IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v9y2017i9p1630-d111856.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Manufacturing Process Innovation-Oriented Knowledge Evaluation Using MCDM and Fuzzy Linguistic Computing in an Open Innovation Environment

Author

Listed:
  • Gangfeng Wang

    (Key Laboratory of Road Construction Technology and Equipment of MOE, Chang’an University, Xi’an 710064, China
    Sinomach Changlin Company Limited, Changzhou 213136, China)

  • Xitian Tian

    (Institute of CAPP & Manufacturing Engineering Software, Northwestern Polytechnical University, Xi’an 710072, China)

  • Yongbiao Hu

    (Key Laboratory of Road Construction Technology and Equipment of MOE, Chang’an University, Xi’an 710064, China)

  • Richard David Evans

    (Business Information Management and Operations, University of Westminster, London NW1 5LS, UK)

  • Mingrui Tian

    (Key Laboratory of Road Construction Technology and Equipment of MOE, Chang’an University, Xi’an 710064, China)

  • Rong Wang

    (Department of Information Engineering, Engineering University of CAPF, Xi’an 710086, China)

Abstract

In today’s complex, constantly evolving and innovation-supporting manufacturing systems, knowledge plays a vital role in sustainable manufacturing process planning and problem-solving, especially in the case of Computer-Aided Process Innovation (CAPI). To obtain formalized and promising process innovation knowledge under the open innovation paradigm, it is necessary to evaluate candidate knowledge and encourage improvement suggestions based on actual innovation situations. This paper proposes a process innovation-oriented knowledge evaluation approach using Multi-Criteria Decision-Making (MCDM) and fuzzy linguistic computing. Firstly, a comprehensive hierarchy evaluation index system for process innovation knowledge is designed. Secondly, by combining an analytic hierarchy process with fuzzy linguistic computing, a comprehensive criteria weighting determination method is applied to effectively aggregate the evaluation of criteria weights for each criterion and corresponding sub-criteria. Furthermore, fuzzy linguistic evaluations of performance ratings for each criterion and corresponding sub-criteria are calculated. Thus, a process innovation knowledge comprehensive value can be determined. Finally, an illustrative example of knowledge capture, evaluation and knowledge-inspired process problem solving for micro-turbine machining is presented to demonstrate the applicability of the proposed approach. It is expected that our model would lay the foundation for knowledge-driven CAPI in sustainable manufacturing.

Suggested Citation

  • Gangfeng Wang & Xitian Tian & Yongbiao Hu & Richard David Evans & Mingrui Tian & Rong Wang, 2017. "Manufacturing Process Innovation-Oriented Knowledge Evaluation Using MCDM and Fuzzy Linguistic Computing in an Open Innovation Environment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(9), pages 1-19, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:9:y:2017:i:9:p:1630-:d:111856
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/9/9/1630/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/9/9/1630/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ali Emrouznejad & Marianna Marra, 2017. "The state of the art development of AHP (1979–2017): a literature review with a social network analysis," International Journal of Production Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 55(22), pages 6653-6675, November.
    2. Ting Kong & Taiwen Feng & Chunming Ye, 2016. "Advanced Manufacturing Technologies and Green Innovation: The Role of Internal Environmental Collaboration," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(10), pages 1-18, October.
    3. Saaty, Thomas L., 1990. "How to make a decision: The analytic hierarchy process," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 9-26, September.
    4. K. Madan Shankar & P. Udhaya Kumar & Devika Kannan, 2016. "Analyzing the Drivers of Advanced Sustainable Manufacturing System Using AHP Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(8), pages 1-10, August.
    5. Gangfeng Wang & Xitian Tian & Junhao Geng & Biao Guo, 2015. "A knowledge accumulation approach based on bilayer social wiki network for computer-aided process innovation," International Journal of Production Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 53(8), pages 2365-2382, April.
    6. Iuan-Yuan Lu & Tsuanq Kuo & Ting-Syuan Lin & Gwo-Hshiung Tzeng & Shan-Lin Huang, 2016. "Multicriteria Decision Analysis to Develop Effective Sustainable Development Strategies for Enhancing Competitive Advantages: Case of the TFT-LCD Industry in Taiwan," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(7), pages 1-31, July.
    7. Francesco Cappa & Fausto Del Sette & Darren Hayes & Federica Rosso, 2016. "How to Deliver Open Sustainable Innovation: An Integrated Approach for a Sustainable Marketable Product," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(12), pages 1-14, December.
    8. James J.H. Liou & Jolanta Tamošaitienė & Edmundas K. Zavadskas & Gwo-Hshiung Tzeng, 2016. "New hybrid COPRAS-G MADM Model for improving and selecting suppliers in green supply chain management," International Journal of Production Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 54(1), pages 114-134, January.
    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. Kao-Yi Shen & Gwo-Hshiung Tzeng, 2018. "Advances in Multiple Criteria Decision Making for Sustainability: Modeling and Applications," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(5), pages 1-7, May.
    2. Gajdzik, Bożena & Gawlik, Remigiusz, 2018. "Choosing the Production Function Model for an Optimal Measurement of the Restructuring Efficiency of the Polish Metallurgical Sector in Years 2000–2015," MPRA Paper 83618, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    3. Sanja Puzović & Jasmina Vesić Vasović & Dragan D. Milanović & Vladan Paunović, 2023. "A Hybrid Fuzzy MCDM Approach to Open Innovation Partner Evaluation," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 11(14), pages 1-26, July.
    4. Fanshun Zhang & Zhuorui Zhang & Quanquan Zhang & Xiaochun Zhu, 2023. "Dynamic Evaluation of Product Innovation Knowledge Concerning the Interactive Relationship between Innovative Subjects: A Multi-Objective Optimization Approach," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 11(9), pages 1-33, April.

    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. Rafael Lizarralde & Jaione Ganzarain & Mikel Zubizarreta, 2020. "Assessment and Selection of Technologies for the Sustainable Development of an R&D Center," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(23), pages 1-23, December.
    2. 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.
    3. Shu-Kung Hu & James J. H. Liou & Ming-Tsang Lu & Yen-Ching Chuang & Gwo-Hshiung Tzeng, 2018. "Improving NFC Technology Promotion for Creating the Sustainable Education Environment by Using a Hybrid Modified MADM Model," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(5), pages 1-24, April.
    4. Bo-Wei Zhu & Jia-Rui Zhang & Gwo-Hshiung Tzeng & Shan-Lin Huang & Lei Xiong, 2017. "Public Open Space Development for Elderly People by Using the DANP-V Model to Establish Continuous Improvement Strategies towards a Sustainable and Healthy Aging Society," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(3), pages 1-29, March.
    5. Ravindra Kumar & Rajeev Kumar Mishra & Satish Chandra & Asif Hussain, 2021. "Evaluation of urban transport-environment sustainable indicators during Odd–Even scheme in India," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 23(12), pages 17240-17262, December.
    6. Ben Zhang & Lei Ma & Zheng Liu & Ping Wang, 2019. "Sustainable Technology Innovation Path Recognition: An Evaluation of Patent Risk of International Trade," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(18), pages 1-17, September.
    7. V. G. Venkatesh & Abraham Zhang & Eric Deakins & Sunil Luthra & S. Mangla, 2019. "A fuzzy AHP-TOPSIS approach to supply partner selection in continuous aid humanitarian supply chains," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 283(1), pages 1517-1550, December.
    8. Vicente Rodríguez Montequín & Joaquín Manuel Villanueva Balsera & Marina Díaz Piloñeta & César Álvarez Pérez, 2020. "A Bradley-Terry Model-Based Approach to Prioritize the Balance Scorecard Driving Factors: The Case Study of a Financial Software Factory," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 8(2), pages 1-15, February.
    9. Xinyi Zhou & Yong Hu & Yong Deng & Felix T. S. Chan & Alessio Ishizaka, 2018. "A DEMATEL-based completion method for incomplete pairwise comparison matrix in AHP," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 271(2), pages 1045-1066, December.
    10. Vicent Penadés-Plà & Tatiana García-Segura & José V. Martí & Víctor Yepes, 2016. "A Review of Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Methods Applied to the Sustainable Bridge Design," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(12), pages 1-21, December.
    11. Ramin Gharizadeh Beiragh & Reza Alizadeh & Saeid Shafiei Kaleibari & Fausto Cavallaro & Sarfaraz Hashemkhani Zolfani & Romualdas Bausys & Abbas Mardani, 2020. "An integrated Multi-Criteria Decision Making Model for Sustainability Performance Assessment for Insurance Companies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(3), pages 1, January.
    12. Flavio Martins & Maria Fatima Almeida & Rodrigo Calili & Agatha Oliveira, 2020. "Design Thinking Applied to Smart Home Projects: A User-Centric and Sustainable Perspective," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(23), pages 1-27, December.
    13. Jochen Wulf, 2020. "Development of an AHP hierarchy for managing omnichannel capabilities: a design science research approach," Business Research, Springer;German Academic Association for Business Research, vol. 13(1), pages 39-68, April.
    14. Wu, Zhangsheng & Li, Yue & Wang, Rong & Xu, Xu & Ren, Dongyang & Huang, Quanzhong & Xiong, Yunwu & Huang, Guanhua, 2023. "Evaluation of irrigation water saving and salinity control practices of maize and sunflower in the upper Yellow River basin with an agro-hydrological model based method," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 278(C).
    15. D’Inverno, Giovanna & Carosi, Laura & Romano, Giulia & Guerrini, Andrea, 2018. "Water pollution in wastewater treatment plants: An efficiency analysis with undesirable output," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 269(1), pages 24-34.
    16. Nermin Kişi, 2019. "A Strategic Approach to Sustainable Tourism Development Using the A’WOT Hybrid Method: A Case Study of Zonguldak, Turkey," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(4), pages 1-19, February.
    17. Hazem Ali & Ting Chen & Yunhong Hao, 2021. "Sustainable Manufacturing Practices, Competitive Capabilities, and Sustainable Performance: Moderating Role of Environmental Regulations," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(18), pages 1-19, September.
    18. Ayodele, T.R. & Ogunjuyigbe, A.S.O. & Odigie, O. & Munda, J.L., 2018. "A multi-criteria GIS based model for wind farm site selection using interval type-2 fuzzy analytic hierarchy process: The case study of Nigeria," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 228(C), pages 1853-1869.
    19. V. Srinivasan & G. Shainesh & Anand K. Sharma, 2015. "An approach to prioritize customer-based, cost-effective service enhancements," The Service Industries Journal, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 35(14), pages 747-762, October.
    20. Patricija Bajec & Danijela Tuljak-Suban, 2019. "An Integrated Analytic Hierarchy Process—Slack Based Measure-Data Envelopment Analysis Model for Evaluating the Efficiency of Logistics Service Providers Considering Undesirable Performance Criteria," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(8), pages 1-18, April.

    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:gam:jsusta:v:9:y:2017:i:9:p:1630-:d:111856. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.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.