IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/flsman/v36y2024i1d10.1007_s10696-022-09480-9.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Multi-objective-based differential evolution for balancing production cost, diversity and aggregated performance attributes in product family design

Author

Listed:
  • Ismail M. Ali

    (University of New South Wales)

  • Hasan H. Turan

    (University of New South Wales)

  • Ripon K. Chakrabortty

    (University of New South Wales)

  • Sondoss Elsawah

    (University of New South Wales)

Abstract

In product family design (PFD), deciding on a platform design strategy can be viewed as a multidisciplinary optimization problem that involves several factors, such as design variables, manufacturing costs, customizability, supplier reliability, and customer satisfaction. In this study, a multi-objective based differential evolution (MO-based DE) algorithm has been proposed for tackling the module-based PFD problem. The MO-based DE aims to find the best balance between many objectives, such as total production cost, diversity index, and a combination of other objectives (performance attributes). These objectives include commonality, modularity, and suppliers' reliability and all are aggregated to provide a goodness score. To effectively improve the DE's efficiency while solving such a complex optimization problem, the proposed DE integrates new elements such as (i) a novel solution representation, (ii) an improved heuristic technique for platform development, (iii) a weighted aggregation to combine different objectives, and (iv) a proposed platform-based crossover. To validate its performance, the proposed MO-based DE has been compared with (1) the standard DE to assess the effect of the incorporated new elements on DE’s performance, and (2) well-known fast non-dominant sorting genetic algorithms NSGA-II and (3) NSGA-III for solving a real case study of a family of kettles. The experimental results confirmed the efficacy of the proposed MO-based DE as follows: in terms of average cost value, MO-based DE outperformed standard DE and NSGA-II by 26.40% and 11.69%, respectively. While in terms of goodness score, it achieved 20.69% and 8.05% better scores compared to standard DE and NSGA-II, respectively. Moreover, the proposed MO-based DE attained a very competitive performance against NSGA-III as it reached a better average cost and goodness score of 1.74% and 0.82%, respectively.

Suggested Citation

  • Ismail M. Ali & Hasan H. Turan & Ripon K. Chakrabortty & Sondoss Elsawah, 2024. "Multi-objective-based differential evolution for balancing production cost, diversity and aggregated performance attributes in product family design," Flexible Services and Manufacturing Journal, Springer, vol. 36(1), pages 175-223, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:flsman:v:36:y:2024:i:1:d:10.1007_s10696-022-09480-9
    DOI: 10.1007/s10696-022-09480-9
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10696-022-09480-9
    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/s10696-022-09480-9?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. Rachel Campos Sabioni & Joanna Daaboul & Julien Le Duigou, 2022. "Concurrent optimisation of modular product and Reconfigurable Manufacturing System configuration: a customer-oriented offer for mass customisation," International Journal of Production Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 60(7), pages 2275-2291, April.
    2. Francesco Gabriele Galizia & Hoda ElMaraghy & Marco Bortolini & Cristina Mora, 2020. "Product platforms design, selection and customisation in high-variety manufacturing," International Journal of Production Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 58(3), pages 893-911, February.
    3. Konrad Zimmer & Magnus Fröhling & Frank Schultmann, 2016. "Sustainable supplier management -- a review of models supporting sustainable supplier selection, monitoring and development," International Journal of Production Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 54(5), pages 1412-1442, March.
    4. Mohmmad Hanafy & Hoda ElMaraghy, 2015. "Developing assembly line layout for delayed product differentiation using phylogenetic networks," International Journal of Production Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 53(9), pages 2633-2651, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Pereira, Daniel Filipe & Oliveira, José Fernando & Carravilla, Maria Antónia, 2022. "Merging make-to-stock/make-to-order decisions into sales and operations planning: A multi-objective approach," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 107(C).
    2. Alptekin Ulutaş & Ayşe Topal & Dragan Pamučar & Željko Stević & Darjan Karabašević & Gabrijela Popović, 2022. "A New Integrated Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Model for Sustainable Supplier Selection Based on a Novel Grey WISP and Grey BWM Methods," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(24), pages 1-20, December.
    3. 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.
    4. Kaur, Harpreet & Gupta, Mahima & Singh, Surya Prakash, 2024. "Integrated model to optimize supplier selection and investments for cyber resilience in digital supply chains," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 275(C).
    5. Ventura, José A. & Bunn, Kevin A. & Venegas, Bárbara B. & Duan, Lisha, 2021. "A coordination mechanism for supplier selection and order quantity allocation with price-sensitive demand and finite production rates," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 233(C).
    6. Niloofar Vahabzadeh Najafi & Alireza Arshadi Khamseh & Abolfazl Mirzazadeh, 2020. "An Integrated Sustainable and Flexible Supplier Evaluation Model under Uncertainty by Game Theory and Subjective/Objective Data: Iranian Casting Industry," Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management, Springer;Global Institute of Flexible Systems Management, vol. 21(4), pages 309-322, December.
    7. Konur, Dinçer & Campbell, James F. & Monfared, Sepideh A., 2017. "Economic and environmental considerations in a stochastic inventory control model with order splitting under different delivery schedules among suppliers," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 46-65.
    8. 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.
    9. Ghadimi, Pezhman & Ghassemi Toosi, Farshad & Heavey, Cathal, 2018. "A multi-agent systems approach for sustainable supplier selection and order allocation in a partnership supply chain," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 269(1), pages 286-301.
    10. Amin Mahmoudi & Saad Ahmed Javed, 2022. "Probabilistic Approach to Multi-Stage Supplier Evaluation: Confidence Level Measurement in Ordinal Priority Approach," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 31(5), pages 1051-1096, October.
    11. Zhigang Fan & Fei Dai & Mingu Kang & Kihyun Park & Gukseong Lee, 2024. "Combining internal functional integration with product modularization and supply chain alignment for achieving mass customization," Operations Management Research, Springer, vol. 17(3), pages 1197-1212, September.
    12. Torky Althaqafi, 2023. "Environmental and Social Factors in Supplier Assessment: Fuzzy-Based Green Supplier Selection," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(21), pages 1-17, November.
    13. Nihan Kabadayı, 2020. "An Integrated Fuzzy DEMATEL and Intuitionistic Fuzzy TOPSIS Method to Evaluate Sustainable Suppliers," Alphanumeric Journal, Bahadir Fatih Yildirim, vol. 8(2), pages 201-226, December.
    14. Shin Hee Baek & Jong Soo Kim, 2020. "Efficient Algorithms for a Large-Scale Supplier Selection and Order Allocation Problem Considering Carbon Emissions and Quantity Discounts," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 8(10), pages 1-17, September.
    15. Iman Ghalehkhondabi & Dusan Sormaz & Gary Weckman, 2016. "Multiple customer order decoupling points within a hybrid MTS/MTO manufacturing supply chain with uncertain demands in two consecutive echelons," OPSEARCH, Springer;Operational Research Society of India, vol. 53(4), pages 976-997, December.
    16. André Luiz Romano & Luís Miguel D. F. Ferreira & Sandra Sofia F. S. Caeiro, 2021. "Modelling Sustainability Risk in the Brazilian Cosmetics Industry," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(24), pages 1-26, December.
    17. Alireza Arshadi Khamseh, 2021. "A Time-Dependent Sustainable–Flexible Supplier Selection Considering Uncertainty and TODIM Method in Iranian Dairy Industries," Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management, Springer;Global Institute of Flexible Systems Management, vol. 22(2), pages 113-126, June.
    18. Chong Li & He Huang & Ya Luo, 2022. "An Integrated Two-Dimension Linguistic Intuitionistic Fuzzy Decision-Making Approach for Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Supplier Selection," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(18), pages 1-24, September.
    19. Weckenborg, Christian & Schumacher, Patrick & Thies, Christian & Spengler, Thomas S., 2024. "Flexibility in manufacturing system design: A review of recent approaches from Operations Research," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 315(2), pages 413-441.
    20. Nomeda Dobrovolskienė & Anastasija Pozniak & Manuela Tvaronavičienė, 2021. "Assessment of the Sustainability of a Real Estate Project Using Multi-Criteria Decision Making," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(8), pages 1-19, 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:spr:flsman:v:36:y:2024:i:1:d:10.1007_s10696-022-09480-9. 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.