Improving Scheduling Manufacturing Work Orders Using AHP Method-Case Study

IOSR Journal of Engineering (IOSRJEN)
ISSN (e): 2250-3021, ISSN (p): 2278-8719

Vol. 04, Issue 11 (November. 2014), ||V3|| PP 01-05
www.iosrjen.org
Improving Scheduling Manufacturing Work Orders Using AHP

Method-Case Study
SEDRAT Najlaa1, SAOUTARRIH Marouane2,
TAHIRI Abderrahim3 ,ELKADIRI Kamal Eddine 4
Computer Science, Operations Research, and Applied Statistics Laboratory,
Abdelmalek Essaadi University Tetouan,Morocco
Abstract: - Due to the benefic results of using decision making, it has become a very important discipline in
different field of life. Decision making had demonstrated its efficiency in different fields such as medicine by
improving the health and clinical care of individuals and assisting with health policy development, or politics by
predicting election results .It had also showed its importance in other important fields such as logistics, and
manufacturing. Among different existing multiple criteria decision making methods, there is the Technique for
Order of Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution, Measuring Attractiveness by a Categorical Based
Evaluation Technique and Analytic hierarchy process. In our case study we will evaluate multiple criteria
decision making method in a manufacturing environment. Scheduling and planning manufacturing orders is one
the case of use of a multiple criteria decision making method. Therefore, in this paper we will study the use of
the Analytic Hierarchy Process in an aircraft manufactory especially in scheduling and planning. The study aims
to compare number of manufacturing order scheduled before and after the use of the multiple criteria decision
making. In the study we will apply analytic hierarchy process to get priority order of scheduling constraint with
the help of two manufacturing expert.
Keywords: - Analytic hierarchy process, decision making, scheduling manufacturing orders
I.
INTRODUCTION
Decision making is a crucial and a vital field in business world. It allows industries to make good
decisions in the opportune time. One of the fields of using decision making in industries is planning and
scheduling. Planning and scheduling work in industries is not evident especially in manual industries, because
before scheduling a job to the employee, its necessary to verify the availability of work constraints in order to
maximize quantity of work and optimize resources. To become more performant, the verification should begin
with the most important and global constraint before verifying the rest. So we begin by verifying the important
constraint, if its verified we move to the second, if not we will move to schedule another manufacturing order
(MO) without losing time to verify the rest of the constraints. Also if we verify the very important constraint one
by one, scheduling will not be blocked by verifying a non-important constraint. This way of verification will
optimize planning and scheduling result, time and performance. Therefore its important to have the good
priority order of each work constraint before scheduling. In this paper we will evaluate, in an aircraft
manufactory, the effects of the use of AHP to establish planning constraint priority order before planning and
scheduling and we will compare its results to those given by an old manufacturing method which the
manufactory uses to schedule its MO. The organization of this paper will be as follows. Section 2 presents some
multi criteria decision making. Section 3 introduces AHP decision making. Section 4 describes the old
scheduling method used by the manufactory. Section 5 presents the application of AHP to establish priority
order of planning constraints. Section 6 is a comparison before and after the use of AHP. The last section
concludes the paper and provides future directions for further research.
II.
MULTIPLE CRITERIA DECISION MAKING METHODS
The earliest known reference relating to Multiple Criteria Decision Making can be traced to Benjamin
Franklin (1706- 1790), who allegedly had a simple paper system for deciding important issues. Among different
multiple criteria decision making methods (MCDM), there is the Technique for Order of Preference by
Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS), developed by Hwang and Yoon in 1981, is based on the concept that the
chosen alternative should have the shortest geometric distance from the positive ideal solution and the longest
geometric distance from the negative ideal solution. Measuring Attractiveness by a Categorical Based
Evaluation Technique (MACBETH) is an interactive approach that requires only qualitative judgments about
differences to help a decision maker or decision-advising groups quantify the relative attractiveness of options.
Analytic hierarchy process (AHP) is a multiple criteria decision technique that can combine qualitative and
quantitative factors for prioritizing, ranking and evaluating alternatives. In this work, we will evaluate AHP in
International organization of Scientific Research
1|Pa ge
Improving Scheduling Manufacturing Work Orders Using AHP Method-Case Study

scheduling manufacturing orders of work. The choice of AHP as a multi criteria decision making method is due
to its capacity to compare both qualitative and quantitative criteria.
III.
ANALYTIC HIERARCHY PROCESS
The analytic hierarchy process is a structured technique for organizing and analyzing complex
decisions, based on mathematics and psychology. It was developed by Thomas L. Saaty in the 1970s and has
been extensively studied and refined since then.
The steps of application AHP method as defined by T.SAATY are as follows.
Define the problem and determine the kind of knowledge sought.
Structure the decision hierarchy from the top with the goal of the decision, then the objectives from a broad
perspective, through the intermediate levels (criteria on which subsequent elements depend) to the lowest
level (which usually is a set of the alternatives).
Construct a set of pairwise comparison matrices. Each element in an upper level is used to compare the
elements in the level immediately below with respect to it.
Use the priorities obtained from the comparisons to weigh the priorities in the level immediately below. Do
this for every element. Then for each element in the level below add its weighed values and obtain its
overall or global priority. Continue this process of weighing and adding until the final priorities of the
alternatives in the bottom most level are obtained.
To make comparisons, we need a scale of numbers that indicates how much an element is important over
another with respect to the criterion or property of comparison. Table 1 shows comparison scales.
After getting all priority orders, we calculate the Eigen vector of each alternative in order to obtain the rank of
solutions.
TABLE 1.
Intensity of
Importance
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Reciprocals of
above
1.11.9
IV.
FUNDAMUTAL SCALE OF NUMBER

Definition
Equal Importance
Weak or slight
Moderate importance
Moderate plus
Strong importance
Strong plus
Very strong
Very, very strong
Extreme importance
If activity i has one of the above
non-zero numbers assigned to it
when compared with activity j,
then j has the reciprocal value
when compared with i
If the activities are very close
OLD SCHEDULING METHOD
Scheduling method in our case had been given by an old manufacturing manager. He had classified
scheduling constraints reposing to his experience without any use of a MCDM method. The scheduling method
will be named in the rest of article by Old scheduling method. We will use AHP method with two
manufacturing expert, to get priority order of scheduling constraint and we will evaluate scheduling using the
old manufacturing method and the two manufacturing methods resulting to the application of AHP method.
V.
APPLICATION OF AHP
The first step in the application of the AHP method is to formulate the problem. The problem in our
case is to schedule the maximum of old manufacturing order by ameliorating the scheduling algorithm. The
second step is to decompose the problem into a hierarchy of objective, criteria and alternatives. In our case, we
will use two-levels AHP: The objective is to maximize number of old MO scheduled and the alternatives are
represented by scheduling constraints.
Scheduling constraints which we need to rank by AHP method are:
Customer date: is the date given to costumer in which work should start.
Cooking capacity: is the maximum capacity of ovens, its a quantitative constraint.
2|Pa ge
Cooking times : is agenda of cooking in the ovens

Operative specialty : is the know-how of operatives
Operative availability
Manufacturing tools availability
After defining constraints to compare, its time to aggregate expert preferences. We had worked with two
experts, as cited before, in the same manufacturing domain. We had created a multiple choice questioner like
To schedule a maximum of old MO, how much customer date is important compared to cooking capacity?
The answer choices were like in table 1. Experts judgments were aggregated in a matrix as shown in table 2 and
3.
TABLE 2.
EXPERT 1 JUDGMENT
Expert 1
Customer
Cooking
Cooking
Operativ Operative
Tools
date
capacity
times
e know
availabilit
availability
how
y
1
1/3
1/7
3
3
5
Customer date
5
1
3
5
1
7
Cooking
capacity
7
1/3
1
3
3
7
Cooking times
Operative
know how
Operative
availability
Tools
availability
1/3
1/3
1/3
1/3
1/5
1/7
1/7
1/3
1/3
TABLE 3.
EXPERT 2 JUDGMENT
Cooking
Operativ Operativ
times
e know
e
how
availabil
ity
1/7
3
7
Expert 2
Customer
date
Cooking
capacity
Tools availability
Customer
date
Cooking
capacity
Cooking
times
Operative
know how
Operative
availability
Tools
availability
1/3
1/3
1/3
1/3
1/3
1/3
1/7
1/3
1/5
1/7
1/7
1/3
1/3
Now expert preferences are collected, we have to exploit them by calculating the Eigen vector (table 4 and 5).
TABLE 4.
Constraints
Customer date
Cooking capacity
Cooking times
Operative know how
Tools availability
EIGEN VECTOR OF EXPERT 1 JUDGEMENT

Eigen vector
0.117
0.23
0.433
0.084
0.104
0.03
3|Pa ge

TABLE 5.
Expert 2
Customer date
Cooking capacity
Cooking times
Operative know how
Tools availability
EIGEN VECTOR OF EXPERT 2 JUDGEMENT

Eigen vector
0.178
0.349
0.284
0.065
0.097
0.025
The last step is to use the obtained constraints priority order in scheduling algorithm and calculate how many
old manufacturing orders are scheduled.
VI.
RESULTS AND COMPARISON BEFORE AND

AFTER USING AHP METHOD
The application of AHP had given two different raking for scheduling constraints. Table 6 below shows the
different ranking given by the two experts.
TABLE 6.
Customer date
Cooking capacity
RANKING TABLE OF SCHEDULING CONSTRAINTS

Expert 1
Expert 2
Eigen vector
Ranking
Eigen vector
Ranking
0.117
3
0.178
3
0.23
2
0.349
1
Cooking times
Operative know
how
Operative
availability
Tools availability
0.433
0.084
1
5
0.284
0.065
2
5
0.104
0.097
0.03
0.025
Now the two ranking are given, we will schedule the same list (60 MO) of manufacturing orders three
times. Firstly, we will schedule using the old scheduling method which had been established without any use of
a decision making method, in the second step, we will schedule using the constraint ranking given by the first
expert. Finally, we will use the ranking given by the second expert. Table 7 shows the number of scheduled MO
using the three methods.
RATE AND NUMBER OF OLD SCHEDULED MO
Number of old MO
Rate
scheduled
35
58.2%
Old scheduling method
(Without MCDM method)
48
78.3%
Expert 1 ranking
38
63.3%
Expert 2 ranking
TABLE 7.
VII.
RESULT DISCUSSION
Given 60 MO to schedule and using the old scheduling method, we had scheduled 35 MO. The result
of scheduling was improved by the use of AHP method with the second expert by 5.1% and by 20% with the
ranking obtained by the first expert.
As shown by statistics the use on AHP as a MCDM method in scheduling manufacturing order is important and
can fine tune scheduling results.
VIII.
CONCLUSION
The Object of this work is to show the importance of using a MCDM in manufacturing behavior by the
use of AHP method to rank scheduling constraint before planning. The use of AHP had improved old MO
scheduled by 20%. Despites the good results of AHP, it stills a subjective method because the expert priority
can influence the results. So, to ameliorate its result and to reduce subjectivity risks, we can use an optimizing
algorithm like genetic algorithm after collecting many expert preferences.
4|Pa ge

REFERENCES
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
Murat Koksalan, Jyr ki Wallenius Stanley Zionts ,Multiple Criteria Decision Making , From Early
History to the 21st Century, Chap. 1,pp 1-16, 2011.
Hwang, C.L, Yoon, K. Multiple Attribute Decision Making: Methods and Applications. New York:
Springer-Verlag ,1981.
BANA e Costa Carlos A., De Corte Jean-Marie, Vansnick Jean-Claude, "MACBETH" in International
Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making, 11, 2, 1-29, 10.1142/S0219622012400068
(2012).
Daniel J Power, What is the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP)? DSS News Vol. 4, No. 13, June 22,
2003.
Saaty. T, The Analytical Hierarchy Process, New York, NY: McGraw-Hill, 1980.
Saaty .T,Decision Aiding:Decision-making with the AHP: Why is the principal eigenvector necessary?
, European Journal of Operational Research 145, pp. 8591,2003.
Saaty.T,Decision making with the analytic hierarchy process, Int. J. Services Sciences, Vol. 1, No. 1,
2008.
Analytic
Hierarchy
Process.
Wikipedia,
the
Free
Encyclopedia,
July
13,2014.http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Analytic_hierarchy_process&oldid=613881926.
5|Pa ge

Improving Scheduling Manufacturing Work Orders Using AHP Method-Case Study

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Improving Scheduling Manufacturing Work Orders Using AHP Method-Case Study

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Improving Scheduling Manufacturing Work Orders Using AHP Method-Case Study

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

IOSR Journal of Engineering (IOSRJEN)

ISSN (e): 2250-3021, ISSN (p): 2278-8719