IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/opsear/v55y2018i3d10.1007_s12597-016-0262-9.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Decision system framework for performance evaluation of advanced manufacturing technology under fuzzy environment

Author

Listed:
  • Surajit Nath

    (Calcutta Institute of Engineering & Management)

  • Bijan Sarkar

    (Jadavpur University)

Abstract

Modern world is a competitive world. To survive in this world, every industry must achieve competitiveness. So, it has become the most important task for them to select the best Advanced Manufacturing Technology (AMT). The process involves both quantitative and qualitative factors. The aim of this paper is to solve the problem by Fuzzy TOPSIS method. According to the method of TOPSIS, a closeness co-efficient is determined by calculating the distances to both the Fuzzy positive ideal solution (FPIS) and Fuzzy negative ideal solution (FNIS). Then, a Suitability Index (SI) is calculated by taking into account the Objective Factor Measurement (OFM) to rank the alternatives. Finally, a numerical example using triangular fuzzy numbers is shown to highlight the proposed method.

Suggested Citation

  • Surajit Nath & Bijan Sarkar, 2018. "Decision system framework for performance evaluation of advanced manufacturing technology under fuzzy environment," OPSEARCH, Springer;Operational Research Society of India, vol. 55(3), pages 703-720, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:opsear:v:55:y:2018:i:3:d:10.1007_s12597-016-0262-9
    DOI: 10.1007/s12597-016-0262-9
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s12597-016-0262-9
    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/s12597-016-0262-9?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. R. E. Bellman & L. A. Zadeh, 1970. "Decision-Making in a Fuzzy Environment," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 17(4), pages 141-164, December.
    2. Miltenburg, G. J., 1987. "Economic evaluation and analysis of flexible manufacturing systems," Engineering Costs and Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 12(1-4), pages 79-92, July.
    3. Datta, Vinay & Sambasivarao, K. V. & Kodali, Rambabu & Deshmukh, S. G., 1992. "Multi-attribute decision model using the analytic hierarchy process for the justification of manufacturing systems," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 28(2), pages 227-234, November.
    4. Small, Michael H. & Chen, Injazz J., 1997. "Economic and strategic justification of AMT inferences from industrial practices," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 49(1), pages 65-75, March.
    5. Büyüközkan, Gülçin & Feyzioglu, Orhan & Nebol, Erdal, 2008. "Selection of the strategic alliance partner in logistics value chain," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 113(1), pages 148-158, May.
    6. Nelson, Craig A., 1986. "A scoring model for flexible manufacturing systems project selection," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 24(3), pages 346-359, March.
    7. Ertugrul Karsak, E. & Tolga, Ethem, 2001. "Fuzzy multi-criteria decision-making procedure for evaluating advanced manufacturing system investments," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(1), pages 49-64, January.
    8. Talluri, Srinivas & Paul Yoon, K., 2000. "A cone-ratio DEA approach for AMT justification," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 66(2), pages 119-129, June.
    9. Mohanty, R. P. & Deshmukh, S. G., 1998. "Advanced manufacturing technology selection:A strategic model for learning and evaluation," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 55(3), pages 295-307, August.
    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. Esther Jose & Puneet Agarwal & Jun Zhuang & Jose Swaminathan, 2023. "A multi-criteria decision making approach to evaluating the performance of Indian railway zones," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 325(2), pages 1133-1168, June.
    2. Uoseph Hamdi Salemi & Esmaile Khorram & Yuancheng Si & Saralees Nadarajah, 2020. "Sensitivity analysis of censoring schemes in progressively type-II right censored order statistics," OPSEARCH, Springer;Operational Research Society of India, vol. 57(1), pages 163-189, March.
    3. Neeraj Kumar Bhoi & Harpreet Singh & Saurabh Pratap & Pramod K. Jain, 2022. "Chemical reaction optimization algorithm for machining parameter of abrasive water jet cutting," OPSEARCH, Springer;Operational Research Society of India, vol. 59(1), pages 350-363, March.
    4. Chidozie Chukwuemeka Nwobi-Okoye, 2020. "Modelling the performance of single-input–single-output (SISO) processes using transfer function and fuzzy logic," OPSEARCH, Springer;Operational Research Society of India, vol. 57(3), pages 815-836, September.

    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. Ertugrul Karsak, E. & Tolga, Ethem, 2001. "Fuzzy multi-criteria decision-making procedure for evaluating advanced manufacturing system investments," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(1), pages 49-64, January.
    2. Dilşad Güzel & Hamit Erdal, 2015. "A Comparative Assesment of Facility Location Problem via fuzzy TOPSIS and fuzzy VIKOR: A Case Study on Security Services," International Journal of Business and Social Research, LAR Center Press, vol. 5(5), pages 49-61, May.
    3. Karsak, E. Ertugrul & Kuzgunkaya, Onur, 2002. "A fuzzy multiple objective programming approach for the selection of a flexible manufacturing system," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 79(2), pages 101-111, September.
    4. Keon Chul Park & Dong-Hee Shin, 2017. "Security assessment framework for IoT service," Telecommunication Systems: Modelling, Analysis, Design and Management, Springer, vol. 64(1), pages 193-209, January.
    5. Irani, Zahir & Sharif, Amir & Love, Peter E. D. & Kahraman, Cengiz, 2002. "Applying concepts of fuzzy cognitive mapping to model: The IT/IS investment evaluation process," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 75(1-2), pages 199-211, January.
    6. Mandic, Ksenija & Delibasic, Boris & Knezevic, Snezana & Benkovic, Sladjana, 2014. "Analysis of the financial parameters of Serbian banks through the application of the fuzzy AHP and TOPSIS methods," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 30-37.
    7. Dilşad Güzel & Hamit Erdal, 2015. "A Comparative Assesment of Facility Location Problem via fuzzy TOPSIS and fuzzy VIKOR: A Case Study on Security Services," International Journal of Business and Social Research, MIR Center for Socio-Economic Research, vol. 5(5), pages 49-61, May.
    8. Rajak, Manindra & Shaw, Krishnendu, 2019. "Evaluation and selection of mobile health (mHealth) applications using AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 59(C).
    9. Pandey, Mukesh Mohan, 2020. "Evaluating the strategic design parameters of airports in Thailand to meet service expectations of Low-Cost Airlines using the Fuzzy-based QFD method," Journal of Air Transport Management, Elsevier, vol. 82(C).
    10. Vuciterna, Rina & Thomsen, Michael & Popp, Jennie & Musliu, Arben, 2017. "Efficiency and Competitiveness of Kosovo Raspberry Producers," 2017 Annual Meeting, February 4-7, 2017, Mobile, Alabama 252770, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
    11. Berna Tektas Sivrikaya & Ferhan Cebi & Hasan Hüseyin Turan & Nihat Kasap & Dursun Delen, 2017. "A fuzzy long-term investment planning model for a GenCo in a hybrid electricity market considering climate change impacts," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 19(5), pages 975-991, October.
    12. Collan, Mikael, 2008. "New Method for Real Option Valuation Using Fuzzy Numbers," Working Papers 466, IAMSR, Åbo Akademi.
    13. Kim, Jong Soon & Whang, Kyu-Seung, 1998. "A tolerance approach to the fuzzy goal programming problems with unbalanced triangular membership function," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 107(3), pages 614-624, June.
    14. Berna Tektaş & Hasan Hüseyin Turan & Nihat Kasap & Ferhan Çebi & Dursun Delen, 2022. "A Fuzzy Prescriptive Analytics Approach to Power Generation Capacity Planning," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(9), pages 1-26, April.
    15. Chen, Lisa Y. & Wang, Tien-Chin, 2009. "Optimizing partners' choice in IS/IT outsourcing projects: The strategic decision of fuzzy VIKOR," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 120(1), pages 233-242, July.
    16. Víctor G. Alfaro-García & Anna M. Gil-Lafuente & Gerardo G. Alfaro Calderón, 2017. "A fuzzy approach to a municipality grouping model towards creation of synergies," Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, Springer, vol. 23(3), pages 391-408, September.
    17. Aghayi, Nazila & Maleki, Bentolhoda, 2016. "Efficiency measurement of DMUs with undesirable outputs under uncertainty based on the directional distance function: Application on bank industry," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 112(C), pages 376-387.
    18. Wenyao Niu & Yuan Rong & Liying Yu & Lu Huang, 2022. "A Novel Hybrid Group Decision Making Approach Based on EDAS and Regret Theory under a Fermatean Cubic Fuzzy Environment," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 10(17), pages 1-30, August.
    19. de Andres-Sanchez, Jorge, 2007. "Claim reserving with fuzzy regression and Taylor's geometric separation method," Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 40(1), pages 145-163, January.
    20. Mikhailov, L., 2004. "A fuzzy approach to deriving priorities from interval pairwise comparison judgements," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 159(3), pages 687-704, December.

    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:opsear:v:55:y:2018:i:3:d:10.1007_s12597-016-0262-9. 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.