Human, AGV or AIV? An integrated framework for material handling system selection with real-world application in an injection molding facility


Motivated by a real-world material handling system selection problem, this paper proposes a framework that allows for quantifying safety and incorporating it in multi-criteria decision-making processes that involve both quantitative and qualitative measures. In the proposed framework, the results of failure mode and effect analysis (FMEA) for each alternative are converted into a quantitative measure of total safety and reliability associated with that alternative. A modified analytic hierarchy process (AHP) that differentiates between subjective and objective measures is then used to compare the alternatives at hand. In this modified AHP, experts’ judgments are used for pairwise comparison of alternatives with respect to qualitative measures, while for quantitative criteria, measured or estimated performance is directly used to obtain the required pairwise comparisons. An Excel-based decision support tool that implements the proposed framework is developed and made available online for researchers and practitioners. An application based on a real-world problem in an injection molding facility is also presented.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.


  1. 1.

    Esmaeilian B, Behdad S, Wang B (2016) The evolution and future of manufacturing: a review. J Manuf Syst 39:79–100

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Negahban A, Smith JS (2014) Simulation for manufacturing system design and operation: literature review and analysis. J Manuf Syst 33(2):241–261

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Roodbergen KJ, Vis IFA (2009) A survey of literature on automated storage and retrieval systems. Eur J Oper Res 194(2):343–362

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Burt CN, Caccetta L (2014) Equipment selection for surface mining: a review. Interfaces 44(2):143–162

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Lau HYK, Zhao Y (2008) Integrated scheduling of handling equipment at automated container terminals. Int J Prod Econ 112(2):665–682

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Onut S, Kara SS, Mert S (2009) Selecting the suitable material handling equipment in the presence of vagueness. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 44(7):818–828

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Zaghdoud R, Collart-Dutilleul S, Ghedira K, Mesghouni K, Zidi K (2013) A multi-objective approach for assignment containers to AIVs in a container terminal. In: Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, pp 2460–2466

  8. 8.

    Mhalla A, Collart-Dutilleul S, Zhang H (2016) Robust control under uncertainty for seaport handling equipments. Transportation Research Procedia 14:203–212

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Mhalla A, Benrejeb M, Zhang H (2016) Maintenance processes for container handling equipment using P-time petri nets. J Eng Res 4(4):99–112

    Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Vis IFA (2006) Survey of research in the design and control of automated guided vehicle systems. Eur J Oper Res 170(3):677–709

    MathSciNet  Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Ozkok M (2013) Risk assessment in ship hull structure production using FMEA. J Mar Sci Technol 22(2):173–185

    Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Ocampo JR, Hernandez-Matias JC, Vizan A (2017) A method for estimating the influence of advanced manufacturing tools on the manufacturing competitiveness of Maquiladoras in the apparel industry in Central America. Comput Ind 87:31–51

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Mejjaouli S, Babiceanu RF (2014) Holonic condition monitoring and fault-recovery system for sustainable manufacturing enterprises. In: Borangiu T, Trentesaux D, Thomas A (eds) Service orientation in Holonic and Multi-Agent Manufacturing and Robotics. Springer International Publishing, pp 31–46

  14. 14.

    Kuo C-H, Huang H-P (2000) Failure modeling and process monitoring for flexible manufacturing systems using colored timed Petri nets. IEEE Trans Robot Autom 16(3):301–312

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Shah LA, Etienne A, Siadat A, Vernadat F (2016) Decision-making in the manufacturing environment using a value-risk graph. J Intell Manuf 27(3):617–630

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Chemweno P, Pintelon L, Van Horenbeek A, Muchiri P (2015) Development of a risk assessment selection methodology for asset maintenance decision making An analytic network process (ANP) approach. Int J Prod Econ 170:663–676

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Almannai B, Greenough R, Kay J (2008) A decision support tool based on QFD and FMEA for the selection of manufacturing automation technologies. Robot Comput Integr Manuf 24(4):501–507

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Stamatis DH (2003) Failure mode and effect analysis: FMEA from theory to execution, 2nd edn. ASQ Quality Press, Milwaukee

    Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Sikich J (1998) Development and implementation of an automated wafer transport system. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/SEMI Advanced Semiconductor Manufacturing Conference and Workshop, pp 400–404

  20. 20.

    Shoults LW (2016) Implementation of design failure modes and effects analysis for hybrid vehicle systems. MS thesis, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University

  21. 21.

    Chakraborty S, Banik D (2006) Design of a material handling equipment selection model using analytic hierarchy process. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 28(11):1237–1245

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Aktan HE, Tosun O (2013) An integrated fuzzy AHP – fuzzy TOPSIS approach for AS/RS selection. Int J Prod Qual Manag 11(2):228–245

    Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Chan FTS, Ip RWL, Lau H (2001) Integration of expert system with analytic hierarchy process for the design of material handling equipment selection system. J Mater Process Technol 116(2):137–145

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Chan FTS (2002) Design of material handling equipment selection system: an integration of expert system with analytic hierarchy process approach. Integr Manuf Syst 13(1):58–68

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Braglia M, Gabbrielli R, Miconi D (2001) Material handling device selection in cellular manufacturing. J Multi-Criteria Decis Anal 10(6):303–315

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Saaty TL (1980) The analytic hierarchy process. McGraw-Hill, New York

    Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Weber SF (1993) A modified analytic hierarchy process for automated manufacturing decisions. Interfaces 23(4):75–84

    MathSciNet  Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Silvestri A, DeFelice F, Petrillo A (2012) Multi-criteria risk analysis to improve safety in manufacturing systems. Int J Prod Res 50(17):4806–4821

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Meesariganda BR, Ishizaka A (2017) Mapping verbal AHP scale to numerical scale for cloud computing strategy selection. Appl Soft Comput 53:111–118

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Yan R, Dunnett SJ, Jackson LM (2016) Reliability modelling of automated guided vehicles by fault tree analysis. In: Proceedings of the 5th Conference on Operational Research, pp 3–10

  31. 31.

    Azadeh A, Moghaddam M, Asadzadeh SM, Negahban A (2011) An integrated fuzzy simulation-fuzzy data envelopment analysis algorithm for job-shop layout optimization: the case of injection process with ambiguous data. Eur J Oper Res 214(3):768– 779

    MathSciNet  Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Negahban A (2018) Optimizing consistency improvement of positive reciprocal matrices with implications for monte carlo analytic hierarchy process. Comput Ind Eng 124:113–124

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information



Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ashkan Negahban.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hellmann, W., Marino, D., Megahed, M. et al. Human, AGV or AIV? An integrated framework for material handling system selection with real-world application in an injection molding facility. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 101, 815–824 (2019).

Download citation


  • Multi-criteria decision-making
  • Analytic hierarchy process
  • Failure mode and effect analysis
  • Automated guided vehicle
  • Automated intelligent vehicle