Int J Adv Manuf Technol (1998) 14:848-857 1998 Springer-Verlag London Limited

The International Journal of

Rdvanced manufacturing Technolo[IU

A Visual Interactive Multicriteria Decision Analysis Model for FMS Design

D. Borenstein
Escola de Administrac~o, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil

The main goal of this work is to develop a multicriteria decision model aimed at the evaluation of FMS competing design alternatives. The model was developed to support the design team in exploring the strengths and weaknesses of each alternative, to assist the setting of priorities between conflicting manufacturing strategy components (such as flexibility and quality), to study the sensitivity of the behaviour of alternatives to changes in underlying decision situations, and finally to identify a preferred course of action. In summary, the model can be considered as a mechanism for taking into account designer's preferences and wishes, in order to customise the manufacturing system Jbr the user's particular situation. To be effective, the computational implementation of the multicriteria FMS design model provides extensive graphical and interactive facilities both to model structuring and evaluation. Moreover, the model provides animation facilities for visual interactive sensitivity analysis. A case study illustrates the effectiveness of the decision model.

Keywords: FMS design; Multicriteria decision analysis; Visual

interactive modelling

1. Introduction
Flexible manufacturing systems (FMS) are automated, integrated systems of equipment and information flow, arranged to produce, in an economic way, small batches of complex components. These systems are automated job-shops, consisting of workstations and material transfer systems, in which the control of operations is performed by a central computer. The FMS are so-called owing to the high flexibility offered by these systems in terms of minimum time and effort necessary for the manufacture of a new product.

Correspondence and offprint requests to: Dr D. Borenstein, Departamento de Ciencias Administrativas, Av Joao Pessoa, 52-sala 11, Porto Alegre, RS, 90040-000, Brazil. E-mail: denisb@adm.ufrgs.br

FMS have a great potential for improving manufacturing performance. In particular, firms consider investment in FMS as a means of improving productivity as well as a means of acquiring important strategic benefits such as quality and flexibility which are important for maintaining the firm in a good position in the market place. However, there is a considerable gap between the promised benefits of the FMS concept and the final achievement obtained after its installation [1]. This is partly a consequence of the complexity of integrating several subsystems (e.g. robots, CNC/DNC machines, automated vehicles) into a single "supersystem". The large initial investment over the long-term and the uncertain environment turn the decision of how, what and when to implement advanced manufacturing technologies (AMT) into a complex and difficult task. One major cause for the practical difficulties with this concept is the installation of inappropriate manufacturing systems that would have been profitable with a correctly designed system [2]. In other words, the benefits gained with an FMS installation can only be achieved if a properly designed system exists. FMS design is an evolutionary decision-making process in which a set of possible alternatives are analysed and evaluated in order to select the most appropriate alternative for a particular situation. Several decision analysis techniques and models have been applied to the evaluation of manufacturing systems [3-51. Until recently, the majority of firms have relied solely on basic engineering economic models such as payback, discount cash flow (DCF) [6,7]. The advantages of the economic methods are their simplicity, clarity, and ease of data collection [8]. However, the shortcomings of the traditional analysis have been discussed in the literature about the evaluation of FMS [9,10]. These methods, however suitable for conventional equipment, are totally inappropriate as stand alone analysis tools for sophisticated technologies like FMS. These methods are suitable for meeting short-term profitability goals rather than long-term strategic goals [11-13]. The FMS design problem is essentially a multicriteria design problem as for any strategic decision making [13]. According to Suresh and Meredith [13] "The use of a multi-criteria

A Visual Interactive Multicriteria Decision Analysis Model

849

decision making approach (...) is vital for strategic level". Several multicriteria approaches are described in the literature, and for a good review of them see French [14]. The FMS design configuration involves the problem of selecting a preferred option from a list of a few alternatives in the light of a reasonable number of criteria. The approaches fall into two main groups [15]: Multi-Attributed Value Function (MAVF) and Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP). MAVF and AHP have already been used with success in several different applications. In the manufacturing area successful applications of both methods to real-world problems are described by Sloggy [16] (MAVF approach) and Arbel and Seidman [17] (AHP Approach), Belton [18] in a comparison of both practical and theoretical aspects of these methods concluded that, despite criticism of AHP (see French [14]), "In general decision makers are e~ually happy with either although there is a feeling that the MAVF approach is more transparent and easily understandable". Owing to the equivalence described above, mainly for the decision maker (DM), the final decision to use the MAVF approach was made based on the following points: 1. The transparency and ease of understanding of the approach. These features are important in order to facilitate the participation of the DM in the evaluation process [19]. 2. Sensitivity analysis is easier with MAVF [14]. Combining these points with the fact that MAVF is an "extremely flexible tool to explore and to learn about the problem under study" [20] MAVF can be considered as a good choice. Moreover, the characteristics of the MAVF approach are totally compatible with the main function of the decision analysis model, that is, to serve as a facilitator of the FMS design process. There are some packages or models that can be used to analyse a discrete set of competing alternatives using the MAVF approach. VISA [21], developed in Britain, and the multiattribute method applied by Canada [22] are examples. However, they are not able to answer the FMS design demands. The former is very generic in its scope and it is incapable of formally exploiting the DM's preferences, whereas the latter is quite limited in its analysis and is not interactive. The main objective of this work is to present a visual interactive multicriteria model for FMS design for which the main goal is to support and develop the design team's confidence in the selection of the most suitable FMS design option for a particular case. The model combines visual interactive modelling with multiattribute value function to support the decision-making process. This combination has resulted in the development of a model that is focused on the active cooperation between the DM and the model. In this process, the DM assigns tasks to the model to solve certain subtasks (in general, the most tedious ones) and the model assumes the role of a facilitator. In computational terms, the system stimulates, supports and suggests actions to the DM in a highly interactive environment. The system provides graphical and interactive facilities both to model structuring (definition of alternatives, criteria and its structure, and criteria weights) and evaluation choice (the identification of a preferred FMS alternative from competitive

ones). Furthermore, the system provides extensive facilities for visual interactive sensitivity analysis. The system developed, provides an integrated, systemic and strategy-based approach for FMS design. FMS design is handled as a complex long-term decision-making problem which includes many subproblems and interacting subsystems. The multicriteria model will allow the design team to compare the competing alternatives and select one based on several criteria. Quantification is simultaneously performed by appropriam analytical and/or simulation models. Therefore, the use of the model assumes that: I. FMS has already been justified as an investment opportunity. 2. The firm has defined a corporate strategy for the filture that will guide the FMS decision-making process. 3. Several preliminary design tasks have already taken place such as the selection of the set of parts to be manufactured and the definition of the machine requirements. The paper is organised as follows. Section 2 presents a summarised description of the MAVF method. Section 3 described the FMS design multicriteria model developed and the computational implementation of the mutticriteria model, with an emphasis on its conceptual design. Section 4 provides an application example to illustrate the effectiveness of the multicriteria model. Finally, Section 5 presents the concluding remarks and suggestions for future research.

2. Multi-attribute Value Function

The Multi-Attribute Value Function (MAVF) approach, called in manufacturing applications the weighted scoring method, evaluates a number of discrete alternatives under a set of attributes or criteria (these terms will be used as similar and interchangeable ones). This method involves three phases: 1. Definition of a set of criteria, generally structured in a hierarchy, and the assignment of weights, reflecting the relative importance of each of the criteria. 2. The evaluation of each option with respect to the criteria, defined as scores. 3. The total score of each option is determined as a weighted average of the scores corresponding to each of the criteria. For a hierarchy containing just one level of criteria the total score can be obtained by
N

Vi = ~ wjvij

(1)

where Vi is the overall score of the option i, wj is the weight assigned to criterion j, v;j is the score of the option i on criterion j, and N is the number of criteria. For hierarchies containing multiple levels of criteria the formula is more complex but the principle is the same. Belton and Vickers [21] describe the scoring process for multiple hierarchies as follows: "Starting at the bottom of the hierarchy work out the evaluation of each alternative with respect to the parent at the level above using this model. Do this for all

850

D. Borenstein
I _.CzitedafarJtedm:tiota_ _ Operationality Complemess Clarity Redundancy Generale All - Inclusive Raw List

families of criteria at the bottom level of the hierarchy. This will give a set of evaluations of each alternative at one level up the hierarchy. Using these evaluations repeat the process for families of criteria at that level and continue until the root of the tree is reached". For applications of this method in AMT see Canada [22], and Engwall [23]. The application of the MAVF approach to practical problems involves theoretical issues that are described in Keeney and Raiffa [24]. The most important, in the context of FMS design evaluation, is the concept of preferential independence of attributes. Under this concept, the level of trade-off that the DM is willing to accept between any two criteria should be independent of the value of any other criteria. For the formal definition of this concept and its extension for n attributes see French [14]. Unfortunately, if this condition is not satisfied this approach is inappropriate. Keeney and Raiffa [24] discuss how independence can be checked for a certain problem, and methods to overcome this barrier, given special conditions. It is assumed, within the FMS design problem context, that the decision maker is willing to accept preference independence of the set of attributes to be defined next. This assumption can be justified by taking into account the following points [20]: 1. Mutual preference independence is often a plausible condition. 2. In general, the MAVF approach is accepted as a robust one. 3. A reasonable insight can be gained using a simple model rather than attempting to construct a more complex representation of a decision.

Ute~,,reabo~, 1
[:;'MSevaluation

Reduce to Minimal Set

] Cnt,m*ia fJar Ned~ctiQa

Represenlativeness Forecastabilily Diff~entiahility Reduce to the Minimal Measurable Set

Fig, 1. Attribute selection process based on Falkner and Benhajla's method [151.

installation. Figure 2 presents the reduced minimal set in a hierarchical form for the problem of selecting the best FMS design configuration scenario for a particular case. This set was obtained applying the following criteria to the "raw" list of potential attributes [24]:

1. Operationality of the Attributes. The attributes should be

meaningful indicators of performance.

2. Attribute Clarity. The definition of the attribute should be

concise and clear.

3. Completeness. The set of attributes must address all the

critical aspects of a problem.

__Routing

3. FMS Design Multicriteria Model

The definition of a multicriteria model is an iterative procedure divided in several steps, these steps will be described with direct reference to how they are executed. It is important to notice that some steps do not need to be executed in sequence.

Flexibility

~ T r aehineansfer k_..~odaet __Lead-Time ~ a c h i n e Utilization

Performance _ _ __Production ._...Inventory

Step 1. Definition of the Alternatives, The alternatives are FMS design scenarios that show minimum levels of performance compatible with design requirements defined by the decision team.
The definition of the criteria (or attributes) is one of the most difficult tasks in the decision making process. Fig. 1 outlines the criteria selection process applied to our problem based on Falkner and Benhajla's [15] process. Falkner and Benhajla's method applied to the problem of selecting the best FIvIS configuration design can be described as follows:

_Quality - - ~ F a FMS Design _ _ Risk _ _

eventinilure

Step 2. Definition of the Criteria.

22227
__Pallets ~Machir~es ~nstallation offwa.re .~Floor Space ~ I.~Tools

Cost _

_ K__Labour ~ Material ___Machines ~TM2S Is L_._Sofiware h._lnvemory

Step 2/1. Establish a "raw" list of potential attributes. This list has already been generated by several researchers [ 15,17,22,25,26].
Step 2B. Reduce the "raw" list in order to obtain a minimal set of attributes. This minimal set represents a set of attributes that covers the minimum dimensions relevant to the FMS

_~Production

Fig, 2, Minimal set of attributes to consider in the FMS design process.

A Visual Interactive Mutticriteria Decision Analysis Model 4. Non-redundancy. The set of attributes should be defined in such a way that the same dimension is not measured by several different and independent attributes in the hierarchy.
This minimal set was then evaluated through a questionnaire applied to experienced FMS designers. The criteria were assessed using a four rating score as follows: very important, important, useful, and unnecessary. A total of 100 questionnaires were sent to experts from universities, technical institutes and industry. Fig. 3 shows the way in which the experts have assessed the set of criteria. The figure shows clearly that none of participants assessed any of the criteria as unnecessary. Criteria such as manufacturing costs, quality, and flexibility have very important score ratings that are double the remaining scores. Grouping the technical criteria assessed (lead-time, productivity and utilisation of resources) they present high importance scores. The least important was technological risks with a 22.53% useful score ratings. In a general analysis, it is possible to conclude that the minimal mensurable set captures a comprehensive range of important aspects involved in FMS design, and can be assumed to be an appropriate one. None of the top criteria was judged unnecessary by any participant. Manufacturing flexibility, quality, and costs were considered the most important criteria, as expected (with more than 75% of the participants considering them very important). Technological risk was considered to be the least important of the top criteria. The author believes that this may be a biased perspective, since some participants did not fully understand what was being considered as technological risk.

851

3. Differentiability. Defined by "the capability of a particular measure to differentiate between alternatives needs to be evaluated" [15].
By applying these criteria to the minimal set of attributes presented in Fig. 2, it is possible to obtain the minimal measurable set of attributes for the model. The set of attributes was reduced by two criteria: software installation costs and tools production costs. Both failed the forecasting and differentiability criteria. The complexity of the existing estimations, both in terms of the input data and the formulation of the estimations, are incompatible with the design stage of a manufacturing system [26]. The development of more suitable models for measuring these attributes is a topic for future research. It is important to emphasise that this hierarchy is not a final and unchangeable structure. On the contrary, it is an initial step to formalise the problem, and therefore it will need a considerable number of revisions. The upgrading will be made during the use of the model in a real situation. Next, all attributes present in the minimal set will be described. Two aspects are emphasised in this description: definition of the attribute and how it is measured.

Flexibility. This synthesises a measure of overall manufacturing flexibility. Kochikar and Narendram's [27] framework to measure manufacturing flexibility is used. Their framework is an analytical approach to quantify manufacturing flexibility based on a state-transition formalism. Four partial measures of flexibility are defined: routeing, machine, transfer and product flexibility. Cost. This represents the manufacturing costs involved with an alternative. Son and Park [28] and Stare and Kuula [26] use process-oriented parametric manufacturing estimation costs to measure this attribute. Quality. This is measured by the quality costs involved in the manufacturing activities. The estimation of the quality costs is based on Son and Hsu's [29] model that follows a quantitative approach to measuring quality, which considers both the manufacturing process and statistical quality control. Performance. This represents the technical performance measurement of the manufacturing system. It is divided into: 1. Lead Time. This is the total average processing time of the parts in the manufacturing system. This attribute represents an aggregate value of all parts in the system. The computation is made by the following formulation:

Step 20. Although the minimal set contains what can be defined as the minimum dimensions to be considered, some of the attributes can still be difficult to measure. The reduction of the minimal set to obtain the measurable set can be done using the following three criteria suggested in [15]: 1. Representativeness. The measurable set should be concerned only with the essential aspects of the minimal set for a certain application. 2. Forecasting. It should be possible to easily and accurately estimate the attribute for the proposed alternative designs.
9O BO 70 BO 50 4O 30 2O

VezyIrnpenant Irnportanf Useful O Unnecessary

+XLr,
LTFMs - P- 1
n

(2)

0 2,

where LT~,~s is the lead time of the FMS, dp is the standard demand of the product p, n is the number of parts in the FMS, and LTp is the lead time of the part p computed by: 8p

E Lr,
Fig. 3. Criteria assessment. LT~ - b=~ Bp (3)

852

D. Borenstein
their performance on each bottom level criterion in the hierarchy. Two methods can be used: 1. Assigning values to the alternatives directly, referred to as subjective scaling. This method will be used in general for the soft criteria defined above. 2. Defining a value function able to represent the decision maker's preferences. A full account of value functions can be found in [24]. This work merely summarises the pertinent aspects of this large topic in decision theory. The value function is a real-valued function v(.), with the following properties: v(xA) > v(x~) if and only if we prefer the option whose vector of scores is xa to another with score vector x B. v(xa) = v(xe) if and only if we are indifferent between xA and x B As all attributes in the vector x are mutually preferentially independent in the MAVF approach the value function assumes the following formulation:
n

where Bp is the number of finished batches of part p during the planning horizon, and LTb is the lead time of the batch b, calculated as follows:

LT,~ = (TF -- TA)/bs

(4)

TF is the finished time of the lot b, TA is the arrival time of the batch b in file system, and bs is the batch size. 2. Machine Utilisation. This is the average utilisation of all machines in the system. It includes only the period of time in which the machine is operating on a certain part. It does not include set-up, repairs, and maintenance. 3. Productivity. This is the total output of the manufacturing system in terms of all parts completely finished during the analysis time. Measured by:
sl

P =

~vi
i=I

(5)

where P is the productivity of the FMS represented in terms of the volume V~ of jobs finished during the analysis time, and n is the number of different products in the system. 4. Inventory. This is the average work-in-process in the manufacturing system during the analysis time. Computed by:
M

v(x) =

~ v~(xi)
i=1

(7)

220, ,
I ..... 1 M (6) where I is the in-process inventory, AQ,, is the average number of jobs in the queue for machine m, and M is the number of machines in the FMS.

Risk. This represents risks involved in the installation of an

FMS. This attribute is a typical "soft" one, e.g. is difficult to express by numbers, and its measurement is made using the experience of the FMS design team. It is divided into:

Then, we can work on each attribute separately, developing a value function for each end-level criterion in the hierarchy. Once the endpoints and the value function v(xi) for an endlevel criterion have been defined, the definition of the scores of each alternative, whose performance in this criterion is x*, corresponds to the value of v(x*). The value function v~(xi) can have different forms which depend on the DM's preferences. Computer facilities are provided in order to help the user to define interactively the value function for each hard criterion at the end level of the hierarchy. They will be described later.

1. Technological Changes. This represents the capability of the system to accept changes in order to avoid the FMS design becoming obsolete before the start of its planning horizon. 2. Operational Problems. There is a risk of problems related to the actual implementation and operation of an alternative as a consequence of complexities of the design, such as computer software failures, lack of assistance from an equipment supplier.
The criteria for the minimal measurable set of attributes can be classified as follows:

Hard criteria are expressed as numerical values within an

interval scale. Examples of these criteria are, in the context of FMS evaluation, "manufacturing cost" and "lead time".

Step 4. Assign Weights to Criteria. This step is referred to as weighting. Weights can be defined as scaling factors which define trade-offs between criteria. In summary, this step consists in defining the relative importance of each criterion. As the decision analysis model assumes that attributes are mutually exclusive, the weights should reflect the trade-off relationships existing in the set of criteria. The literature about MCDM presents different methods to help the DM to define weights (see [24].) Randhawa and Bedworth [25] did a survey among manufacturing practitioners with the objective of establishing a set of influencing factors and their relative importance during an AMT evaluation. The final result of their survey, presented in Table 1, can be used as a starting point, complementing the
TaMe 1. Recommended initial first level criteria weights. Attributes Minimum weight 20 10 5 5 5 Average weight 34 25 13 13 13 Maximum weight 50 50 25 35 30

Soft criteria cannot be defined within an interval scale (owing

to the subjective nature of the criteria), but can be represented by a degree of preference between 0 and 100%. Examples are "technological changes" and "operational problems" (see Fig. 2).

Step 3. Scerin 9 ef the Alternatives with Respect to the Criteria. The process of scoring an alternative with respect to the criteria is to assign values to each alternative reflecting

Manufacturing costs Performance Flexibility Risks Quality

A Visual Interactive Multicriteria Decision Analysis Model

mathematical procedures, to define the weights for the criteria in the first level of the hierarchy presented in Fig. 2.

853

Step 5. Overall Evaluation of each Alternative. Using the mathematical formulation presented in equation (1), partial and overall scores for each alternative can be computed.

Stop 6. Sensitivity Analysis. Although the previous step can rank the alternatives, the analysis is not yet finished. A sensitivity analysis should be performed, particularly for the criteria weights. Some bounds can be given to the weights and an analysis, taking them into consideration, can be done. The sensitivity analysis will show which alternatives can and cannot be ranked first, thus improving the understanding of the decision process by tile FMS design team.
This step has the objective of recommending the alternative which is acceptable as a good solution for the problem. However, as pointed out by French [14], for certain problems, in which FMS design can be included, it is almost impossible to define one alternative that is ranked above the rest, for all the sensitivity analyses.

The software supports the analysis of different decision situations for the same problem including a visual interactive sensitivity analysis. The software supports the following main activities: definition of alternatives, modelling of the set of criteria in a hierarchical way, with several levels, interactive comparison and analysis of alternatives. Furthermore, SCOREFLEX has the following peculiarities: 1. There is no automation of the decision process. The system is a facilitator for the DM to identify "acceptable" alternatives as well as to understand "why" they are good options. 2. The control of the analysis remains with the decision maker. It is his/her individual preferences that will drive the decision making process for a particular problem. In SCoREFLEx the decision-making process is divided into three main components each one represented by one window: Modelling, Alternatives, and Ranking (represented by Hierarchy, Alternatives and Ranking windows, respectively). Figure 4 shows an outline of the SCoREFLEx main screen. These three windows can be accessed independently of one another and they can be active at the same time on the screen. Furthermore, the system guarantees consistency among the different windows. The system reacts automatically to the user's activity, spreading to all the components which are directly or indirectly affected by the user.

Stop Z Recommendation.

3.1 Computational Implementation

The computational implementation of the decision analysis model is called SCoREFLEx and it is programmed in Visual Basic 3.0 for Windows. SCOe, EFLEX is a user-centred software which uses extensive graphical facilities both in the structure of the problem (definition of the model hierarchy, weights and scores of end-level criteria) and in the analysis of the problem.

Hierarchy Window. This window presents the model structure

of the problem with criteria organised in a hierarchy. All actions involving criteria are carried out within this window. The most important activities are as follows: to create and/or delete a criterion, to connect criteria, and to move criteria.

Fig. 4. SCOREFLEX main screen

854

D. Borenstein

Table 2. FMS machine specification.

1.0

Machine

Initial investment(S) 296000 455000 241000 192000

UtiLity cost (S/rain) 3 4 5 2

A B C D

IIAI

Table 3. Possible MHS specification. MHS Capacity Speed (rain/s) 2 4 6 12 Installation cost ($) 300000 350000 400000 450000 Utility cost (S/rain) 4 5 I 2

Fig. 5. Value function definition window.

Cony2 Cony4 Trol6 Troll2

20 10 1 1

[ One additional important feature of SCoREFLEX is its open architecture. The system can directly and continuously exchange data dynamically with different Windows-based applications. Using this capability, performance data computed by simulation and/or analytical models can be automatically incorporated in a particular decision model in SCoREFLEX.

3r~

3m

3m

3m

3,~

3m

I'

3m

Fig. 6. FMS possible layout (considering a conveyor as the MHS).

Also, graphical and interactive facilities are provided to specify and modify criteria value functions. The user will be helped by the computer software in order to draw the most suitable shape interactively for this function and the end values for the scale. In this stage of the development of Sco~FLEx we pay much more attention to the representation of the shape than to the values involved in the function. Figure 5 shows an outline of the window responsible for the definition of the value function curve of a criterion.
Alternatives Window. This window has a tabular format in which each cell contains the performance values of an alternative to an end-level criterion. Ranking Window. In this window the "ranking" of the model is presented using a bar chart. Through this window, the system dynamically suggests a classification of the alternatives for each of the criteria in the hierarchy. An example of this window is presented in Fig. 4. The ranking is interactively calculated by the system according to the mathematical formulation of the MAVF approach which takes into account:

4. Example
In order to illustrate the effectiveness of the model developed, a realistic example will be presented.

4.1 Problem Formulation

The FMS consists of twelve cells. Each cell has only one machine. Figure 6 shows one of the possible design alternatives. There are only four different machines in the system, machine A in cells 1, 2, and 3; machine B in cells 4, 5, and 6; machine C in cells 7, 8, and 9; and machine D in cells 10, 11 and I2. Table 2 gives additional information about the machines. The main focus of the analysis is on the material handling system (MHS) choice. This means that the basic configuration of the FMS remains the same; we have the same type of machine groups, but not necessarily the same number of individual units, and the same number and types of parts, including routeing. There are four initial possible configurations, as presented in Table 3. Two alternatives use conveyor equipment and the remaining ones use trolleys.

1. The weights of the criteria. 2. The additional conditions expressed by the user through "subjective" scores and/or value functions. 3. The raw scores of the alternatives to each of the end-level criteria of the hierarchy. If there is a change in any of these three aspects, the system will react dynamically computing the new ranking. Consequently, the graphic bar in the Ranking window will be automatically reset. Since the ranking depends on these factors, the user cannot change the scores directly in this graphic.

4.2 Evaluation/Choice Phase

First, it is necessary to analyse the set of discrete alternatives in order to quantify the hard criteria in the minimal measurable set of attributes defined above. The alternatives were simulated for a 10000 min period using OOSIMFLEX [30], an objectoriented simulation model for the analysis of FMS. Raw scores

A Visual Interactive Multicriteria Decision Analysis Model

855

Table 4. Performance statistics of the design alternatives. Operational statistics Machine utilisation 0.62 0.57 0.62 0.67 0.62 0.67 0.62 0.67 Lead time 47.78 47.45 47.39 47.99 40.37 41.15 38.27 38.27 Production Inventory Routeing Flexibility estimations Machine Transfer Product

Scenario
Conv2 Cony22 Cony4 Cony42 TroI6 Tro162 Troll2 Troll22

744 743 747 747 747 746 748 748

0.21 0.25 0.15 0.18 0.06 0.09 0.07 0.09

0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01

0.20 0.19 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22

0.33 0.34 0.33 0.34 0.28 0.30 0.30 0.41

0.07 0.06 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.08 0.08 0.07

for the following criteria are directly provided by the simulation: productivity, utilisation, queue length and lead time. The simulation statistics were also used to compute the scores of the alternatives for the flexibility and cost-related criteria. In assessing the results for the four initial scenarios, it was determined that machine 12D is an underutilised resource (with less than 15% utilisation rate). The simulation models of the four initial scenarios are then altered to reflect the deletion of machine 12D, giving rise to four new alternatives called Conv22, Conv42, TroI62, and Troll22. Tables 4 and 5 present the performance of the alternatives for the hard criteria in the decision model. Next, it is necessary to define the final hierarchical set of criteria for evaluating the eight FMS design alternatives in the problem. It is assumed that the minimal measurable set of attributes defined in Step 2 of Section 4 is representative of the problem. Since there are no data available to compute quality cost estimations, pallet installation costs, tool installation costs, and software production costs, these criteria are pruned from the model. In addition, owing to the great similarity of alternatives, they produce very similar or equal values for some operational, financial and strategic criteria of the decision model (see Tables 4 and 5). Since they will obtain the same scores in the MAVF approach, these criteria will have no influence on the final decision. Therefore, they can be eliminated from the decision model without affecting the analysis. These criteria are: productivity, routeing and product flexibilities, and material production costs. Hierarchy window in Fig. 4 shows the final decision model for this problem. Table 5. Cost estimations. Scenario Installation costs (US$) Machine
Cony2 Conv22 Cony4 Conv42 Trol6 Trol62 Troll2 Troll22

In order to simplify the analysis, linear value functions (this is not a limitation of SCOREFLEx) were adopted for the hard criteria involved in the analysis (all end-level criteria except technological and operational risks). After an informal meeting with an experienced designer of material handling facilities it was determined that conveyor alternatives should have values of technological and operational risks of 0.7 and 0.4, respectively, while trolley alternatives have, for the same criteria, values of 0.60 and 0.80. It was determined as a starting point that owing to the importance of capital investment budgeting, installation costs have a weight of 0.7, while production costs have a weight of 0.3. It was settled also that technological and operational risks have the same contribution to the final decision (both have weights of 0.5). As seen in the Ranking window in Fig. 4, alternative Conv22 has the highest score, taking into account the average weights presented in Table t for the first-level criteria (the average quality importance was equally shared by the remaining criteria) as follows: flexibility - t8%, performance - 28%, risks - 16%, and costs - 36%. However, the proximity of the values of the alternatives calls for a deeper analysis before making a final decision. Since decision analysis is concerned with an uncertain future, there might be some variations in parametric values of the decision model. Distinct decision scenarios, reflected by different weights for the first-level criteria, are important factors in such a decision. Sensitivity analyses of these parameters of the decision are indispensable during the choice phase, as they

Production costs (US$) Machine 268488 268487 268984 268 894 269 197 269143 269 194 269207 MHS 1911 1909 3860 3844 5422 5342 5440 5362 Inventory 33411 34119 29372 3 077 5 642 21575 14646 20619 Material 32350 32350 32350 32350 32350 32350 32350 32350

MHS 300000 300000 350000 350000 400000 400000 450000 450000

3 552000 3360000 3 552000 3 360000 3 552000 3 360000 3552000 3360000

856

D. Borenstein

Table 6. Decision situations.

6O

Scenario Flexibility A B C D E F G H l J K L M N 18 13 13 24 14 25 0 2 17 2 4 10 6 14

Top level criteria weight (%) Performance 28 23 52 23 23 25 50 41 43 13 34 11 54 46 Risks 16 12 13 16 27 25 0 15 2 2 4 11 6 15 Costs

B
38 52 22 37 35 25 50 42 38 83 58 68 34 26
4O
I

I C

I E

H
81tuatlor~

Decision

Fig. 8. TroItey alternatives ranking. 0, Trol6; A, Tro162; I~, Troll2; I , Troll22.

Performance Weights
(:Z3 f,3~ (Z3 t.ll ~ 3 ~ t.~ C~I ~ - I t3"1C3 f3~l

~0

.., 70 N 60
would provide the design team with additional information for making a better decision. The 14 different situations presented in Table 6 were considered in the sensitivity analysis. They are a representative sample of the large analysed set of values. In addition to these changes, several different weights for technological and operational risks, and production and installation costs were analysed, Despite small changes in the absolute ranking, the relative differences were not noticeably altered for these additional situations. From Figs 7 and 8, it is easy to conclude that alternatives Conv2, Cony4, Cony42, Trol6 and Troll2 are dominated by the remaining alternatives (e.g. they feature inferior scores), and therefore will be discarded from now on. Tro162 has a better performance only when costs is the most important criteria (situation J). In all remaining situations, Troll22 have either equal or better performance. Since this is an extreme situation, this alternative can be considered as a dominating one, reducing the analysis to only two alternatives. As a result, the final decision is between Conv22 and Troll22. Figure 9 shows the behaviour of these two alternatives taking into account only performance and costs as criteria of analysis, the two most important criteria in the first level of this decision problem. Cony22 has higher scores when the weights of the criteria costs are above 60%. For the remaining decision scenarios, Troll22 shows a better overall performance than its rival.

40 8 30 m 20 10
0 i

',

Costs

Weights

{~J

Fig. 9. Comparing the behaviour of the final two alternatives. 0, Cony22; I , Troll22. The design team now has all the elements to select the best FMS design alternative. Considering costs as the fundamental criterion in the analysis, Conv22 can be considered as the most suitable alternative. However, for a more balanced situation, in which the weights are less concentrated over costs, Troll22 shows higher scores.

5. Conclusions
This paper has described a visual interactive multicriteria model for FMS design. The main objective of the model is to evaluate competitive FMS design alternatives in order to support the design team in selecting the most suitable one for a particular situation. The model was developext to be used in the final stages of the FMS design problem, after a prescreening analysis of each alternative has already taken place, in which several performance parameters of the alternatives were quantified. The model combines visual interactive modelling and multiattribute value functions for the development of a computer system, SCOREFLEx, that is focused on the cooperation between the design team and the model. The major contribution of SCOREFLEX to FMS literature is to provide mechanisms for taking into account the designer's preferences and wishes. Human judgement and creativity are never substituted by a formal model nor restricted by an inflexible, prescriptive tool. As a consequence, SCoREFLEx assumes that there is no possible

~45 40. 35 A a B t,, C J D I E I F D G ,t H t I I J t ..... K t L I M I N

Decision Situations

Fig. 7. Conveyor alternatives ranking. A, 0, Conv4; 41', Cony42.

Conv2; B,

Conv22;

A Visual Interactive Multicriteria Decision Analysis Model

857

solution independent of the design team. The success and effectiveness of the decision process depends on active cooperation between the design team and the analysis software. However, despite the simplicity of the mathematical formulation of the MAVF method and the visual interactive facilities provided by SCOREFLEx, its practical application to a real FMS design problem is far from simple. The model is based on strong assumptions (such as criteria independence) and is highly demanding of the decision maker (definition of preferences, criteria value functions and weights). As the number of alternatives and criteria increases, the complexity of the decision process increases substantially. The assessment of the value functions, the definition of criteria independence conditions, and the comparison of several alternatives become tedious and complex tasks even with the graphical facilities provided. This fact is being corroborated during the laboratory experiments involving the practical use of SCOREFLEx by experts from industry and universities to solve typical FMS design problems such as the case study presented in Section 4 - carried out by the author as as part of the validation stage of the software. Nevertheless, there is no doubt that the decision model, if it is used as an aid, can play an important role in the FMS design process, allowing the design team to explore and learn about their specific problem and their preferences. In order to better evaluate the effectiveness of the approach, this research is now proceeding to integrate SCOREFLEx in a decision support system environment. The major aim is to offer an objective and integrated tool to help managers and engineers during the design stage of the development cycle of these manufacturing systems.

References 1. I. Tchijov and R. Sheinin, "Flexible manufacturing systems (FMS): Current diffusion and main advantages", Technological Forecasting and Social Changes, 35, pp. 277-293, 1989. 2. N. Kulatilaka, "Valuing the flexibility of flexible manufacturing systems", International Journal of Production Research, 35(4), pp. 220-257, 1988. 3. P. Kouvelis, "Design and planning problems in flexible manufacturing systems: A critical review", Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, 3, pp. 75-99, 1992. 4. M. R. Spano, P. J. O'Grady and R. E. Young, "The design of flexible manufacturing systems", Computers in Industry, 21(2), pp. 185-198, 1993. 5. R. Vujosevic, "Visual interactive simulation and AI in design of FMS", International Journal of Production Research, 32(8), pp. 1955-1971, 1994. 6. G. Azzone and U. Bertel~, "Techniques for measuring the effectiveness of automation and manufacturing systems", Control and Dynamic Systems, 48, pp. 1-45, 1991. 7. C. S. Park and Y. K. Son, "An economic evaluation model for advanced manufacturing systems", The Engineering Economist, 34(1), pp. 1-26, 1988. 8. J. R. Meredith and N. C. Suresh, "Justification techniques for advanced manufacturing technologies", International Journal of Production Research, 24, pp. 1043-1057, 1987.

9. Y. Ayrei, C. Young and D. LiNe, "Economic justification of FMS counting the strategic benefits", in H.-J. Wamecke and R. Steinhilper (ed). Flexible Manufacturing Systems, IFS (Publications), Bedford, pp. 51-57, 1985. 10. P. W. Swamidass and M. A. Waller, "A classification of approaches to planning and justifying new manufacturing technologies", Journal of Manufacturing Systems, 9(1), pp. 181-193, 1990. t t. G. J. Miltenburg and I. Krinsky, "Evaluating flexible manufacturing systems", IEEE Transactions, 19(2), pp. 222-233, June 1989. 12. Y. K. Son, "A framework for modern manufacturing economics", International Journal of Production Research, 29(12), pp. 24832499, 1991. 13. N. C. Suresh and J. R. Meredith, "Justifying multimachine systems: An integrated strategic approach", Journal of Manufacturing Systems, 4(2), pp. 117-134, 1985. 14. S. French, Decision Theory: An Introduction to the Mathematics of Rationality, Ellis Horwood, Chichester, UK, 1988. 15. C. H. Falkner and S. Benhajla, "Multi-attribute decision models in the justification of CIM systems", The Engineering Economist, 35(2), pp. 91-113, Winter 1990. 16, J. E. Sloggy, "How to justify the cost of an FMS", Tooling and Production, pp. 72-75, December 1984. 17. A. Arbel and A. Seidmann, "Performance evaluation of flexible manufacturing systems", IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, 14(4), pp. 606-617, 1984. 18. V. Belton, "A comparison of the analytic hierarchy process and a simple multi-attribute value function", European Journal of Operational Research, 26, pp. 7-21, I986. 19. A. A. Angehrn, "Designing humanized systems for multiple criteria decision making", Human Systems Management, 10, pp. 22123t, 1991. 20. W. Edwards and J. R. Newman, Multiattribute Evaluation, Sage, CA, 1982. 21. V. Belton and S. Vickers, "Use of a simple multi-attribute value function incorporating visual interactive sensitivity analysis for multiple criteria decision making", in C. A. Bana e Costa (ed.) Readings in Multiple Criteria Aid, Springer-Verlag, pp. 319-334, 1990. 22. J. R. Canada, "Non-traditional method for evaluating CIM opportunities assigns weights to intangibles", Industrial Engineering, pp. 66-71, March 1986. 23. R. Engwall, "Investment evaluation methodologies", Cost Management, pp. 40-44, Spring 1988. 24. R. L. Keeney and H. Raiffa, Decisions with Multiple Objectives: Preferences and Value Trade-offs, Wiley, 1976. 25. S. U. Randhawa and D. Bedworth, "Factors identified for use in comparing conventional and flexible manufacturing systems", Industrial Engineering, pp. 40-44, June 1985. 26. A. Stam and M. Kuula, "Selecting a flexible manufacturing system using multiple criteria analysis", International Journal of Production Research, 29(4), pp. 803-820, 1991. 27. V. P. Kochikar and T. T. Narendram, "A framework for assessing the flexibility of manufacturing systems", International Journal of Production Research, 30(12), pp. 2873-2895, 1992. 28. Y. K. Son and C. S. Park, "Quantifying opportunity costs associated with adding manufacturing flexibility", International Journal of Production Research, 28(6), pp. 1183-1194, 1990. 29. Y. K. Son and L.-F. Hsu, "A method of measuring quality costs", International Journal of Production Research, 29(9), pp. 17851794, 1991. 30. D. Borenstein, V. Belton and T. Williams, "OOSIMFlex: An object-oriented simulator for flexible manufacturing systems", Working Paper 93/14, Department of Management Science, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, 1993.