可持续性指标和选择精益生产工具的混合决策模型

IF 12.4 Q1 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
Ali Jaber Naeemah, Kuan Yew Wong
{"title":"可持续性指标和选择精益生产工具的混合决策模型","authors":"Ali Jaber Naeemah,&nbsp;Kuan Yew Wong","doi":"10.1016/j.resenv.2023.100120","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>The literature review reveals that lean manufacturing tool selection models still have some gaps. These models lack the criteria for selecting LM tools. Only a few of these models adopted hybrid multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) methods. Obtaining reliable criteria weights in these models is complicated. They lack the consideration of grey uncertainty. Thus, this study is the first to propose a hybrid model for selecting a set of LM tools based on their effect on sustainability. This model combines the best-worst method (BWM) for weighting the criteria and the grey technique for order of preference by similarity to the ideal solution (Grey-TOPSIS) method to rank the alternatives and address the grey uncertainty problem. A set of sustainability metrics (selection criteria) was determined based on a literature review and expert evaluation to prioritize a set of LM tools. An Iraqi cement company was utilized to evaluate the proposed model. The ranking results showed that the value stream mapping (VSM) tool was the most important, whereas the single-minute exchange of die (SMED) tool was the least important. The rankings of the remaining LM tools ranged between these two tools depending on their effects on sustainability. The study conducted a sensitivity analysis using three strategies that verified the model’s robustness and reliability. This research provides 16 applicable sustainability metrics and 12 LM tools that could function as a knowledge foundation for future research. It can help researchers and manufacturers maximize sustainability performance by delivering a hybrid MCDM model to select the appropriate LM tools.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":34479,"journal":{"name":"Resources Environment and Sustainability","volume":"13 ","pages":"Article 100120"},"PeriodicalIF":12.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Sustainability metrics and a hybrid decision-making model for selecting lean manufacturing tools\",\"authors\":\"Ali Jaber Naeemah,&nbsp;Kuan Yew Wong\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.resenv.2023.100120\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>The literature review reveals that lean manufacturing tool selection models still have some gaps. These models lack the criteria for selecting LM tools. Only a few of these models adopted hybrid multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) methods. Obtaining reliable criteria weights in these models is complicated. They lack the consideration of grey uncertainty. Thus, this study is the first to propose a hybrid model for selecting a set of LM tools based on their effect on sustainability. This model combines the best-worst method (BWM) for weighting the criteria and the grey technique for order of preference by similarity to the ideal solution (Grey-TOPSIS) method to rank the alternatives and address the grey uncertainty problem. A set of sustainability metrics (selection criteria) was determined based on a literature review and expert evaluation to prioritize a set of LM tools. An Iraqi cement company was utilized to evaluate the proposed model. The ranking results showed that the value stream mapping (VSM) tool was the most important, whereas the single-minute exchange of die (SMED) tool was the least important. The rankings of the remaining LM tools ranged between these two tools depending on their effects on sustainability. The study conducted a sensitivity analysis using three strategies that verified the model’s robustness and reliability. This research provides 16 applicable sustainability metrics and 12 LM tools that could function as a knowledge foundation for future research. It can help researchers and manufacturers maximize sustainability performance by delivering a hybrid MCDM model to select the appropriate LM tools.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":34479,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Resources Environment and Sustainability\",\"volume\":\"13 \",\"pages\":\"Article 100120\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":12.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Resources Environment and Sustainability\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666916123000130\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Resources Environment and Sustainability","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666916123000130","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

文献综述表明,精益制造工具选择模型还存在一些空白。这些模型缺乏选择LM工具的标准。只有少数模型采用了混合多准则决策方法。在这些模型中获得可靠的准则权重是很复杂的。他们缺乏对灰色不确定性的考虑。因此,本研究首次提出了一种混合模型,用于根据LM工具对可持续性的影响选择一套LM工具。该模型结合了最佳-最差法(best-worst method, BWM)和灰色法(grey - topsis),通过与理想解的相似性对备选方案进行排序,解决了灰色不确定性问题。基于文献回顾和专家评估,确定了一组可持续性指标(选择标准),以优先考虑一组LM工具。利用伊拉克一家水泥公司对所提出的模型进行了评价。排序结果显示价值流映射(VSM)工具最重要,而单分钟换模(SMED)工具最不重要。其余LM工具的排名介于这两个工具之间,取决于它们对可持续性的影响。本研究采用三种策略进行了敏感性分析,验证了模型的稳健性和可靠性。本研究提供了16个适用的可持续发展指标和12个LM工具,可作为未来研究的知识基础。它可以通过提供混合MCDM模型来选择合适的LM工具,从而帮助研究人员和制造商最大限度地提高可持续性绩效。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Sustainability metrics and a hybrid decision-making model for selecting lean manufacturing tools

Sustainability metrics and a hybrid decision-making model for selecting lean manufacturing tools

The literature review reveals that lean manufacturing tool selection models still have some gaps. These models lack the criteria for selecting LM tools. Only a few of these models adopted hybrid multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) methods. Obtaining reliable criteria weights in these models is complicated. They lack the consideration of grey uncertainty. Thus, this study is the first to propose a hybrid model for selecting a set of LM tools based on their effect on sustainability. This model combines the best-worst method (BWM) for weighting the criteria and the grey technique for order of preference by similarity to the ideal solution (Grey-TOPSIS) method to rank the alternatives and address the grey uncertainty problem. A set of sustainability metrics (selection criteria) was determined based on a literature review and expert evaluation to prioritize a set of LM tools. An Iraqi cement company was utilized to evaluate the proposed model. The ranking results showed that the value stream mapping (VSM) tool was the most important, whereas the single-minute exchange of die (SMED) tool was the least important. The rankings of the remaining LM tools ranged between these two tools depending on their effects on sustainability. The study conducted a sensitivity analysis using three strategies that verified the model’s robustness and reliability. This research provides 16 applicable sustainability metrics and 12 LM tools that could function as a knowledge foundation for future research. It can help researchers and manufacturers maximize sustainability performance by delivering a hybrid MCDM model to select the appropriate LM tools.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Resources Environment and Sustainability
Resources Environment and Sustainability Environmental Science-Environmental Science (miscellaneous)
CiteScore
15.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
41
审稿时长
33 days
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信