Comparison of multi-criteria decision-making methods for equipment selection

被引:0
作者
Richard Edgar Hodgett
机构
[1] The University of Leeds,Leeds University Business School
来源
The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology | 2016年 / 85卷
关键词
Multi-criteria decision-making; Analytical hierarchy process (AHP); Multi-attribute range evaluations (MARE); ELECTRE III; Equipment Selection;
D O I
暂无
中图分类号
学科分类号
摘要
Equipment selection is a complex task that requires the consideration of multiple criteria with different measurement units. A number of decision-making methods have been proposed for analysing equipment selection problems, each having their own distinctive advantages and limitations. Despite the number of decision-making techniques available, few comparative studies exist that evaluate two or more methods with a singular problem. This paper evaluates three multi-attribute decision-making methods for an equipment selection problem in the early stages of a chemical manufacturing process. A software framework which incorporates analytical hierarchy process (AHP), multi-attribute range evaluations (MARE) and ELimination Et Choix Traduisant la REalité trois (ELECTRE III) was developed and distributed to a technology manager at Fujifilm Imaging Colorants Ltd (FFIC). The manager, within a team of nine people, examined the same decision problem using the three decision analysis methods. The results of the study are examined in respect to assessing each method’s ability to provide accurate representations of the decision-makers’ preferences and the ability to comprehend the uncertainty present. The decision-makers identified MARE as their preferred method, AHP was found to be comparatively more time-consuming and showed the highest variation of results while ELECTRE III was unable to provide a conclusive best result.
引用
收藏
页码:1145 / 1157
页数:12
相关论文
共 33 条
[1]  
Chakraborty S(2006)Design of a material handling equipment selection model using analytic hierarchy process Int J Adv Manuf Technol 28 1237-1245
[2]  
Banik D(2015)Development, test and comparison of two multiple criteria decision analysis (MCDA) models: a case of healthcare infrastructure location Expert Syst Appl 42 6717-6727
[3]  
Dehe B(2013)Integration of graph theory and matrix approach with fuzzy AHP for equipment selection J Ind Eng Manag 6 477-494
[4]  
Bamford D(2011)A combined approach for equipment selection: F-PROMETHEE method and zero–one goal programming Expert Syst Appl 38 11641-11650
[5]  
Safari H(1963)Optimality and non-scalar-valued performance IEEE Trans Autom Control 8 59-60
[6]  
Faghih A(2011)Multi-criteria decision analysis in environmental sciences: ten years of applications and trends Sci Total Environ 409 3578-3594
[7]  
Fathi MR(2004)Decision analysis in management science Manag Sci 50 561-574
[8]  
Yilmaz B(2005)Model world: the great debate—MAUT versus AHP Interfaces 35 308-312
[9]  
Dagdeviren M(1968)Classement et choix en presence de points de vue multiples la methode ELECTRE) La Revue d'Informatique et de Recherche Opérationelle 8 57-75
[10]  
Zadeh L(1998)Comparing multicriteria methods in the context of environmental problems Eur J Oper Res 104 485-496