This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Webbased Threestep of
Decision Approach for Logistics Project and MakeorBuy Decision 3. SW for Logistics Project Management
2007. 7. 9.
韓國, 東明大學校, 港灣物流學部 Prof. Heung Suk Hwang(黃 興 錫) email: hshwang@tu.ac.kr Tel: +82516203486
1
TonMyong University
Contents
1. Introduction 2. Properties of MakeorBuy Decision Problem 3. Webbased Threestep Approach of Decision Alternative Analysis, 4. Model Application to Cellular Manufacturing System 5. Resource Allocation in Logistics System 6. Summary and Conclusions
TonMyong University
1. Introduction
Schematic Diagram of 3step Algorithm
3 Step 단계 3Algorithm for 통 Optimal 선 3step Algorithm for 한 솔류션 정 Solution 알고리즘 Optimal Solution 적용을 최적
Brainstorming AHP, FuzzyAHP Aggregate Priorities
TonMyong University
Schematic Diagram of 3step Algorithm
TonMyong University
Text Book Published:
TonMyong University
Webbased Decision Support System GroupJoint Work
Webbased Integrated Webbased Integrated Decision Support System Decision Support System
Internet/Intranet
Information System
Webbased Integrated Decision Support System
TonMyong University
Step 1 : Individual Evaluation of Alternatives 1) Brainstorming to Generate Alternatives and to Define the Performance Factors 2) Evaluation of Alternatives Using AHP and Fuzzy AHP methodologies Step 2 : Integrate the Individual Analysis  Heuristic Model 1, 2  Fuzzy Set Priority Method Step 3 : Application, Resource Allocation Model  LP formulation using AHP weighted value  Developed Computer Program
 Webbased Internet/Intranet Solution Builder  GUItype Program  Integrated decision support system
Figure 2 . Threestep Approach of the Evaluation Model
TonMyong University
2. Properties of MakeorBuy Decision Problem ☞ Properties and issues responsible for differentiating one
type of makeorbuy decision problem .  What backgrounds trigger a makeorbuy decision problem?  What factors could be considered in makeorbuy decision problem ?  Along which dimensions should makeorbuy decision problem be categorized ?
TonMyong University
Table 1. Major factors Influencing makeorbuy decision problem (by literatures)
Performance Measure Criteria • Cost • Quality • Delivery speed • Delivery reliability • Volume flexibility • Product flexibility Examples of measurement Parameters  Total unit cost  Internal failure costscrap, rework, rejected  Delivery lead time  Percentage of ontime delivery  Average volume fluctuation  Number of component substitutions made over a given time period.
TonMyong University
Make Full Ownership Partial Ownership Retainer Short Term Contract Spot Market Buy
Low
High
Flexibility
Control
High
Low
Figure 3. Range of Source Structure of makeorbuy decision problem
TonMyong University
Table 2. Example of performance Evaluation of makeorbuy decision problem
Item
Manufacturing Technology Out Source Risk
Major Factors
 Importance of technology for competitive advantage  Maturity of technology  Technology uncertainty  Probability of future improvements  Appropriation risk  Technology diffusion  Endproduct degradation  Benchmarking  Workforce stability  Complexity level in planning, control, or supervision  Assurance and reliability of supply  Benchmarking  Cost  Investment  Return on investment  Manufacturing capability  Quality  lead time  Volume uncertainty
Managerial Issues Financial Issues Operational Issues
3. Webbased Threestep Approach of Decision Alternative Analysis
Step 1 :: Brainstorming Model Stochastic Set 단계 1  Generate Alternatives and ? 적정보급센터의 소요  Define the Performance Factors 보급센터의 위치결정  Relationship Between Factors 적정 보급지원수준 결정 Step 2 :: AHP,Analytic Hierarchy Process 단계 2 SecterClustering Model  Construction Evaluation Structure  Evaluation of Alternatives Using AHP 보급지원 영역활당 and Fuzzy AHP methodologies ZoneBased
 Visual Program 시각화
• GYIType GUIType ? SW Developed • 프로그램개발 프로그램개발 ? Customer • 사용자위주의 사용자 위주의 Responsive 프로그램개발 프로그램개발
Webbased  Web 기반의 통합화 Network Netork
• System System System System • Flexibility 확장성 확장성, • Usability 활용성 활용성
Step 3 :: Aggregating Model 3 GAVRP Model Evaluation of Alternatives Using AHP  개별 and Fuzzy set ranking methodologies  종합우선순위산출  PrioritizeMode 선정 Sets 운송 the Prioritized 의 Fig 3. Webbased Integrated Decision Model
3.1 Brainstorming
☞ Construct decision structure and Derive out the evaluation alternatives  the group decision ideas, the creative ideas ☞ we used a brainstorming method and developed a GUItype program ☞ To create the ideas of project evaluation alternatives and methods for decision support system analysis, ☞ we construct decision structure using the brainstorming file in the internet/intranet–based environment
TonMyong University
3.2 Fuzzy AHP Method
☞ The concepts and rules of fuzzy decision making provide us with the necessary tools for structuring a decision from a kind of information. ☞ From the Shannon's summed frequency matrix for complementary cells,

☞ an additional fuzzy set matrix was made by considering A ij = 1 – Aji for all cells. The fuzzy matrix complement cell values sum to 1 and fuzzy set difference matrix is defined as follows : R  RT = U(A, B)U(B, A), if U(A, B) > U(B, A), = 0 otherwise where, for U(A, B) quantifies, A is preferable to B.
TonMyong University
Five Steps Fuzzy AHP :
To obtain fuzzy preferences, the following five steps were considered:
Step 1 : Find the summed frequency matrix ( using Shannon method ) Step 2 : Find the fuzzy set matrix R which is the summed frequency matrix divided by the total number of evaluators Step 3 : Find the difference matrix R  RT = U(A, B)U(B, A), if U(A, B) > U(B, A), X = 0 otherwise where, for U(A, B) quantifies, A is preferable to B.
1.ColA
Step 4 : Determine the portion of each project that is not dominated as follows : ND , ) X X AColA = 1  max(1.ColA X 2.ColA , … n,.ColA Step 5 : The priority of the fuzzy set is then the rank order of XND values with a decreasing order.
TonMyong University
An example is shown as follows :
⎡ 0 .0 ⎢ 0 .2 R= ⎢ ⎢ 0 .4 ⎢ 0 .4 ⎣ ⎡ 0 .0 RT = ⎢ 0 . 8 ⎢ 0 .6 ⎢ ⎢ 0 .6 ⎣
0 .8
0 .6
0 .0 ⎤ 0 .4 ⎥ ⎥ 0 .4
0 .0 0 .0 0 .1 0 .0
⎥ 0 .6 0 .6 0 .0 ⎥ ⎦ 0 .2 0 .4 0 .4 ⎤ 0 .0 0 .1 0 .6 ⎥ ⎥ 0 .0 0 .0 0 .6 ⎥ 0 .4 0 .4 0 .0 ⎥ ⎦
0.6 0.2 0.2 ⎤ 0.0 0.0 0.0 ⎥ 0.1 0.0 0.0 ⎥ 0.2 0.2 0.0 ⎥ ⎦
⎡0.0 ⎢0.0 T R−R =⎢ ⎢0.0 ⎢0.0 ⎣
TonMyong University
⎥
XB
ND
= 1  Max(0.0) = 1  0.0 = 1.0 = 1  Max(1.0) = 1  1.0 = 0.0 = 1  Max(0.2) = 1  0.2 = 0.8 = 1  Max(0.2) = 1  0.2 = 0.8
XA
XC
ND
ND
XD
ND
The fuzzy set priority score : 1.0 > 0.0 > 0.8 > 0.8 and the alternative priority : A > C > D > B.
TonMyong University
3.3 Integration of Individual Evaluation
☞
For the integration of the results of individual evaluations, prioritized sets, we used two Heuristic models 1, Model 2 and Fuzzy set priority method
1) Heuristic Model 1 :
 For example of the Heuristic Method 1, a sample result with  N = 5 evaluators and M = 3 alternatives is given as : Evaluator 1 : B > A > C, Evaluator 2 : B > C > A, Evaluator 3 : C > A > B, Evaluator 4 : C > B > A, Evaluator 5 : C > B > A
TonMyong University
☞
Heuristic Method 1 rank order is given by C(0.467) > B(0.400) > A(0.133).
TonMyong University
2) Heuristic Model 2 :
 The evaluator frequency matrices were added to form a summed frequency matrix  Then, the preference matrix was developed by a comparison of the scores in the component cells(A, B versus B, A).  If the A, B value equals B, A, then each component cell in the matrix is given by 1/2. On the other hand if the A, B value is greater than the B, A , then A, B is given by one and B, A cell of the preference matrix is given by 0.
☞
By applying the Heuristic Model 2 to the same example of Heuristic Method 1, the result is given by C(0.450) > A(0.392) > B(0.158) .
TonMyong University
3) Fuzzy Set Priority Method
. The fuzzy matrix complement cell values sum to 1 and fuzzy set difference matrix is defined as follows : RRT = U(A, B)  (B, A), if U(A, B) > U(B, A), = 0, otherwise
To obtain fuzzy preferences, following five steps are considered : Step 1 : Find the summed frequency matrix (using heuristic method 2) Step 2 : Find the fuzzy set matrix R which is the summed frequency matrix divided by the total number of evaluators Step 3 : Find the difference matrix R  RT = U(A, B)  U(B, A), if U(A, B) > U(B, A), = 0, otherwise where, for U(A, B) quantifies, A is preferable to B. Step 4 : Determine the portion of each part Step 5 : The priority of the fuzzy set is then the rank order of values in decreasing.
The sample problem result by fuzzy set priority method is given by C(0.492) > B(0.387) > A(0.121).
TonMyong University
3.4 In ternet /intranet Based Solution Builder for Decision Support System
☞
Developed a solution builder using GUItype Simulation Software.
☞ Three steps of this solution builder.
3step Algorithm for Optimal Solution
Brainstorming AHP, FuzzyAHP Aggregate Priorities
Figure 2. 3step approach of Decision Support System
TonMyong University
6
4. Application MakeorBuy Decision Analysis in Logistics System ☞ Applied to Special decision problems; multiobjective, multicriterion, and multiattributes structures for Cellular manufacturing system 1) Makeorbuy decision making, 2) Determine the weighted value of each decision factors, 3) Resource allocation in manufacturing process,
TonMyong University
4.1 Cellular Manufacturing System ☞ Generally, the cellular manufacturing system uses many kinds of machines and tools ☞ manufacturing process is a little bit complicated than conventional production system ☞ In this study we used an oil pan manufacturing cell ☞ produces oil pan by 120 lot size, two workers, and CNC machine:  milling machine,  boring machine,  multispindle and drilling, ☞ CNC cell produces oil pan by 120 lot sizes.
TonMyong University
☞ Sample Example :
Oil pan manufacturing cell layout CNC Drilling, Multispindle, And tapping Machine
Governer Assembly Area
Oven
CNC Boring Machine
Finished Oil pans
TonMyong University
Casting (Raw Material)
CNC Milling, Machine
Figure 5. Sample output of AHP Structure (Oil Pan Manufacturing Cell)
TonMyong University
AHP Structure
Figure 6. Sample Output of AHP structure of Cellular manufacturing System
Level 1
(Final Object) 0.74
A1 Final Object
0.20 0.06
Level 2
(Acq. Method) B1
Make
in house B2
Partial Make
tech import
Buy
B3 outsourcing
0.38
0.26
0.19
0.12
0.05
Level 3
(Alternative)
P1 Proj. 1
B1 B2 B2 0.19 0.39 0.58
P2 Proj. 2
0.29 0.32 0.16
P3 Proj. 3
0.21 0.21 0.15
P4 Proj. 4
0.29 0.06 0.07
P5 Proj. 5
0.02 0.04 0.04
TonMyong University
Integration of Individual Evaluations :
Using the Heuristic 1, Heuristic 2, AHP, and Fuzzy Set Ranking methods, we integrated the results of the individual reviewers as following, where, B1: make in house not outsourcing, B2: partial make in house and partial out sourcing for technology, B3: all outsourcing, P1, ···, P5 : cellular manufacturing alternatives Table 4. Results of Integrated Priority Majority Rule used Priority by Alternative
Methods 1. Heuristic Model 1 2. Heuristic model 2 3. Fuzzy Set Ranking Method Priority by B1 (0.70), P1 (0.29), (0.08) B1 (0.73), Alternatives B2 (0.18), B3 (0.12) P2 (0.30), P3 (0.18), P4 (0.15), P5
B2 (0.23), B3 (0.05) P1 (0.36), P2 (0.27), P3 (0.13), P4 (0.15), P5 (0.09) B1 (0.74), B2 (0.20), B3 (0.06) P1 (0.38), P2 (0.26), P3 (0.19), P4 (0.12), P5 (0.05)
TonMyong University
5. Resource Allocation in Logistics System
☞ Using the AHP weighted value in resource allocation of
manufacturing works for Cellular manufacturing system
☞ For the budget allocation problem for this cellular
manufacturing works (alternatives) using the weighted values of level 2, we formulated as following optimization problem.
TonMyong University
M ax∑
n
i =1
∑
m
j =1
W ij X
ij
TonMyong University
Formulation:
Max Z = 0.19X11 + 0.29X12 + 0.21X13 + 0.29X14 + 0.02X15 + 0.39X21 + 0.32X22 + 0.21X23 + 0.06X24 + 0.04X25 + 0.58X31 + 0.16X32 + 0.15X33 + 0.07X34 + 0.04X35 s.t. 11000X11 + 9000X12 + 12000X13 + 8000X14 + 7000X15 ≤ 25000
4000X21 + 5000X22 + 6000X23 + 5000X24 + 3000X25 ≤ 18000 4000X31 + 3000X32 + 5000X33 + 2000X34 + 1000X35 ≤ 11000 where, Xij = 0, 1 ∀i, j
TonMyong University
6. Summary and Conclusion ☞
Webbased threestep approach of webbased makeorbuy decision model for multistructured decision support system: 1) Brainstorming to define the alternatives and performance evaluation factors, 2) Individual evaluation of the alternatives using fuzzyAHP, heuristic and fuzzy set reasoning methods, and 3) Integration of the individual evaluations using majority rule method. ☞ Developed a systematic and practical program ☞ The model was applied to a cellular manufacturing system problem for the purpose of comparative validation. ☞ The results of various multistructured decision support examples for makeorbuy decision analysis and also resource allocation problems are shown ☞ By the sample results, the proposed model is a good method for the performance evaluation of multiattribute and multiple goals for makeorbuy decision problems.
TonMyong University
Thank You
Prof. Heung Suk Hwang (黃 興錫)
韓國, 東明大學校, 港灣物流學部
TonMyong University
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue listening from where you left off, or restart the preview.