Selection of new production facilities with the Group Analytic Hierarchy Process Ordering method
Research highlights
► The Group Analytic Hierarchy Process Ordering method, a new MCDA method, has been developed. ► It can model three relations between alternatives: preference, indifference, and incomparability. ► It incorporates ‘fairness’ when assigning weights to the decision-makers in group decisions. ► It has been applied in a real case study for selection of new production facilities.
Introduction
Strategic decisions are fundamental to any company. They are usually not determined by a single decision-maker but by a group of decision-makers, who may have different objectives. In this case, two distinct methodologies are commonly used (Srdjevic, 2007): multi-criteria decision-making methods or voting system. The voting system has surely high democratic properties and bypasses the data requirements of multi-criteria approaches (Hurley & Lior, 2002) but moves stakeholder into a polarisation of their opinion and no intensity of their preferences can be measured. It is a head-count of yes or no. Therefore, a minority with strong convictions will unconditionally be beaten from a majority, whatever the strength of their opinion is. Furthermore, a voting system does not necessitate a modelling of the problem and therefore has difficulty to incorporate several criteria in the decision (Craven, 1992). Saaty and Shang (2007) recommend using AHP in order to resolve deficiencies of the conventional voting mechanism. AHP is a multi-criteria method developed by Saaty, 1977, Saaty, 1980 and applied in several area: banks (Seçme, Bayrakdaroglu, & Kahraman, 2009), manufacturing systems (Iç and Yurdakul, 2009, Li and Huang, 2009, Yang et al., 2009), operators evaluation (Şen & ÇInar, 2010), drugs selection (Vidal, Sahin, Martelli, Berhoune, & Bonan, 2010), site selection (Önüt, Efendigil, & Soner Kara, 2010), software evaluation (Cebeci, 2009, Chang et al., 2009), evaluation of website performance (Liu & Chen, 2009), strategy selection (Chen and Wang, 2010, Li and Li, 2009, Limam Mansar et al., 2009, Wu et al., 2009), supplier selection (Chamodrakas et al., 2010, Wang et al., 2010, Wang and Yang, 2009), selection of recycling technology (Hsu, Lee, & Kreng, 2010), firms competence evaluation (Amiri, Zandieh, Soltani, & Vahdani, 2009), weapon selection (Dagdeviren, Yavuz, & KilInç, 2009), underground mining method selection (Naghadehi, Mikaeil, & Ataei, 2009), software design (Hsu, Kao, & Wu, 2009), organisational performance evaluation (Tseng & Lee, 2009), staff recruitment (Celik et al., 2009, Khosla et al., 2009), construction method selection (Pan, 2009), warehouse selection (Ho & Emrouznejad, 2009), technology evaluation (Lai & Tsai, 2009), route planning (Niaraki & Kim, 2009) and many others. This paper presents the Group Analytic Hierarchy Process Ordering (GAHPO), which improves the AHP on several points. We separate the cost and benefit criteria of the AHP, which simplify the appraisal and provide a more accurate result, as will be shown later. Results are then partially aggregated for an ordinal partial ranking or fully aggregated for a cardinal complete ranking. The new GAHPO method is also adapted for group decisions. The task to assign weights (importance) to the different decision-makers of the group is often a difficult one. We propose a new simple and fair method, where the weights of the members are judged by the other members of the group.
The paper starts with a literature review on the Analytic Hierarchy Process, followed by the description of the new proposed method and then finalised by an application of production facilities selection.
Section snippets
Analytic Hierarchy Process
AHP decomposes the problem into small parts in order to facilitate the decision-maker in the appraisal task. First, a hierarchy structuring the problem is constructed (Fig. 1). The top of the hierarchy represents the goal. Below we have the criteria, sub-criteria and alternatives. The appraisal can be constructed top–down or bottom–up (Fig. 2) but always using pairwise comparisons. It allows the user to concentrate only on the question “How much A is better than B?” and to ignore temporary the
Analytic hierarchy process ordering
Later, it was proposed (Azis, 1990, Clayton et al., 2001, Wedley et al., 2001) to decompose the model into further subproblems, in separating criteria with opposite direction in different hierarchies: benefits versus costs. The reason of this additional decomposition is that criteria on the same direction are much easier to compare than two in opposite directions like a criterion to be minimised and another to be maximised. In this paper, we introduce the concepts of partial ordinal ranking
Group decision
As a decision affects often several persons, the standard AHP has been adapted in order to be applied in group decisions. Consulting several experts avoids also bias that may exist when the judgements are considered from a single expert. There are four ways to combine the preferences into a consensus rating (Table 1).
The consensus vote is used, when we have a synergistic group and not a collection of individuals. In this case, the hierarchy of the problem must be the same for all
Weight of stakeholders in GAHPO
If all decision-makers do not have an equal weight, their priority must be determined. The weights reflect the expertise of a decision-maker (Weiss & Rao, 1987) or the importance of the impact of the decision on the decision-maker. The weights can be allocated by a supra decision-maker or by a participatory approach. Finding a supra decision-maker or benevolent dictator, which is accepted by everybody, can be difficult. Cho and Cho (2008) have a surprising way to determine the weights with the
Methodological approach
The case study took place in a world leading packing company, which had no previous experience in multi-criteria methods. Our approach was based on four phases, each one corresponding to a meeting with the decision-makers of the company, where the researchers where facilitating the decision process.
- (a)
An awareness session on the GAHPO methodology was given. An understanding of the GAHPO and required inputs is necessary in order to avoid improper use of the method (Cheng, Li, & Ho, 2002). The
A case study: selection of new production facilities
The studied packing company has two plants in England: the ‘Green’ plant producing paper products and the ‘Plasto’ plant producing plastic items. Due to a repatriation of another production plant from Scotland, the Plasto plant has to be redesigned. Three alternatives are possible:
- (1)
Redesign of Plasto plant, hereafter referred to as Plant Redesign.
- (2)
Automation of Plasto production processes, hereafter referred to as Plant Automation.
- (3)
Relocation and consolidation of Green plant with Plasto, hereafter
Results of the implementation
The recommendations of the model have been implemented with the general satisfaction of all stakeholders.
The successful acceptance of the proposed methodology can be attributed to the following reasons. Firstly, it helped to describe the problem and break down decision criteria into manageable components. Secondly, it led the group into making a specific decision for consensus or tradeoff. Thirdly, it provided an opportunity to examine disagreements and stimulate discussion and opinion.
Conclusions
In this paper we have presented the GAHPO a new multi-criteria decision aid method developed to solve a real problem. The backbone of the method is the AHP with several improvements:
- –
Cost and benefit criteria are separated in two hierarchies in order to simplify their comparisons.
- –
Stakeholders are incorporated in the first level of the hierarchy in order to elicit a group preference.
- –
The weight of each stakeholders are determined by others stakeholders. A consistency check is applied in order to
Acknowledgements
We are grateful to Binoy Perumpalath, who helped to collect the data for the case study.
References (58)
- et al.
Procedures for synthesizing ratio judgements
Journal of Mathematical Psychology
(1983) - et al.
A Bayesian priorization procedure for AHP-group decision making
European Journal of Operational Research
(2007) - et al.
A hybrid multi-criteria decision-making model for firms competence evaluation
Expert Systems with Applications
(2009) - et al.
An application of the AHP to bank strategic planning: The mergers and acquisitions process
European Journal of Operational Research
(1990) Analytic hierarchy process in the benefit-cost framework: A post-evaluation of the trans-Sumatra highway project
European Journal of Operational Research
(1990)Fuzzy AHP-based decision support system for selecting ERP systems in textile industry by using balanced scorecard
Expert Systems with Applications
(2009)- et al.
Structuring fuzzy integrated multi-stages evaluation model on academic personnel recruitment in MET institutions
Expert Systems with Applications
(2009) - et al.
Supplier selection in electronic marketplaces using satisficing and fuzzy AHP
Expert Systems with Applications
(2010) - et al.
Applying fuzzy hierarchy multiple attributes to construct an expert decision making process
Expert Systems with Applications
(2009) - et al.
The critical factors of success for information service industry in developing international market: Using analytic hierarchy process (AHP) approach
Expert Systems with Applications
(2010)
A loss function approach to group preference aggregation in the AHP
Computers & Operations Research
Visualizing group decisions in the analytic hierarchy process
Computers & Operations Research
Weapon selection using the AHP and TOPSIS methods under fuzzy environment
Expert Systems with Applications
Aggregating individual judgments and priorities with the analytic hierarchy process
European Journal of Operational Research
Multi-criteria logistics distribution network design using SAS/OR
Expert Systems with Applications
Design facial appearance for roles in video games
Expert Systems with Applications
The application of Fuzzy Delphi Method and Fuzzy AHP in lubricant regenerative technology selection
Expert Systems with Applications
Combining expert judgment: On the performance of trimmed mean vote aggregation procedures in the presence of strategic voting
European Journal of Operational Research
Development of a decision support system for machining center selection
Expert Systems with Applications
Separating the wheat from the chaff: An intelligent sales recruitment and benchmarking system
Expert Systems with Applications
Fuzzy rule-based analysis of firm’s technology transfer in Taiwan’s machinery industry
Expert Systems with Applications
Hybridising human judgment, AHP, simulation and a fuzzy expert system for strategy formulation under uncertainty
Expert Systems with Applications
Applying TRIZ and Fuzzy AHP to develop innovative design for automated manufacturing systems
Expert Systems with Applications
Development of a decision-making strategy to improve the efficiency of BPR
Expert Systems with Applications
Prioritization of digital capital measures in recruiting website for the national armed forces
Expert Systems with Applications
Stability analyses of group decision making
Computers & Industrial Engineering
Group prioritization in the AHP by fuzzy preference programming method
Computers & Operations Research
The application of fuzzy analytic hierarchy process (FAHP) approach to selection of optimum underground mining method for Jajarm Bauxite Mine, Iran
Expert Systems with Applications
Ontology based personalized route planning system using a multi-criteria decision making approach
Expert Systems with Applications
Cited by (99)
A multiple objective decision analysis model for capacity expansion plans selection in manufacturing
2024, Journal of Engineering Research (Kuwait)Comparing aggregation methods in large-scale group AHP: Time for the shift to distance-based aggregation
2022, Expert Systems with ApplicationsCitation Excerpt :Within the AIP method, there is an ongoing debate on the application of weighted arithmetic mean (AIP WAMM) and weighted geometric mean (AIP WGMM). The only existing evidence for the primacy of AIP WAMM is the remarkable work of Ishizaka & Labib (2011), in which they claimed that using the arithmetic mean provides more appropriate consensus creation than the geometric mean, however, they did not demonstrate this statement by simulation cases (our paper aims to contribute to this debate, please see Sub-section 3.1.). The main criticism against AIP (both forms, WAMM and WGMM) is that it could lead to a consensual priority vector which does not reflect the majority of priorities because it is subject to the influence of extreme opinions (Amenta et al., 2020).
Yeni ürün seçiminde çok kriterli karar verme ile simülasyonu birleştiren yaklaşım
2024, Journal of the Faculty of Engineering and Architecture of Gazi UniversitySelecting the right location for sports facilities using analytical hierarchy process
2023, Journal of Facilities ManagementWhat is so special about the analytic hierarchy and network process?
2023, Annals of Operations Research