Selection of projects for automotive assembly structures using a hybrid method composed of the group-input compatible, best-worst method for criteria weighting and TrBF-TOPSIS
Introduction
Automobile assembly processes seek to develop leaner production systems. The goal of these processes is to avoid rework while also speeding up assembly steps. In this way, times are reduced, and the use of labor and associated movements required for standardized procedures are optimized. Each assembly step must be critically analyzed in order to bring about an optimized, lean manufacturing process. Within each step, suboptimal quality issues have the potential to require rework. In this context, it is imperative to identify the points from which rework arise, and to focus on failure control. In the automotive industry, quality problems in manufacturing and assembly projects often occur as the result of poor equipment selection, disorganization of work space layout, and the inadequate balance of production lines (Khouja et al., 2000, Manassero et al., 2004).
The variability of decisions made along the assembly line model in different companies can impact the allocation of strategic materials and equipment, limit the movement of components, and affect the location of jobs. This variability is associated with the current need to serve customers who wish to place products on the market with greater frequency and speed. (Steimer, Cadet, Aurich, & Stephan, 2016). The ability to adapt to product alterations without the need to renew production assets is essential. As a result, robust optimization methods that allow for the selection of asset design options in a flexible manner, are particularly attractive to decision makers (Chica, Bautista, & de Armas, 2019).
One example of a critical point in the automobile manufacturing process is the assembly of automotive doors. This step is carried out after the carcass has been painted and consists of the assembly of all items that will eventually be included within the door structure. This includes glass paneling, an electrical system, the rear-view mirror, door handles, and other finishing items. The assembly of automotive doors occurs separately from the car body construction, which involves the installation of the seats, another electrical system, structural paneling, and miscellaneous finishing items. Upon completion of the door assemblage, it can subsequently be installed on the body.
In order for a lean execution of door assembly, concepts associated with workplace ergonomics (Duraccio, Elia, & Forcina, 2016), structural and aesthetic integrity of the bodywork, translocation potential, and automation capability must be considered prior to selecting the equipment responsible for supporting the doors. Optimal alternative selection depends on the level of importance (weights) assigned to these various criteria, and this can vary between decision makers. Different companies may assign different weighting schemes to different criteria as it fits their perception of lean assembly. The application of a Multi-Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) method thus becomes an important tool when balancing opposing demands from different criteria. In these methods a decision maker (DM) or a group of decision makers chooses the most appropriate alternative, which is selected from a finite number of proposed alternatives, each judged based on a set of finite performance criteria.
Kumar and Ray (2015) emphasize the fact that designers must know the performance parameters of selected materials in order to match them with the basic requirements of their final product. The importance of mathematically-grounded tools is verified as they often guide designers to decisions that result in successful projects (Ashby, Bréchet, Cebon, & Salvo, 2004). Jahan et al. (2010) structured a review that contributes to the field of material selection for projects. Undesirable costs and premature failures are examples of project outcomes that result from the selection of inadequate materials (Chatterjee et al., 2009, Chatterjee et al., 2011).
Among the various decision-aid methods, the Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) approach, proposed by Hwang and Yoon (1981), has been widely applied in several areas over decades with great success. According to Behzadian et al. (2012) various characteristics, such as the use of fuzzy numbers and the application of hybridization, make the TOPSIS method a decision-making tool well suited for material selection, mechanical design, medical applications, business decision making, and human resources. Du et al. (2014) used TOPSIS as a tool for reliability analysis in complex networks. Lourenzutti and Krohling (2016) applied the TOPSIS method to decision groups in environments with heterogeneous information. Cables et al. (2012) adapted the method and applied it to problems that require the use of linguistic variables.
Grabisch (1996) mentions that the advantage of using the Fuzzy TOPSIS method is the flexibility of the model as it accounts for interactions between criteria. Authors used the Fuzzy TOPSIS method to aid decision making in the selection of water resource solution projects (Afshar, Mariño, Saadatpour, & Afshar, 2011), the selection of the most suitable abrasives for the manufacture of grinding wheels in metal machining (Maity & Chakraborty, 2013), and the selection of long-term evolution cells to optimize the performance of networks (Hussein, Ali, Rasid, Sali, & Mansoor, 2016). Baccour (2018) also proposes the use of a hybrid method between TOPSIS and VIKOR, named ATOVIC, to classify alternatives. Dymova et al., 2013, Kuo, 2017 have proposed changes in the TOPSIS method, aiming at improvements in the ordering of alternatives. With regards to projects and product development, several studies have also utilized the TOPSIS method for the selection of coating materials (Athanasopoulos, Riba, & Athanasopoulou, 2009), to classify the comfort of car seats according to consumer preferences (Fazlollahtabar, 2010), to evaluate industrial robotic systems (Kahraman, Çevik, Ates, & Gülbay, 2007) and to select suitable materials based on design requirements (Maniya & Bhatt, 2010).
Another critical point in the decision-making process is the assignment of criteria weightings to indicate comparative relevance. Weighting methods can be classified as either objective or subjective. The entropy method developed by Shannon (1948) is a technique that depends only on the variability of the values in establishing the weights. This approach is considered an objective weighting method; and was applied in combination with Fuzzy TOPSIS by Mavi et al. (2016) in the context of Supply Chain risk management.
Subjective weighting methods are utilized when it is desirable to interfere with the decision maker’s opinion in the criteria weighting selection. Examples of subjective weighting methods include: the Direct Rating Method (Zardari, Ahmed, Shirazi, & Yusop, 2015), the Graphical Weighting Method (Hajkowicz, McDonald, & Smith, 2000), the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) (Saaty, 1990), and the Best-Worst Method (BWM) (Rezaei, 2015). Among the methods mentioned, the BWM approach is advantageous in comparison to the AHP method. The combination number in the BWM method is equal to (2n − 3), which is smaller than that required in the AHP method, (n2 - n)/2. The BWM method also offers more consistent weighting values (Rezaei, 2015, Rezaei, 2016).
In order to address the positive and negative outcomes of decisions, Zhang utilized bipolar fuzzy numbers (Zhang, 1994). Akram and Arshad (2019) applied trapezoidal bipolar fuzzy numbers in association with TOPSIS to aid in group decision making. They also verified and applied the method to medical diagnostics. (Akram, Shumaiza, & Arshad, 2020). In the same line of research, Akram, Shumaiza, & Al-Kenani (2020) worked with a multi-criteria group decision-making process for selection of green suppliers under bipolar fuzzy PROMETHEE processes. Shumaiza, Akram, Al-Kenani, & Alcantud, (2019) developed a VIKOR method with Trapezoidal Bipolar Fuzzy Information for group decisions. Shumaiza, Akram, & Al-Kenani (2019) developed a multiple-attribute decision making ELECTRE II method under the bipolar fuzzy model. Ali, Akram, & Alcantud (2020) developed an attribute reduction method with binary, fuzzy, or bipolar-valued fuzzy formats in order to remove unnecessary attributes in the search for the ideal solution.
Multi-criteria decision-making methods are tools to aid in the development of new products because they consider materials selection as well as project variables. The materials in mechanical designs can be selected, or even developed, in accordance with design strategies or process optimization (Brechet & Embury, 2013). Therefore, in order to reduce inconsistency in the selection of project variables, it is essential that strategies be adopted such that the product development is carried out successfully.
The objective of this study is to establish a strategy for the development of projects for door assembly structures through multi-criteria decision-making. This was accomplished by using a linguistic scale to analyze the following criteria: the maintainability and hardiness of the structure (associated to the analysis of quantitative criteria as the weight of the structure), the cost, and the properties of the materials remaining in contact with the product.
Section snippets
Decision matrix
In order to establish a decision matrix, as indicated in Table 1, it is necessary to follow three fundamental steps (Çagˇdaç Arslan, Çatay, & Budak, 2004):
- 1.
Identify viable alternatives “” and relevant criteria “”.
- 2.
Indicate the performance scores “” for each criterion in each alternative. Performance scores may or may not be quantitative.
- 3.
Determine the relative rankings of all alternatives by numerically processing the performance scores and weights for each
Application to an automotive assembly project
In the search for the most appropriate design, the present work followed the sequence outlined in the Fig. 2.
During data collection, the relevant criteria for selecting the automotive door support design for assembly line use were specified. Subsequently, design alternatives for the supports were developed to meet different customer needs. Each alternative indicates the levels of performance for the pre-established criteria. The performance of each alternative for the proposed criteria was
Discussion
According to the results obtained with the application of the proposed method in the selection of projects for automotive assembly structures, the following insights regarding the method can be considered:
The direct attack on inconsistencies and project boundaries is part of the initial phase of the proposed methodology that contributes to:
- •
Consistent analysis of design problems;
- •
Establishment of alternatives and criteria that adequately satisfy the project requirements;
- •
When the crisp values of
Conclusion
This proposal verified that it was possible to establish a strategy for the development of projects for door assembly structures through multiple-criteria, decision making. In the proposed method, the use of BWM was efficient with respect to the ease of application. It was also consistent with the needs of three expert decision makers and enabled the aggregation of weights.
The project indicated by this study’s methodology to be the most suitable, Project 2, satisfied the interests of the
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Ricardo Vinícius Bubna Biscaia: Investigation, Formal analysis, Data curation, Methodology, Writing - review & editing, Visualization. Aldo Braghini Júnior: Conceptualization, Methodology, Project administration. João Carlos Colmenero: Methodology, Validation, Formal analysis, Visualization.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
References (47)
- et al.
Selection strategies for materials and processes
Materials & Design
(2004) - et al.
A decision support system for coating selection based on fuzzy logic and multi-criteria decision making
Expert Systems with Applications
(2009) Amended fused TOPSIS-VIKOR for classification (ATOVIC) applied to some UCI data sets
Expert Systems with Applications
(2018)- et al.
A state-of the-art survey of TOPSIS applications
Expert Systems with Applications
(2012) - et al.
Architectured materials: Expanding materials space
Scripta Materialia
(2013) - et al.
The LTOPSIS: An alternative to TOPSIS decision-making approach for linguistic variables
Expert Systems with Applications
(2012) - et al.
Selection of materials using compromise ranking and outranking methods
Materials & Design
(2009) - et al.
Materials selection using complex proportional assessment and evaluation of mixed data methods
Materials & Design
(2011) - et al.
Inter-company comparison using modified TOPSIS with objective weights
Computers and Operations Research
(2000) - et al.
A new method of identifying influential nodes in complex networks based on TOPSIS
Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and Its Applications
(2014)
A direct interval extension of TOPSIS method
Expert Systems with Applications
A subjective framework for seat comfort based on a heuristic multi criteria decision making technique and anthropometry
Applied Ergonomics
The application of fuzzy integrals in multicriteria decision making
European Journal of Operational Research
A decision support system for agricultural machines and equipment selection: A case study on olive harvester machines
Computers and Electronics in Agriculture
The measurement of resilience with a scanning probe microscope
Polymer Testing
A novel cell-selection optimization handover for long-term evolution (LTE) macrocellusing fuzzy TOPSIS
Computer Communications
Material screening and choosing methods – A review
Materials & Design
Fuzzy multi-criteria evaluation of industrial robotic systems
Computers and Industrial Engineering
A modified TOPSIS with a different ranking index
European Journal of Operational Research
A generalized TOPSIS method for group decision making with heterogeneous information in a dynamic environment
Information Sciences
A new method to cope with decision makers’ uncertainty in the equipment selection process
CIRP Annals – Manufacturing Technology
A selection of material using a novel type decision-making method: Preference selection index method
Materials & Design
Supplier selection with shannon entropy and fuzzy TOPSIS in the context of supply chain risk management
Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences
Cited by (7)
Hybrid multi-criteria decision-making method with a bipolar fuzzy approach and its applications to economic condition analysis
2024, Engineering Applications of Artificial IntelligenceA robust method for avoiding rank reversal in the TOPSIS
2022, Computers and Industrial EngineeringCitation Excerpt :TOPSIS method (Hwang and Yoon,1981), which determines the rank based on the optimistic and pessimistic ideal distances, has been successfully adopted in a wide range of different applications in the literature (Behzadian et al. 2012; De Ferreira et al., 2018; Acuna-Soto,Liern and Perez-Gladish, 2020; Bertolini, Esposito and Romagnoli, 2020; Vavatsikos et al. 2022; De Anchieta et al., 2021; De Lima Silva et al., 2020; Brentan et al., 2022; Hussain et al., 2022; Chakraborty, 2022). Other hybrid models and extensions have also been proposed, resulting in many cross-research results and solving many problems in real life, these cross-combination approaches include AHP-TOPSIS (Goyal and Kaushal, 2019; Kaur Singh and Kumar, 2018; Akgün and Erdal, 2019), fuzzy-TOPSIS (Salih et al. 2019; Asante et al., 2022; Abdul and Jiang, 2022; Gul and Aydogdu, 2022; Roy et al, 2022; Akram, Kahraman and Zahid, 2021; Rafi et al. 2022), rough fuzzy-TOPSIS (Zhang and Dai, 2022), intuitionistic fuzzy TOPSIS (Pei et al. 2019; Gu et al. 2022; Ocampo et al., 2021; Koyuncu, Aydemir and Basarir, 2021; Han et al., 2022), DEMATEL-TOPSIS (Mohammed et al., 2021; Lo and Liou 2021), DEA-TOPSIS (Komaki et al., 2016; Namazi and Mohammadi, 2018; Wang et al.,2019), TOPSIS-VIKOR (Baccour, 2018; Ploskas and Papathanasiou, 2019; Wu, Xu, Jiang and Zhong, 2019; Mla et al., 2021), BWM- TOPSIS (Asadabadi, Ahmadi and Liou, 2022; Biscaia, Junior and Colmenero, 2021; Sagnak, Berberoglu and Yazgan, 2021), ANP-TOPSIS (Luo, Ju et al., 2020) and GRA-TOPSIS (Zhang, Wang and Wang, 2014; Wang, Zhu and Wang, 2016; Zhang et al., 2022; Yu et al., 2021; Meel et al., 2022). These hybrid methods make full use of the advantages of the TOPSIS method, which can quantitatively characterize the difference between the alternatives and the positive and negative ideal solutions.
Comparison of hospital service performances under COVID-19 pandemics for pilot regions with low vaccination rates
2022, Expert Systems with ApplicationsCitation Excerpt :While determining the criteria weights in the method, the conflicts between the criteria in the structure of the problem are taken into account in the correlation analysis and thus it can be said that this method is more scientific and reasonable (Yazdani et al., 2021). TOPSIS was developed by Hwang and Yoon (1981) as an MCDM methodology and has been applied in many different application areas with great success over decades (Biscaia, Braghini Junior, & Colmenero, 2021). TOPSIS attempts to determine the finest alternative which has the maximum distance from the negative ideal solution and the minimum distance from the positive ideal solution (Hezer, Gelmez, & Özceylan, 2021).
Evaluation of oblique laser shock peening effect of FGH95 superalloy turbine disk material
2022, Materials Today CommunicationsCitation Excerpt :Biscaia Ricardo et al. suggested a hybrid best-worst method (BWM) for weighted group decision making and a trapezoidal bipolar fuzzy TOPSIS (TrBF-TOPSIS) decision making strategy, and then rank the twenty-one design alternatives of automotive door assembly structures. It can be used as a relevant tool for variable selection of involving multiple criteria and alternative designs in automotive assembly projects, which greatly enhances the efficiency of continuous searching for the best results and relevant decision scheme in automobile assembly projects [13]. Zhang et al. combined principal component analysis (PCA) with improved similarity to an ideal solution (TOPSIS) method to build a comprehensive evaluation system for mixed coal blending schemes, the case study provided a reference for the decision-making process of fuel procurement and management of coal-fired power plants [14].
A decision-support framework for evaluating supplier performance in the trial production stage of new car model development: a hybrid multi-criteria decision-making approach
2024, International Journal of Management and Decision Making