See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/259633490

Application of a modified VIKOR method for decision-making problems in

lean tool selection

Article  in  The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology · March 2013

DOI: 10.1007/s00170-013-5520-x

CITATIONS READS

37 312

3 authors:

Alireza Anvari Norzima Zulkifli

Islamic Azad University, Shiraz Branch Universiti Putra Malaysia
23 PUBLICATIONS   411 CITATIONS    55 PUBLICATIONS   936 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Omid Arghish
Islamic Azad University, Gachsaran , iran
5 PUBLICATIONS   40 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Alireza Anvari on 03 November 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2014) 71:829–841
DOI 10.1007/s00170-013-5520-x
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Application of a modified VIKOR method for decision-making
problems in lean tool selection
Alireza Anvari & Norzima Zulkifli & Omid Arghish
Received: 27 September 2013 / Accepted: 19 November 2013 / Published online: 12 December 2013
# Springer-Verlag London 2013
Abstract Group decision making with multiple criteria is the
most popular method for ranking a set of alternatives. In this
regard, all alternatives are compared based on a common
criteria set. Meanwhile, decision makers sometimes encounter
special situations, for example, having to select from among a
set of alternatives without a set of criteria or with a set of
criteria that are grouped/related to various alternatives. Thus,
it may be impossible to select from among a set of alternatives
using typical methods. Hence, in this study, a new, modified
VIKOR method is proposed to address the lean tool selection
problems in manufacturing systems. In this study, a model
was developed to help practitioners improve their ability to
solve problems when the possible solutions have their own
individual criteria. In fact the modified VIKOR method can be
applied to rank alternatives in threefold: alternatives with
common criteria, without common criteria, with integrated
common, and uncommon criteria. This paper offers numerical
examples of the model, using a case study to illustrate an
application of the proposed model and properly assess the
validity of this new method. The results demonstrate the
usefulness and effectiveness of the modified new method.
The model covers the lack existing in the current literature to
assess effectiveness of applying lean tools.
Keywords Lean manufacturing . Leanness . Lean tool
selection . MCDM . VIKOR . Compromise solution
A. Anvari (*) : O. Arghish
Department of Industrial Engineering, Gachsaran Branch, I.A.U,
Gachsaran, Iran
e-mail: anvar.ali67@gmail.com
O. Arghish
e-mail: omid_arghashi@yahoo.com
N. Zulkifli
Department of Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering,
University Putra Malaysia, Selangor, Malaysia
e-mail: norzima@eng.upm.edu.my
1 Introduction
The field of multiple criteria decision making (MCDM) con-
cerns about the problems of how decision-makers (DMs)
should ideally make choices when facing multiple conflicting
criteria [1]. The decision-making process involves identifying
the problems, constructing a set of preferences, evaluating the
alternatives, and determining the best alternative [2]. Decision
making is extremely intuitive when considering single-criterion
problems because we only need to choose the alternative with
the highest preference rating [1]. Although the VIKOR method
is a popular method in multi-criteria analysis, it has some
problems when addressing MCDM situations [4, 5].
MCDM techniques are the most well accepted and well
known methods used to prioritize a set of alternatives [6].
Typically, all alternatives are compared based on a set of
common criteria. However, there is not simply a set of criteria;
there are a few criteria that are grouped into various alterna-
tives. Thus, decision makers may not be able to select from
among a set of alternatives using typical methods.
In this paper, we propose a modified VIKOR
(VlseKriterijumskaOptimizacoja I Komopromisno Resenje /
multi-criteria optimization and compromise solution) model,
which is based on incompatible multi-criteria analysis, to over-
come VIKOR problems [2]. The most important features of the
proposed model are that its levels of best and worst scores are
determined (if all alternatives have their own criteria) and calcu-
lated (if the normalized decision matrix is in different matrixes).
Hence, in this paper, a modified VIKOR method is pro-
posed to address lean tools selection problems in manufactur-
ing systems when the alternatives have their own individual
criteria. Numerical examples (for verification), including
two resolved problems and a case study (for validation),
are presented to illustrate applications of the proposed
model and properly validate this new method. The results
demonstrate the usefulness and effectiveness of the modified
new method.
830 Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2014) 71:829–841

2 Leanness in manufacturing systems Start

Lean tools selection is currently one of the main challenges

Literature
faced by managers in manufacturing. This is because lean review
tools selection is the most important process determining the
success or failure of lean manufacturing (LM) systems; with-
out implementing proper techniques, leanness cannot be eval- Problem
uated. Leanness is the performance measurement of LM prac- statement
tices, the essence of which is the efficient use of resources
through the minimization of waste [1, 7]. Success in
implementing relevant techniques and achieving desired goals
within LM can be related to a certain level of leanness. A
PDCA method used to determine leanness is illustrated in No
Is agreement on
Fig. 1.
the best selection?
In this study, in addition to discussing the attributes of
leanness (cost, lead time, defects, value), lean tools and tech- Yes
niques were identified to be prioritized by a modified VIKOR
method.

Lean tools selection In this study, more than 100 tools

and techniques were obtained from various sources (e.g.,
[8–15]).
Thirty-five of the most popular tools and techniques were
identified by referring to the literature. Next, 13 tools and
techniques were selected based on majority voting (21 ex-
perts), i.e., the select tools and techniques were those garner-
ing over 50 % of the votes [16]. This selection was performed
by ten experts using the Delphi method (Fig. 2). Ultimately,
five main tools and techniques were chosen: Continuous
flow, Poka-Yoke, Standard works, Synchronize, and
TPM. The five tools and techniques were designated
as important alternatives. A summary of descriptions
[11, 14] of the mentioned practices are presented in
Table 1.
Fig. 2 Delphi method to select the properly lean tools
3 VIKOR method
The compromise ranking method VIKOR was established as
an MCDM method to resolve decision-making problems that
feature non-commensurable and incompatible criteria. In pro-
viding such a compromise solution, VIKOR applies the con-
cepts of “acceptable advantage” and “acceptable stability” to
determine the maximum “group utility of the majority” and
the minimum “individual regret of the opponent” [6].
Based on the above-mentioned concepts, the compromise-
ranking algorithm VIKOR consists of the following steps
[3, 17].

Fig. 1 Leanness process based

on Deming Cycle
Plan
Determining Criteria to Leanness

Cost
Lead Time Value
Defects

Action Do
Running results Determining & implementing
& improving for Lean Tools & Techniques
next study

Check
Analyzing &
confirming results
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2014) 71:829–841
Step 1: The alternatives are denoted as A 1, A 2, … A i , … A m .
W j is the weight of the jth criterion, expressing the
relative importance of the criteria, where j =1, 2,…,
n; m is the number of alternatives, and n is the
   
fi ¼ max f ij ; j ¼ 1; …; J ; f −j ¼ min f ij ; j ¼ 1; …; J ; if the i‐th function is benefit;
   
−
fi ¼ min f ij ; j ¼ 1; …; J ; f j ¼ max f ij ; j ¼ 1; … J
If we assume the jth function represents a benefit, then;
f j* =max fij (or setting an aspired level) and f j− =mini fij (or
setting a tolerable level). Alternatively, if we assume the jth
function represents a cost/risk, then f *j =mini fij (or setting
an aspired level), and f j− =maxi fij (or setting a tolerable
level).
Step 3: Compute the values S j and R j (utility measure and
regret measure); j =1, 2,. . ., m , using the relations
Xn  .  .
  −
Sj ¼ j¼1
w j f j −f ij f j −f j ð2Þ
h  . i
R j ¼ Max w f j − f ij f j − f −j
Therefore, mini Si expresses the minimization of the aver-
age sum of the individual regrets/gaps and min Ri ex-
presses the minimization of the maximum individual
regret/gaps for prioritizing the improvement. In other
words, min Si emphasizes the maximum group utility,
whereas min Ri emphasizes selecting minimum among
the maximum individual regrets.
Actually, the obtained solution is compromised by a
maximum group utility (represented by min j S) of the
majority, and a minimum of the individual regret represent-
ed by min j R of the opponent. The j S (the maximum
group utility) and j R (the minimum individual regret of the
opponent) values, j =1, 2, K , J, by the relations. In other
words, Sj indicates the relative distance of the option “i”,
positive ideal solution (best combination) and Ri indicates
the most uncomfortable/regret of the option “i ”, is the
distance from the positive ideal solution.
Step 4: Calculate the values Qj, j=1 …m, using the relation
Qi ¼ v ðS i −S − Þ = ðS  −S − Þ þ ð1−vÞ ½ðS i −R− Þ=ðR −R− ފ
S − ¼ MinS i S  ¼ MaxS i R− ¼ MinRi R ¼ MaxRi
where S∗=mini Si (or setting the best S∗=0), S −=maxi Si
(or setting the worst S −=1), R∗=mini Ri (or setting the
best R ∗=0), R −=maxi Ri (or setting the worst R −=1),
831
number of criteria. The rating (performance score)
of the jth criterion is denoted by fij for alternative A i .
Step 2: Determine the best fi* and the worst f j− values of all
criterion functions, i =1,2,…,n ;
ð1Þ
; if the i ‐ th is cost :
and 0≤v ≤1, where v is introduced as a weight for the
strategy of maximum group utility, whereas 1−v is the
weight of the individual regret. In other words, when v >
0.5, this represents a decision-making process that could
use the strategy of maximum group utility (i.e., if v is big,
group utility is emphasized), or by consensus when v ≈0.5,
or with veto when v <0.5.
.
ðS i −S − Þ ðS  −S − Þ Closeness to ideal solution
ðS i −R− Þ ðR −R− Þ Closeness to anti‐ideal solution
ð3Þ
Step 5: Rank the alternatives, sorting by the values S i , R i ,
and Q i in decreasing order based on two conditions.
Condition 1 : Q A2Þ− Q ðA1 Þ ≥ ð1=ðn−1ÞÞ
ð5Þ
Condition 2 : Q AmÞ− QðA1 Þ < ð1=ðn−1ÞÞ
Propose as a compromise the alternative (A 1),
which is ranked first by the measure min {Q i |i =1,
2, …, m} if the following two conditions are satisfied:
Table 1 A summary definition of alternatives in the study
Alternatives Description
Continuous Producing and moving one item/items at a time through a
flow series of processing steps as continuously as possible,
with each step making just what is requested by the
next step.
Poka-Yoke Refers to a mistake-proofing device or procedure used to
prevent a defect during the production process.
Standard Establishing precise procedures for each operator’s work
works in a production process, based on three elements: Takt
time, the precise work sequence, the standard
inventory.
Synchronize The bringing together of materials information and
anything else needed in a coordinated manner such that
ð4Þ no part is waiting long for another.
TPM A set of techniques, to ensure that every machine in a
production process always is able to perform its
required tasks.
832 Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2014) 71:829–841

Fig. 3 Flowchart of modified

VIKOR method for lean tools
selection

C1. A cc ep ta ble ad va nt ag e: Q (A 2 ) − Q −Q (A 1)<(1/(n −1)) for maximum N; the posi-

(A 1)≥(1/(n −1)), where A 1 is the alternative oc-
cupying the second position in the ranking list by
Q ; m is the number of alternatives.
C2. Acceptable stability in decision making:
Alternative A 1 must also be the best ranked by
{Si or/and R i |i =1, 2, …m }.
If one of the conditions is not satisfied, then a
set of compromise solutions is proposed:
& Alternatives A 1 and A 2, if only condition C 2 is
not satisfied.
& Alternatives A 1, A 2, …, A m , if condition C 1 is not
satisfied. A m is determined by the relation Q (A m)
tions of these alternatives are close to one another.
4 A proposed modified VIKOR method
In this subsection, the details of the proposed method are
presented step by step. This is followed by an examination
of numerical examples, comparison with resolved problems,
and a case study. The VIKOR method generally features a set
of criteria for a number of alternatives. Thus, the alternatives
are ranked according to all criteria; in other words, the same
criteria are used for each alternative. Sometimes, only a few

Table 2 Nine-point scale for determining degree of interaction

Verbal judgment Equally Equally to Moderately Moderately Strongly Strongly to Very strongly Very strong to Extremely
of preference preferred moderately preferred to strongly preferred very strongly preferred extremely preferred

Numerical rating 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2014) 71:829–841 833

Table 3 A matrix of paired-comparison among multi-criteria related to Table 5 A matrix of scored alternatives based on related criteria
multi-alternatives
C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8 C9
A1 C1 C2 C3 A2 C4 C5 C6 A3 C7 C8 C9
A1 5 4 6 – – – – – –
C1 1 4 2 C4 1 6 3 C7 1 2 5 A2 – – – 3 7 4 – – –
C2 0.25 1 2 C5 0.17 1 2 C8 0.5 1 0.5 A3 – – – – – – 6 2 8
C3 0.5 0.5 1 C6 0.33 0.5 1 C9 0.2 2 1

4.2 Secondary steps in modified VIKOR method

criteria are used for each alternative: The set of criteria for a
number of alternatives is not fixed, so perhaps some alterna-
tives have a fixed set of common criteria and some do not.
This means that each alternative has its own criteria. To
resolve these problems, a modified VIKOR method is pro-
posed. The details of this modified VIKOR method are illus-
trated as follows.
4.1 Primary construction modified VIKOR method
The details regarding the construction of the new method,
including determining criteria, collecting score and weights,
and using the new method for lean tools selection, are ex-
plained here. The new method is used to implement successful
lean tools selection using leanness criteria. The method’s
structure is presented in Fig. 3; the figure illustrates how the
modified VIKOR method is twofold: It addresses situations in
which alternatives have common and uncommon criteria.
Thus, to improve lean tools selection under various conditions,
the VIKOR method was modified.
Score and weights This study used the above-mentioned
criteria to design two questionnaires. The first questionnaire
investigated grades of criterion importance based on paired
comparison analysis, and the tools rating of the second ques-
tionnaire was based on four criteria according to the view-
points of a panel of lean experts. In the questionnaires, the
terms shown in Table 2 were adopted (with respect to a nine-
level scale) for the various grades of importance of every
criterion and alternative.
The decision matrix/different matrixes are structured with
respect to alternatives and attributes. The decision matrix
calculates a score that indicates the weight and importance
of the criteria/alternatives. The evaluating decision matrix
allows the DMs to be structured and then solved.
Step 1: Organize decision matrix and determine the best f j*
and the worst f j− values. Because each alternative
is ranked according to its own criteria, an ideal point
and non-ideal point, as in the VIKOR method ( f j* =
max ( f ij , j =1,…,J ); and f j− =min ( f ij , j =1,…,J )
cannot be set. Therefore, the benefits or costs
must be reset according to each criterion of each
alternative, and we call the best f ij* the greatest
level and the worst f ij− the acceptable (at least)
level. Therefore, the initial rating matrix of the new
method is as follows:
Here, A i represents the ith alternative, i =1, 2 …m;
C j represents the jth criterion, j =1, 2, …, n; and
f ij is the individual performance of an alternative
(A i with respect to the jth criterion)
Step 2: Normalize. The normalized weight rating matrix
(determine by using the relations weight rating)
can be expressed as follows:
Where w ij is the weight of i (1, 2 …m) alternative
and j (1, 2 …n) criteria, and the performance scores
as normalized ratings (r ij ) are indicated as
 .  o
rij ¼ f ij −f ij f ij − f −ij ; i ¼ 1; 2…m; j ¼ 1; 2…n :
ð6Þ
f ij* is the best score for each criterion of each
alternative;
f ij− is the worst score for each criterion of each
alternative.
Step 3: Determine ideal solutions. The best f ij* and the worst
f ij− values (each alternative has its own criteria)
Table 6 A matrix of determined highest and lowest levels

C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8 C9
Table 4 Weights of criteria related to alternatives
A1 5 4 6 – – – – – –
A1 A2 A3
A2 – – – 3 7 4 – – –
C1 0.566234 C4 0.655556 C7 0.585822 A3 – – – – – – 6 2 8
C2 0.241558 C5 0.193333 C8 0.190347 f i* 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
C3 0.047619 C6 0.043571 C9 0.07619 f i− 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
834 Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2014) 71:829–841

Table 7 The priority of alternatives without common criteria step by step

C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8 C9

A1 5 4 6 – – – – – –
A2 – – – 3 7 4 – – –
A3 – – – – – – 6 2 8
Step 1 F*ij 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 F*ij =maxf ij
Fij− 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Fij− =minf ij
  
Step 2 r ij 0.56 0.67 0.44 0.78 0.33 0.67 0.44 0.89 0.22 f −f
rij ¼ f ij − f −ij
ij ij

Step 3 Wj* rij 0.32 0.16 0.02 0.51 0.06 0.03 0.26 0.17 0.02
!
f ij −f ij
Step 4 Utility Si 0.5 0.6 0.44 Si ¼ ∑nj¼1 w j
measure
f ij −f −j
h i
f − f
Step 5 Regret Ri 0.32 0.51 0.26 Ri ¼ Max w j f ij− f ij−
ij j
measure
S *i =0.6 S −i =0.44 R *i =0.51 S −i =0.26
Step 6 VIKOR Qi 0.31 1 0
index
Q i =[v(S i −S −)/(S*−S −)]+[(1−v)(R i −R −)/(R*−R −)]
Step 7 Preference ranking A 3> A 1 >A 2

n       o 2 3
A ¼ max f ij  jε J or min f ij  jε J ; i ¼ 1; 2… f 1 ; f 2 ; … f n f11 ⋯ f1n1    
  F ¼ 4⋮ ⋮ ⋮ 5 rij ¼ fij − fij = fij − f j−
max f ij ; j ¼ 1; …; J ; fm1 ⋯ fmnn
n    
o ð8Þ
A− ¼ min f  jε J or max fij  jε J ; i ¼ 1; 2; …f − ; f − ; … f − !1=2
ij 1 2 n . Xm

ð7Þ f ij ¼ xij 2
xij
i¼1

fij ¼ max fij ; ðbest levelÞ and fij − ¼ min fij ðworst levelÞ: Xn Xn    

Si ¼ j¼1
w j rij S i ¼ j¼1
w j fij − fij = fij −f j− ð9Þ
fij ¼ max fij ; for i ¼ 1; 2; …n; and j ¼ 1; 2; … J

fij ¼ min fij ðif the ith function represents a benefitÞ

  h    i
Ri ¼ max w j rij Ri ¼ Max w j fij − fij = fij − f j−


f j− ¼ min fij for i ¼ 1; 2; …n; and j ¼ 1; 2; … J fi ¼ 1; 2; …; m& j ¼ 1; 2; …; ng ð10Þ


f j− ¼ max fij ; ðif the ith function represents a costÞ
Where Si represents the utility measure, Ri represents the
regret measure, and wj is the weight of the jth criterion.
Step 4: Compute the values S i (utility measure) and R i Step 5: Compute the index values Q i , i =1, 2, …, m , using
(regret measure), i =1, 2, …, m, using the relations the relation; the VIKOR index can be as follows:
Qi ¼ ½vðS i −S − Þ=ðS  −S − ފ þ ½ð1−vÞðRi −R− Þ=ðR −R− ފ;
Table 8 The final result ranking of alternatives without common criteria
Where Qi represents the ith alternative VIKOR
AJ Si Ri Qi Final ranked value.

Score Rank Score Rank Score Rank S − ¼ minðSj; j ¼ 1; …; J Þ; S  ¼ maxðSj; j ¼ 1; …; J Þ;

R− ¼ minðRj; j ¼ 1; …; J Þ; R ¼ maxðRj; j ¼ 1; …; J Þ
A1 0.5 2 0.32 2 0.31 2 2
A2 0.6 3 0.51 3 1 3 3
ð11Þ
A3 0.44 1 0.26 1 0 1 1 and “V ” is the weight for the strategy of maximum
group utility and usually set to 0.5, whereas “1–V ” is
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2014) 71:829–841 835

Table 9 Ranking the alternatives based on modified method—first example

Eq. 6 Eq. 8 Eq. 11 Eq. 12 Eq. 13 Eq. 14

Ci Wj f ij− f ij* f ij r ij W *j r ij S i =£W *j r ij R i =maxW *j r ij Qi Ranked

A1 C1 0.566 1 10 5 0.56 0.31696 0.5 0.32 0.31 2

C2 0.242 1 10 4 0.67 0.16214
C3 0.048 1 10 6 0.44 0.02112
A2 C4 0.656 1 10 3 0.78 0.51168 0.6 0.51 1 3
C5 0.193 1 10 7 0.33 0.06369
C6 0.044 1 10 4 0.67 0.02948
A3 C7 0.586 1 10 6 0.44 0.25784 0.44 0.26 0 1
C8 0.190 1 10 2 0.89 0.1691
C9 0.076 1 10 8 0.22 0.01672

the weight of the individual regret. Here, we define
the value “V =0.5.”
Step 6: Rank the alternatives, sorting by the value of
{S i , R i , Q i }, in decreasing/increasing order.
Propose as a compromise the alternative (A(1)) which
is ranked first by the measure min{Ri|i =1, 2, …,m}
if the following two conditions are satisfied:
Q ð A2Þ− Q ðA1 Þ ≥ ð1=ðm−1ÞÞ
ð12Þ
QðAmÞ− QðA1 Þ < ð1=ðm−1ÞÞ
C1. Acceptable advantage: Q(A(2))−Q(A(1))≥1/
(m −1), where A(2) is the alternative with second
position in the ranking list by Q; m is the number
of alternatives.
C2. Acceptable stability in decision making:
Alternative A(1) must also be the best ranked by
{Si or/and Ri|i =1, 2, …,m}.
If one of the conditions is not satisfied, then a set of
compromise solutions is proposed, which consists of:
Alternatives A(1) and A(2) if only condition C2 is not
satisfied.
Alternatives A(1), A(2), …, A(M) if condition C1
is not satisfied. A(M) is determined by the relation
Q(A(M))−Q(A(1))<1/(m −1) for maximum M (the
positions of these alternatives are close).
4.3 Application of modified VIKOR method
The modified method resolves problems in two ways: for
alternatives “without common criteria” and for alternatives
with “common criteria.”
4.3.1 First situation, alternatives without common criteria,
numerical examples
Example 1: Suppose there are three alternatives (A 1, A 2, A 3) and
nine criteria (C 1, C 2, …, C 9); all of the criteria are categorized in
three groups so that each of the three criteria are dependent on
special alternatives. In this example, (C 1, C 2, C 3) are related to
A 1; similarly, (C 4, C 5, C 6) are related to A 2; and (C 7, C 8, C 9)
are related to A 3. The related scores are shown in Table 3.
Step 1: Organize decision matrix/different matrixes (Table 3)
and determine f i* (desired/highest level) and f i− (low-
est level).

Table 10 Ranking the alterna-

tives based on revised method by Ci Wj f ij− f ij* f ij r ij W *j r ij S i =£W *j r ij Q i =max r ij Ri Ranked
Yang et al. (2009)–first example
A1 C1 0.566 1 10 5 0.56 0.31696 0.5 0.67 0.19 2
C2 0.242 1 10 4 0.67 0.16214
C3 0.048 1 10 6 0.44 0.02112
A2 C4 0.656 1 10 3 0.78 0.51168 0.6 0.78 1 3
C5 0.193 1 10 7 0.33 0.06369
C6 0.044 1 10 4 0.67 0.02948
A3 C7 0.586 1 10 6 0.44 0.25784 0.44 0.89 0.5 1
C8 0.190 1 10 2 0.89 0.1691
C9 0.076 1 10 8 0.22 0.01672
836 Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2014) 71:829–841

Table 11 Comparing ranking orders of alternatives revised VIKOR and to the proposed model (if all alternatives have their
proposed modified model (example 1)
own criteria), the levels of the best and worst scores
Project Criteria Yang et al. method Modified method are determined.
The major characteristic of the proposed model is
S Q R S R Q its levels of best and worst scores (Table 6) are
A1 C1 0.5 0.67 0.19 0.5 0.32 0.31
determined (if all alternatives have own criteria):
C2 Step 2: Normalize (Eq. 8), for example, according to Table 6
C3 a 11 =5/f 11=5; also, determine the maximum level de-
A2 C4 0.6 0.78 1 0.6 0.51 1 sired ( f i* =10) and minimum acceptable level ( f i− =1).
C5 Based on Eq. 8, r ij =( f ij* −f ij )/( f ij* −f j− ).
C6 Therefore, r 11 =(10−5)/(10−1)=0.56
A3 C7 0.44 0.89 0.5 0.44 0.26 0 Similarly, r ij should be calculated for all the ranking
C8 numbers from Table 6, as shown in Table 7.
C9 Step 3: Calculate wj ×r ij
Preference ranking A 3>A 1 >A 2 A 3>A 1 >A 2 For example, w 1 =0.566234, and a 11 =0.56 then,
w 1 ×r 11 =0.32
Step 4: Calculate S i and R i
According to the modified method (Fig. 3), the  . 
Xn
weight calculation and the overall operation   −
Si ¼ j¼1
w j f ij −f ij f ij −f j
are performed separately. For example, to calculate
S 1 ¼ ½ð0:566  0:56Þ þ ð0:242  0:67Þ þ ð0:048  0:44ފ ¼ 0:5
the weights of criteria, each of the matrixes in Table 3
ð13Þ
should be computed separately. h  . i
 
Similarly, to calculate weights/scores and priori-
tize alternatives, each of the groups should be calcu-
lated separately (see Table 4).
As shown in Table 5, the rating of alternatives is
based on each alternative’s own criteria.
A matrix of score of the proposed model is that the
levels of the best and worst scores (Table 6) are
determined (if all alternatives have own criteria):
alternatives based on related criteria form a ma-
trix and determine f i* (desired/highest level) and
f i− (lowest level); in other words, f ij* is the best
score for each criterion of each alternative, and
f ij− is the worst score for each criterion of each
alternative (Eq. 6). As mentioned before, according
Ri ¼ max w j rij Ri ¼ Max w j f ij −f ij f ij − f −j ð14Þ
R1 ¼ max½ð0:566  0:56Þ þ ð0:242  0:67Þ þ ð0:048  0:44ފ
R1 ¼ max½ð0:31696Þ þ ð0:16214Þ þ ð0:02112ފ ¼ 0:32
Thus, S 1 =0.5, S 2 =0.6, S 3 =0.44; and R 1 =0.32, R 2 =0.51,
R 3 =0.26
Step 5: Calculate Q 1 (Eq. 13)
h i h i
Qi ¼ vðS i −S − Þ=ðS  −S − Þ þ ð1−vÞðR1 −R− Þ=ðR −R− Þ
Here, we define the value “V =0.5”, and

S − ¼ MinS i ¼ 0:44 S  ¼ MaxS i ¼ 0:6; R− ¼ MinRi ¼ 0:26; R ¼ Max Ri ¼ 0:51

Q1 ¼½0:5ð0:5−0:44=ð0:6−0:44ފ þ ½ð1−0:5Þð0:32−0:26Þ=ð0:51−0:26ފ
Q1 ¼ 0:31

With this procedure, we obtain Q 2 =1, and Q 3 =0.

Table 12 A matrix of paired-comparison among multi-criteria—exam- The details of the operations and abstract are shown in
ple 2
Table 7.
C1 C2 C3 C4 C5
Table 13 A matrix of
scored alternatives based C1 C2 C3 C4 C5
C1 1 0.333 0.25 0.333 0.5
on related criteria
C2 3 1 0.333 0.5 5 A1 – 5 4 – 3
C3 4 3 1 2 5 A2 4 5 4 5 –
C4 3 2 0.5 1 4 A3 3 – – 4 2
C5 2 0.2 0.2 0.25 1 A4 5 6 – – 6
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2014) 71:829–841 837

Table 14 A matrix of scored alternatives based on related criteria—example 2 (modified method)

Eq. 6 Eq. 8 Eq. 11 Eq. 12 Eq. 13 Eq. 14

Ci Wj f ij− f ij* f ij r ij W *j r ij S i =£W *j r ij R i =maxW *j r ij Qi Ranked

A1 C2 0.303287 5 6 5 1 0.303287 0.321187 0.303287 0.4053 3

C3 0.607049 4 4 4 0 0
C5 0.089664 2 6 3 0.2 0.0179
A2 C1 0.087597 3 5 4 0.2 0.01175 0.191986 0.180236 0.2414 2
C2 0.180236 5 6 5 1 0.180236
C3 0.459802 4 4 4 0 0
C4 0.272366 4 5 5 0 0
A3 C1 0.155979 3 5 3 1 0.155979 1 0.619662 1 4
C4 0.619662 4 5 4 1 0.619662
C5 0.22436 2 6 2 1 0.22436
A4 C1 0.153604 3 5 5 0 0 0 0 0 1
C2 0.640515 5 6 6 0 0
C3 0.205881 2 6 6 0 0
Preference ranking A 4>A 2 >A 1 >A 3

Step 6: sort (S I , R I , Q I ) in decreasing order and rank alter-
natives.
Finally, we should rank the alternatives, sorting
by the value of {S i , R i , Q i }, in decreasing order if
the following two conditions are satisfied (Eq. 14):
According to the results shown in Table 11, the prioritiza-
tion of alternatives (A 3 >A 1 >A 2) using the revised VIKOR
(Yang et al. method) and that using the modified method
are the same.

Q A2Þ− QðA1 Þ ≥ ð1=ðn−1ÞÞ 4.3.2 Second situation, alternatives with integrated common
Q AmÞ− QðA1 Þ < ð1=ðn−1ÞÞ and uncommon criteria

From the results of this example, it seems A 3 may be the Example 2: Suppose there are four machines that should be
best alternative because it has the lowest Q , S , and R prioritized based on five criteria as shown in the matrixes
values with respect to the other alternatives; A 1 is the next below (Table 12). Note that the alternatives feature common
best, followed by A 2. The final results for ranking the and uncommon criteria (Table 13).
alternatives without common criteria are shown in Table 8. The associated operations and results obtained after calcu-
The problem has been resolved based on the modified lating the related weights of the criteria are shown in Table 14
method (Table 9) and the revised method (Table 10) pro- (modified method).
posed by Yang et al. [2].
Table 16 Comparing ranking orders of alternatives revised VIKOR and
Table 15 Comparing ranking orders of alternatives revised VIKOR and proposed modified model (2)
proposed modified model (1)
Project Criteria Yang et al. method Modified method
Project Criteria Yang et al. method Modified method
S Q R S R Q
S Q R S R Q
A1 C 11 0.33 0.4 0.37 0.33 0.13 0.67
A1 C 11 0.33 0.56 0.45 0.33 0.13 0.18 C 12
C 12 C 13
C 13 C 14
A2 C 21 0.30 0.50 0.40 0.30 0.15 0.11 A2 C 21 0.24 0.3 0.27 0.24 0.12 0
C 22 C 22
A3 C 31 0.48 0.56 0.52 0.49 0.22 1 A3 C 31 0.32 0.5 0.41 0.32 0.15 0.94
C 32 C 32
C 33 C 33
Preference ranking A 2>A 1 >A 3 A 2>A 1 >A 3 Preference ranking A 2 >A 1 >A 3 A 2 >A 1 >A 3
838 Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2014) 71:829–841

Table 17 A matrix of points scored by five experts 5 Verification of the modified method
CTs C1 C2 C3 C4
In this section, two examples are presented to illustrate how
T1 (9,7,4,9,7) (7,6,3,9,6) – (5,4,1,8,4) the proposed method can improve the prioritization of lean
T2 (3,9,2,9,5) (5,5,3,9,6) (2,7,3,8,4) (3,7,2,8,4) tools selection in manufacturing systems. We attempt to dem-
T3 (5,6,2,8,7) (5,7,1,7,8) (3,4,2,8,6) (5,6,1,9,4) onstrate the validity of the suggested model and show how the
T4 – (3,2,4,8,6) (7,6,9,9,8) – new method overcomes the critical weak points of the VIKOR
T5 (3,4,1,7,5) (3,7,1,8,6) – – method. The validity of the method is assessed by exploring
criterion validity and methodology validity.

According to results shown in Table 14, the order of
the alternatives (based on the modified method) is (A 4 >
A 2 >A 1 >A 3).
4.4 Comparing modified VIKOR method and revised VIKOR
method
In this section, two problems resolved by Yang et al. [2] are
treated by the modified method and the results are then
compared.
According to Tables 15 and 16, the results of the
proposed model are in agreement with those of the method of
Yang et al. [2].
5.1 Criterion validity
Criterion validity refers to the ability of a measure to correlate
with other measures under the same concepts [18]. Validity
refers to the ability of a scale to correlate with criterion
measures of the same constructs when measured at the same
time. This study presents a new approach for ranking lean
tools by considering the effects of defined criteria on the
leanness of manufacturing systems.
Lead time, cost, defects, and value were identified as the
most important components of leanness. These items are
highlighted by many authors, for example, for lead time and
cost [19–21], for defects [22, 23], and for value [19, 24]. Thus,
these metrics can be useful criteria is assessing the application
of lean tools and techniques [25].

4.5 Application of modified VIKOR method—case study 5.2 Methodology validity

A case study was used to determine the preference order There are some obstacles to implementing all of the lean tools
among five “tools and techniques” (alternatives): of a company: (1) it takes a long time for all tools to be
Continuous flow, Poka-Yoke, Standard works, Synchronize, implemented; (2) some tools and techniques are not adopted
and TPM. The alternatives were compared according to four in manufacturing systems; and (3) some techniques are similar
criteria (lead time, cost, defects, and value) by a panel of lean to one another.
experts (five members). As shown in Table 17, the experts In this study, we addressed a large number of techniques,
believed that some of the lean tools and techniques perhaps do from which certain techniques are not easily selected. When
not have an effect on decreasing lead time, cost, defects, or voters select and rank more than one candidate in order of
increasing value (Table 18). preference, ranked voting data arise [26]. According to the
Table 19 shows the order of alternatives determined by the literature, it was found among all combination methods that
modified method: (T 2 >T 4 >T 3 >T 1 >T 5). In this method (see majority vote is the simplest to implement [27]. However, the
Table 19), the algorithm and results indicate the measurement majority vote method is just as effective as other more com-
and calculation of alternatives based on related criteria. plex systems in refining the identified rate for the data set used
[27, 28]. Consequently, 13 tools and techniques were selected
as alternatives based on majority voting.
Moreover, the ultimate validation of a ranking methodolo-
gy indicates how well the results of the methodology fit the
Table 18 A matrix of expectations of the target constituency, especially for the top-
points scored after nu- CTs C1 C2 C3 C4
ranked alternatives. To solve the problem of “lean tools selec-
meral average
T1 6.91 5.84 – 3.64 tion for alternatives that have their own criteria, ” a modified
T2 4.75 5.27 5.22 4.22 VIKOR method was utilized. VIKOR is a helpful tool in
T3 3.36 4.55 4.1 4.04 multi-criteria decision making, particularly in cases in which
T4 – 4.1 7.71 – the decision maker is not able to express his/her preference at
T5 3.35 3.99 – – the beginning of system design. It has been widely applied to
address MCDM problems in various fields.
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2014) 71:829–841 839

Table 19 Ranking of alternatives based on modified method—case study

Eq. 6 Eq. 8 Eq. 11 Eq. 12 Eq. 13 Eq. 14

Ci Wj f ij− f ij* f ij r ij W *j r ij S i =£W *j r ij R i =maxW *j r ij Qi Ranked

T1 C1 0.266471 6.91 3.35 6.91 0 0 0.62 0.62 1 4

C2 0.115977 5.84 3.99 5.84 0 0
C4 0.617553 3.64 3.64 4.22 1 0.62
T2 C1 0.175902 4.75 3.35 6.91 0.62 0.11 0.29 0.15 0.01 1
C2 0.087615 5.27 3.99 5.84 0.31 0.03
C3 0.223401 5.22 4.1 7.71 0.69 0.15
C4 0.513082 4.22 3.64 4.22 0 0
T3 C1 0.175902 3.36 3.35 6.91 1 0.18 0.62 0.22 0.93 3
C2 0.087615 4.55 3.99 5.84 0.7 0.06
C3 0.223401 4.1 4.1 7.71 1 0.22
C4 0.513082 4.04 3.64 4.22 0.31 0.16
T4 C2 0.29394 4.1 3.99 5.84 0.94 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.14 2
C3 0.70606 7.71 4.1 7.71 0 0
T5 C1 0.745546 3.35 3.35 6.91 1 0.75 1 0.75 1.7 5
C2 0.254454 3.99 3.99 5.84 1 0.25

Two examples of resolved problems (for verification) [2]
and a case study (for validation) are presented to illustrate how
the proposed method can improve the prioritization of lean
tools selection processes. The proposed model tries to illus-
trate the importance of goals in lean tools selection; attempts
to demonstrate the validity of the suggested model; and final-
ly, overcomes the critical weak points of VIKOR. This meth-
od not only resolves new problems but classic problems as
well.
In summary, this paper has presented the results of a
survey of manufacturing performance measures for au-
tomotive industries. Reliability and validity analysis
were conducted to assess the survey results. Consequently,
according to the foregoing discussion, the developed
model’s ability to perform lean tools selection can be
validated.
6 Discussion
In today’s competitive world, LM has become an important
“role model” for two groups: academics and practitioners.
Many organizations around the world have attempted to im-
plement LM but the lack of a clear understanding of the main
tools and techniques of leanness contribute to the failure of
lean practices. It therefore seems necessary to provide a way to
evaluate the impact of lean tools using an approach to deter-
mine the critical techniques of leanness.
The objectives of LM are defined by the prioritization and
comparison of possible solutions and overall strategy. The
implementation of LM tools and technique development as-
sists in determining how the implementation of tools and
techniques will fit into manufacturing processes and how
several concepts can be followed as guidelines to help ensure
the success of implementation [29].
Many recent papers have proposed analytical models to
provide solutions to questions that arise in conflict manage-
ment situations. Among the numerous approaches available
for conflict management, one of the most prevalent is MCDM.
Among MCDM methods, the VIKOR method is based on an
aggregating function representing the proximity to the ideal
conditions; VIKOR is derived from the compromise program-
ming method. Therefore, in this study, a modified VIKOR
method was developed to address lean tools selection prob-
lems in manufacturing systems in which the alternatives have
their own individual criteria.
Classical methods prioritize and choose alternatives using
all attributes. However, pragmatically, decision makers should
control the objectives of one or several alternatives, and they
only need to rank the unimproved objectives or aspects of one
or several alternatives separately, each according to its own
criteria.
To resolve the two mentioned problems (best level and
alternatives under various conditions), one only needs to
aggregate the related criteria (not all criteria) to obtain the
objectives. Thus, this study proposed a modified VIKOR
method. Based on the proposed new method, the results can
be more logical and reliable. This method helps decision
makers analyze and determine the usefulness and effective-
ness of all of the alternatives with which they are confronted.
This is a general model developed for all types of companies.
Each phase of the model, including the determination of
criteria and the assessment of tools and techniques, has to be
modified to suit every distinct case.
840
7 Conclusion
In recent years, understanding how to determine suitable tools
and techniques in lean manufacturing has become a key
objective. However, empirical results indicate that the pro-
posed approaches provide a comprehensive measure of the
effects of incorporating tools and techniques, which in general
reflect the efficiency and effectiveness of manufacturing sys-
tems, respectively. A methodology that allows for lean tools
selection to assist practitioners in defining the objectives and
implementing of LM was developed.
The VIKOR method was developed to solve MCDM prob-
lems with conflicting and non-commensurable criteria.
Assuming that compromise is acceptable for conflict resolu-
tion, the decision maker wants a solution that is the closest to
the ideal, and the alternatives are evaluated according to all
established criteria. The new VIKOR method is able to derive
and rank all alternatives within common/the same criteria;
moreover, each alternative, through its own criteria, can help
practitioners strengthen their selection of tools and techniques.
Therefore, this study proposes a new VIKOR method that is
suitable and effective for ranking the tools and techniques of
LM.
The analysis performed using this new method was able to
help decision makers understand the ranking orders of imple-
mented LM tools. Consequently, the method proposed in this
study is suitable for ranking lean tools to achieve leanness.
The main contribution of the model is the assessment of the
effectiveness of lean tool implementation; thus, it addresses an
important deficiency in models reported in the literature.
Furthermore, the model can combine a variety of available
tools and techniques in different disciplines to resolve deci-
sion problems.
The model starts with criteria analysis and tools analysis
and then evaluates the current state of a given system, deter-
mining objectives, applying the Delphi method, voting, and
the modified VIKOR method to make the decision. These
aspects have been demonstrated to be of high importance
when decision makers want to find the most effective lean
solution. Strength of this model compared with existing the-
oretical models is that it has been tested in a real case.
8 Recommendations for future research
In the future, the methodology may be further enhanced in the
following areas.
– Experiential study of real-world systems
– Developing leanness targets for various industries
Acknowledgments This paper is supported by the Dept. of
Manufacturing and Industrial Engineering, UPM, Malaysia. The authors
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2014) 71:829–841
also would like to express appreciation to the anonymous reviewers and
editors for their very helpful comments for improving the paper.
References
1. Vinodh S, Vimal KEK (2012) “Thirty criteria based leanness assess-
ment using fuzzy logic approach”. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 1185-
1195. doi: 10.1007/s00170-011-3658
2. Yang Y-PO, Shieh H-M, Leu J-D, Tzeng G-H (2009) A VIKOR-
based multiple criteria decision method for improving information
security risk. Int J Inf Technol Decis Mak 8(2):267–287
3. Huang J-J, Tzeng GH, Liu HH (2009) “A revised VIKOR model for
multiple criteria decision making—the perspective of regret theory”,
Y. Shi et al. (eds.): MCDM 2009, CCIS 35, 761–768.
4. Chang CL (2010) A modified VIKOR method for multiple criteria
analysis. Environ Monit Assess 168:339–344. doi:10.1007/s10661-
009-1117-0
5. Shemshadi A, Shirazi H, Toreihi M (2011) A fuzzy VIKOR method
for supplier selection based on entropy measure for objective
weighting. Expert Syst Appl 38:12160–12167
6. Opricovic S, Tzeng GH (2004) Compromise solution by MCDM
methods: a comparative analysis of VIKOR and TOPSIS. Eur J Oper
Res 156:445–455
7. Bayou ME, Korvin A (2008) Measuring the leanness of manufactur-
ing systems—a case study of Ford Motor Company and General
Motors. J Eng Technol Manag 25:287–304
8. Ohno T (1998) Toyota production system: beyond large-scale pro-
duction. Productivity Press, Portland
9. Womack JP, Jones DT (2003) LEAN THINKING: banish waste and
create wealth in your corporation. Simon and Schuster, London
10. Liker JK (2004) The Toyota way: 14 management principles from the
world’s greatest manufacturer. McGraw-Hill, New York
11. Smith R, Hawkins B (2004) “Lean maintenance,” Elsevier
Butterworth–Heinemann, Oxford, UK 99, 42-43.
12. Dahlgaard JJ, Dahlgaard-Park S (2006) Lean production, six sigma
quality, TQM and company culture. TQM Mag 18(3):263–281
13. Grewal C (2008) An initiative to implement lean manufacturing
using value stream mapping in a small company. Int J Manuf
Technol Manag 15(3):404–417
14. Marchwinski C, Shoo J (2010) “Lean lexicon: a graphical glossary
for lean thinkers”, Lean Enterprise Institute, ISBN: 0966784367.
15. Steinlicht CL (2011) “Lean production and the organizational life
cycle: a survey of lean tool effectiveness in young and mature
organizations”, doctoral dissertation. CAPELLA UNIVERSITY, US
16. Van Erp M, Schomaker L (2002) “An overview and comparison of
voting methods for pattern recognition”, in Proc. 8th Int. Workshop
Frontiers Handwriting Recogn., 195–200.
17. Liu P, Wang M (2011) An extended VIKOR method for multiple
attribute group decision making based on generalized interval-valued
trapezoidal fuzzy numbers. Sci Res Essays 6(4):766–776
18. Zikmund WG (2013) Business research methods, 7th edn. South-
Western, Ohio
19. Wan H, Chen F (2007) “Leanness score of value stream
maps”, Proceedings of the 2007 Industrial Engineering
Research Conference G. Bayraksan, W. Lin, Y. Son, and R.
Wysk, eds.
20. Bowen P, Cattell K, Jay I (2011) Value management in the South
African manufacturing industry: exploratory findings. Manag Decis
49(1):6–28
21. Li C (2011) A customised lean model for a Chinese aerospace OEM
(original equipment manufacturer). Cranfield University, UK, MS
thesis
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2014) 71:829–841
22. Taj S (2005) “Applying lean assessment tools in Chinese hi-tech
industries”, Collage of Business Administration, University of
Detroit Mercy, and Detroit. Michigan, USA
23. Herron C, Braiden PM (2006) A methodology for developing sus-
tainable quantifiable productivity improvement in manufacturing
companies. Int J Prod Econ 104(1):143–153
24. Wilson L (2010) “How to implement lean manufacturing”, McGraw
Hill, New York Chicago San Francisco Lisbon London Madrid
Mexico City Milan New Delhi San Juan Seoul Singapore-ISBN:
978-0-07-162508-1.
25. Rivera L, Chen FF (2007) Measuring the impact of lean tools on the
cost–time investment of a product using cost–time profiles║. Robot
Comput Integr Manuf 23(6):684–689
View publication stats
841
26. Lam L, Suen CY (1997) Application of majority voting to
pattern recognition: an analysis of its behavior and per-
formance. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern Syst Hum 27(5):
553
27. Obata T, Ishii H (2003) A method for discriminating efficient
candidates with ranked. Voting data. Eur J Oper Res 151:233–
237
28. Lee D-S, Srihari SN (1993) “Hand printed digit recognition: a com-
parison of algorithms”, in Proc. 3rd Int. Workshop Frontiers Hand
writing Recognition, Buffalo, NY, 153–162.
29. Mahapatra SS, Mohanty SR (2007) Lean manufacturing in
continuous process industry: an empirical study. J Sci Ind
Res 66:19–27