Evaluation Strategy of Hydraulic Crane Through Mathematical Programming: An Automated Approach to Meet Customer Requirement

  • Kingshuk SenEmail author
  • Surojit Ghosh
  • Bijan Sarkar
Original Contribution


Purchasing accurate capital equipment to meet the demand of a user in all respect is definitely a strategic decision that involves high initial investment, detailed functional analysis of available alternatives and obtaining the right decision in terms of its productivity, reliability, maintainability and cost. The present study emphasizes upon proper identification and ranking of customer requirements and subsequent technical requirements for four alternative hydraulic cranes taken into consideration. To determine the interrelationship among the customer requirement and technical requirement, the study first employs analytic hierarchy process approach for ranking of customer requirement and checking the consistency of ranking. Next, an analytic hierarchy process–quality function deployment procedure is employed to rank the alternatives based on technical requirement and customer requirement. Further, the cost implications of the equipment are taken into consideration and through a Sensitivity Analysis approach including subjective factor measurement and objective factor measurement, the equipment is ranked. The degree of sensitivity was further verified with a range of values of subjective factor measure for each category of crane. Finally, a zero–one goal programming method is applied to strengthen further the ranking of the equipment applying LINDO platform, where along with the identified technical requirements, agility and reliability are also taken into account. The agility is represented in terms of associated cost implications to meet the technical requirement, whereas the reliability of components is determined by the condition of failure.


AHP Goal programming Reliability Quality function deployment Sensitivity analysis 



Authors are thankful to Production Engineering Department, Jadavpur University, Kolkata, and Jaypee Engineering and Hydraulic Equipment Company Ltd., Kolkata.


  1. 1.
    E. Hoffman, J. Homstein, D. Maucher, R. den Ouden, Process for the Procurement of Capital Equipment. Capital Equipment Purchasing. Professional Supply Management, vol. 2 (Springer, Berlin, 2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    M. Leenders, P.F. Johnson, A. Flynn, H. Fearon, Chapter 16. Capital goods. in Purchasing and Supply Management, 13th edn. (The Mcgraw Hill Companies, Boston, 2006)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    K.R. Gaurh, I. Khan, M.K. Ghosh, MCDM techniques for the selection of material handling equipment in the automobile industry. Int. J. Mod. Eng. Res. 4(1), 46–52 (2014)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    P. Karande, S.Chakraborty, Material handling equipment selection using weighted utility additive theory. J. Ind. Eng., vol. 2013, Article ID 268708, pp. 01–09Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    A.Y. Chamjini, S. Shariati, Selection of material handling equipment system for surface mines by using a combination of fuzzy MCDM models. Int. Res. J. Appl. Basic Sci. 5, 1501–1511 (2013)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    T.E. Saputro, B.D. Rouyendegh, A hybrid approach for selecting material handling equipment in a warehouse. Int. J. Manag. Sci. Eng. Manag. 11(1), 34–48 (2016). Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    S. Onut, S.S. Kara, S. Mert, Selecting the suitable material handling equipment in the presence of vagueness. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 44(7), 818–828 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    S. Chakraborty, D. Banik, Design of a material handling equipment selection model using analytic hierarchy process. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Techol. 28(11), 1237–1245 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    A.M. Momani, A.A. Ahmed, Material handling equipment selection using hybrid monte carlo simulation and analytic hierarchy process. World Acad. Sci. Eng. Technol. Int. J. Ind. Manuf. Eng. 5(11), 2177–2182 (2011)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    A.V. Khadekar, S. Chakraborty, Selection of material handling equipment using fuzzy axiomatic design principles. Informatica 26(2), 259–282 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    K. Sen, S. Ghosh, B. Sarkar, Study of customer choice for bulk material handling equipment. The MADM approach, in Proceedings of the 30th National Convention of Production Engineers. Agartala (2015)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    K. Sen, S. Ghosh, B. Sarkar, Comparison of customer preference for bulk material handling equipment through fuzzy-AHP approach. J. Inst. Eng. (India): Ser. C 98(3), 367–377 (2017)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    L. Cohen, Quality Function Deployment: How to make QFD work for you? Engineering Process Improvement Series (Chapter 1) (Pearson Education, Singapore, 2005), pp. 11–22Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    E.E. Karsak, S. Sozer, S.E. Alptekin, Product planning in quality function deployment using a combined analytic network process and goal programming approach. Comput. Ind. Eng. 44, 171–190 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    F. De Felice, A. Petrillo, A multiple choice decision analysis: an integrated QFD–AHP model for the assessment of customer needs. Int. J. Eng. Sci. Technol. 2(9), 25–38 (2010)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    G.H. Mazur, Voice of Customer Analysis: A Modern System of Front End Tools with Case Studies, vol. 51 (Annual Quality Congress, Orlando, 1996)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    C.C. Tseng, C.C. Torng, Prioritization determination of project tasks in QFD process using design structure matrix. J. Qual. 18(2), 137–153 (2011)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    H. Rahajaro, M. Xie, A.C. Brombacher, A systematic methodology to deal with the dynamics of customer needs in quality function deployment. Expert Syst. Appl. 38(4), 3653–3662 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hao-Tien Liu, Chin-Hong Wong, An advanced quality function deployment model using fuzzy analytic network process. Appl. Math. Model. 34(11), 3333–3351 (2010)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    J.C. Chen, B.P. Huang, Developing a manufacturing technology curriculum using QFD to incorporate the voice of customer. Int. J. Technol. Eng. Educ. 4, 05–14 (2007)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    S.S. Pawar, D.R. Phalke, D.S. Verma, Design optimization with entropy using QFD. Int. J. Recent Sci. Res. 6(5), 4123–4127 (2015)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    C. Kahraman, T. Ertay, G. Buyukozkan, A fuzzy optimization model for QFD planning process using ANP approach. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 171(2), 390–411 (2006)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    G.H. Mazur, J. Gibson, B. Harries, QFD applications in health care and quality of work life, in First International Symposium on QFD. Tokyo, 01–09 (1995)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    M.K. Roy, A. Roy, B.B. Pradhan, Nontraditional machining process selection using integrated AHP and QFD techniques: a customer perspective. Prod. Manuf. Res. 2(1), 530–549 (2014)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    K. Prasad, E.K. Zavedskas, S. Chakraborty, A software prototype for material handling equipment selection for construction sites. Autom. Constr. 57, 120–131 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Chin-Nung Liao, A Zero one goal programming model for marketing project selection. J. China Inst. Technol. 40(06), 77–88 (2009)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    B.B. Tripathy, M.P. Biswal, A Zero one goal programming approach for project selection. J. Inf. Optim. Sci. 28(4), 619–626 (2007)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    R. Santhanam, K. Muralidhar, M. Schniederjans, A Zero-one goal programming approach for information system project selection. OMEGA Int. J. Manag. Sci. 17(6), 583–593 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    A.J. Keown, B.W. Taylor III, C.P. Duncan, Allocation of research and development funds: a Zero one goal programming approach. OMEGA Int. J. Manag. Sci. 7(4), 345–351 (1979)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    R.S. Chen, J.Z. Shyu, Selecting a weapon system using Zero-one goal programming and analytic network process. J. Inf. Optim. Sci. 27(2), 379–399 (2013)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    K.G.D. Prasad, K.V. Subbaiah, K.N. Rao, Multiobjective optimization approach for cost management during product design at the conceptual phase. J. Ind. Eng. Int. 10, 01–12 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    J. Kaur, P. Tomar, Multi objective optimization model using preemptive goal programming for software component selection. Int. J. Inf. Technol. Comput. Sci. 09, 31–37 (2015)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    B. Yilmaz, M.A. Dagdeviren, Combined approach for equipment selection: F-PROMETHEE method and Zero one goal programming. Expert Syst. Appl. 38(9), 11641–11650 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    S.S. Rao, Engineering Optimization Theory and Practice, vol. 207, 4th edn. (Wiley, New York, 2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    A. Barve, Impact of supply chains agility on customer satisfaction, in Interantional Conference on E-Business, Management and Economics. IPEDR, vol. 3, IACSIT Press, Hong Kong, pp. 325-329 (2011)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    K. Fergis, The Impact of an Agile Methodology on Software Development Costs. University of Pennsylvania, Scholarly Commons, Department of Computer & Information Science. Technical Reports. MS-CIS 12-09 (2012)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    R. Imache, S. Izza, M.A. Nacer, An enterprise information system agility assessment model. Comput. Sci. Inf. Syst. 9(1), 107–133 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    D.W. Benbow, H.W. Broome, The Certified Reliability Engineer Handbook, 1st edn. (New Age International (P) Ltd., New Delhi, 2010)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    V.R. Dukkipati, K.P. Ray, Product and Process Design for Quality, Economy and Reliability (Chapter 7), 1st edn. ( New Age International (P) Ltd, New Delhi, 2010)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    J.M. Juran, F.M. Gryna, Juran’s Quality Control Handbook (Section 21), 4th edn. (McGraw Hill, Singapore, 1988)Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    R. Ellison, L. Stephen, R. Barwich, J. Vicki, Using validation data for ISO measurement uncertainty estimation. Part I: principles of an approach using cause and effect analysis. Analyst 123(6), 1387–1392 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    A. Ozdagoglu, G. Ozdagoglu, Comparison of AHP and Fuzzy AHP for the multi-criteria decision making processes with linguistic evaluations. Istanb. Ticaret Univ. Bilim. Derg. Yil 6(11), 65–85 (2007)Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    T.L. Saaty, The Analytic Hierarchy Process (McGraw-Hill, New York, 1980)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    A. Bhattacharya, B. Sarkar, S.K. Mukherjee, Integrating AHP with QFD for robot selection under requirement perspective. Int. J. Prod. Res. 43(17), 3671–3685 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    B.B. Nag, Business Applications of Operations Research. Quantitative Approaches to Decision making Collection (Business Expert Press LLC, New York, 2004), pp. 16–17Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Institution of Engineers (India) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The Institution of Engineers (India)KolkataIndia
  2. 2.Production Engineering Department, Faculty of Engineering and TechnologyJadavpur UniversityKolkataIndia

Personalised recommendations