Location of Repository

A decision support method for selecting design and manufacturing alternatives

By Seyed Mohammad Ali Firouzabadi Khatami

Abstract

One of the most important decisions which should be made at the early stage of the design process is to select one design alternative. Not only should the decision be made by tradeoffs between different conflicting criteria of the single stakeholder but also to aggregate different outcomes obtained by multiple stakeholders. This thesis represents a decision support tool for selecting design alternatives, in which a single choice has to be made between a number of alternatives in the presence of single or multiple stakeholders, multiple conflicting criteria, and resource limitation, based on two routes: using Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) alone and the combination of AHP with Zero-One Goal Programming (ZOGP). Using AHP-ZOGP allows the concept-concept and concept-specification approaches to be considered simultaneously in order to improve the process of concept design selections.\ud \ud Different outcomes obtained by using AHP alone, can be aggregated by two heuristic methods based on distance function, to generate an index for final single selection. The first method uses the final weights obtained by AHP, while the second method uses its detailed weights.\ud \ud AHP weights are then used to construct the ZOGP's objective function and constraints' parameters of intangible criteria for each individual stakeholder. Another ZOGP model can be constructed to aggregate the different outcomes, obtained by individual ZOGP's models, based on combining their objective functions. The advantages of using aggregated ZOGP models in comparison with heuristic methods are, not only ZOGP aggregated model is able to minimise the undesirable distances between sub-criteria and Product Design Specification (PDS), but also it can take into account the resource limitations explicitly.\ud \ud The case studies, which involved vehicle manufacturing technology selection, choosing a peristaltic pump, selection of a swivel joint design, and the justification\ud of advanced manufacturing systems, possessed the characteristics of the type of problems this tool is intended to support. The case studies showed how it is possible to consider many criteria from different stakeholders to yield a single outcome that covers the requirements of those stakeholders

Publisher: School of Mechanical Engineering (Leeds)
Year: 2005
OAI identifier: oai:etheses.whiterose.ac.uk:677

Suggested articles

Preview

Citations

  1. (1998). A approach to select optimal system components for computer integrated manufacturing by evaluating synergy, doi
  2. (2001). A combined AHP-GP model for quality control systems, doi
  3. (1989). A comprehensive approach for manufacturing system evaluation and comparisons, doi
  4. (1997). A fuzzy outranking method for conceptual design evaluation, doi
  5. (1990). A new approach for justifying computer-integrated manufacturing, doi
  6. (1989). A stakeholder approach to corporate governance: managing in a dynamic environment, Quorum Books.
  7. (1998). A Study of Car Manufacturing Technology Development in Iran and Presenting a Quantitative method for Production Planning,
  8. (2002). A theoretical look at firm performance in high-tech organisiations: What does existing theory tell us?, doi
  9. (2004). An aggregation method for multiple stakeholders' in design selection decisions, in: doi
  10. (1995). An economic evaluation model for advanced manufacturing system using activity-based costing. doi
  11. (1982). An experimental comparison of different approaches to determining weights in additive utility models. \ianagement doi
  12. (2004). Are partwise comparisons reliable?, doi
  13. (1999). Arrow's theorem and entiineering dcsizn decision making, doi
  14. (2001). Calculus: concepts and methods, doi
  15. (2003). com (Lindo Systems Inc. )
  16. (1999). Combining the analytic hierarchy process and goal programming for global facility location-allocation problem, doi
  17. (1997). Conceptual design evaluation based on function metrices, In:
  18. (2003). Consider your options: changes to strategic value during implementation of advanced manufacturing technology, doi
  19. (2001). Cost-specification analysis: design concept selection based on target cost and specifications, ASME design engineering technical conference and computers and information in engineering conference,
  20. (1996). Decision aids for selection problems. doi
  21. (1986). Decision analysis and behavioral research, doi
  22. (1992). Decision-making in chemical engineering and expert systems: application of the analytic hierarchy process to reactor selection, doi
  23. (1976). Decisions with multiple objectives: Preferences and value tradeoffs, doi
  24. (1990). Deriving ratio level measures from verbal judgements.
  25. (2001). Development of a justification tool for advanced manufacturing technologies: system-wide benefits value analysis, doi
  26. (1999). Distance-Based Consensus `Icthods: A goal programming approach, doi
  27. (2000). Elementary linear algebra, Anton textbooks, doi
  28. (2000). Engineering design methods: strategies for product design, doi
  29. (2001). Extended Lexicographic Goal Programming: A Unifying Approach, doi
  30. (2002). Group decision making in a multiple criteria environment: A case using the AHP in software selection. doi
  31. (1992). Group decision support with the analytic hierarchy process, doi
  32. (1994). How to make a decision: the analytic hierarchy process, doi
  33. (1993). In search of a valid view of model validation for operations research, doi
  34. (1999). Incorporating the voice of the customer in preliminary component design, in:
  35. (1995). Integrating customer requirements into product designs, doi
  36. (1995). Introduction to Operations Research, doi
  37. (1992). liltiattribute decision model using the analytic hierarchy process for justification of manufacturing systems, International journal of production economics, doi
  38. (1998). Manufacturing process selection in engineering design, Part 2: a approach for creating task-based process selection procedures, doi
  39. (1999). Marketing research: an applied approach,
  40. (1993). Model accreditation: a rational and process for determining a numerical rating, doi
  41. (2001). Model validation perspectives in hydrological science,
  42. (1997). Modeling concept design evaluation, Artificial Mtelligcnce for engineering design, analysis and manufacturing, doi
  43. (1986). Multicriteria Approach for Decision Aiding. doi
  44. (2000). Multicriterion Decision in \lanagement: Principles and Practice, doi
  45. (2003). Multiple criteria decision makin`_1 combined with finance: A categorized bibliographic study, doi
  46. (1982). Multiple criteria decision making, doi
  47. (2003). On teaching the analytic hierarchy process, doi
  48. (1989). On the Possible tiler, -, inz Functions.
  49. (1997). Operation Research: An Introduction,
  50. (1999). Optimal new product design using quality function deployment with empirical value functions, International journal of quality and reliability engineering, doi
  51. (2002). Optimisation of product configuration design using functional requirements and constraints, Research in engineering design.
  52. (1990). Persistent pitfalls and applicable approaches for justification of advanced manufacturing technologies, Engineering costs and production doi
  53. (1989). QFD -A starting point for customer satisfaction metrics, in: doi
  54. (2002). Rank ordering engineering designs: pairwise comparison chars and Borda counts,
  55. (1993). Revisiting the issue of model validation in OR: an epistemological view, doi
  56. (1997). Similarly and evaluation of technical objects, In:
  57. (1992). Software review: These packages for AHP: Criterium, Expert Choice and HIPRE 3+, Journal of multi-criteria decision analysis, doi
  58. (1984). Strategic management: a stakeholder approach, doi
  59. (1993). Techniccal management notes, doi
  60. (1997). That is not the analytic hierarchy process: what the AHP is and what it is not, doi
  61. (2001). The analytic hierarchy process-an exposition. doi
  62. (1980). The analytic hierarchy process, doi
  63. (1989). The analytic hierarchy process: Applications and Studies, doi
  64. (1988). The House of Quality,
  65. (1997). The implementation of simultaneous engineering in the stage of product concept development: a process oriented improvement of quality function deployment, European journal of operational research, doi
  66. (2000). Thinking and deciding, Third Edition. doi
  67. (1991). Total design: integrated methods for successful product einginecrino. doi
  68. (2000). Towards integrated evaluation: validation of models, doi
  69. (2002). Towards more strategic product design for manufacturing and assembly: priorities for concurrent engineering, doi
  70. (1991). Using the analytic hierarchy process and goal programming for information system project selection, doi
  71. (1997). Using the analytic hierarchy process and multi-objective programming for the selection of cost drivers in activity-based costing, doi
  72. (2004). Verification and validation in computational engineering and science: basic concepts, Computer methods in applied mechanics and engineering, doi

To submit an update or takedown request for this paper, please submit an Update/Correction/Removal Request.