Advertisement

An integrated method to solve the healthcare facility layout problem under area constraints

Article
  • 98 Downloads

Abstract

In this paper, the healthcare facility layout problem with area constraints is considered, a proper departments arrangement is selected such that the operating cost and system efficiency are guaranteed. We propose an integrated method to consider both quantitative and qualitative criteria to get a synthesize rank of the feasible alternatives. On quantitative aspects, several feasible layout solutions are generated with the ranking of operation cost; On qualitative aspects, the layout alternatives are evaluated by experts on their multiple attributes, the evaluation scores given by experts are in the form of intuitionistic fuzzy sets. We assume that the weights of attributes and experts are partially known or unknown in advance, and the weights of each expert on different attributes are different. An illustrative example is shown to demonstrate the application of the proposed methodology.

Keywords

Healthcare facility layout problem Multi-attribute group decision making Experts consistency Mathematical programming 

References

  1. Arnolds I, Nickel S, Shashaani S, Wernz C (2012) Using simulation in hospital layout planning. In: Proceedings of the winter simulation conference, winter simulation conference, p 395Google Scholar
  2. Assem M, Ouda BK, Wahed MA (2012) Improving operating theatre design using facilities layout planning. In: Biomedical engineering conference (CIBEC), Cairo International. IEEE, pp 109–113Google Scholar
  3. Atanassov KT (1986) Intuitionistic fuzzy sets. Fuzzy Sets Syst 20(1):87–96MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. Cabrerizo FJ, Moreno JM, Pérez IJ, Herrera-Viedma E (2010) Analyzing consensus approaches in fuzzy group decision making: advantages and drawbacks. Soft Comput 14(5):451–463CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cabrerizo FJ, Ureña R, Pedrycz W, Herrera-Viedma E (2014) Building consensus in group decision making with an allocation of information granularity. Fuzzy Sets Syst 255:115–127MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. Castillo I, Westerlund J, Emet S, Westerlund T (2005) Optimization of block 315 layout design problems with unequal areas: a comparison of milp and minlp optimization methods. Comput Chem Eng 30(1):54–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chen S-J, Hwang C-L (1992) Fuzzy multiple attribute decision making methods. In: Fuzzy multiple attribute decision making. Springer, pp 289–486Google Scholar
  8. Chraibi A, Kharraja S, Osman IH, Elbeqqali O (2016) A particle swarm algorithm for solving the multi-objective operating theater layout problem. IFAC-PapersOnLine 49(12):1169–1174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chraibi A, Kharraja S, Osman IH, Elbeqqali O, et al (2014) A multi-objective mixed-integer programming model for a multi-section operating theatre facility layout. ICORES, pp 196–204Google Scholar
  10. Elshafei AN (1977) Hospital layout as a quadratic assignment problem. J Oper Res Soc 28(1):167–179CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. Fan J, Lu XW (2015) Supply chain scheduling problem in the hospital with periodic working time on a single machine. J Comb Optim 30(4):892C905MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. Gu YH, Fan J, Tang GC, Zhong JF (2013) Maximum latency scheduling problem on two-person cooperative games. J Comb Optim 1–11Google Scholar
  13. Gu YH, Goh M, Chen QL, Souza RD, Tang GC (2013) A new two-party bargaining mechanism. J Comb Optim 25(1):135C163MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. Herrera F, Herrera-Viedma E et al (1996) A model of consensus in group decision making under linguistic assessments. Fuzzy Sets Syst 78(1):73–87MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hwang C-L, Yoon K (1981) Multiple attributes decision making methods and applications. Springer, BerlinCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. Kim SH, Ahn BS (1999) Interactive group decision making procedure under incomplete information. Eur J Oper Res 116(3):498–507CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. Konak A, Kulturel-Konak S, Norman BA, Smith AE (2006) A new mixed integer programming formulation for facility layout design using flexible bays. Oper Res Lett 34(6):660–672MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. Lin Q-L, Liu H-C, Wang D-J, Liu L (2015) Integrating systematic layout planning with fuzzy constraint theory to design and optimize the facility layout for operating theatre in hospitals. J Intell Manuf 26(1):87–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Montreuil B (1991) A modelling framework for integrating layout design and ownetwork design. In: Material handling. Springer, pp 95–115Google Scholar
  20. Opricovic S (1998) Multicriteria optimization of civil engineering systems. Fac Civ Eng Belgrade 2(1):5–21MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  21. Sherali HD, Fraticelli BM, Meller RD (2003) Enhanced model formulations for optimal facility layout. Oper Res 51(4):629–644MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  22. Tompkins JA, White JA, Bozer YA, Tanchoco JMA (2010) Facilities planning. Wiley, HobokenGoogle Scholar
  23. Wan S-P, Dong J-Y (2014) Possibility linear programming with trapezoidal fuzzy numbers. Appl Math Model 38(5):1660–1672MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Wang S, Su HQ, Wan GH (2015) Resource-constrained machine scheduling with machine eligibility restriction and its applications to surgical operations scheduling. J Comb Optim 30(4):982C995MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  25. Wu J, Chiclana F (2014) Visual information feedback mechanism and attitudinal prioritisation method for group decision making with triangular fuzzy complementary preference relations. Inf Sci 279:716–734MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  26. Xu Y, Da Q (2008) A method for multiple attribute decision making with incomplete weight information under uncertain linguistic environment. Knowl Based Syst 21(8):837–841CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Xu Z (2004) A method based on linguistic aggregation operators for group decision making with linguistic preference relations. Inf Sci 166(1):19–30MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  28. Xu Z (2007) Intuitionistic fuzzy aggregation operators. IEEE Trans Fuzzy Syst 15(6):1179–1187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Xu Z (2007) A method for multiple attribute decision making with incomplete weight information in linguistic setting. Knowl Based Syst 20(8):719–725CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Xu Z (2008) Group decision making based on multiple types of linguistic preference relations. Inf Sci 178(2):452–467MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  31. Xu Z, Yager RR (2006) Some geometric aggregation operators based on intuitionistic fuzzy sets. Int J Gen Syst 35(4):417–433MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  32. Xu Z, Yager RR (2008) Dynamic intuitionistic fuzzy multi-attribute decision making. Int J Approx Reason 48(1):246–262CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  33. Ye J (2009) Multicriteria fuzzy decision-making method based on a novel accuracy function under interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy environment. Expert Syst Appl 36(3):6899–6902MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Yu G-F, Li D-F, Qiu J-M, Ye Y-F (2017) Application of satisfactory degree to interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy multi-attribute decision making. J Intell Fuzzy Syst 32(1):1019–1028CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  35. Yue Z (2011) Deriving decision makers weights based on distance measure for interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy group decision making. Expert Syst Appl 38(9):11665–11670CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Zadeh LA (1965) Fuzzy sets. Inf Control 8(3):338–353CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  37. Zhang F, Ignatius J, Lim CP, Zhao Y (2014) A new method for deriving priority weights by extracting consistent numerical-valued matrices from interval-valued fuzzy judgement matrix. Inf Sci 279:280–300MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  38. Zhang X, Xu Z (2015) Soft computing based on maximizing consensus and fuzzy topsis approach to interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy group decision making. Appl Soft Comput 26:42–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Zhao X, Lin R, Wei G (2013) Fuzzy prioritized operators and their application to multiple attribute group decision making. Appl Math Model 37(7):4759–4770MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Zhong LW, Luo SC, Wu LD, Xu L, Yang JH, Tang GC (2014) A two-stage approach for surgery scheduling. J Comb Optim 27(3):545C556MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  41. Zhong LW, Tang GC (2017) Preface, special issue on combinatorial optimization in health care. J Comb Optim 24(1–2):3C5Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of ManagementShanghai UniversityShanghaiChina

Personalised recommendations