identification (GI). In Gene Grouping. 2. After Gene Identification and Grouping. The refinement processes are shown as the Figure 1. But if there is a lot of interaction between genes due to the nature of the problem domain. Interaction between genes means that the contribution of a gene to the fitness depends on the value of other genes in chromosomes. by using policy oriented selection [15]. an approach which reduces the disruption of beneficial building blocks is useful in preventing the loss of important genes [11]. However.2 The dynamic tuning processes of chromosome refinement The preservation of beneficial genetic material is important during crossover and mutation. It is therefore very important to design a good structure for the chromosome. so it requires appropriate management. First. then the problem of the interaction can be solved. we apply Gene Ordering to optimise the gene sequence of the chromosome. In many cases.better understanding of how a Genetic Algorithm works. we calculate the importance of the genes to the total fitness in terms of ratio. a controller is proposed that includes three mechanisms i. Over evolutions. The system employs the total value of importance ratio and relationship value to arrange the gene sequence within each gene group. we employ the GA evolution evidence and problem domain knowledge to adjust the positions of the genes within the chromosome.e. In previous studies. the system will attempt to identify subgroup relationships within the individual groups in order to reduce the search space. which tries to use the domain knowledge for the multiple supply chains to refine the chromosome structure [7]. Its goal is the regain of good genes that were lost in the selection process when poor performance mates are selected instead of good ones. A successful coding for a chromosome will ensure that related genes are close together in the chromosome. The schema theorem implies that the disruptive effects of crossover and mutation are detrimental to the efficiency of the genetic search. These are schemata of short defining length consisting of bits which work well together. Finally. several approaches have been employed for the identification stage. and factor analysis by the statistical analysis [3][7][12]. the system employs cluster analysis by domain knowledge to define the grouping relationships between genes. In our research. we select control variables from the fitness value. In our research. Schemata are also called similarity subsets because they represent subsets of strings with similar patterns at certain fixed position. then. we should try to design coding schemes to ensure that the GA will work as well as possible. If we can ensure that each gene only interacts with a small number of other genes and these can be placed together on the chromosome when it is appropriate. Hence. whilst there is little interaction between them. the control parameters will be arranged in a sequence of groups and then [7]. such as: expert systems using domain knowledge. the exact nature of the relationship between the genes may not be known initially to the designers due to the complexity of the problem domain. This usually leads to an improvement in the GA’s search. we attempt to identify the beneficial genes within the chromosome structure in three stages. we analyse the relationships between the importance ratio and the control variables with reference to the process policy. Clearly. The arrangement of these genes significantly affects the GA’s performance. Gene Grouping and Gene Ordering for chromosome refinement. Initially.1 Chromosome Refinement The GA’s chromosome consists of groups of variables. we employ a chromosome refinement mechanism to adjust the order of the genes within the chromosome. In fact some interactions between genes likely take place in multiple fitness functions [10]. The next section introduces a new procedure for chromosome refinement. The next section describes the procedures of chromosome refinement. 2. In our Gene Identification. machine learning by simulations. The Gene Identification evaluates the relative effect of each gene on the fitness function. and tend to lead to improved performance when incorporated into a chromosome [12]. Then. and an improper choice for the chromosome structure will often result in poor performance. Gene Identification. This is the reason for the approach taken in this research. which are represented by groups of genes.

08. Gene5 (30%) is the best and Gene6 (4. a ratio of the relative fitness of the genes). Gene2-CV = (Gene2AR =0.00825.2) = 0.3 * Genew-1= 0.6.6. Genew-3 = 0.01. Gene4AR.8. Gene2AR.In our Gene Identification.4.24 + 0. 1034 . (6).03. the process parameter controller employs the ratio of the fitness value (i. Gene5).21.075. Produce a final ranking for the genes.05) and assign the largest value 0. GeneCV-2 = (Gene2AR * Genew-3= 0.4) to these three genes. The following describes seven steps to produce a ranking of genes with a chromosome example consisting of six genes.15.05) = 0. Then.01)/2 =0.00825. (5). Gene3 =0.4) = 0. production and maintenance policies) and the ranking sequence. Gene i=3 = Genevalue3. and a priority weighting is assigned according to the ratio.2) > (Gene1AR = 0. The operation is repeated until no subgroup contains more than three to five (genes) variables depending on the complexity of the problem. The resulting gene sequence: Gene5 => Gene2 => Gene1 => Gene3 => Gene4 => Gene6 (note that after considering the control variable effect. In the example the control variables (CV) selection = Gene1. First. 0. Genew-3 = 0.3) > (Gene2AR = 0. the larger cost factor.03 + 0.15*0.e.045). we attempt to identify the beneficial genes within the chromosome structure in three stages. Gene sequence: Gene5 => Gene2 => Gene1 => Gene3 => Gene4 => Gene6 With consideration of control variables. 0. Gene2.6.3*0.2 * Genew-3=0.12.055 * Genew-5= 0. together with domain knowledge (i.25*0. Calculate a ratio between the genes as a percentage of the total fitness: Affecting Ratio (AR) calculation = (GenenAR = Genevalue-n / Genetotal value): For example: Gene1AR. (7).24. For example. Gene i=2 = Genevalue2. Gene sequence: Gene5 => Gene2 => Gene3 => Gene1 => Gene4 => Gene6 (3). Produce a ranking from the ratio of genes.25) > (Gene3AR = 0. (1).6) = 0. Finally. The same sequence of genes is produced as follows.8. GeneCV1-mean = (0.8 to the best one (Gene5) and the smallest value 0. Gene4-CV = (Gene4AR =0. we select control variables (i. 0. (2). Genew-2 = 0.21. Initially.8. Then produce the control variable ratio by multiplying their original gene ratios by these weights.05 to the worst one (Gene6) and calculate the adjusted ratio for the six genes: (The cost value * weighting).00225. Gene6AR. such as the penalty cost) according to the fitness value. Gene1 =0. Find the mean of the adjusted ratio and control variable ratio GeneVR2-mean = (Gene2-CV+ GeneCV-2). Gene2. the row sequence is (Gene5AR = 0.5%) is the worst. hence. For example: Gene5-CV = (Gene5AR =0.08.6) = 0. Gene i=5 = Genevalue5 .06. Gene2 = 0. Define the individual Genen for Genetotal value: TC (total cost) = Genei=1 + ……+ Gene i=n = Genetotal value. Gene3-CV = (Gene35AR =0. GeneCV-1 = (Gene1AR * Genew-1 = 0. Gene4 =0.e.18)/2 =0. In Gene Grouping.15 + 0.4) = 0.25 * Genew-2=0. 0. Gene1-CV = (Gene1AR = 0. or by using the GA evolution evidence or policy variables (the policies are derived from the domain knowledge).045 * Genew-6=0. The higher fitness ratios and strongly related factors (using domain expertise) are then selected to break down these subgroups into smaller subgroups. Assign weightings (Genew-1 = 0. arranged to place the best at the front and the worst at the end.18. GeneCV-5 = (Gene5AR * Genew-2= 0. Derive the control variables from domain knowledge of the problem. we calculate the fitness ratio between the genes and the sub-gene groups.e.4).055) > (Gene6AR = 0.15) = 0. (3). Gene1 and Gene3 are swapped). For example: Gene i=1 = Genevalue1. they are grouped as follows. GeneCV5-mean = (0. Apply a cost value weighting vector (Genew-n => 0.12)/2 =0. (Gene1. Genew-2 = 0.15. This procedure is intended to find the best subgroup for the chromosomes. Gene5AR.8) = 0. Gene3AR.8) = 0. Gene6 = 0.2. 0.15 * Genew-4 = 0.00225 (4). Gene5. the control variables are arranged in a subgroup and the rest of the variables are placed in another group.075. Gene6-CV = (Gene6AR =0. Applying the same data from the previous example. For example: GeneCV2-mean = (0. we analyse the relationships between the ratio and the control variables to produce a ranking for the variables. Gene i=4 = Genevalue4 . to define the grouping relationships between genes. Gene i=6 = Genevalue6.08. For example: (Genew-1 = 0. For the example: Gene5 = 0.15) > (Gene4AR = 0. the procedure of gene ranking can be made in relation to descending order of their fitness ratios.

Gene1 =0. Gene3)].00225. These provide very useful information for ranking. Once the chromosome has been refined and the weights have been assigned. this method presents an alternative approach to the refinement of chromosome structure based upon the building block theory. F = Number of factories. We take the gene group. Gene2. ( ∑ ∑∑ ∑ ∑ T S F P O t =1 s =1 f =1 p =1 o =1 TPCtsfpo) + the cost of quality. so its complication is sufficient to test the proposed approach. The central chain also plays the role of integrating different functions supported by different suppliers to form a functionchain.21. Gene5. Consequently. This approach employs the ranking sequence of the fitness ratio to arrange the gene sequence within each gene group according to their fitness in descending order. Multiple supply chains can be represented as a group of single supply chains. An effective control on the quality can reduce the cost of revising imperfect products. Gene2 = 0. O = Number of customer orders). ( ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ PDCtsfpo) + the cost of production. sourcing management chains. especially by shortening the response time in decision making [14]. The adopted application domain for the case study is the EDMSC multiple chains in the luggage industry. [5]. and Gene Ordering: [(Gene5 => Gene2 => Gene1). the subchains have to cooperate with the central chain by providing information and changing their parameters accordingly.075.Gene Grouping: [(Gene1. Then. However. The model attempts to enhance the effectiveness of supply chains. Over several evolutions. Therefore. when they undertake the design of an efficient supply chain. ( ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ TQCtsfpo). Gene4 =0. Gene2). t =1 s =1 f =1 p =1 o =1 T S F P O T S F P O 3. then arrange the gene order according to the ranking ratio. and Gene sequence: (Gene5 => Gene2 => Gene1 => Gene3 => Gene4 => Gene6). The total cost (TC) is formulated as follows: Total Cost (TCtsfpo) = the cost of product design. logistic management chains. Structure of Supply Multi-Chains Supply chain controllers need to adopt some form of optimization method in order to select proper process parameters. (Gene3 => Gene4 => Gene6)]. Gene Ordering can be applied to optimise the gene sequence in the chromosome. and using the substitution of design specification [6]. Inventory 1035 . Gene4. for example: If Gene Grouping = [(Gene1. The optimization design is the Economic Design of Multiple Supply Chains (EDMSC). New product design is considered in terms of the modularization of parts and processes. t =1 s =1 f =1 p =1 o =1 (T= Time period. The production chains include production lines and subcontracted suppliers for the production lines. the use of accumulation of the total ratio value of the subgroup and the ranking of these values are able to find the sequence for the chromosome. Gene6)]. These ratios are more appropriate as they can reflect the inter-relationships between supply chains. service rates and lead time intervals.). Gene5). The product design supply multi-chains include four parts: Investment Cost (IV). The next procedure for Gene Grouping is based on the adjacent gene (i. to produce a refined structure for chromosomes. having been extensively applied to the design of supply chain systems. Once Gene Identification and Grouping have been carried out. Setup Cost (SC). the search space is computationally large and difficult to traverse. the evidence about the fitness ratios for the genes and sub-gene groups can be collected. They consist of product design management chains. because these can be used to assign weights for the individual supply chain during the evolution.06. These design strategies are applied for the optimization of the customer design stage in the chain of operations. S = Number of suppliers. P = Number of products. the beneficial genes can be recognised and the beneficial values with certain genes can be fixed. The required optimisation function needs to accommodate the following factors: different chains operating policies. After the chromosome has been refined. (Gene3. quality management chains [8] [9].08. and quality supply chain dimensions. Gene6 = 0. (Gene6. it is necessary to have another genetic algorithm module to verify the results. The individual variables for the total cost of multichains will be presented and analysed in terms of the product design. which a well-established methodology. subcontract management chains. This provides a better alternative method to assign weightings for the cost function in supply chains.00825. Gene3 =0.e. A test-bed of supply multi-chains module is introduced in order to evaluate the proposed approach. Quality chains attempt to maintain the quality steadiness in the process by relying on inspectors searching and preventing quality problems ahead of their effected processes [3]. as well as their positions. Different integration chains will apply different selections of production combinations. Gene4. production. (Gene5 = 0. The central chain directs and integrates sub-chain operations in order to achieve the common goals. The quality chain can identify assignable causes by judging the unstable causes when the quality level goes outside the quality limit bound. similar ranking ratio). All chains are connected if they are supplied by the same central chain or if they are subcontracts for the same central chain.

75 7683.5 6645 Variance 1112971 121857 Standard Deviation 1054. The purpose of this trial is to determine whether chromosome refinement is able to improve the efficiency of the GA in the EDMSC1 and EDMSC2. one non-refined and the other refined by the process parameter.796 1233.975 349. research. Table 1 and Table 2 represent T-test on the twosample assuming unequal variances of EDMSC1 and EDMSC2 and that the effect of the GA parameters on the GA behaviour is determined by the two different chromosome structures. Experimental result of Chromosome Refinement for GA evolutions The optimization test-bed is an Economic Design of Multiple Supply Chains (EDMSC). the EDMSC multiple chains consist of the EDMSC1 and EDMSC2 from the luggage industry. ( ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ BStsfpo).g. and. risk rates and lead time intervals. ( ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ SCtsfpo) + Inventory Cost. Cost. The results show that the refined structure was significantly better than the nonrefined structure that produced better mean. Table 1 A comparison refined and non-refined structure for EDMSC1 t-Test: Two-Sample Assuming Unequal Variances EDMSC non-refined Refined Mean 7552. The EDMSC1 quality chain consists of a product design management chain. t =1 s =1 f =1 p =1 o =1 T S F P ( T t =1 s =1 f =1 p =1 o =1 S F P O ∑ ∑∑ ∑ ∑ O QDPCtsfpo) + Penalty cost. Our experiments utilised a process parameter controller to find good chromosomes for improving performance. The policy selection depends on the contextual business stage (e. or quality analysis). variance and P-value. the variable cost of operating quality charts. The overall experimental results on the chromosome refinement method indicated that the dynamic chromosome structure always performed better than the static chromosome structure in the GA search.Cost in Work In Process (ICwip(i)). whereas the EDMSC2 quality chain consists of a production design management chain. ( ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ QVCtsfpo) + Cost of searching. ( ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ QRPCtsfpo). 1036 .0804 P-value 0. production. t =1 s =1 f =1 p =1 o =1 Different integration chains will apply different selections of production combinations. The improvement can be verified through comparing the results produced by two different set of process parameters. Cost. The total cost of the quality multi-chains contains: the fixed cost. Inventory Cost in Buffer Stock (ICbuf(i)) as follows: TDCtsfpo = Investment Cost. the penalty cost of each defective new design product and the cost of the consequent revising actions. The better performance is shown in that the cost found using the refined chromosome always remains below that found using the unrefined chromosome. ( ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ IVtsfpo) + t =1 s =1 f =1 p =1 o =1 T S F P O 4. t =1 s =1 f =1 p =1 o =1 Various integration chains will choose different sets of variables for their policies. In this case. t =1 s =1 f =1 p =1 o =1 P O T S F P ( ∑ ∑∑ ∑ ∑ T S F P O T S F t =1 s =1 f =1 p =1 o =1 QSCtsfpo) + Cost of searching. These chain functions are varied according to the diverse chain operating policies. the cost of searching for false alarms and for searching for assignable causes. These can be formulated as follows: TC = Fixed cost.023908 Table 2 A comparison refined and non-refined structure for EDMSC2 t-Test: Two-Sample Assuming Unequal Variances EDMSC non-refined Refined Mean 8978. t =1 s =1 f =1 p =1 o =1 S F P O ∑ ∑∑ ∑ ∑ FOCtsfpo) ( ∑ ∑∑ ∑ ∑ ( ( T T S F P t =1 s =1 f =1 p =1 o =1 PSCtsfpo) + Manufacturing Cost. t =1 s =1 f =1 p =1 o =1 O T S F P O ( ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ WIPtsfpo) + Inventory Cost in Buffer t =1 s =1 f =1 p =1 o =1 T S F T S F P Stock. ( ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ QFCtsfpo) + Variable t =1 s =1 f =1 p =1 o =1 O T S F P O cost.111 P-value 0.125 Variance 1741863 1520564 Standard Deviation 1319. ( ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ QSCtsfpo) + Penalty of each defective. Thus there is significant difference in the performance of these two methods. the cost of the mean moving to the lower bound. t =1 s =1 f =1 p =1 o =1 ∑ ∑∑ ∑ ∑ T S F P O t =1 s =1 f =1 p =1 o =1 S F P O ∑ ∑∑ ∑ ∑ O ( ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ PPCtsfpo). due to the large variance of the dynamic setting. PMCtsfpo) PSCtsfpo) + + Shipping Penalty Cost.031013 Setup Cost. t =1 s =1 f =1 p =1 o =1 P O The mathematic formulation of total cost of production multi-chains is shown as follows: Total ( T T Cost S F P (TPCtsfpo) O = Fixed + Opening Setup Cost.

Robert M Monczka. 985-990. 33. Journal of Operations Management. Iss. R. Subhash Wadhwa. Montri Damrongwongsiri. 43. Dec 1998. J. “Stochastic modeling of a two-echelon multiple sourcing supply chain system with genetic algorithm”. pp 74-79. Vol. The result shows that refinement chromosome performed better than non-refinement chromosome. 1985. we shall consider varying the weighting values according to the evidence generated from each generation. IEEE Intelligent Systems. IEEE International Conference on Evolutionary Computation. [4] 5. Issue: 4. Felix T S Chan. 1988. “Efficient optimization of process parameters in shadow mask manufacturing using NNPLS and genetic algorithm”. “Distributed Manufacturing Scheduling Using Intelligent Chains”. International Journal of Production Research. J. “On Ordered Weighted Averaging Aggregation Operators in Multicriteria Decision Making”. 1. J. 17. Apr 2005. Genetic Programming Papers from the 1995 AAAI fall Symposium. “Machine learning for dynamic multi-product supply chain formation”. 1037 . 80-94. and customer [13] [14] [15] satisfaction”. D. L. Omega. [3] Choi. in J. Coli. pp.. 1995.K.Q. 1995. Huang. “Incorporating Problem Specific Knowledge into Genetic Algorithms”. [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] References [1] Buhwan Jeong. Fixson. plant performance. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. W. Vol. In this research. and an effective ranking method is required. 16. Ranking Techniques in Multi-criteria.Y. P. “Searching for the Optimal Coding in Genetic Algorithms”. S. p. vol 1. 2005. Piramuthu. Journal of Operations Management. and Cybernetics Vol.. Oxford: Aug 2005. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management. p. “A hybrid genetic algorithm for production and distribution”. PhD Thesis. P. / Eboch. and Palazzari. P. The use of GA’s is motivated by the inability of the conventional ranking methods to handle complicated multiple supply chains. 3209. Journal of Supply Chain Management. Vol. London: Aug 1. Grefenstette. Vol.Y. manufacturing processes. Expert Systems With Applications Volume: 29. 1987. [2] Chingping Han.. Tempe: Spring 2005. 2002. Proceedings of the First International Conference on Genetic Algorithms. Shen. M. 1. NY. Iss. Journal of Operations Management. Grefenstette. Apr 2005. Bradford: 2005. No. and supply chain design decisions”.. “Towards integrated optimal configuration of platform products. process. Yager. 15.. In this complex problem domain. 1995. we introduce a new mechanism for the GA’s search and the experimental results show that this new approach performs better than the traditional genetic algorithm. multiple supply chain optimizations produce multiple sub-supply chains situations. pp 78-85. p. T. / Liang. Selwyn. K. and supply chains”. 2.. Genetic Algorithms and Simulated Annealing. J. Iss. 42-60. pp. Kenneth J Petersen. pp 9296. 4. The approach in this research assumed that the same set of weighting values are applied to all generations. Gary L Ragatz. 41. Polytechnic University. S H Chung. 87. Schaffer. G. No. This may hinder the proposed method’s performance in a very dynamic environment. November. 4: p. Hyunbo Cho. “The TQM Paradox: Relations among TQM practices. pp 183-190. we apply genetic algorithms to the EDMSC multiple chains application in a practical and realistic industry environment. D. 14. 18. Genetic Algorithm-based Optimization. Editor. Sherman. Vol. “Towards Automatic Discovery of Building Blocks in Genetic Programming”. J. “Product architecture assessment: a tool to link product. Man. This is because the proposed method can apply the evolution evidence to assign the appropriate weighting to each supply chain function and thus help the genetic algorithm to emphasise the exploration during the early generations and find the better solution later in the evolution. IEEE Transactions on Systems. 1. 345. p. “Learning Multiclass Pattern Discrimination”. Conclusions In this paper. 2005. / Zhang.It is also shown that the refined structure achieves the better performance on a complicated function. “An Examination of Collaborative Planning Effectiveness and Supply Chain Performance”. Rosca. In the future research. X. Jaewook Lee.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful