Intelligent Decision Making Tools in Manufacturing Technology Selection

  • Morteza YazdaniEmail author
  • Prasenjit Chatterjee
Part of the Materials Horizons: From Nature to Nanomaterials book series (MHFNN)


The importance of technology in modern companies is literally growing. Technology protects the natural environment and acts as catalyst toward a more productive economy. Technology development has been the most demanding activity in industrial sectors over years and technology selection and implementation is one of the acknowledged projects in many companies. There are many factors influencing the problem of evaluating and choosing a new technology. Therefore, manufacturing operation managers are involved in a decision-making system with conflicting elements in their selection process. In this condition, application of multi-attribute decision-making (MADM) tools is highly recommended. This study examines the utilization of analytic hierarchy process and an adopted MADM method named CoCoSo to simultaneously determine the importance of decision factors and obtain the optimal ranking. At the final stage, we configure a sensitivity analysis to check and examine the accuracy of the results and performance of the present decision system. The study corresponds to a case study of choosing best packaging technology for a dairy company.


Analytical hierarchy process Combined compromise solution Multiple attribute decision-making Technology selection 


  1. 1.
    Cetindamar D, Phaal R, Probert D (2016) Technology management: activities and tools. Palgrave MacmillanGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Aliakbari Nouri F, Khalili Esbouei S, Antucheviciene J (2015) A hybrid MCDM approach based on fuzzy ANP and fuzzy TOPSIS for technology selection. Informatica 26(3):369–388CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Farooq S, O’Brien C (2015) An action research methodology for manufacturing technology selection: a supply chain perspective. Prod Plann Control 26(6):467–488CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Yazdani M, Zarate P, Coulibaly A, Zavadskas EK (2017) A group decision making support system in logistics and supply chain management. Expert Syst Appl 88:376–392CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Brandenburg M, Govindan K, Sarkis J, Seuring S (2014) Quantitative models for sustainable supply chain management: developments and directions. Eur J Oper Res 233(2):299–312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fahimnia B, Sarkis J, Davarzani H (2015) Green supply chain management: a review and bibliometric analysis. Int J Prod Econ 162:101–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Tavana M, Yazdani M, Di Caprio D (2017) An application of an integrated ANP–QFD framework for sustainable supplier selection. Int J Logist Res Appl 20(3):254–275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Pålsson H, Finnsgård C, Wänström C (2013) Selection of packaging systems in supply chains from a sustainability perspective: the case of Volvo. Packag Technol Sci 26(5):289–310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Mohanty RP, Deshmukh SG (1998) Advanced manufacturing technology selection: a strategic model for learning and evaluation. Int J Prod Econ 55(3):295–307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kengpol A, O’Brien C (2001) The development of a decision support tool for the selection of advanced technology to achieve rapid product development. Int J Prod Econ 69(2):177–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Dağdeviren M (2008) Decision making in equipment selection: an integrated approach with AHP and PROMETHEE. J Intell Manuf 19(4):397–406CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Anand G, Kodali R (2008) Selection of lean manufacturing systems using the PROMETHEE. J Model Manage 3(1):40–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Tavana M, Khalili-Damghani K, Abtahi AR (2013) A hybrid fuzzy group decision support framework for advanced-technology prioritization at NASA. Expert Syst Appl 40(2):480–491CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Streimikiene D, Balezentis T, Krisciukaitienė I, Balezentis A (2012) Prioritizing sustainable electricity production technologies: MCDM approach. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 16(5):3302–3311CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Chuu S-J (2014) An investment evaluation of supply chain RFID technologies: a group decision-making model with multiple information sources. Knowl-Based Syst 66:210–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Liu HC, You JX, Lu C, Shan MM (2014) Application of interval 2-tuple linguistic MULTIMOORA method for health-care waste treatment technology evaluation and selection. Waste Manag 34(11):2355–2364CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Evans L, Lohse N, Summers M (2013) A fuzzy-decision-tree approach for manufacturing technology selection exploiting experience-based information. Expert Syst Appl 40(16):6412–6426CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Farooq S, O’Brien C (2012) A technology selection framework for integrating manufacturing within a supply chain. Int J Prod Res 50(11):2987–3010CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Saen RF (2009) Technology selection in the presence of imprecise data, weight restrictions, and nondiscretionary factors. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 41(7–8):827CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    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):501–507CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Chuu SJ (2009) Selecting the advanced manufacturing technology using fuzzy multiple attributes group decision making with multiple fuzzy information. Comput Ind Eng 57(3):1033–1042CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Aloini D, Dulmin R, Mininno V (2014) A peer IF-TOPSIS based decision support system for packaging machine selection. Expert Syst Appl 41(5):2157–2165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Mathiyazhagan K, Diabat A, Al-Refaie A, Xu L (2015) Application of analytical hierarchy process to evaluate pressures to implement green supply chain management. J Clean Prod 107:229–236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Govindan K, Kaliyan M, Kannan D, Haq AN (2014) Barriers analysis for green supply chain management implementation in Indian industries using analytic hierarchy process. Int J Prod Econ 147:555–568CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Saaty TL (1977) A scaling method for priorities in hierarchical structures. J Math Psychol 15(3):234–281Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Zeleny M (1973) Compromise programming. In: Cochrane JL, Zeleny M (eds) Multiple criteria decision making. University of South Carolina Press, Columbia, SC, pp 262–301Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Business and ManagementUniversidad Loyola AndaluciaSevilleSpain
  2. 2.Department of Mechanical EngineeringMCKV Institute of EngineeringHowrahIndia

Personalised recommendations