Application of decision making methods for

selection of Advance Manufacturing Systems

A Thesis Submitted in
Partial Fulfilment of the Requirement for the Degree of

Master of Technology
In
CAD-CAM & Automation

Submitted by
Bablu Kumar Mandal
15-22-305
Under the supervision of
Dr. Saikat Ranjan Maity

DEPARTMENT OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERING

NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY SILCHAR
MAY 2017
NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY SILCHAR, 2017
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
 DECLARATION

Thesis Title: Application of decision making methods for selection

of Advance Manufacturing Systems

Degree for which the thesis submitted: Master of Technology in CAD-CAM

& Automation

I declare that the presented thesis represents mostly my own ideas and work in my own
words. Where other ideas or words have been included, I have adequately citied and listed
in the reference materials. The thesis has been prepared without resorting to plagiarism. I
have adhered to all principles of academic honesty and integrity. No falsified or fabricated
data have been presented in the thesis. I understand that any violation of the above will cause
for disciplinary action by the Institute, including revoking the conferred degree, if conferred,
and can also evoke penal action from the sources which have not been properly cited or from
whom proper permission has not been taken.

-------------------------
Bablu Kumar Mandal
Scholar No.: 15-22-305
Date: ----/----/------

i
 CERTIFICATE

This is to certify that the work contained in this thesis entitled Application of decision
making methods for selection of Advance Manufacturing Systems submitted by Bablu
Kumar Mandal, Registration number 15-22-305 for the award of Master of Technology
is absolutely based on his own work carried out under my supervision and that this thesis
has not been submitted elsewhere for any degree.

-------------------
Dr. Saikat Ranjan Maity
Assistant Professor
Date: ----/----/------- Department of Mechanical Engineering
National Institute of Technology Silchar

ii
 ABSTRACT

Various Multi-Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) methods have been developed to support
the decision-making process. The main aim of all MCDM methods is to obtain a ranking of
the alternatives and select the best one under conflicting criteria. Selection of advanced
manufacturing systems (AMS) is a multi-criteria decision-making problem, based on
assessing a large number of conflicting quantitative and qualitative criteria. Decision making
for AMS selection has become more complicated due to the availability of a wide range of
feasible alternatives. In the present work three decision making methods (Measuring
Attractiveness by Categorically Based Evaluation Technique (MACBETH), Grey
Technique of Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (GTOPSIS) and Grey
Additive Ratio Assessment (G-ARAS) are consider to solve four AMS selection problems
(e.g., a Flexible manufacturing system, Material handling equipment, Green supplier, a
Rapid prototyping process) having both qualitative and quantitative attributes. Four
performance tests are conducted for the ranking performance comparison and also for
measuring the degree of agreement between the rankings derived by the considered methods.
In all these cases, the rankings of the alternatives obtained almost corroborate with those
derived by the past researchers, proving the feasibility of these method as an effective
MCDM techniques.

iii
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I would like to take this opportunity to express my sincere gratitude and regards to my
supervisor Dr. Saikat Ranjan Maity, Assistant Professor, Department of Mechanical
Engineering, National Institute of Technology Silchar, for his constant support and guidance
in completion of the project work.

I am extremely thankful to Dr. S Bhowmik, coordinator of the computational lab and to

Dr. K M Pandey, the Head of Department for allowing me to use the computational lab,
which was extremely necessary to carry out the study. I am also grateful to my friends for
their help and suggestions, and also for the wonderful time that we spent together during the
past two years of stay in NIT Silchar.

At the end, I would like to thank the Almighty God for bestowing upon me with its gracious
blessings to successfully completing the project work.

Bablu Kumar Mandal

Scholar No.: 15-22-305

iv
 Table of Contents

Particulars Page No.

Declaration i

Certificate ii

Abstract iii

Acknowledgement iv

Table of Contents v

List of Figures vii

List of Tables viii

Nomenclature x

List of Abbreviations xi

Chapter 1: Introduction 1-4

1.1 Introduction to decision making in Advance manufacturing system 1
1.2 Need for decision making in Advance manufacturing systems 3
Chapter 2: Literature Review 5-10
2.1 Overview of the past researchers on Advance manufacturing system 5
2.2 Research gap
selection 6
2.3 Objective of the present work 7
2.4 Organisation of the Thesis 8
References 8
Chapter 3: Mathematical Models 11-20
3.1 MACBETH method 11
3.2 Grey Number 13
3.3 Grey Technique of Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution 14
3.4 Grey Additive Ratio Assessment(GARAS) 16
References 19
Chapter 4: Flexible Manufacturing System Selection 21-30
4.1 Need for FMS selection 21
4.2 Literature review on FMS selection 22

v
 4.3 Flexible Manufacturing System Selection using Macbeth method 22
4.4 Flexible Manufacturing System Selection using Grey TOPSIS 24
4.5 Flexible manufacturing system selection using Grey ARAS method 27
4.6 Ranking Performance analysis for FMS selection 28
References 30
Chapter 5: Material Handling Equipment selection 31-40
5.1 Need for Material Handling Equipment Selection 31
5.2 Literature Survey on Material handling Equipment Selection 31
5.3 Material Handling Equipment Selection using MACBETH method 32
5.4 Material Handling Equipment Selection using GTOPSIS 35
5.5 Material Handling Equipment Selection using Grey ARAS method 37
5.6 Ranking Performance analysis for Material handling Equipment 37
References 39
Chapter 6: Green Supplier Selection 41-50
6.1 Need for Green Supplier Selection 41
6.2 Literature survey on Green Supplier Selection 41
6.3 Green Supplier Selection using Macbeth method 42
6.4 Green supplier selection using GTOPSIS method 45
6.5 Green supplier selection using ARAS method 48
6.6 Ranking Performance analysis for Green supplier selection 49
References 50
Chapter 7: Rapid Prototyping Process Selection 51-60
7.1 Need for Rapid prototyping Process Selection 51
7.2 Literature survey on rapid prototyping process selection 51
7.3 Rapid prototyping process selection using Macbeth method 52
7.4 Rapid prototyping process selection using G-TOPSIS method 55
7.5 Rapid prototyping process selection using ARAS method 56
7. 6 Ranking Performance analysis for Rapid prototyping process selection 57
References 59
Chapter 8: Conclusion and Future Scope 61-62
8.1 Conclusion 61
8.2 Future scope 62
List of Publications 63

vi
 List of Figures

Figure number Caption Page no.

Figure 3.1 Flow chart of the proposed model 18

Figure 4.1 MACBETH value tree for FMS selection problem 23
Figure 4.2 MACBETH weighing references for FMS selection problem 24
Figure 4.3 MACBETH table of performance for FMS selection problem 24
Figure 4.4 MACBETH weighing judgements for FMS selection problem 25
Figure 4.5 MACBETH table of scores for FMS selection problem 25
Figure 4.6 Sensitivity analysis for CMC criterion for FMS selection 25
problem
Figure 5.1 MACBETH value tree for Material Handling equipment 33
selection problem
Figure 5.2 Reference levels for Material Handling equipment selection 33
problem
Figure 5.3 MACBETH weighing judgments Material Handling 34
equipment selection problem
Figure 5.4 MACBETH table of scores Material Handling equipment 34
selection problem
Figure 5.5 Sensitivity analysis with respect to LC criterion 35
Figure 6.1 MACBETH value tree for Green supplier selection problem 43
Figure 6.2 Reference levels for Green Supplier selection problem 43
Figure 6.3 MACBETH weighing judgments for Green supplier selection 44
problem
Figure 6.4 MACBETH table of scores for Green supplier selection 44
problem
Figure 6.5 Sensitivity analysis with respect to RRR criterion 45
Figure 7.1 MACBETH value tree for RP process selection 53
Figure 7.2 Reference level for RP process selection criteria 53
Figure 7.3 Comparison of attractiveness between reference levels for L 54
criterion
Figure 7.4 MACBETH weighting judgments for RP process selection 54
Figure 7.5 MACBETH table of scores for RP process selection 54
Figure 7.6 Sensitivity analysis with respect to PV criterion 55

vii
 List of Tables

Table number Title Page no.

Table 3.1 Semantic scale of Macbeth 12

Table 3.2 Strengths of performance levels for kth criterion 13
Table 4.1 Decision matrix for FMS selection problem 23
Table 4.2 Grey decision matrix for FMS selection 26
Table 4.3 Normalized values of alternatives and positive/negative ideal 27
values for FMS selection
Table 4.4 Separation measures and the relative closeness of each 27
alternative for FMS selection
Table 4.5 Weighted normalized decision matrix ARAS method for FMS 28
selection
Table 4.6 Si and Ui values in ARAS method for FMS selection 28
Table 4.7 Comparison table for FMS selection 29
Table 4.8 Comparative study on ranking performance for three 29
preference ranking methods

Table 5.1 Decision matrix for Material Handling Equipment selection 32

Table 5.2 Grey decision matrix for Material Handling Equipment 35
Selection
Table 5.3 Normalized values of alternatives and positive/negative ideal 36
values for Material Handling Equipment selection

Table 5.4 Separation measures and the relative closeness of each 36

alternative for Material Handling Equipment selection

Table 5.5 Weighted normalized decision matrix in ARAS method for 37

Material Handling Equipment selection
Table 5.6 Si and Ui values in ARAS method for Material Handling 37
Equipment selection
Table 5.7 Comparison table for Material Handling Equipment selection 38
Table 5.8 Comparative study on ranking performance for the three 38
method consider
Table 6.1 Decision matrix for Green supplier selection problem 42
Table 6.2 Grey decision matrix for Green supplier selection problem 46
Table 6.3 Normalized values of alternatives and positive/negative ideal 46
values for Green supplier selection problem
Table 6.4 Separation measures and the relative closeness of each 47
alternative for Green supplier selection problem

viii
Table 6.5 Weighted normalized decision matrix in ARAS method for 48
Green supplier selection problem
Table 6.6 Si and Ui values in ARAS method for Green supplier selection 48
problem
Table 6.7 Comparison table for Green supplier selection 49
Table 6.8 Comparative study on ranking performance for Green supplier 49
selection
Table 7.1 Initial decision matrix for RP process selection 52
Table 7.2 Grey decision matrix for RP process selection 55
Table 7.3 Normalized values of alternatives and positive/negative ideal 56
values for RP process selection
Table 7.4 Separation measures and the relative closeness of each 56
alternative for RP process selection
Table 7.5 Weighted normalized decision matrix in ARAS method for 57
RP process selection
Table 7.6 Si and Ui values in ARAS method for RP process selection 57
Table 7.7 Comparison table for RP process selection 58
Table 7.8 Comparative study on ranking performance for RP process 58
selection

ix
 Nomenclature

Symbol Description

X Grey number matrix

x ij Performance measure if ith alternative on
jth criterion
A Positive ideal alternative

A Negative ideal alternative

C i Relative closeness

wj Weight of the criteria

Ui Utility degree

Si Optimality function

rs Spearman rank correlation

z Kendalls Coefficient of Concordance

x
 List of Abbreviations

Abbreviation Full form

MCDM Multi Criteria Decision Making

AMS Advanced Manufacturing Systems
MACBETH Measuring Attractiveness by Categorically Based
Evaluation Technique

GTOPSIS Grey Technique of Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal

Solution

G-ARAS Grey Additive Ratio Assessment

DEA Data Envelopment Analysis
AHP Analytic Hierarchy Process
FMS Flexible Manufacturing System
ANP Analytic Network Process
GRA Grey Relational Analysis
ELECTRE Elimination and et Choice Translating Reality

PROMETHEE Preference Ranking Organisation Method for Enrichment

Evaluation

COPRAS Complex proportional assessment

VIKOR VIse Kriterijumska Optimizacija I Kompromisno Resenje
MHE Material Handling Equipment
AGV Automated Guided Vehicle
GSM Green Supply Management
RP Rapid Prototyping
MOORA Multi Objective Optimization on the basis of Ratio
Analysis

xi
 CHAPTER

1
Introduction

1.1 Introduction to decision making in Advance manufacturing system

Decision making is the acknowledged process generally used in upstream of both

industries and academia resulting in the selection of a course of action among a set of
alternative scenario. In other way, decision making is the study of identifying and choosing
alternatives based on the values and preferences of the decision makers. On the basis of
explicit assumptions analysis of individual decision is concerned with the logic of decision
making which can be rational or irrational. Logical decision making is an important part of
all science based professions, where specialists used their knowledge in a given area to
make the decisions.
In any industrialized nation Manufacturing work as the backbone. Its importance can
be measured by the fact that, in an economic activity, it comprises approximately 20 to
35% of the value of all goods and services produced. The level of manufacturing activity
of a country is directly related to its economic health. So we can say that the higher the
level of manufacturing activity in a country, the standard of living will be higher of its
people. Manufacturing can be defined as the application of physical, mechanical and
chemical processes to modify the geometry, properties and/or appearance of a given
starting material in the making of new form, finished parts or products. This effort includes
all intermediate processes required for the production and integration of a products
components. The ability to produce this conversion efficiently determines the success of
the company. The type of manufacturing performed by a company depends on the kinds of
products it makes. Manufacturing is an important commercial activity carried out by
companies that sell. Products to customers. In the modern sense, manufacturing involve
interrelated activities that include product design and documentation, material selection,
process planning, production, quality assurance, management, and marketing of products.
Manufacturing technologies have continually gone through gradual but revolutionary
changes. These advancements in manufacturing technologies have brought about a
metamorphism in the world industrial scene. They include CNC, CAD/CAM, FMS,

1
robotics, rapid prototyping, environmentally sustainable technologies, etc., which have
become an integral part of manufacturing. Parallel to this is rapid strides in the
development of new products, and the emergence of an open economy leading to global
competition. Manufacturing industries are compelled to move away from traditional setups
to more responsive and dynamic ones. Many new concepts have emerged from these
changes, sustained by strategies aimed at meeting the challenges arising from global
markets. Product attributes like quality, reliability, cost, life-cycle prediction, and the
organizational ability to meet market pressures like delivery and service, have come into
focus. A long array of emerging technologies has opened up the potential for a variety of
new products. Fast-changing technologies on the product front cautioned the need for an
equally fast response from the manufacturing industries. The old, traditional model of
unfocused, short-term views and non-holistic vision is becoming replaced by the
enlightened approach of focused, holistic and strategic vision.
To meet the challenges, manufacturing industries have to select appropriate product
designs, manufacturing strategies, manufacturing processes, work piece and tool materials,
machinery and equipment, etc. The selection decisions are more complex, as decision
making is challenging today. Necessary conditions for achieving effective decision making
consist in understanding the current and upcoming events and factors influencing the
whole manufacturing environment, in examine the nature of decision-making processes
and the reach of different typologies of techniques and methods, and finally in structuring
appropriately the decision-making approach based on a wide range of issues related to
manufacturing systems design, planning, and management. Decision makers in the
manufacturing sector frequently face the problem of assessing a wide range of alternatives,
and selecting one of them based on a set of conflicting criteria.
In manufacturing sector there is wide range of alternative option for decision makers.
Some of the important decision-making situations in the manufacturing environment are
listed below:
Material selection for a given engineering problem
Evaluation of best product designs
Evaluation of machinability for work materials
Selection of cutting fluid for a given machining application
Selection and evaluation of modern machining methods
Selection and evaluation of flexible manufacturing systems
Selection of machines group in a flexible manufacturing cell
Analysis of cause of failure of machine tools
Selection of robot for a given industrial application
Selection of automated inspection systems
Selection of material handling equipment
Selection of a rapid prototyping process in rapid product development
Selection of software for design and manufacturing applications
Selection of the most appropriate welding process for a given job
Mouldability analysis of parts

2
 Evaluation of metal stamping layouts
Selection of forging conditions for a given component
Evaluation and examine of environmentally conscious manufacturing process
Environmental impact estimation of manufacturing processes
Evaluation of risk in green manufacturing
Selection of best product end-of-life scenario
Integrated project selection and evaluation
Selection of facility location
Selection of vendor in a supply chain environment
It must be noted that in choosing the right alternative, there is not always a single
definite criterion of selection, so decision makers have to take into account a large number
of criteria including economic, ethical, political, legal, social factors and technological.
There is a need for systematic, simple, logical methods and mathematical tools to guide
decision makers in considering a number of selection criteria and their interrelations.
The objective of any selection procedure is to identify the appropriate selection
criteria, and find the most appropriate combination of criteria in conjunction with the real
requirement. Thus, efforts need to be developed to identify those criteria that influence an
alternative selection for a given problem, using simple and logical methods, to eliminate
unsuitable alternatives, and to select the perfect alternative to strengthen existing selection
procedures.

1.2 Need for decision-making in advance manufacturing systems

Nowadays in manufacturing industry selection of the appropriate alternative whether in
case of material, or in choosing the best robot, or in selection of best material handling
equipment, etc. among various conflicting criteria, it has become a quite headache for the
decision-makers.
Thus,
a) Decision-making or more profoundly MCDM helps decision-makers to understand
a problematic situation, and thus to make appropriate judgments leading to better
decisions.
b) MCDM models have both descriptive and prescriptive models of decision-making,
descriptive models have the require information from decision-makers to
derive accurate models for decision-making process, and the perspective
model contains the constraints as given by the decision-makers. Thus MCDM
deals with problems in the real world
c) Furthermore, in a decision-making process, decision-makers are confronted with
constraints such as time, available resources and potential competence. Therefore,
it is difficult to find an optimal solution where every affected party achieves
satisfaction.
d) Finally, most criteria conflict with each other. Thus, decision makers have to trade-
off among different alternatives (measures).

3
 By the help of MCDM, decision-makers are able to handle complex and difficult
decisions.
i) Firstly, they can compare end results using their intuition and using an MCDM
analysis supported by user-friendly software leading to enhancing their level of
understanding and learning, and subsequently improving their decision-making.
ii) Secondly, the steps in MCDM can be undertaken in an organization
without difficulties or interpersonal conflict, and encourage people to shift
from their intuition to rational decision making.
iii) Thirdly, a MCDM analysis can be conducted for group decision-making,
accommodating many participants at different time and places.

4
 CHAPTER

2
Literature review

2.1 Overview of the past researchers on Advance Manufacturing

System (AMS) selection
The past researchers have already successfully applied different mathematical and decision
support techniques in the field of manufacturing environment. Talluri and Yoon [1] solved
the AMS selection problem using a combined approach of cone-ratio data envelopment
analysis (DEA) and a new methodological extension of DEA. Karsak and Tolga [2]
proposed a fuzzy decision-making algorithm for suitable AMS selection from a set of
mutually exclusive alternatives, and considered both the economic and strategic selection
criteria for AMS justification. Yurdakul [3] integrated analytic hierarchy process (AHP)
with goal programming for solving AMS selection problems while considering multiple
conflicting goals along with resource restrictions and dependencies among the alternatives.
Saen [4] developed a mathematical programming-based decision-making model by
augmenting DEA for technology selection in presence of both cardinal and ordinal data.
Chan et al. [5] developed an integrated decision support system based on fuzzy technique
to assist the decision makers for selecting the optimal solution from the alternative
manufacturing options in an uncertain environment. Armillotta [6] developed a computer-
based adaptive AHP decision model for selection of layered manufacturing techniques
used in the manufacturing of prototypes and limited production runs of engineering
products. Ahmari [7] employed a combined methodology based on AHP and fuzzy AHP to
select the best AMS that could fulfil most of the organisational requirements. Karsak [8]
presented a DEA model for FMS selection considering imprecise and exact data related to
economic and strategic aspects of a manufacturing organisation. Durn and Aguilo [9]
presented an AHP approach based on fuzzy numbers for evaluation, justification and
selection of computer-aided machine tools. Chuu [10] proposed a fuzzy MCDM approach
under group decision-making environment for improving AMS selection process. Amin
[11] presented a computationally efficient method which could eliminate the requirement
of solving complex linear programming problems as frequently encountered in many
technology selection problems. Wang et al. [12] proposed a DEA method with double
frontiers for AMS selection while considering both the optimistic as well as pessimistic
relative efficiencies of each AMS. Singh and Khamba [13] considered the barriers

5
affecting the performance of advanced manufacturing technologies in Indian manufacturing
organisations and proposed certain initiatives for enhancing the performance of those
organisations in pursuit of agility-based competitiveness. Saen [14] used DEA for selecting the
best technologies in presence of dual-role factors. Rao et al. [15] adopted an MCDM approach
for robot selection using integrated weights of the selection attributes by combining subjective
and objective weights of importance. Kreng et al. [16] used an extended AHP method for
strategic justification of AMS by taking into account both the tangible and intangible attributes.
Dhal et al. [17] proposed a fuzzy MCDM approach based on grey theory to systematically
evaluate FMS alternatives. Joseph and Sridharan [18] developed a discrete-event simulation
model for scheduling decision-making problems in an FMS and applied the preference selection
index (PSI) method to rank different combinations of scheduling rules for part launching, part
routing and part sequencing decisions. Khalili-Damghani and Abtahi [19] presented a fuzzy
DEA-based procedure to measure the efficiency of a complicated process in just-in-time
manufacturing environment. Maniya and Bhatt [20] applied PSI method for selection of
appropriate FMS alternative. Three different FMS selection problems were considered, and
examined to demonstrate, validate and check the reliability of PSI method. Koulouriotis and
Ketipi [21] developed a fuzzy digraph method for robot evaluation and selection according to a
given industrial application. Taha et al. [22] proposed an AHP-based approach for selection of
AMS in an aircraft industry based on tangible and intangible criteria. Tansel [23] integrated
technique for order preference by similarity to ideal solution (TOPSIS) with design of
experiments to solve different AMS selection problems, and identified the critical AMS selection
attributes and their interactions by fitting a polynomial to the experimental data in a multiple
linear regression analysis which would greatly reduce cost, time and calculations as involved in
TOPSIS model. Ilangkumaran et al. [24] developed an evaluation model based on fuzzy AHP
and fuzzy visekriterijumskokompromisnorangiranje (VIKOR) for selecting the best machine tool
among various alternatives. Aya and zdemir [25] applied modified TOPSIS and analytic
network process (ANP) methods to solve a machine tool selection problem. The ANP method
was used to determine the relative weights of a set of evaluation criteria, as the modified TOPSIS
method was utilised to rank the competing machine tool alternatives in terms of their overall
performance. et al. [26] developed a two-phase robot selection decision support system
(ROBSEL) to help the decision makers in robot selection decisions. In the first phase of the
decision support system, the user would obtain the feasible set of robots by providing limited
values for 15 requirements. ROBSEL would then use fuzzy AHP to rank the feasible robots in
the second phase.

2.2 Research gap

Lots of decision making techniques are available in the literature of various fields; so this is
important for analyser which technique should be used when confronted in a decision-making
cum selection problem. If this made casually, the entire design may be wrong, resulting in a
weak solution. This in turn results waste of time, money, resources, and energy.
From the review of literature, it is observed that there is a flood of research works on the
evaluation and selection of appropriate technology in the manufacturing field with ever
increasing level of global competition. Complex proportional assessment (COPRAS), TOPSIS,
VIKOR, AHP, DEA, grey relational analysis (GRA), elimination and et choice translating reality
(ELECTRE) and preference ranking organisation method for enrichment evaluation
(PROMETHEE) are the most popular methods applied to solve AMS selection problems in
different manufacturing environments. But, these commonly adopted approaches have some
deficiencies in their practical applications. COPRAS, TOPSIS and VIKOR methods are more

6
efficient in dealing with tangible attributes but they cannot perform very well if the criteria
values are expressed qualitatively. TOPSIS method uses the Euclidean distance algorithm in
principle, but this algorithm does not consider the correlation of attributes. On the other hand,
AHP can deal with tangible as well as non-tangible attributes, specially, when the subjective
judgements of different individuals play an important role in the decision-making process. But, it
also becomes very difficult to keep the consistency of the pair-wise comparison matrices, when it
is used with a large number of attributes or alternatives. As the number of alternatives increases,
the amount of calculations rises quite rapidly and the computational process becomes quite
complicated. AHP also needs ratio scales for pair-wise comparisons. The GRA method reflects
the trend relationship between an alternative and the ideal alternative, but it cannot exhibit the
situational relationship between the alternative and the ideal alternative. In case of DEA, the
results are potentially sensitive to the selection of inputs and outputs, so their relative importance
needs to be analysed prior to calculation. However, there is no way to test their appropriateness.
The number of efficient decision-making units on the frontier tends to increase with the number
of input and output variables. On the other hand, it is extremely sensitive to variable selection,
data uncertainty and errors. In ELECTRE method, exploitation of alternatives becomes quite
difficult in presence of multiple actions. PROMETHEE method can only be used with criteria
where differences in evaluations are meaningful. For criteria with an ordinal scale, these
differences have no mathematical meaning and such criteria cannot be used in PROMETHEE
method-based applications. Also, it is not possible to take discordance into account when
constructing the outranking relation in PROMETHEE method. Furthermore, implementing
ELECTRE and PROMETHEE methods require to determine values of some preference
parameters, like indifference threshold, veto threshold and concordant coalition parameter, etc.
So, there is a need to search for an efficient and accurate method that can give more precise
ranking of AMS alternatives, because most of the previously applied MCDM methods require
detailed information with respect to criteria weights, preference functions, etc.

2.3 Objective of the present work.

Objective of present project work taken into consideration is that four decision-making problems
in advanced manufacturing environment are to be selected comprising of
I. Flexible manufacturing system, Green supplier, Material handling equipment and
Rapid prototyping process.
II. To fulfil the above mention objective and the applicability of (Measuring
Attractiveness by Categorically Based Evaluation Technique (MACBETH), Grey
Technique of Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (GTOPSIS) and Grey
Additive Ratio Assessment (G-ARAS) is studied and also to compare their ranking
performance.

2.4 Organisation of the Thesis

The entire thesis has been organized in eight chapters. Chapter 1 presents the concept of decision
making inthe field of advance manufacturing system. This chapter highlights the needs for
decision making for Advance manufacturing system. Chapter 2 presents an extensive literature
survey on AMS and also depicts the applicability ofsome MCDM and covers a section
highlighting objective of the current research. Chapter 3 covers presentation of necessary
mathematical background on grey numbers and related conceptual definitions of some used
MCDM methods. Chapter 4 deals with an FMS selection with an illustrative example. Chapter 5

7
deals with Material Handling Equipment selection for a south east India company. Chapter 6
deals with selection of green supplier selection for an Iranian diary company and chapter 7 deals
with Rapid prototyping process selection for a fictitious decision maker. Finally, concluding
remarks of this dissertation have been presented in subsequent chapter end.

References
[1] Talluri, S. and Yoon, K.P. (2000) A cone-ratio DEA approach for AMT justification, International
Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 66, No. 2, pp.119129
[2] Karsak, E.E. and Tolga, E. (2001) Fuzzy multi-criteria decision making procedure for evaluating advanced
manufacturing system investments, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 69, No. 1,
pp.4964.
[3] Yurdakul, M. (2004) Selection of computer-integrated manufacturing technologies using a combined
analytic hierarchy process and goal programming model, Robotics and Computer-Integrated
Manufacturing, Vol. 20, No. 4, pp.329340.
[4] Saen, R.F. (2006) A decision model for technology selection in the existence of both cardinal and ordinal
data, Applied Mathematics and Computation, Vol. 181, No. 2, pp.16001608.
[5] Chan, F.T.S., Chan, H.K., Chan, M.H. and Humphreys, P.K. (2006) An integrated fuzzy approach for the
selection of manufacturing technologies, International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology,
Vol. 27, Nos. 78, pp.747758.
[6] Armillotta, A. (2008) Selection of layered manufacturing techniques by an adaptive AHP decision model,
Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing, Vol. 24, No. 3, pp.450461.
[7] Ahmari, A.M.A. (2008) A methodology for selection and evaluation of advanced manufacturing
technologies, International Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing, Vol. 21, No. 7, pp.778789.
[8] Karsak, E.E. (2008) Using data envelopment analysis for evaluating flexible manufacturing systems in the
presence of imprecise data, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 35, No. 3, pp.867874.
[9] Durn, O. and Aguilo, J. (2008) Computer-aided machine-tool selection based on a fuzzy-AHP approach,
Expert Systems with Applications, Vol. 34, No. 3, pp.17871794.
[10] Chuu, S.J. (2009) Selecting the advanced manufacturing technology using fuzzy multiple attributes group
decision making with multiple fuzzy information, Computers & Industrial Engineering, Vol. 57, No. 3,
pp.10331042.
[11] Amin, G.R. (2009) Optimal solution of technology selection model: a computational efficient form,
International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, Vol. 43, Nos. 910, pp.10461050.
[12] Wang, T.Y., Shaw, C.F. and Chen, Y.L. (2000) Machine selection in flexible manufacturing cell: a fuzzy
multiple attribute decision-making approach, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 38, No. 9,
pp.20792097.
[13] Singh, H. and Khamba, J.S. (2009) Evolving the barriers for enhancing the utilisation level of advanced
manufacturing technologies (AMTs) in Indian manufacturing industry, International Journal of Advanced
Operations Management, Vol. 1, Nos. 2/3, pp.135150.
[14] Saen, R.F. (2010) Technology selection in the presence of dual-role factors, International Journal of
Advanced Operations Management, Vol. 2, Nos. 3/4, pp.249262.
[15] Rao, R.V., Patel, B.K. and Parnichkun, M. (2011) Industrial robot selection using a novel decision making
method considering objective and subjective preferences, Robotics and Autonomous Systems, Vol. 59,
No. 6, pp.367375.
[16] Kreng, V.B., Wu, C.Y. and Wang, I.C. (2011) Strategic justification of advanced manufacturing
technology using an extended AHP model, International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology,
Vol. 52, Nos. 912, pp.11031113.

8
[17] Dhal, P.R., Datta, S. and Mahapatra, S.S. (2011) Flexible manufacturing system selection based on grey
relation under uncertainty, International Journal of Services and Operations Management, Vol. 8, No. 4,
pp.516534.
[18] Joseph, O.A. and Sridharan, R. (2011) Ranking of scheduling rule combinations in a
flexiblemanufacturing system using preference selection index method, International Journal ofAdvanced
Operations Management, Vol. 3, No. 2, pp.201216.
[19] Khalili-Damghani, K. and Abtahi, A-R. (2011) measuring efficiency of just in time implementation using
a fuzzy data envelopment analysis approach: real case of Iranian dairy industries, International Journal of
Advanced Operations Management, Vol. 3, Nos. 3/4, pp.337354.
[20] Maniya, K.D. and Bhatt, M.G. (2011) The selection of flexible manufacturing system using preference
selection index method, International Journal ofIndustrial and Systems Engineering, Vol. 9, No. 3,
pp.330349.
[21] Koulouriotis, D.E. and Ketipi, M.K. (2011) A fuzzy digraph method for robot evaluation and selection,
Expert Systems with Applications, Vol. 38, No. 9, pp.1190111910.
[22] Taha, Z., Banakar, Z. and Tahriri, F. (2011) Analytical hierarchy process for the selection of advanced
manufacturing technologiesin an aircraft industry, International Journal of Applied Decision Sciences,
Vol. 4, No. 2, pp.148170.
[23] Tansel, Y. (2012) An experimental design approach using TOPSIS method for the selection of computer-
integrated manufacturing technologies, Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing, Vol. 28, No. 2,
pp.245256.
[24] Ilangkumaran, M., Sasirekha, V., Anojkumar, L. and Boopathi Raja, M. (2012) Machine toolselection
using AHP and VIKOR methodologies under fuzzy environment, InternationalJournal of Modelling
inOperations Management, Vol. 2, No. 4, pp.409436.
[25] Aya, Z. and zdemir, R.G. (2012) Evaluating machine tool alternatives through modified TOPSIS and
alpha-cut based fuzzy ANP, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 140, No. 2, pp.630636.
[26] , Y.T., Yurdakul, M. and Dengiz, B. (2013) Development of a decision support system for robot
selection, Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing, Vol. 29, No. 4, pp.142157.

9
10
 CHAPTER

3
Mathematical models

3.1 MACBETH Method

Measuring Attractiveness through a Category Based Evaluation Technique is the goal of the
MACBETH method. It permits the evaluation of options against multiple criteria. The key
distinction between MACBETH and other Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA)
methods is that it needs only qualitative judgments about the difference of attractiveness
between two elements at a time, in order to generate numerical scores for the options in each
criterion and to weight the criteria. One distinctive characteristic of the MACBETH
approach is its use of a straightforward interactive questioning process, which requires only
qualitative judgments about differences of value to help an individual, or a group, weight
criteria and quantify the relative attractiveness of options in each criterion. Pairwise
comparisons are made for the criteria and alternatives based on difference of attractiveness.
MACBETH method helps to map the difference of attractiveness using a set of semantic
scale having seven categories arranged in descending order of their importance
While applying MACBETH method the relevant steps adopted as presented below [1]
Step 1: Enter criteria and develop a value tree.
Step 2: Enter performance levels for all the criteria by selecting basis for comparison for
each criterion, and choose upper reference and lower reference values for the performance
levels.
Step 3: Rank the performance levels according to their importance from top to bottom and
left to right for all criteria, and select the desired MACBETH judgement (or range of
judgements) showing difference of attractiveness. MACBETH method uses a semantic scale
set with seven categories to indicate the difference of attractiveness. The equivalent
numerical scales and significances of these semantic scales can be seen in Table 3.1
Step 4: Perform consistency checking for the judgements and make necessary changes in the
judgements, if necessary.

11
 Table 3.1: Semantic scale of Macbeth

Semantic scale Equivalent Significance

numerical scale
Null 0 Indifference between
alternatives
Very weak 1 An alternative is very weakly
attractive over another
Weak 2 anaaaanother
An alternative is weakly
attractive over another
Moderate 3 An alternative is moderately
attractive over another
Strong 4 An alternative is strongly
attractive over another
Very strong 5 An alternative is very strongly
attractive over another
Extreme 6 An alternative is extremely
attractive over another
Step 5: Enter alternatives (options) into the model.
Step 6: Enter alternatives performances into the model.
Step 7: Rank the criteria according to their importance from top to bottom and left to right,
and select the desired MACBETH judgements (or range of judgements) showing difference
of attractiveness of criteria to generate criteria weights.
Step 8 Perform consistency checking for the judgements and make necessary changes in the
judgements, if necessary.
Step 9 Get the ranking of alternatives from MACBETH table of scores.
The actual mathematical procedure for conversion of ordinal scales into cardinal
MACBETH scores takes place as follows [2]
Consider a criteria k for which the cardinal MACBETH score is generated having Li (i=1, 2,
3n) performance levels. The performance levels for that criterion are arranged in a
matrix form according to descending order of their importance from left to right and top to
bottom, as shown in Table 3.2. To understand the procedure, an example with four
performance levels, i.e. L1, L2, L3, and L4 is considered here such that L3 is the good level,
while L4 is the neutral level. Let the preference of importance for the performance levels
is L3> L1> L2> L4. Therefore, if v(L1),v(L2), v(L3) and v(L4) are the quantified MACBETH
scores for levels L1, L2, L3 and L4 respectively, then v(L3) = 100, v(L4) = 0 and v(L3) >v(L1)
> v(L2) > v(L4).The next step involves in comparing the strengths of performance of the
levels. For n reference levels, maximum n (n - 1)/2 number of comparisons are possible, but
(n - 1) number of comparisons, as presented parallel to the diagonal in Table 3.2, are
sufficient for conversion of the scale. Comparison of strengths of performance is done using
one of the seven semantic scales, as given in Table 3.1. If the decision maker does not
provide any strength of performance, it is noted by positive or P in the corresponding cell of
the matrix. If the decision maker prefers performance of L1 over L2 with a strength of h
{0,1,2,3,.,6} , i.e.L1>L2.
Then,
v(L1) - v(L2) = h , (3.1)

12
Where is a coefficient necessary to meet the condition that v(L1) and v(L2) [0,100]. The
quantified MACBETH scores are obtained by solving the related equations for all the
performance levels. Let the decision maker decides the strengths of performance, as
expressed in Table 3.2, and when all the strengths of performance levels are provided, the
matrix of judgments is ready for quantification of the data.
Table 3.2 Strengths of performance levels for kth criterion

Performance L3 L2 L1 L4
level
L3(Good) No Very strong P P
L1 No weak P
L2 No Moderate
L4(Neutral) No

From the judgments provided in Table 3.2, the following system of equations can be
extracted:
v(L3) - v(L1) = 5 , (3.2)
v(L1) - v(L2) = 2 , (3.3)
v(L2) - v(L4) = 3 , (3.4)
On solving Eqns. (3.2-3.4), the obtained solutions are = 10, v(L1) = 50 and v(L2) = 30.
The quantification of performance levels for all the remaining criteria as well as the
corresponding criteria weights can be obtained adopting the same procedure. The next step
of MACBETH method is to select the alternatives and their performance with respect to
different criteria, and enter the relevant data into M-MACBETH software. Finally, the global
attractive scores are obtained to rank the considered alternatives. The additive value model
of the following type is used to determine the overall global score of an alternative.

V X i w j v j
n
(3.5)
j 1

With,
n
v j x j 100
w j 1, w j >0 and

(3.6)
j 1 v j x j 0

Where w j is the weight for j th criterion

The final ranking of the alternatives is done based on V X i values.

3.2 Grey Number

Grey theory is one of the methods used to study uncertainty, being superior in the
mathematical analysis of systems with uncertain information. The advantage of grey theory
over fuzzy sets theory is that grey theory can deal flexibly with the fuzziness situation.
Alternatives selection can be viewed as a grey system process. We may use grey theory to
resolve it. The ratings of criteria are described by linguistic variables that can be expressed
in grey numbers.
13
Grey theory, proposed and originally developed by Deng, is an effective mathematical
means to:
deal with problems described by incomplete information;
to avoid the inherent defects o conventional, statistical methods;
and advantage is to use a limited amount of data to estimate the behaviour of an
uncertain system when the data are discrete and the information is incomplete
Let X is the universal set. A grey set G of X is defined by its two mappings. [3]

x : x [0,1]

G G (3.7)
( x) : x [0,1]
G
Where,

G
x G , x X , X R (3.8)

If only the lower limit of x can be possibly estimated, x is defined as lower limit grey number
and if only the upper limit of X can be estimated, X is defined as upper limit grey number.
If the lower and upper limits of X can be estimated, X is defined as interval grey number.
The basic operation laws of grey numbers X 2 x1 , x 2
and X 2 x1 , x 2 are
expressed as follows:

Addition: X X [ X X , X X ] (3.9)
1 2 1 2 1 2

Subtraction: X X [ X X , X X ] (3.10)
1 2 1 2 1 2

min X1 X 2 , X1 X 2 , X1 X 2 , X1 X 2 ,
max X1 X 2 , X1 X 2 , X1 X 2 , X1 X 2
Multiplication: X1 X 2 (3.11)

X , X
1 1
Division: X / X , (3.12)
1 2
1
1 X X
2 2

3.2 Grey Technique of Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution

(GTOPSIS)
TOPSIS is a multiple criteria decision making method which is initially proposed by Hwang
and Yoon. The technique is based on the idea that the optimal solution should have the
shortest distance from the positive ideal solution and the farthest from the negative ideal
solution. Grey number is included in this method to encounter the uncertainty in the
problems. A solution is determined as a positive ideal solution if it maximizes the benefit
criteria or minimizes the cost criteria. On the other hand, the solution which maximizes the
cost criteria or minimizes the benefit criteria is called the negative ideal solution. This
method consist of the following steps [4]
Step 1: To select the set of the most important attributes which describes the alternatives.
Step 2: To Construct the decision-making matrix X . Grey number matrix X can be
defined as:

14
 x11 x12 x1n
x 21 x 22 x 2 n

X

(3.13)
xm1

xm 2 xmn

Where X ij denotes the grey evaluations of the ith alternative with respect to the jth attribute.
[ X i1 , X i 2 ,..., X im ] is the grey number evaluation series of the i-th alternative, i= 1 to
n , j=1 to m.
Step 3: To Construct the normalized grey decision matrices. The normalized values of
maximizing attributes are calculated as:
xij wij bij
xij
maxi (bij ) max (b ) max (b )
, (3.14)
,b
i ij i ij
Where wij and bij are lower and upper values of attributes, respectively.
The normalized values of minimizing attributes are calculated as:
xij wij bij
xij 1 1 ,1 (3.15)
,w max i (bij ) max (b ) max (b )
i ij i ij
Step 4: To Determine weights of the criteria q j .
Step 5: To construct the grey weighted normalized decision-making matrix.
Step 6: To Determine the positive and negative ideal alternatives for each decision-maker.
The positive ideal alternative A , and the negative ideal alternative A .

A max b / j J , min w / j J / i n (3.16)
i ij i ij

x1 , x2
,.........., x
m


A mini wij / jJ , maxi bij / jJ ' / in (3.17)

x1 , x2 ,.........., xm

Step 7: To Calculate the separation measure from the positive and negative ideal alternatives,
d i and d i , for the group. There are two sub-steps to be considered: the first one concerns
the separation measure for individuals; the second one aggregates their measures for the
group. Accordingly, the measures from the positive and negative ideal alternatives should
be calculated individually.
1 m q {( x w )2 ( x b )2 }

2 j
di j j ij j ij (3.18)
1

1 m q {( x w )2 ( x b )2}

2 j
di j j ij j ij (3.19)
1

15
Step 8: To Calculate the relative closeness ci to the positive ideal alternative for the group.
The aggregation of relative closeness for the ith alternative with respect to the positive ideal
alternative for the group can be expressed as:

di
ci (3.20)
di di
0 ci 1
Where , the larger the index value is, the better the evaluation of alternative.
Step 9: Rank the preference order. A set of alternatives now can be ranked by the descending
order of the value of ci .

3.4 Grey Additive Ratio Assessment (GARAS)

ARAS method is based on the argument that phenomena of complicated world could to be
understood by using simple relative comparisons. Grey number is included in this method
to encounter the uncertainty in the problems. It is argued that the ratio of the sum of
normalized and weighted values of criteria, which describe alternative under consideration,
to the sum of the values of normalized and weighted criteria, which describes the optimal
alternative, is degree of optimality, which is reached by the alternative under comparison.
According to the ARAS method a utility function value determining the complex relative
efficiency of a reasonable alternative is directly proportional to the relative effect of values
and weights of the main criteria considered in a project. The procedural step in this method
is as follows [5]
Step 1: To select the set of the most important attributes which describes the alternatives.
Step 2: To Construct the decision-making matrix X . Grey number matrix X can be
defined as:
x11 x12 x1n
x 21 x 22 x 2n
(3.21)
X


xm1 xm 2 xmn

Where X ij denotes the grey evaluations of the ith alternative with respect to the jth attribute.
[ X i1 , X i 2 ,., X im ] is the grey number evaluation series of the ith alternative, i=1 to
n , j=1 to m.
Step 2: To Determine the optimal value of each criterion. Let x 0j be the optimal value of jth
Criterion. If the optimal value of jth criterion is known, then
x max x for beneficial criterion (3.22)
0j i ij
x min x (3.23)
0j i ij
Step 3: To Construct the normalized grey decision matrices. The normalized values of
beneficial criteria are calculated as

16
 x
ij (3.24)
x
ij m
xij
i0

The normalized values of non-beneficial criteria are calculated as

1 x*
x* , ij (3.25)
ij x x
ij ij m *
xij
i0

Step 4: To Determine weights of the criteria w j .

Step 5: To determine the corresponding weighted normalized decision matrix:
x x w , i 0, m (3.26)
ij ij j
Step 6: To determine the optimality function using the formula:
n
S x , i 0, m
i ij
j 1 (3.27)
Step 7: To calculate the utility degree U i of an alternative using the formula below:

S
U i , i 0, m (3.28)
i S
o
It is quite obvious that the calculated values of U lie in the interval of [0, 1] and can be
i
ordered in an increasing sequence to provide a complete ranking of the considered
alternatives.

Figure 3.1 presents the flow diagram of the proposed method. It starts from data
collection for the particular decision making method. Next probable alternatives are
determined and also the set of decisive criteria upon which the decision is based is obtained.
After that the decision matrix is formed and it is solved using the three MCDM method as
shown in the flow chart.

17
Figure 3.1: Flow chart of the proposed model

18
Reference
[1] Karande P. and Chakraborty, S. (2014). A facility layout selection model using MACBETH method,
Proceedings of the 2014 International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Operations
Management, January 7 9, Bali, Indonesia.
[2] Bana e Costa, C.A., & Oliveira, M.D. (2012). A multicriteria decision analysis model for faculty
evaluation. Omega, vol. 40 no.4, pp. 424-436
[3] Chen, M.-F., Tzeng, G.-H. (2004). Combining grey relation and TOPSIS concepts for selecting an
expatriate host country. Mathematical and Computer Modelling, vol. 40 no.13, pp. 14731490
[4] Oztaysi, B. (2014) A decision model for information technology selection using AHP integrated
TOPSIS-Grey: The case of content management systems Knowledge-Based Systems vol. 70, pp. 44-
54
[5] TURSKIS, Z., ZAVADSKAS, E. (2010) A Novel Method for Multiple Criteria Analysis: Grey
Additive Ratio Assessment (ARAS-G) Method INFORMATICA, Vol. 21, No. 4, pp. 597610

19
20
 CHAPTER

4
Flexible Manufacturing System Selection

4.1 Need for FMS selection

An FMS is a set of integrated computer controlled, automated material handling
equipments and numerical-controlled machine tools capable of processing a variety of
part types. Due to the competitive advantages like flexibility, speed of response, quality,
reduction of lead-time, reduction of labour etc., FMSs are now gaining popularity in
industries. Todays manufacturing strategy is purely a choice of alternatives. The better the
choice, more will be the productivity as well as the profit maintaining quality of product
and responsiveness to customers. In this era of rapid globalization, the overall objective is
to purchase a minimum amount of capacity (i.e., capital investment) and utilize it in the
most effective way. FMS provides a low inventory environment with unbalanced
operations unique to the conventional production environment. The process design of an
FMS consists of a set of crucial decisions that are to be made carefully. It requires decision
making, e.g., selection of a CNC machine tool, material handling system, or product mix.
Justification, evaluation and selection of FMSs have now been receiving significant
attention in the manufacturing environment. Evaluating alternative FMS in the
presence of multiple conflicting criteria and performance measures is often a difficult
task for the decision make Potential benefits of an FMS implementation include reduced
inventory levels, floor space, and setup and labour costs, in addition to higher
flexibility, quality, speed of response, and a longer useful life of the equipment over
successive generations of products. An FMS can manufacture a wide range of products in
batch sizes from one to thousands. An FMS has the advantage that it can combine the
efficiency of a mass production system and the flexibility of a job shop production system
to produce high quality products. As an FMS implementation involves a huge capital
investment, the selection of the most appropriate FMS design from a set of candidate
configurations requires extensive analysis and evaluation. The selection of FMS thus
requires trading-off among the various parameters of the FMS alternatives. The selection
parameters are conflicting in nature. High quality management is not enough for dealing
with the complex and ill-structured factors that are conflicting in nature. Therefore, there is

21
 a need for sophisticated and applicable technique to help the decision makers for selecting
the proper FMS in a manufacturing organization.

4.2 Literature review on FMS selection

Kulak and Kahraman [1] developed a fuzzy axiomatic design (AD)-based approach, and
provided numeric applications of both crisp and fuzzy AD approaches for comparison and
evaluation of FMS alternatives. Rao [2] proposed a methodology based on digraph and
matrix approaches for evaluation of FMS alternatives. Bhattacharya et al. [3] proposed the
application of MLEANN for FMS selection and developed an MCDM methodology using
an improved S-shaped membership function for finding out the best FMS alternative. Liu
[4] applied a DEA assurance region-based methodology to evaluate the performance of
FMS alternatives when the input and output information were represented as crisp and
fuzzy data. Karsak [5] presented a DEA method-based comprehensive model for
evaluation and selection of FMS alternatives, considering both economic and strategic
aspects, and the related imprecise as well as exact data into the decision-making process.
Rao and Parnichkun [6] proposed a combinatorial mathematics-based decision-making
method for evaluation of FMS alternatives. Chuu [7] applied a fuzzy MCDM approach in
group decision-making to improve the FMS selection process. Balaji et al. [8] presented
the application of elimination and choice translating reality (ELECTRE) method for FMS
selection. Biswas and Mahapatra [9] developed a metaheuristic approach based on particle
swarm optimisation to solve the machine loading problem in FMS. Rezaie et al. [10]
applied a method for evaluating the FMSs based on a model incorporating two decision
aids, e.g., DEA and AHP. Maniya and Bhatt [11] used preference selection index (PSI)
method for selecting the most appropriate FMS under a given manufacturing environment
and concluded that the PSI method was simple, logical and more appropriate for solving
FMS selection problems. Dhal et al. [12] proposed a fuzzy MCDM method utilising grey
theory for FMS evaluation and selection. Mondal and Chakraborty [13] applied DEA and
weighted overall efficiency ranking method for FMS evaluation and selection. Todicet al.
[14] developed a techno-economic method for evaluation and selection of FMS based on
productivity. Momeni et al. [15] integrated logarithmic fuzzy preference programming
(LFPP) and ELECTRE methods for FMS selection. The LFPP method was used for
determining the criteria weights and the ranking of the FMS alternatives was obtained by
ELECTRE method.

4.3 Flexible Manufacturing System Selection using Macbeth method

Rao and Parnichkun [6] considered an FMS selection problem having eight alternatives
and seven criteria. These seven selection criteria are percentage Reduction in Labour Cost
(RLC), percentage of Reduction in Work in Progress (RWP), percentage of Reduction in
Setup Cost (RSC), Increase in Market Response (IMR), Improvement in Quality (IQ),
Capital and Maintenance Cost (CMC) (in thousand dollars) and Floor Space Used (FSU)
(in sq ft). In this problem, the criteria values for RLC, RWP, RSC, CMC and FSU are
expressed quantitatively. The values for IMR and IQ criteria are in qualitative form
represented by linguistic expressions, such as good, fair and weak, where good is
more attractive than fair and fair is more attractive than weak. RLC, RWP, RSC, IMR
and IQ are beneficial criteria, whereas, CMC and FSU are non-beneficial attributes.

22
 Table 4.1: Decision matrix for FMS selection problem
Alternative Criteria

FMS RLC RWP RSC IMR IQ CMC FSU

1 30 23 5 Good Good 1500 5000

2 18 13 15 Good Good 1300 6000
3 15 12 10 Fair Fair 950 7000
4 25 20 13 Good Good 1200 4000
5 14 18 14 Weak Good 950 3500
6 17 15 9 Good Fair 1250 5250
7 23 18 20 Fair Good 1100 3000
8 16 8 14 Weak Fair 1500 3000

Table 4.1 shows the decision matrix for this FMS selection problem. For analysis
of this problem using M-MACBETH software, the MACBETH value tree is first
developed, as displayed in Fig. 4.1. In this tree, RLC, RWP, RSC, IMR and IQ are added
under the beneficial criteria node, whereas, CMC and FSU are allocated under the Non-
beneficial criteria node. Two reference levels, i.e., upper and lower reference levels are
selected for all the considered criteria. For benefit criteria, the upper reference level is the
highest performance criteria value and for cost criteria, it is the lowest performance criteria
value.

Figure 4.1: MACBETH value tree for FMS selection problem

In case of benefit criteria, the lower reference level is selected just below the lowest
performance criteria value, while in case of cost criteria, it is chosen just above the highest
performance criteria value. In this problem, IMR criterion has three qualitative
performance levels, i.e., good, fair and weak. For this criterion, these three qualitative
performance levels as well as one additional level named as LL are entered in the
property table. For IQ criterion, there are two qualitative performance levels, i.e., good
and fair. Besides these two levels, another performance level referred to as LL is also
selected here. The level good is chosen as the upper reference level, while LL is
selected as lower reference level for this beneficial criterion. For the criteria having
quantitative performance values, the highest performance value for benefit criteria and the
lowest performance value for cost criteria are selected as the upper reference level. In this

23
case, the lower reference level is selected just below the lowest performance value for
benefit criteria and just above the highest performance value for non-beneficial criteria.
The reference levels for all the considered criteria are shown in Fig. 4.2.

Figure 4.2: MACBETH weighing references for FMS selection problem

To quantify the attractiveness of performance levels for a given criterion, the
selected qualitative performance levels are arranged in descending order of their
importance from top to bottom and left to right. The desired MACBETH judgements are
selected showing difference of attractiveness of one performance level over the other.
When the judgements are consistent, the related quantitative scale is generated by M-
MACBETH software. The alternatives and their performances with respect to different
criteria are now entered into M-MACBETH software, as displayed in Fig. 4.3. For entering
the criteria weights, those are arranged in descending order of their importance from top to
bottom and left to right.

Figure 4.3: MACBETH table of performance for FMS selection problem

To quantify the criteria weights, the MACBETH judgements are selected from
seven semantic scale values. Consistency checking is performed for the judgments. After
considering the suggestions for eliminating inconsistencies (if any), the judgments are
made consistent. Based on the consistent judgements, the M-MACBETH software
determines the criteria weights using the procedure for quantification of the qualitative data
and also provides the range within which the calculated weights can be adjusted. Fig. 4.4
shows the MACBETH weighing judgements and criteria weights for the seven considered
FMS selection criteria. The overall attractiveness scores for all the alternatives are obtained
using Eq. (3. 6).

24
 Figure 4.4: MACBETH weighing judgements for FMS selection problem
Figure 4.5 shows the criteria scores and overall scores for the eight FMS
alternatives. Based on these scores, the final ranking is obtained for all the FMS
alternatives. FMS7 is the top ranked alternative, followed by FMS4. FMS8 is the worst
chosen alternative.

Figure 4.5: MACBETH table of scores for FMS selection problem

Rao and Parnichkun [6] also obtained FMS 7 as the best alternative and FMS 8 as
the worst. Fig. 4.6 exhibit the results of sensitivity analysis for criteria CMC as it is

Figure 4.6: Sensitivity analysis for CMC criterion for FMS selection problem
observed to be the most important criteria in this example with a maximum weight of
0.2861. From Fig. 4.6, it is found that when the weight of CMC is varied between 0.246
and 0.431, FMS7 remains as the best choice. On reducing its weight below 0.246 replaces
FMS4 as the best choice, while increasing the weight above 0.431 selects FMS 3 as the
best choice and beyond 0.653 FMS 5 becomes the most preferred choice.

25
4.4 Flexible Manufacturing System Selection using Grey TOPSIS
Now the same problem has been solved by GTOPSIS method. Rao and Parnichkun applied
AHP method to calculate the normalized weights of the criteria as WRLC = 0.1129, WRWP =
0.1129, WRSC = 0.0445, WIMR = 0.1129, WIQ = 0.2861, WCMC = 0.2861 and WFSU =
0.0445. The same weight is consider here. The decision matrix with 20% greyness is
exhibited in Table 4.2. As the seven considered FMS selection criteria are having different
units, it is necessary to normalize their values and obtain the normalized decision matrix.
In order to develop the normalized grey decision matrix Eqs. (3.14, 3.15) is used. The
positive-ideal and the negative-ideal solutions are determined by choosing the maximum
and minimum criteria values depending on whether the criterion is beneficial or non-
beneficial in nature and is shown in Table 4.2.
Table 4.2: Grey decision matrix for FMS selection

Alternative Criteria

RLC RWP RSC IMR IQ CMC FSU

FMS1 24 36 18.4 27.6 4 6 0.596 0.894 0.596 0.894 1200 1800 4000 6000

FMS2 14.4 21.6 10.4 15.6 12 18 0.596 0.894 0.596 0.894 1040 1560 4800 7200

FMS3 12 18 9.6 14.4 8 12 0.400 0.600 0.400 0.600 760 1140 5600 8400

FMS4 20 30 16 24 10.4 15.6 0.596 0.894 0.596 0.894 960 1440 3200 4800

FMS5 11.2 16.8 14.4 21.6 11.2 16.8 0.204 0.306 0.596 0.894 760 1140 2800 4200

FMS6 13.6 20.4 12 18 7.2 10.8 0.596 0.894 0.400 0.600 1000 1500 4200 6300

FMS7 18.4 27.6 14.4 21.6 16 24 0.400 0.600 0.596 0.894 880 1320 2400 3600

FMS8 12.8 19.2 6.4 9.6 11.2 16.8 0.204 0.306 0.400 0.600 1200 1800 2400 3600

The next step is calculating the separation measure of the positive and negative
ideal alternatives using Eq. (3.18, 3.19) and d+ and d- are found and finally it is used to find
the relative closeness C+. The calculated relative closeness values are shown in Table 4.4.
According to the results of Table 4.4, the priority of the alternatives are determined as
FMS7>FMS4>FMS1>FMS2>FMS5>FMS6>FMS3>FMS8. The calculated results showed
that the FMS7 is the best option for this FMS problem followed by FMS2. The worst
option was FMS8. Rao & Parnichkun [6] also obtained FMS7 as the best vehicle and
FMS8 as the worst one. From the initial decision matrix of Table 4.1, it is observed that
FMS7 and FMS2 outperforms most of the other alternative with respect to higher values of
(IQ), (RWP), (RSC), (LC) and lower value of (CMC) and (FSU). On the other hand, the
main reason behind the underperformance of FMS8 is its very low value of (IQ) criteria.
Itis also identified that this FMS8 has very high values of non-beneficial criteria such as
(CMC) and (FSU).

26
 Table 4.3: Normalized values of alternatives and positive/negative ideal values for FMS selection

Criteria FMS1 FMS2 FMS3 FMS4 FMS5 FMS6 FMS7 FMS8 A+ A-

RLC
0.67 1.00 0.40 0.60 0.33 0.50 0.56 0.83 0.31 0.47 0.38 0.57 0.51 0.77 0.36 0.53 1.00 0.33

RWP
0.67 1.00 0.38 0.57 0.35 0.52 0.58 0.87 0.52 0.78 0.44 0.65 0.52 0.78 0.23 0.35 1.00 0.23

RSC
0.22 0.33 0.50 0.75 0.33 0.50 0.43 0.65 0.47 0.70 0.30 0.45 0.67 1.00 0.47 0.70 1.00 0.17

IMR
0.67 1.00 0.67 1.00 0.45 0.67 0.67 1.00 0.23 0.34 0.67 1.00 0.45 0.67 0.23 0.34 1.00 0.23

IQ
0.67 1.00 0.67 1.00 0.45 0.67 0.67 1.00 0.67 1.00 0.45 0.67 0.67 1.00 0.45 0.67 1.00 0.45

CMC
0.33 0.00 0.42 0.13 0.58 0.37 0.47 0.20 0.58 0.37 0.44 0.17 0.51 0.27 0.33 0.00 0.58 0.00

FSU
0.52 0.29 0.43 0.14 0.33 0.00 0.62 0.43 0.67 0.50 0.50 0.25 0.71 0.57 0.71 0.57 0.71 0.00

Table 4.4: Separation measures and the relative closeness of each alternative for FMS selection

Alternative d+ d- C+ Rank

FMS1 0.3453 0.4416 0.5612 3

FMS2 0.3202 0.3867 0.5470 4

FMS3 0.4417 0.3173 0.4180 7

FMS4 0.2825 0.4452 0.6118 2

FMS5 0.3848 0.4051 0.5128 5

FMS6 0.4159 0.3294 0.4420 6

FMS7 0.2825 0.4452 0.6118 1

FMS8 0.5249 0.2318 0.3064 8

4.5 Flexible manufacturing system selection using Grey ARAS method

From the weighted normalized decision matrix, as given in Table 4.5, and using Eq. (3.24,
3.25), the optimality function (Si) for each of the FMS alternative is calculated. Then the
corresponding values of the utility degree (Ui) are determined for all the alternatives. The
values of Si and Ui, and the ranking achieved by the FMS alternatives are exhibited in
Table 4.4. It is revealed from this table that FMS7 is the best chosen alternative and FMS8
obtains the last rank. FMS4 has the second rank.

27
 Table 4.5: Weighted normalized decision matrix in ARAS method for FMS selection

Alternative Criteria

RLC RWP RSC IMR IQ CMC FSU

Opt. max max max max max min min
direction
A0 0.090 0.136 0.090 0.136 0.036 0.053 0.090 0.014 0.229 0.343 0.023 0.034 0.003 0.004

FMS1 0.017 0.026 0.016 0.025 0.002 0.003 0.015 0.002 0.033 0.049 0.023 0.034 0.004 0.006

FMS2 0.010 0.015 0.009 0.014 0.005 0.008 0.015 0.002 0.033 0.049 0.026 0.039 0.003 0.005

FMS3 0.009 0.013 0.009 0.013 0.004 0.005 0.010 0.002 0.022 0.033 0.036 0.054 0.003 0.004

FMS4 0.014 0.021 0.014 0.021 0.005 0.007 0.015 0.002 0.033 0.049 0.028 0.042 0.005 0.007

FMS5 0.008 0.012 0.013 0.019 0.005 0.008 0.005 0.001 0.033 0.049 0.036 0.054 0.005 0.008

FMS6 0.010 0.015 0.011 0.016 0.003 0.005 0.015 0.002 0.022 0.033 0.027 0.041 0.004 0.005

FMS7 0.013 0.020 0.013 0.019 0.007 0.011 0.010 0.002 0.033 0.049 0.031 0.046 0.006 0.009

FMS8 0.009 0.014 0.006 0.009 0.005 0.008 0.005 0.001 0.022 0.033 0.023 0.034 0.006 0.009

Table 4.6: Si and Ui values in ARAS method for FMS selection

Alternative Si Ui Rank

A0 0.6400 1.0000
FMS1 0.1266 0.1979 4
FMS2 0.1171 0.1830 5
FMS3 0.1070 0.1672 6
FMS4 0.1319 0.2061 2
FMS5 0.1275 0.1992 3
FMS6 0.1041 0.1627 7
FMS7 0.1345 0.2102 1
FMS8 0.0913 0.1426 8

4.6 Ranking Performance analysis for FMS selection

Table 4.7 shows the overall comparison among the three method. In order to validate the
applicability and suitability of the three considered preference ranking methods to solve
this FMS selection problem, their relative ranking performance is compared using the
following measures:
(a) Spearmans rank correlation coefficient,
(b) Kendalls coefficient of concordance,
(c) Agreement between the top three ranked alternatives, and
(d) Number of ranks matched, as the percentage of the number of considered alternatives.

28
 Table 4.7: Comparison table for FMS selection
Alternative Macbeth G-TOPSIS G-ARAS Rao and
FMS1 4 3 4 3
Parnichkun[6]
FMS2 5 4 5 4
(2008)
FMS3 6 7 6 7

FMS4 2 2 2 2

FMS5 3 5 3 5

FMS6 7 6 7 6

FMS7 1 1 1 1

FMS8 8 8 8 8

Using Spearmans rank correlation coefficient (rs) value, the similarity between two
sets of rankings can be measured. Usually, its value lies between 1 and +1, where the
value of +1 denotes a perfect match between two rank orderings. Table 4.8 shows the
Spearmans rank correlation coefficients when the rankings of FMS alternatives as
obtained using all the three preference ranking methods are compared between themselves
and also with respect to the rank ordering as derived by Rao and Parnichkun [6]. It is
observed that the rs value ranges from 0.9048 to 1.
Table 4.8: Comparative study on the ranking performance for FMS selection

Method Macbeth G-TOPSIS G-ARAS

Rao and
0.9048(1,2,#), 37.5 1.000 (1,2,3),100 0.9048(1,2,#), 37.5
Parnichkun[6]

Macbeth 0.9048(1,2,#), 37.5 1.000 (1,2,3),100

G-TOPSIS 0.9048(1,2,#), 37.5

The similarity of rankings obtained by these methods is also measured using

Kendalls coefficient of concordance (z). Its value lies between 0 and 1, where a value of 1
results in a perfect match. In this case, the value of z is computed as 0.9576, which
suggests that there is an almost perfect agreement between the considered methods. When
the ranking of FMS alternatives as derived by Rao and Parnichkun [6] is taken into
consideration, the (z) value is observed to be 0.9642, which is quite high suggesting a
similarity of the rank orderings between those obtained by the three preference ranking
methods and that of Rao and Parnichkun [6]. A high z value signifies the suitability of
these methods to solve the considered FMS selection problem.
Sometimes, the decision maker may be interested to select the best FMS as
the single choice. So, another test is performed based on the agreement between the top
three ranked FMS alternatives. Here, a result of (1,2,3) means the first, second and
third ranks match, (1,2,#) means the first and second ranks match, (1,#,#) means only
the first ranks match, and (#,#,#) means no match. Table 4.8 shows the results of this test,
which indicates that GTOPSIS and GARAS method has the maximum number of matches
with respect to the ranking of the top three FMS alternatives. It is also quite interesting to
note that for all the methods, the top ranked alternative is FMS7.The last test is performed
with respect to the number of ranks matched, expressed as the percentage of the number of

29
alternatives considered. These results are also shown in Table 4.8. It is observed that all
these methods are quite capable to deal with both the cardinal and ordinal data, and can
provide the total ranking of the considered alternatives, although they have different
mathematical treatments and operational approaches.
References
[1] Kulak, O. and Kahraman, C. (2005) Multi-attribute comparison of advanced manufacturing systems
using fuzzy vs. crisp axiomatic design approach, International Journal of Production Economics,
Vol. 95, No. 3, pp.415424.
[2] Rao, R.V. (2006) A decision-making framework model for evaluating flexible manufacturing
systems using digraph and matrix methods, International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing
Technology, Vol. 30, Nos. 1112, pp.11011110
[3] Bhattacharya, A., Abraham, A., Vasant, P. and Grosan, C. (2007) Evolutionary artificial neural
network for selecting flexible manufacturing systems under disparate level-of-satisfaction of
decision maker, International Journal of Innovative Computing, Information and Control, Vol. 3,
No. 1, pp.131140.
[4] Liu, S-T. (2008) A fuzzy DEA/AR approach to the selection of flexible manufacturing systems,
Computers & Industrial Engineering, Vol. 54, No. 1, pp.6676.
[5] Karsak, E.E. (2008) Using data envelopment analysis for evaluating flexible manufacturing systems
in the presence of imprecise data, International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology,
Vol. 35, Nos. 910, pp.867874.
[6] Rao, R.V. and Parnichkun, M. (2008) Flexible manufacturing system selection using a
combinatorial mathematics-based decision-making method, International Journal of Production
Research, Vol. 47, No. 24, pp.69816998.
[7] Chuu, S-J. (2009) Selecting the advanced manufacturing technology using fuzzy multiple attributes
group decision making with multiple fuzzy information, Computers & Industrial Engineering, Vol.
57, No. 3, pp.10331042
[8] Balaji, C.M., Gurumurthy, A. and Kodali, R. (2009) Selection of machine tool for FMS using
ELECTRE III a case study, Proc. of 5th Annual IEEE Conference on Automation Science and
Engineering, pp.2225, India.
[9] Biswas, S. and Mahapatra, S.S. (2009) An improved metaheuristic approach for solving the
machine loading problem in flexible manufacturing systems, International Journal of Services and
Operations Management, Vol. 5, No. 1, pp.7693.
[10] Rezaie, K., Nazari-Shirkouhi, S., Alem, S.M. and Hatami-Shirkouhi, L. (2010) Using data
envelopment analysis and analytical hierarchy process model to evaluate flexible manufacturing
systems, Journal of Applied Sciences Research, Vol. 6, No. 12, pp.6461 6469.
[11] Maniya, K.D. and Bhatt, M.G. (2011) The selection of flexible manufacturing system using
preference selection index method, International Journal of Industrial and Systems Engineering,
Vol. 9, No. 3, pp.330349.
[12] Dhal, P.R., Datta, S. and Mahapatra, S.S. (2011) Flexible manufacturing system selection based on
grey relation under uncertainty, International Journal of Services and Operations Management, Vol.
8, No. 4, pp.516534.
[13] Mondal, S. and Chakraborty, S. (2011) Selection of flexible manufacturing systems using data
envelopment analysis, Journal of the Institution of Engineers, Production Engineering Division,
Vol. 91, No. 18, pp.3139
[14] Todi, V., Zeljkovi, M., Tepi, J., Miloevi, M. and Luki, D. (2012) Techno-economic method
for evaluation and selection of flexible manufacturing systems (FMS), Metalurgija, Vol. 51, No. 3,
pp.349353
[15] Momeni, M., Fathi, M.R. and Khanmohammadi, E. (2012) Flexible manufacturing system
selection using of logarithmic fuzzy preference programming and ELECTRE method, New York
Science Journal, Vol. 5, No. 5, pp.9499.

30
 CHAPTER

5
Material Handling Equipment selection

5.1 Need for Material Handling Equipment Selection

Material handling equipment (MHE) selection is an activity that uses the right method to
provide the right amount of the right material at the right place, at the right time, in the
right sequence, in the right position, and at the right cost [1]. An MHE system is
responsible for transporting materials between workstations with minimum obstruction and
joins all the workstations and workshops in a manufacturing system by acting as a basic
integrator. The MH task accounts for 3075% of the total cost of a product, and efficient
MHE can be responsible for reducing the manufacturing system operations cost by 15
30% [2]. These figures justify the importance of MHE cost as an element in improving the
cost structure of a manufacturing organization. An efficient MHE system greatly improves
the competitiveness of a product through the reduction of handling cost, enhances the
production process, increases production and system flexibility, increases efficiency of
material flow, improves facility utilization, provides effective utilization of manpower, and
decreases lead time [3]. Better utilization of manpower, providing product flexibility,
increasing productivity, decreasing lead time, reduction in handling cost, increased
efficiency of material flow, and enhancement of production process are some of the most
important issues influencing material handling (MH) equipment selection decision. As a
wide variety of Material Handling equipment is available today, selection of the proper
equipment for a designed manufacturing system is a complicated task. Selection of suitable
MH equipment for a typical handling environment is found to be a multicriteria decision-
making (MCDM) problem. As the selection process is found to be unstructured,
characterized by domain dependent knowledge, there is a need to apply an efficient
MCDM tool to select the most suitable MH equipment for the given application.

5.2 Literature Survey on Material handling Equipment Selection

There are many studies focusing on MHE selection problem in the literature using different
mathematical models, MCDM methods, expert systems, etc. Chakraborty and Banik [4]
applied analytic hierarchy process (AHP) for selecting the best MH equipment under a

31
specific handling environment. Sujono and Lashkari [5] proposed a method for
simultaneously determining the operation allocation and MH system selection in a flexible
manufacturing environment with multiple performance objectives. Onut et al. [6] proposed
an integrated fuzzy analytic network process (F-ANP) and fuzzy technique for order
performance by similarity to ideal solution (F-TOPSIS) methodology for evaluating and
selecting the most suitable MH equipment types for a manufacturing organization.
Komljenovic and Kecojevic [7] applied coefficient of technical level and AHP methods for
selection of rail-mounted boom type bucket wheel reclaimers and stacker-reclaimers as
used for material handling at the stockyards. Tuzkaya et al. [8] suggested an integrated F-
ANP and fuzzy preference ranking organization method for enrichment evaluation (F-
PROMETHEE) approach for solving the MH equipment selection problems. Sawant et al.
[9] applied preference selection index (PSI) method to choose automated guided vehicle
(AGV) in a given manufacturing environment. Maniya and Bhatt [10] used AHP to assign
the relative importance between different AGV selection criteria and then applied modified
grey relational analysis (M-GRA) method to determine the corresponding index values for
AGV selection. Cho and Edbelu [11] developed a web-based system, called as
DESIGNER for the design of integrated MH systems in a manufacturing environment,
which could model and automate the MH system design process, including the selection of
MH equipment. Mirhosseyni and Webb [12] presented a hybrid method for selection and
assignment of the most appropriate MH equipment.

5.3 Material Handling Equipment Selection using MACBETH method

Bairagi et al [13] presented a Material handling device selection problem for a South East
Asian manufacturing company. From five alternative (Industrial Vehicle) namely
V1,V2,V3,V4,V5, the best one was to be chosen based on six decisive criteria, e.g. Cost
(in $), Floor space(FS) Limitation(L) Load capacity(LC), Traveling distance(TD), Life
period(LP).The performances of the alternatives with respect to five criteria were
expressed in qualitative measures, while for the cost criterion quantitative measure were
used. For performance evaluation of material handling device (industrial vehicles), five
degrees of linguistic variables viz. Very low, Low, Medium, High and Very
high are used. Table 5.1 shows the decision matrix for this problem. The first three
criterion are of non-beneficial type (preferring lower value), whereas the remaining
attributes are of beneficial type (preferring higher values)

Table 5.1: Decision matrix for Material Handling Equipment selection problem

ALTERNATIVE CRITERIA

Traveling
Cost ($) Floor space Limitation Load capacity Life period
distance

Opt direction min min min max max max

V1 450 High High Very high Low Medium

V2 79.5 Low Medium Very low Low High
V3 520 Low Very high Low Medium Medium
V4 377 Low Medium Medium Low Medium
V5 502 Medium Low High Medium Medium

32
 This Material handling device selection problem is now solved using the free
downloaded version of M-MACBTH software. Initially, all the six evaluation criteria are
entered into the M-MACBTH software to develop the corresponding value tree, as shown
in Figure 5.1

Figure 5.1: MACBETH value tree for Material Handling equipment selection problem
In this value tree, the Beneficial criteria node contains all the beneficial attributes,
while the Non beneficial criteria node consists of all the attributes whose values is to be
diminished. The performances of alternatives are then input in the respective criterias
properties window. For Cost (C) criteria performances of the alternatives are expressed in
quantitative measures. Therefore, two reference levels, i.e. upper and lower are chosen for
this criteria. In case of beneficial criteria, the upper reference level is the highest
performance criteria value, whereas, for non-beneficial criteria, it is the lowest
performance criteria value. The lower reference level is selected 10% below the lowest
performance value in case of beneficial criteria and for non-beneficial criteria, it is chosen
10% above the highest performance value. The performance of qualitative criterion such as
(FS), (L), (LC), (TD) and (LP) are expressed using a five point scale, i.e. very high (VH),
high (H), average (A), low (L) and very low (VL). Fig. 5.2 shows the reference levels for
all the criteria as involved in this problem.

Figure 5.2: Reference levels for Material Handling equipment selection problem

Now, five alternatives (V1, V2, V3, V4, and V5) as well as performances of these
alternatives with respect to six considered criteria are entered into M-MACBETH software.

33
In order to determine the weights of the criteria with MACBETH method, criteria are
entered into M-MACBETH software in descending order of their importance from
left to right and top to bottom in the weighting matrix. The judgments of preference of
each criterion over the remaining criteria are selected using a seven point semantic scale.
Consistency checking is performed for the judgments. After considering the suggestions
for eliminating inconsistencies (if any), the judgments are made consistent and
subsequently, the criteria weights are computed. Fig. 5.3 shows the overall weighing
judgments and the weights for this example.

Figure 5.3: MACBETH weighing judgments Material Handling Equipment selection problem

The overall attractiveness scores for all the five alternatives are obtained using Eq.
(3.6) and quantitative performance scores for the alternatives with respect to six criteria are
shown in Fig. 5.4

Figure 5.4: MACBETH table of scores Material Handling device selection problem

Based on the overall attractiveness scores obtained using MACBETH method, the
ranking of Material Handling Device is obtained as V2-V5-V4-V1-V3 which shows that
V2 is the best choice. Bairagi et al. [6] also obtained the same ranking for the facility
layout alternatives using a Technique of Precise Order Preference (TPOP) method.
Sensitivity analysis is also performed to study the effects of changes in criteria
weights on the final rankings of the alternatives. The weight of a selected criterion is
changed in such a way that the weights of the remaining criteria are automatically adjusted
so that all the criteria weights always add up to one. In this example, it is observed that
LC is the most important criterion having a weight of 0.2728. The results of sensitivity
analysis with respect to LC criterion, as shown in Fig. 5.5, identifies that V2 remains as
the first choice till the weight of LC criterion is varied up to 0.2760 and above it V5
becomes the first choice.

34
 Figure 5.5: Sensitivity analysis with respect to LC criterion

5.4 Material Handling Equipment Selection using GTOPSIS

Now the same problem presented by Bairagi et al. [6] is solved by GTOPSIS. For
performance evaluation of material handling device (industrial vehicles), five degrees of
linguistic variables viz. Very low, Low, Medium, High and Very high are
used. Now linguistic attribute are converted into their corresponding grey numbers. To
convert the cost criteria into grey intervals 20% expansion is taken on both sides. The grey
decision matrix is shown in Table 5.2. After the decision matrix is formed, the next step is
to determine the importance of the criteria. The weight of the criteria is obtained by
entropy method.
Table 5.2: Grey decision matrix for Material Handling Equipment Selection

ALTERNATIVE CRITERIA

Cost ($) Floor space Limitation Load capacity Traveling distance Life period

weight 0.328 0.126 0.128 0.339 0.058 0.021

V1 360 540 6 9 6 9 9 10 1 3 4 5

V2 63.6 95.4 1 3 4 5 0 1 1 3 6 9

V3 416 624 1 3 9 10 1 3 4 5 4 5

V4 301.6 452.4 1 3 4 5 4 5 1 3 4 5

V5 401.6 602.4 4 5 1 3 6 9 4 5 4 5

The criteria weights were as followed WC =0.328, WFS =0.126, WL =0.128, WLC
=0.339, WTD =0.058, WLP =0.021. Following Eqs. (3.14, 3.15) the normalized grey
decision matrix are determined. To this end, the maximum upper limit of alternatives is

35
determined, and all evaluation values are divided by the maximum value. The criteria
weight for LC is maximum and for LP it is minimum. Negative and positive ideals are
calculated using Eqs. (3.16, 3.17) and shown in Table 5.3.

Table 5.3: Normalized values of alternatives and positive/negative ideal values for Material Handling
Equipment Selection

Criteria weight V1 V2 V3 V4 V5 A+ A-

C 0.328 0.423 0.135 0.898 0.847 0.333 0.000 0.517 0.275 0.356 0.035 0.898 0.000

FS 0.126 0.333 0.000 0.889 0.667 0.889 0.667 0.889 0.667 0.556 0.444 0.889 0.000

L 0.128 0.4 0.1 0.600 0.500 0.100 0.000 0.600 0.500 0.900 0.700 0.900 0.000

LC 0.339 0.900 1.000 0.000 0.100 0.100 0.300 0.400 0.500 0.600 0.900 1.000 0.000

TD 0.058 0.200 0.600 0.200 0.600 0.800 1.000 0.200 0.600 0.800 1.000 1.000 0.200

LP 0.021 0.444 0.556 0.667 1.000 0.444 0.556 0.444 0.556 0.444 0.556 1.000 0.444

The next step is calculating the separation measure of the positive and negative ideal
alternatives using Eqs. (3.18, 3.19) d+ and d- are found and finally it is used to find the
relative closeness C+. The calculated relative closeness values are shown in Table 5.4.
According to the results of Table 5.4, the priority of the alternatives are determined as V2-
V5-V1-V4-V3.The calculated results showed that the V2 is the best vehicle for this
material handling problem followed by V5. Among the alternative V3 appeared to be the
worst vehicle. Bairagi & Sarkar also obtained V2 as the best vehicle and V3 as the worst
one. As a conclusion, vehicle 2 should be selected by the company. From the initial
decision
Table 5.4: Separation measures and the relative closeness of each alternative for Material Handling
Equipment Selection

Alternative d+ d- C+ Rank

V1 0.5922 0.6139 0.5090 3

V2 0.4771 0.6030 0.5582 1

V3 0.7122 0.3778 0.3466 5

V4 0.4884 0.4973 0.5045 4

V5 0.5376 0.6015 0.5281 2

matrix of Table 5.1, it is observed that V2 and V5 outperforms most of the other alternative
vehicle with respect to higher values of (LC) and lower value of Cost criteria. On the other
hand, the main reason behind the underperformance of V3 is its very low value of (LC)
criteria. It is also identified that this V3 has very high values of non-beneficial criteria such
as (L) and (C)

36
5.5 Material Handling Equipment Selection using Grey ARAS method
From the weighted normalized decision matrix, as given in Table 5.5, and using Eq. (3.24,
3.25), the optimality function (Si) for each of the Material handling Equipment selection is
calculated. Then the corresponding values of the utility degree (Ui) are determined for all
the alternatives.
Table 5.5: weighted normalized decision matrix for material handling equipment selection

ALTERNATIVE CRITERIA

Traveling
Cost ($) Floor space Limitation Load capacity Life period
distance

A0 0.1215 0.1538 0.0285 0.0545 0.0461 0.0658 0.1130 0.0892 0.0276 0.0200 0.0066 0.0054

V1 0.0215 0.0181 0.0048 0.0061 0.0077 0.0073 0.1017 0.0892 0.0028 0.0060 0.0026 0.0027

V2 0.1215 0.1025 0.0285 0.0182 0.0115 0.0132 0.0000 0.0089 0.0028 0.0060 0.0039 0.0048

V3 0.0186 0.0157 0.0285 0.0182 0.0051 0.0066 0.0113 0.0268 0.0110 0.0100 0.0026 0.0027

V4 0.0256 0.0216 0.0285 0.0182 0.0115 0.0132 0.0452 0.0446 0.0028 0.0060 0.0026 0.0027

V5 0.0192 0.0162 0.0071 0.0109 0.0461 0.0219 0.0678 0.0803 0.0110 0.0100 0.0026 0.0027

The values of Si and Ui, and the ranking achieved by the Material handling Equipment
selection are exhibited in Table 5.6. It is revealed from this table that V2 is the best chosen
alternative and V3 obtains the last rank. V5 has the second rank.
Table 5.6: Si and Ui values in ARAS method for material handling equipment selection

Alternatives Si Ui Rank Bairagi et

al.
A0 0.3660 1.0000
V1 0.1352 0.3693 3 4
V2 0.1610 0.4397 1 1
V3 0.0785 0.2146 5 5
V4 0.1113 0.3040 4 3
V5 0.1480 0.4043 2 2

5.6 Ranking Performance analysis for Material handling Equipment selection

Table 5.7 shows the overall comparison among the three method. In order to validate the
applicability and suitability of the three considered preference ranking methods to solve
this Material handling Equipment selection problem, their relative ranking performance is
compared using the following measures:
(a) Spearmans rank correlation coefficient,
(b) Kendalls coefficient of concordance,
(c) Agreement between the top three ranked alternatives, and

37
(d) Number of ranks matched, as the percentage of the number of considered alternatives.
Table 5.7: Comparison table for Material Handling Equipment selection

Alternative Macbeth GTOPSIS GARAS Bairagi et

al.
V1 4 3 3 4
V2 1 1 1 1
V3 5 5 5 5
V4 3 4 4 3
V5 2 2 2 2

Using Spearmans rank correlation coefficient (rs) value, the similarity between two sets of
rankings can be measured. Usually, its value lies between 1 and +1, where the value of +1
denotes a perfect match between two rank orderings. Table 5.8 shows the Spearmans rank
correlation coefficients when the rankings of Material handling Equipment selection
alternatives as obtained using all the three preference ranking methods are compared
between themselves and also with respect to the rank ordering as derived by Bairagi et al.
[13]. It is observed that the rs value ranges from 0.9 to 1.
Table 5.8: Comparative study on the ranking performance for Material Handling Equipment selection

Method Macbeth GTOPSIS GARAS

Bairagi et al. 1(1,2,3), 100 0.9(1,2,#), 40 0.9(1,2,#), 60

Macbeth 0.9(1,2,#), 60 0.9(1,2,#), 60

GTOPSIS 1(1,2,3), 100

The similarity of rankings obtained by these methods is also measured using Kendalls
coefficient of concordance (z). Its value lies between 0 and 1, where a value of 1 results in
a perfect match. In this case, the value of z is computed as 0.9501, which suggests that
there is an almost perfect agreement between the considered methods. When the ranking of
Material handling Equipment alternatives as derived by Bairagi et al. [13] is taken into
consideration, the z value is observed to be 0.9658, which is quite high suggesting a
similarity of the rank orderings between those obtained by the three preference ranking
methods and that of Bairagi et al. A high z value signifies the suitability of these methods
to solve the considered Material handling Equipment selection problem.
Sometimes, the decision maker may be interested to select the best Material
handling Equipment as the single choice. So, another test is performed based on the
agreement between the top three ranked Material handling Equipment alternatives. Here, a
result of (1,2,3) means the first, second and third ranks match, (1,2,#) means the
first and second ranks match, (1,#,#) means only the first ranks match, and (#,#,#) means
no match. Table 5.8 shows the results of this test, which indicates that Macbeth and
GARAS method has the maximum number of matches with respect to the ranking of the
top three Material handling Equipment alternatives. It is also quite interesting to note that
for all the methods, the top ranked alternative is V2.The last test is performed with respect
to the number of ranks matched, expressed as the percentage of the number of alternatives
considered. These results are also shown in Table 5.8. It is observed that all these methods

38
are quite capable to deal with both the cardinal and ordinal data, and can provide the total
ranking of the considered alternatives, although they have different mathematical
treatments and operational approaches.
Reference
[1] J. A. Tompkins, Facilities Planning, John Wiley and Sons, New York, NY, USA, 2010
[2] O. Kulak, (2005) A decision support system for fuzzy multi-attribute selection of material handling
equipments, Expert Systems with Applications, vol. 29, no. 2, pp. 310319.
[3] B. M. Beamon, (2006) Performance, reliability, and performability of material handling systems,
International Journal of Production Research, vol. 36, no. 2, pp. 377393.
[4] S. Chakraborty and D. Banik, (2006) Design of a material handling equipment selection model
using analytic hierarchy process, International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology,
vol. 28, no. 11-12, pp. 12371245.
[5] S. Sujono and R. S. Lashkari, (2007) A multi-objective model of operation allocation and material
handling system selection in FMS design, International Journal of Production Economics, vol. 105,
no. 1, pp. 116133.
[6] S. Onut, S. S. Kara, and S. Mert, (2009) Selecting the suitable material handling equipment in the
presence of vagueness, International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, vol. 44, no.
7-8, pp. 818828.
[7] D. Komljenovic and V. Kecojevic, (2009) Multi-attribute selection method for materials handling
equipment, International Journal of Industrial and Systems Engineering, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 151173,
2009.
[8] G. Tuzkaya, B. Glsn, C. Kahraman, and D. zgen, (2010) An integrated fuzzy multi-criteria
decision making methodology for material handling equipment selection problem and an
application, Expert Systems with Applications, vol. 37, no. 4, pp. 28532863.
[9] V. B. Sawant, S. S. Mohite, and R. Patil, (2011) A decision-making methodology for automated
guided vehicle selection problem using a preference selection index method, Communications in
Computer and Information Science, vol. 145, pp. 176181.
[10] [K. D. Maniya and M. G. Bhatt, (2011) A multi-attribute selection of automated guided vehicle
using the AHP/M-GRA technique, International Journal of Production Research, vol. 49, pp. 6107
6124.
[11] C. Cho and P. J. Edbelu, (2005) Design of a web-based integrated material handling system for
manufacturing applications, International Journal of Production Research, vol. 43, pp. 375403.
[12] S. H. L. Mirhosseyni and P. Webb, (2009) A hybrid fuzzy knowledge-based expert system and
genetic algorithm for efficient selection and assignment of material handling equipment, Expert
Systems with Applications, vol. 36, no. 9, pp. 1187511887.
[13] B. Bairagi, B. Dey, B. Sarkar and S. K. sanyal, (2015) A De Novo multi-approaches multi-criteria
decision making technique with an application in performance evaluation of material handling
device Computer & Industrial Engineering, vol. 87 pp. 267-282.

39
40
 CHAPTER

6
Green Supplier Selection

6.1 Need for Green Supplier Selection

Supplier evaluation and selection is a significant strategic decision for reducing operating
costs and improving organizational competitiveness to develop business opportunities.
Moreover, with increasing concern towards environmental protection and sustainable
development, it becomes important to pay more attention to environmental requirements
and evaluating the potential suppliers by incorporating green factors into the selection
process [1]. Green supplier selection is a critical activity because the environmental
performance of the supply chain is affected significantly by its constituent supplier [2, 3].
Environmental and economic dimensions must be considered simultaneously when firms
select a suitable supplier [4]. The green suppliers are chosen and must fit a firms
expectations and objectives, so as to minimize negative environmental impact and
maximize economic performance. Thus the strategy is to put forward an integrated
approach for green supplier selection by considering various environmental performance
requirements and its criteria.

6.2 Literature survey on Green Supplier Selection.

Lee et al. [5] suggested that the framework of green supplier selection for high-tech
industry should include six aspects and 23 criteria, but they presented a limited discussion
of several important and traditional criteria, such as delivery, price, and financial stability.
Kuo et al. [6] determined the green supplier selection criteria based on literatures and a
Delphi expert questionnaire, presenting six aspects and 24 criteria, sent to ten experts.
Tseng and Chiu [7] proposed 18 GSCM criteria through comprehensive discussion and
literatures for a printed circuit board manufacturer Lu et al. [8] addressed materials,
energy, solid residue, liquid residue, gaseous residue, and technology as the fundamental
environmental criteria. Tuzkaya et al. [9] recognized pollution control, green product,
green process management and environmental and legislative management as the most
significant GSCM criteria. Awasthi et al. [10] proposed 12 environmental criteria
including use of environmental friendly technology, use of environmental friendly

41
 material, partnership with green organization, Green market share, management
commitment, adherence to environmental policies, green R&D projects, staff training and
etc. Bykzkan [11] described the framework of green supplier selection based on the
literatures about automotive industry, including g three aspects and 12 criteria. In sum,
most of the published studies have developed a framework for green supplier selection
based on previous studies and interviews, possibly because interviewing is the most
convenient way to link the reviewed studies with the real cases.

6.3 Green Supplier Selection using Macbeth method

Yazdani et al., [1] presented the green supplier selection for an Iranian dairy company. Out
of the ten available option the best one was to be selected based on seven decisive criteria,
e.g. Quality adaptation (QD), Price(P), Energy and Natural Resource Consumption
(ENRC), Delivery Speed (DS), Green Design (GD), Re-use and Recycle Rate (RRR) and
Production planning (PP) are Recognized as supplier selection criteria. Among the seven
criteria, P and ENRC are considered as cost criteria and rest of all is regarded as beneficial
criteria preferring higher value. The performances of the alternatives with respect to these
criteria were expressed in quantitative measures only. Table 6.1 shows the decision matrix
for this problem. The P and ENRC criteria is of non-beneficial type (preferring lower
value), whereas, the remaining attributes are of beneficial type (preferring higher
values).Yazdani et al. solved this problem using COPRAS and MOORA based approach
and using DEMATEL method to determine the criteria weights
Table 6.1: Initial Decision matrix for Green supplier selection problem

Supplier QD P ENRC DS GD RRR PP

Optimization
max min min max max max max
direction
weight 0.132 0.135 0.138 0.162 0.090 0.223 0.120

S1 0.068 0.066 0.150 0.098 0.156 0.114 0.098

S2 0.078 0.076 0.108 0.136 0.082 0.171 0.105
S3 0.157 0.114 0.128 0.083 0.108 0.113 0.131
S4 0.106 0.139 0.058 0.074 0.132 0.084 0.120
S5 0.103 0.187 0.125 0.176 0.074 0.064 0.057
S6 0.105 0.083 0.150 0.051 0.134 0.094 0.113
S7 0.137 0.127 0.056 0.133 0.122 0.119 0.114
S8 0.100 0.082 0.086 0.060 0.062 0.109 0.093
S9 0.053 0.052 0.043 0.100 0.050 0.078 0.063
S10 0.094 0.074 0.097 0.087 0.080 0.054 0.106

This selection problem is now solved using the free downloaded version of M-
MACBTH software. Initially, all the ten evaluation criteria are entered into the M-
MACBTH software to develop the corresponding value tree, as shown in Fig. 6.1. In this
value tree, the Beneficial criteria node contains all the beneficial attributes, while the
Non Beneficial criteria node consists of the non-beneficial attribute whose values is to be
lowered.

42
 Figure 6.1: MACBETH value tree for Green supplier selection problem

The performances of alternatives are then input in the respective criterias

properties window. In this problem the performance measure of all the alternative are in
quantitative measures. Therefore, two reference levels, i.e. upper and lower are chosen for
these ten criteria. In case of beneficial criteria, the upper reference level is the highest
performance criteria value, whereas, for non-beneficial criteria, it is the lowest
performance criteria value. The lower reference level is selected 10% below the lowest
performance value in case of beneficial criteria and for non-beneficial criteria, it is chosen
10% above the highest performance value. Fig. 6.2 shows the reference levels for all the
criteria as involved in this problem.

Figure 6.2: Reference levels for Green Supplier selection problem

43
 In order to determine the weights of the criteria with MACBETH method, criteria
are entered into MMACBETH software in descending order of their importance
from left to right and top to bottom in the weighting matrix. Now, ten alternatives as
well as performances of these alternatives with respect to seven considered criteria are
entered into M-MACBETH software. The judgments of preference of each criterion over
the remaining criteria are selected using a seven point semantic scale. Consistency
checking is performed for the judgments. After considering the suggestions for eliminating
inconsistencies (if any), the judgments are made consistent and subsequently, the criteria
weights are computed. Fig. 6.3 shows the overall weighing judgments and the weight for
this example.

Figure 6.3: MACBETH weighing judgments for Green supplier selection problem

The overall attractiveness scores for all the four alternatives are obtained using
Eqn. (3.6) and quantitative performance scores for the alternatives with respect to seven
criteria are shown in Fig. 6.4.

Figure 6.4: MACBETH table of scores for Green supplier selection problem

44
 Based on the overall attractiveness scores obtained using MACBETH method, the
ranking of green supplier selection is obtained as op7-op2-op3-op4-op1-op9-op8-op6-
op10-op5 which shows that op7 is the best choice and op5 as the worst choice. Yazdani et
al also obtained the same best and the worst option using COPRAS and MOORA method.

Figure 6.5: Sensitivity analysis with respect to RRR criterion

Sensitivity analysis is also performed to study the effects of changes in criteria

weights on the final rankings of the alternatives. The weight of a selected criterion is
changed in such a way that the weights of the remaining criteria are automatically adjusted
so that all the criteria weights always add up to one. In this example, it is observed that
RRR is the most important criterion having a weight of 0.2244. The results of sensitivity
analysis with respect to RRR criterion, as shown in Fig. 6.5, identifies that op7 remains
as the first choice till the weight of RRR criterion is varied up to 0.2480 and above it op2
becomes the first choice.

6.4 Green supplier selection using GTOPSIS method

Now the same problem presented by Yazdani et al., [1] is solved using G-TOPSIS method.
The criteria weights calculated by Yazdani et al. using DEMATEL method as WQD=0.132,
WP=0.135, WENRC=0.138, WDS =0.162, WGD=0.090, WRRR=0.223, WPP=0.120 which are
again used here for solving this problem. The criteria weight for RRR is maximum and for
GD it is minimum. This initial decision matrix is now converted into grey decision matrix
with 20% greyness which is exhibited in Table 6.2. Table 6.3 shows the normalised
decision matrix with positive and negative values. Negative and positive ideals are
calculated using Eq. (3.16, 3.17).The next step is calculating the separation measure of the
positive and negative ideal alternatives. Using Eq. (3.18, 3.19) d+ and- are found and
represented in Table 6.4. Finally the calculated d+ and d-are used to find the relative
closeness C+. The calculated relative closeness values are shown in Table 6.4.

45
 Table 6.2: Grey decision matrix for Green supplier selection

Supplier QD P ENRC DS GD RRR PP

Opt.
max min min max max max max
direction

weight 0.132 0.135 0.138 0.162 0.090 0.223 0.120

S1 0.054 0.082 0.053 0.079 0.120 0.180 0.078 0.118 0.125 0.187 0.091 0.137 0.078 0.118

S2 0.062 0.094 0.061 0.091 0.086 0.130 0.109 0.163 0.066 0.098 0.137 0.205 0.084 0.126

S3 0.126 0.188 0.091 0.137 0.102 0.154 0.066 0.100 0.086 0.130 0.090 0.136 0.105 0.157

S4 0.085 0.127 0.111 0.167 0.046 0.070 0.059 0.089 0.106 0.158 0.067 0.101 0.096 0.144

S5 0.082 0.124 0.150 0.224 0.100 0.150 0.141 0.211 0.059 0.089 0.051 0.077 0.046 0.068

S6 0.084 0.126 0.066 0.100 0.120 0.180 0.041 0.061 0.107 0.161 0.075 0.113 0.090 0.136

S7 0.110 0.164 0.102 0.152 0.045 0.067 0.106 0.160 0.098 0.146 0.095 0.143 0.091 0.137

S8 0.080 0.120 0.066 0.098 0.069 0.103 0.048 0.072 0.050 0.074 0.087 0.131 0.074 0.112

S9 0.042 0.064 0.042 0.062 0.034 0.052 0.080 0.120 0.040 0.060 0.062 0.094 0.050 0.076

S10 0.075 0.113 0.059 0.089 0.078 0.116 0.070 0.104 0.064 0.096 0.043 0.065 0.085 0.127

Table 6.3: Normalized values of alternatives and positive/negative ideal values for Green supplier selection
problem

criteria QD P ENRC DS GD RRR PP

weight 0.132 0.135 0.138 0.162 0.09 0.223 0.12
0.289 0.765 0.333 0.371 0.667 0.444 0.499
S1
0.433 0.647 0 0.557 1.000 0.667 0.748
0.331 0.729 0.52 0.515 0.35 0.667 0.534
S2
0.497 0.594 0.28 0.773 0.526 1.000 0.802
0.667 0.594 0.431 0.314 0.462 0.441 0.667
S3
1.000 0.39 0.147 0.472 0.692 0.661 1.000
0.45 0.504 0.742 0.28 0.564 0.327 0.611
S4
0.675 0.257 0.613 0.42 0.846 0.491 0.916
0.437 0.333 0.444 0.667 0.316 0.25 0.29
S5
0.656 0 0.167 1.000 0.474 0.374 0.435
0.446 0.704 0.333 0.193 0.573 0.366 0.575
S6
0.669 0.556 0 0.29 0.859 0.55 0.863

46
 0.582 0.547 0.751 0.504 0.521 0.464 0.58
S7
0.873 0.321 0.627 0.756 0.782 0.696 0.87
0.425 0.708 0.618 0.227 0.265 0.425 0.473
S8
0.637 0.561 0.427 0.341 0.397 0.637 0.71
0.225 0.815 0.809 0.379 0.214 0.304 0.321
S9
0.338 0.722 0.713 0.568 0.321 0.456 0.481
0.399 0.736 0.569 0.33 0.342 0.211 0.539
S10
0.599 0.604 0.353 0.494 0.513 0.316 0.809
A+ 1 0.815 0.809 1 1 1 1
A- 0.225 0 0 0.193 0.214 0.211 0.29

According to the results of Table 6.4, the priority of the alternatives are determined as S7 >
S2 > S3 > S4 > S1 > S4 > S8 > S6 > S10 > S5. The calculated results showed that the S7
as the best alternative and S5 as the worst alternative for the company. As a conclusion, S7
should be selected by the company. Yazdani et al also obtained S7 as the best supplier for
the company and S5 as the worst supplier.

Table 6.4: Separation measures and the relative closeness of each alternative for Green supplier selection
problem

Yazdani et al.
Supplier d+ d- C+ Rank
[1]

S1 0.4858 0.4164 0.4615 5 5

S2 0.3939 0.4921 0.5554 2 2

S3 0.4419 0.4344 0.4957 3 4

S4 0.4743 0.4131 0.4655 4 6

S5 0.5701 0.3422 0.3751 10 10

S6 0.5250 0.3789 0.4192 8 8

S7 0.3572 0.4901 0.5784 1 1

S8 0.4957 0.3864 0.4381 7 7

S9 0.5437 0.4309 0.4421 6 3

S10 0.5292 0.3717 0.4126 9 9

From the initial decision matrix of Table 6.1, it is observed that supplier S7 and S2
outperforms most of the other alternative suppliers with respect to higher values of QD and
RRR, and lower value of ENRC criteria. On the other hand, the main reason behind the
underperformance of S5 supplier is its very low RRR value, although it has amazingly
attractive values for QD and DS criteria. It is identified that this supplier has very less
capability in terms of energy and natural resource consumption (ENRC), delivery speed
(DS), green design (GD), re-use and recycle rate (RRR) and production planning (PP).

47
6.5 Green supplier selection using ARAS method
From the weighted normalized decision matrix, as given in Table 6.5, and using Eq. (3.24,
3.25), the optimality function (Si) for each of the Green Supplier selection alternative is
calculated. Then the corresponding values of the utility degree (Ui) are determined for all
the alternatives. The values of Si and Ui, and the ranking achieved by the Green Supplier
selection alternative are exhibited in Table 6.6. It is revealed from this table that S5 is the
best chosen alternative and S10 obtains the last rank. S2 has the second rank.
Table 6.5: Weighted normalized decision matrix for ARAS method for Green supplier selection problem

Supplier QD P ENRC DS GD RRR PP

Opt.
max min min max max max max
direction
0.017 0.025 0.016 0.023 0.018 0.027 0.023 0.034 0.011 0.017 0.031 0.046 0.013 0.019
A0
0.007 0.011 0.012 0.018 0.005 0.008 0.013 0.019 0.011 0.017 0.020 0.031 0.009 0.014
S1
0.008 0.012 0.011 0.016 0.007 0.011 0.018 0.026 0.006 0.009 0.031 0.046 0.010 0.015
S2
0.017 0.025 0.007 0.011 0.006 0.009 0.011 0.016 0.008 0.012 0.020 0.030 0.013 0.019
S3
0.011 0.017 0.006 0.009 0.013 0.020 0.010 0.014 0.010 0.014 0.015 0.023 0.012 0.017
S4
0.011 0.016 0.004 0.007 0.006 0.009 0.023 0.034 0.005 0.008 0.011 0.017 0.006 0.008
S5
0.011 0.017 0.010 0.015 0.005 0.008 0.007 0.010 0.010 0.015 0.017 0.025 0.011 0.016
S6
0.015 0.022 0.006 0.010 0.014 0.021 0.017 0.026 0.009 0.013 0.021 0.032 0.011 0.016
S7
0.011 0.016 0.010 0.015 0.009 0.014 0.008 0.012 0.005 0.007 0.019 0.029 0.009 0.013
S8
0.006 0.008 0.016 0.023 0.018 0.027 0.013 0.019 0.004 0.005 0.014 0.021 0.006 0.009
S9
0.010 0.015 0.011 0.016 0.008 0.012 0.011 0.017 0.006 0.009 0.010 0.015 0.010 0.015
S10

Table 6.6: Si and Ui values in ARAS method for Green supplier selection problem

Supplier Si Ui Rank
A0 0.1592 1.0000
S1 0.0979 0.6148 4
S2 0.1127 0.7083 2

S3 0.1013 0.6362 3

S4 0.0950 0.5970 5
S5 0.0831 0.5219 9

S6 0.0873 0.5488 8

S7 0.1161 0.7297 1
S8 0.0876 0.5503 7

S9 0.0947 0.5949 6

S10 0.0821 0.5160 10

48
6.6 Ranking Performance analysis for Green supplier selection
Table 6.7 shows the overall comparison among the three method. In order to validate the
applicability and suitability of the three considered ranking methods to solve this Green
supplier selection problem, their relative ranking performance is compared using the
following measures:
(a) Spearmans rank correlation coefficient,
(b) Kendalls coefficient of concordance,
(c) Agreement between the top three ranked alternatives, and
(d) Number of ranks matched, as the percentage of the number of considered alternatives.

Table 6.7 Comparison table for Green supplier selection

Yazdani et
Alternative Macbeth GTOPSIS GARAS
al. [1]
S1 5 5 4 5
S2 2 2 2 2
S3 3 3 3 4
S4 4 4 5 6
S5 10 10 9 10
S6 8 8 8 8
S7 1 1 1 1
S8 7 7 7 7
S9 6 6 6 3
S10 9 9 10 9

Using Spearmans rank correlation coefficient (rs) value, the similarity between two sets of
rankings can be measured. Usually, its value lies between 1 and +1, where the value of +1
denotes a perfect match between two rank orderings. Table 6.8 shows the Spearmans rank
Table 6.8: Comparative study on ranking performance for Green supplier selection problem

method Macbeth G-TOPSIS G-ARAS

Yazdani et al. (2017) 0.9152 (1,2,#), 60 0.9152 (1,2,#), 60 0.9152 (1,2,#), 40

Macbeth 1 (1,2,3), 100 0.9758 (1,2,3), 60

G-TOPSIS 0.9758 (1,2,3), 60

correlation coefficients when the rankings of Green supplier selection alternatives as

obtained using all the three preference ranking methods are compared between themselves
and also with respect to the rank ordering as derived by Yazdani et al. [1]. It is observed
that the rs value ranges from 0.9152 to 1.The similarity of rankings obtained by these
methods is also measured using Kendalls coefficient of concordance (z). Its value lies
between 0 and 1, where a value of 1 results in a perfect match. In this case, the value of z is
computed as 0.9621, which suggests that there is an almost perfect agreement between the
considered methods. When the ranking of Green supplier equipment alternatives as derived

49
by Yazdani et al. [1] is taken into consideration, the z value is observed to be 0.9892,
which is quite high suggesting a similarity of the rank orderings between those obtained by
the three preference ranking methods and that of Bairagi et al. A high (z) value signifies
the suitability of these methods to solve the considered Green supplier equipment selection
problem.
Sometimes, the decision maker may be interested to select the best Green
supplier selection as the single choice. So, another test is performed based on the
agreement between the top three ranked Green suppliers Equipment. Here, a result of
(1,2,3) means the first, second and third ranks match, (1,2,#) means the first and
second ranks match, (1,#,#) means only the first ranks match, and (#,#,#) means no match.
Table 7.8 shows the results of this test, which indicates that GTOPSIS and GARAS
method has the maximum number of matches with respect to the ranking of the top three
Green supplier selection alternatives. It is also quite interesting to note that for all the
methods, the top ranked alternative is S7.The last test is performed with respect to the
number of ranks matched, expressed as the percentage of the number of alternatives
considered. These results are also shown in Table 6.8. It is observed that all these methods
are quite capable to deal with both the cardinal and ordinal data, and can provide the total
ranking of the considered alternatives, although they have different mathematical
treatments and operational approaches.

Reference
[1] M. Yazdani, P. Chatterjee, E.K. Zavadskas, S.H Zolfani, (2017) Integrated QFD-MCDM
framework for green supplier selection, Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 142 pp. 3728-3740.
[2] K. Govindan, S. Rajendran, J. Sarkis, and P. Murugesan, (2015) Multi criteria decision making
approaches for green supplier evaluation and selection: a literature review, Journal of Cleaner
Production, vol. 98, pp. 6683.
[3] R. J. Kuo, Y. C. Wang, and F. C. Tien, (2010) Integration of artificial neural network and MADA
methods for green supplier selection, Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 18, no. 12, pp. 1161
1170.
[4] J. Sarkis, Q. Zhu, and K.-H. Lai, (2011) An organizational theoretic review of green supply chain
management literature, International Journal of Production Economics, vol. 130, no. 1, pp. 115.
[5] H. I. Lee, H. Y. Kang, C. F. Hsu, and H. C. Hung, () 2009 A green supplier selection model for
high-tech industry, Expert Systems with Applications, vol. 36, no. 4, pp. 79177927.
[6] R. J. Kuo, Y. C. Wang, and F. C. Tien, (2010) Integration of artificial neural network and MADA
methods for green supplier selection, Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 18, no. 12, pp. 1161
1170.
[7] M. L. Tseng and A. S. F. Chiu, (2013) Evaluating firm's green supply chain management in
linguistic preferences, Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 40, pp. 2231.
[8] Lu, L.Y.Y., Wu, C.H., Kuo, T.C., (2007) Environmental principles applicable to green supplier
evaluation by using multi-objective decision analysis. Int. J. Prod. Res. Vol. 45, no. (18-19), pp.
4317-4331
[9] Tuzkaya, G., Ozgen, A., Ozgen, D., Tuzkaya, U., (2009) Environmental performance evaluation of
suppliers: a hybrid fuzzy multi-criteria decision approach. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol. 6 (3), pp.
477-490
[10] Awasthi, A., Chauhan, S.S., Goyal, S.K., (2010) A fuzzy multicriteria approach for evaluating
environmental performance of suppliers. Int. J. Prod. Econ. Vol.126 no.2, pp. 370-378
[11] Bykzkan, (2012) An integrated fuzzy multi-criteria group decision-making approach for
green supplier evaluation, International Journal of Production Research, vol. 50, no. 11, pp. 2892
2909.

50
 CHAPTER

7
Rapid Prototyping Process selection

7.1 Need for Rapid prototyping Process Selection

Rapid prototyping (RP) process can be defined as a group of techniques used to quickly
fabricate a scale model of a part or assembly using three-dimensional computer-aided
design data. RP is also referred to as solid free-form manufacturing; computer automated
manufacturing, and layered manufacturing. It has obvious use as a vehicle for
visualization. In addition, RP models can be used for testing, such as when an air foil shape
is put into a wind tunnel. RP models can be used to create male models for tooling, such as
silicone rubber moulds and investment casts. In some cases, the RP part can be the final
part, but typically, the RP material is not strong or accurate enough. Due to rapid
development of RP technology, the selection of the most suitable RP process to satisfy
customers requirements from a number of alternative processes has become increasingly
important. However, it becomes difficult for the RP users to select an appropriate process
due to the existence of a large number of alternatives where the best selection decision
depends on many conflicting criteria. Furthermore, each RP process has its own strengths,
weaknesses, applications, utilities, and limitations.

7.2 Literature survey on rapid prototyping process selection

Byun and Lee [1] developed a decision support system for selection of a RP process using
the modified TOPSIS method. They identified six attributes, such as accuracy (A), surface
roughness (R), tensile strength (S), elongation (E), cost of the part (C), and build time (B)
as the most dominant criteria for evaluation and selection of the RP process. Cost of the
part and build time are expressed in linguistic terms, and hence, equivalent ranked value
judgments on a fuzzy conversion scale are made. Rao and Padmanabhan [2] used the graph
theory and matrix approach to select best RP technology. They concluded that graph theory
and matrix approach is a relative new approach and that they can be used for any type
problem related to selection Rao and Patel [3] also ranked the RP process using
PROMETHEE method. Chakraborty [4] applied the MOORA method for ranking rapid
prototyping process. Shende and Kulkarni [5] used Graph Theory, Matrix Approach and
TOPSIS method for the selection of RP process. The methodology demonstrated by them
was divided into three stages. Panda et al. [6] proposed an integrated Analytic Hierarchy
Process (AHP) and Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution
(TOPSIS) method for the selection of rapid prototyping system that involves multiple,
usually conflicting attributes. Shahrabi and Javadi [7] combined AHP and TOPSIS

51
Methodology for the assortment of Rapid Prototyping Process. Their study defined SLS
technology as the preferred and intended one. Makhesana [8] demonstrated the
methodology of a decision-making method for selection of rapid prototyping process and
compared it with previously developed methods. The methodology of improved complex
proportional assessment (COPRAS) method was used.

7.3 Rapid prototyping Process Selection using MACBETH method

In this part the capability and appropriateness of MACBETH for selection of RP process is
illustrated. After a preliminary research it was found that there are six alternative namely
Stereo lithography (SLA), selective laser sintering(SLS), Fused deposition modeling
(FDM), Laminated object Manufacturing(LOM), 3D printing(3DP) and Solid ground
curing(SGC) available for selection process. From six alternative, the best one was chosen
based on seven decisive criteria, e.g. Part Variety(PV), Process Reliability(PR), Flexibility
(F), Location of availability of technology(L), Surface roughness(S), Cost (C) and
Environmental hazard(H). The performances of the alternatives PV, PR, F, L and H were
expressed in quantitative measures, while for the S and C qualitative measures were
employed. However, keeping in view the ability of MACBETH method to quantify
qualitative performance scores on its own, the original qualitative measures are used here.
Table 7.1 shows the decision matrix for this problem. The PV, PR, F, L criterion is of
beneficial type (preferring higher values), whereas, the remaining attributes are of non-
beneficial type (preferring lower values).
Table 7.1: Initial decision matrix for Rapid prototyping process selection
Surface
Part Part Location of Cost
Flexibility Roughness Environmental
Alternative Variety Reliability availability of (C)
(F) (S) Hazard(D)
(PV) (PR) technology(L) in $
in m
SLA Moderate Very high Very less Less 2.5 42 Hazardous
SLS High Moderate Less High 9 34 Less hazardous

FDM High Moderate Moderate High 9.5 60 Less hazardous

LOM Less Less High Moderate 35 6 Hazardous

3DP Very Less High Very high Very high 65 2 Less hazardous

SGC Very high Very less Very less Very less 37 62 Hazardous

The process selection problem is now solved using the free downloaded version of M-
MACBTH software. Initially, all the seven evaluation criteria are entered into the M-
MACBTH software to develop the corresponding value tree, as shown in Fig. 7.1. In this
value tree, the beneficial criteria node contains all the beneficial attributes, while the
non-beneficial node consists of the criteria whose value is to be minimized. The
performances of alternatives are then entered in the respective criterias properties window.
For SR and C criteria, performances of the alternatives are expressed in quantitative
measures. Two reference levels, i.e. upper and lower are chosen for these two criteria. In
case of beneficial criteria, the upper reference level is the highest performance criteria
value, whereas, for non-beneficial criteria, it is the lowest performance criteria value.

52
 Figure 7.1: MACBETH value tree for RP process selection

The lower reference level is selected 10% below the lowest performance value in case of
beneficial criteria and for non-beneficial criteria, it is chosen 10% above the highest
performance value. The performance of qualitative criterion PV, PR, F, L, SR, and
H is expressed using a seven point semantic scale, i.e. excellent (Ex), very high (VH),
high (H), average (A), low (L), very low (VL) and none (N). These scales are entered as
performance levels with Ex identified as upper reference level while N set as lower
reference level. Fig. 7.2 shows the reference levels for all the criteria as involved in this
problem. The green box indicates upper level while the blue box indicates the lower value.

Figure 7.2: Reference level for RP process selection criteria

In order to quantify the qualitative performance levels, used to express the performance of
alternatives with respect to Location of available technology (L) criterion, seven semantic
scales, provided by MACBETH method, are used to represent the attractiveness of a
specific level over the other. After selecting the preferences of attractiveness, consistency
of judgments is checked. Consistent judgments lead to quantification of the performance
levels. Fig. 7.3 shows the comparison of attractiveness between the preference levels as
well as the converted MACBETH scale for L criterion. Now, six alternatives (SLA, SLS,
FDM, LOM, 3DP, SGC) as well as performances of these alternatives with respect to
seven considered criteria are entered into M-MACBETH software. MACBETH method
computes criteria weights by pair-wise comparison procedure. Initially, all the criteria are
arranged according to their decreasing importance, i.e. PV, PR, F, L, SR, C and
H from left to right and top to bottom in a matrix.

53
 Figure 7.3: Comparison of attractiveness between reference levels for L criterion.

The judgments of preference of each criterion over the remaining criteria are selected using
a seven point semantic scale. Consistency checking is performed for the judgments. After
considering the suggestion for eliminating inconsistencies (if any), the judgments are made
consistent and subsequently, the criteria weights are computed

Figure 7.4: MACBETH weighting judgments for RP process selection

Figure 7.4 shows the overall weighing judgments. The overall attractiveness scores for all
the four alternatives are obtained and quantitative performance scores for the alternatives
with respect to seven criteria are shown in Figure 7.5.

Figure 7.5: MACBETH table of scores

Based on the overall attractiveness scores obtained using MACBETH method, the ranking
of RP process selection is obtained as FDM-SLS-3DP-SLA-LOM-SGC which shows that
FDM is the best choice.

54
 Figure 7.6: Sensitivity analysis with respect to PV criterion

Sensitivity analysis is performed by consistently varying a specific criterion weight and

subsequently adjusting the difference equally over the remaining criteria in such a way that
summation of weight is always 1.Fig. 7.6 shows the results of sensitivity analysis for RP
process selection with respect to Part variety criterion. The results of sensitivity analysis
for the most important criterion PV (having maximum weight) is displayed in Fig. 6. It is
observed that FDM is the best chosen process for weight up to 0.685, thereafter, SGC
becomes the first choice.
7.4 Rapid prototyping Process Selection using GTOPSIS method
Now the same problem is solved using GTOPSIS method. For performance evaluation RP
Process, five degrees of linguistic variables viz. Very low, Low, Medium,
High and Very high are used. Linguistic attribute are converted into their
corresponding grey numbers. The grey decision matrix is shown in Table 7.2 After the
grey decision matrix is formed, the next step is to determine the importance of the criteria.
The weight of the criteria is obtained by entropy method .The criteria weights were as
followed WPV =0.2553, WPR =0.2383, WF =0.1872, WL =0.1489, WS =0.1021, WC =
0.0511, WD =0.0171
Table 7.2: Grey decision matrix for RP process selection

Alternatives PV PR F L S C D
Optimization
max max max max min min min
direction
SLA 0.5 0.6 0.9 1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.9 0.8 0.3 0.2 0.125 0
SLS 0.7 0.8 0.5 0.6 0.3 0.4 0.7 0.8 0.9 0.8 0.5 0.4 0.625 0.5
FDM 0.7 0.8 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 0.8 0.1 0 0.625 0.5
LOM 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.7 0.8 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.9 0.8 0.125 0
3DP 0.1 0.2 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 0.9 1 0.1 0 0.9 0.8 0.625 0.5
SGC 0.9 1 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.5 0.4 0.1 0 0.125 0

As the seven considered RP process selection criteria are having different units, it is
necessary to normalize their values using and obtain the normalized decision matrix.
Following Eqs. (3.14, 3.15) the normalized grey values are determined. To this end, the

55
maximum upper limit of alternatives is determined, and all evaluation values are divided
by the maximum value. The criteria weight for (PV) is maximum and for (D) it is
minimum. Negative and positive ideals are calculated using Eqs. (3.16, 3.17) and shown in
Table 7.3.
Table 7.3: Normalized values of alternatives and positive/negative ideal values for RP process selection

Criteria weight SLA SLS FDM LOM 3DP SGC A+ A-

PV 0.2553 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.7 0.8 0.3 0.4 0.1 0.2 0.9 1 1 0.1

PR 0.2383 0.9 1 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.3 0.4 0.7 0.8 0.1 0.2 1 0.1

F 0.1872 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 0.1 0.2 1 0.1

L 0.1489 0.3 0.4 0.7 0.8 0.7 0.8 0.5 0.6 0.9 1 0.1 0.2 1 0.1

S 0.1021 0.9 0.8 0.9 0.8 0.9 0.8 0.5 0.4 0.1 0 0.5 0.4 0 0.9

C 0.0511 0.3 0.2 0.5 0.4 0.1 0 0.9 0.8 0.9 0.8 0.1 0 0 0.9

D 0.0171 0.125 0 0.625 0.5 0.625 0.5 0.125 0 0.625 0.5 0.125 0 0 0.625

The next step is calculating the separation measure of the positive and negative ideal
alternatives. Using Eqs. (3.18, 3.19) and, d+ and d- are found. Finally the calculated d+ and
d- are used to find the relative closeness C+. The calculated relative closeness values are
shown in Table 7.4.
Table 7.4: Separation measures and the relative closeness of each alternative for RP process selection

Alternative d+ d- C+ Rank
SLA 0.5745 0.5132 0.4719 4
SLS 0.4946 0.4939 0.4996 3
FDM 0.4396 0.5447 0.5534 1
LOM 0.5573 0.4109 0.4244 6
3DP 0.4953 0.6086 0.5510 2
SGC 0.6626 0.5014 0.4308 5

According to the results of Table 7.4, the priority of the alternatives are determined as
FDM-SLS-3DP-SLA-LOM-SGC.The calculated results showed that the FDM is the best
option for this RP selection problem followed by SLS which shows that FDM is the best
choice followed by SLS. The worst option was SGC. From the initial decision matrix of
Table 7.1, it is observed that FDM and SLS outperforms most of the other alternative with
respect to higher values of (PV) and (L). On the other hand, the main reason behind the
underperformance of SGC is its very low value of (PR), (F) and (L) criteria. It is also
identified that this SGC has very high values of non-beneficial criteria such as (C) and (D).
7.5 Rapid prototyping Process Selection using Grey ARAS method
From the weighted normalized decision matrix, as given in Table 7.5, and using Eq. (3.24,
3.25), the optimality function (Si) for each of the RP Process is calculated. Then the
corresponding values of the utility degree (Ui) are determined for all the alternatives.

56
 Table 7.5: Weighted normalized decision matrix in ARAS method for RP process selection

Alternatives (PV) (PR) (F) (L) (S) (C) (D)

Opt.
max max max max min min min
direction
A0 0.061 0.053 0.060 0.052 0.052 0.045 0.035 0.031 0.023 0.035 0.014 0.020 0.008 0.009

SLA 0.030 0.032 0.054 0.052 0.005 0.009 0.011 0.012 0.023 0.017 0.002 0.003 0.001 0.001

SLS 0.043 0.043 0.030 0.031 0.016 0.018 0.025 0.025 0.023 0.017 0.003 0.003 0.002 0.002

FDM 0.043 0.043 0.030 0.031 0.026 0.027 0.025 0.025 0.023 0.017 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002

LOM 0.018 0.021 0.018 0.021 0.036 0.036 0.018 0.019 0.004 0.006 0.014 0.010 0.001 0.001

3DP 0.006 0.011 0.042 0.041 0.047 0.045 0.032 0.031 0.002 0.003 0.014 0.010 0.002 0.002

SGC 0.055 0.053 0.006 0.010 0.005 0.009 0.004 0.006 0.004 0.006 0.002 0.002 0.001 0.001

The values of Si and Ui, and the ranking achieved by the RP Process are exhibited in Table
7.6. It is revealed from this table that FDM is the best chosen alternative and SGC obtains
the last rank. 3DP has the second rank.
Table7.6: Si and Ui values in ARAS method for RP process selection
Alternatives Si Ui Rank Macbeth

A0 0.249 1
SLA 0.126 0.507 4 4
SLS 0.140 0.563 3 3
FDM 0.148 0.595 1 1
LOM 0.111 0.446 5 5
3DP 0.144 0.579 2 2
SGC 0.082 0.330 6 6

7.6 Ranking Performance analysis for Rapid prototyping process

selection
Table 7.7 shows the overall comparison among the three method. In order to validate the
applicability and suitability of the three considered preference ranking methods to solve
this Rapid Prototyping process selection problem, their relative ranking performance is
compared using the following measures:
(a) Spearmans rank correlation coefficient,
(b) Kendalls coefficient of concordance,
(c) Agreement between the top three ranked alternatives, and
(d) Number of ranks matched, as the percentage of the number of considered alternatives.

57
 Table 7.7: Comparison table for Rapid prototyping process selection

Alternative Macbeth GTOPSIS GARAS

SLA 4 4 4
SLS 3 3 3
FDM 1 1 1
LOM 5 6 5
3DP 2 2 2
SGC 6 5 6

Using Spearmans rank correlation coefficient (rs) value, the similarity between two sets of
rankings can be measured. Usually, its value lies between 1 and +1, where the value of +1
denotes a perfect match between two rank orderings. Table 7.8 shows the Spearmans rank
correlation coefficients when the rankings of Rapid Prototyping process selection
alternatives as obtained using all the three preference ranking methods are compared
between themselves. It is observed that the rs value ranges between 0.9429 to 1.
Table 7.8: Comparative study on ranking performance for RP process selection

method G-TOPSIS G-ARAS

Macbeth 0.9429(1,2,3), 66.67 1(1,2,3), 100

G-TOPSIS 0.9429(1,2,3), 66.67

The similarity of rankings obtained by these methods is also measured using Kendalls
coefficient of concordance (z). Its value lies between 0 and 1, where a value of 1 results in
a perfect match. In this case, the value of z is computed as 0.9746, which suggests that
there is an almost perfect agreement between the considered methods. A high z value
signifies the suitability of these methods to solve the considered Rapid Prototyping process
selection problem.
Sometimes, the decision maker may be interested to select the best Rapid
Prototyping process as the single choice. So, another test is performed based on the
agreement between the top three ranked FMS alternatives. Here, a result of (1,2,3) means
the first, second and third ranks match, (1,2,#) means the first and second ranks
match, (1,#,#) means only the first ranks match, and (#,#,#) means no match. Table 4.8
shows the results of this test, which indicates that Macbeth, and GARAS method has the
maximum number of matches with respect to the ranking of the top three Rapid
Prototyping process alternatives. It is also quite interesting to note that for all the methods,
the top ranked alternative is FMS7.The last test is performed with respect to the number of
ranks matched, expressed as the percentage of the number of alternatives considered.
These results are also shown in Table 7.8. It is observed that all these methods are quite
capable to deal with both the cardinal and ordinal data, and can provide the total ranking of
the considered alternatives, although they have different mathematical treatments and
operational approaches.

58
References
[1] Byun, H.S., Lee, K.S. (2004) A decision support system for the selection of a rapid prototyping
process using the modified TOPSIS method, International Journal of Advance Manufacturing
Technology, 26, pp. 13381347.
[2] Rao, R. V., & Padmanabhan, K. K. (2007). Rapid prototyping process selection using graph theory
and matrix approach. Journal of Materials Processing Technology, vol. 193 no. (1-3), pp. 81-88.
[3] Rao, R.V. and Patel, B.K. (2009) Decision making in the manufacturing environment using an
improved PROMETHEE method, International Journal of Production Research, vol.48, pp.4665
4682.
[4] Chakraborty, S. (2011)Applications of the MOORA method for decision making in manufacturing
environment, International Journal of Advance Manufacturing Technology, vol. 54, pp.11551166
[5] V. Shende, P. Kulkarni, (2014) Decision Support System for Rapid Prototyping Process
Selection, International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications, Volume 4, no.1. pp. 452-
461
[6] B. N. Panda, B. B. Biswal, B. B. L. V. Deepak, Integrated AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS Approach for
the Selection of a Rapid Prototyping Process under Multi-Criteria Perspective, 5th International &
26th All India Manufacturing Technology, Design and Research Conference (AIMTDR 2014)
December 12th14th, 2014, IIT Guwahati, Assam, India.
[7] M. Shahrabi, M. Javadi, (2014) Selection of Rapid Prototyping Process Using Combined AHP and
TOPSIS Methodology, International Journal of Information Science and System, vol.3 Issue 1, ,
pp.15-22
[8] M. A. Makhesana, (2015) "Application of improved complex proportional assessment (COPRAS)
method for rapid prototyping system selection," Rapid Prototyping Journal, Vol. 21, Issue 6, pp. 671
674.

59
60
 CHAPTER

8
Conclusion and future scope

8.1 Conclusion
Different Multi criteria decision making methods have already been proposed by the past
researchers to address the issue of Advance Manufacturing Systems evaluation and
selection, it is still not clear which MCDM method is the best for a given AMS selection
problem. Researchers are challenged to provide guidance for choosing the method that is
both theoretically well-founded and practically operational to solve AMS selection
problems.
The present work considers three potential ranking methods (MACBETH,
GTOPSIS, GARAS) and compares their ranking performance while considering four real
time AMS selection problems having both qualitative and quantitative attributes. Four
performance tests are conducted for this ranking performance comparison and also for
measuring the degree of agreement between the rankings derived by the considered
methods. The uniqueness of the proposed methodology is that it offers a general procedure
that can be applied to a diverse selection of problems encountered in the manufacturing
environment that incorporate vagueness and a number of selection attributes. The
methodology is logical, simple, and convenient to implement when compared with the
other MCDM methods.
In all the cases, it is observed that the top-ranked alternatives exactly match with
those derived by the past researchers. There are slight discrepancies between the
intermediate rankings of the alternatives which may be attributed due to the normalization
method taken. Different aggregation procedures and different normalization procedures
leads to the selection of different most acceptable alternatives. At the same time, it is also
seen that different relative weights of criteria, used in the decision making model, have a
significant impact on the selection of most appropriate alternatives, as well as ranking
orders.

61
8.2 Future scope
In future studies, the number of criteria and alternatives may be changed for the same
selection problem. The weights and normalization technique of the criteria may be derived
from different methods. The ranking of the alternatives may be performed with other
MCDM methods and the obtained results may be compared. Application of this method
could be used for conducting similar studies in several sectors and in a wider range of
selection problems in some other real-time manufacturing environment remains as a future
research scope of the present work.

62
 List of publications
1. Bablu Kumar Mandal and Saikat Ranjan Maity A decision making Approach for
selection of Rapid Prototyping process using MACBETH method Proceedings of
International Conference on Evaluations in Manufacturing: Technologies and
Business Strategies for Global Competitiveness, BITS Mesra Ranchi, 12th-13th Nov.
2016, 173-178.

63