Fusing Multi-Attribute Decision Models for Decision Making to Achieve Optimal Product Design

• Autorzy: Olabanji Olayinka M. , Mpofu Khumbulani

Identyfikatory

DOI

10.2478/fcds-2020-0016

• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

Manufacturers need to select the best design from alternative design concepts in order to meet up with the demand of customers and have a larger share of the competitive market that is flooded with multifarious designs. Evaluation of conceptual design alternatives can be modelled as a Multi‐Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) process because it includes conflicting design features with different sub features. Hybridization of Multi Attribute Decision Making (MADM) models has been applied in various field of management, science and engineering in order to have a robust decision-making process but the extension of these hybridized MADM models to decision making in engineering design still requires attention. In this article, an integrated MADM model comprising of Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process (FAHP), Fuzzy Pugh Matrix and Fuzzy VIKOR was developed and applied to evaluate conceptual designs of liquid spraying machine. The fuzzy AHP was used to determine weights of the design features and sub features by virtue of its fuzzified comparison matrix and synthetic extent evaluation. The fuzzy Pugh matrix provides a methodical structure for determining performance using all the design alternatives as basis and obtaining aggregates for the designs using the weights of the sub features. The fuzzy VIKOR generates the decision matrix from the aggregates of the fuzzified Pugh matrices and determine the best design concept from the defuzzified performance index. At the end, the optimal design concept is determined for the liquid spraying machine.

Słowa kluczowe

EN

Hybridized Multi-Attribute Decision-Making; fuzzy AHP; Fuzzified Pugh Matrix; Fuzzy VIKOR; optimal conceptual design

• Wydawca: Wydawnictwo Politechniki Poznańskiej
• Czasopismo: Foundations of Computing and Decision Sciences
• Rocznik: 2020
• Tom: Vol. 45, No. 4
• Strony: 305--337
• Opis fizyczny: Bibliogr. 50 poz., rys., tab.

Twórcy

autor

Olabanji Olayinka M.

• Tshwane University of Technology Pretoria West, South Africa

autor

Mpofu Khumbulani

• Tshwane University of Technology Pretoria West, South Africa

Bibliografia

• [1] Olabanji O.M., Reconnoitering the suitability of fuzzified weighted decision matrix for design process of a reconfigurable assembly fixture. International Journal of Design Engineering. 8(1): p. 38-56, 2018.
• [2] Renzi C. and F. Leali, A multicriteria decision-making application to the conceptual design of mechanical components. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis. 23(3-4): p. 87-111, 2016.
• [3] Renzi C., F. Leali, M. Pellicciari, A.O. Andrisano, and G. Berselli, Selecting alternatives in the conceptual design phase: an application of Fuzzy-AHP and Pugh’s Controlled Convergence. International Journal on Interactive Design and Manufacturing (IJIDeM). 9(1): p. 1-17, 2015.
• [4] Renzi C., F. Leali, and L. Di Angelo, A review on decision-making methods in engineering design for the automotive industry. Journal of Engineering Design. 28(2): p. 118-143, 2017.
• [5] Olabanji O.M. and K. Mpofu, Comparison of weighted decision matrix, and analytical hierarchy process for CAD design of reconfigurable assembly fixture, in Procedia CIRP. 2014. p. 264-269.
• [6] Yeo S., M. Mak, and S. Balon, Analysis of decision-making methodologies for desirability score of conceptual design. Journal of Engineering Design. 15(2): p. 195-208, 2004.
• [7] Girod M., A. Elliott, N.D. Burns, and I. Wright, Decision making in conceptual engineering design: an empirical investigation. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part B: Journal of Engineering Manufacture. 217(9): p. 1215-1228, 2003.
• [8] Derelöv M., On Evaluation of Design Concepts: Modelling Approaches for Enhancing the Understanding of Design Solutions. 2009, Linköping University Electronic Press.
• [9] Nikander J.B., L.A. Liikkanen, and M. Laakso, The preference effect in design concept evaluation. Design studies. 35(5): p. 473-499, 2014.
• [10] Jugulum R. and D.D. Frey, Toward a taxonomy of concept designs for improved robustness. Journal of Engineering Design. 18(2): p. 139-156, 2007.
• [11] Mattson C.A. and A. Messac, Pareto frontier based concept selection under uncertainty, with visualization. Optimization and Engineering. 6(1): p. 85-115, 2005.
• [12] Hambali A., S. Sapuan, A. Rahim, N. Ismail, and Y. Nukman, Concurrent decisions on design concept and material using analytical hierarchy process at the conceptual design stage. Concurrent Engineering. 19(2): p. 111-121, 2011.
• [13] Sa'Ed M.S. and M.Y. Al-Harris, New product concept selection: an integrated approach using data envelopment analysis (DEA) and conjoint analysis (CA). International Journal of Engineering & Technology. 3(1): p. 44, 2014.
• [14] Hambali A., S. Sapuan, N. Ismail, and Y. Nukman, Application of analytical hierarchy process in the design concept selection of automotive composite bumper beam during the conceptual design stage. Scientific Research and Essays. 4(4): p. 198-211, 2009.
• [15] Radhakrishnan R. and D.A. McAdams, A methodology for model selection in engineering design. Journal of mechanical design. 127(3): p. 378-387, 2005.
• [16] Green G. and G. Mamtani, An integrated decision making model for evaluation of concept design. Acta Polytechnica. 44(3) 2004.
• [17] Saridakis K.M. and A.J. Dentsoras, Soft computing in engineering design-A review. Advanced Engineering Informatics. 22(2): p. 202-221, 2008.
• [18] Okudan G.E. and R.A. Shirwaiker. A multi-stage problem formulation for concept selection for improved product design. in 2006 Technology Management for the Global Future-PICMET 2006 Conference. IEEE 2006.
• [19] Akay D., O. Kulak, and B. Henson, Conceptual design evaluation using interval type-2 fuzzy information axiom. Computers in Industry. 62(2): p. 138-146, 2011.
• [20] Mardani A., A. Jusoh, K. Nor, Z. Khalifah, N. Zakwan, and A. Valipour, Multiple criteria decision-making techniques and their applications-a review of the literature from 2000 to 2014. Economic Research-Ekonomska Istrazivanja. 28(1): p. 516-571, 2015.
• [21] Xiao A., S.S. Park, and T. Freiheit. A comparison of concept selection in concept scoring and axiomatic design methods. in Proceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA). 2007.
• [22] Roy B. and D. Vanderpooten, The European School of MCDA: Emergence, Basic Features and Current Works. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis. 5(1): p. pp. 22-38, 1996.
• [23] Roy B., Main Sources of Inaccurate Determination, Uncertainty and Imprecision in Decision Models. Mathl. Comput. Modelling 12(10-11): pp. 1245-1254, 1989.
• [24] Ho W., X. Xu, and P.K. Dey, Multi-criteria decision making approaches for supplier evaluation and selection: A literature review. European Journal of operational research. 202(1): p. 16-24, 2010.
• [25] Okudan G.E. and S. Tauhid, Concept selection methods-a literature review from 1980 to 2008. International Journal of Design Engineering. 1(3): pp. 243-277, 2008.
• [26] Belton V. and T. Stewart, MULTIPLE CRITERIA DECISION ANALYSIS: An Integrated Approach. 2002: Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht. pp. 13-52; ISBN 978-1-4615-1495-4 (eBook).
• [27] Ortiz-Barrios M.A., B. Kucukaltan, D. Carvajal-Tinoco, D. Neira-Rodado, and G. Jimenez, Strategic hybrid approach for selecting suppliers of high-density polyethylene. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis. 24(5-6): pp. 296-316, 2017.
• [28] Alarcin F., A. Balin, and H. Demirel, Fuzzy AHP and Fuzzy TOPSIS integrated hybrid method for auxiliary systems of ship main engines. Journal of Marine Engineering & Technology. 13(1): pp. 3-11, 2014.
• [29] Nazam M., J. Xu, Z. Tao, J. Ahmad, and M. Hashim, A fuzzy AHP-TOPSIS framework for the risk assessment of green supply chain implementation in the textile industry. International Journal of Supply and Operations Management. 2(1): pp. 548, 2015.
• [30] Balin A., H. Demirel, and F. Alarcin, A novel hybrid MCDM model based on fuzzy AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS for the most affected gas turbine component selection by the failures. Journal of Marine Engineering & Technology. 15(2): pp. 69-78, 2016.
• [31] Glaize A., A. Duenas, C. Di Martinelly, and I. Fagnot, Healthcare decision-making applications using multicriteria decision analysis: A scoping review. Journal of Multi - Criteria Decision Analysis, 26(1-2): pp. 62-83. 2019.
• [32] Zeynali M., M.H. Aghdaie, N. Rezaeiniya, and S.H. Zolfani, A hybrid fuzzy multiple criteria decision making (MCDM) approach to combination of materials selection. African Journal of Business Management. 6(45): pp. 11171-11178, 2012.
• [33] Kundakci N., An integrated method using MACBETH and EDAS methods for evaluating steam boiler alternatives. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis. 26(1- 2): p. 27-34, 2019.
• [34] Olabanji O. and K. Mpofu, Hybridized fuzzy analytic hierarchy process and fuzzy weighted average for identifying optimal design concept. Heliyon, Elsevier. 6(1): p. 1-13, 2020.
• [35] Olabanji O.M. and K. Mpofu, Adopting hybridized multicriteria decision model as a decision tool in engineering design. Journal of Engineering, Design and Technology. 18(2): p. 451-479, 2020.
• [36] Velu L.G.N., J. Selvaraj, and D. Ponnialagan, A new ranking principle for ordering trapezoidal intuitionistic fuzzy numbers. Complexity. 2017.
• [37] Singh P., A Novel Method for Ranking Generalized Fuzzy Numbers. J. Inf. Sci. Eng. 31(4): p. 1373-1385, 2015.
• [38] Nieto-Morote A. and F. Ruz-Vila, A fuzzy AHP multi-criteria decision-making approach applied to combined cooling, heating, and power production systems. International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making. 10(03): p. 497-517, 2011.
• [39] Zamani S., H. Farughi, and M. Soolaki, Contractor selection using fuzzy hybrid AHP-VIKOR. International Journal of Research in Industrial Engineering. 2(4): p. 26-40, 2014.
• [40] Tian J. and Z. Yan, Fuzzy analytic hierarchy process for risk assessment to generala-ssembling of satellite. Journal of applied research and technology. 11(4): p. 568-577, 2013.
• [41] Somsuk N. and C. Simcharoen, A fuzzy AHP approach to prioritization of critical success factors for six sigma implementation: Evidence from the electronics industry in thailand. International Journal of Modeling and Optimization. 1(5): p. 432-437, 2011.
• [42] Muller G. Concept selection: theory and practice. in White paper of SESG meeting. sl: Buskerud University College. 2009.
• [43] Muller G., D. Klever, H.H. Bjørnsen, and M. Pennotti, Researching the application of Pugh Matrix in the sub-sea equipment industry, in CSER. 2011.
• [44] Musani S. and A.A. Jemain. Ranking schools' academic performance using a fuzzy VIKOR. in Journal of Physics: Conference Series. IOP Publishing 2015.
• [45] Shemshadi A., H. Shirazi, M. Toreihi, and M.J. Tarokh, A fuzzy VIKOR method for supplier selection based on entropy measure for objective weighting. Expert Systems with Applications. 38(10): p. 12160-12167, 2011.
• [46] Opricovic S., Fuzzy VIKOR with an application to water resources planning. Expert Systems with Applications. 38(10): p. 12983-12990, 2011.
• [47] Kim Y. and E.-S. Chung, Fuzzy VIKOR approach for assessing the vulnerability of the water supply to climate change and variability in South Korea. Applied Mathematical Modelling. 37(22): p. 9419-9430, 2013.
• [48] Chang T.-H., Fuzzy VIKOR method: A case study of the hospital service evaluation in Taiwan. Information Sciences. 271: p. 196-212, 2014.
• [49] Bag S., Fuzzy VIKOR approach for selection of big data analyst in procurement management. Journal of Transport and Supply Chain Management. 10(1): p. 1-6, 2016.
• [50] Afful-Dadzie E., S. Nabareseh, Z.K. Oplatkova, and P.K. Hmek, Model for assessing quality of online health information: A fuzzy VIKOR based method. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis. 23(1-2): p. 49-62, 2016.

Uwagi

Opracowanie rekordu ze środków MNiSW, umowa Nr 461252 w ramach programu "Społeczna odpowiedzialność nauki" - moduł: Popularyzacja nauki i promocja sportu (2020).