AHP-based lean concept selection

in a manufacturing organization
S. Vinodh, K.R. Shivraman and S. Viswesh
Department of Production Engineering,
National Institute of Technology, Tiruchirappalli, India
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to report a study in which analytic hierarchy process (AHP)
has been used for selecting the best concept in lean environment.
Design/methodology/approach There existed a need for the case organization to identify the
best concept from the perspective of lean manufacturing. The concept selection problem is a typical
multi-criterion decision-making problem. AHP judges and selects the elements/concepts which have a
greater inuence on the pre-determined objective. In this study, AHP has been used for selecting the
best concept.
Findings The validation indicated that AHP is an effective approach for enabling best concept
selection, thereby improving the leanness of the organization.
Research limitations/implications The implementation study has been carried out by
substituting the data gathered from only one manufacturing organization. Yet the ndings and
contribution of this research work would be useful to the leaders of majority of the manufacturing
companies situated in the world.
Practical implications The usage of the approach will indicate that AHP enables the best concept
selection in advanced manufacturing environments.
Originality/value A case study has been reported to indicate the feasibility of selecting the best
concept in a lean environment. Hence, the contributions are original.
Keywords Manufacturing systems, Analytic hierarchyprocess, Lean manufacturing, Concept selection,
Multi-criterion decision making
Paper type Case study
1. Introduction
The modern manufacturers face increasing competition from both local and
global manufacturers (Chen et al., 2006). Global competition and rapid technological
development have contributed to the transformation of manufacturing paradigms
(Vinodh et al., 2010b). Lean manufacturing has emerged with a focus on waste
elimination to achieve competitiveness (Lummus et al., 2006). Lean manufacturing
paradigm encompasses several tools/ techniques to achieve leanness in manufacturing
organizations (Vinodh et al., 2010a). The case organization has a problemof selecting the
best lean concept for the immediate implementation. The evaluation process of the
alternative concepts is a typical multi-criterion decision-making (MCDM) problem
because it involves several criteria (Tuzkaya and Onut, 2008; Ayag and Ozdemir, 2007;
Ayag, 2005; Meade and Sarkis, 1999). Analytic hierarchy process (AHP) judges and
selects the elements/concepts whichhave a greater inuence onpredeterminedobjective.
AHP has been used to accurately evaluate the inuence of the criteria in terms of goals.
In this context, this study utilized AHP approach for evaluating the best lean concept for
implementation in the case organization. The experts who are the decision makers
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/1741-038X.htm
JMTM
23,1
124
Journal of Manufacturing Technology
Management
Vol. 23 No. 1, 2012
pp. 124-136
qEmerald Group Publishing Limited
1741-038X
DOI 10.1108/17410381211196320
of the case organization also approved the usage of AHP approach for selecting the best
lean concept in the organization.
2. Literature review
The literature has been reviewed from the perspectives of concept selection methods
and AHP applications.
2.1 Review on concept selection methods
Concept selection is vital that the best initial concepts are selected, as they determine the
direction of the design embodiment stage. Several concept selection approaches have
been developed in the literature to assist designers in developing better design concepts
(Pugh, 1991; Pahl and Beitz, 1996; Aurand et al., 1998). The major advantage of Pughs
concept selection method is to provide a systematic approach to determine the best
concepts and quickly to form group consensus on major issues. Owing to the imprecise
design information available at the early design process, using numerical values are
dangerous because they introduce a false sense of certainty (Pahl and Beitz, 1996). Pahl
and Beitz utility theory, a seven-stage method in which the decision regarding different
concepts, is based on the requirements list. Mendes et al. (2009) adapted methodology
inspired on the Pahl and Beitzs systematic approach which allowed them to derive a
reference model for an automated test system. The adapted methodology also made
easier the design of a highly context dependent kind of system. Quality function
deployment (QFD) is a graphical adaptation of utility theory with several additions to
assist decision making(Terharr et al., 1993). The building block of the method is a matrix
chart known as a House of Quality (Hauser and Clausing, 1988). There are several
difculties in its application, among them: interpreting the customer voice, dening the
correlations between the quality demanded, and quality characteristics (Chan and Wu,
2005), dening the projected quality due to the ambiguity in the quality demanded and
qualitycharacteristics difculty in working inteams, andlack of knowledge about using
the method (Martins and Aspinwall, 2001). These difculties have discouraged its use.
Some of the concepts of lean manufacturing include streamliningof processes with value
stream mapping, adoption of single piece ow using kanban system, renement of 5S
policy, adoption of total productive maintenance for reducing breakdowns and
introduction of visual controls and poka-yoke (Vinodh et al., 2010a).
2.2 Review on applications of AHP
AHP is a theory of measurement through pair-wise comparisons and relies on the
judgement of experts to derive the priority scales. These scales measure the intangibles
in relative terms. The comparisons are made using a scale of absolute judgement that
represents how much more one element dominates another with respect to a given
attribute. The main concern of AHP is dealing with inconsistencies arising with the
judgement and improving this judgement. In this paper, this intricacy has been dealt
sufciently to ensure that the judgements are consistent enough to lead to the selection
of the best concept alternative. The derived priority scales are synthesized by
multiplying them by the priority of their parent nodes and adding for all such nodes
(Saaty, 2008). Vaidya and Kumar (2003) critically analyzed some of the papers published
in international journals of high repute, and gave a brief idea about many of the
referred publications. Papers were categorized according to the identied themes,
AHP-based lean
concept selection
125
and on the basis of the areas of applications. AHP has been applied in different elds
such as planning, alternative selection, resource allocation, and optimization. The
uniqueness of AHP is its exibility to be integrated with different techniques like linear
programming, QFD, fuzzy logic, etc. This enables the user to extract benets fromall the
combined methods, and hence, achieve the desired goal in a better way (Vaidya and
Kumar, 2003). Weber (1993) used AHPto include non-nancial impacts and avoid a bias.
A modied version of AHP, which uses support software, was used. This model was
used to nd the best way to automate a machine shop. The author applied AHP to a
machine shop decision-making problem, which decides as whether to retrot the
machine, whether to buy a new CNC, or whether to replace the machine with machining
center and programmable tool changer had to be made. For selecting quality-based
programmes, Noci and Toletti (2000) have used AHP along with fuzzy approach. They
attempted to suggest an integrated decisional tool and then they analyzed how
multi-attribute decision-making techniques should be used to identify quality-based
priorities according to the quality-based programmes. Tam and Tummala (2001) have
used AHP in vendor selection of a telecommunication system, which is a complex,
multi-person and multi-criteria decision problem. They have found AHP to be very
useful in involving several decision makers with different conicting objectives to arrive
at a consensus decision. The decision process as a result is systematic and reduces time
to select the vendor. Byun (2001) used an extended version of AHP in the selection of a
car. The paper is focused on two issues: one issue combines the pair-wise comparison
with a spreadsheet method using a ve-point rating scale. The other issue applies group
weights to consistency ratio (CR). AlKhalil (2002) used AHP to select the most
appropriate project delivery method as key project success factor. The model developed
using AHP was found to be easy to use and allows the owner to consider all
decision-relevant factors. Choughle and Ravi (2005) have proposed variant process
planning of castings using AHP-based nearest neighbour algorithm for case retrieval.
Ayag (2007) has proposed a hybrid approach to machine-tool selectionthrough AHPand
simulation. Singh and Singh (2010) have contributed three-level AHP-based heuristic
approach for a multi-objective facility layout problem.
The researches reported in the above papers have revealed that AHP could be
integrated with other tools and techniques to make good decisions. The above
literature survey results indicated that AHP is yet to be employed to make decisions for
choosing a lean concept.
3. Building the hierarchical structure
Before beginning the case study, the lean manufacturing model was built based on
the knowledge gathered through the conduct of literature review and gathering opinions
from industrial experts belonging to the manufacturing organization. A lean
manufacturing model with ve enablers, ten criteria and 30 attributes was formulated.
The ve enablers are management responsibility, manufacturing management, work
force, technology and manufacturing strategy. The ve enablers are comprehensive
enough to represent the lean manufacturing system (Vinodh and Chintha, 2010).
The experts approved the usage of the developed model. These enablers and their criteria
along with attributes were used to develop the hierarchical structure shown in Figure 1.
As shown, the management responsibility enabler includes organizational structure
and nature of management criteria. Organizational structure criterion includes
JMTM
23,1
126
Figure 1.
Hierarchical model of lean
manufacturing
L
e
a
n
M
a
n
u
f
a
c
t
u
r
i
n
g

S
y
s
t
e
m
M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
N
a
t
u
r
e

o
f
M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
S
G
A
V
W
F
P
T
E
S
P
P
P
E
C
o
n
c
e
p
t

A
C
o
n
c
e
p
t

B
C
o
n
c
e
p
t

C
C
o
n
c
e
p
t

D
C
o
n
c
e
p
t

E
I
I
M
T
W
J
S
P
K
C
S
P
T
T

S
m
o
o
t
h

I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n


F
l
o
w
(
S
)

T
e
a
m

M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t


f
o
r

D
e
c
i
s
i
o
n


m
a
k
i
n
g
.
(
T
)

I
n
t
e
r
c
h
a
n
g
e
a
b
i
l
i
t
y


o
f

P
e
r
s
o
n
a
l
(
T
)

C
l
e
a
r
l
y

k
n
o
w
n


m
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t

g
o
a
l


(
G
)

M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t


i
n
v
o
l
v
e
m
e
n
t

(
M
)

T
r
a
n
s
p
a
r
e
n
c
y

i
n


i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n


s
h
a
r
i
n
g
(
I
)

A
d
o
p
t
i
o
n

o
f

V
a
l
u
e

S
t
r
e
a
m


M
a
p
p
i
n
g
(
V
)

Q
u
a
n
t
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n

o
f

s
e
v
a
n


d
e
a
d
l
y

w
a
s
t
e
s
(
W
)

P
u
l
l

P
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

S
y
s
t
e
m
s
(
P
)

S
t
r
o
n
g

e
m
p
l
o
y
e
e

s
p
i
r
i
t



a
n
d

c
o
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
(
S
)

E
m
p
l
o
y
e
e


e
m
p
o
w
e
r
m
e
n
t
(
E
)

E
x
e
c
u
t
i
o
n

o
f

s
h
o
r
t


r
a
n
g
e

p
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
(
P
)

C
o
m
p
a
n
y
'
s


p
r
o
c
u
r
e
m
e
n
t

p
o
l
i
c
y


b
a
s
e
d

o
n

t
i
m
e


s
c
h
e
d
u
l
e
(
T
)

S
t
r
a
t
e
g
i
c

n
e
t
w
o
r
k

i
n


S
C
M

t
o

e
x
e
r
c
i
s
e


z
e
r
o

i
n
v
e
n
t
o
r
y


s
y
s
t
e
m
s
(
S
)

K
a
i
z
e
n

m
e
t
h
o
d

o
f


p
r
o
d
u
c
t

p
r
i
c
i
n
g
(
K
)

C
o
s
t
i
n
g

s
y
s
t
e
m
s


f
o
c
u
s
i
n
g

o
n

t
h
e


i
d
e
n
t
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n

o
f

v
a
l
u
e


a
d
d
i
n
g

a
n
d

N
o
n
-
v
a
l
u
e


a
d
d
i
n
g

a
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s

(
C
)

E
m
p
l
o
y
e
e
'
s

a
t
t
i
t
u
d
e



t
u
n
e
d

t
o

a
c
c
e
p
t

t
h
e



c
h
a
n
g
e
s
(
A
)

E
m
p
o
w
e
r
m
e
n
t

o
f



P
e
r
s
o
n
n
e
l
(
E
)

C
o
n
d
u
c
t

o
f

p
i
l
o
t



S
t
u
d
y

o
n

n
e
w



P
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
/
b
u
s
i
n
e
s
s



P
r
o
c
e
s
s
e
s
(
P
)

F
l
e
x
i
b
l
e

w
o
r
k
f
o
r
c
e

t
o


a
c
c
e
p
t

t
h
e

a
d
o
p
t
i
o
n

o
f


n
o
w

t
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
i
e
s
(
W
)

I
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n

o
f

j
o
b


r
o
t
a
t
i
o
n

s
y
s
t
e
m
(
J
)

M
u
l
t
i
-
s
k
i
l
l
e
d


P
e
r
s
o
n
a
l
(
P
)

F
l
e
x
i
b
l
e

s
e
t
-
u
p
s
(
F
)

L
e
s
s

t
i
m
e

f
o
r


c
h
a
n
g
i
n
g

t
h
e


m
a
c
h
i
n
e

s
e
t
-
u
p
s
(
T
)

A
c
t
i
v
e

P
o
l
i
c
y

t
o


h
e
l
p

k
e
e
p

w
o
r
k


a
r
e
a
s

c
l
e
a
n
,
t
i
d
y

a
n
d


u
n
c
l
u
t
t
e
r
e
d
(
P
)

P
r
o
d
u
c
t
s

e
x
c
e
e
d
i
n
g


t
h
e

c
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
s
'


e
x
p
e
c
t
a
t
i
o
n
s
(
P
)

U
s
a
g
e

o
f

T
Q
M



t
o
o
l
s
(
T
)

C
o
n
d
u
c
t

o
f

s
u
r
v
e
y
/


s
t
u
d
i
e
s

t
o

e
n
s
u
r
e


q
u
a
l
i
t
y

s
t
a
t
u
s

(
S
)
O
r
g
a
n
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
S
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
C
h
a
n
g
e

i
n
B
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
,
T
e
c
h
n
i
c
a
l
P
r
o
c
e
s
s
S
t
r
e
a
m
l
i
n
i
n
g
o
f

P
r
o
c
e
s
s
E
m
p
l
o
y
e
e
S
t
a
t
u
s
E
m
p
l
o
y
e
e
I
n
v
o
l
v
e
m
e
n
t
M
a
n
u
f
a
c
t
u
r
i
n
g

M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
C
o
s
t
M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
S
t
a
t
u
s

o
f
Q
u
a
l
i
t
y
M
a
n
u
f
a
c
t
u
r
i
n
g

S
e
t
u
p
s
M
a
n
u
f
a
c
t
u
r
i
n
g

P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
W
o
r
k
f
o
r
c
e
T
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
y
M
a
n
u
f
a
c
t
u
r
i
n
g

S
t
r
a
t
e
g
y
AHP-based lean
concept selection
127
the attributes such as smooth information ow, team management for decision making,
inter changeability of personnel, while nature of management criterion includes attributes
namely clearly known management goal, management involvement, and transparency in
information sharing. The manufacturing management enabler includes criteria such as
change in business and technical process and streamlining of processes. The change in
business and technical process criterion includes the attributes employees attitude tuned
to accept changes, conduct of pilot study on new production/business processes,
empowerment of personnel; streamlining of processes criterion includes adoption of value
stream mapping, quantication of seven deadly wastes, pull production system.
The workforce enabler includes employee status and employee involvement criteria. The
employee status criterion includes attributes suchas exible workforce to accept adoption
of new technologies, multi-skilled personnel, implementation of job rotation system.
The employee involvement criterion includes attributes such as strong employee
spirit and co-operation and employee empowerment. The technology enabler includes
manufacturing setups and manufacturing planning criteria. The manufacturing setups
criterion includes attributes such as exible setups, less time for changing machine
setups, active policy to help work area clean, tidy and uncluttered. The manufacturing
planning criterion includes attributes such as manufacturing planning, execution of
short range planning, companys procurement policy based on time schedule, strategic
network in supply chain management to exercise zero inventory system. The
manufacturing strategyenabler includes status of qualityandcost management criteria.
The status of quality criterion includes products exceeding customers expectations,
conduct of survey/studies to ensure quality status, usage of total quality
management tools. The cost management criterion includes attributes such as kaizen
method of product pricing, costing system focussing on identication of value adding
and non-value adding activities.
After forming the hierarchical structure shown in Figure 1, the ve concept
alternatives were compared pair wise with each other with respect to each of the
30 attributes. To facilitate ease of viewin Figure 1, the concept alternatives are connected
to the attributes with a single comparator line for each alternative. After completing this
foundational work, the case study was conducted to examine the application of AHP
using the hierarchical structure shown in Figure 1 to select the best lean concept.
4. Case study
The case study has been carried out in a modular switches manufacturing organization
located in Coimbatore city of India. The organization has implemented ISO 9001:2000
quality management system. There existed a need for the organization to select the best
lean manufacturing concept for implementation. In this context, this study has been
conducted. The best lean concept needed to be selected from the following concept
alternatives:
.
Concept A. Streamlining of processes with value stream mapping.
.
Concept B. Adoption of single piece ow using kanban system.
.
Concept C. Renement of 5S policy.
.
Concept D. Adoption of total productive maintenance for reducing breakdowns.
.
Concept E. Introduction of visual controls and poka-yoke.
JMTM
23,1
128
Each of the concept alternatives has its own uniqueness and inuences the
achievement of leanness in the organization.
4.1 Steps in AHP methodology
AHP is a technique to solve multi-criteria decision problems (Saaty, 2000). It requires
paired comparison judgements concerning the dominance of one element over another
for eachof nelements withrespect to anelement onthe next higher level usinga 1-9 scale.
The steps followed in the AHP to obtain the best lean concept alternative are structured
as follows:
(1) Five different lean manufacturing concept alternatives are conceived. The
objective of the work is the selection of the best concept alternative based on the
feedback from industrial experts and the involved manufacturing rm.
(2) The lean criteria that inuence the behaviour of the system are identied based
on an extensive literature review and feedback from industrial experts.
(3) The problem is now hierarchically structured into different levels constituting
lean enablers, lean criteria, lean attributes and lean concept alternatives. The
various lean enablers, criteria, attributes and concept alternatives have been
dealt briey in the previous section.
(4) Performance of pair-wise comparisons: each element in a particular level is
compared with another element in the same level and they are calibrated on a
numerical scale. This requires [n(n 2 1)]/2 comparisons, where n is the number
of elements with the considerations that diagonal elements are equal or 1 and
the other elements will simply be the reciprocals of the earlier comparisons.
(5) Calculations are performed to nd the maximum eigen value, consistency index
(CI), CR and normalized values for each criteria/alternative. The detailed
procedure for evaluation of eigen value, CI, CR and normalized values have been
presented in Section 4.2.
(6) If the maximum eigen value, CI and CR are satisfactory then decision is taken
based on the normalized values; else the procedure is repeated till these values
lie in a desired range. The procedure has been explained with an illustration in
the Section 4.2.
4.2 Best lean concept selection
By referring to the hierarchical structure shown in Figure 1, pair-wise comparisons
were performed. To perform pair-wise comparisons, separate questionnaires were
prepared against the goal and each dimension. Industrial experts utilized their
professional experience to weigh the dimensions and criteria for indicating the same in
the questionnaire. The questions, which enabler should be emphasized more in order
to obtain the best lean concept alternative?, Which criteria has to be selected for the
efcient functioning of the enabler? and which concept is relatively weighed more with
respect to the given attribute? were asked. Saatys (2003) 1-9 scale was utilized to gauge
answers, in which, 1 indicates equal importance, 3 indicates moderate importance,
5 indicates strong importance, 7 indicates very strong importance and 9 indicates
extreme importance. Even numbered values fell in between importance levels.
An example of a pair-wise comparison table displaying 34 pair-wise comparisons is
shown in Table I. Subsequently, comparison matrices were developed. Table II shows an
AHP-based lean
concept selection
129
example of the comparison matrix. After each element is compared, a paired comparison
matrix [A] was formed.
The matrix A was dened as shown below:
A
a
11
a
12
. . . a
1n
a
21
a
22
. . . a
2n
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
a
n1
a
n2
. . . a
nn
_

_
_

_
where n is the order of the matrix.
Then the consistency property in the pair-wise comparison was examined. The
procedure followed is enumerated below (Saaty, 2005):
(1) Build the normalized matrix A
1
:
A
1

a
0
11
a
0
12
. . . a
0
1n
a
0
21
a
0
22
. . . a
0
2n
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
a
0
n1
a
0
n2
. . . a
0
nn
_

_
_

_
and a
0
ij

a
ij

n
i21
a
ij
for i; j 1; 2; 3; . . . ; n
Concept A Concept B Concept C Concept D Concept E
Concept A 1 5 1/5 1/3 3
Concept B 1/5 1 1/9 1/7 1/3
Concept C 5 9 1 3 7
Concept D 3 7 1/3 1 5
Concept E 1/3 3 1/7 1/5 1
Table II.
Pair-wise comparison
matrix
9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Concept A
*
Concept B
*
Concept C
*
Concept D
*
Concept E
Concept B
*
Concept C
*
Concept D
*
Concept E
Concept C
*
Concept D
*
Concept E
Concept D
*
Concept E
Table I.
Pair-wise comparison of
concepts with respect to
attribute clearly known
management goal
JMTM
23,1
130
(2) Calculate the eigen value and eigen vector:
W5
W
1
W
2
.
.
.
W
4
_

_
_

_
; and W
i

n
i1
a
0
ij
n
for i 1; 2; . . . ; n; also W
0
AW5
W
0
1
W
0
2
.
.
.
W
0
n
_

_
_

_
;
and:
l
max

1
n
W
0
1
W
1

W
0
2
W
2

W
0
n
W
n
_ _
;
where Wis the eigen vector, W
i
is the eigen value of the given matrix and l
max
is the largest eigen value of the pair-wise comparison matrix.
(3) Check the consistency property: Table III shows a set of recommended random
index (RI) values presented by Saaty (2005). If CR values are more than 0.10 for a
matrix larger than 4 4, more than 0.08 for 4 4 matrices, more than 0.05 for
3 3 matrices, then it would be construed that the responses of decision makers
is inconsistent. In this case, decision makers should revise the original values in
the pair-wise comparison matrix. Table IV presents the CR values obtained
during the conduct of this study. Since CRis less than 0.1, the comparison matrix
shown is consistent. As the comparison matrices for detailed criteria were in
accordance with their respective upper-level dimensions, their eigen vectors and
consistent ratios were obtained. These values are presented in Table IV.
CI and CR were calculated using the following formula:
N 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
RI 0 0.52 0.89 1.11 1.25 1.35 1.4 1.45 1.49
Table III.
Random index
W W
0
l
max
5.24
0.129 0.673 CI 55:24 25=5 21
0.033 0.174
0.513 2.679 CR 0.0613/1.11
0.261 1.365 0.055 , 0.1
0.063 0.333
Table IV.
Eigen vector and CRvalue
AHP-based lean
concept selection
131
CI
l
max
2n
n 21
and CR
CI
RI
where l
max
is the largest eigen value of the pair-wise comparison matrix and n is
the matrix order.
(4) The global priority table was formed to compute the global priority score.
These global priority scores were obtained by summing up the product of
weight of the concept alternatives with respect to the attributes and the local
weights of the criterion and enablers. The mathematical formula used to
determine the global priority scores is given below:
GPS
ij

CW
ij
GW
c
ij
_ _
where:
GPS
ij
is the global priority score of the concept alternative.
CW
ij
is the local weight of the concept alternative with respect to the attribute.
GW
c
ij
is the global weight of the criterion given by the product of the local weights
of the criterion and the enabler.
5. Results and discussions
The global weight of criteria and global priority scores of the different concept
alternatives obtained during this case study are shown in Tables Vand VI, respectively.
From Table VI, it could be found that concept E which is the introduction of visual
controls and poka-yoke has the maximum global priority score. As a sequel to the
conduct of this study, efforts have been taken by the case organization to implement
S. no. Enabler
Local
weight
of enable Criteria
Local
weight
of criteria
Global
weight
of criteria
1 Management responsibility 0.194 Organizational
structure
0.250 0.049
Nature of
management
0.750 0.146
2 Manufacturing
management
0.073 Change in business
and technical
processes
0.833 0.609
3 Workforce
0.466
Streamlining of
processes
0.167 0.012
Employee status 0.833 0.388
4 Technology 0.194 Employee
involvement
0.167 0.078
Manufacturing setups 0.5 0.097
5 Manufacturing strategy 0.073 Manufacturing
planning
0.5 0.097
Status of quality 0.167 0.012
Cost management 0.833 0.609
Table V.
Global weight of criteria
JMTM
23,1
132
M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
r
e
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y

0
.
1
9
4
M
a
n
u
f
a
c
t
u
r
i
n
g
m
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t

0
.
0
7
3
W
o
r
k
f
o
r
c
e

0
.
4
6
6
T
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
y

0
.
1
9
4
M
a
n
u
f
a
c
t
u
r
i
n
g
s
t
r
a
t
e
g
y

0
.
0
7
3
O
r
g
a
n
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e

0
.
2
5
0
N
a
t
u
r
e
o
f
m
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t

0
.
7
5
0
C
h
a
n
g
e
i
n
b
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
a
n
d
t
e
c
h
n
i
c
a
l
p
r
o
c
e
s
s
e
s

0
.
8
3
3
S
t
r
e
a
m
l
i
n
i
n
g
o
f
p
r
o
c
e
s
s

0
.
1
6
7
E
m
p
l
o
y
e
e
s
t
a
t
u
s

0
.
8
3
3
E
m
p
l
o
y
e
e
i
n
v
o
l
v
e
m
e
n
t

0
.
1
6
7
M
a
n
u
f
a
c
t
u
r
i
n
g
s
e
t
u
p
s

0
.
5
M
a
n
u
f
a
c
t
u
r
i
n
g
p
l
a
n
n
i
n
g

0
.
1
6
7
S
t
a
t
u
s
o
f
Q
u
a
l
i
t
y

0
.
1
6
7
C
o
s
t
m
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t

0
.
8
3
3
O
v
e
r
a
l
l
i
d
e
a
l
i
z
e
d
p
r
i
o
r
i
t
y
/
g
l
o
b
a
l
p
r
i
o
r
i
t
y
s
c
o
r
e
A
0
.
1
3
7
0
.
1
2
9
0
.
1
3
7
0
.
1
3
0
0
.
1
2
9
0
.
1
2
9
0
.
1
0
4
0
.
1
0
1
0
.
1
9
5
0
.
1
3
8
0
.
1
2
2
0
.
1
3
7
0
.
1
3
7
0
.
1
3
7
0
.
1
6
5
0
.
1
2
9
0
.
1
1
3
0
.
1
0
7
0
.
0
8
2
0
.
1
3
7
0
.
1
2
9
0
.
1
3
7
0
.
1
2
9
0
.
0
7
3
0
.
1
2
9
0
.
1
1
6
0
.
1
4
0
0
.
0
6
3
0
.
1
6
1
B
0
.
0
3
8
0
.
0
3
3
0
.
2
6
7
0
.
2
7
5
0
.
0
3
3
0
.
0
3
3
0
.
0
3
0
8
0
.
3
0
1
0
.
5
9
8
0
.
0
3
4
0
.
1
0
4
0
.
2
6
7
0
.
0
3
8
0
.
0
3
8
0
.
0
2
9
0
.
0
3
3
0
.
0
3
6
0
.
0
3
2
0
.
3
6
3
0
.
0
3
6
0
.
2
6
1
0
.
0
3
8
0
.
0
3
3
0
.
1
9
4
0
.
2
6
1
0
.
0
5
8
0
.
0
5
1
0
.
5
1
3
0
.
0
7
6
C
0
.
0
3
8
0
.
5
1
3
0
.
0
3
8
0
.
0
2
9
0
.
2
6
1
0
.
2
6
1
0
.
0
2
9
0
.
0
2
9
0
.
0
3
9
0
.
5
0
1
0
.
2
6
0
0
.
0
3
8
0
.
2
6
7
0
.
5
1
9
0
.
2
9
3
0
.
2
6
1
0
.
2
8
6
0
.
2
8
0
0
.
0
2
9
0
.
2
3
2
0
.
0
3
3
0
.
5
1
9
0
.
2
6
1
0
.
0
7
3
0
.
0
6
3
0
.
3
9
7
0
.
3
9
0
0
.
0
3
3
0
.
3
6
2
D
0
.
2
6
7
0
.
2
6
1
0
.
5
1
9
0
.
4
8
7
0
.
0
6
3
0
.
0
6
3
0
.
0
6
0
0
.
0
5
7
0
.
0
8
4
0
.
0
7
7
0
.
5
1
8
0
.
0
3
8
0
.
0
3
8
0
.
0
5
2
0
.
0
6
3
0
.
0
3
6
0
.
0
5
9
0
.
3
6
3
0
.
0
7
2
0
.
5
1
3
0
.
0
3
9
0
.
0
6
3
0
.
4
6
6
0
.
5
1
2
0
.
0
3
1
0
.
0
2
8
0
.
2
6
1
0
.
0
3
9
E
0
.
5
1
9
0
.
0
6
3
0
.
0
3
8
0
.
0
7
8
0
.
5
1
3
0
.
5
1
3
0
.
4
9
9
0
.
5
1
4
0
.
0
8
4
0
.
2
4
8
0
.
3
8
5
0
.
0
3
8
0
.
5
1
8
0
.
2
6
7
0
.
4
6
1
0
.
5
1
3
0
.
5
2
8
0
.
5
2
2
0
.
1
6
4
0
.
5
2
2
0
.
0
6
3
0
.
2
6
7
0
.
5
1
3
0
.
1
9
4
0
.
0
3
3
0
.
3
9
7
0
.
3
9
0
0
.
1
2
9
0
.
3
6
2
Table VI.
Global priority score
AHP-based lean
concept selection
133
visual controls in the assembly line and poka-yoke concept has been planned for
implementation in the manufacturing of jigs and xtures. Visual controls enable
the identication of quality-related problems; Arrangement has been made to install the
customer voice tower which signals the eld complaints and other quality-relatedissues.
In this context, the decision makers felt that AHP has enabled the selection of best lean
concept and further actions have been taken to implement the concept.
5.1 Managerial implications
The objective is to select the best concept in lean manufacturing environment. The
top management commitment has to be ensured for the conduct of the study.
Across-functional teamwith experts fromdifferent departments is required to be formed.
The concept model needs to be formulatedas a hierarchical structure. Thenanappropriate
MCDM technique is required to be utilized for solving the model. The expertise of the
managers needs to be used while gathering the data required for developing pair-wise
comparison matrices. Then, the computations are to be performed for determining the
relevant parameters. This is followedbythe derivationof decisions basedonthe computed
parameters. Then, the appropriate lean concept needs to be implemented. Teammembers
involvement, top management commitment, education and training on advanced
decision-makingtechniques are the essential managerial ingredients neededfor successful
selection of the best lean concept that would suit the specied organization.
6. Conclusion
Lean manufacturing is focused on the re-conguration and re-structuring of
business processes based on waste elimination thereby enabling cost reduction (Braglia
et al., 2006). Concept selection in the context of lean manufacturing is an MCDM problem
which involves several criteria. AHP is established by the researchers as a proven
technique to solve MCDM problems. Particularly, AHP approach has been used to select
the best concept. In the background of this observation, the case study reported in this
paper was carried out. The experience of carrying out this case study has revealed the
practical propensity of applying the AHP approach for selecting the best lean concept for
implementation. The utilization of AHP has enabled the decision makers to select the best
lean concept for implementation which leads to business prosperity. The case study has
been conducted for examining the lean concept selection using AHP approach in a single
manufacturing organization. In future, more number of concept selection studies could be
conducted for several manufacturing organizations. In future case studies involving
analytical network process (ANP), fuzzy AHP as well as fuzzy ANP could also be
conducted and the efciency of these techniques in concept selection can be compared.
References
AlKhalil, M.I. (2002), Selecting the appropriate project delivery method using
AHP International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 20, pp. 469-74.
Aurand, S.S., Roberts, C.A. and Shunk, D.L. (1998), An improved methodology for evaluating
the producibility of partially specied part designs, International Journal of Computer
Integrated Manufacturing, Vol. 11, pp. 153-72.
Ayag, Z. (2005), An integrated approach to evaluating conceptual design alternatives in a new
product development environment, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 15,
pp. 687-713.
JMTM
23,1
134
Ayag, Z. (2007), A hybrid approach to machine-tool selection through AHP and simulation,
International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 45 No. 9, pp. 2029-50.
Ayag, Z. and Ozdemir, R.G. (2007), An intelligent approach to ERP software selection
through fuzzy ANP, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 45 No. 10,
pp. 2169-94.
Braglia, M., Carmignani, G. and Zammori, F. (2006), A new value stream mapping approach for
complex production systems, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 44
Nos 18/19, pp. 3929-52.
Byun, D.H. (2001), The AHP approach for selecting an automobile purchase model,
Information & Management, Vol. 38 No. 5, pp. 289-97.
Chan, L.K. and Wu, M.L. (2005), A systematic approach to quality function deployment with a
full illustrative example, Omega The International Journal of Management Science,
Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 119-39.
Chen, J.C.H., Parker, L.J. and Lin, B. (2006), Technopreneurship in native American businesses:
current issues and future trends with a case study, International Journal of Management
and Enterprise Development, Vol. 3 Nos 1/2, pp. 70-84.
Choughle, R.G. and Ravi, B. (2005), Variant process planning of castings using AHP-based
nearest neighbour algorithm for case retrieval, International Journal of Production
Research, Vol. 43 No. 6, pp. 1255-73.
Hauser, J. and Clausing, D. (1988), The house of quality, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 3,
May/June, pp. 67-73.
Lummus, R.R., Vokurka, R.J. and Rodeghiero, B. (2006), Improving quality through value
stream mapping: a case study of a physicians clinic, Total Quality Management, Vol. 7
No. 8, pp. 1063-75.
Martins, A. and Aspinwall, E.M. (2001), Quality function deployment: an empirical study
in the UK, Total Quality Management, Vol. 12 No. 5, pp. 575-88.
Meade, L.M. and Sarkis, J. (1999), Analyzing organizational project alternatives for agile
manufacturing processes: an analytical network approach, International Journal of
Production Research, Vol. 37 No. 2, pp. 241-61.
Mendes, L.A., Back, N. and Ooliveira, G.H.C. (2009), Designing automated test systems:
an adapted methodology inspired on Pahl and Beitzs systematic approach, Robotics and
Computer-Integrated Manufacturing, Vol. 25, pp. 945-50.
Noci, G. and Toletti, G. (2000), Selecting quality based programmes in small rms: a comparison
between fuzzy linguistic approach and analytic hierarchy process, International Journal
of Production Economics, Vol. 67 No. 2, pp. 113-33.
Pahl, G. and Beitz, W. (1996), Engineering Design, 2nd ed., Springer, New York, NY.
Pugh, S. (1991), Total Design: Integrated Methods for Successful Product Engineering, 2nd ed.,
Addison-Wesley, New York, NY.
Saaty, R.W. (2003), Decision Making in Complex Environments: The Analytic Hierarchy Process,
McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Saaty, T.L. (2000), Fundamentals of Decision Making and Priority Theory with the Analytic
Hierarchy Process, 2nd ed., RWS Publications, Pittsburgh, PA.
Saaty, T.L. (2005), The analytic hierarchy and analytic network processes for the measurement
of intangible criteria and for decision-making, International Series in Operations Research
& Management Science, Vol. 78 No. 4, pp. 345-405.
Saaty, T.L. (2008), Decision making with analytic hierarchy process, International Journal of
Services Sciences, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 83-98.
AHP-based lean
concept selection
135
Singh, S.P. and Singh, V.K. (2010), Three-level AHP-based heuristic approach for a
multi-objective facility layout problem, International Journal of Production Research
(rst published on 10 March 2010).
Tam, M.C.Y. and Tummala, V.M.R. (2001), An application of the AHP in vendor selection of a
telecommunications system, Omega The International Journal of Management Science,
Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 171-82.
Terharr, S., Clausing, D. and Eppinger, S. (1993), Integration of quality function deployment and
the design structure matrix, MIT working paper, MIT, Cambridge, MA.
Tuzkaya, U.R. and Onut, S. (2008), A fuzzy analytic network process based approach to
transportation-mode selection between Turkey and Germany: a case study, Information
Sciences, Vol. 178, pp. 3133-46.
Vaidya, O.S. and Kumar, S. (2003), Analytic hierarchy process: an overview of applications,
European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 169, pp. 1-29.
Vinodh, S. and Chintha, S.K. (2010), Leanness assessment using multi-grade fuzzy
approach, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 49 No. 2, pp. 431-45.
Vinodh, S., Arvind, K.R. and Somanaathan, M. (2010a), Application of value stream mapping in
an Indian camshaft manufacturing organisation, Journal of Manufacturing Technology
Management, Vol. 21 No. 7, pp. 889-900.
Vinodh, S., Sundararaj, G., Devadasan, S.R., Kuttalingam, D. and Rajanayagam, D. (2010b),
Achieving agility in manufacturing through nite element mould analysis an
application oriented research, Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, Vol. 21
No. 5, pp. 604-23.
Weber, S.F. (1993), Automated manufacturing decisions, Interfaces, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 75-84.
Further reading
Gencer, C. and Gurpinar, D. (2007), Analytic network process in concept selection: a case study
in an electronic rm, Applied Mathematical Modelling, Vol. 31 No. 11, pp. 2475-86.
Corresponding author
S. Vinodh can be contacted at: vinodh_sekar82@yahoo.com
JMTM
23,1
136
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com
Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints