Ranking 7Ms Effective Factors in Iranian Production Systems Using Fuzzy AHP

Subject Areas :

Amir Amini ¹ (M.Sc. Graduate of Industrial Engineering, Alghadir Institute of Higher Education, Tabriz, Iran)
Alireza Alinezhad ² (Associate Professor, Faculty of Industrial and Mechanical Engineering, Qazvin branch, Islamic Azad University, Qazvin, Iran)

Received: 2019-09-29 Accepted : 2020-02-12 Published : 2019-02-01

Keywords: Ranking, MCDM, production systems, 7Ms Effective Factors, Fuzzy AHP Method,

Abstract :

In order to survive in today's competitive world, organizations are looking to increase their efficiency and effectiveness. Therefore, they should focus on inputs that are more important than the rest of the inputs in their success. This paper aimed at ranking 7Ms (Management, Man power, Marketing, Material, Machinery, Methods and Money) and their sub-criteria of production in Iran. By improving manufacturing processes, manufacturing organizations create and establish their added value. The Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) is a very popular method in decision making process, and its inner dependence extension is used for cases in which criteria or alternatives are not independent enough. In FAHP, each option severity is displayed by fuzzy numbers in relation to criteria. Therefore, a fuzzy judgment matrix is obtained. In this study, Fuzzy AHP tool has been used to rank these inputs. The results are compared with the ideal ranking results and are examined that how different they are.

References:

[1] Taghizadeh, H. 2001. 7Ms Effective on Production System Performance.Journal of Tadbir. 113: 25-33.

[2] Saaty, T.L. 1980. The Analytic Hierarchy Process. New York: McGraw-Hill.

[3] Hwang, C. L. and Yoon, K. 1981. Multiple Attribute Decision Making Methods and Application. New York: Springer-Verlag.

[4] Ross, T. J. 2000. Fuzzy Logic with Engineering Applications (International Ed.), McGraw-Hill.

[5] Rostamzadeh, R. and Sofian, S. 2011. Prioritizing Effective 7Ms to Improve Production Systems Performance Using Fuzzy AHP and Fuzzy TOPSIS (case study). Expert Systems with Applications. 38: 5166–5177.

[6] Tsaur, S. H., Chang, T. Y. and Yen, C. H. 2002. The Evaluation of Airline Service Quality by Fuzzy MCDM. Tourism Management. 23: 107–115.

[7] Ertugrul, I. and Tus, A. 2007. Interactive Fuzzy Linear Programming and an Application Sample at a Textile Firm, Fuzzy Optimization and Decision Making. 6: 29–49.

[8] Zadeh, L.A. 1965. Fuzzy set. Inf. Control, 8 (3): 338–353.

[9] Zadeh L. A. (1988). Fuzzy logic Computer. 21: 83–93.

[10] Braya, S., Caggiania, L. and Ottomanelli, M. 2015. Measuring Transport Systems Efficiency under Uncertainty by Fuzzy Sets Theory Based Data Envelopment Analysis: Theoretical and Practical Comparison with Traditional DEA Model, SIDT Scientific Seminar, Transportation Research Procedia. 5: 186–200.

[11] Shavandi, H. 2005. Fuzzy Sets Theory and Its Application in Industrial Engineering and Management, Gostareshe Olome Payeh publication, Tehran.

[12] Abdullah, L., Sunadia, J. and Imran, T. 2009. A New Analytic Hierarchy Process Multi-Attribute Group Decision Making. International Journal of Soft Computing. 4(5): 208–214.

[13] Zadeh, L. A. 1975. The Concept of a Linguistic Variable and Its Application to Approximate Reasoning, Part I. Information Sciences. 8: 199–249.

[14] Yeap, J. A. L., Ignatius, J. and Ramayah, T. 2014. Determining Consumers’ Most Preferred EWOM Platform for Movie Reviews: A Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process Approach. Computers in Human Behavior. 31: 250–258.

[15] Bozbura, F. T., Beskese, A. and Kahraman, C. 2007. Prioritization of Human Capital Measurement Indicators Using Fuzzy AHP. Expert Systems with Applications. 32(4): 1110–1112.

[16] Chang, D. Y. 1996. Application of Extent Analysis Method on Fuzzy AHP. European Journal of Operation Research. 95: 649-655.

[17] Pedrycz, W. and Laarhoven, P.J.M. 1983. A Fuzzy Extension of Saaty’s Priority Theory. Fuzzy Sets and Systems. 11(3): 229-241.

[18] Büyüközkan, G., Feyzioglu, O. and Nebol, E. 2007. Selection of the Strategic Alliance Partner in Logistics Value Chain. International Journal of Production Economics. 113(1): 148–158.

[19] Tuysuz, F. and Kahraman, C. 2006. Project Risk Evaluation Using a Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process: An Application to Information Technology Projects. International Journal of Intelligent Systems. 21: 559–584.

[20] Chang, Y. H., Cheng, C. H. and Wang, T. C. 2003. Performance Evaluation of International Airports in the Region of East Asia. In Proceedings of Eastern Asia society for transportation studies, 4: 213–230.

[21] Ertugrul, I. and Karakasoglu, N. 2006.The Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process for Supplier Selection and an Application in a Textile Company, In Proceedings of 5th International Symposium on Intelligent Manufacturing Systems. 195–207.

[22] Kang, H. Y. and Lee, A. H. I. 2006. Priority Mix Planning for Semiconductor Fabrication by Fuzzy AHP Ranking, Expert Systems with Applications. 32(2): 560–570.

[23] Lee, A. H. I., Kang, H. Y. and Wang, W. P. 2006. Analysis of Priority Mix Planning for Semiconductor Fabrication under Uncertainty, International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology. 28: 351–361.

[24] Murtaza, M. B. 2003. Fuzzy-AHP Application to Country Risk Assessment, American Business Review. 21(2): 109–116.

[25] Tang, Y. and Beynon, M. J. 2005. Application and Development of a Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process within a Capital Investment Study. Journal of Economics and Management. 1(2): 207–230.

[26] Bulut, E., Duru, O., Kececi, T. and Yoshida, S. 2012. Use of Consistency Index, Expert Prioritization and Direct Numerical Inputs for Generic Fuzzy- AHP Modeling: A Process Model for Shipping Asset Management, Expert Systems with Applications. 39: 1911–1923.

[27] Chou, Y. C., Sun, C. C. and Yen, H. Y. 2012. Evaluating the Criteria for Human Resource for Science and Technology (HRST) Based on an Integrated Fuzzy AHP and Fuzzy DEMATEL Approach. Applied Soft Computing. 12: 64–71.

[28] Csutora, R. and Buckley, J. J. 2001. Fuzzy Hierarchical Analysis: The Lambda-Max Method. Fuzzy Sets and Systems. 120(2): 181–195.

[29] Laarhoeven, P. J. M. and Pedrycz, W. 1983. A Fuzzy Extension of Saaty’s Priority Theory. Fuzzy Sets and Systems. 11(1–3): 229–241.

[30] Lee, A. H. I. 2009. A Fuzzy Supplier Selection Model with the Consideration of Benefits Opportunities, Costs and Risks. Expert Systems with Applications. 36(2): 2879–2893.

[31] Lee, A. H. I., Kang, H. Y.and Wang, W. P. 2005. Analysis of Priority Mix Planning for Semiconductor Fabrication under Uncertainty. International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology. 28(3–4): 351–361.

[32] Saaty, T. L. and Tran, L. T. 2007. On the Invalidity of Fuzzifying Numerical Judgments in the Analytic Hierarchy Process. Mathematical and Computer Modeling. 46(7–8): 962–975.

[33] Vahidnia, M. H., Alesheikh, A. A. and Alimohammadi, A. 2009. Hospital Site Selection Using Fuzzy AHP and Its Derivatives. Journal of Environmental Management. 90: 3048–3056.

[34] Yeap, J. A. L., Ignatius, J. and Ramayah, T. 2014. Determining Consumers’ Most Preferred EWOM Platform for Movie Reviews: A Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process Approach. Computers in Human Behavior. 31: 250–258.

[35] Rezaei, J., Fahim, P. B. M. and Tavasszy, L. 2014. Supplier Selection in the Airline Retail Industry Using a Funnel Methodology: Conjunctive Screening Method and Fuzzy AHP. Expert Systems with Applications. 41: 8165–8179.

[36] Ohnishi, S. I. and Yamanoi, T. 2014. On Fuzzy Priority Weights of AHP for Double Inner Dependence. Procedia Computer Science. 35: 1003–1012.

[37] Chena, J. F., Hsieha, H. N. and Dob, Q. H. 2015. Evaluating Teaching Performance Based on Fuzzy AHP and Comprehensive Evaluation Approach. Applied Soft Computing. 28: 100–108.

[38] Buckley, J. J. 1985. Ranking Alternatives Using Fuzzy Numbers. Fuzzy Sets and Systems. 15(1): 21–31.

[39] Mikhailov, L. and Tsvetinov, P. 2004. Evaluation of Services Using a Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process. Applied Soft Computing. 5: 23–33.

[40] Saaty, T.L. 1990. How to Make a Decision: The Analytic Hierarchy Process. European Journal of Operational Research. 48: 9-26.