Annals of Operations Research

, Volume 253, Issue 1, pp 621–655 | Cite as

Formulating and solving sustainable stochastic dynamic facility layout problem: a key to sustainable operations

  • Akash Tayal
  • Angappa Gunasekaran
  • Surya Prakash Singh
  • Rameshwar Dubey
  • Thanos Papadopoulos
Original Paper


Facility layout design, a NP hard problem, is associated with the arrangement of facilities in a manufacturing shop floor, which impacts the performance, and cost of system. Efficient design of facility layout is a key to the sustainable operations in a manufacturing shop floor. An efficient layout design not only optimizes the cost and energy due to proficient handling but also increase flexibility and easy accessibility. Traditionally, it is solved using meta-heuristic techniques. But these algorithmic or procedural methodologies do not generate effective and efficient layout design from sustainable point of view, where design should consider multiple criteria such as demand fluctuations, material handling cost, accessibility, maintenance, waste and more. In this paper, to capture the sustainability in the layout design these parameters are considered, and a new sustainable stochastic dynamic facility layout problem (SDFLP) is formulated and solved. SDFLP is optimized for material handling cost and rearrangement cost using various meta-heuristic techniques. The pool of layouts thus generated are then analyzed by data envelopment analysis to identify efficient layouts. A novel hierarchical methodology of consensus ranking of layouts is proposed which combines the multiple attributes/criteria. Multi attribute decision-making techniques such as technique for order preference by similarity to ideal solution, interpretive ranking process and analytic hierarchy process, Borda–Kendall and integer linear programming based rank aggregation techniques are applied. To validate the proposed methodology data sets for facility size \(N=12\) for time period \(T=5\) having Gaussian demand are considered.


Stochastic dynamic facility layout Simulated annealing Chaotic simulated annealing TOPSIS AHP DEA Borda–Kendall Flow distance Accessibility Maintenance Sustainable operations 



The authors would like to acknowledge the constructive and helpful comments on the previous version of the manuscript which helped to improve the presentation of the paper considerably.


  1. Akash, T., & Singh, S. P. (2016). Integrating big data analytic and hybrid firefly-chaotic simulated annealing approach for facility layout problem. Annals of Operations Research. doi: 10.1007/s10479-016-2237-x.
  2. Albert, E. F. M., Manuel, I., Silvano, M., Marcos, J., & Negreiros, G. (2010). Models and algorithms for fair layout optimization problems. Annals of Operations Research, 179, 5–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Balakrishnan, J., & Cheng, C. H. (2007). Multi period planning and uncertainty issues in cellular manufacturing: A review and future directions. European Journal of Operation Research, 177, 281–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Balakrishnan, J., & Cheng, C. H. (2009). The dynamic plant layout problem: Incorporating rolling horizons and forecast uncertainty. Omega, 37(1), 165–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Balakrishnan, J., Jacobs, F. R., & Venkataramanan, M. A. (1992). Solution for the constrained dynamic facility layout problem. European Journal of Operation Research, 57, 280–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bayraktar, E., Jothishankar, M. C., Tatoglu, E., & Wu, T. (2007). Evolution of operations management: Past, present and future. Management Research News, 30(11), 843–871.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Beck, M. P., & Lin, B. W. (1983). Some heuristics for the consensus ranking problem. Computers and Operations Research, 10(1), 1–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Borda, J. C., (1781). M’emoire sur les ’elections au scrutiny. Histoire de l’Acad’emie Royale des Sciences, Ann’ee MDCCLXXXI, Paris, France.Google Scholar
  9. Bruglia, M., Zanoni, S., & Zavanella, L. (2004). Layout design in dynamic environments: Analytical issues. International Transition in Operation Research, 12, 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bruglia, M., Zanoni, S., & Zavanella, L. (2005). Robust versus stable environments. Production Planning and Control, 16(1), 71–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Canen, A. G., & Williamson, G. H. (1998). Facility layout overview: Towards competitive advantage. Facilities, 16(7/8), 198–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Charnes, A., Cooper, W. W., & Rhodes, E. (1978). Measuring the efficiency of decision making units. European Journal of Operational Research, 2, 429–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cook, W. D., & Kress, M. (1985). Ordinal ranking with intensity of preference. Management Science, 31(1), 26–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cook, W. D., & Seiford, L. M. (1982). On the Borda–Kendall consensus method for priority ranking problems. Management Science, 28(6), 621–637.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Date, K., Makked, S., & Nagi, R. (2014). Dominance rules for the optimal placement of a finite-size facility in an existing layout. Computers and Operations Research, 51, 182–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Drake, D. F., & Spinler, S. (2013). OM forum-sustainable operations management: An enduring stream or a passing fancy? Manufacturing and Service Operations Management, 15(4), 689–700.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dubey, R., Gunasekaran, A., & Childe, S. J. (2015). The design of a responsive sustainable supply chain network under uncertainty. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 80(1–4), 427–445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Dutta, K. N., & Sahu, S. (1982). A multi goal heuristic for facilities design problem: Mughal. International Journal of Production Research, 20, 147–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Elliott, B. (2001). Operations management: A key player in achieving a sustainable future. Management Services, 45(7), 14–19.Google Scholar
  20. Ertay, T., Ruan, D., & Tuzkaya, U. R. (2006). Integrating data envelopment analysis and analytic hierarchy for the facility layout design in manufacturing systems. Information Sciences, 176, 237–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Fortenberry, J. C., & Cox, J. F. (1985). Multiple criteria approach to the facilities layout problem. International Journal of Production Research, 23, 773–782.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Garcia-Hernandez, L., et al. (2013). Recycling plants layout design by means of an interactive genetic algorithm. Intelligent Automation and Soft Computing, 19(3), 457–468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. García-Hernández, L., et al. (2015). Facility layout design using a multi-objective interactive genetic algorithm to support the DM. Expert Systems, 32(1), 94–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Govindan, K., & Cheng, T. C. E. (2015). Sustainable supply chain management: Advances in operations research perspective. Computers and Operations Research, 54, 177–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Gupta, M. C. (1995). Environmental management and its impact on the operations function. International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 15(8), 34–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Gupta, M., & Sharma, K. (1996). Environmental operations management: An opportunity for improvement. Production and Inventory Management Journal, 37(3), 40–46.Google Scholar
  27. Hajek, B. (1988). Cooling schedules for optimal annealing. Mathematics of Operations Research, 3, 311–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hwang, C. L., & Yoon, K. P. (1981). Multiple attribute decision making: Methods and applications. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kaur, H., Singh, S. P., & Glardon, R. (2017). An integer linear program for integrated supplier selection: A sustainable flexible framework. Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management, 17(2), 113–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kendall, M. (1962). Rank correlation methods (3rd ed.). New York: Hafner.Google Scholar
  31. Khare, V. K., Khare, M. K., & Neema, M. L. (1988a). Estimation of distribution parameters associated with facilities design problem involving forward and backtracking of materials. Computers and Industrial Engineering, 14, 63–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Khare, V. K., Khare, M. K., & Neema, M. L. (1988b). Combined computer-aided approach for the facilies design problem and estimation of the distribution parameter in the case of multi goal optimization. Computers and Industrial Engineering, 14, 465–476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kia, R., Baboli, A., Javadian, N., Tavakkoli-Moghaddam, R., Kazemi, M., & Khorrami, J. (2012). Solving a group layout design model of a dynamic cellular manufacturing system with alternative process routings, lot splitting and flexible reconfiguration by simulated annealing. Computers and Operations Research, 39(11), 2642–2658.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kirkpatrick, S., Gelatt, C. D, Jr., & Vecchi, M. P. (1983). Optimization by simulated annealing. Science, 220, 671–677.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kleindorfer, P. R., & Kunreuther, H. C. (1994). Siting of hazardous facilities. Handbooks in operations research and management science, 6, 403–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kleindorfer, P. R., Singhal, K., & Wassenhove, L. N. V. (2005). Sustainable operations management. Production and Operations Management, 14(4), 482–492.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Koopmans, T. C. S., & Beckman, M. (1957). Assignment problem and the location of economic activities. Econometric, 25, 53–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kulturel-Konak, S. (2007). Approaches to uncertainties in facility layout problem: Perspectives at the beginning of the 21st century. Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, 14(2), 219–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Kulturel-Konak, S., Smith, A. E., & Norman, B. A. (2004). Layout optimization considering production uncertainty and routing flexibility. International Journal of Production Research, 42(21), 4475–4493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Kusiak, A., & Heragu, S. S. (1987). The facility layout problem. European Journal of operational research, 29(3), 229–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Lieckens, K. T., Colen, P. J., & Lambrecht, M. R. (2015). Network and contract optimization for maintenance services with remanufacturing. Computers and Operations Research, 54, 232–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Linton, J. D., Klassen, R., & Jayaraman, V. (2007). Sustainable supply chains: An introduction. Journal of Operations Management, 25(6), 1075–1082.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Les, R. F., & Fariborz, Y. P. (1998). Integrating the analytic hierarchy process and graph theory to model facilities layout. Annals of Operations Research, 82, 435–451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Malakooti, B. (1989). Multiple objective facility layout: A heuristic to generate efficient alternatives. International Journal of Production Research, 27(7), 1225–1238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Matai, R. (2015). Solving multi objective facility layout problem using modified simulated annealing. Applied Mathematics and Computation, 261, 302–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Matai, R., Singh, S. P., & Mittal, M. L. (2013a). A non-greedy systematic neighbourhood search heuristic for solving facility layout problem. International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 68, 1665–1675.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Matai, R., Singh, S. P., & Mittal, M. L. (2013b). Modified simulated annealing based approach for multi objective facility layout problem. International Journal of Production Research, 51(14), 4273–4288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Matai, R., Singh, S. P., & Mittal, M. L. (2013c). A new heuristic for solving facility layout problem. International Journal of Advance Operations Management, 5(2), 137–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. McKendall, A. R., Shang, J., & Kuppusamy, S. (2006). Simulated annealing heuristics for the dynamic facility layout problem. Computers and Operations Research, 33(8), 2431–2444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Moslemipour, G., & Lee, T. S. (2011). Intelligent design of a dynamic machine layout in uncertain environment of flexible manufacturing systems. Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, 23(5), 1849–1860.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Moslemipour, G., Lee, T. S., & Rilling, D. (2012). A review of intelligent approaches for designing dynamic and robust layout in flexible manufacturing systems. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 60(1–4), 11–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Nunes, B., & Bennett, D. (2010). Green operations initiatives in the automotive industry: An environmental reports analysis and benchmarking study. Benchmarking: An International Journal, 17(3), 396–420.Google Scholar
  53. O’brien, C., & Abdel Barr, S. E. Z. (1980). An interactive approach to computer aided facility layout. International Journal of Production Research, 18(2), 201–211.Google Scholar
  54. Rosenblatt, M. J. (1979). The facilities layout problem: A multi goal approach. International Journal of Production Research, 17, 323–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Rosenblatt, M. J., & Kropp, D. H. (1992). The single period stochastic plan layout problem. IIE Transactions, 24(2), 169–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Rosenblatt, M. J., & Lee, H. L. (1987). A robustness approach to facilities design. International journal of production research, 25(4), 479–486.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Saaty, T. L. (1980). The analytic hierarchy process. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  58. Sacaluga, A. M. M., & Froján, J. E. P. (2014). Best practices in sustainable supply chain management: A literature review. In C. Hernandez Iglesias & J. M. Perez Rios (Eds.), Managing complexity (pp. 209–216). Valladolid: University of Valladolid.Google Scholar
  59. Sarkis, J. (2001). Introduction. Greener manufacturing and operations: From design to deliveryand back (pp. 15–21). Sheffield: Greenleaf Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Singh, S. P., & Sharma, R. R. K. (2006). A review of different approaches to the facility layout problem. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 30(5–6), 425–433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Sinuany-Stern, Z., Mehrez, A., & Hadad, Y. (2000). An AHP/DEA methodology for ranking decision making units. International Transactions in Operational Research, 7, 109–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Subramoniam, R., Huisingh, D., & Chinnam, R. B. (2009). Remanufacturing for the automotive aftermarket-strategic factors: Literature review and future research needs. Journal of Cleaner Production, 17(13), 1163–1174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Sushil, (2009). Interpretive ranking process. Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management, 10(4), 1–10.Google Scholar
  64. Tavana, M., LoPinto, F., & Smither, J.W., (2007). A hybrid distance—based ideal—seeking consensus ranking model. Journal of applied Mathematics and Decision Sciences, Article ID 20489, p. 18.Google Scholar
  65. Tayal, A., & Singh, S. P. (2014). Chaotic simulated annealing for solving stochastic dynamic facility layout problem. Journal of International Management Studies, 14(2), 67–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Tayal, A., & Singh, S. P., (2015). Integrated SA–DEA–TOPSIS based solution approach for multi objective stochastic dynamic facility layout problem. International Journal of Business and Systems Research.Google Scholar
  67. Tayal, A., & Singh, S. P. (2016a). Analysis of simulated annealing cooling schemas for design of optimal flexible layout under uncertain dynamic product demand. International Journal of Operation Research.Google Scholar
  68. Tayal, A., & Singh, S. P. (2016b). Flexible layout design for uncertain product demand by integrating firefly and chaotic simulated annealing approach. Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management.Google Scholar
  69. Tayal, A., & Singh, S. P. (2016c). Analyzing the effect of chaos functions in solving stochastic dynamic facility layout problem using CSA. In Advanced computing and communication technologies (pp. 99–108). Singapore: Springer.Google Scholar
  70. Timothy, L. U. (1998). Solution procedures for the dynamic facility layout problem. Annals of Operations Research, 76, 323–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Tompkins, J. A., White, J. A., Bozer, Y. A., Frazelle, E. H., Tanchoco, J. M. A., & Trevino, J. (1996). Facilities planning (2nd ed., pp. 36–47). Wiley.Google Scholar
  72. Tompkins, J. A., White, J. A., Bozer, Y. A., & Tanchoco, J. M. A. (2003) . Facilities planning. Willey.Google Scholar
  73. Yang, L., Deuse, J., & Jiang, P. (2013). Multiple-attribute decision-making approach for an energy-efficient facility layout design. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 66(5), 795–807.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Yang, T., & Hung, C. C. (2007). Multiple-attribute decision making methods for plant layout design problem. Robot Computer-Integrated Manufacturing, 23, 126–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Yang, T., & Kuo, C. (2003). A hierarchical AHP/DEA methodology for the facilities layout design problem. European Journal OperationResearch, 147, 128–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Yu, W., & Ramanathan, R. (2015). An empirical examination of stakeholder pressures, green operations practices and environmental performance. International Journal of Production Research, 1–18 (ahead-of-print). doi: 10.1080/00207543.2014.931608.
  77. Zouein, P. P., & Tommelein, I. D. (1999). Dynamic layout planning using a hybrid incremental solution method. Journal of construction engineering and management, 125(6), 400–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Akash Tayal
    • 1
  • Angappa Gunasekaran
    • 2
  • Surya Prakash Singh
    • 3
  • Rameshwar Dubey
    • 4
  • Thanos Papadopoulos
    • 5
  1. 1.Indira Gandhi Delhi Technical University for WomenDelhiIndia
  2. 2.Charlton College of BusinessUniversity of MassachusettsDartmouthUSA
  3. 3.Department of Management StudiesIndian Institute of Technology DelhiDelhiIndia
  4. 4.Symbiosis Institute UniversityPuneIndia
  5. 5.Kent Business SchoolUniversity of KentCanterburyUK

Personalised recommendations