Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Ranking of Flexibility in Flexible Manufacturing System by Using a Combined Multiple Attribute Decision Making Method

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The flexibility in manufacturing system is required so it is called flexible manufacturing system (FMS), but in FMS, there is different flexibility, which is incorporated. So, in manufacturing system which flexibility has more impact and which is less impact in FMS is decided by combined multiple attribute decision making method, which are analytic hierarchy process (AHP), technique for order preference by similarity to ideal situation, and improved preference ranking organization method for enrichment evaluations. The criteria weights are calculated by using the AHP. Furthermore, the method uses fuzzy logic to convert the qualitative attributes into the quantitative attributes. In this paper, a multiple attribute decision making method is structured to solve this problem and concluded that production flexibility has the most impact, and programme flexibility has the least impact in FMS based on factors, which affect the flexibility in FMS by using combined multiple attribute decision making method.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Azzone, G., & Bertele, U. (1989). Measuring the economic effectiveness of flexible automation: a new approach. The International Journal of Production Research, 27(5), 735–746.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baas, S. M., & Kwakernaak, H. (1977). Rating and ranking of multiple-aspect alternatives using fuzzy sets. Automatica, 13(1), 47–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bakhoum, E. S., & Brown, D. C. (2012). A hybrid approach using AHP–TOPSIS–entropy methods for sustainable ranking of structural materials. International Journal of Sustainable Engineering, 1–13. doi:10.1080/19397038.2012.719553.

  • Bayazit, O. (2005). Use of AHP in decision-making for flexible manufacturing systems. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, 16(7), 808–819.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baykasoğlu, A., Kaplanoğlu, V., Durmuşoğlu, Z. D. U., & Şahin, C. (2013). Integrating fuzzy DEMATEL and fuzzy hierarchical TOPSIS methods for truck selection. Expert Systems with Applications, 40(3), 899–907.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Belassi, W., & Fadlalla, A. (1998). An integrative framework for FMS diffusion. Omega, 26(6), 699–713.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bellman, R. E., & Zadeh, L. A. (1970). Decision-making in a fuzzy environment. Management Science, 17(4), 141–164.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brans, J. P., Mareschal, B., & Vincke, P. (1984). PROMETHEE: A new family of outranking methods in multicriteria analysis. Proceedings of Operational Research, 84, 477–490.

  • Browne, J., Dubois, D., Rathmill, K., Sethi, S. P., & Stecke, K. E. (1984). Classification of flexible manufacturing systems. The FMS Magazine, 2(2), 114–117.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chang, F. T. S. (1999). Evaluations of operational control rules in scheduling a flexible manufacturing system. Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing, 15(2), 121–132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chauhan, A., & Vaish, R. (2013). Hard coating material selection using multi-criteria decision making. Materials and Design, 44, 240–245.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, I. J., & Chung, C. H. (1996). An examination of flexibility measurements and performance of flexible manufacturing systems. International Journal of Production Research, 34(2), 379–394.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, J. H., & Ho, S. Y. (2005). A novel approach to production planning of flexible manufacturing systems using an efficient multi-objective genetic algorithm. International Journal of Machine Tools and Manufacture, 45(7), 949–957.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, S. J., & Hwang, C. L. (1992). Fuzzy multiple factor decision making—methods and applications. Lecture Notes in Economics and Mathematical Systems. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dai, J. B., & Lee, N. K. (2012). Economic feasibility analysis of flexible material handling systems: A case study in the apparel industry. International Journal of Production Economics, 136(1), 28–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daim, T. U., Bhatla, A., & Mansour, M. (2012). Site selection for a data center—a multi-criteria decision-making model. International Journal of Sustainable Engineering, 6(1), 10–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Das, S. K. (1996). The measurement of flexibility in manufacturing systems. International Journal of Flexible Manufacturing Systems, 8(1), 67–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Groover, M. P. (2006). Automation, production system and computer integrated manufacturing (2nd ed., Chap. 16). New Delhi: Prentice-Hall.

  • Gultekin, H. (2012). Scheduling in flowshops with flexible operations: Throughput optimization and benefits of flexibility. International Journal of Production Economics, 140(2), 900–911.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hwang, C. L., & Yoon, K. (1981). Multiple attribute decision making. Methods and applications: A state-of-the-art survey. New York: Springer-Verlag.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • İç, Y. T. (2012). An experimental design approach using TOPSIS method for the selection of computer-integrated manufacturing technologies. Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing, 28(2), 245–256.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jahan, A., Bahraminasab, M., & Edwards, K. L. (2012). A target-based normalization technique for materials selection. Materials and Design, 35, 647–654.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaighobadi, M., & Venkatesh, K. (1994). Flexible manufacturing systems: An overview. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 14(4), 26–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kalbar, P. P., Karmakar, S., & Asolekar, S. R. (2012). Selection of an appropriate wastewater treatment technology: A scenario-based multiple-attribute decision-making approach. Journal of Environmental Management, 113, 158–169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keong, O. C., Ahmad, M. M., Sulaiman, N. I. S., & Ismail, M. Y. (2005). Proposing a non-traditional ordering methodology in achieving optimal flexibility with minimal inventory risk. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, 17(2), 31–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koren, Y., Heisel, U., Jovane, F., Moriwaki, T., Pritschow, G., Ulsoy, G., et al. (1999). Reconfigurable manufacturing systems. CIRP Annals-Manufacturing Technology, 48(2), 527–540.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lavasani, S. M. M., Wang, J., Yang, Z., & Finlay, J. (2012). Application of MADM in a fuzzy environment for selecting the best barrier for offshore wells. Expert Systems with Applications, 39(3), 2466–2478.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marinoni, O. (2005). A stochastic spatial decision support system based on PROMETHEE. International Journal of Geographical Information Science, 19(1), 51–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Olhager, J. (1993). Manufacturing flexibility and profitability. International Journal of Production Economics, 30, 67–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Park, C. S., & Son, Y. K. (1988). An economic evaluation model for advanced manufacturing systems. The Engineering Economist, 34(1), 1–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pei, Z., & Zheng, L. (2012). A novel approach to multi-attribute decision making based on intuitionistic fuzzy sets. Expert Systems with Applications, 39(3), 2560–2566.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Primrose, P. L. (1996). Do companies need to measure their production flexibility? International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 16(6), 4–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raj, T., Attri, R., & Jain, V. (2012). Modelling the factors affecting flexibility in FMS. International Journal of Industrial and Systems Engineering, 11(4), 350–374.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rao, R. V. (2007). Decision making in the manufacturing environment: Using graph theory and fuzzy multiple attribute decision making methods. London: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rao, R. V., & Patel, B. K. (2010). Decision making in the manufacturing environment using an improved PROMETHEE method. International Journal of Production Research, 48(16), 4665–4682.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saaty, T. L. (1980). Analytic hierarchy process. New York: McGraw Hill Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saaty, T. L. (2000). Fundamentals of decision making and priority theory with AHP. Pittsburg, PA: RWS Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saaty, T. L., & Tran, L. T. (2007). On the invalidity of fuzzifying numerical judgments in the analytic hierarchy process. Mathematical and Computer Modelling, 46(7), 962–975.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sethi, A. K., & Sethi, S. P. (1990). Flexibility in manufacturing: A survey. International Journal of Flexible Manufacturing Systems, 2(4), 289–328.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shewchuk, J. P., & Moodie, C. L. (1998). Definition and classification of manufacturing flexibility types and measures. International Journal of Flexible Manufacturing Systems, 10(4), 325–349.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Son, Y. K., & Park, C. S. (1990). Quantifying opportunity costs associated with adding manufacturing flexibility. The International Journal of Production Research, 28(6), 1183–1194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stecke, K. E. (1983). Formulation and solution of nonlinear integer production planning problems for flexible manufacturing systems. Management Science, 29(3), 273–288.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stecke, K. E., Dubois, D., Sethi, S. P., & Rathmill, K. (1983).Classification of flexible manufacturing systems: Evolution towards the automated factory (No. 363). Working paper.

  • Stockton, D., & Bateman, N. (1995). Measuring the production range flexibility of a FMS. Integrated Manufacturing Systems, 6(2), 27–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sujono, S., & Lashkari, R. S. (2007). A multi-objective model of operation allocation and material handling system selection in FMS design. International Journal of Production Economics, 105(1), 116–133.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xu, Y., Merigó, J. M., & Wang, H. (2012). Linguistic power aggregation operators and their application to multiple attribute group decision making. Applied Mathematical Modelling, 36(11), 5427–5444.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yager, R., & Basson, D. (1975). Decision making with fuzzy sets. Decision Sciences, 6(3), 590–600.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors acknowledge the anonymous referee of this paper for his or her valuable suggestions, which have helped to improve the quality of this paper.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Mechanical Engineering, Deep Institute of Engineering and Technology, Sohna, Gurgaon, India

    Vineet Jain

  2. Department of Mechanical Engineering, YMCA University of Science and Technology, Faridabad, India

    Tilak Raj

Authors
  1. Vineet Jain
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Tilak Raj
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Vineet Jain.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Jain, V., Raj, T. Ranking of Flexibility in Flexible Manufacturing System by Using a Combined Multiple Attribute Decision Making Method. Glob J Flex Syst Manag 14, 125–141 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40171-013-0038-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40171-013-0038-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation