Comparison of Hydraulic Bending Machines

for Profile, Pipe and Beams in Manufacturing

Companies with Electre Method

Elif Çirkin(&), Aşkın Özdağoğlu, and Kevser Yılmaz

Division of Production Management and Marketing, Faculty of Business,

Dokuz Eylul University, İzmir, Turkey
{elif.yuce,askin.ozdagoglu,kevser.yilmaz}@deu.edu.tr

Abstract. There have been different evaluation criteria which effect the deci-
sion making process. The methods that help the decision making process by
taking into these criteria account together are called multi criteria decision
making methods. Electre (Elimination Et Choix Traduisant la Realite) method is
one of them. Within this study, hydraulic bending machines for profile, pipe and
beams will be compared according to shaft diameters, rolls diameters, working
speed and motor power evaluation criteria with the help of Electre method.

Keywords: Production management
Multi-criteria decision making

Electre

1 Introduction

There are many alternatives that businesses have to examine while trying to solve the
problems they confront. If there was only one alternative, decision making would not
have been an issue. However, within the business environment when choosing between
various alternatives, it is inevitable that there are many evaluation criteria to be
examined together. When many alternatives are examined according to a large number
of evaluation criteria, the methods utilized are referred to as multi-criteria decision
making methods.
Within the scope of this study, firstly a literature review regarding the applications
in which the Electre method is used will be given and then the processes of the Electre
method will be explained. In the scope of application, the hydraulic profile and pipe
bending machines will be compared and evaluated with the help of the Electre method
according to the diameter of the shafts, the diameter of the rolls, the working speed and
the motor power for the manufacturing enterprises.

2 Literature Review

Electre method which was first developed by Benayoun et al. is used to compare the
alternatives pairwise for each criterion and aims to provide the strength of preferring one
over the other [1]. Electre method can be defined as a family of outranking methods

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

N. M. Durakbasa and M. G. Gencyilmaz (Eds.): ISPR 2018, Proceedings of the International
Symposium for Production Research 2018, pp. 111–123, 2019.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-92267-6_9
112 E. Çirkin et al.

consisting of seven different models (I, II, III, IV, A, IS and TRI) derived from the
original Electre I [2]. Electre I can be benefitted for selection problems, Electre TRI for
assignment problems, and for ranking problems Electre II-IV have been developed [3].
When the literature is examined, it can be understood that enterprises using pro-
duction activities choose the Electre method for selection and evaluation among var-
ious alternatives. This section will refer to some of the applications used in the Electre
method. The Electre method is based on the binary superiority comparison between the
alternatives for the criteria. With the help of method, decision makers and researchers
can incorporate a large number of quantitative and qualitative criteria into the decision
making process, and they can weigh the criteria for their purposes and choose the most
appropriate alternative by gathering their weight. This method can be successfully
applied to real-world problems in many areas such as environmental management,
energy, agriculture and forestry, finance, media and marketing, transportation, and
project selection [4].
Within the study of some authors based on the surveys, quantitative criteria are
determined. Through the analyses and with the help of Electre method, the location of a
new store for a cargo company is attempted to specified [5]. Another study benefitted
Electre method is for a layout design problem. Both quantitative (handling cost) and
qualitative (adjacency and distance requests between departments) objectives are
considered in the model and best alternative has been chosen [6].
In order to assess an action plan for the diffusion of renewable energy technologies
at regional scale, the multi-criteria decision making methodology (Electre) is applied.
12 evaluation criteria and three possible decisional scenarios have been defined and the
best scenario is found [7]. Accordingly, another study is done for the decision making
of sustainable energy systems based on the criteria including technical, economic,
environmental and social aspects [8].
This method is also used for laptop purchasing decision problem. Based on the
evaluations of purchasing manager, IT manager and a senior manager such criteria as
processor speed, display card, system memory, hard drive capacity, battery life, weight,
brand reliability, and price, five alternatives are determined. Out of the five alternatives,
the best one is found for managers [9]. In another study, Electre method is benefitted in
order to find the optimum facility location for a textile company located in Uşak,
Turkey [10].
Furthermore, the basic functions of a machine in the industrial field have been
determined and Electre I and Electre II methods have been used to evaluate the
alternatives according to these eight basic functions. Some of the functions can be
expressed as steel feed, bending according to specified properties, material transfer
activity, material and part type [11]. Sixteen risk factors are determined to evaluate the
side effects of illegal drugs and evaluated by Electre method. The Delphi method is
used to score according to these risk factors and eleven experts working on this field are
consulted. According to the Delphi method of operation, some of these experts are
asked to make self-reliant evaluations in order not to influence the decisions of other
experts and the results are gathered. These sixteen risk factors are summarized in four
main categories. These include individual health, community health, violations of civil
rights and criminal behavior. Some of the risk factors can be defined as physical
dependence, psychological dependence, sudden poisoning, chronic poisoning, injury to
 Comparison of Hydraulic Bending Machines for Profile, Pipe and Beams 113

the user, availability of medication, access to information on possible effects of med-

ication, reliability of drug quality, reliability of distribution and sales network, dis-
turbance of society [12]. Analytical Hierarchy Process, Promethee and Electre methods
have been used in multi-criteria decision making methods in the evaluation of three
alternatives related to renewable energy resources in Southern Cyprus. Five criteria
have been identified for evaluating renewable energy source alternatives. These criteria
are the maturity of the technology, the initial investment cost, the efficiency, the
potential of this technology to be implemented in the country, and the adoption of this
technology by the society. Analytical Hierarchy Process method is used to determine
the importance levels of the criteria. In the analysis of alternatives according to these
evaluation criteria, both Promethee and Electre methods are used and alternatives are
listed for both cases, and then the results are found to be the same. In addition to these
evaluation criteria discussed in the study, it is stated that future studies might also
consider the political will of the country’s government on renewable energy sources
and carbon emissions [13]. In examining outsourcing contract alternatives for busi-
nesses, a highly qualified utility theory is used to determine the weights of the eval-
uation criteria, and Electre method is integrated in an effort to make comparisons of the
alternatives according to these criteria [14].
The Simos process along with the SRF computer software are applied in deter-
mining the weights of the evaluation criteria required as inputs in the multi-criteria
decision making problems using Electre method [15]. Since the Electre III method
which is among the versions of the Electre method is not easily understood by decision
makers and is considered to be very complicated, an arrangement on the Electre I
version has been offered to assess the continuity of transport activities between
countries. Some of the evaluation criteria considered in this review are the gross
domestic product (GDP), the contribution of transport activities to GDP, total cargo
carried in ton-kilometer, total passenger transport in passenger-kilometer, the impact of
transport activities on employment growth, ratio of energy consumption to GDP,
emissions of greenhouse gases, airborne particles, the quality of public transport, and
the ratio of population killed in traffic accidents. In this context, Bulgaria, the Czech
Republic, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Poland, Slovakia and Romania which are
entered the European Union after 2004, has been compared with the countries like
Croatia and Turkey which are still the candidate countries by the year 2010 [16].
Analytical Hierarchy Process is used for prioritization of the required general rule
alternatives for business activities as well as determination of importance ratings of
criteria and seven different general rule structures are ranked by Electre method in
group decision making process [17]. Different management options related to the
management of national parks located on the Pacific coast of western Canada are
examined according to the main criteria of ecosystem protection, public service and
effective management of funds. In this context, Analytical Hierarchy Process and
Electre method are used together [18].
As can be seen from the studies in the literature, there are many different areas
using Electre method such as evaluation of different method strategies, comparison of
transportation sector alternatives, comparison of business outsourcing alternatives,
examination of production technology in energy sector, assessment of risk factors in
pharmaceutical industry and examination of the functions of machines in
114 E. Çirkin et al.

manufacturing enterprises. Owing to today`s competitive business environment,

companies are forced to make right decisions on time as well as at minimum cost in
order to survive. Machine selection is one of the multi-criteria decision-making pro-
cesses, and of strategic importance for most companies. According to the requirements
including technical specifications, the right decision should be made as quick as pos-
sible. This study deals with the actual application of machine selection using the Electre
method. By shedding light on the results, managers and/or engineers who are
responsible for machine selection are expected to be able to device better strategies and
make appropriate decisions. This study, further can set an example for other selection
problems having a small set of data. Moreover, this study also makes contribution to
literature by defining outranking relations by pairwise comparisons to decide which
alternative is preferable and/or similar in the fuzzy environment.

3 Electre Method

The Electre (Elimination Et Choix Traduisant la Reality) method is a multi-criteria

decision-making method first proposed by Benayoun in 1966. The method is based on
binary superiority comparisons between alternative decision points for each rating
factor. The method goes through the solution in eight steps [19]. The steps of the
Electre method are described below ([13, 20–22]).
Step 1. First, the Decision Matrix (D) is created. In the row of the decision matrix, i
represents ði ¼ 1; 2; . . .; mÞ the alternatives and in the columns j represents the criteria
ðj ¼ 1; 2; . . .; nÞ. D matrix is the initial matrix generated by the decision maker. The
decision matrix is shown as Eq. 1:
2 3
x11 x12 : x1n
6 x21 x22 : x2n 7
Dij ¼ 6
4 :
7 ð1Þ
: : : 5
xm1 xm2 : xmn

Step 2. The Normalized decision matrix (R) needs to be generated by applying one
of the normalization types to the decision matrix (D). There are different methods of
performing the normalization process.
• Vector normalization

xij
rij ¼ qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
Pm 2ffi ; i ¼ 1; 2; . . .; m; j ¼ 1; 2; . . .; n
i¼1 xij

• Linear normalization (1)

 
rij ¼ xij i ¼ 1; 2; . . .; m; j ¼ 1; 2; . . .; n; xj ¼ maxi xij when the best case for cri-
x
j

terion is maximization
 Comparison of Hydraulic Bending Machines for Profile, Pipe and Beams 115

x  
rij ¼ xjij i ¼ 1; 2; . . .; m; j ¼ 1; 2; . . .; n; x
j ¼ mini xij when the best case for cri-
terion is maximization  
rij ¼ 1  xij i ¼ 1; 2; . . .; m; j ¼ 1; 2; . . .; n; xj ¼ maxi xij when the best case for
x
j

criterion is minimization
• Linear normalization (2)
xij x    
rij ¼ x xj i ¼ 1; 2; . . .; m; j ¼ 1; 2; . . .; n; xj ¼ maxi xij , x
j ¼ mini xij when
j j

the best case for criterion is maximization

x xij    
rij ¼ xj x i ¼ 1; 2; . . .; m; j ¼ 1; 2; . . .; n; xj ¼ maxi xij , x
j ¼ mini xij when
j j

the best case for criterion is minimization

• Linear normalization (3)

xij
rij ¼ Pm ; i ¼ 1; 2; . . .; m; j ¼ 1; 2; . . .; n
i¼1 xij

• Non-monotone normalization
z2 xij x0
e 2 , z ¼ rj j , x0j the most appropriate value for j and the standard deviation of rj
j values. Non-monotone normalization is very rarely used in the literature. For nor-
malized decision matrix (R), vector normalization is a commonly used method. Here, the
vector normalization formula for the normalized decision matrix (R) is given as Eq. 2.
xij
rij ¼ qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
Pm 2ffi ; i ¼ 1; 2; . . .; m; j ¼ 1; 2; . . .; n ð2Þ
i¼1 xij

For example, to compute the r11 element of the R matrix, the element x11 of the
matrix D is obtained by dividing the square of the sum of the squares of the first
column elements of the matrix. At the end of the calculations, the R matrix is obtained
as in Eq. 3:
2 3
r11 r12 : r1n
6 r21 r22 : r2n 7
Rij ¼ 6
4 :
7 ð3Þ
: : : 5
rm1 rm2 : rmn

Step 3. Weighted Normalize Decision Matrix (Y) is created using the weight values
of each measure.
Criteria may differ in importance from the perspective of the decision maker. The Y
matrix is calculated to reflect these significance differences to the Electre solution.
 First,
Pn
weight values (wi) related to evaluation factors are determined i¼1 w i ¼ 1 . In the
next step, the elements in each column of the R matrix are multiplied by the corre-
sponding wi value to form the Y matrix. Y matrix is shown in Eq. 4:
116 E. Çirkin et al.

2 3
w1 r11 w2 r12 : wn r1n
6 w1 r21 w2 r22 : wn r2n 7
Yij ¼ 6
4 :
7 ð4Þ
: : : 5
w1 rm1 w2 rm2 : wn rmn

Step 4. Using the Weighted Normalize Decision Matrix (Y), concordance set
(Q (a, b)) elements must be specified for each of the binary alternative comparisons.
There is no precise measurement method for the determination of concordance sets
and the calculation of concordance indexes depending on these elements. The fre-
quently used method can be expressed as follows. To determine the concordance sets,
the Y matrix is used, the decision points are compared with each other in terms of
evaluation factors, and the sets are determined by the relation shown in Eq. 5:

Qða; bÞ ¼ fc; yac  ybc g ð5Þ

Equation 5 is based on comparing the size of the row elements relative to each
other. For example, for the C (a, b) concordance set for a = 1 and b = 2, the first and
second row elements of the Y matrix are compared to each other and if there are five
evaluation criteria, the concordance set C (a, b) shall consist of maximum five mem-
bers. In the given example, comparing rows 1 and 2,

y11 \y21
y12 ¼ y22
y13 \y23
y14 [ y24
y15 [ y25

if these results are encountered, c = 2, c = 4 and c = 5 according to Eq. 5 will fit and

C (a, b) concordance set will be Cð1; 2Þ ¼ f2; 4; 5g.
Attention should be paid to the meanings of the evaluation factors when forming
the concordance sets in the Electre method. For example, if the relevant evaluation
factor is profit, Eq. 5 will be used for the concordance set. However, if the evaluation
factor is cost, then the condition for the concordance set is yac \ybc inequality.
Step 5. The indexes of concordance (C (a, b)) and discordance (D (a, b)) are
established. Concordance sets are used to generate concordance indexes (C (a, b)).
The C matrix is m * m in dimension. The elements of the matrix C (a, b) can be
calculated by Eq. 6.
X
C ða; bÞ ¼ w
j2Qða;bÞ j
ð6Þ

If we take the example given above, the value of the C (1,2) element of C matrix for C
(1,2) = {2,4,5} will be C ð1; 2Þ ¼ w2 þ w4 þ w5 . The C (a, b) matrix is shown in Eq. 7:
 Comparison of Hydraulic Bending Machines for Profile, Pipe and Beams 117

2 3
1 C ð1; 2Þ Cð1; 3Þ : Cð1; mÞ
6 C ð2; 1Þ 1 Cð2; 3Þ : Cð2; mÞ 7
6 7
Cða; bÞ ¼ 6
6 C ð3; 1Þ C ð3; 2Þ 1 : Cð3; mÞ 7
7 ð7Þ
4 : : : 1 : 5
C ðm; 1Þ Cðm; 2Þ C ðm; 3Þ : 1

Discordance indexes ðDða; bÞÞ can be calculated as in Eq. 8:

maxc ðybc  yac Þ

Dða; bÞ ¼ ð8Þ
maxjyac  ybc j

All binary comparison values will be considered as the largest absolute difference
value to be found in the denominator of Eq. 8. For example, Dð1; 2Þða ¼ 1 ve b ¼ 2Þ
elements are obtained by comparing the first and second row elements of Y matrix.
For D (1,2), the reciprocal of all the elements in the first and second rows of the Y
matrix in the fraction of Eq. 8 is found and the largest one is selected. For the
denominator of Eq. 8, all the differences between the two comparisons in the Y matrix
are examined and the largest one is selected. This value obtained for the denominator is
used to calculate all of the discordance index values.
Like the C (a, b) matrix, the matrix D (a, b) is also dimensioned as m x m. The
matrix D (a, b) is shown in Eq. 9:
2 3
0 Dð1; 2Þ Dð1; 3Þ : Dð1; mÞ
6 Dð2; 1Þ 0 Dð2; 3Þ : Dð2; mÞ 7
6 7
Dða; bÞ ¼ 6
6 Dð3; 1Þ Dð3; 2Þ 0 : Dð3; mÞ 7
7 ð9Þ
4 : : : 0 : 5
Dðm; 1Þ Dðm; 2Þ Dðm; 3Þ : 0

Step 6. The concordance threshold (C *) and discordance threshold (D*) values are
determined. These values can be determined by the decision maker considering the
criteria. It is even possible to use different threshold values in the examination for
different evaluation criteria. In this case, concordance thresholds such as C1 ; C2 will be
found according to the evaluation scale. If two different evaluations such as strong
superiority and weak superiority in comparison between alternatives are desired, dif-
ferent values can be used for threshold values in accordance with C  [ C - and
D \D conditions. If a standard concordance threshold value is desired, the arithmetic
mean of the concordance index values can be obtained. The determination of the
concordance threshold value using the concordance index values is shown in Eq. 10.
Pm Pm
Cða; bÞ
C ¼ a¼1 b¼1
ð10Þ
m2

The m that is in the equation shows the total number of alternatives evaluated.
Similarly, if a standard discordance threshold value is desired, the arithmetic average of
118 E. Çirkin et al.

the discordance index values can be obtained. The determination of the discordance
threshold value by using the discordance index values is shown in Eq. 11
Pm Pm
 Dða; bÞ
D ¼ a¼1 b¼1
ð11Þ
m2
The concordance threshold and discordance threshold values can be compared with
the concordance index values and discordance index values to determine which
alternative has a strong superiority to which alternative. If an alternative has a stronger
superiority than the other, the intersection cell of the row of the alternative which is
superior to the superiority matrix structure and the column of the weak alternative is
denoted by SF . In some cases, the comparative thresholds for concordance thresholds
and discordance thresholds are not favoured because there should be distinctive
advantages among the alternatives. In this case, the symbol S f is shown to symbolize
weak superiority by using two different thresholds including concordance and dis-
cordance represented by C ; C ; D ; D . If there is one threshold of concordance
threshold and discordance threshold, the method is Electre I, and if two thresholds of
concordance and discordance are found, the method is expressed as Electre II. Binary
comparisons of alternatives for superiority are made as in Eq. 12.

Cða; bÞ  C  ve Dða; bÞ  D ) a is stronger than b
ð12Þ
C ða; bÞ  C  ve Dða; bÞ  D ) a is weaker than b

Step 7. The most suitable alternative is chosen according to the superiority matrix.
The alternatives can be sorted according to the priorities found in Eq. 12. and the
highest one is selected. Evaluating the rows of the matrix S shows the alternatives. For
example, if the matrix S is computed as follows, it is understood from the size of the
matrix (5  5) that five different alternatives are compared.
2 3
A1 SF
A2 6
6
7
7
S ¼ A3 6
6S
F
S F
S F
S 7
F
7
A4 4 SF 5
A5 SF SF

In the S matrix; Sð1; 2Þ; Sð3; 1Þ; Sð3; 2Þ; Sð3; 4Þ; Sð3; 5Þ; Sð4; 5Þ; Sð5; 1Þ and Sð5; 4Þ
show strong superiority. S(1,2) denotes the value at the intersection of row 1 and
column 3. Accordingly, the alternative in row 1 has a strong superiority when all the
evaluation criteria are taken into account, according to alternative 2 in column 1. Since
the third row has strong superiority over all other columns, it would be the right
decision to choose the 3rd alternative.
 Comparison of Hydraulic Bending Machines for Profile, Pipe and Beams 119

4 Application

Within the scope of the application technical information has been collected for three
different hydraulic profiles and pipe bending machines. Technical specifications for the
evaluation of hydraulic profile and pipe bending machines are the diameter of the shaft,
the diameter of the rolls, the working speed and the engine power. In all of these
evaluation criteria, the highest value indicates the best result. However, the measure-
ment units of these evaluation criteria are different. Evaluation criteria and measure-
ment units related to them are presented in Table 1.

Table 1. Evaluation criteria and measurement units

Evaluation Diameter of the Diameter of the Working Engine
Criteria shaft rolls Speed Power
Measurement milimeter milimeter meter kilowatt
second
unit
Unit symbol mm mm m kw
sec

The values of three different hydraulic profiles and pipe bending machines
according to these evaluation criteria will form the decision matrix calculated in Eq. 1.
The decision matrix is presented in Table 2 [23].

Table 2. Hydraulic profile and pipe bending machines decision matrix [21]
Evaluation Evaluation Evaluation Evaluation
criteria 1 criteria 2 criteria 3 criteria 4
Diameter of the Diameter of the Working speed Engine power
shaft rolls
m
Unit symbol mm mm sec kw
Alternative 1 150 470 6 22
Alternative 2 180 580 6 30
Alternative 3 600 650 5 30

By applying the vector normalization shown in Eq. 2 to the decision matrix, the
normalized decision matrix is prepared. The normalized decision matrix is as shown in
Table 3.
Using the weight values of each measure, the Weighted Normalized Decision
Matrix (Y), shown in Eq. 4, is constructed. The Weighted Normalize Decision Matrix
(Y), which is formed by considering that all of these evaluation criteria have the same
importance level, appears in Table 4.
By using the Weighted Normalize Decision Matrix (Y), the Concordance Set
elements for each of the binary alternative comparisons are determined by Eq. 5.
120 E. Çirkin et al.

Table 3. Normalized decision matrix

Evaluation Evaluation Evaluation Evaluation
criteria 1 criteria 2 criteria 3 criteria 4
Diameter of the Diameter of the Working speed Engine power
shaft rolls
Alternative 1 0,232873 0,474820 0,609208 0,460336
Alternative 2 0,279448 0,585948 0,609208 0,627730
Alternative 3 0,931493 0,656666 0,507673 0,627730

Table 4. Weighted normalization decision matrix

Evaluation Evaluation Evaluation Evaluation
criteria 1 criteria 2 criteria 3 criteria 4
Diameter of the Diameter of the Working speed Engine power
shaft rolls
Alternative 1 0,058218 0,118705 0,152302 0,115084
Alternative 2 0,069862 0,146487 0,152302 0,156933
Alternative 3 0,232873 0,164167 0,126918 0,156933

Compared to the first and second rows according to the values in Table 4, the
following results were found.
y11 \y21
y12 \y22
y13 ¼ y23
y14 \y24

Accordingly, it will be formed as C ð1; 2Þ ¼ f3g. The concordance set elements for
all binary alternative comparisons are shown below.
C ð1; 2Þ ¼ f3g
C ð1; 3Þ ¼ f3g
C ð2; 1Þ ¼ f1; 2; 3; 4g
C ð2; 3Þ ¼ f3; 4g
C ð3; 1Þ ¼ f1; 2; 4g
C ð3; 2Þ ¼ f1; 2; 4g

With the help of Eq. 6, the concordance index values are determined. The con-
cordance matrix containing the concordance index values is as follows.
2 3
Alternative 1 1 0; 25 0; 25
Cða; bÞ ¼ Alternative 2 4 1 1 0; 5 5
Alternative 3 0; 75 0; 75 1
 Comparison of Hydraulic Bending Machines for Profile, Pipe and Beams 121

Discordance index values obtained using Eq. 8 are presented in the following matrix.
2 3
Alternative 1 0 0; 239608 1
Dða; bÞ ¼ Alternative 2 4 0 0 0; 933333 5
Alternative 3 0; 145336 0; 145336 0

Concordance threshold ðC Þ is calculated by using Eq. 11 and discordance

threshold ðD Þ is determined by using Eq. 12. Concordance threshold ðC  Þ and dis-
cordance threshold ðD Þ are demonstrated below.

C  ¼ 0; 722222
D ¼ 0; 273735

As seen in Eq. 12, this concordance threshold and discordance threshold values are
compared with the concordance index values and discordance index values to specify
which alternative has a strong superiority to which alternative. The matrix of the
superiority (S) resulting from these comparisons is given below.
2 3
Alternative 1
S ¼ Alternative 2 4 SF 5
Alternative 3 SF S F

To explain the expressions in the superiority matrix, the symbol SF , which is

written at the intersection of row 2 and column 1, shows that Alternative 2 has a strong
superiority to Alternative 1. The symbol SF , which is written at the intersection of row
3 and column 1, shows that Alternative 3 has a strong superiority to Alternative 1. The
symbol SF , which is written at the intersection of row 3 and column 2, shows that
Alternative 3 has a strong superiority to Alternative 2. Accordingly, Alternative 3,
which has a strong superiority over all other alternatives, becomes the best alternative
and follows Alternative 2.

5 Conclusions

Businesses may face various alternatives in the problems they encounter. As matter of
fact, it is an inevitable requirement to have multiple alternatives in order to be able to
mention a decision-making process. As the problem faced in the businesses becomes
more complex and complicated, the number of factors that need to be taken into con-
sideration are equally increasing. The methods benefitted to solve the problems in this
structure are pointed out in the general name of multi-criteria decision making methods.
In this study, primarily a literature review covering the applications used in the
Electre method is given, then the operation of the Electre method is explained and the
method is applied to an actual machine selection problem. The scope of the application
regarding finding the best hydraulic profile and pipe bending machine alternatives
based upon the evaluation criteria including diameter of the shaft, the diameter of rolls,
the working speed and the motor power is expected to contribute to the field of
122 E. Çirkin et al.

decision-making process of manufacturing management especially for metal industries

in suggesting the use of Electre method and comparing three alternatives with regard to
four evaluation criteria. From a theoretical point of view, it provides a framework to
researchers and academicians to explore the best alternatives in such fields as personnel
selection, supplier selection, examination of production technology and project selec-
tion when there is a small set of data with a few alternatives and evaluation criteria.
The primary advantage of the Electre method is that the comparison of the alter-
natives can be obtained although there is not an obvious preference for one of those.
Therefore, when compared to other multi-criteria decision making methods which are
sensitive to the decision maker`s thoughts and beliefs, Electre method is much more
reliable. Furthermore, this method has the ability to handle both quantitative and
qualitative assessments. That is to say, the vector normalization process does not hinder
that the evaluation criteria have different units of measurement. The application of this
method concerns environmental impact assessment, environmental as well as energy
planning, renewable energy sources’ problems, energy systems technology and waste
management. Based on a study regarding the overview and selection of multi-criteria
evaluation methods, some properties such as mathematical background and using
weight coefficients, parameters, thresholds, and indexes for Electre Method is quite
strong. Moreover, understanding the problem, sensitivity analysis, selecting
criteria/sub-criteria and determination of their weight coefficients, measurement scales
and assessment of the performance are positively moderate in comparison with other
techniques consisting of AHP, MAUT, SMART which is derived from MAUT
(Multiple Attribute Utility Theory), AMS and PROMETHEE. Even though some
properties are similar with this method, Electre offers additional options for thresholds
when defining criteria models and it also provides with ease of use and low require-
ments on time and money [24].
The constraints on the study can be defined as follows. First, the weight of each
assessment measure is considered equal. However, these weight values may not be
equal in all of the operating problems. These priorities may change depending on the
nature of the problem encountered. In addition, some of the evaluation criteria used in
this study may not be needed, but some other factors may need to be examined. The
presence of binary comparisons in the calculation process of the Electre method
constitutes a limitation of the method. If the number of alternatives increases, binary
comparisons will increase exponentially, making the calculation process more difficult,
which may lead to delays. In situations where it is necessary to make quick decisions in
rapidly changing business conditions, this creates a weakness of the method against
some other multi-criteria decision making methods such as Moora and Topsis.

References
1. Zeleney M, Cochrane JL (1973) Compromise programming. In: Multi-criteria decision
making. University of South Carolina, Columbia, pp 262–301
2. Benayoun R, Roy B, Sussman N (1966) Manual de Reference du Programme Electre.
SEMA, Paris
 Comparison of Hydraulic Bending Machines for Profile, Pipe and Beams 123

3. Tscheikner-Gratl F, Egger P, Rauch W, Kleidorfer M (2017) Comparison of multi-criteria

decision support methods for integrated rehabilitation prioritization. Water 9:1–28
4. Şahin S (2015) Electre. In: Çok Kriterli Karar Verme Yöntemleri. Dora Yayıncılık, Bursa
5. Yücel M, Ulutaş A (2009) Çok Kriterli Karar Yöntemlerinden Electre Yöntemiyle
Malatya’da Bir Kargo Firması için Yer Seçimi. Sosyal Ekonomik Araştırmalar Dergisi
327–344
6. Aiello G, Enea M, Galante G (2005) A multi-objective approach to facility layout problem
by genetic search algorithm and Electre method. Robot Comput Integr Manuf 447–455
7. Beccali M, Cellura M, Mistretta M (2003) Decision-making in energy planning. Application
of the Electre method at regional level for the diffusion of renewable energy technology.
Renew Energy 2063–2087
8. Wang J, Jing Y, Zhangand C, Zhao J (2009) Review on multi-criteria decision analysis aid in
sustainable energy decision-making. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 13(9):2263–2278
9. Ertuğrul İ, Karakaşoğlu N (2010) Electre ve Bulanık AHP Yöntemleri ile Bir İşletme İçin
Bilgisayar Seçimi. Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi 25
(2):23–41
10. Akyüz Y, Soba M (2013) Electre Yöntemiyle Tekstil Sektöründe Optimal Kuruluş Yeri
Seçimi: Uşak İli Örneği. Uluslararası Yönetim İktisat ve İşletme Dergisi 9(19)
11. Armaghan N, Renaud J (2012) An application of multi-criteria decision aids models for case-
based reasoning. Inf Sci 210:55–66
12. Amsterdam JGCV, Best W, Opperhuizen A, Wolff FAD (2004) Evaluation of a procedure to
assess the adverse effects of illicit drugs. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 39:1–4
13. Theodorou S, Florides G, Tassou S (2010) The use of multiple criteria decision making
methodologies for the promotion of RES through funding schemes in Cyprus, a review.
Energy Policy 38:7783–7792
14. Almeida ATD (2007) Multicriteria decision model for outsourcing contracts selection based
on utility function and ELECTRE method. Comput Oper Res 34:3569–3574
15. Figueira J, Roy B (2002) Determining the weights of criteria in the ELECTRE type methods
with a revised Simos’ procedure. Eur J Oper Res 139:317–326
16. Bojkovic N, Anic I, Pejcic-Tarle S (2010) One solution for cross-country transport-
sustainability evaluation using a modified ELECTRE method. Ecol Econ 69:1176–1186
17. Choi DH, Ahn BS, Kim SH (2005) Prioritization of association rules in data mining:
multiple criteria decision approach. Expert Syst Appl 29:867–878
18. Rudolphi W, Haider W (2003) Visitor management and ecological integrity: one example of
an integrated management approach using decision analysis. J Nat Conserv 11:346–354
19. Triantaphyllou E (2000) Multi-criteria decision making methodologies: a comparative study.
In: Applied optimization, vol 44. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht
20. Yaralıoğlu K (2010) Karar Verme Yöntemleri. Detay Yayıncılık, Ankara
21. Wang X, Triantaphyllou E (2008) Ranking irregularities when evaluating alternatives by
using some ELECTRE methods. Omega 36:45–63
22. Shih H-S, Shyur H-J, Lee ES (2007) An extension of TOPSIS for group decision making.
Math Comput Model 45:801–813
23. Şahinler Metal Makina Endüstri A.Ş. (2017). http://www.sahinlermetal.com/kataloglar
24. Papadopoulos AM, Konidari P (2011) Overview and selection of multi-criteria evaluation
methods for mitigation/adaptation policy instruments. PROMITHEAS-4 Report