397

An analytic hierarchy process approach to the choice

of manufacturing plant layout

Y T Abdul-Hamid1*, A K Kochhar2 and M K Khan1

1
Department of Mechanical and Medical Engineering, University of Bradford, UK
2
School of Engineering and Applied Science, Aston University, Birmingham, UK

Abstract: The type of plant layout has very significant impact on the structure and operation of a
manufacturing system. The current common and intuitive methods of selecting a suitable type of
layout by using simple graphs of production volume versus number of parts manufactured in the
plant, or production volume versus flexibility, can result in inaccurate decisions for such an
important issue. This paper presents an alternative approach to the choice of plant layouts, which
applies the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP). The methodology considers three main objectives for
the selection of layouts: increasing flexibility, increasing production volume and reducing manufac-
turing costs. Each objective has a number of subobjectives. Three main types of layout are
considered: functional (process) layout, group technology (cellular) layout and transfer (flow) lines.
The AHP methodology has been applied as a knowledge-based system, which is integrated with
another three knowledge-based systems for the technical and social conditions required for the
successful implementation of each of the above types of layout. An example of the application of the
AHP methodology is presented, which represents an important step towards proper validation of the
methodology.

Keywords: manufacturing plant layout, Analytic Hierarchy Process, knowledge-based systems

NOTATION (a) the development of advanced manufacturing pro-

cesses technology and
AHP Analytic Hierarchy Process (b) the evolution of new manufacturing system struc-
FL functional layout tures and strategies.
GT group technology layout This paper concentrates on the main issue of selecting a
KBS knowledge-based system suitable type of layout for a components manufacturing
TL transfer line plant. The layout can be defined as the arrangement of
operations and processes used to make the required
components in the plant. This layout defines the basic
structure of the manufacturing system and has a very
significant impact on the organization, operation and
1 INTRODUCTION technical and human issues in the plant [1].
There are three main types of plant layout for the
Manufacturing companies increasingly have to compete manufacture of discrete components. The functional (or
in a highly competitive market environment. As a re- process) layout is the most common traditional type of
sult, many manufacturing companies have been forced layout for companies engaged in the batch manufacture
to reorganize their manufacturing systems. This reorga- of a variety of products. Here, the machines are col-
nization has been helped by: lected by function (all lathes together, all drilling ma-
chines together, etc.) and the parts are routed around
the plant in batches to the various departments. Its
The MS was recei6ed on 23 September 1998 and was accepted after major advantage is a high level of flexibility. For exam-
re6ision for publication on 11 December 1998.
*Corresponding author: Department of Mechanical and Medical Engi- ple, complex products, which require many different
neering, Uni6ersity of Bradford, Bradford BD7 1DP, UK. processes, may be made alongside simple products.
B07598 © IMechE 1999 Proc Instn Mech Engrs Vol 213 Part B
398 Y T ABDUL-HAMID, A K KOCHHAR AND M K KHAN
However, there are many disadvantages with this type
of layout:
(a) substantial materials handling cost;
(b) higher labour skill requirements;
(c) large work-in-progress inventory;
(d) more complicated production planning and
control; and
(e) long lead times.
For the production of large quantities (mass produc-
tion) of similar products, the product (or line) layout is
generally used. In this layout the parts undergo the
same sequence of operations, with special-purpose ma-
chines. It has the advantages of smooth and logical flow
of production, which enables the use of specialized
materials handling equipment. It also has a small work-
in-progress inventory, a short cycle time, low materials
handling cost, low labour skill requirements and simple
production planning and control. Its main disadvantage
is the lack of flexibility, making it very difficult to
introduce new products in the plant or to accommodate
substantial changes in the existing product design. Be-
cause of the speciality of machines and materials han-
dling equipment, this layout requires a high level of
capital investment to be set up. The extensive use of
automated machinery and materials handling equip-
ment in product layouts has resulted in the develop-
ment of transfer lines, where the above characteristics
are more clear and distinct.
The group technology (or cellular) layout groups pro-
cesses, people and machines in some rational manner to
produce a family of similar parts. By applying this
grouping, the efficiency of mass production in product
layouts can be gained without much loss in the flexibil-
ity of producing different parts; i.e. it combines the
advantages of both functional and product layouts. It
has many reported benefits for batch manufacture, e.g.
reduction in set-up time, lead time, work-in-progress
and materials handling, and improved product quality.
These advantages result in a reduction in many cost
elements in the manufacturing process, such as inven-
tory cost and general operating costs. In addition, the
labour costs are lower in this layout than in the process
layout owing to application of the multifunctional
worker concept, which results in a reduction in the
levels of staffing. Group technology also has an inte-
grated relationship with just-in-time (JIT) manufactur-
ing systems and is considered as one of the main
elements of JIT.
Many production engineering and management text-
books and a few published papers address the problem
of selecting a suitable layout for a given manufacturing
environment. The majority of these textbooks and pa-
pers describe the characteristics of each layout, such as:
(a) the production volume,
(b) batch sizes,
Proc Instn Mech Engrs Vol 213 Part B
(c) flexibility in meeting customers orders,
(d) types of machinery,
(e) levels of labour skills,
(f) production control and scheduling difficulties,
(g) machine and labour utilization,
(h) lead times and
(i) the materials handling systems required [1–10].
Some books and papers present production volume
versus number of parts manufactured in the plant
graphs or in production volume versus flexibility graphs
[2, 6, 8, 11–13]. These graphs may include, in addition
to the three main types of layout, other layouts such as
flexible manufacturing systems or cells. The purpose of
these graphs is to aid the production engineer in select-
ing the suitable layout, after defining the production
volume and number of parts to be manufactured. How-
ever, there are two main problems in using these
graphs:
1. Contained within these graphs are many ‘grey’
areas, where two layouts can be selected for the
same volume/variety parameters.
2. It is not always easy and feasible to define accu-
rately these two parameters, especially if it is a
fabrication or manufacturing plant and not an as-
sembly plant.
Therefore, there is a need to use other more detailed
techniques to make such an important decision. This
paper proposes the use of the Analytic Hierarchy Pro-
cess (AHP) as a multiattribute decision-making
methodology to select the most suitable type of manu-
facturing plant layout.
2 ANALYTIC HIERARCHY PROCESS (AHP)
As the decision for selecting a suitable layout is depen-
dent on many factors of the manufacturing environ-
ment, the use of scoring models for multiattribute
decision-making represents a rational approach. The
basic purpose of using a scoring model for the different
alternatives is to generate a score for each alternative
such that an evaluation of the alternatives based on the
score is possible. The scoring is based on the contribu-
tion of common attributes for each alternative towards
a common objective. These may be subjective or objec-
tive attributes. The alternative that yields the ‘best’
score is chosen.
A significant drawback of many unweighted and
weighted scoring models is that they neglect the issue of
inconsistency on the part of the decision-maker [14].
Inconsistency is a major bias in human judgement that
accounts for a large portion of human deficiencies
in planning and evaluation. The more alternatives
and attributes or factors in the evaluation problem,
the more significant the inconsistency becomes. This
B07598 © IMechE 1999
 AN ANALYTIC HIERARCHY PROCESS APPROACH TO MANUFACTURING PLANT LAYOUT
problem of inconsistency can be overcome by using the
Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP).
The AHP is a simple method, developed by Saaty
[15, 16], to structure a complex multiattribute evalua-
tion problem hierarchically. It very closely mimics the
human decision-making process and incorporates in-
consistency. The hierarchy consists of the overall objec-
tive at the top level, attributes and subattributes, if any,
at the middle level and the different alternatives at the
lowest level. Pairwise comparisons of the hierarchy
elements in each level (such as attributes and alterna-
tives) can then be established using a scale indicating
the strength with which one element dominates another
with respect to a higher-level element. An indicator of
consistency in making the pairwise comparison can be
calculated. If good consistency is not obtained, the user
can repeat the comparison. The scaling process can
then be transformed into priority weights (scores) to
compare the suitability of the alternatives in achieving
the overall objective.
The AHP methodology has many advantages:
1. Because of the hierarchical structure, a subjective
decision process can be formalized and made sys-
tematic, and thereby more accurate decisions can be
reached. This structure also gives a great deal of
information on the structure and function of a
system and thereafter on the evaluation of the dif-
ferent factors and alternatives.
2. It is possible to conduct sensitivity analysis of the
results (especially through the use of computers).
3. It results in better communication, leading to clearer
understanding for the decision-maker [15, 17].
This last advantage makes AHP ‘probably the recom-
mended approach for use with expert systems’ in multi-
attribute decision-making [18]. The main problem with
AHP is the need for very tedious calculations, which
can be made much easier using personal computer
software. An example of such software is the Expert
Choice software package, which can greatly facilitate
the use of AHP in the workplace [19, 20].
The Analytic Hierarchy Process has many reported
applications in many different fields of decision-making
and its popularity has increased in recent years in
manufacturing and industrial applications. The most
reported applications in manufacturing are the selection
and justification of advanced automated manufacturing
systems and flexible manufacturing systems, such as the
research studies presented in references [21] to [28].
Such applications need to include many different intan-
gible factors, in addition to monetary factors. This need
justifies the many applications of AHP because of its
ability to consider both types of factors in evaluating
alternatives. Other reported applications are:
(a) the selection of assembly systems [29];
(b) inventory management and control [19, 30];
B07598 © IMechE 1999
399
(c) evaluation and selection of materials handling al-
ternatives [31, 32];
(d) the selection of vendors [33];
(e) rating the pairs of potentially adjacent departments
in the facility layout problem [34]; and
(f) determining what to benchmark in industry [17].
3 HIERARCHY OF PLANT LAYOUT
SELECTION
The problem of selecting the best plant layout for
certain production conditions has been structured in a
four-level hierarchy. The first level contains the main
objective (the focus), which is the best suitable type of
layout. The second level consists of the three main
attributes (objectives), which are the major consider-
ations for all manufacturers [6] and which affect di-
rectly the selected layout. They are: flexibility, 6olume
and cost. Each of these attributes consists of a number
of subattributes. The subattributes are included in the
third level of the hierarchy. The fourth and last level
consists of the three alternative layouts: transfer lines
(product layout), group technology, and functional lay-
out (process layout). Figure 1 shows the structure of the
hierarchy.
In the following sections, the three main attributes
and their subattributes are discussed. In addition, the
degree of preference or comparison of the three differ-
ent types of layouts with respect to the attributes and
subattributes is discussed.
3.1 Flexibility
This attribute measures the level of flexibility required
in the plant, i.e. the preference of flexibility over other
factors in the planned manufacturing system. Flexibility
can be defined as ‘the capability, as well as the ease (i.e.
time, cost or any other resource) with which any change
can be accommodated by a manufacturing system’ [34].
It is obvious that different types of layout will have
different levels of flexibility.
Four types (subattributes) of flexibility are consid-
ered in the hierarchy to compare the flexibility of the
alternative layouts. These are:
1. Wide range of products. This represents the ability of
the plant to manufacture a wide range of different
types of product, with different processing
requirements.
2. Design changes. This represents the ability of the
plant easily to accommodate design changes for the
manufactured products.
3. Changes in capacity. This is related to the type of
production volume demand for the manufactured
products and measures the ability of the plant to
operate profitably at different production volumes,
i.e. production volume flexibility.
Proc Instn Mech Engrs Vol 213 Part B
400 Y T ABDUL-HAMID, A K KOCHHAR AND M K KHAN

4. Process flexibility. This is the ability to change to maximize the number of items produced in a unit
products within a given mix and with low set-up time interval in order to compete economically in the
times. It is measured by set-up times [35]. This high-volume market. This attribute is evaluated accord-
aspect is very important for the implementation of ing to the following two subattributes:
just-in-time manufacturing systems, where the batch
1. High annual production 6olume. This represents the
size is required to be very small and therefore the
ability of the plant to produce large quantities of
set-up of machines should be short.
parts annually (total number of each type of part).
Functional layout and group technology layout are the 2. Large customer order size (batch size). This repre-
best for satisfying the first three aspects of flexibility sents the ability of the plant to produce a large
owing to the generality of machines, the ease of chang- number of units in an uninterrupted run of the
ing processing routes in such systems and the ease of machines. Large customer orders are usually in tens
duplicating resources, and in the assignment or removal of thousands to millions of specific units per order.
of resources for the production of specific products. On
Transfer lines are preferred over other layouts in satis-
the other hand, it is nearly impossible for such aspects
fying this main attribute and its subattributes. They are
of flexibility to be satisfied in transfer lines. Transfer
usually designed for a high annual production volume,
lines are designed and built to manufacture only a very
tens or hundreds of thousands to millions, of a few
few and limited number of standard parts, with specific
standard products, with short cycle times. In addition,
production volumes.
they are mostly designed for a manufacturing environ-
For the fourth aspect of flexibility, it is clear that
ment where the required orders are known and stable
group technology layouts are the best in gaining high
for the foreseeable future. In contrast, functional and
process flexibility. A short set-up time is one of the
group layouts are most suitable for small to medium
main requirements and characteristics of GT layouts.
production volumes and small batch sizes, where
Transfer lines are in the other extreme position, where
throughput times are much longer than in transfer
changing the set-up (if it is possible) is very difficult and
lines.
long. Changing the set-up in functional layouts is much
easier than in transfer lines but more difficult than in
group technology or cellular layouts [36]. 3.3 Cost reduction

The third main attribute measures the ability of the

3.2 Production volume
The second main attribute in the hierarchy is the ability
of the plant to manufacture high volumes of parts, i.e.
alternative plant configurations to reduce the cost of
the manufactured parts. The following four categories
of cost (subattributes) are considered here:

Fig. 1 Structure of the plant layout selection hierarchy

Proc Instn Mech Engrs Vol 213 Part B B07598 © IMechE 1999
 AN ANALYTIC HIERARCHY PROCESS APPROACH TO MANUFACTURING PLANT LAYOUT
1. Reduction in operating cost. This is the general cost
required to run the plant efficiently, for example
overhead costs, materials handling costs, repair and
maintenance costs and cost of indirect materials
used by the machines.
2. Reduction in capital in6estment. This is the total cost
to establish the plant, from the first plans to the
final testing and proving of machines and equip-
ment, including the costs of buildings, machines and
the engineering costs.
3. Reduction in in6entory cost. This includes the costs
of raw materials, work-in-progress and finished
goods inventories. These costs vary with the differ-
ent types of layout.
4. Reduction in labour cost. This represents the total
costs of direct operators, who run the machines, and
indirect workers in the plant, who perform other
jobs in the plant such as maintenance, transporta-
tion, cleaning and others.
Operating costs usually vary with the volume of pro-
duction and are often estimated as a multiple factor of
the direct labour cost. In general, the burden of these
costs on a manufactured part cost is lowest in transfer
lines and highest in functional layouts. In contrast,
transfer lines have the highest capital investment, be-
cause most of the machines and materials handling
equipment are specially designed and built for auto-
mated manufacture of specific parts.
A functional layout often requires less capital invest-
ment to establish than a group technology layout,
although both of them may have the same types of
machines and equipment to manufacture the parts. This
is due to two factors:
(a) the need to establish part families and machine
groups and
(b) possibly the need to duplicate some machines in
more than one cell [37].
Although the inventory of raw materials and finished
goods can be higher in transfer lines than in other
layouts, they have a much smaller work-in-progress
inventory. Therefore, transfer lines are the best in re-
ducing inventory cost, followed by GT layouts and then
functional layouts. Transfer lines have the lowest
labour cost when compared with other types of layout.
This is because of the reduction in the number of
skilled operators and indirect workers. This is followed
by GT, where applying the concept of multifunctional
labour reduces the total number of workers.
4 APPLYING THE AHP MODEL AS A
KNOWLEDGE-BASED SYSTEM
The AHP model for the selection of plant layouts has
been developed in the form of a knowledge-based sys-
B07598 © IMechE 1999
401
tem (KBS). This AHP KBS is one of four integrated
knowledge-based systems. The main objectives of these
KBSs are to select a suitable type of layout and to
ensure the presence of all technical and social (environ-
mental) conditions required for the successful imple-
mentation of any selected type of layout. The technical
and environmental conditions and subconditions, for
each of the layouts, were incorporated in a separate
KBS and are not discussed in this paper. However, they
are integrated with the present AHP KBS. Two main
reasons were behind the decision to apply the AHP
model as a KBS:
(a) the very tedious calculations of the AHP model,
which can be eased greatly by using personal
computers;
(b) the excellent user–system facilities of knowledge-
based systems, which allow the user to understand
easily the decision-making process of the model
and the effect of changing any input data on the
final decision.
4.1 Structure of the AHP knowledge base
The AHP knowledge base consists of 15 subprograms
based on the AHP hierarchy for the selection of layouts
described earlier. The first program (AHP1) calculates
the relative importance of the three main attributes in
the second level (flexibility, volume and cost) with
respect to the focus. The AHP2, AHP3 and AHP4
modules calculate the relative importance of the subat-
tributes (in the third level) with regard to the attributes
of flexibility, cost and volume respectively, whereas
modules AHP5 to AHP14 calculate the relative weights
of the three alternatives (types of layout) with respect to
the different subattributes. The last subprogram, called
AHP, computes the priority weight of each type of
plant layout by using the data from the previous 14
subprograms. Figure 2 shows the overall structure of
the 15 AHP subprograms, where the outputs from
modules AHP1 to AHP14 are used by the final AHP
program to calculate the priority weights of the three
types of layout.
The user compares the preference or importance of
any two elements by using a scale of 1 to 9 and their
reciprocals, as suggested by Saaty [16]. The numbers
used in the scale, with their values in terms of prefer-
ence, are shown to the user with each question. Each
question has an associated explanation, which can be
retrieved by the user before answering the question.
Results of the pairwise comparisons, their consis-
tency ratio and the relative weight of each element are
presented to the user at the end of each of the 14
subprograms (AHP1–AHP14). In each subprogram the
answers are acceptable if the consistency ratio of the
comparisons is no greater than 0.1, otherwise the sub-
program is repeated to get new consistent answers from
Proc Instn Mech Engrs Vol 213 Part B
402 Y T ABDUL-HAMID, A K KOCHHAR AND M K KHAN
Overall structure of the integrated 15 AHP subprograms
Fig. 2
Proc Instn Mech Engrs Vol 213 Part B B07598 © IMechE 1999
 AN ANALYTIC HIERARCHY PROCESS APPROACH TO MANUFACTURING PLANT LAYOUT
Fig. 3 Pairwise comparisons of the three main attributes
(AHP1) for the industrial data
the user. The user can change all or part of his answers
after displaying the results.
The relative weight of each of the three layouts is
shown at the end of the AHP subprogram (the final
module). The higher the rating, the better the layout
satisfies the objectives of the manufacturing system.
Therefore, the knowledge base of the technical and
social conditions of the type of layout with the highest
rating is chained after this subprogram. The results of
all the subprograms and the final results from the AHP
program are saved in a text file, which is displayed to
the user at the end of the last program.
5 VALIDATION OF THE AHP KBS BY THE
USE OF INDUSTRIAL DATA
The AHP KBS has been tested and validated in a
number of industrial situations. In one case, the AHP
pairwise comparison questions have been presented to
the manufacturing director of a machine tool company.
The responses to these pairwise comparison questions
form the input data for the pairwise comparison
matrices.
Fig. 4 Pairwise comparisons of the subattributes with respect to the main attributes (AHP2, AHP3 and
AHP4) for the industrial data
B07598 © IMechE 1999
403
The company has a weekly production rate of 50
machine tools. In addition to the UK market, the
company exports 70 per cent of its products to over 100
countries. The company has a wide range of products
and, on average, launches one product range every
year. The company has converted the layout of its plant
from a functional one to a cellular (group technology)
layout in recent years.
The pairwise comparisons and the relative weights
for the different attributes, subattributes and alterna-
tives, based on the answers of the manufacturing direc-
tor of the company, are shown in Figs 3 to 5. The
figures show the results of the 14 AHP knowledge bases
(AHP1–AHP14). The column of relative weights in
each matrix in AHP1–AHP14 represents the principal
vector (eigenvector) of the matrix in mathematical
terms. Saaty [15, 16] describes a number of methods for
the calculation of this principal vector. The following
method is efficient and provides good results for most
applications:
(a) normalizing each column, i.e. dividing the elements
of each column by the sum of the column, and then
(b) dividing the sum of elements in each resulting row
by the number of columns.
This calculation of priority weights is carried out for each
pairwise comparison matrix in the hierarchy.
Figure 6 shows the final results of the AHP KBS, which
are the ratings of the three types of layout in satisfying
the different attributes and subattributes. For the current
hierarchy of four levels, weights for the alternative
layouts are calculated, firstly with respect to the at-
tributes and secondly with respect to the focus. In the
Proc Instn Mech Engrs Vol 213 Part B
404 Y T ABDUL-HAMID, A K KOCHHAR AND M K KHAN
Fig. 5 Pairwise comparisons of the alternative layouts with respect to the subattributes (AHP5 – AHP14)
for the industrial data
first step, the matrix of weights of alternatives with
respect to the subattributes is multiplied with the vector
of weights of subattributes (this is done for every group
of subattributes combining to form one attribute). In
the second step, the resulting matrix, which consists of
the vectors of priority weights of alternatives with
respect to the attributes, is multiplied by the vector of
weights of attributes to produce the weights of alterna-
tives [15, 16]. From this validation process, and from
Figs 3 to 6, the following can be concluded:
1. Flexibility has the highest level of relative weight
among the three main attributes, followed by cost
reduction and finally attaining high production vol-
umes (Fig. 3, AHP1). This is expected for a com-
pany that has a wide range of products and
launches one new product range every year. The
main strength of such a company is to compete by
satisfying the market demands of production flexi-
bility with lower costs.
2. Accommodating design changes was considered the
most important among other flexibility subattributes
(Fig. 4, AHP2). In such a manufacturing company it
is expected that many customers will require special
features on the required machine tools. Therefore,
this subattribute was the most important.
Proc Instn Mech Engrs Vol 213 Part B
3. Reducing the capital investment expenditure was
considered more important than other cost reduc-
tion subattributes (Fig. 4, AHP3) in selecting the
type of layout. This is because the company wants
to keep the same plant and the same machinery for
its production. Reducing inventory costs was calcu-
lated as the second important subattribute. Before
implementing the group technology layout, the com-
pany was organized functionally, with all the associ-
ated high inventory costs of raw materials,
work-in-progress and finished products. Therefore,
a major criterion and objective of the company
management in selecting a suitable type of layout
was to reduce inventory costs.
4. Satisfying large customer order sizes was considered
more important than attaining high annual produc-
tion volume (Fig. 4, AHP4). This can be explained
by the fact that the plant does not manufacture to
stock. Manufacturing to stock requires high annual
production volumes. This plant manufactures prod-
ucts to customer demands.
5. In satisfying the four flexibility subattributes, the
group technology layout has the highest rating in
three of them: accommodating design changes,
accommodating changes in capacity and process
B07598 © IMechE 1999
 AN ANALYTIC HIERARCHY PROCESS APPROACH TO MANUFACTURING PLANT LAYOUT
flexibility (Fig. 5, AHP6, AHP7 and AHP8). Func-
tional layout was in second place. In satisfying the
subattribute of wide product range, the functional
layout was slightly better than the group technology
layout (Fig. 5, AHP5). In overall terms, the group
technology layout satisfies the objective of flexibility
better than the other two layouts. The transfer line
layout has a very low rating in satisfying the flexibility
subattributes.
6. For the four cost reduction subattributes, the transfer
line has the highest score in three of them: reducing
operating costs, inventory costs and labour costs (Fig.
5, AHP9, AHP11 and AHP12). Group technology
has the second rating in these three subattributes. The
group technology and functional layouts have the
same score in reducing capital investment, this being
significantly higher than the score of the transfer line
(Fig. 5, AHP10). Overall, the transfer line is the best
in satisfying the objective of cost reduction, followed
by group technology.
7. The transfer line has the highest rating in satisfying
the subattributes of achieving high annual production
volumes and large customer order sizes (Fig. 5,
AHP13 and AHP14).
8. Although the transfer line has the highest ratings in
two groups of subattributes, i.e. cost reduction and
high production volume, it has the lowest rating in
satisfying the overall objective of the company. This
is because the transfer line has very low ratings in
satisfying the flexibility subattributes. Flexibility, as
shown in Fig. 3 (AHP1), is the most important
attribute for the company. Group technology, on the
other hand, has the best rating level in satisfying the
flexibility subattributes and therefore has achieved
the highest result in satisfying the company’s objec-
tive. Figure 6 shows the final results, where the group
technology layout has a rating of 0.53, followed by
the functional layout, with a rating of 0.28, and finally
the transfer line, with a rating of 0.19. Therefore, the
group technology layout was selected as the one that
satisfies the different plant requirements of flexibility,
cost reduction and production volume. This selection
by the AHP KBS is a good reflection of the manage-
ment reasoning and analysis in the machine tool
company, which selected the group technology layout
as the one to satisfy its manufacturing objectives.
Fig. 6 Final results of the AHP KBS for the industrial data from the machine tool company
B07598 © IMechE 1999
405
6 CONCLUSIONS
This paper has presented a new methodology for the
selection of layouts, based on a well-established decision-
making tool (the Analytic Hierarchy Process). The new
methodology can replace the current use of simple
inaccurate graphs for the selection process. The method-
ology considers simultaneously many strategic and tech-
nical factors and has been developed into a
knowledge-based system in order to reach a more accu-
rate decision when selecting a type of layout.
The three main types of layout are compared for
satisfying a set of attributes (objectives) and subat-
tributes. The type of layout with the highest score in
satisfying these attributes is considered as the best one
to be applied in the plant.
By applying the methodology as a knowledge-based
system, two main advantages have been achieved:
1. The very tedious calculations of the AHP have been
eased, and therefore the KBS allows the decision-
maker to be more concerned with comparing the
alternatives than with concentrating on the
calculations.
2. The explanations in the KBS give the decision-maker
a great deal of help in conducting pairwise compari-
sons of the attributes, subattributes and alternatives.
An application of the AHP KBS in an industrial
machine tool company has been presented. The AHP
KBS has recommended the same type of layout as the
one used by the company. This selection by the KBS is
a good reflection of the management reasoning and
analysis in the machine tool company. However, the
AHP KBS has produced much more supporting evidence
to justify the particular layout decision. This decision-
making process can be followed through the various
stages from beginning to end, i.e. comparing the main
attributes and subattributes in relation to the alternative
layouts. Thus the AHP KBS is able to present a high level
of detail and reasoning to support the decision. This
industrial application represents a major step towards a
proper and full validation of the AHP KBS for the
selection of practical layouts, which will be discussed in
a future paper.
Proc Instn Mech Engrs Vol 213 Part B
406 Y T ABDUL-HAMID, A K KOCHHAR AND M K KHAN
REFERENCES
1 Black, J. T. The Design of the Factory with a Future, 1991
(McGraw-Hill).
2 Askin, R. G. and Standridge, C. R. Modeling and Analysis
of Manufacturing Systems, 1993 (John Wiley, New York).
3 Bennett, D. Production Systems Design, 1986 (Butterworths,
Oxford).
4 Bennett, D., Lewis, C. and Oakley, M. Operations Manage-
ment, 1988 (Philip Allan).
5 Black, J. T. Cellular manufacturing systems. In International
Trends in Manufacturing Technology —Just-In-Time Manu-
facture (Ed. C.A. Voss), 1987, pp. 27–49 (IFS Limited).
6 Haas, P. R. Modular machines and systems allow a flexible
future. SME Technical paper PE78-325, 1978.
7 Hill, T. Production/Operations Management: Text and
Cases, 2nd edition, 1991 (Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs,
New Jersey).
8 Hitomi, K. Manufacturing Systems Engineering, 1979 (Tay-
lor and Francis, London).
9 Kochhar, A. K. and Abdul-Hamid, Y. T. A knowledge based
approach to the design and choice of manufacturing system
layout. In Proceedings of Computer-Aided Production
Engineering Conference, Cookeville, Tennessee, August
1991, pp. 423–429 (Tennessee Technological University).
10 Muhlemann, A., Oakland, J. and Lockyer, K. Production and
Operations Management, 6th edition, 1992 (Pitman, Lon-
don).
11 Abdou, G. and Dutta, S. P. An integrated approach to
facilities layout using expert systems. Int. J. Prod. Res., 1990,
28(4), 685–708.
12 Drozda, T. J. and Wick, C. (Eds) Tool and Manufacturing
Engineers Handbook, Vol. 1, Machining, 1983 (Society of
Manufacturing Engineers).
13 KT’s World of Manufacturing Systems, 1980 (Kearney and
Trecker Corporation, Milwaukee, Wisconsin).
14 Meredith, J. R. and Suresh, N. C. Justification techniques
for advanced manufacturing technologies. In Justifying New
Manufacturing Technology (Ed. J.R. Meredith), 1986, pp.
82–97 (Institute of Industrial Engineers).
15 Saaty, T. L. The Analytic Hierarchy Process, 1980
(McGraw-Hill, New York).
16 Saaty, T. L. Decision Making for Leaders, 1982 (Wadsworth,
New York).
17 Partovi, F. Y. Determining what to benchmark: an analytic
hierarchy process approach. Int. J. Ops and Prod. Managmt,
1994, 14(6), 25–39.
18 Rubinovitz, J. and Karni, R. Expert system approaches to
the selection of materials handling and transfer equipment.
In Handbook of Expert Systems Applications in Manufactur-
ing—Structures and Rules (Eds A. Mital and S. Anand),
1994, pp. 238–268 (Chapman and Hall, London).
19 Partovi, F. Y. and Hopton, W. E. The analytic hierarchy
process as applied to two types of inventory problems. Prod.
and In6entory Managmt J., 1994, 35(1), 13–19.
Proc Instn Mech Engrs Vol 213 Part B
20 Turban, E. Decision Support and Expert Systems: Manage-
ment Support Systems, 1993 (Macmillan).
21 Canada, J. R. and Sullivan, W. G. Economic and Multiat-
tribute E6aluation of Ad6anced Manufacturing Systems, 1989
(Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey).
22 Hin, L. K., Leong, A. C. and Gay, R. K. L. Selection and
justification of advanced manufacturing technologies. In
Proceedings of 2nd International Conference on Computer
Integrated Manufacturing, Singapore, September 1993, Vol.
1, pp. 136 – 143 (World Scientific Publishing Company,
Singapore).
23 Kuei, C. H., Lin, C., Aheto, J. and Madu, C. N. A strategic
decision model for the selection of advanced technology. Int.
J. Prod. Res., 1994, 32(9), 2117 – 2130.
24 Mohanty, R. P. and Venkataraman, S. Use of analytic
hierarchy process for selecting automated manufacturing
systems. Int. J. Ops and Prod. Managmt, 1993, 13(8), 45–57.
25 Oeltjenbruns, H., Kolarik, W. J. and Schnadt-Kirschner, R.
Strategic planning in manufacturing systems — AHP appli-
cation to an equipment replacement decision. Int. J. Prod.
Econ., 1995, 38(2/3), 189 – 197.
26 Tamura, H., Yamamoto, K., Hatono, I. and Umano, M.
Multiattribute evaluation of flexible manufacturing systems
using AHP combined with neural networks. In Proceedings
of JAPAN/USA Symposium on Flexible Automation, San
Francisco, July 1992, Vol. 2, pp. 1751 – 1754 (American
Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York).
27 Troxler, J. W. and Blank, L. A comprehensive methodology
for manufacturing system evaluation and comparison. J.
Mfg Systems, 1989, 8(3), 175 – 183.
28 Wabalickis, R. N. Justification of FMS with the analytic
hierarchy process. J. Mfg Systems, 1988, 7(3), 175–182.
29 Shtub, A. and Dar-El, E. M. A methodology for the selection
of assembly systems. Int. J. Prod. Res., 1989, 27(1), 175–186.
30 Partovi, F. Y. and Burton, J. Using the analytic hierarchy
process for ABC analysis. Int. J. Ops and Prod. Managmt,
1993, 13(9), 29 – 44.
31 Frazelle, E. Suggested techniques enable multi-criteria eval-
uation of material handling alternatives. In Justifying New
Manufacturing Technology (Ed. J.R. Meredith), 1986, pp.
177 – 182 (Institute of Industrial Engineers).
32 Al-Faraj, T. N., Alidi, A. S. and Al-Zayer, J. A. Vendors
selection via a spreadsheet analytical hierarchy process.
Computers and Ind. Engng, 1993, 25(1 – 4), 65 –68.
33 Partovi, F. Y. and Burton, J. An analytical hierarchy
approach to facility layout. Computers and Ind. Engng, 1992,
22(4), 447 – 457.
34 Lotfi, V. Implementing flexible automation: a multiple
criteria decision making approach. Int. J. Prod. Econ., 1995,
38(2/3), 255 – 268.
35 Azzone, G. and Bertele, U. Measuring the economic effec-
tiveness of flexible automation: a new approach. Int. J. Prod.
Res., 1989, 27(5), 735 – 746.
36 Hill, T. Small Business: Production/Operations Manage-
ment, 1987 (Macmillan Education, London).
37 Gallagher, C. C. and Knight, W. A. Group Technology
Production Methods in Manufacture, 1986 (Ellis Horwood,
Chichester).
B07598 © IMechE 1999