A Practical Common Weight Scaling Function Approach for Technology Selection
|Published in:||Issue 3, (Vol. 8) / 2014|
|Author(s):||AMINI Mousa , ALINEZHAD Alireza|
|Abstract.||A practical common weight scaling function methodology with an improved discriminating power for technology selection is introduced. The proposed scaling function methodology enables the evaluation of the relative efficiency of decision-making units (DMUs) with respect to multiple outputs and a single exact input with common weights. Its robustness and discriminating power are illustrated via a previously reported robot evaluation problem by comparing the ranking obtained by the proposed scaling function framework with that obtained by the DEA classic model (CCR model) and Minimax method (Karsak & Ahiska, 2005). Because the number of efficient DMUs is reduced so discriminating power of our approach is higher than previous approaches and because Spearman’s rank correlation between the ranks obtained from our approach and Minimax approach is high therefore robustness of our approach is justified.|
|Keywords:||Technology Selection, Robot Selection, Scaling Function Approach, Discriminating Power, Weight Restriction, DEA, Common Set Of Weights.|
2. Agrawal, V.P., Verma, A. and Agarwal, S. (1992) ‘Computeraided evaluation and selection of optimum grippers’, Int. J. Prod. Res., Vol. 30, No. 11, pp. 2713–2732.
3. Alen, R., Athanasopoulos, A., Dyson, R.G. and Thanasoulis, E. (1997) ‘Weight restrictions And value judgements in data envelopment analysis: Evolution, development and future directions’, An. Oper. Res., Vol. 73, pp. 13–34.
4. Baker, R.C. and Taluri, S. ‘A closer look at the use of data envelopment analysis for technology selection’, Comput. Ind. Eng., Vol. 32, No. 1, pp. 101–108.
5. Booth, D.E., Khouja, M. and Hu, M. (1992) ‘A robust multivariate statistical procedure for evaluation and selection of industrial robots’, Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag., Vol. 12, No. 2, pp. 15–24.
6. Braglia, M. and Gabbrieli, R. (2000) ‘Dimensional analysis for investment selection in industrial robots’, Int. J. Prod. Res., Vol. 38, No. 18, pp. 4843–4848.
7. Karsak, E.E. (1998) ‘A two-phase robot selection procedure’, Prod. Plan. Contr., Vol. 9, No. 7, pp. 675–684.
8. Karsak, E.E. (1999) ‘A DEA-based robot selection procedure incorporating fuzzy criteria values’, In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Tokyo, Japan, Vol. 1, pp. 1073–1078.
9. Karsak, E.E. (2002) ‘Distance-based fuzzy MCDM approach for evaluating flexible manufacturing system alternatives’, Int. J. Prod. Res., Vol. 40, No.13, pp. 3167–3181.
10. Karsak, E.E. and Tolga, E. (2001) ‘Fuzzy multi-criteria decision-making procedure for evaluating advanced manufacturing system investments’, Int. J. Prod. Econ., Vol. 69, No. 1, pp. 49–64.
11. Karsak, E.E. and ahiska, s.s. (2005) ‘Practical common weight multi-criteria decision-making approach with an improved discriminating power for technology selection’, Int. J. Prod. Res., Vol. 43, No. 8, pp. 1537-1554.
12. Narasimhan,R.S. and Vickery,K. (1988) ‘An experimental evaluation of articulation of preferences in multiple criterion decision-making’, Dec. Sci., Vol. 19, No. 4, pp. 880–88.
13. Parkan, C. and Wu, M.L. (1999) ‘Decision-making and performance measurement models with applications to robot selection’, Comput. Ind. Eng.,Vol. 26, No. 3, pp. 503–523.
14. Parkan, C. and Wu, M.L. (2000) ‘Comparison of three modern multi-criteria decision-making tools’, Int. J. Sys. Sci., Vol. 31, No. 4, pp. 497–517.
15. Perego, A. and Rangone, A. (1998) ‘A reference framework for the application of MADM fuzzy techniques to selecting AMTS’, Int. J. Prod. Res., Vol. 36, No. 2, pp. 437–458.
16. Proctor, M.D. and Canada, J.R. (1992) ‘Past and present methods of manufacturing investment evaluation: A review of the empirical and theoretical literature’, Eng. Economist, Vol. 38, pp. 45–58. Journal of Applied Computer Science & Mathematics, no. 18 (8) /2014, Suceava 37
17. Raafat, F. (2002) ‘A comprehensive bibliography on justification of advanced manufacturing systems’, Int. J. Prod. Econ., Vol. 79, No. 3, pp. 197–208.
18. Sambasivarao, K.V. and Deshmukh, S.G.(1997) ‘A decision support system for selection and justifcation of advanced manufacturing technologies’, Prod. Plan. Contr., Vol. 8, No. 3, pp. 270–284.
19. Sarkis, J. and Taluri, S. (1999) ‘A decision model for evaluation of flexible manufacturing systems in the presence of both cardinal and ordinal factors’, Int. J. Prod. Res., Vol. 37, No. 13, pp. 2927–2938.
20. Shang, J. and Sueyoshi, T. (1995) ‘A unified framework for the selection of a flexible manufacturing system’, Eur. J. Oper. Res., Vol. 85, No. 2, pp. 297–315.
21. Son, Y.K. (1992) ‘A comprehensive bibliography on justification of advanced manufacturing technologies’, Eng. Economist, Vol. 38, No. 1, pp. 59–71.
22. Stam, A. and Kula, M. (1991) ‘Selecting a flexible manufacturing system using multiple criteria analysis’, Int. J. Prod. Res., Vol. 29, No. 4, pp. 803–820.
23. Sulivan, W.G. (1986) ‘Models IEs can use to include strategic, non-monetary factors in automation decisions’, Ind. Eng., Vol. 42, pp. 42–50.
24. Sun, S. (2002) ‘Asesing computer numerical control machines using data envelopment analysis’, Int. J. Prod. Res., Vol. 40, No.9, pp. 2011–2039.
25. Talluri, S.and Yoon, K.P. (2000) ‘A cone-ratio DEA approach for AMT justification’, Int. J. Prod. Econ., Vol. 66, No. 2, pp. 19–129.
26. Tofalis, C. (1997) ‘Input efficiency profiling: an application to airlines’, Comput. Oper. Res., Vol. 24, pp. 253–258.
27. Wierzbicki, A. (1986) ‘On the completeness and constructiveness of parametric characterizations to vector optimization problems’, OR Spektrum, Vol. 8, No. 2, pp. 73- 87.
|Back to the journal content|
This article is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.