Linear physical programming iteration method of multi-player multi-objective decision making supply chain

Abstract In real situations of supply chain, the companies have different environments, but they deal with common kinds of products. So, they may conflict each other in order to continue businesses and an optimal solution with respect to one company may be unacceptable with respect to another company. In car design, several teams take charge of several kinds of performances and have common elements among them, and one of the methods of multi-player multi-objective decision making by iterations of the steps of negotiations among the teams and reviews of their requirements is used. This method is called “Suriawase process.” In Yatsuka et al. (2018), in order to reproduce the step of negotiation of Suriawase process, Linear Physical Programming (LPP) is used as one of multi-objective optimization methods with single decision maker and, by extending LPP to multi-player with Robust Optimization (RO), the mathematical model of multi-player multi-objective decision making is reproduced in the simple problem of production planning in supply chain. However, in Suriawase process, if the solution is not acceptable to some of decision makers after the step of negotiation, the steps of reviews of requirements are carried out to make an acceptable solution to all decision makers, but they are not reproduced in Yatsuka et al. (2018). Therefore, the purpose of this research is to reproduce the iteration method of LPP with the steps of reviews of requirements.

[1]  G. Seliger,et al.  Opportunities of Sustainable Manufacturing in Industry 4.0 , 2016 .

[2]  Masato Inoue,et al.  Collaborative engineering among designers with different preferences: Application of the preference set–based design to the design problem of an automotive front-side frame , 2013, Concurr. Eng. Res. Appl..

[3]  Achille Messac Control-Structure Integrated Design with Closed-Form Design Metrics Using Physical Programming , 1998 .

[4]  Arkadi Nemirovski,et al.  Robust Convex Optimization , 1998, Math. Oper. Res..

[5]  Surendra M. Gupta,et al.  Physical Programming: A Review of the State of the Art , 2012 .

[6]  Mehmet Ali Ilgin,et al.  Environmentally conscious manufacturing and product recovery (ECMPRO): A review of the state of the art. , 2010, Journal of environmental management.

[7]  Melvyn Sim,et al.  The Price of Robustness , 2004, Oper. Res..

[8]  A. Ismail-Yahaya,et al.  Multiobjective robust design using physical programming , 2002 .

[9]  Surendra M. Gupta,et al.  A multi-criteria decision making model for advanced repair-to-order and disassembly-to-order system , 2014, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[10]  Jay Lee,et al.  A Cyber-Physical Systems architecture for Industry 4.0-based manufacturing systems , 2015 .

[11]  Ying Liu,et al.  A categorical framework of manufacturing for industry 4.0 and beyond , 2016 .

[12]  Akira Takeishi,et al.  Modularization in the Auto Industry: Interlinked Multiple Hierarchies of Product, Production, and Supplier Systems , 2001 .

[13]  Surendra M. Gupta,et al.  Solving the disassembly-to-order problem using linear physical programming , 2009, Int. J. Math. Oper. Res..

[14]  Alexander Verl,et al.  Making existing production systems Industry 4.0-ready , 2015, Prod. Eng..

[15]  Arkadi Nemirovski,et al.  Robust solutions of uncertain linear programs , 1999, Oper. Res. Lett..

[16]  Achille Messac,et al.  Physical programming - Effective optimization for computational design , 1996 .