The selection of transport and handling resources in logistics centers using Multi-Attributive Border Approximation area Comparison (MABAC)

Application of a new MCDA technique called MABAC.The MABAC sensitivity analysis.Five other MCDA techniques were tested under the same conditions.The MABAC showed stability and other techniques. This paper presents the application of the new DEMATEL-MABAC model in the process of making investment decisions on the acquisition of manipulative transport (Forklifts) in logistics centers. The DEMATEL method was used to obtain the weight coefficients of criteria, on the basis of which the alternatives were evaluated. The selection of criteria for evaluating Forklifts was based on an analysis of available literature. The evaluation and selection of Forklifts was carried out using a new multi-criteria method - the MABAC (Multi-Attributive Border Approximation area Comparison) method. This paper presents a practical application and a sensitivity analysis of the MABAC method. The sensitivity analysis was conducted in three stages. In the first stage, a stability analysis was carried out on the solution reached by the MABAC method, depending on changes made to the weights of the criteria. In the second and third stages, a consistency analysis of the results from the MABAC method was carried out depending on both the changes in the measurement units in which the values of individual criteria are presented and on the formulation of the criteria. The SAW, COPRAS, TOPSIS, MOORA and VIKOR methods were tested under the same conditions. Based on the results obtained, it was shown that the SAW, COPRAS, TOPSIS, MOORA and VIKOR methods do not meet one or more of the conditions set, while the MABAC method showed stability (consistency) in its solutions. Through the research presented in this paper, it is shown that the new MABAC method of multi-criteria decision-making is a useful and reliable tool for rational decision-making.

[1]  V. Senthil,et al.  Decision making in equipment selection: an integrated approach with digraph and matrix approach, AHP and ANP , 2011 .

[2]  A. Tversky,et al.  Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk — Source link , 2007 .

[3]  Doraid M. Dalalah,et al.  A fuzzy multi-criteria decision making model for supplier selection , 2011, Expert Syst. Appl..

[4]  Vipul Jain,et al.  An integrated approach for machine tool selection using fuzzy analytical hierarchy process and grey relational analysis , 2012 .

[5]  J. Camparo.  A geometrical approach to the ordinal data of Likert scaling and attitude measurements: The density matrix in psychology , 2013 .

[6]  Saudi Arabia.  Fuzzy Multi-criteria Decision Making Method for Machine Selection , 2007 .

[7]  Metin Dagdeviren,et al.  Decision making in equipment selection: an integrated approach with AHP and PROMETHEE , 2008, J. Intell. Manuf..

[8]  A. Tversky,et al.  The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. , 1981, Science.

[9]  Roe Goodman,et al.  Introduction to stochastic models , 1987 .

[10]  Qing Li,et al.  A novel Likert scale based on fuzzy sets theory , 2013, Expert Syst. Appl..

[11]  Huan Neng Chiu,et al.  Vendor selection by integrated fuzzy MCDM techniques with independent and interdependent relationships , 2008, Inf. Sci..

[12]  K. McConway,et al.  Decision Theory: An Introduction to the Mathematics of Rationality , 1986 .

[13]  Yusuf Tansel Iç,et al.  Development of a decision support system for machining center selection , 2009, Expert Syst. Appl..

[14]  Zeki Ayağ,et al.  A hybrid approach to machine-tool selection through AHP and simulation , 2007 .

[15]  Edmundas Kazimieras Zavadskas,et al.  Decision making in machine tool selection: An integrated approach with SWARA and COPRAS-G methods , 2013 .

[16]  Selin Soner Kara,et al.  A hybrid fuzzy MCDM approach to machine tool selection , 2008, J. Intell. Manuf..

[17]  I. Miller.  Probability, Random Variables, and Stochastic Processes , 1966 .

[18]  A. Tversky,et al.  Prospect theory: analysis of decision under risk , 1979 .

[19]  Irfan Ertugrul,et al.  Fuzzy Multi-criteria Decision Making Method for Machine Selection , 2007, Analysis and Design of Intelligent Systems using Soft Computing Techniques.

[20]  Zeki Ayağ,et al.  Evaluating machine tool alternatives through modified TOPSIS and alpha-cut based fuzzy ANP , 2012 .

[21]  L. Anojkumar,et al.  Comparative analysis of MCDM methods for pipe material selection in sugar industry , 2014, Expert Syst. Appl..

[22]  M. Yurdakul,et al.  Analysis of the benefit generated by using fuzzy numbers in a TOPSIS model developed for machine tool selection problems , 2009 .

[23]  Gülçin Büyüközkan,et al.  A novel hybrid MCDM approach based on fuzzy DEMATEL, fuzzy ANP and fuzzy TOPSIS to evaluate green suppliers , 2012, Expert Syst. Appl..

[24]  Orlando Durán,et al.  Computer-aided machine-tool selection based on a Fuzzy-AHP approach , 2008, Expert Syst. Appl..

[25]  Gwo-Hshiung Tzeng,et al.  Brand marketing for creating brand value based on a MCDM model combining DEMATEL with ANP and VIKOR methods , 2012, Expert Syst. Appl..

[26]  Madjid Tavana,et al.  A novel hybrid social media platform selection model using fuzzy ANP and COPRAS-G , 2013, Expert Syst. Appl..

[27]  S. French,et al.  Decision Theory: An Introduction to the Mathematics of Rationality. , 1988 .

[28]  Ergün Eraslan,et al.  Development of a component-based machining centre selection model using AHP , 2012 .

[29]  Svetlana Nikoličić,et al.  Selection of Forklift Unit for Warehouse Operation by Applying Multi-Criteria Analysis , 2013 .

[30]  Tai-Yue Wang,et al.  Machine selection in flexible manufacturing cell: A fuzzy multiple attribute decision-making approach , 2000 .

[31]  Bo Sun,et al.  Machine Tools Selection Technology for Networked Manufacturing , 2008, 2008 Second International Symposium on Intelligent Information Technology Application.

[32]  Gülfem Tuzkaya,et al.  A Multi-Criteria Decision Making Approach for Machine Tool Selection Problem in a Fuzzy Environment , 2011, Int. J. Comput. Intell. Syst..

[33]  Shan-Yang Wang,et al.  Multi-criteria decision making method for selection of machine tool , 2010, 2010 International Symposium on Computer, Communication, Control and Automation (3CA).

[34]  Joaquim Ciurana,et al.  Design of a decision support system for machine tool selection based on machine characteristics and performance tests , 2011, J. Intell. Manuf..

[35]  Mustafa Yurdakul,et al.  AHP as a strategic decision-making tool to justify machine tool selection , 2004 .

[36]  Zahari Taha,et al.  A hybrid fuzzy AHP-PROMETHEE decision support system for machine tool selection in flexible manufacturing cell , 2011, Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing.

[37]  Zahari Taha,et al.  A fuzzy AHP–ANN-based decision support system for machine tool selection in a flexible manufacturing cell , 2011 .

[38]  Rifat Gürcan Özdemir,et al.  A Fuzzy AHP Approach to Evaluating Machine Tool Alternatives , 2006, J. Intell. Manuf..

[39]  Rambabu Kodali,et al.  Selection of a machine tool for FMS using ELECTRE III — a case study , 2009, 2009 IEEE International Conference on Automation Science and Engineering.

[40]  Francisco Rodrigues Lima Junior,et al.  A comparison between Fuzzy AHP and Fuzzy TOPSIS methods to supplier selection , 2014, Appl. Soft Comput..

[41]  Nikolaos Limnios,et al.  Introduction to Stochastic Models , 2010 .

[42]  Gwo-Hshiung Tzeng,et al.  Improving metro–airport connection service for tourism development: Using hybrid MCDM models , 2013 .

[43]  Yi Peng,et al.  FAMCDM: A fusion approach of MCDM methods to rank multiclass classification algorithms , 2011 .

[44]  Bülent Çatay,et al.  A decision support system for machine tool selection , 2004 .

[45]  Eric Bach,et al.  On the number of distinct functional graphs of affine-linear transformations over finite fields , 2012 .

[46]  Shankar Chakraborty,et al.  Applications of the MOORA method for decision making in manufacturing environment , 2011 .