Comparison of multi-criteria decision-making methods for equipment selection
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 nu...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | International journal of advanced manufacturing technology 2016-07, Vol.85 (5-8), p.1145-1157 |
---|---|
1. Verfasser: | |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 1157 |
---|---|
container_issue | 5-8 |
container_start_page | 1145 |
container_title | International journal of advanced manufacturing technology |
container_volume | 85 |
creator | Hodgett, Richard Edgar |
description | 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. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1007/s00170-015-7993-2 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2262312014</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2262312014</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c402t-61ae79a8fd4f7297793af073c50b0e802e7380147405c2d40956353bc5907d863</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kMFKAzEQQIMoWKsf4C3gOTpJdpPNUYpaoeBFzyHNZmtqd7NNsgf_3pQVPHkaGN6bgYfQLYV7CiAfEgCVQIDWRCrFCTtDC1pxTnhZnaMFMNEQLkVzia5S2hdaUNEs0GYV-tFEn8KAQ4f76ZA9sdFnF73BrbM--TCQ3nz5YYd7lz9Dm3AXInbHyY-9GzJO7uBsLtg1uujMIbmb37lEH89P76s12by9vK4eN8RWwDIR1DipTNO1VSeZklJx04HktoYtuAaYk7wBWskKasvaClQteM23tlYg20bwJbqb744xHCeXst6HKQ7lpWZMME5ZsQtFZ8rGkFJ0nR6j70381hT0KZqeo-lSSJ-iaVYcNjupsMPOxb_L_0s_xlJuQA</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2262312014</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Comparison of multi-criteria decision-making methods for equipment selection</title><source>SpringerLink Journals - AutoHoldings</source><creator>Hodgett, Richard Edgar</creator><creatorcontrib>Hodgett, Richard Edgar</creatorcontrib><description>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.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0268-3768</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1433-3015</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s00170-015-7993-2</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>London: Springer London</publisher><subject>Analytic hierarchy process ; CAE) and Design ; Comparative studies ; Computer-Aided Engineering (CAD ; Decision analysis ; Decision making ; Engineering ; Industrial and Production Engineering ; Mechanical Engineering ; Media Management ; Multiple criterion ; Organic chemistry ; Original Article ; Units of measurement</subject><ispartof>International journal of advanced manufacturing technology, 2016-07, Vol.85 (5-8), p.1145-1157</ispartof><rights>Springer-Verlag London 2015</rights><rights>The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology is a copyright of Springer, (2015). All Rights Reserved.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c402t-61ae79a8fd4f7297793af073c50b0e802e7380147405c2d40956353bc5907d863</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c402t-61ae79a8fd4f7297793af073c50b0e802e7380147405c2d40956353bc5907d863</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s00170-015-7993-2$$EPDF$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/10.1007/s00170-015-7993-2$$EHTML$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27924,27925,41488,42557,51319</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Hodgett, Richard Edgar</creatorcontrib><title>Comparison of multi-criteria decision-making methods for equipment selection</title><title>International journal of advanced manufacturing technology</title><addtitle>Int J Adv Manuf Technol</addtitle><description>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.</description><subject>Analytic hierarchy process</subject><subject>CAE) and Design</subject><subject>Comparative studies</subject><subject>Computer-Aided Engineering (CAD</subject><subject>Decision analysis</subject><subject>Decision making</subject><subject>Engineering</subject><subject>Industrial and Production Engineering</subject><subject>Mechanical Engineering</subject><subject>Media Management</subject><subject>Multiple criterion</subject><subject>Organic chemistry</subject><subject>Original Article</subject><subject>Units of measurement</subject><issn>0268-3768</issn><issn>1433-3015</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2016</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><recordid>eNp1kMFKAzEQQIMoWKsf4C3gOTpJdpPNUYpaoeBFzyHNZmtqd7NNsgf_3pQVPHkaGN6bgYfQLYV7CiAfEgCVQIDWRCrFCTtDC1pxTnhZnaMFMNEQLkVzia5S2hdaUNEs0GYV-tFEn8KAQ4f76ZA9sdFnF73BrbM--TCQ3nz5YYd7lz9Dm3AXInbHyY-9GzJO7uBsLtg1uujMIbmb37lEH89P76s12by9vK4eN8RWwDIR1DipTNO1VSeZklJx04HktoYtuAaYk7wBWskKasvaClQteM23tlYg20bwJbqb744xHCeXst6HKQ7lpWZMME5ZsQtFZ8rGkFJ0nR6j70381hT0KZqeo-lSSJ-iaVYcNjupsMPOxb_L_0s_xlJuQA</recordid><startdate>20160701</startdate><enddate>20160701</enddate><creator>Hodgett, Richard Edgar</creator><general>Springer London</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>ABJCF</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>L6V</scope><scope>M7S</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>PTHSS</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20160701</creationdate><title>Comparison of multi-criteria decision-making methods for equipment selection</title><author>Hodgett, Richard Edgar</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c402t-61ae79a8fd4f7297793af073c50b0e802e7380147405c2d40956353bc5907d863</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2016</creationdate><topic>Analytic hierarchy process</topic><topic>CAE) and Design</topic><topic>Comparative studies</topic><topic>Computer-Aided Engineering (CAD</topic><topic>Decision analysis</topic><topic>Decision making</topic><topic>Engineering</topic><topic>Industrial and Production Engineering</topic><topic>Mechanical Engineering</topic><topic>Media Management</topic><topic>Multiple criterion</topic><topic>Organic chemistry</topic><topic>Original Article</topic><topic>Units of measurement</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Hodgett, Richard Edgar</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>Materials Science & Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Engineering Collection</collection><collection>Engineering Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>Engineering Collection</collection><jtitle>International journal of advanced manufacturing technology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Hodgett, Richard Edgar</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Comparison of multi-criteria decision-making methods for equipment selection</atitle><jtitle>International journal of advanced manufacturing technology</jtitle><stitle>Int J Adv Manuf Technol</stitle><date>2016-07-01</date><risdate>2016</risdate><volume>85</volume><issue>5-8</issue><spage>1145</spage><epage>1157</epage><pages>1145-1157</pages><issn>0268-3768</issn><eissn>1433-3015</eissn><abstract>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.</abstract><cop>London</cop><pub>Springer London</pub><doi>10.1007/s00170-015-7993-2</doi><tpages>13</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0268-3768 |
ispartof | International journal of advanced manufacturing technology, 2016-07, Vol.85 (5-8), p.1145-1157 |
issn | 0268-3768 1433-3015 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_2262312014 |
source | SpringerLink Journals - AutoHoldings |
subjects | Analytic hierarchy process CAE) and Design Comparative studies Computer-Aided Engineering (CAD Decision analysis Decision making Engineering Industrial and Production Engineering Mechanical Engineering Media Management Multiple criterion Organic chemistry Original Article Units of measurement |
title | Comparison of multi-criteria decision-making methods for equipment selection |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-07T11%3A01%3A45IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Comparison%20of%20multi-criteria%20decision-making%20methods%20for%20equipment%20selection&rft.jtitle=International%20journal%20of%20advanced%20manufacturing%20technology&rft.au=Hodgett,%20Richard%20Edgar&rft.date=2016-07-01&rft.volume=85&rft.issue=5-8&rft.spage=1145&rft.epage=1157&rft.pages=1145-1157&rft.issn=0268-3768&rft.eissn=1433-3015&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s00170-015-7993-2&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2262312014%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2262312014&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true |