Reconfiguration schemes evaluation based on preference ranking of key characteristics of reconfigurable manufacturing systems

To address the problem of how to build quantitative evaluation index models that reflect the essential characteristics of reconfigurable manufacturing system (RMS) and rank alternative reconfiguration schemes, which possess both advantages and disadvantages, an evaluation method based on the preference ranking organization method for enrichment evaluation (PROMETHEE) is proposed. Based on a consideration of the reconfiguration of the reconfigurable machine components and manufacturing cells, quantitative models of the key characteristics of an RMS (scalability, convertibility, diagnosability, modularity, integrability, and customization) are established, after which the quantitative models are used as the basis for constructing an RMS evaluation index system. The analytic hierarchy process (AHP) is used to assign the weights for these indices. During the evaluation process, PROMETHEE I is first applied to analyze the advantages and disadvantages of each alternative scheme. Then, PROMETHEE II is adopted to analyze the net advantages of the schemes. Finally, all of the alternative configurations are ranked according to the analysis results above. The workshop of an institute that has both research and production capabilities was used as an example to validate the effectiveness and practicability of the proposed method. The example contains 10 alternative reconfiguration schemes, and each scheme consists of six evaluation indices. The computation result shows that quantitative models of six key RMS characteristics are equipped with the ability of quantitative description of the RMS reconfiguration scheme, which gives intuitive decision-making information combined with PROMETHEE, including advantage and disadvantage between alternative schemes, for a decision-maker to select the satisfactory configuration. In addition, only a 7.2 % data loss during the evaluation data processing means the rationality of the selected evaluation index and evaluation algorithm.

[1]  P. Vincke,et al.  Note-A Preference Ranking Organisation Method: The PROMETHEE Method for Multiple Criteria Decision-Making , 1985 .

[2]  Yoram Koren,et al.  Convertibility Measures for Manufacturing Systems , 2003 .

[3]  Yoram Koren,et al.  The rapid responsiveness of RMS , 2013 .

[4]  Madhu Jain,et al.  Optimal configuration selection for reconfigurable manufacturing system using NSGA II and TOPSIS , 2012 .

[5]  Ashraf Labib,et al.  A design strategy for reconfigurable manufacturing systems (RMSs) using analytical hierarchical process (AHP): A case study , 2003 .

[6]  P. K. Jain,et al.  A model and optimisation approach for reconfigurable manufacturing system configuration design , 2012 .

[7]  Lap Keung Chu,et al.  Manufacturing system design with optimal diagnosability , 2004 .

[8]  Ahmed M. Deif,et al.  A control approach to explore the dynamics of capacity scalability in reconfigurable manufacturing systems , 2006 .

[9]  F. Jovane,et al.  Reconfigurable Manufacturing Systems , 1999 .

[10]  Jean Pierre Brans,et al.  A PREFERENCE RANKING ORGANIZATION METHOD , 1985 .

[11]  F. Musharavati RECONFIGURABLE MANUFACTURING SYSTEMS , 2010 .

[12]  Ateekh-Ur-Rehman Lateef-Ur-Rehman,et al.  Manufacturing configuration selection using multicriteria decision tool , 2013 .

[13]  Lyes Benyoucef,et al.  Developing a reconfigurability index using multi-attribute utility theory , 2011 .

[14]  Johan Springael,et al.  PROMETHEE and AHP: The design of operational synergies in multicriteria analysis.: Strengthening PROMETHEE with ideas of AHP , 2004, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[15]  Tullio Tolio,et al.  A new fuzzy AHP method for the evaluation of automated manufacturing systems , 2002 .

[16]  Majid Shadman Roodposhti,et al.  PROMETHEE II and fuzzy AHP: an enhanced GIS-based landslide susceptibility mapping , 2014, Natural Hazards.

[17]  M. R. Abdi,et al.  Fuzzy multi-criteria decision model for evaluating reconfigurable machines , 2009 .

[18]  A. Subash Babu,et al.  Evaluation of reconfigured manufacturing systems: an AHP framework , 2009 .

[19]  Reza Baradaran Kazemzadeh,et al.  PROMETHEE: A comprehensive literature review on methodologies and applications , 2010, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[20]  Meng Zhengda,et al.  Configuration selection of reconfigurable manufacturing system based on hybrid analytical hierarchy process , 2007 .

[21]  Carin Rösiö,et al.  Reconfigurable production system design – theoretical and practical challenges , 2013 .

[22]  Yoram Koren,et al.  Scalability planning for reconfigurable manufacturing systems , 2012 .

[23]  Manoj Kumar Tiwari,et al.  Justification for the selection of a reconfigurable manufacturing system: a fuzzy analytical hierarchy based approach , 2007 .

[24]  Dinesh Kumar,et al.  Optimum configuration selection in Reconfigurable Manufacturing System involving multiple part families , 2014 .

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

[26]  R. Tavakkoli-Moghaddam,et al.  Multi-Criteria Decision Making for Plant Location Selection: An Integrated Delphi–AHP–PROMETHEE Methodology , 2013 .