Abstract

In the context of selecting industrial tools and equipment, multi criteria decision making (MCDM) plays a crucial role in ensuring optimal and efficient choices. This study focuses on comparing two multi-criteria decision-making methods, simple ranking process (SRP) and faire un choix adéquat (FUCA), in ranking alternatives based on internal rankings for each criterion. Both methods share the common goal of evaluating and ranking alternatives; however, they differ in their implementation. The SRP method uses only natural numbers for internal ranking, while FUCA employs both natural numbers and decimals, allowing for more detailed and flexible rankings. The study was conducted in five specific cases of selecting industrial tools and equipment to compare the differences between these two methods. These cases provide a diverse range of criteria and real-world conditions, helping to test the applicability and effectiveness of each method. In all five cases conducted, the FUCA method consistently identified the best alternative similar to other MCDM methods. In contrast, when using the SRP method, there were 2 out of 5 cases where the best alternative found using this method did not match the best alternatives identified by other MCDM methods. The results show that the FUCA method has a clear advantage over SRP, demonstrated by its ability to provide more detailed assessments and accurate rankings. This study confirms that FUCA is the more effective method in the studied situations, recommending its use in decision making related to the selection of industrial tools and equipment.

Keyword

MCDM, SRP method, FUCA method, Industrial, Comparison.

Cite this article

Trung DD, Dudić B, Ašonja A, Bao NC, Duc DV, Thuy DT.Comparison of SRP and FUCA methods in selecting industrial tools and equipment. International Journal of Advanced Technology and Engineering Exploration. 2024;11(116):1066-1078. DOI:10.19101/IJATEE.2024.111100386

Refference

[1]Temiz I, Calis G. Selection of construction equipment by using multi-criteria decision making methods. Procedia Engineering. 2017; 196:286-93.

[2]Hamasha MM, Bani-irshid AH, Al MS, Shwaheen G, Al QL, Shbool M, et al. Strategical selection of maintenance type under different conditions. Scientific Reports. 2023; 13(1):15560.

[3]Hagag AM, Yousef LS, Abdelmaguid TF. Multi-criteria decision-making for machine selection in manufacturing and construction: recent trends. Mathematics. 2023; 11(3):1-21.

[4]Stević Ž, Pamučar D, Puška A, Chatterjee P. Sustainable supplier selection in healthcare industries using a new MCDM method: measurement of alternatives and ranking according to compromise solution (MARCOS). Computers & Industrial Engineering. 2020; 140:106231.

[5]Wen Z, Liao H, Zavadskas EK. MACONT: mixed aggregation by comprehensive normalization technique for multi-criteria analysis. Informatica. 2020; 31(4):857-80.

[6]Baydaş M, Eren T, Stević Ž, Starčević V, Parlakkaya R. Proposal for an objective binary benchmarking framework that validates each other for comparing MCDM methods through data analytics. Peer Journal Computer Science. 2023; 9:e1350.

[7]Sotoudeh-anvari A. Root assessment method (RAM): a novel multi-criteria decision making method and its applications in sustainability challenges. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2023; 423:138695.

[8]Hoang XT. Multi-objective optimization of turning process by FUCA method. Strojnícky Časopis-Journal of Mechanical Engineering. 2023; 73(1):55-66.

[9]Ha LD. Selection of suitable data normalization method to combine with the CRADIS method for making multi-criteria decision. Applied Engineering Letters. 2023; 8(1):24-35.

[10]Zakeri S, Chatterjee P, Konstantas D, Ecer F. A decision analysis model for material selection using simple ranking process. Scientific Reports. 2023; 13(1):8631.

[11]Ouattara A, Pibouleau L, Azzaro-pantel C, Domenech S, Baudet P, Yao B. Economic and environmental strategies for process design. Computers & Chemical Engineering. 2012; 36:174-88.

[12]Paradowski B, Szyjewski Z. Comparative analyses of multi-criteria methods in supplier selection problem. Procedia Computer Science. 2022; 207:4593-602.

[13]Güçlü P. Comparative analysis of the MCDM methods with multiple normalization techniques: three hybrid models combine MPSI with DNMARCOS, AROMAN, and MACONT methods. Business and Economics Research Journal. 2024; 15(2):129-54.

[14]Dua TV. Development of a new multi-criteria decision-making method. Eastern-European Journal of Enterprise Technologies. 2023; 3(4):123.

[15]Hong SN, Hieu TT. Selection of welding robot by multi-criteria decision making method. Eastern-European Journal of Enterprise Technologies. 2023; 121(3):66-72.

[16]Thinh HX, Mai NT, Giang NT, Van KV. Applying multi-criteria decision making methods for cutting oil selection. Eastern-European Journal of Enterprise Technologies. 2023; 123(1).

[17]Rachman AP, Ichwania C, Mangkuto RA, Pradipta J, Koerniawan MD, Sarwono J. Comparison of multi-criteria decision-making methods for selection of optimum passive design strategy. Energy and Buildings. 2024; 314:114285.

[18]Vakilipour S, Sadeghi-niaraki A, Ghodousi M, Choi SM. Comparison between multi-criteria decision-making methods and evaluating the quality of life at different spatial levels. Sustainability. 2021; 13(7):4067.

[19]Tu NA, Anh BH. A novel multi-criteria decision making procedure for saw machine selection in the mechanical machining. Journal of Science and Technology. 2023; 59(3):100-7.

[20]Nguyen AT. Combining FUCA, CURLI, and weighting methods in the decision-making of selecting technical products. Engineering, Technology & Applied Science Research. 2023; 13(4):11222-9.

[21]Van TN, Son NH. Material selection for PMEDM process. International Journal of Mechanical Engineering and Robotics Research. 2024; 13(3):315-24.

[22]Thinh HX, Mai NT. Comparison of two methods in multi-criteria decision-making: application in transmission rod material selection. EUREKA: Physics and Engineering. 2023 :59-68.

[23]Uyen VT, Thu PX. The multi-criteria decision-making method: selection of support equipment for classroom instructors. Applied Engineering Letters. 2023; 8(4):148-57.

[24]Thinh HX, Van DT. Research on expanding the scope of application of the MARA method. EUREKA: Physics and Engineering. 2024; 2024(3):90-9.

[25]Van DT. Application of multi-criteria decision-making method to choose rice harvester in Vietnam. EUREKA: Physics and Engineering. 2023; 2023(6):173-82.

[26]Vassoney E, Mammoliti MA, Desiderio E, Negro G, Pilloni MG, Comoglio C. Comparing multi-criteria decision-making methods for the assessment of flow release scenarios from small hydropower plants in the alpine area. Frontiers in Environmental Science. 2021; 9:635100.

[27]Kaya GK, Ozturk F. A comparison of the multi-criteria decision-making methods for the selection of researchers. In industrial engineering in the internet-of-things world: selected papers from the virtual global joint conference on industrial engineering and its application Areas, GJCIE. 2022 (pp. 147-59). Springer International Publishing.

[28]Baydaş M. Comparison of the performances of MCDM methods under uncertainty: an analysis on bist SME industry index. OPUS Journal of Society Research. 2022; 19(46):308-26.

[29]Baydaş M. The effect of pandemic conditions on financial success rankings of BIST SME industrial companies: a different evaluation with the help of comparison of special capabilities of MOORA, MABAC and FUCA methods. Business & Management Studies: An International Journal. 2022; 10(1):245-60.

[30]Baydaş M, Pamučar D. Determining objective characteristics of MCDM methods under uncertainty: an exploration study with financial data. Mathematics. 2022; 10(7):1115.

[31]Thinh HX, Van DT. Optimal surface grinding regression model determination with the SRP method. Engineering, Technology & Applied Science Research. 2024; 14(3):14713-8.

[32]Biswas S, Božanić D, Pamučar D, Marinković D. A spherical fuzzy based decision making framework with einstein aggregation for comparing preparedness of SMES in quality 4.0. Facta Universitatis, Series: Mechanical Engineering. 2023; 21(3):453-78.

[33]Mian SH, Nasr EA, Moiduddin K, Saleh M, Abidi MH, Alkhalefah H. Assessment of consolidative multi-criteria decision making (C-MCDM) algorithms for optimal mapping of polymer materials in additive manufacturing: a case study of orthotic application. Heliyon. 2024; 10(10).

[34]Dua TV. Combination of symmetry point of criterion, compromise ranking of alternatives from distance to ideal solution and collaborative unbiased rank list integration methods for woodworking machinery selection for small business in Vietnam. EUREKA: Physics and Engineering. 2023; 2023(2):83-96.

[35]Dağdeviren M. Decision making in equipment selection: an integrated approach with AHP and PROMETHEE. Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing. 2008; 19:397-406.

[36]Van DT. Forklift selection by multi-criteria decision making methods. Eastern-European Journal of Enterprise Technologies. 2023; 125(3).

[37]Son NH, Hieu TT, Thang NM, Tan HN, Can NT, Thao PT, et al. Choosing the best machine tool in mechanical manufacturing. EUREKA: Physics and Engineering 2023; 2023(2):97-109.