Comparison of multi-criteria decision-making methods for equipment selection
Comparison of multi-criteria decision-making methods for equipment selection
复制标题
DOI：
10.1007/s00170-015-7993-2
复制
发表时间：
2016-07-01
影响因子：
3.4
通讯作者：
Hodgett, Richard Edgar
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Hodgett, Richard Edgar
设备选择是一项复杂的任务，需要考虑具有不同测量单位的多个标准。在分析设备选型问题时，人们提出了许多决策方法，每种方法都有其独特的优点和局限性。尽管可用的决策技术的数量，很少有比较研究存在，评估两个或两个以上的方法与一个单一的问题。针对化工生产过程中的设备选型问题，对三种多属性决策方法进行了评价。开发了一个软件框架，其中包括层次分析法（AHP），多属性范围评价（MARE）和ELimination Et Choix Traduisant la REalit，trois（ELECTRE III），并分发给富士胶片成像着色剂有限公司（FFIC）的技术经理。经理在一个九人的团队中，使用三种决策分析方法检查同一个决策问题。研究的结果进行检查方面评估每种方法的能力，提供准确的陈述决策者的偏好和理解的不确定性存在的能力。决策者认为MARE是他们的首选方法，AHP被认为是相对更耗时，并显示出最大的变化的结果，而ELECTRE III无法提供一个决定性的最佳结果。
Equipment selection is a complex task that requires the consideration of multiple criteria with different measurement units. A number of decision-making methods have been proposed for analysing equipment selection problems, each having their own distinctive advantages and limitations. Despite the number of decision-making techniques available, few comparative studies exist that evaluate two or more methods with a singular problem. This paper evaluates three multi-attribute decision-making methods for an equipment selection problem in the early stages of a chemical manufacturing process. A software framework which incorporates analytical hierarchy process (AHP), multi-attribute range evaluations (MARE) and ELimination Et Choix Traduisant la REalit, trois (ELECTRE III) was developed and distributed to a technology manager at Fujifilm Imaging Colorants Ltd (FFIC). The manager, within a team of nine people, examined the same decision problem using the three decision analysis methods. The results of the study are examined in respect to assessing each method's ability to provide accurate representations of the decision-makers' preferences and the ability to comprehend the uncertainty present. The decision-makers identified MARE as their preferred method, AHP was found to be comparatively more time-consuming and showed the highest variation of results while ELECTRE III was unable to provide a conclusive best result.