Processing, Please wait...

  • Home
  • 🔙 Back
  • 📚 Journals
    • ⚙️ IJIEC - Industrial Engineering Computations
    • 🌐 IJDNS - Data and Network Science
    • 🧪 CCL - Current Chemistry Letters
    • 💹 AC - Accounting
    • 🎯 DSL - Decision Science Letters
    • 🚛 USCM - Uncertain Supply Chain Management
    • 🏗️ JPM - Journal of Project Management
    • 🏥 HE - Healthcare Engineering
    • 📈 SCI - Scientometrica
    • 🔩 ESM - Engineering Solid Mechanics
    • 🌿 JFS - Journal of Future Sustainability
    • 💼 MSL - Management Science Letters
  • 📝 Submit Article
  • 📊 Statistics
  • 📋 About
    • 📄 About Us
    • 📰 Blog
    • 📢 News
    • 📧 Contact
  • 📺 Tutorial
  • Search:
  • Advanced Search

Growing Science » International Journal of Industrial Engineering Computations » A study on the ranking performance of some MCDM methods for industrial robot selection problems

⭐ Highly Cited Articles

  • Jaya Algorithm
  • Rao Algorithm
  • TLBO Algorithm
  • ChatGPT and Blended Learning

Journals

  • IJIEC (805)
  • IJDS (992)
  • DSL (722)
  • ESM (434)
  • CCL (544)
  • JPM (323)
  • AC (562)
  • JFS (101)
  • MSL (2648)
  • USCM (1104)
  • HE (43)
  • SCI (48)

IJIEC Volumes

    • Volume 17 (78)
      • Issue 1 (21)
      • Issue 2 (30)
      • Issue 3 (27)
    • Volume 16 (75)
      • Issue 1 (12)
      • Issue 2 (15)
      • Issue 3 (19)
      • Issue 4 (29)
    • Volume 15 (55)
      • Issue 1 (19)
      • Issue 2 (15)
      • Issue 3 (12)
      • Issue 4 (9)
    • Volume 14 (50)
      • Issue 1 (11)
      • Issue 2 (15)
      • Issue 3 (9)
      • Issue 4 (15)
    • Volume 13 (41)
      • Issue 1 (10)
      • Issue 2 (8)
      • Issue 3 (10)
      • Issue 4 (13)
    • Volume 12 (29)
      • Issue 1 (9)
      • Issue 2 (6)
      • Issue 3 (8)
      • Issue 4 (6)
    • Volume 11 (36)
      • Issue 1 (9)
      • Issue 2 (8)
      • Issue 3 (9)
      • Issue 4 (10)
    • Volume 10 (34)
      • Issue 1 (8)
      • Issue 2 (10)
      • Issue 3 (8)
      • Issue 4 (8)
    • Volume 9 (32)
      • Issue 1 (9)
      • Issue 2 (6)
      • Issue 3 (7)
      • Issue 4 (10)
    • Volume 8 (30)
      • Issue 1 (9)
      • Issue 2 (7)
      • Issue 3 (8)
      • Issue 4 (6)
    • Volume 7 (47)
      • Issue 1 (10)
      • Issue 2 (14)
      • Issue 3 (10)
      • Issue 4 (13)
    • Volume 6 (39)
      • Issue 1 (7)
      • Issue 2 (12)
      • Issue 3 (10)
      • Issue 4 (10)
    • Volume 5 (47)
      • Issue 1 (13)
      • Issue 2 (12)
      • Issue 3 (12)
      • Issue 4 (10)
    • Volume 4 (50)
      • Issue 1 (14)
      • Issue 2 (10)
      • Issue 3 (12)
      • Issue 4 (14)
    • Volume 3 (77)
      • Issue 1 (10)
      • Issue 2 (15)
      • Issue 3 (20)
      • Issue 4 (12)
      • Issue 5 (20)
    • Volume 2 (68)
      • Issue 1 (12)
      • Issue 2 (20)
      • Issue 3 (20)
      • Issue 4 (16)
    • Volume 1 (17)
      • Issue 1 (9)
      • Issue 2 (8)

🔑 Keywords

Supply chain management(169)
Jordan(167)
Vietnam(154)
Customer satisfaction(124)
Performance(116)
Supply chain(113)
Artificial intelligence(99)
Service quality(98)
Competitive advantage(98)
Tehran Stock Exchange(94)
SMEs(92)
Sustainability(91)
optimization(88)
TOPSIS(85)
Trust(84)
Financial performance(84)
Job satisfaction(81)
Knowledge Management(80)
Genetic Algorithm(80)
Social media(79)


» Show all keywords

✍️ Authors

Naser Azad(82)
Zeplin Jiwa Husada Tarigan(67)
Mohammad Reza Iravani(64)
Endri Endri(45)
Muhammad Alshurideh(42)
Hotlan Siagian(40)
Dmaithan Almajali(38)
Jumadil Saputra(36)
Muhammad Turki Alshurideh(35)
Ahmad Makui(33)
Barween Al Kurdi(32)
Hassan Ghodrati(31)
Basrowi Basrowi(31)
Sautma Ronni Basana(31)
Haitham M. Alzoubi(30)
Mohammad Khodaei Valahzaghard(30)
Shankar Chakraborty(29)
Ni Nyoman Kerti Yasa(29)
Sulieman Ibraheem Shelash Al-Hawary(28)
Prasadja Ricardianto(28)


» Show all authors

🌍 Countries

1. Algeria (52)
2. Angola (1)
3. Argentina (22)
4. Armenia (2)
5. Australia (52)
6. Austria (2)
7. Bahrain (26)
8. Bangladesh (57)
9. Belarus (4)
10. Belgium (3)
11. Benin (2)
12. Benin Republic (1)
13. Bhutan (1)
14. Bosnia and Herzegovina (1)
15. Botswana (8)
16. Brazil (39)
17. Brunei (1)
18. Bulgaria (1)
19. Burkina Faso (1)
20. Cameroon (1)
Total: 121 countries

Show all countries

International Journal of Industrial Engineering Computations

ISSN 1923-2934 (Online) - ISSN 1923-2926 (Print)
Quarterly Publication
Volume 7 Issue 3 pp. 399-422 , 2016

A study on the ranking performance of some MCDM methods for industrial robot selection problems Pages 399-422 Right click to download the paper Download PDF

Authors: Prasad Karande, Edmundas Kazimieras Zavadskas, Shankar Chakraborty

📋 Author Affiliations:
Prasad Karande¹, Edmundas Kazimieras Zavadskas², Shankar Chakraborty³
¹ Mechanical Engineering Department, Government Polytechnic, Mumbai, 400 051, Maharashtra, India
² Vilnius Gediminas Technical University, Institute of Internet and Intelligent Technologies, Sauletekio al. 11, Vilnius, LT-10223, Lithuania, N/A
³ Department of Production Engineering, Jadavpur University, Kolkata, 700 032, West Bengal, India
doi 10.5267/j.ijiec.2016.1.001
Crossmark
112 Source: Scopus

🔑 Keywords: Industrial robot selection, MCDM, MOORA, MULTIMOORA, Rank, Reference point approach, Sensitivity analysis, WASPAS, WPM, WSM

Abstract: In this paper, the ranking performance of six most popular and easily comprehensive multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) methods, i.e. weighted sum method (WSM), weighted product method (WPM), weighted aggregated sum product assessment (WASPAS) method, multi-objective optimization on the basis of ratio analysis and reference point approach (MOORA) method, and multiplicative form of MOORA method (MULTIMOORA) is investigated using two real time industrial robot selection problems. Both single dimensional and high dimensional weight sensitivity analyses are performed to study the effects of weight variations of the most important as well as the most critical criterion on the ranking stability of all the six considered MCDM methods. The identified local weight stability interval indicates the range of weights within which the rank of the best alternative remains unaltered, whereas, the global weight stability interval determines the range of weights within which the overall rank order of all the alternatives remains unaffected. It is observed that for both the problems, multiplicative form of MOORA is the most robust method being least affected by the changing weights of the most important and the most critical criteria.

How to cite this paper
APA: Karande, P., Zavadskas, E & Chakraborty, S. (2016). A study on the ranking performance of some MCDM methods for industrial robot selection problems. International Journal of Industrial Engineering Computations, 7(3), 399-422.
Chicago/Turabian: Karande, P., Zavadskas, E & Chakraborty, S. 2016. "A study on the ranking performance of some MCDM methods for industrial robot selection problems." International Journal of Industrial Engineering Computations 7, no. 3 (2016): 399-422.
AMA: Karande, P., Zavadskas, E & Chakraborty, S. A study on the ranking performance of some MCDM methods for industrial robot selection problems. International Journal of Industrial Engineering Computations. 2016;7(3):399-422.

References
Anojkumar, L., Ilangkumaran, M., & Sasirekha, V. (2014). Comparative analysis of MCDM methods for pipe material selection in sugar industry. Expert Systems with Applications, 41(6), 2964-2980.

Athawale, V.M., & Chakraborty, S. (2012). Material selection using multi-criteria decision-making methods: A comparative study. Proc. of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Journal of Materials: Design and Applications, 226(4), 267-286.

Bago?ius, V., Zavadskas, E.K., & Turskis, Z. (2013). Multi-criteria selection of a deep-water port in Klaipeda. Procedia Engineering, 57, 144-148.

Balezentiene, L., Streimikiene, D., & Balezentis, T. (2013). Fuzzy decision support methodology for sustainable energy crop selection. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 17, 83-93.

Bale?entis, A., Bale?entis, T., & Valkauskas, R. (2010). Evaluating situation of Lithuania in the European union: structural indicators and MULTIMOORA method. Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 16(4), 578-602.

Balezentis, A., Balezentis, T., & Brauers, W.K.M. (2012). Personnel selection based on computing with words and fuzzy MULTIMOORA. Expert Systems with Applications, 39(9), 7961-7967.

Balezentis, T., & Zeng, S.Z. (2013). Group multi-criteria decision making based upon interval-valued fuzzy numbers: An extension of the MULTIMOORA method. Expert Systems with Applications, 40(2), 543-550.

Bhangale, P.P., Agrawal, V.P., & Saha, S.K. (2004). Attribute based specification, comparison and selection of a robot. Mechanism and Machine Theory, 39(12), 1345-1366.

Brauers, W.K.M. (2004). Optimization Methods for a Stakeholder Society. A Revolution in Economic Thinking by Multiobjective Optimization. Boston : Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Brauers, W.K.M., & Zavadskas, E.K. (2006). The MOORA method and its application to privatization in a transition economy. Control and Cybernetics, 35(2), 445-469.

Brauers, W.K.M., & Zavadskas, E.K. (2009). Robustness of the multi-objective MOORA method with a test for the facilities sector. Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 15(2), 352-375.

Brauers, W.K.M., & Zavadskas, E.K. (2010). Project management by MULTIMOORA as an instrument for transition economies. Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 16(1), 5-24.

Brauers, W.K.M., & Zavadskas, E.K. (2011). MULTIMOORA optimization used to decide on a bank loan to buy property. Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 17(1), 174-188.

Butler, J., Jia, J., & Dyer, J. (1997). Simulation techniques for the sensitivity analysis of multi- criteria decision models, European Journal of Operational Research, 103(3), 531-546.

Caterino, N., Iervolino, I., Manfredi, G., & Cosenza, E. (2009). Comparative analysis of multi-criteria decision-making methods for seismic structural retrofitting. Computer-Aided Civil and Infrastructure Engineering, 24(4), 432-445.

Chai, J., Liu, J.N.K., & Ngai, E.W.T. (2013). Application of decision-making techniques in supplier selection: A systematic review of literature. Expert Systems with Applications, 40(10), 3847-4272.

Chakraborty, S. (2011). Applications of the MOORA method for decision making in manufacturing environment. International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 54(9-12), 1155-1166.

Chakraborty, S., & Zavadskas, E.K. (2014). Applications of WASPAS method in manufacturing decision making. Informatica, 25(1), 1-20.

Charnes, A.Y., & Cooper, W.W. (1963). Deterministic equivalents for optimizing and satisfying under chance constraints. Operations Research, 11(1), 18-39.

Chatterjee, P., Athawale, V.M., & Chakraborty, S. (2011). Materials selection using complex proportional assessment and evaluation of mixed data methods. Materials & Design, 32(2), 851-860.

Chatterjee, P., & Chakraborty, S. (2012). Material selection using preferential ranking methods. Materials & Design, 35, 384-393.

D?jus, T., & Antuchevi?ien?, J. (2013). Assessment of health and safety solutions at a construction site. Journal of Civil Engineering and Management, 19(5), 728-737.

Fishburn, P.C. (1967). Additive utilities with incomplete product set: applications to priorities and assignments. Baltimore : Operations Research Society of America.

Hashemkhani Zolfani, S., Aghdaie, M.H., Derakhti, A., Zavadskas, E.K., & Varzandeh, M.H.M. (2013). Decision making on business issues with foresight perspective; an application of new hybrid MCDM model in shopping mall locating. Expert Systems with Applications, 40(17), 7111-7121.

Karande, P., & Chakraborty, S. (2012). Application of multi-objective optimization on the basis of ratio analysis (MOORA) method for materials selection. Materials & Design, 37, 317-324.

Karsak, E.E., Sener, Z., & Dursun, M. (2012). Robot selection using a fuzzy regression-based decision making approach. International Journal of Production Research, 50(23), 6826-6834.

Lourenzutti, R., & Krohling, R.A. (2013). A study of TODIM in a intuitionistic fuzzy and random environment. Expert Systems with Applications, 40(16), 6459-6488.

MacCrimon, K. R. (1968). Decision Making among Multiple Attribute Alternatives: A Survey and Consolidated Approach. Rand Memorandum, RM-4823-ARPA.

Mela, K., Tiainen, T., & Heinisuo, M. (2012). Comparative study of multiple criteria decision making methods for building design. Advanced Engineering Informatics, 26(4), 716-726.

Miller, D. W., & Starr, M. K. (1969). Executive Decisions and Operations Research. New Jersey : Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs.

Mondal, S., & Chakraborty, S. (2013). A solution to robot selection problems using data envelopment analysis. International Journal of Industrial Engineering Computations, 4(3), 355-372.

Opricovic, S., & Tzeng, G-H. (2004). Compromise solution by MCDM methods: A comparative analysis of VIKOR and TOPSIS. European Journal of Operational Research, 156(2), 445-455.

Parkan, C., & Wu, M-L. (2000). Comparison of three modern multicriteria decision-making tools. International Journal of Systems Science, 31(4), 497-517.

Peldschus, F. (2009) The analysis of the quality of the results obtained with the methods of multi?criteria decisions. Ukio Technologinis ir Ekonominis Vystymas, 15(4), 580-592.

Podvezko, V. (2011) The comparative analysis of MCDA methods SAW and COPRAS. In?inerin? ekonomika - Engineering economics, 2(22), 134-146.

Podvezko, V., & Sivilevi?ius, H. (2013). The use of AHP and rank correlation methods for determining the significance of the interaction between the elements of a transport system having a strong influence on traffic safety. Transport, 28(4), 389-403.

Raju, K.S., & Pillai, C.R.S. (1999). Multicriterion decision making in river basin planning and development. European Journal of Operational Research, 112(2), 249-257.

Rao, R.V. (2007). Decision Making in the Manufacturing Environment using Graph Theory and Fuzzy Multiple Attribute Decision Making Methods. London : Springer-Verlag.

Ruzgys, A., Volva?iovas, R., Ignatavi?ius, ?., & Turskis, Z. (2014). Integrated evaluation of external wall insulation in residential buildings using SWARA-TODIM MCDM method. Journal of Civil Engineering and Management, 20(1), 103-110.

Salminen, P., Hokkanen, J., & Lahdelma, R. (1998). Comparing multicriteria methods in the context of environmental problems. European Journal of Operations Research, 104(3), 485-496.

?io?inyte, E., & Antuchevi?iene, J. (2013). Solving the problems of daylighting and tradition continuity in a reconstructed vernacular building. Journal of Civil Engineering and Management, 19(6), 873-882.

Stani?nas, M., Medineckien?, M., Zavadskas, E.K., & Kalibatas, D. (2013). To modernize or not: ecological - economical assessment of multi-dwelling houses modernization. Archives of Civil and Mechanical Engineering, 13(1), 88-98.

Streimikiene, D., Balezentis, T., Krisciukaitien?, I., & Balezentis, A. (2012). Prioritizing sustainable electricity production technologies: MCDM approach. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 16(5), 3302-3311.

Tavana, M., Momeni, E., Rezaeiniya, N., Mirhedayatian, S.M., & Rezaeiniya, H. (2013). A novel hybrid social media platform selection model using fuzzy ANP and COPRAS-G. Expert Systems with Applications, 40(14), 5425-5786.

Triantaphyllou, E., & Mann, S. H. (1989). An examination of the effectiveness of multi-dimensional decision-making methods: a decision-making paradox. Decision Support Systems, 5(3), 303-312.

Triantaphyllou, E., & S?nchez, A. (1997). A sensitivity analysis approach for some deterministic multi-criteria decision-making methods. Decision Sciences, 28(1), 151-194.

Ustinovichius, L., & Simanaviciene, R. (2010). The sensitivity analysis for cooperative decision by TOPSIS method. In Luo, Y. (Ed.), (89-96) Berlin Heidelberg : Springer-Verlag.

Wierzbicki, A.P. (1982). A mathematical basis for satisfying decision making. Mathematical Modelling, 3(5), 391-405.

Zanakis, S.H., Solomon, A., Wishart, N., & Dublish, S. (1998). Multi-attribute decision making: A simulation comparison of select methods. European Journal of Operational Research, 107(3), 507-529.

Zavadskas, E.K., Zakarevicius, A., & Antucheviciene, J. (2006). Evaluation of ranking accuracy in multi-criteria decisions. Informatica, 17(4), 601-618.

Zavadskas, E.K., Turskis, Z., Antucheviciene, J., & Zakarevicius, A. (2012). Optimization of weighted aggregated sum product assessment. Elektronika ir Elektrotechnika, 122(6), 3-6.

Zavadskas, E.K., Antucheviciene, J., ?aparauskas, J., & Turskis, Z. (2013a). Multi-criteria assessment of facades’ alternatives: peculiarities of ranking methodology. Procedia Engineering, 57, 107-112.

Zavadskas, E.K., Antucheviciene, J., Saparauskas, J., & Turskis, Z. (2013b). MCDM methods WASPAS and MULTIMOORA: verification of robustness of methods when assessing alternative solutions. Economic Computation and Economic Cybernetics Studies and Research, 47(2), 5-20.
  • 34
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Journal: International Journal of Industrial Engineering Computations | Year: 2016 | Volume: 7 | Issue: 3 | Views: 5992 | Reviews: 0

Related Articles:
  • Fuzzy hybrid MCDM approach for selection of wind turbine service technicians
  • Selection of industrial robots using the Polygons area method
  • Selection of vendors for wind farm under fuzzy MCDM environment
  • A COPRAS-F base multi-criteria group decision making approach for site selection of wind farm
  • A Fuzzy-MOORA approach for ERP system selection

📝 Ready to share your research?

International Journal of Industrial Engineering Computations is accepting new submissions for upcoming issues. Join our community of authors and publish your work with us.

✓ Open access
✓ Rigorous peer review
✓ Fast publication
📤 Submit Your Manuscript →

📖 Author Guidelines


Add Reviews

Name:*
E-Mail:
Review:
Bold Italic Underline Strike | Align left Center Align right | Insert smilies Insert link URLInsert protected URL Select color | Add Hidden Text Insert Quote Convert selected text from selection to Cyrillic (Russian) alphabet Insert spoiler
winkwinkedsmileam
belayfeelfellowlaughing
lollovenorecourse
requestsadtonguewassat
cryingwhatbullyangry
Security Code: *
Include security image CAPCHA.
Refresh Code

® 2010-2026 GrowingScience.Com