Volume 3 Issue 3 pp. 519-524 Spring, 2012


A note on “An alternative multiple attribute decision making methodology for solving optimal facility layout design selection problems”


R. Venkata Rao


A paper published by Maniya and Bhatt (2011) (An alternative multiple attribute decision making methodology for solving optimal facility layout design selection problems, Computers & Industrial Engineering, 61, 542-549) proposed an alternative multiple attribute decision making method named as “Preference Selection Index (PSI) method” for selection of an optimal facility layout design. The authors had claimed that the method was logical and more appropriate and the method gives directly the optimal solution without assigning the relative importance between the facility layout design selection attributes. This note discusses the mathematical validity and the shortcomings of the PSI method.


DOI: 10.5267/j.ijiec.2012.01.002

Keywords: Facility layout design, Multiple attribute decision making, Preference selection index

References

References Chakraborty, S., & Banik, B. (2007). An analytic hierarchy process (AHP) based approach for optimal facility layout design. IE(I) Journal–PR, 88, 12–18.

Chen, S.J., & Hwang, C.L. (1982). Fuzzy multiple attribute decision making methods and applications. Lecture notes in economics and mathematical systems. Berlin: Springer-Verlag. Choo, E.U., & Wedley, W.C. (1985). Optimal criterion weights in repetitive multicriteria decision making. Journal of Operational Research Society, 36(11), 983–992.

Chu, A.T.W., Kalaba, R.E., & Spingarn, K. (1979). A comparison of two methods for determining the weights of belonging to fuzzy sets. Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications, 27(4), 531–538.

Deng, H., Yeh, C.H., & Willis, R.J. (2000). Inter-company comparison using modified TOPSIS with objective weights. Computers & Operations Research, 27(10), 963-973.

Diakoulaki, D., Mavrotas, G., & Papayannakis, L. (1995). Determining objective weights in multiple criteria problems: the CRITIC method. Computers & Operations Research, 22(7), 763-770.

Edwards, W., & Newman, J.R. (1982). Multiattribute evaluation. California: Sage Publications.

Fan, Z.P. (1996). Complicated multiple attribute decision making: Theory and applications. Ph.D Dissertation, Northeastern University, Shenyang, China.

Hwang, C.L., & Lin, M.J. (1987). Group decision making under multiple criteria: Methods and applications. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.

Kuo, Y., Yang, T., & Huang, Gaun-Wei (2008). The use of grey relational analysis in solving multiple attribute decision making problems. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 55, 80–93.

Maniya, K., & Bhatt, M. G. (2010). A selection of material using a novel type decision-making method: Preference selection index method. Materials and Design, 31(4), 1785–1789.

Maniya, K., & Bhatt, M. G. (2011). An alternative multiple attribute decision making methodology for solving optimal facility layout design selection problems. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 61, 542-549.

Rao, R.V. (2007). Decision making in the manufacturing environment using graph theory and fuzzy multiple attribute decision making methods. London: Springer-Verlag.

Rao, R. V., & Patel, B.K. (2010). Subjective and objective integrated multiple attribute decision making method for material selection. Materials and Design, 31(10), 4738-4747.

Rao, R. V., Patel, B.K., & Parnichkun, M. (2011). Industrial robot selection using a novel decision making method. Robotics & Autonomous Systems, 59(6), 367-375.

Saaty, T.L. (2000). Fundamentals of decision making and priority theory with the AHP. Pittsburg: RWS Publications.

Shannon, C.E. (1948). A mathematical theory of communication. Bell Systems and Technology Journal, 27, 379–423.

Yang, T., & Hung, C. (2007). Multiple-attribute decision making methods for plant layout design problem. Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing, 23, 126–137.

Yang, T., & Kuo, C. (2003). A hierarchical AHP/DEA methodology for the facilities layout design problem. European Journal of Operational Research, 147, 128–136.