IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/joinma/v30y2019i5d10.1007_s10845-017-1371-x.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparative analysis of different digitization systems and selection of best alternative

Author

Listed:
  • Syed Hammad Mian

    (King Saud University)

  • Abdulrahman Al-Ahmari

    (King Saud University
    King Saud University)

Abstract

Manufacturing industry plays a very significant role in the economic functioning of any country. In recent times, reverse engineering (RE) has become an integral part of manufacturing set-up owing to its numerous applications. The quality of RE product primarily depends on the quality of digitization i.e., part measurement. There is a diverse range of digitization devices which can be employed in RE. These machines have variability in terms of cost, accuracy, ease of use, accessibility, scanning time, etc. Therefore, the decision regarding the selection of a suitable device becomes important in a particular RE application. The decisions taken in the planning stage for RE can have a long lasting impact on the functionality, quality and the economics of components to be used by manufacturing industries. To accomplish the selection procedure, a comparative study of three digitization techniques has been carried out. The determination of an appropriate digitization system is basically a multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) problem. MCDM techniques are yet to be applied in the selection of digitization systems for RE. MCDM is one of the most widely used decision methodologies in business and engineering spheres. The aim of this work is to describe various MCDM methods in the selection of digitization systems for RE. This paper intends to employ combinations between different MCDM methods such as group eigenvalue method (GEM), analytic hierarchy process (AHP), entropy method, elimination and choice expressing reality (ELECTRE), technique for order of preference by similarity to ideal solution (TOPSIS) and simple additive weighing (SAW) method. In this work, GEM, AHP, Entropy methods has been used to elicit weights of various selection criteria, while TOPSIS, ELECTRE and SAW have been applied to rank the alternatives. A comparative analysis has also been performed to determine the efficacies of different approaches. The conclusion of the paper reveals the best digitization system as well as the characteristics of different MCDM methods and their suitability in RE application.

Suggested Citation

  • Syed Hammad Mian & Abdulrahman Al-Ahmari, 2019. "Comparative analysis of different digitization systems and selection of best alternative," Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, Springer, vol. 30(5), pages 2039-2067, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:joinma:v:30:y:2019:i:5:d:10.1007_s10845-017-1371-x
    DOI: 10.1007/s10845-017-1371-x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10845-017-1371-x
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10845-017-1371-x?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Matthew Martin, 1997. "Introduction," African Development Review, African Development Bank, vol. 9(1), pages 1-19.
    2. Bentes, Alexandre Veronese & Carneiro, Jorge & da Silva, Jorge Ferreira & Kimura, Herbert, 2012. "Multidimensional assessment of organizational performance: Integrating BSC and AHP," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 65(12), pages 1790-1799.
    3. Wolfgang Ossadnik & Stefanie Schinke & Ralf H. Kaspar, 2016. "Group Aggregation Techniques for Analytic Hierarchy Process and Analytic Network Process: A Comparative Analysis," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 25(2), pages 421-457, March.
    4. Al-Najjar, Basim & Alsyouf, Imad, 2003. "Selecting the most efficient maintenance approach using fuzzy multiple criteria decision making," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 84(1), pages 85-100, April.
    5. Yoram Wind & Thomas L. Saaty, 1980. "Marketing Applications of the Analytic Hierarchy Process," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(7), pages 641-658, July.
    6. Wade D. Cook & Moshe Kress, 1990. "A Data Envelopment Model for Aggregating Preference Rankings," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 36(11), pages 1302-1310, November.
    7. Forman, Ernest & Peniwati, Kirti, 1998. "Aggregating individual judgments and priorities with the analytic hierarchy process," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 108(1), pages 165-169, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. José M. Navarro-Jiménez & José V. Aguado & Grégoire Bazin & Vicente Albero & Domenico Borzacchiello, 2023. "Reconstruction of 3D surfaces from incomplete digitisations using statistical shape models for manufacturing processes," Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, Springer, vol. 34(5), pages 2345-2358, June.
    2. Jiaji Pan & Ruilin Fan & Hanlu Zhang & Yi Gao & Zhiquan Shu & Zhongxiang Chen, 2022. "Investigating the Effectiveness of Government Public Health Systems against COVID-19 by Hybrid MCDM Approaches," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 10(15), pages 1-20, July.
    3. Syed Hammad Mian & Khaja Moiduddin & Hisham Alkhalefah & Mustufa Haider Abidi & Faraz Ahmed & Faraz Hussain Hashmi, 2023. "Mechanisms for Choosing PV Locations That Allow for the Most Sustainable Usage of Solar Energy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(4), pages 1-24, February.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Brunnhofer, Magdalena & Gabriella, Natasha & Schöggl, Josef-Peter & Stern, Tobias & Posch, Alfred, 2020. "The biorefinery transition in the European pulp and paper industry – A three-phase Delphi study including a SWOT-AHP analysis," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 110(C).
    2. Milan Ranđelović & Jelena Stanković & Kristijan Kuk & Gordana Savić & Dragan Ranđelović, 2018. "An Approach to Determining the Importance of Model Criteria in Certifying a City as Business-Friendly," Interfaces, INFORMS, vol. 48(2), pages 156-165, April.
    3. Jahangir Wasim & Vijay Vyas & Pietro Amenta & Antonio Lucadamo & Gabriella Marcarelli & Alessio Ishizaka, 2023. "Deriving the weights for aggregating judgments in a multi-group problem: an application to curriculum development in entrepreneurship," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 326(2), pages 853-877, July.
    4. Sasaki, Yasuo, 2023. "Strategic manipulation in group decisions with pairwise comparisons: A game theoretical perspective," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 304(3), pages 1133-1139.
    5. Pishchulov, Grigory & Trautrims, Alexander & Chesney, Thomas & Gold, Stefan & Schwab, Leila, 2019. "The Voting Analytic Hierarchy Process revisited: A revised method with application to sustainable supplier selection," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 211(C), pages 166-179.
    6. Laila Oubahman & Szabolcs Duleba, 2022. "A Comparative Analysis of Homogenous Groups’ Preferences by Using AIP and AIJ Group AHP-PROMETHEE Model," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(10), pages 1-18, May.
    7. Andreas Schiessl & Richard Müller & Rebekka Volk & Konrad Zimmer & Patrick Breun & Frank Schultmann, 2020. "Integrating site-specific environmental impact assessment in supplier selection: exemplary application to steel procurement," Journal of Business Economics, Springer, vol. 90(9), pages 1409-1457, November.
    8. Pérez-Mesa, Juan Carlos & Galdeano-Gómez, Emilio & Salinas Andújar, Jose A., 2012. "Logistics network and externalities for short sea transport: An analysis of horticultural exports from southeast Spain," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 24(C), pages 188-198.
    9. Marlow, David R. & Beale, David J. & Mashford, John S., 2012. "Risk-based prioritization and its application to inspection of valves in the water sector," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 67-74.
    10. Tasneem Bani-Mustafa & Nicola Pedroni & Enrico Zio & Dominique Vasseur & Francois Beaudouin, 2020. "A hierarchical tree-based decision-making approach for assessing the relative trustworthiness of risk assessment models," Journal of Risk and Reliability, , vol. 234(6), pages 748-763, December.
    11. Jacinto González-Pachón & Carlos Romero, 2007. "Inferring consensus weights from pairwise comparison matrices without suitable properties," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 154(1), pages 123-132, October.
    12. Rossi, Cesare & Cricelli, Livio & Grimaldi, Michele & Greco, Marco, 2016. "The strategic assessment of intellectual capital assets: An application within Terradue Srl," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 69(5), pages 1598-1603.
    13. Paweł Karczmarek & Witold Pedrycz & Adam Kiersztyn, 2021. "Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process in a Graphical Approach," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 30(2), pages 463-481, April.
    14. Paredes-Frigolett, Harold & Pyka, Andreas & Leoneti, Alexandre Bevilacqua, 2021. "On the performance and strategy of innovation systems: A multicriteria group decision analysis approach," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 67(C).
    15. Munim, Ziaul Haque & Duru, Okan & Ng, Adolf K.Y., 2022. "Transhipment port's competitiveness forecasting using analytic network process modelling," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 70-82.
    16. B S Ahn & S H Choi, 2008. "ERP system selection using a simulation-based AHP approach: a case of Korean homeshopping company," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 59(3), pages 322-330, March.
    17. Madjid Tavana & Mehdi Soltanifar & Francisco J. Santos-Arteaga, 2023. "Analytical hierarchy process: revolution and evolution," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 326(2), pages 879-907, July.
    18. Gerda Ana Melnik-Leroy & Gintautas Dzemyda, 2021. "How to Influence the Results of MCDM?—Evidence of the Impact of Cognitive Biases," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 9(2), pages 1-25, January.
    19. Hsu-Shih Shih, 2016. "A Mixed-Data Evaluation in Group TOPSIS with Differentiated Decision Power," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 25(3), pages 537-565, May.
    20. Zhu, Bin & Xu, Zeshui, 2014. "Analytic hierarchy process-hesitant group decision making," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 239(3), pages 794-801.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:joinma:v:30:y:2019:i:5:d:10.1007_s10845-017-1371-x. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.