A Modified Analytic Hierarchy Process for Automated Manufacturing Decisions

Author(s): Stephen F. Weber

Source: Interfaces, Vol. 23, No. 4 (Jul. - Aug., 1993), pp. 75-84
Published by: INFORMS
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/25061775
Accessed: 07-09-2022 10:53 UTC

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

INFORMS is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Interfaces

This content downloaded from 14.139.108.34 on Wed, 07 Sep 2022 10:53:24 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 A Modified Analytic Hierarchy Process for
Automated Manufacturing Decisions
STEPHEN F. WEBER United States Department of Commerce
National Institute of Standards and Technology
Office of Applied Economics
Computing and Applied Mathematics Laboratory
Gaithersburg, Maryland 20899

Decisions on adopting new manufacturing technologies are of

ten biased because they are based only on those impacts that
can be expressed in financial terms. Multi-criteria decision tools
that include nonfinancial impacts avoid this bias. One such
tool, the analytic hierarchy process (AHP), has been modified
for the manufacturing environment and incorporated into
AutoMan, decision support software for microcomputers. The
modified AHP is used here to decide on the best way to auto
mate a machine shop. The four steps are: (1) specify criteria
and alternatives; (2) weight criteria using pairwise comparison
judgments; (3) rate alternatives with respect to criteria; and (4)
compute the overall weighted score for each alternative. This
approach preserves existing reliable financial information and
integrates it with both nonfinancial quantitative performance
data and qualitative informed judgments. Judgments are made
explicit and checked for consistency. Over 800 industrial man
agers have purchased AutoMan to improve their automation
decisions.
when deliberations are limited to strictly
Decisions on adopting new manufac
turing technologies are often biased financial impacts. Managers faced with

Contribution of the National Institute of Standards and Technology, DECISION ANALYSIS?MULTIPLE CRITERIA
not subject to copyright in the United States ANALYTIC HIERARCHY PROCESS
0091-2102/93/2304/0075$01.25
This paper was refereed.

INTERFACES 23: 4 July-August 1993 (pp. 75-84)

This content downloaded from 14.139.108.34 on Wed, 07 Sep 2022 10:53:24 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
WEBER
manufacturing decisions can no longer rely
solely on traditional measures of financial
worth because so many impacts cannot be
readily denominated in dollars [Berliner
and Brimson 1988; Canada and Sullivan
1989; Choobineh and Suri 1986, pp. 269
281; Drucker 1990; Jelinek and Goldhar
1986; Owen 1990; Padmanabhan 1989;
Sullivan 1986]. They must consider all the
significant effects of their decisions.
The impacts often ignored can be classi
fied as quantitative or qualitative. Nonfi
nancial quantitative impacts can be mea
sured in physical terms but cannot easily
be converted to dollars. Such nonmonetary
measures of performance include through
put, cycle time, and scrap. In contrast,
nonfinancial qualitative impacts cannot
even be measured in physical terms. They
typically involve issues that affect the
long-term strategic position of the firm,
such as product quality, manufacturing
flexibility, and technology advancement.
Ignoring these often beneficial, yet intangi
ble, effects of automation may bias deci
sions against new manufacturing technolo
gies. To evaluate automation technologies,
managers need a method that includes all
relevant impacts.
A Multi-Criteria Approach
Approaches that include more than one
measure of performance in the evaluation
process are called multi-attribute or multi
criteria decision methods [Canada and
Sullivan 1989; Gass 1985; Goicoechea,
Hansen, and Duckstein 1982; Sullivan
and Liggett 1988; Zeleny 1982]. The ad
vantage of these methods is that they can
account for both financial and nonfinancial
impacts. Some multi-criteria methods do
not permit trade-offs among all decision
INTERFACES 23:4 76
This content downloaded from 14.139.108.34 on Wed, 07 Sep 2022 10:53:24 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
criteria. For example, lexicographic order
ing uses secondary criteria only as tie
breakers; the satisficing method imple
ments criteria only as lower or upper
bound hurdles; and dominance requires
that all criteria support the same ranking.
Methods that allow direct trade-offs
among all the criteria are preferable be
cause they integrate all criteria into a single
overall score for ranking alternatives. The
analytic hierarchy process (AHP) devel
oped by Saaty [1980] is one such scoring
method. It has recently gained popularity
and been applied to a wide variety of deci
sion problems.
The basic structure of the AHP is well
suited to economic decisions regarding au
Multi-attribute decision
methods account for both
financial and nonfinancial
impacts.
toma ted manufacturing investments. It can
incorporate into a unified analytic frame
work a wide variety of normally incom
mensurable impact criteria, some of which
may be financial, some nonfinancial yet
quantitative, and some purely qualitative.
The AHP appeals to decision makers be
cause they participate directly in the pro
cess and can generally understand how re
sults are derived.
Researchers are beginning to apply the
AHP to automated manufacturing invest
ment decisions. Arbel and Seidmann
[1984], Canada and Sullivan [1989], and
Varney, Sullivan, and Cochran [1985] di
rectly applied the AHP to sample manu
facturing investment decisions. They all
MODIFIED AHP
used benefit-to-cost ratios (BCR) and the
nine-point integer scale (1 to 9) of relative
importance for evaluating pairwise com
parisons, both originally suggested by
Saaty [1980, pp. 54 and 115-118]. Frazelle
[1985] used the same integer scale to de
cide among material handling technolo
gies. Wabalickis [1988] applied the AHP to
evaluate a flexible manufacturing system
(FMS). Troxler and Blank [1989] borrowed
the hierarchy concept from the AHP to il
lustrate one decision model for manufac
turing investments, although they fail to
describe how to implement the AHP with
real data.
Applying the AHP to Manufacturing
Three problems arose in these recent
AHP applications to manufacturing auto
mation decisions. First, the integer scale
originally proposed by Saaty [1980, p. 54]
is easily misused. For example, the scale
calls for the value 3 to indicate "weak im
portance" and "slight" preference of A
over B. The eigenvalue method Saaty rec
ommends computes this comparison into
weights of 0.75 for A and 0.25 for B, in
strict proportion to the integer value en
tered. Thus, the weakly more important A
gets a score three times as large as that of
B. The verbal definitions and explanations
of the integer scale lead decision makers to
violate the critical principle of proportion
ality in pairwise judgments. Pairwise com
parison values expressing a slight prefer
ence should more properly be less than
1.5, a ratio resulting in weights of 0.6 for
A and 0.4 for B. Indeed, most comparison
values in manufacturing decisions will
likely be expressed as nonintegers in the
1.0 to 3.0 range.
The second problem that arose in these
July-August 1993 77
This content downloaded from 14.139.108.34 on Wed, 07 Sep 2022 10:53:24 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
applications is the failure to preserve valid
quantitative performance data. Many of
the criteria important to automation deci
sions are quantified, though not always in
dollar terms. These data must be preserved
and their informing power brought to bear
on the decision. Most of these recent AHP
applications force decision makers to aban
don such crucial data. A better approach
would be to combine and integrate reliable
quantitative data with the informed quali
tative judgments of the decision maker.
Thus, the decision would use actual data
directly without resorting to the pairwise
comparison judgment method when rating
alternatives with respect to quantitative
criteria. Judgments would be used only
when reliable data reflecting the perfor
mance of the alternative were not available
for a particular criterion. Wabalickis [1988]
does suggest using data on inventory costs,
although he offers no clear rationale for his
method of integrating the cost data with
the judgment scores.
The third problem concerns the use of
the BCR approach for deciding among mu
tually exclusive alternatives. Saaty [1980,
pp. 115-118] illustrates this approach for a
The integer scale proposed by
Saaty is easily misused.
decision among alternative transportation
systems for crossing a river. All the studies
cited earlier except Frazelle [1985] and
Wabalickis [1988] use this BCR approach,
which has separate hierarchies for benefit
elements and for cost elements. The deci
sion maker evaluates each hierarchy to de
rive benefit scores and cost scores and then
WEBER

forms BCRs for each alternative. The alter?Buy a new computer numerical control
native with the highest BCR is best. This (CNC) mill with an interactive graphic
BCR approach is unsuitable for the most controller and computer-aided design
common type of automation decision?se(CAD); and
?Replace the mill with a machining center
lecting the best alternative among mutually
exclusive options. The option with the and programmable tool changer.
highest BCR may have only a moderate The general approach of the AHP is to
benefit with a very low cost. Since decisionstructure such a complex decision into a
makers may select only one option, they hierarchy of its elements (criteria and alter
might easily forego a preferable option natives). The particular AHP hierarchy I
with greater net benefits. The proper ap used to evaluate the machine shop alterna
proach is to construct a single consolidated tives has three levels (Figure 1). Three cat
hierarchy including both advantageous egories seem sufficient for this decision:
(benefit) and disadvantageous (cost) ele monetary (financial) criteria, engineering
ments, instead of using the two separate performance measures, and strategic con
hierarchies to form a ratio. siderations. Monetary criteria include ini
A Machine Shop Decision tial cost, operation and maintenance costs,
I modified the AHP to address and solve and training costs. Engineering perfor
these problems using four basic steps. mance criteria are production rate, cycle
First, specify the evaluation criteria and thetime, setup time, and scrap. Strategic con
investment alternatives to be evaluated. siderations are manufacturing flexibility,
Second, make pairwise comparisons be product quality, business growth, and im
tween criteria to establish their weights. plementation risk. Table 1 shows the data
Third, rate the investment alternatives used in rating the alternatives.
with respect to the criteria, using the pair At each level in the hierarchy, the deci
wise comparison process to rate the quali sion maker establishes scores among ele
tative criteria. For quantitative criteria, ments by constructing a matrix of pairwise
however, use measured performance data,
such as cost, setup time, or throughput.
The AHP allows for and deals
Fourth, combine the ratings with criteria
weights into an overall rating for each in explicitly with inconsistencies
vestment alternative and then rank the al among pairwise comparison
ternatives accordingly. judgments.
I have applied the modified AHP to a
typical machine shop decision. A shop comparison judgments about relative dif
manager considering alternatives to an exferences between any two elements. The a?j
isting conventional milling machine faces value of the matrix represents the relative
several options: importance or preference of the fth ele
?Retrofit with a power feed, digital readment over the ;th element. Both reflexivity
out of positions, and numerical control (a? = 1 along the diagonal) and reciprocity
(NC) features; (Uij = 1/ttji) are assumed. Thus, only values

INTERFACES 23:4 78

This content downloaded from 14.139.108.34 on Wed, 07 Sep 2022 10:53:24 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
MODIFIED AHP

CATEGORIES CRITERIA ALTERNATIVES

(Level 1) (Level 2) (Level 3)
Initial Cost

O&M Cost

Training

Production Rate

Cycle Time

Setup Time

Scrap

Flexibility

Quality

Growth

Risk

Figure 1: The analytic hierarchy process hierarchy for the machine shop decision shows cate
gories of criteria on the left (Level 1), criteria themselves in the middle (Level 2), and alterna
tives on the right (Level 3).

above the diagonal must be entered, so
that for n elements, one needs n(n?1)/2
distinct comparison judgments.
I used the pairwise comparison method
to establish weights for the criteria given in
the top two levels of the machine shop hi
erarchy. First I compared the categories
(Level 1) with each other, then the criteria
(Level 2) within each category. Because
there are three categories, I needed only
three [ = 3(3?1)/2] comparison judgments
on Level 1 (Table 2).
A major strength of the AHP is that it
allows for and deals explicitly with incon
sistencies among the pairwise comparison
judgments. For example, A need not be
four times as important as C just because
A is twice as important as B and B is twice
as important as C. In technical terms, this
means that the user is not forced to pre
serve cardinal transitivity among compari
sons. The AHP even provides an explicit
measure of inconsistency that indicates
how far the pairwise judgments deviate
from perfect cardinal transitivity. The mea
sure can suggest whether to revisit pair
wise comparisons.
In the modified AHP discussed here, the

July-August 1993 79

This content downloaded from 14.139.108.34 on Wed, 07 Sep 2022 10:53:24 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
WEBER

Categories Alternatives to be Evaluated

Criteria Units Add NC CNC + CAD Machining Center

Monetary Criteria
Initial Cost 12,000 25,000 120,000
O & M Cost 2,000 4,000 15,000
Training 3,000 8,000 20,000
Performance Measures
Production Rate units/day 14 40
Cycle Time days 10 6 2
Setup Time minutes 30 20 3
Scrap kilograms/day 200 75 20
Strategic Considerations
Flexibility [Not quantified]
Quality [Not quantified]
Growth [Not quantified]
Risk [Not quantified]

Table 1: For the three monetary criteria and the four performance measures, data are available
to rate the three alternatives of the machine shop decision. The four strategic criteria require
the pairwise comparison method, since they are not quantified.

category weights and inconsistency ratio inconsistency index is the difference be

are both computed by methods recom tween the largest eigenvalue and the num
mended by Saaty [1980]. Thus, I found ber of elements, divided by the number of
weights by normalizing the eigenvector of elements minus one. It turns out that the
the largest eigenvalue of the complete ma largest eigenvalue of a matrix of perfectly
trix of pairwise comparison values above consistent pairwise comparisons (that is, a
the diagonal, their reciprocals below the matrix that preserves cardinal transitivity
diagonal, and ones along the diagonal. The
throughout) equals the number of ele

Monetary Performance Strategic

Monetary 1.500 0.500

Performance 0.250
Strategic

Weights taken from eigenvector of largest eigenvalue:

Monetary Performance Strategic
0.263 0.159 0.578
Inconsistency Ratio: 0.008

Query posed to solicit comparison values

"For the overall decision, the row catego
category?"
Table 2: Pairwise comparison judgments, such as "The monetary criteria are 1.5 times as im
portant as the performance criteria/' establish the category weights. Inconsistency among
comparisons less than 0.10 is not significant.

INTERFACES 23:4 80

This content downloaded from 14.139.108.34 on Wed, 07 Sep 2022 10:53:24 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
MODIFIED AHP
ments. Thus, the numerator of the incon
sistency index measures how far from per
fect consistency the matrix is. This index is
then divided by a similar index based on
randomly selected pairwise comparisons to
form the inconsistency ratio. Saaty sug
gests that acceptable levels of consistency
are assured as long as this ratio does not
exceed 0.10. Table 2 shows the weights
and inconsistency ratio computed for the
categories (Level 1).
To compare criteria within the perfor
mance category (Level 2), which in this
case has four elements, I had to make six
comparisons (Table 3). The procedure is
similar to that illustrated in Table 2. I re
peated the process for the other two cate
gories. Then I multiplied the criterion
weight within each category by the cate
gory weight to get a combined or global
weight for each criterion.
After I established all the weights, I
needed to rate the alternatives (Level 3)
with respect to each criterion using either
the pairwise comparison method or the
proportional data method. The pairwise
Production Rate
Production Rate 0.500 2.000 3.000
Cycle Time 2.000 6.000
Setup Time 4.000
Scrap
Weights taken from eigenvector of largest eigenvalue:
Production Rate Cycle Time
0.274 0.448
Inconsistency Ratio: 0.036
Query posed to solicit comparison values:
' 'Within performance criteria, the row criterion
criterion?"
Table 3: Within performance criteria, pairwise comparison judgments, such as "The produc
tion rate is half (0.5) as important as cycle time," establish the criteria weights. Inconsistency
among comparisons less than 0.10 is not significant.
July-August 1993
This content downloaded from 14.139.108.34 on Wed, 07 Sep 2022 10:53:24 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
comparison method is similar to the
weighting procedure except the query
posed for positive criteria becomes: "With
respect to this criterion, the row alternative
is how many times as desirable as the col
umn alternative?" When rating alternatives
with respect to negative criteria (such as
costs), the query becomes: "A is how
many times as desirable (in terms of being
more available or easier to obtain) as B?"
Thus if A costs twice as much as B, A
should be rated as one half as desirable as
B. The eigenvector of the largest eigen
value then represents the ratings of each
alternative for the criterion in question.
One must use this pairwise comparison
method to rate alternatives whenever data
that are directly or inversely proportional
to the desirability of alternatives are un
available.
If proportional data (or other data, such
as exponential or logarithmic, that can eas
ily be transformed into proportional scales)
are available, they may be used directly.
For example, production rate data are di
rectly proportional if 200 units per day are
Cycle Time Setup Time Scrap
Setup Time Scrap
0.208 0.070
81
WEBER

judged to be twice as desirable as 100 Alternative Overall Weighted Ratin

units. Setup time is inversely proportional
Machining Center 0.385
if a 40-minute setup is judged half as de AddNC 0.318
sirable (twice as bad) as a 20-minute setup. CNC with CAD 0.297
Since performance data must be propor
Table 5: The machining center alter
tional to desirability, the pairwise comparithe highest overall weighted rating.
son method must be used for negative and
zero values. For directly proportional data,tion with AutoMan 2.0, microcomp
the ratings of the alternatives are given bysoftware that incorporates my mo
the normalized vector of the data. For in AHP approach and is designed spe
versely proportional data, the ratings are to support investment decisions ab
given by the normalized vector of the re tomated manufacturing equipment
ciprocals of the data. I can best explain theLippiatt, and Johnson 1991]. AutoM
rationale for using reciprocals through an users combine up to 49 quantitati
example. A process that can accomplish aqualitative criteria in evaluating in
task in half the time is twice as desirable, alternatives. Quantitative criteria c
since it can complete twice as many tasks clude such traditional financial me
in the same time. Table 4 shows the case life-cycle cost and net benefits as
of inversely proportional data for the ini such engineering performance mea
tial cost criterion. throughput and setup time. Qualit
Once I established the weights and rat teria could include flexibility and p
ings, I combined them to compute an overquality.
all weighted rating for each alternative I developed AutoMan at the National
(Table 5). This overall rating equals the Institute of Standards and Technology
sum of the products of the criteria global with support from the US Navy Manufac
weights times the criteria ratings. The ma turing Technology Program. It has been
chine shop manager should select the al purchased by over 800 industrial decision
ternative with the highest overall rating, makers since its first release in August
the machining center. 1989. AutoMan includes sample decision
AutoMan Software models and a user manual with tutorial,
I formulated the decision model and carglossary of evaluation criteria, bibliogra
ried out all computations for this illustra phy, and index. Bennett and Neises [1989],
Owen [1991], and Stout, Libera tore, and
Alternative Initial Cost ($) Rating
Monahan [1991] describe the software and
illustrate how to apply it.
AddNC 12,000 0.633 Conclusion
CNC with CAD 25,000 0.304 The modified AHP and the AutoMan
Machining Center 120,000 0.063
software are appropriate for team decisions
Table 4: When rating alternatives with re
requiring input from senior managers, ac
spect to cost criteria, take reciprocals of the
data before normalizing the vector so the countants, financial analysts, and engi
least costly alternative is rated highest. neers. Senior managers can structure the

INTERFACES 23:4 82

This content downloaded from 14.139.108.34 on Wed, 07 Sep 2022 10:53:24 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
MODIFIED AHP
decision into a hierarchy of its elements
and establish priorities among the ele
ments; accountants and financial analysts
can develop financial data for the invest
ment alternatives; and engineers can pro
vide the nonfinancial data and judgments
on the performance of alternatives. Users
must be aware that adding or deleting an
alternative from an AHP hierarchy may
change the ranking of the original set of
alternatives. This phenomenon, called rank
reversal, is considered a weakness by util
ity theorists, such as Dyer [1990], but is
well defended by such AHP theorists as
Harker and Vargas [1987; 1990] and Saaty
[1987; 1990]. I support the AHP view that
rank reversal is possible in rational deci
sions.
Several benefits result from using
AutoMan to make decisions on automation
investments. The software facilitates deci
sion making with its sample decision mod
els, glossary of criteria, facility for building
custom models, and automatic computa
tion of results. Reliable financial analyses
and performance data are fully preserved
and have direct impact on the final deci
sion. Decision makers can include impor
tant nonfinancial quantitative performance
data as well as qualitative informed judg
ments. All judgments are automatically
checked for internal consistency. Resulting
decisions are based on more complete in
formation than permitted by traditional
financial analysis.
Acknowledgments
The research was supported by the US
Navy Manufacturing Technology Program.
For their helpful comments, I thank Saul
Gass, Mary Haight, Harold Marshall,
Frederic Murphy, Mary Ellen Weber,
July-August 1993 83
This content downloaded from 14.139.108.34 on Wed, 07 Sep 2022 10:53:24 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Christoph Witzgall, and two anonymous
reviewers.
References
Arbel, A. and Seidmann, A. 1984, "Perfor
mance evaluation of flexible manufacturing
systems," IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man
and Cybernetics, Vol. SMC-14, No. 4 (July
August), pp. 606-617.
Bennett, Robert E. and Neises, Steven J. 1989,
"AutoMan?Decision support software,"
Management Accounting, Vol. 71, No. 5 (No
vember), pp. 58-60.
Berliner, Callie and Brimson, James A., eds.
1988, Cost Management for Today's Advanced
Manufacturing: The CAM-I Conceptual Design,
Harvard Business School Press, Boston,
Massachusetts.
Canada, John R. and Sullivan, William G. 1989,
Economic and Multiattribute Evaluation of Ad
vanced Manufacturing Systems, Prentice Hall,
Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.
Choobineh, Fred and Suri, Rajan, eds. 1986,
Flexible Manufacturing Systems: Current Issues
and Models, Industrial Engineering and Man
agement Press, Norcross, Georgia.
Drucker, Peter F. 1990, "The emerging theory
of manufacturing," Harvard Business Review,
Vol. 68, No. 3 (May-June), pp. 94-102.
Dyer, James S. 1990, "Remarks on the analytic
hierarchy process," Management Science, Vol.
36, No. 3 (March), pp. 249-258.
Frazelle, Ed 1985, "Suggested techniques enable
multi-criteria evaluation of material handling
alternatives," Industrial Engineering, Vol. 17,
No. 2 (February), pp. 42-48.
Gass, Saul I. 1985, Decision Making, Models, and
Algorithms, John Wiley and Sons, New York.
Goicoechea, Ambrose; Hansen, Don R.; and
Duckstein, Lucien 1982, Multiobjective Deci
sion Analysis with Engineering and Business
Applications, John Wiley and Sons, New
York.
Harker, Patrick T. and Vargas, Luis G. 1987,
"The theory of ratio scale estimation: Saaty's
analytic hierarchy process," Management Sci
ence, Vol. 33, No. 11 (November), pp. 1383
1403.
Harker, Patrick T. and Vargas, Luis G. 1990,
"Reply to 'Remarks on the analytic hierarchy
process' by J. S. Dyer," Management Science,
Vol. 36, No. 3 (March), pp. 269-273.
WEBER
Jelinek, Mariann and Goldhar, Joel D. 1986,
"Economics in the factory of the future," CI M Wabalickis, Roger N. 1988, "Justification of
Review, Vol. 2, No. 2 (Winter), pp. 21-27.
Owen, Jean V. 1990, "Flexible justification for
flexible cells," Manufacturing Engineering, Vol. 3, pp. 175-182.
105, No. 9 (September), pp. 39-45.
Owen, Jean V. 1991, "Justifying manufacturing
flexibility," Manufacturing Engineering, Vol.
106, No. 3 (March), pp. 65-71.
Padmanabhan, Srikanth 1989, "A tandem ex
pert support system as justification for a flexi
ble manufacturing system," Journal of Manu
facturing Systems, Vol. 8, No. 3, pp. 195-205.
Saaty, Thomas L. 1980, The Analytic Hierarchy
Process: Planning, Priority Setting, Resource Al
location, McGraw-Hill, New York.
Saaty, Thomas L. 1987, "Rank generation, pres
ervation, and reversal in the analytic hierar
chy process," Decision Sciences, Vol. 18, pp.
157-177.
Saaty, Thomas L. 1988, Multicriteria Decision
Making: The Analytic Hierarchy Process, Uni
versity of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylva
nia.
Saaty, Thomas L. 1990, "An exposition of the
AHP in reply to the paper 'Remarks on the
analytic hierarchy process/ " Management Sci
ence, Vol. 36, No. 3 (March), pp. 259-268.
Stout, David E.; Liberatore, Matthew J.; and
Monahan, Thomas F. 1991, "Decision sup
port software for capital budgeting," Manage
ment Accounting, Vol. 73, No. 1 (July), pp.
50-53.
Sullivan, William G. 1986, "Models IEs can use
to include strategic, non-monetary factors in
automation decisions," Industrial Engineering,
Vol. 18, No. 3 (March), pp. 42-50.
Sullivan, William G. and Liggett, Hampton R.
1988, "A decision support system for evaluat
ing investments in manufacturing local area
networks," Manufacturing Review, Vol. 1, No.
3 (October), pp. 151-157.
Troxler, Joel W. and Blank, Leland 1989, "A
comprehensive methodology for manufactur
ing system evaluation and comparison," Jour
nal of Manufacturing Systems, Vol. 8, No. 3,
pp. 175-183.
Varney, Mark S.; Sullivan, William G; and
Cochran, Jeffrey K. 1985, "Justification of
flexible manufacturing systems with the ana
lytical hierarchy process," Annual Interna
tional Industrial Engineering Conference Pro
INTERFACES 23:4 84
This content downloaded from 14.139.108.34 on Wed, 07 Sep 2022 10:53:24 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
ceedings, pp. 181-190.
FMS with the analytic hierarchy process,"
Journal of Manufacturing Systems, Vol. 7, No.
Weber, Stephen F.; Lippiatt, Barbara C; and
Johnson, Katherine S. 1991, AutoMan 2.0: De
cision Support Software for Automated Manu
facturing Investments?User Manual, NISTIR
4543, National Institute of Standards and
Technology, Washington, DC. [The AutoMan
2.0 software and User Manual can be ob
tained for $55 plus $3 handling from the Na
tional Technical Information Service, Spring
field Virginia 22161, (703) 487-4650. Request
PB91-506568 (5.25" diskette) or PB91
507194 (3.5" diskette).]
Zeleny, Milan 1982, Multiple Criteria Decision
Making, McGraw-Hill, New York.
Barry Davis, Program Manager, Indus
trial Modernization, Austin Operations,
Tracor Inc., 6500 Tracor Lane, Austin,
Texas, 78721, writes, "\ have recently used
your AutoMan software program version
2.0 to aid in selection of a prototype ma
chine from three divergent concepts. The
program provided a method of placing a
more objective view on the results of an
evaluation team's grading of the different
concepts. The team's original scoring
methods provided a linear weighted evalu
ation with results very heavily selecting
one machine. AutoMan's analytical hierar
chy process showed the design concepts to
be more closely competitive. It did how
ever, confirm the original recommendation.
"The program was easy to use. This ease
of use allowed me to recompute results af
ter applying various alternative conditions.
The sensitivity analyses plots were very
helpful with analysis of areas that possibly
have more risk."