A new method to cope with decision makers' uncertainty in the equipment selection process

被引:27
|
作者
Manassero, G
Semeraro, Q
Tolio, T
机构
[1] Ferrari SpA, Maranello, MO, Italy
[2] Politecn Milan, Dipartimento Meccan, I-20133 Milan, Italy
来源
CIRP ANNALS-MANUFACTURING TECHNOLOGY | 2004年 / 53卷 / 01期
关键词
decision making; flexible manufacturing system (FMS); Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP);
D O I
10.1016/S0007-8506(07)60723-9
中图分类号
T [工业技术];
学科分类号
08 ;
摘要
One of the main problems faced while configuring or reconfiguring manufacturing systems is to rank alternative designs taking into account all the different aspects involved (both tangible and intangible). For this purpose the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) is a well-known decision making support method that addresses this problem. A major drawback of AHP is that uncertainty in the judgments of the decision makers and the resulting impact on the ranking is not considered. In real situations, however, judgments based on perceived future scenarios are almost always uncertain. To solve this problem in this paper we present the first complete probabilistic extension to the AHP method. The new method provides the decision maker not only with information on the ranking of the alternatives but also the probability that the ranking remains stable even in presence of uncertainty in the judgements. We verified the validity of the new method in a real application developed for the Ferrari racing team.
引用
收藏
页码:389 / 392
页数:4
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [41] TESTING A MODEL OF UNCERTAINTY IN DECISION MAKERS FOR NURSING HOME RESIDENTS WITH DEMENTIA
    Lopez, R.
    Guarino, A. J.
    GERONTOLOGIST, 2010, 50 : 169 - 169
  • [42] Uncertainty factors in deterioration modelling of process equipment
    Monsas, T.
    Vatn, J.
    RELIABILITY, RISK AND SAFETY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS VOLS 1-3, 2010, : 643 - 649
  • [43] Stochastic Economic Ranking Addresses Risk and Uncertainty for Decision-Makers
    Narayanan, Mahesh
    Abdulazeez, Mehaboob
    Bukhamsin, Khadija
    JPT, Journal of Petroleum Technology, 2023, 75 (12): : 60 - 63
  • [44] Surrogate Decision-Makers' Perspectives on Discussing Prognosis in the Face of Uncertainty
    Evans, Leah R.
    Boyd, Elizabeth A.
    Malvar, Grace
    Apatira, Latifat
    Luce, John M.
    Lo, Bernard
    White, Douglas B.
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF RESPIRATORY AND CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE, 2009, 179 (01) : 48 - 53
  • [45] Landslide risk assessment: the challenge of communicating uncertainty to decision-makers
    Lee, E. M.
    QUARTERLY JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING GEOLOGY AND HYDROGEOLOGY, 2016, 49 (01) : 21 - 35
  • [46] What do uncertainty-averse decision-makers believe?
    Ryan, MJ
    ECONOMIC THEORY, 2002, 20 (01) : 47 - 65
  • [47] Green supplier selection by developing a new group decision-making method under type 2 fuzzy uncertainty
    Hamed Mohammadi
    Farzad Vasheghani Farahani
    Mohammad Noroozi
    Ali Lashgari
    The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 2017, 93 : 1443 - 1462
  • [48] UNCERTAINTY AROUND HRQOL VALUES IS UNDERREPORTED: ARE WE MISLEADING DECISION MAKERS?
    Devlin, N.
    Abangma, G.
    Parkin, D.
    Lloyd, A.
    Briggs, A.
    VALUE IN HEALTH, 2023, 26 (12) : S137 - S138
  • [49] An option generation and selection methodology for process equipment selection
    A. Borissova
    M. Fairweather
    G. E. Goltz
    Research in Engineering Design, 2006, 17 : 13 - 26
  • [50] COMMUNICATING THE PARAMETER UNCERTAINTY IN THE IQWIG EFFICIENCY FRONTIER TO DECISION-MAKERS
    Stollenwerk, Bjoern
    Lhachimi, Stefan K.
    Briggs, Andrew
    Fenwick, Elisabeth
    Caro, Jaime J.
    Siebert, Uwe
    Danner, Marion
    Gerber-Grote, Andreas
    HEALTH ECONOMICS, 2015, 24 (04) : 481 - 490