International Journal of Lean Six Sigma

Lean Six Sigma project selection using hybrid approach based on fuzzy DEMATEL–
ANP–TOPSIS
S Vinodh Vikas Swarnakar
Article information:
To cite this document:
S Vinodh Vikas Swarnakar , (2015),"Lean Six Sigma project selection using hybrid approach based
on fuzzy DEMATEL–ANP–TOPSIS", International Journal of Lean Six Sigma, Vol. 6 Iss 4 pp. 313 -
338
Permanent link to this document:
Downloaded by Florida Atlantic University At 22:56 24 February 2016 (PT)

http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJLSS-12-2014-0041
Downloaded on: 24 February 2016, At: 22:56 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 32 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 127 times since 2015*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
Fairul Anwar Abu Bakar, Khairanum Subari, Mohd Amran Mohd Daril, (2015),"Critical success factors
of Lean Six Sigma deployment: a current review", International Journal of Lean Six Sigma, Vol. 6 Iss
4 pp. 339-348 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJLSS-04-2015-0011
TR Sreeram, Asokan Thondiyath, (2015),"Combining Lean and Six Sigma in the context of Systems
Engineering design", International Journal of Lean Six Sigma, Vol. 6 Iss 4 pp. 290-312 http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJLSS-07-2014-0022
Jose Arturo Garza-Reyes, (2015),"Green lean and the need for Six Sigma", International Journal of
Lean Six Sigma, Vol. 6 Iss 3 pp. 226-248 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJLSS-04-2014-0010

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-
srm:126209 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald
for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission
guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as
well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and
services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the
Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for
digital archive preservation.
Downloaded by Florida Atlantic University At 22:56 24 February 2016 (PT)

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

 The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/2040-4166.htm

Lean Six Sigma project selection Lean Six

Sigma project
using hybrid approach based on selection
fuzzy DEMATEL–ANP–TOPSIS
S. Vinodh and Vikas Swarnakar 313
Department of Production Engineering, National Institute of Technology,
Received 28 December 2014
Tiruchirappalli, India Revised 18 March 2015
Accepted 19 March 2015

Abstract
Downloaded by Florida Atlantic University At 22:56 24 February 2016 (PT)

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to select the optimal Lean Six Sigma (LSS) project using hybrid
fuzzy-based Multi-Criteria Decision-Making (MCDM) approach for an automotive component
manufacturing organization.
Design/methodology/approach – The LSS project selection has been formulated as the MCDM
problem. Hybrid MCDM method based on Decision-Making Trial and Evaluation Laboratory Model
(DEMATEL), Analytical Network Process (ANP) and Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to
Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) has been used to select the optimal LSS project. The methodology enabled the
practitioners to systematically prioritize LSS projects.
Findings – The finding of this study is that, out of five LSS projects, project P3 is the best LSS project.
P3 is the optimal LSS project with reduced failure risk, and efforts are being taken to implement the
selected project.
Research limitations/implications – The problem formulation and methodology has been tested
for a single study. In future, more number of studies could be conducted using the hybrid approach. This
method is presently applied for an automotive component manufacturing organization; in future, the
approach could be applied in different industrial sectors for improving its effectiveness.
Practical implications – The case study has been conducted in a real-time industrial problem. The
practitioners expressed the usefulness of the methodology for prioritizing LSS projects Hence, the
inferences derived are found to possess practical relevance.
Originality/value – The original contribution of the study is the selection of optimal LSS project
using hybrid MCDM technique.
Keywords Six Sigma, Lean Six Sigma, DEMATEL, Multi Criteria Decision Making,
Lean manufacturing, Analytical Network Process
Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction
Lean manufacturing enables the modern organizations to achieve a streamlined process,
thereby enhancing value addition. Six Sigma is a business improvement strategy
focusing on defect reduction. Six Sigma extends the quality control principles to reduce
defect rate. Lean Six Sigma (LSS) offers synergic benefits from the view point of waste
elimination and defect reduction. The modern manufacturing organizations use LSS as
a powerful approach to attain synergic benefits. The research objective fulfilled in the
International Journal of Lean Six
present study to select the best LSS project using hybrid fuzzy approach based on Sigma
Decision-Making Trial and Evaluation Laboratory (DEMATEL) – Analytical Network Vol. 6 No. 4, 2015
pp. 313-338
Process (ANP) – Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution © Emerald Group Publishing Limited
2040-4166
(TOPSIS). Appropriate criteria were selected for LSS project selection. The DEMATEL DOI 10.1108/IJLSS-12-2014-0041
 IJLSS approach was used to capture the interdependence between LSS criteria. ANP was used
6,4 to determine criteria weights and TOPSIS was used to rank the projects. The study was
conducted in an Indian automotive component manufacturing organization to select
best LSS project among five alternatives. The methodology enabled the practitioners to
systematically prioritize LSS projects. The prioritization of LSS project enables the
smooth deployment in the case organization.
314
2. Literature review
The literature has been reviewed from the perspectives of Six Sigma project selection
and LSS project selection.
Kazemi et al. (2005) stated Six Sigma as a management tool which brings ultimate
changes in any organization’s flexibility and easily defines customer requirements. In
Downloaded by Florida Atlantic University At 22:56 24 February 2016 (PT)

this study, they used effective criteria for Six Sigma project selection. Multi-Criteria
Decision-Making (MCDM) tools and techniques used for prioritization of goals and the
most profitable project with minimum chances of risk was selected. They used
Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP)–TOPSIS method with ten criteria and six
alternatives for project selection. After successful implementation, the expected project
possesses maximum benefit and minimum risk. AHP methodology was used for
identification of project and TOPSIS was used for ranking the projects. Kumar et al.
(2007) developed a Six Sigma Define–Measure–Analysis–Improve–Control (DMAIC)
approach and a mathematical model using Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA). They
focused on Six Sigma project selection for improvement of customer satisfaction. Yang
and Hsieh (2009) proposed Six Sigma methodology for project selection. They used 8
criteria and 33 sub-criteria for Six Sigma project selection. In this study, they considered
national Quality Award Criteria for Six Sigma project selection in a Hierarchy Model
and Delphi Fuzzy MCDM method was used for evaluation of criteria and sub-criteria.
After successful implementation of Six Sigma methodology, they proved that the best
project provided more financial benefit to the organization. Büyüközkan and Öztürkcan
(2010) stated that Six Sigma is one of the best techniques for improvement of process
quality and also it is a project driven methodology with which maximum profit will be
derived. In this study, they determined 4 dimensions and 14 criteria for project selection.
They used two MCDM methods, DEMATEL and ANP, for identification and
prioritization of best project from alternatives for profit maximization and cost
minimization. The DEMATEL methodology was used for defining inter-relation
between criteria, and ANP was used for obtaining weights of the criteria. They observed
that the usage of this technique ensured better utilization of resources and maximum
financial contribution for the project. Ray and Das (2010) developed a model for
identification of best Six Sigma projects which give maximum profit to organization and
should complete within a specified time period. They developed a top – down approach
and described many situations for selection of best Six Sigma project. Three different
methods were used for the Six Sigma project selection with their merits and demerits.
Sharma and Chetiya (2010) described that, for successful selection of the Six Sigma
project, not only management commitment but also proper co-ordination, good
communication, proper information system and effective metrics are required. The main
aim of the study was to select the Six Sigma project and analyze responsible factors.
They used descriptive analysis and found 17 key variables for project selection. Padhy
and Sahu (2011) used the Six Sigma concept for project selection; they proposed the Six
 Sigma project selection using a two-stage methodology which is Real Option Analysis Lean Six
and Zero-One Integer Liner Programming Model. They used the Real Option Theory for Sigma project
a new way of project evaluation, project scheduling and selection. They used Zero-One
Integer Linear Programming model which considers all types of risks. Bilgen and Sen
selection
(2012) proposed Six Sigma as a problem-solving and customer-oriented approach. The
Six Sigma methodology based on statistics enabled the selection of right and most
profitable project. The main aim of this study is to use the Six Sigma methodology for 315
selecting the best project and reduce overall cost. They used fuzzy scale and used
quality, capacity, energy as subcriteria for project selection to present how the Six
Sigma tool was used for key findings. After implementing the Six Sigma methodology,
they observed energy cost got decreased. Apart from productivity increase, increased
efficiency, quality improvement and overall satisfaction of customer are enhanced.
Downloaded by Florida Atlantic University At 22:56 24 February 2016 (PT)

Wang et al. (2014) stated that Six Sigma prioritized project will give maximum benefits
and proposed hybrid MCDM technique ANP-VIKOR-DEMATEL used for evaluation
and improvement of the Six Sigma project. They also reduced performance gap in the
given criteria. In this study, they selected the Six Sigma project and analyzed gaps
between existing performance value and aspiration level for improvement of gap for the
particular dimension and criteria. Influential network relation map helped gap
improvement at component and sub-component level. DEMATEL based on ANP with
VIKOR was used for calculation of weight and based on that they found project P4 has
best performance with 6.88 score. Bonilla et al. (2008) developed modified Quality
Function Deployment (QFD) for prioritization of projects and this prioritization was
done by weighting internal staff assessment, and then a map against patient survey was
created. In this study, they presented how the modified QFD tool could help
prioritization of LSS Project. Hu et al. (2008) proposed Multi-Objective Model of LSS
concept for project portfolio selection. They developed a decision support system for
implementing Lean and Six Sigma technique in any industry. Multi-Objective Model
was developed for problem-solving and Pareto frontier chart for decision-making. After
applying Lean and Six Sigma Concepts, they found major criteria like providing support
to corporate decision-making for project selection; providing flexibility for selection of
project; and they mentioned that the model could be applied for similar problems.
Kornfeld and Kara (2013) determined how the industry selects LSS projects in real-life
situation. The practitioners of LSS were surveyed to determine criteria and method used
for the LSS project selection The finding of the study was that practitioners are
dissatisfied with the LSS project selection approach. Zhao et al. (2013) applied the LSS
approach in a company and found cost reduction and process improvement. Customer
requirement should be known by any organization for attaining improvements and
gaining profit. In this study, they proposed analytical framework for customer
requirement using Rough Set Theory and also designed importance rating algorithm
using AHP. This method provided an analytical basis for evaluation of LSS projects.
Duarte et al. (2012) presented a five-step approach for LSS project identification. This
study was based on the IT organization. In this study, they provided an LSS champion
with a semantic structured model for identification and prioritization of a good project.
They used the clustering technique for grouping similar projects. The finding of this
study was that this approach can be applied to any organization. Meza and Jeong (2013)
proposed the LSS project performance evaluation model for Johnson Space Center. In
this study, DEA is used for developing the LSS model. This study was conducted at
 IJLSS National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) for reviewing the
6,4 implementation of Lean Six Sigma project methodology at the Johnson Space Center. In
this study, they identified Critical Success Factors (CSFs) which affect the performance
of LSS at the Johnson Space Center. They used AHP for evaluation of projects, and, after
evaluation, they found 6 CSFs and 18 projects. The finding of this study was that four
out of six CSFs are adopted and 7 out of 18 projects are found efficient. Vinodh et al.
316 (2011) developed Lean Six Sigma framework for an Indian automotive valve
manufacturing organization. In this study, they used the DMAIC methodology with a
set of tools and techniques. The finding of this study was that the framework provided
an impetus for establishing best practice, and improvement was identified in terms of
key metrics. Van den Bos et al. (2014) analyzed 62 Lean Six Sigma improvement projects
for construction organization situated in The Netherlands. They used LSS tools and
techniques for bringing improvement in an organization. In this study, they focused on
Downloaded by Florida Atlantic University At 22:56 24 February 2016 (PT)

throughput time and its impact on each project. They found the current throughput time
of project is one year. They also identified large project throughput time and
recommended for efficient execution. Tenera and Pinto (2014) proposed the LSS project
management improvement framework for a telecommunication organization. In this
study, they used DMAIC methodology with a set of statistical tools. This model
framework was implemented and tested in a telecommunication organization. The
finding of this study was that the model easily identified the problems faced by
company.
The brief summary of literature review is presented in Table I.

3. Methodology
This study was carried out in an Indian automotive component manufacturing
organization located in Tamil Nadu, India. In this study, fuzzy ANP, fuzzy DEMATEL
and TOPSIS have been used for the purpose of project selection. There are few studies
reported in the context of the LSS project selection, and fuzzy-based DEMATEL–ANP–
TOPSIS method was not attempted for the LSS project selection. DEMATEL–ANP is
used to capture the interdependency between LSS criteria, and TOPSIS is used for
decision-making. The hybrid combination of MCDM methods provides effective
prioritization of alternatives (Wang et al., 2014). The main aim of this study is to select
the best LSS project among all alternatives. The evaluation process for project selection
is shown in Figure 1. The data are collected from automotive component manufacturing
organization with the help of organization experts. Experts possess rich experience
regarding the culture and LSS deployment. Experts possess 10 years of industrial
experience in the organization and they are responsible for implementation of Six Sigma
and Lean Six Sigma. Five LSS projects represent different LSS frameworks using a
combination of Lean and Six Sigma tools. The data collection process consumed two
weeks.

3.1 Fuzzy ANP

ANP is generated from AHP. The AHP process shows a hierarchic and linear form, but
the ANP process always shows only a nonlinear from. Generally, in the AHP
methodology, the goal should be at the top of hierarchy and then criteria, subcriteria and
alternatives form the next step; in hierarchy, it shows a single direction from top to
bottom. The ANP framework analyzes inter-relationship with their criteria and
 Research study Method used Findings/inferences
Lean Six
Sigma project
Kazemi et al. Six Sigma MCDM tools MCDM tools and techniques are used for prioritization of selection
(2005) AHP–TOPSIS goals and the most profitable project with minimum
chances of risk was selected. AHP methodology was used
for identification of project and TOPSIS was used for
ranking the projects
Kumar et al. Six Sigma DMAIC tools Developed Six Sigma DMAIC approach and mathematical
317
(2007) DEA model using DEA. They focused on Six Sigma project
selection for improvement of customer satisfaction
Yang and Six Sigma Delphi fuzzy Proposed Six Sigma methodology for project selection. In
Hsieh (2009) MCDM method this study, they considered National Quality Award
Criteria for Six Sigma project selection and Delphi Fuzzy
Downloaded by Florida Atlantic University At 22:56 24 February 2016 (PT)

MCDM method was used for evaluation of criteria and

sub-criteria. After successful implementation of Six Sigma
methodology, they proved that the best project provided
more financial benefit to the organization
Büyüközkan Six Sigma MCDM tools Four dimension and 14 criteria are identified for project
Öztürkcan DEMATEL–ANP selection. They used DEMATEL and ANP for
(2010) identification and prioritization of best project.
DEMATEL methodology was used for defining inter
relation between criteria and ANP was used for obtaining
the weights of criteria
Ray and Das Six Sigma Top down Developed a model for identification of best Six Sigma
(2010) approach project. In this study, they developed top down approach
and described many situations for selection of best Six
Sigma project. Three different methods were used for Six
Sigma project selection with their merits and demerits
Sharma and Six Sigma descriptive Emphasized that management commitment is not only
Chetiya (2010) analysis required for successful selection of Six Sigma project,
proper co-ordination, good communication, proper
information system and effective metrics are also
required. The main aim of the study was to select Six
Sigma project and analyze responsible factors. They used
descriptive analysis and found 17 key variables for
project selection
Padhy and Six Sigma Real Option Proposed two stage methodology which involves Real
Sahu (2011) Analysis and Zero-One Option Analysis and Zero-One Integer Liner
Integer Liner Programming model for Six Sigma Project selection. They
Programming used Real Option Theory for new way of project
evaluation and Zero-One Integer Linear Programming
model to consider risk
Bilgen and Sen Six Sigma Proposed Six Sigma as a problem solving and customer
(2012) oriented approach. The main aim of this study is to use
Six Sigma methodology for selecting best project and
reduce overall cost. They used fuzzy scale for project
selection and also presented how Six Sigma tools were Table I.
used for key findings. After implementing Six Sigma Summary of
methodology, they observed significant improvement in literature review on
key metrics Six Sigma and LSS
(continued) project selection
 IJLSS Research study Method used Findings/inferences
6,4
Wang et al. Six Sigma MCDM Stated that Six Sigma prioritized project will give
(2014) technique ANP-VIKOR- maximum benefits and also proposed hybrid MCDM
DEMATEL technique ANP-VIKOR-DEMATEL used for
evaluation of Six Sigma project. In this study, they
318 selected Six Sigma project and analyzed gaps between
existing performance values. DEMATEL based on
ANP with VIKOR was used for calculation of weight
and based on that they found project P4 has best
performance with 6.88 score
Bonilla et al. LSS modified QFD Developed modified QFD for prioritization of projects
(2008) and created a map against patient survey. In this
Downloaded by Florida Atlantic University At 22:56 24 February 2016 (PT)

study, they presented how the modified QFD tool

could help prioritization of LSS Project
Hu et al. (2008) LSS Multi Objective Proposed Multi-Objective Model for LSS project
Model portfolio selection. In this study, they developed
decision support system for implementing lean and
Six Sigma technique in any industry. Multi Objective
Model was developed for problem solving and Pareto
frontier chart for decision making. After applying
Lean and Six Sigma Concept, they found major
criteria for project selection
Kornfeld and LSS Determined in real situation, how the organization
Kara (2013) select best LSS project. The practitioners of LSS were
surveyed to determine criteria and method used for
LSS project selection. The finding of the study was
that significant practitioners are dissatisfied with the
used approach
Zhao et al. LSS with RAHP Applied LSS approach in a company and found cost
(2013) reduction and process improvement as important
factors. In this study, they proposed analytical
framework for customer requirement using Rough Set
Theory and also designed importance rating
algorithm using AHP. This method provided
analytical basis for evaluation of LSS projects
Duarte et al. LSS Presented five step approach for LSS project
(2012) identification and selection. In this study, they provide
LSS champion with semantic structured model for
identification and prioritization of good project. They
used clustering technique for grouping similar
projects. The finding of this study was that this
approach can be applied to any organization
Meza and LSS AHP–DEA Proposed LSS project performance evaluation model.
Jeong (2013) In this study, DEA is used for developing LSS model.
This study was conducted in a National Aeronautics
and Space Administration (NASA) for reviewing the
implementation of LSS project methodology in
Johnson space center. In this study, they identified
Critical Success Factors (CSFs) which affect the
Table I. (continued)
 Research study Method used Findings/inferences
Lean Six
Sigma project
performance of LSS. The finding of this study was selection
that four out of six CSFs are adopted and seven out of
18 projects are found efficient
Vinodh et al. LSS Developed LSS framework for an Indian automotive
(2011) valve manufacturing organization. In this study, they
used DMAIC methodology with set of lean tools and
319
techniques. The finding of this study was that the LSS
framework provided an impetus for establishing best
practice and improvements were identified in terms of
key metrics
Van den Bos LSS Analyzed 62 Lean Six Sigma improvement projects for
Downloaded by Florida Atlantic University At 22:56 24 February 2016 (PT)

et al. (2014) construction organization situated in Netherland.

They used LSS tools and techniques for bringing
improvement in organization. In this study, they
focused on throughput time and its impact on each
project and found the current throughput time of
project is one year
Tenera and LSS Proposed Lean Six Sigma project management
Pinto (2014) improvement framework for a telecommunication
organization. In this study, they used DMAIC
methodology with set of statistical tools. The finding
of this study was that the model easily identified the
problem faced by company with cause and solution Table I.

alternatives in a detailed manner. Inter-relationship of ANP is showed with the help of

arrows according to their relationship and feedback. Fuzzy ANP is used to solve a
problem with their fuzzy linguistic scale. The fuzzy linguistic scale shown in Table III is
used for pairwise comparison of criteria and alternatives. The ANP super matrix is
obtained using weight and it shows an inter-relationship between component and
sub-components. In the super matrix of the ANP node obtained by component and their
element, the arrow indicates the inter-relationship between the two components. The
loop shows the interdependency within the component. This method was used by many
researchers for solving problems in the literature (Raei and Jahromi, 2012; Kiriş, 2013;
Rezaeiniya et al., 2014).

3.2 Fuzzy DEMATEL

DEMATEL is used for solving complicated relationship problems between component
and cluster. DEMATEL is generally used for developing or building a structural model
and analyzing the complex model. It is also used for visualizing complicated causal
relation structure with the help of a matrix. The model structure is developed for solving
the problem and crisp values are assigned for human judgment to decide the relation
between component and subcomponent. Using crisp values, it is not possible to judge
clearly and correct numerical values are difficult to obtain. To obtain exact values, fuzzy
linguistic term and scale are used for problem evaluation. The fuzzy numbers are
converted as a triangular fuzzy matrix. The fuzzy linguistic scale is shown in Table III.
This method was used by many researchers for solving the problems in the literature
 IJLSS Create dimension and criteria for Project Selection
6,4
Design a Fuzzy Linguistic Scale

Establish relation between Criteria & Alternatives using Expert Opinion

320
Establish causal relation using Fuzzy DEMATEL and Expert Opinion

Obtain Direct Relation Matrix

Establish Fuzzy Normalized Matrix

Downloaded by Florida Atlantic University At 22:56 24 February 2016 (PT)

Obtain Fuzzy Total Relation Matrix

Acquire Inner Dependence Matrix

Use Fuzzy ANP Pairwise Comparison between Criteria & Alternatives

Calculate Relative Importance Weight

Defuzzification using weight Fuzzy Matrix

Obtain initial Super matrix for Project Selection

Obtain Weighted Super matrix using MATLAB Software

Evaluate Alternatives using Fuzzy TOPSIS

Obtain Weighted Decision matrix

Figure 1.
Proposed Evaluate Positive & Negative Distance
methodology for
project selection Rank the Project with respect to Performance

(Irajpour et al., 2012; Devadoss and Felix, 2013; Hosseini and Tarokh, 2013; Patil and
Kant, 2013; Alam-Tabriz et al., 2014; Mahmoodi and Jahromi, 2014).

3.3 Fuzzy TOPSIS

TOPSIS is a method used for ranking among alternatives and it also helps in obtaining
a positive ideal solution and a negative ideal solution. A positive ideal solution shows
that the evaluated value which is nearest or shortest distance from ideal solution and
negative ideal solution, shows that the evaluated value is farthest from optimal solution.
TOPSIS is an MCDM technique used for ranking the best alternative from finite set of
alternatives. Fuzzy TOPSIS methodology requires the relative importance within the
 criteria for solving the problem. The relative importance weight for each criteria is also Lean Six
required. Weight for criteria can be obtained with the help of fuzzy DEMATEL and Sigma project
fuzzy ANP. This method was used by many researchers for solving problems in the
literature (Ashrafzadeh et al., 2012; Kabir and Hasin, 2012; Chaghooshi et al., 2012;
selection
Prascevic and Prascevic, 2013).

4. Case study 321

This study was conducted in an automotive component manufacturing organization.
The data are collected from the organization using expert opinion. Experts possess 10
years of industrial experience in the organization. In this study, 6 dimensions and 20
criteria are considered for the LSS project selection. The criteria are being selected based
on literature review and discussion with practitioners. The details of the case study are
Downloaded by Florida Atlantic University At 22:56 24 February 2016 (PT)

presented as follows: Figure 2 shows the network structure for LSS project evaluation.
Figure 2 shows the interrelation between dimension and criteria. In this figure, a
single arrow represents the relation between one dimension and other, but the curved
arrow shows the inter-relation between same dimension.

4.1 Computational steps for the selection of LSS project

Step 1: The dimension and criteria for the proposed model are determined by the expert
committee of automotive component manufacturing organization. The dimension and
criteria are shown in Table II. The proposed evaluation model is shown in Figure 3.
Step 2: Develop a fuzzy linguistic scale for the proposed model evaluation. The
linguistic scale and terms are adopted from Büyüközkan and Çifçi (2012). The triangular
scale is used for gathering inputs. In this step, the relationships under dimension and
criteria are obtained using pairwise comparison with the help of expert knowledge. The
relation among dimension and criteria is needed to develop a comparison scale shown in
Table III. In this table, 11 linguistic terms are represented using the fuzzy scale.
Step 3: Develop a causal relation using fuzzy DEMATEL.

Operational Customer
Feasibility Impact (D2)
(D1)

Financial
Impact (D3)

Business
Strategy & Core
Competence
Management (D6) Learning
Commitment and Growth
& Employee Potential Figure 2.
Involvement (D5) Project evaluation
(D4)
network structure
 IJLSS
6,4 Dimensions Criteria Description

Operational feasibility (D1) Pull production and Effectively organized orders with minimum
streamlined process (C1) inventory
Project duration (C2) Total time taken by the project from start
322 to end, for complete the project
Resources & information Knowledge and experience used for
availability (C3) decision support
Sigma level (C4) A measure of the error rate of the process
based on defects per million opportunities
(DPMO) estimate
Technical feasibility (C5) An assessment of working capability of the
Downloaded by Florida Atlantic University At 22:56 24 February 2016 (PT)

technology
Customer impact (D2) Customer satisfaction Measurement of how product & services
(C6) are produced to meet customer demand
Customer complaints Informal complaints directly provided by
(C7) customers to company for resolving
products related problems or services
New business avenues Making progress toward utilizing new
(C8) business opportunities
Financial impact (D3) Project cost reduction Process of looking for, finding and
(C9) removing unwarranted expenses from a
Project to increase profits
Return on investment An investment of certain resource yielding
(C10) a benefit to the investor
Management commitment & Top management Participation of highest-level officials in
employee involvement (D4) commitment (C11) their organization for quality improvement
efforts
Team member strong Spirit and enthusiasm possessed by team
spirit & motivation (C12) members
Employee improvement Regular participation of employees in
(C13) organizational improvement activities
Learning and growth Continuous training and Regular Learning approach which increase
potential (D5) education (C14) knowledge, skills, and habits given by
experts
Retaining rate (C15) The ratio of number of retained customers
to the number at risk
Transparent information Sharing information across the
sharing (C16) organization
Business strategy & core Process improvement Series of actions taken to identify new goals
competence (D6) (C17) and objectives of process
Multiskilled and flexible Expert workforce who can respond to
workforce (C18) changes in business demand
Critical to quality The key measurable characteristics of a
Table II. projects (C19) product or process whose performance
Dimension and standards or specification limits must be
criteria used for the met in order to satisfy the customer
evaluation of LSS Active cleanliness policy An ongoing and continued cleanliness
project (C20) activities in the organization
 Linguistic term Abbreviation Fuzzy scales
Lean Six
Sigma project
None N (0, 0, 0.1) selection
Very low VL (0, 0.1, 0.2)
Low L (0.1, 0.2, 0.3)
Fairly low FL (0.2, 0.3, 0.4)
More or less low ML (0.3, 0.4, 0.5)
Medium M (0.4, 0.5, 0.6)
323
More or less good MG (0.5, 0.6, 0.7)
Fairly good FG (0.6, 0.7, 0.8)
Good G (0.7, 0.8, 0.9) Table III.
Very good VG (0.8, 0.9, 1.0) Linguistic term with
Excellent E (0.9, 1.0, 1.0) fuzzy scale
Downloaded by Florida Atlantic University At 22:56 24 February 2016 (PT)

Step 3.1: Design a fuzzy direct relation matrix with the help of expert knowledge. The
direct relation matrix should have set of pairwise comparison within the given
dimension and criteria, making m⫻m matrix B̃. In which bij ⫽ (xij, yij, zij); here criteria
“i” affects criteria “j”. An example of fuzzy direct relation matrix of “customer impact”
dimensions is shown in Table IV.
Step 3.2: Design a fuzzy normalized direct relation matrix. After calculation of direct
relation matrix from matrix B̃, a fuzzy normalized direct relation matrix  is obtained
using equation (1). The normalized direct relation matrix of “customer impact”
dimension is shown in Table V:
m
max
 ⫽ k ⫻ B̃ Where k ⫽ 1/ 1ⱕiⱕm 兺Z
j⫽1
ij (1)

Let bij ⫽ (xij, yij, zij), three crisp matrices are obtained as:

关
A1 ⫽ É
0 x12 … x1n
Ì É , A2 ⫽ É
xn1 xn2 … 0 兴 关
0 y12 … y1n
Ì É , A3 ⫽ É
yn1 yn2 … 0
0 z12 … z1n
Ì É .
zn1 zn2 … 0 兴 关 兴
Customer impact
C6 C7 C8
Table IV.
C6 (0, 0, 0) (0.2, 0.3, 0.4) (0.4, 0.5, 0.6) Fuzzy direct relation
C7 (0, 0.1, 0.2) (0, 0, 0) (0.4, 0.5, 0.6) matrix for customer
C8 (0, 0.1, 0.2) (0.6, 0.7, 0.8) (0, 0, 0) impact

Customer impact
C6 C7 C8
Table V.
C6 (0, 0, 0) (0.2, 0.3, 0.4) (0.4, 0.5, 0.6) Fuzzy direct
C7 (0, 0.1, 0.2) (0, 0, 0) (0.4, 0.5, 0.6) normalization matrix
C8 (0, 0.1, 0.2) (0.6, 0.7, 0.8) (0, 0, 0) for customer impact
 IJLSS Step 3.3: Design a fuzzy total relation matrix after calculation of normalized direct
6,4 relation matrix Â. The fuzzy total relation matrix: Ê is obtained using equation (2),
where “I” shows an identity matrix:

Ê ⫽ Â(I ⫺ Â)⫺1 (2)

关 兴
324 ë11 … ë1n
Let Ê ⫽ É Ì É .
ën1 … ënn
Where ëij ⫽ (xij=, yij=, zij=)

Matrix [xij=] ⫽ Ax(I ⫺ Ax )⫺1 (3)

Downloaded by Florida Atlantic University At 22:56 24 February 2016 (PT)

Matrix [yij=] ⫽ Ay(I ⫺ Ay )⫺1 (4)

Matrix [zij=] ⫽ Az(I ⫺ Az )⫺1 (5)

Using three equations [equations (3)-(5)] the total relation matrix of “customer impact”
dimension is obtained as shown in Table VI.
Step 3.4: Design an inner dependence matrix after calculation of fuzzy total relation
matrix Ê . Defuzzification of total relation matrix Ê is done after obtaining the inner
dependence matrix using equation (6). In the normalization method, sum of entire
column is equal to one:

兰 (infë
1
F (ëij ) ⫽ ½ ␣
ij ⫹ supëij␣ ) d␣ (6)
0

The inner dependence matrix of “customer impact” dimension is shown in Table VII.
Inner dependence matrix is the un-weighted super matrix of ANP. The super
matrixwith general notation is shown in Table VIII.
Step 4: After completing the calculations for DEMATEL, the remaining relationship
is obtained with the help of ANP. In this step, the pairwise comparison of all criteria and

Customer impact
C6 C7 C8
Table VI.
Fuzzy total direct C6 (0, 0.25, 1.96) (0.58, 1.25, 5) (0.64, 1.25, 4.78)
relation matrix for C7 (0, 0.29, 1.82) (0.32, 0.83, 4) (0.53, 1.06, 4.10)
customer impact C8 (0, 0.33, 2.05) (0.79, 1.41, 5) (0.32, 0.87, 4.23)

Customer impact
C6 C7 C8
Table VII.
Inner dependence C6 0.17 0.36 0.4
matrix for customer C7 0.16 0.24 0.34
impact C8 0.18 0.42 0.27
 alternatives is obtained with the help of their importance relation using triangular fuzzy Lean Six
numbers. Accordingly, pair wise comparison of all those criteria with their relative Sigma project
importance, a fuzzy judgment matrix B̂= is designed as shown in Table VIII: selection

关
b̂=11 b̂=12 … b̂1n

兴
=
B̂=⫽ É Ì É ,
= b̂n2
b̂n1 = … b̂nn
= 325

Where b̂=ij ⫽ (xij=, yij=, zij=) shows the importance of “i” over “j” for the given criteria, and
i ⫽ 1, 2, …. , n, j ⫽ 1, 2, …. , n. The proposed evaluation matrix with general notation is
shown in Table VIII.
An example of linguistic and fuzzy evaluation using upper triangular matrix for the
Downloaded by Florida Atlantic University At 22:56 24 February 2016 (PT)

relation between “operational feasibility” and “customer impact ” dimensions are shown
in Table IX.
Step 4.1: After obtaining fuzzy judgment matrix B̂=, the relative importance weight
is calculated. The pairwise comparison for all matrices is required to complete
un-weighted super matrix. For obtaining a solution for all upper triangular matrices,
least square method is used for calculation of weights.
Let w̃l ⫽ (wlx , wly , wlz ), where l ⫽ 1, 2, …. , n.

w̃lt ⫽
(兿 b ) n
i⫽1
t n
ij
, t 僆 兵x, y, z其 (7)
1

兺 (兿 b )
n n t n
i⫽1 i⫽1 ij

D1 D2 D3 D4 D5 D6

D1 0 E F G 0 0
D2 0 A H 0 I 0 Table VIII.
D3 0 J B 0 K L Un-weighted matrix
D4 M 0 0 C N O with general notation
D5 0 P 0 0 D Q for project selection

Linguistic terms Fuzzy terms

C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C1 C2 C3 C4 C5

1 FL M M FG 1 (0.2, 0.3, 0.4) (0.4, 0.5, 0.6) (0.4, 0.5, 0.6) (0.6, 0.7, 0.8)
1 FG M FG (1/0.2, 1/0.3, 1 (0.2, 0.3, 0.4) (0.4, 0.5, 0.6) (0.6, 0.7, 0.8)
1/0.4) Table IX.
1 VL FL (1/0.4, 1/0.5, (1/0.2, 1/0.3, 1 (0, 0.1, 0.2) (0.2, 0.3, 0.4) Fuzzy linguistic
1/0.6) 1/0.4) evaluation matrix for
1 FL (1/0.4, 1/0.5, (1/0.4, 1/0.5, (0, 1/0.1, 1/ 1 (0.2, 0.3, 0.4) operational
1/0.6) 1/0.6) 0.2) feasibility criteria
1 (1/0.6, 1/0.7, (1/0.6, 1/0.7, (1/0.2, 1/0.3, (1/0.2, 1/0.3, 1 with respect to
1/0.8) 1/0.8) 1/0.4) 1/0.4) customer impact
 IJLSS Where l ⫽ 1, 2, …., n, j ⫽ 1, 2, …., n.
6,4 The consistency ratio (CR) should be 0.10 or less than that. CR is used for direct
calculation of consistency. If CR is more than 0.10, it is not acceptable.
Step 4.2: After completing Step 4.1, defuzzification of calculated weight is required.
Defuzzification of matrix is done using equation (6). An example for “operational
feasibility” with respect to “customer impact” is shown using equation (7). Defuzzified
326 weight is calculated after using equation (6). The defuzzified weight is found to be
0.5035.
Step 5: Incorporate each value of fuzzy ANP and fuzzy DEMATEL in the super
matrix, where every sub-matrix is composed with its own relationship among criteria
and alternatives. This super matrix is shown in Table X. The general form of this super
matrix with notations is shown in Table VIII.
Step 6: In this step, after entering all priority values in the super matrix, the weight
Downloaded by Florida Atlantic University At 22:56 24 February 2016 (PT)

need to be calculated. Using MATLAB software, the weights are calculated. The
weighted super matrix for project selection with five alternatives is shown in Table XI.
Step 7: Design linguistic and fuzzy decision alternative matrix using the expert
opinion. TOPSIS is used for evaluation of matrix and fuzzy decision matrix for project
selection is obtained using 5 alternatives and 20 criteria. The detailed evaluation model
for LSS project selection with their criteria and alternatives is shown in Figure 3. “T”
shows the fuzzy decision matrix, where “P” denotes alternative and “C” denotes criteria,
and Table XII shows fuzzy terms with linguistic scale:

C1 … Cn
P1
T̃ ⫽ É
Pn 关 d̈11 d̈12 … d̈1n
É Ì É
d̈m1 d̈m1 … d̈mm 兴
Step 7.1: Decision matrix to be normalized. The normalized fuzzy decision matrix “R” is
constructed using equation (8).
R ⫽ 关r̃ij 兴mn. Where i ⫽ 1, 2, …. , m and j ⫽ 1, 2, …. , n.

rij ⫽ 共 aij bij cij

, ,
cj⫹ cj⫹ cj⫹ 兲 (8)

Where cj⫹ ⫽ maxCij .

Step 7.2: In this step, weighted decision matrix is evaluated for project selection using
equation (2). The fuzzy normalized weighted decision matrix is shown in Table XIII.

ṽij ⫽ rij ⫻ wj, where wj is the weight for criteria ‘j’.

ṽ ⫽ [ṽij ] m/n. Where i ⫽ 1, 2, …, m and j ⫽ 1, 2, …, n. (9)

Step 7.3: The positive and negative distance are calculated. The range for triangular
fuzzy number is [0, 1].

P⫹ ⫽ 兵ṽ1⫹, ṽ2⫹, ṽ3⫹, …, ṽ⫹

n 其, P⫺ ⫽ 兵ṽ1⫺, ṽ2⫺, ṽ3⫺, …, ṽ⫺
n, (10)
 Downloaded by Florida Atlantic University At 22:56 24 February 2016 (PT)

C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8 C9 C10 C11 C12 C13 C14 C15 C16 C17 C18 C19 C20

C1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.48 3.22 2.03 9.63 0.46 0.45 0.46 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
C2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.28 0.27 1.81 1.15 5.40 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
C3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.13 0.63 0.57 1.89 0.12 0.12 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
C4 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.08 0.47 0.34 1.40 0.07 0.08 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
C5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.03 0.27 0.14 0.80 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
C6 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.17 0.35 0.40 0.60 0.73 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.60 0.73 0.65 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
C7 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.16 0.24 0.33 0.32 0.19 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.32 0.19 0.28 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
C8 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.18 0.41 0.27 0.07 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.08 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
C9 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.83 0.75 0.83 0.30 0.37 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.83 0.83 0.88 0.88 0.75 0.83 0.83
C10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.17 0.25 0.17 0.16 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.17 0.17 0.12 0.12 0.25 0.17 0.17
C11 0.60 0.73 0.60 0.73 0.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.22 0.28 0.31 0.60 0.73 0.60 0.73 0.60 0.73 0.62
C12 0.32 0.19 0.32 0.19 0.32 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.43 0.30 0.42 0.32 0.19 0.32 0.19 0.32 0.19 0.30
C13 0.07 0.08 0.07 0.08 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.35 0.41 0.27 0.07 0.08 0.07 0.08 0.07 0.08 0.09
C14 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.60 0.73 0.62 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.22 0.28 0.31 0.60 0.73 0.60 0.60
C15 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.32 0.19 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.43 0.30 0.42 0.32 0.19 0.32 0.32
C16 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.08 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.35 0.41 0.27 0.07 0.08 0.07 0.07
C17 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.54 0.54 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.53 0.50 0.54 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
C18 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.31 0.31 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.31 0.35 0.31 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
C19 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
C20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
327

selection
for the project
Table X.
selection
Sigma project
Lean Six

Initial super matrix

 Downloaded by Florida Atlantic University At 22:56 24 February 2016 (PT)

6,4

328
IJLSS

selection
Table XI.
Weighted super
matrix for the project
C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8 C9 C10 C11 C12 C13 C14 C15 C16 C17 C18 C19 C20

P1 0.19 0.11 0.05 0.03 0.01 0.05 0.02 0.01 0.08 0.02 0.15 0.09 0.05 0.04 0.02 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.00
P2 0.19 0.11 0.05 0.03 0.01 0.05 0.02 0.01 0.08 0.02 0.15 0.09 0.05 0.04 0.02 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.00
P3 0.19 0.11 0.05 0.03 0.01 0.05 0.02 0.01 0.08 0.02 0.15 0.09 0.05 0.04 0.02 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.00
P4 0.19 0.11 0.05 0.03 0.01 0.05 0.02 0.01 0.08 0.02 0.15 0.09 0.05 0.04 0.02 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.00
P5 0.19 0.11 0.05 0.03 0.01 0.05 0.02 0.01 0.08 0.02 0.15 0.09 0.05 0.04 0.02 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.00
 Operational Feasibility (D1) Lean Six
Pull production & Project Duration (C2) Resources &Information Sigma Level (C4) Technical
Sigma project
Streamlined Process (C1) Availability (C3) Feasibility (C5) selection

Customer Impact (D2)

Customer Satisfaction (C6) Customer Complaints (C7) New Business Avenues (C8) 329

Financial Impact (D3)

Project Cost Reduction (C9) Return on Investment (C10)
Downloaded by Florida Atlantic University At 22:56 24 February 2016 (PT)

Management Commitment & Employee Involvement (D4)

Top Management Commitment Team Member Strong Spirit & Employee Involvement (C13)
(C11) Motivation (C12)

Learning and Growth Potential (D5)

Continuous Training and Education (C14) Retaining Rate (C15) Transparent Information Sharing (C16)

Business Strategy & Core Competence (D6)

Process Improvement Multiskilled Flexible Critical to Quality Active Cleanliness
(C17) Workforce (C18) Projects (C19) Policy (C20)

Figure 3.
Detailed model for
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 project selection

Where ṽj⫹ ⫽ (1, 1, 1), ṽj⫺ ⫽ (0, 0, 0).

Step 7.4: The alternative distance is calculated using equations (11) and (12). The
positive and negative distance for project selection alternatives is shown in Table XIV:

n
⬃⫹
di ⫽ 兺 d( ṽ , ṽ
j⫽1
ij
⫹
j ), i ⫽ 1, 2, …, mj, j ⫽ 1, 2, …, n. (11)

n
⬃⫺
di ⫽ 兺 d( ṽ , ṽ
j⫽1
ij
⫺
j ), i ⫽ 1, 2, …, mj, j ⫽ 1, 2, …, n. (12)

冪 3 [(a ⫺ b ) ⫹ (a ⫺ b ) ⫹ (a ⫺ b ) ]
1
d(Ã, B̃) ⫽ 1 1
2
2 2
2
3 3
2
(13)

Step 7.5: Rank the alternatives using equations (13) and (14). The final ranking of project
selection is shown in Table XV:
 Downloaded by Florida Atlantic University At 22:56 24 February 2016 (PT)

6,4

330
IJLSS

Table XII.
Fuzzy decision

project selection
making matrix for
C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8 C9 C10

P1 (0.4, 0.5, 0.6) (0.2, 0.3, 0.4) (0.3, 0.4, 0.5) (0.4, 0.5, 0.6) (0.5, 0.6, 0.7) (0.6, 0.7, 0.8) (0.3, 0.4, 0.5) (0.4, 0.5, 0.6) (0.5, 0.6, 0.7) (0.4, 0.5, 0.6)
P2 (0.7, 0.8, 0.9) (0.6, 0.7, 0.8) (0.7, 0.8, 0.9) (0.7, 0.8, 0.9) (0.6, 0.7, 0.8) (0.7, 0.8, 0.9) (0.3, 0.4, 0.5) (0.6, 0.7, 0.8) (0.6, 0.7, 0.8) (0.7, 0.8, 0.9)
P3 (0.8, 0.9, 1) (0.7, 0.8, 0.9) (0.7, 0.8, 0.9) (0.8, 0.9, 1) (0.7, 0.8, 0.9) (0.9, 1, 1) (0.1, 0.2, 0.3) (0.7, 0.8, 0.9) (0.7, 0.8, 0.9) (0.8, 0.9, 1)
P4 (0.7, 0.8, 0.9) (0.6, 0.7, 0.8) (0.6, 0.7, 0.8) (0.6, 0.7, 0.8) (0.7, 0.8, 0.9) (0.7, 0.8, 0.9) (0.3, 0.4, 0.5) (0.7, 0.8, 0.9) (0.5, 0.6, 0.7) (0.6, 0.7, 0.8)
P5 (0.5, 0.6, 0.7) (0.5, 0.6, 0.7) (0.5, 0.6, 0.7) (0.5, 0.6, 0.7) (0.5, 0.6, 0.7) (0.8, 0.9, 1) (0, 0.1, 0.2) (0.5, 0.6, 0.7) (0.7, 0.8, 0.9) (0.5, 0.6, 0.7)
(continued)
 Downloaded by Florida Atlantic University At 22:56 24 February 2016 (PT)

C11 C12 C13 C14 C15 C16 C17 C18 C19 C20

P1 (0.4, 0.5, 0.6) (0.4, 0.5, 0.6) (0.5, 0.6, 0.7) (0.5, 0.6, 0.7) (0.6, 0.7, 0.8) (0.5, 0.6, 0.7) (0.6, 0.7, 0.8) (0.4, 0.5, 0.6) (0.5, 0.6, 0.7) (0.5, 0.6, 0.7)
P2 (0.7, 0.8, 0.9) (0.6, 0.7, 0.8) (0.7, 0.8, 0.9) (0.8, 0.9, 1) (0.6, 0.7, 0.8) (0.7, 0.8, 0.9) (0.5, 0.6, 0.7) (0.6, 0.7, 0.8) (0.5, 0.6, 0.7) (0.7, 0.8, 0.9)
P3 (0.8, 0.9, 1) (0.7, 0.8, 0.9) (0.7, 0.8, 0.9) (0.7, 0.8, 0.9) (0.6, 0.7, 0.8) (0.7, 0.8, 0.9) (0.6, 0.7, 0.8) (0.7, 0.8, 0.9) (0.7, 0.8, 0.9) (0.8, 0.9, 1)
P4 (0.6, 0.7, 0.8) (0.6, 0.7, 0.8) (0.6, 0.7, 0.8) (0.7, 0.8, 0.9) (0.7, 0.8, 0.9) (0.8, 0.9, 1) (0.7, 0.8, 0.9) (0.6, 0.7, 0.8) (0.6, 0.7, 0.8) (0.7, 0.8, 0.9)
P5 (0.5, 0.6, 0.7) (0.5, 0.6, 0.7) (0.5, 0.6, 0.7) (0.6, 0.7, 0.8) (0.5, 0.6, 0.7) (0.6, 0.7, 0.8) (0.5, 0.6, 0.7) (0.7, 0.8, 0.9) (0.6, 0.7, 0.8) (0.5, 0.6, 0.7)

Table XII.
331
selection
Sigma project
Lean Six
 Downloaded by Florida Atlantic University At 22:56 24 February 2016 (PT)

6,4

332
IJLSS

selection
Table XIII.

matrix for project

Weighted decision
C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8 C9 C10

P1 (0.08, 0.10, 0.11) (0.02, 0.03, 0.05) (0.01, 0.02, 0.02) (0.01, 0.01, 0.02) (0.01, 0.01, 0.01) (0.03, 0.03, 0.04) (0.01, 0.01, 0.01) (0.00, 0.01, 0.01 (0.04, 0.05, 0.05) (0.01, 0.01, 0.01)
P2 (0.13, 0.15, 0.17) (0.07, 0.08, 0.09) (0.03, 0.04, 0.04) 0.02, 0.02, 0.03) (0.01, 0.01, 0.01) (0.03, 0.04, 0.04) (0.01, 0.01, 0.01) (0.01, 0.01, 0.01) (0.05, 0.05, 0.06) (0.01, 0.01, 0.02)
P3 (0.15, 0.17, 0.19) (0.08, 0.09, 0.10) (0.03, 0.04, 0.04) (0.02, 0.03, 0.03) (0.01, 0.01, 0.01) (0.04, 0.05, 0.05) (0.00, 0.00, 0.01) (0.01, 0.01, 0.01) (0.05, 0.06, 0.07) (0.01, 0.02, 0.02)
P4 (0.13, 0.15, 0.17) (0.07, 0.08, 0.09) (0.03, 0.03, 0.04) (0.02, 0.02, 0.02) (0.01, 0.01, 0.01) (0.03, 0.04, 0.04) (0.01, 0.01, 0.01) (0.01, 0.01, 0.01) (0.04, 0.05, 0.05) (0.01, 0.01, 0.01)
P5 (0.10, 0.11, 0.13) (0.06, 0.07, 0.08) (0.02, 0.03, 0.03) (0.01, 0.02, 0.02) (0.01, 0.01, 0.01) (0.04, 0.04, 0.05) (0.00, 0.00, 0.00) (0.01, 0.01, 0.01) (0.05, 0.06, 0.07) (0.01, 0.01, 0.01)
(continued)
 Downloaded by Florida Atlantic University At 22:56 24 February 2016 (PT)

C11 C12 C13 C14 C15 C16 C17 C18 C19 C20

P1 (0.06, 0.07, 0.09) (0.04, 0.05, 0.05) (0.03, 0.03, 0.04) (0.02, 0.02, 0.03) (0.01, 0.02, 0.02) (0.01, 0.01, 0.01) (0.02, 0.02, 0.03) (0.01, 0.01, 0.01) (0.00, 0.00, 0.00) (0.00, 0.00, 0.00)
P2 (0.10, 0.12, 0.13) (0.05, 0.06, 0.07) (0.04, 0.04, 0.05) (0.03, 0.04, 0.04) (0.01, 0.02, 0.02) (0.01, 0.01, 0.01) (0.02, 0.02, 0.02) (0.01, 0.01, 0.02) (0.00, 0.00, 0.00) (0.00, 0.00, 0.00)
P3 0.12, 0.13, 0.15) (0.06, 0.07, 0.08) (0.04, 0.04, 0.05) (0.03, 0.03, 0.04) (0.01, 0.02, 0.02) (0.01, 0.01, 0.01) (0.02, 0.02, 0.03) (0.01, 0.02, 0.02) (0.00, 0.01, 0.01) (0.00, 0.00, 0.00)
P4 (0.09, 0.10, 0.12) (0.05, 0.06, 0.07) (0.03, 0.04, 0.04) (0.03, 0.03, 0.04) (0.02, 0.02, 0.02) (0.01, 0.01, 0.01) (0.02, 0.03, 0.03) (0.01, 0.01, 0.02) (0.00, 0.00, 0.01) (0.00, 0.00, 0.00)
P5 (0.07, 0.09, 0.10) (0.05, 0.05, 0.06) (0.03, 0.03, 0.04) (0.02, 0.03, 0.03) (0.01, 0.01, 0.02) (0.01, 0.01, 0.01) (0.02, 0.02, 0.02) (0.01, 0.02, 0.02) (0.00, 0.00, 0.01) (0.00, 0.00, 0.00)

Table XIII.
333
selection
Sigma project
Lean Six
 Downloaded by Florida Atlantic University At 22:56 24 February 2016 (PT)

6,4

334
IJLSS

Table XIV.

distance of the
project selection
Positive negative
d1 d2 d3 d4 d5 d6 d7 d8 d9 d10 d11 d12 d13 d14 d15 d16 d17 d18 d19 d20 (d) Total

Positive distance table

P1 0.90 0.04 0.98 0.99 0.99 0.97 0.01 0.99 0.95 0.99 0.93 0.95 0.97 0.98 0.98 0.99 0.98 0.99 0.00 1.00 16.58
P2 0.85 0.08 0.96 0.98 0.99 0.96 0.01 0.99 0.95 0.99 0.88 0.94 0.96 0.96 0.98 0.99 0.98 0.99 0.00 1.00 16.44
P3 0.83 0.09 0.96 0.97 0.99 0.96 0.01 0.99 0.94 0.98 0.87 0.93 0.96 0.97 0.98 0.99 0.98 0.98 0.01 1.00 16.39
P4 0.85 0.08 0.97 0.98 0.99 0.96 0.01 0.99 0.95 0.99 0.90 0.94 0.96 0.97 0.98 0.99 0.97 0.99 0.00 1.00 16.47
P5 0.89 0.07 0.97 0.98 0.99 0.96 0.00 0.99 0.94 0.99 0.91 0.95 0.97 0.97 0.99 0.99 0.98 0.98 0.00 1.00 16.52
Negative distance table
P1 0.10 0.97 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.03 0.99 0.01 0.05 0.01 0.08 0.05 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.01 1.00 0.00 3.44
P2 0.15 0.92 0.04 0.02 0.01 0.04 0.99 0.01 0.05 0.01 0.12 0.06 0.04 0.04 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.01 1.00 0.00 3.56
P3 0.17 0.91 0.04 0.03 0.01 0.04 1.00 0.01 0.06 0.02 0.14 0.07 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.99 0.00 3.63
P4 0.15 0.92 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.04 0.99 0.01 0.05 0.01 0.11 0.06 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.03 0.01 1.00 0.00 3.54
P5 0.12 0.93 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.04 1.00 0.01 0.06 0.01 0.09 0.06 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.02 1.00 0.00 3.51
 di⫹ Lean Six
Di ⫽ (14)
di⫹ ⫹ di⫺ Sigma project
selection
5. Results
The unique contribution of the study is the application of integrated MCDM tools
DEMATEL–ANP–TOPSIS for LSS project selection. The key finding from the study
indicate that Pull production and Streamlined Process (C1), Top Management 335
Commitment (C11), Project Duration (C2), Team Member Strong Sprit and Motivation
(C12) and Project Cost Reduction (C9) are top prioritized criteria. Based on the TOPSIS
method, the scores for the projects are calculated. The ranking of projects is shown in
Table XIV. Performance scores for projects P1, P2, P3, P4 and P5 are found to be 0.17105,
0.178456, 0.181399, 0.177036 and 0.174021, respectively. Project P3 has a high score
Downloaded by Florida Atlantic University At 22:56 24 February 2016 (PT)

among five projects, which indicate that P3 is the best LSS project. The selected project
P3 is subjected to implementation in case organization. The study enabled the
practitioners to prioritize LSS projects and deploy the most optimal project for attaining
benefits. The prioritization results were agreed by the practitioners. The deployment of
selected P3 project is as follows: in the Define phase, the first problem has been defined;
then a flow chart has been prepared and project charter is drawn. After preparation of
project charter, a current state map has been made. In the Measure phase, data are
collected from case organization and process capability chart has been drawn. In the
Analyze phase, a cause and effect diagram has been made based on past six-month data
collected from industry and a Pareto chart is drawn. In the Improve phase, a cause
validation table has been made and a future state map is drawn. In the last phase, a
control chart has been prepared. After preparation of the control chart, the significant
improvement in LSS metrics are found to be:
• 25 per cent reduction in manufacturing lead time;
• 40 per cent reduction in Defect Per Unit;
• 25 per cent increase in Overall Equipment Effectiveness;
• 8 per cent decrease in changeover time;
• 8 per cent reduction in cycle time; and
• 40 per cent increase in production per day.

6. Conclusions
This study combines integrated fuzzy DEMATEL–ANP–TOPSIS for LSS project
selection in the automotive component manufacturing organization and the key
objective is to select the optimal LSS project, the project that gives maximum benefit and
minimum risk. In this study, five LSS projects were considered, and DEMATEL–ANP

Project Performance index Rank

P1 0.17105 5
P2 0.178456 2
P3 0.181399 1
P4 0.177036 3 Table XV.
P5 0.174021 4 Ranking of projects
 IJLSS was used to determine the degree and importance weight of selection criteria. The best
6,4 LSS project was selected using TOPSIS. In the present study, hybrid MCDM method is
used as integrated Fuzzy DEMATEL–ANP–TOPSIS approach that considers inter
dependency and weight criteria for the selection of optimal project. Project P3 with
performance score 0.1813 was found to be the best project among all five projects. The
prioritized project (P3) has been formulated with appropriate Lean tools in Six Sigma
336 DMAIC phase. The LSS phase is being subjected to deployment in the case organization.
The approach enabled industry decision-makers to appropriately analyze and select the
best LSS project and efforts are being taken to implement the selected project. This
method is presently applied in an automotive component manufacturing organization;
in future its feasibility could be tested in several industrial scenarios.
Downloaded by Florida Atlantic University At 22:56 24 February 2016 (PT)

References
Alam-Tabriz, A., Rajabani, N. and Farrokh, M. (2014), “An integrated fuzzy DEMATEL–
ANP–TOPSIS methodology for supplier selection problem”, Global Journal of Management
Studies and Researches, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 85-99.
Ashrafzadeh, M., Rafiei, F.M., Isfahani, N.M. and Zare, Z. (2012), “Application of fuzzy TOPSIS
method for the selection of warehouse location: a case study”, Interdisciplinary Journal of
Contemporary Research in Business, Vol. 3 No. 9, pp. 655-667.
Bilgen, B. and Sen, M. (2012), “Project selection through fuzzy analytic hierarchy process and a
case study on Six Sigma implementation in an automotive industry”, Production Planning
& Control, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 2-25.
Bonilla, C., Pawlicki, T., Perry, L. and Wesselink, B. (2008), “Radiation oncology Lean Six Sigma
project selection based on patient and staff input into a modified quality function
deployment”, International Journal of Six Sigma and Competitive Advantage, Vol. 4 No. 3,
pp. 196-208.
Büyüközkan, G. and Çifçi, G. (2012), “A novel hybrid MCDM approach based on fuzzy
DEMATEL, fuzzy ANP and fuzzy TOPSIS to evaluate green suppliers”, Expert Systems
with Applications, Vol. 39 No. 3, pp. 3000-3011.
Büyüközkan, G. and Öztürkcan, D. (2010), “An integrated analytic approach for Six Sigma project
selection”, Expert Systems with Applications, Vol. 37 No. 8, pp. 5835-5847.
Chaghooshi, A.J., Fathi, M.R. and Kashef, M. (2012), “Integration of fuzzy Shannon’s entropy with
fuzzy TOPSIS for industrial robotic system section”, Journal of Industrial Engineering and
Management, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 102-114.
Devadoss, V.A. and Felix, A. (2013), “A Fuzzy DEMATEL approach to study cause and effect
relationship of youth violence”, International Journal of Computing Algorithm, Vol. 2,
pp. 363-372.
Duarte, B., Montgomery, D., Fowler, J. and Konopka, J. (2012), “Deploying LSS in a global
enterprise – project identification”, International Journal of Lean Six Sigma, Vol. 3 No. 3,
pp. 187-205.
Hosseini, M.B. and Tarokh, M.J. (2013), “Type-2 fuzzy set extension of DEMATEL method
combined with perceptual computing for decision making”, Journal of Industrial
Engineering International, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 1-10.
Hu, G., Wang, L., Fetch, S. and Bidanda, B. (2008), “A multi-objective model for project portfolio
selection to implement lean and Six Sigma concepts”, International Journal of Production
Research, Vol. 46 No. 23, pp. 6611-6625.
 Irajpour, A., Golsefid-Alavi, M., Hajimirza, M. and Soleimani-Nezhad, N. (2012), “Evaluation of the Lean Six
most effective criteria in green supply chain management in automotive industries using
the Fuzzy DEMATEL Method”, Journal of Basic and Applied Scientific Research, Vol. 2
Sigma project
No. 9, pp. 8952-8961. selection
Kabir, G. and Hasin, A.A. (2012), “Comparative analysis of TOPSIS and Fuzzy TOPSIS for the
evaluation of travel website service quality”, International Journal for Quality Research,
Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 169-185.
337
Kazemi et al. (2005), Proceedings of the 41st International Conference on Computers & Industrial
Engineering, pp. 502-507.
Kiriş, Ş. (2013), “Multi-criteria inventory classification by using a fuzzy analytic network process
(ANP) approach”, Informatica, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 199-217.
Kornfeld, B. and Kara, S. (2013), “Selection of Lean and Six Sigma project in industry”,
Downloaded by Florida Atlantic University At 22:56 24 February 2016 (PT)

International Journal of Lean Six Sigma, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 4-16.

Kumar, U.D., Saranga, H., Ramírez-Márquez, J.E. and Nowicki, D. (2007), “Six Sigma project
selection using data envelopment analysis”, The TQM Magazine, Vol. 19 No. 5,
pp. 419-441.
Mahmoodi, M. and Jahromi, G.S. (2014), “A new fuzzy DEMATEL-TODIM hybrid method
for evaluation criteria of Knowledge management in supply chain”, International
Journal of Managing Value & Supply Chains, Vol. 5 No. 2, p. 29, arXiv preprint arXiv:
1407.3657.
Meza, D. and Jeong, K.Y. (2013), “Measuring efficiency of lean six sigma project implementation
using data envelopment analysis at NASA”, Journal of Industrial Engineering and
Management, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 401-422.
Padhy, R.K. and Sahu, S. (2011), “A real option based Six Sigma project evaluation and
selection model”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 29 No. 8,
pp. 1091-1102.
Patil, S.K. and Kant, R. (2013), “A fuzzy DEMATEL method to identify critical success factors of
knowledge management adoption in supply chain”, Journal of Information & Knowledge
Management, Vol. 12 No. 3.
Prascevic, Z. and Prascevic, N. (2013), “One modification of fuzzy TOPSIS method”, Journal of
Modelling in Management, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 81-102.
Raei, R. and Jahromi, M. (2012), “Portfolio optimization using a hybrid of fuzzy ANP, VIKOR and
TOPSIS”, Management Science Letters, Vol. 2 No. 7, pp. 2473-2484.
Ray, S. and Das, P. (2010), “Six Sigma project selection methodology”, International Journal of
Lean Six Sigma, Vol. 1 No. 4, pp. 293-309.
Rezaeiniya, N., Ghadikolaei, A.S., Mehri-Tekmeh, J. and Rezaeiniya, H. (2014), “Fuzzy ANP
approach for new application: greenhouse location selection; a case in Iran”, Journal of
Mathematics and Computer Science, Vol. 8, pp. 1-20.
Sharma, S. and Chetiya, A.R. (2010), “Six Sigma project selection: an analysis of responsible
factors”, International Journal of Lean Six Sigma, Vol. 1 No. 4, pp. 280-292.
Tenera, A. and Pinto, L.C. (2014), “A Lean Six Sigma (LSS) project management improvement
model”, Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 119, pp. 912-920.
Van den Bos, A., Kemper, B. and de Waal, V. (2014), “A study on how to improve the throughput
time of Lean Six Sigma projects in a construction company”, International Journal of Lean
Six Sigma, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 212-226.
 IJLSS Vinodh, S., Gautham, S.G. and Ramiya, R.A. (2011), “Implementing lean sigma framework in an
Indian automotive valves manufacturing organization: a case study”, Production Planning
6,4 & Control, Vol. 22 No. 7, pp. 708-722.
Wang, F.-K., Hsu, C.-H. and Tzeng, G.-H. (2014), “Applying a hybrid MCDM model for Six Sigma
project selection”, Mathematical Problems in Engineering, Vol. 1, pp. 1-13.
Yang, T. and Hsieh, C.-H. (2009), “Six-Sigma project selection using national quality award criteria
338 and Delphi fuzzy multiple criteria decision-making method”, Expert Systems with
Applications, Vol. 36 No. 4, pp. 7594-7603.
Zhao, D.Y., Ye, W.M., Gao, C.J. and Zhang, M.F. (2013), “Customer requirements analysis
method in lean six sigma project selection based on RAHP”, 2013 International
Conference on Quality, Reliability, Risk, Maintenance, and Safety Engineering
(QR2MSE), pp. 1224-1228.
Downloaded by Florida Atlantic University At 22:56 24 February 2016 (PT)

Corresponding author
S. Vinodh can be contacted at: vinodh_sekar82@yahoo.com

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com