RANKING ALTERNATIVE ROUTES FOR PEDESTRIAN WALKWAYS FOR A FACTORY BY APPLYING ANALYTICAL HIERARCHY PROCESS

Year 2024, , 182 - 199, 03.10.2024

Aygülen Kayahan Karakul , Saba Pire Özgen

https://doi.org/10.11611/yead.1468578

Abstract

The Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) is one of the Multi Criteria Decision-making (MCDM) methods developed by Thomas Lorie Saaty. It can be defined as the theory of measurement through pairwise comparisons, relying on expert judgments of priority scales. This study aims to compare the alternative pedestrian routes within the production area of a manufacturing company located in Manisa, Türkiye, utilizing AHP. AHP is selected as a suitable tool for this case study, since it allows inclusion of tangible and intangible criteria and consideration of sub-criteria as part of the decision-making process. Three alternative pedestrian routes were evaluated by applying the AHP method to define the best route enabling access for pedestrians to the targeted area in the manufacturing building. The decision criteria were defined by expert Decision Makers of the company and are in line with criteria, such as safety, cost effectiveness and time, utilized broadly for layout selection related studies in manufacturing as per the conducted literature review. The best alternative route was determined as Route 1, and the main criteria priorities were ranked as Criteria 1- “Operational Health and Safety (OHS) Risk Assessment,” Criteria 4 “Restricted access to the material warehouse,” Criteria 2 “Investment Feasibility” and Criteria 3 “Walking Time.” As a conclusion, AHP is effectively applied to prioritize the tangible and intangible criteria and select most suitable pedestrian routes within a manufacturing facility.

Keywords

Analytical Hierarchy Process, Pedestrian Route Selection, Manufacturing.

Ethical Statement

Çalışma Etik Kurul İzni gerektirmemektedir. Ancak çalışmada etik kurallara riayet edilmiş, 3 uzman Karar verici tarafından ölçek doldurulmadan önce bilgilendirilmiş, gönüllü onam formları imzalatılmıştır.

References

• Abad, J, Lafuente E. and Vilajosana, J. (2013) “An Assessment of The OHSAS 18001 Certification Process: Objective Drivers and Consequences on Safety Performance and Labor Productivity”, Safety Science, 60: 47-56.
• Abdalla, S, Kızıl, M.S. and Canbulat, I. (2019) “Development of a Method for Layout Selection Using Analytical Hierarchy Process, In Naj Aziz And Bob Kininmonth (eds.)”, Proceedings of the 2013 Coal Operators' Conference, Mining Engineering, University of Wollongong.
• Aitken, J., Christopher, M. and Towill, D. (2002) “Understanding, Implementing and Exploiting Agility and Leanness”, International Journal of Logistics Research and Applications, 5 (1): 59-74.
• Al-Hawari, T., Mumani, A. and Momani, A. (2014) “Application of The Analytic Network Process to Facility Layout Selection”, Journal of Manufacturing Systems, 33 (4): 488-497.
• American Society for Quality (ASQ), https://asq.org/quality-resources/total-quality-management Access date: 11.03.2024.
• Aruldoss, M., Lakshmi, T.M. and Venkatesan, P. (2013) “A Survey on Multi Criteria Decision Making Methods and Its Applications”, American Journal of Information Systems, 1(1): 31-43.
• Avikal, S., Mishra, P.K. and Jain, R. (2013) “An AHP And PROMETHEE Methods-Based Environment Friendly Heuristic for Disassembly Line Balancing Problems”, Interdisciplinary Environmental Review, 14(1): 69-85.
• Balaji, M. and Santhanakrishnan, D. S. (2019) “An Application of Analytic Hierarchy Process in Vehicle Routing Problem”, Periodica Polytechnica Transportation Engineering, 47(3): 196-205.
• Hadi-Vencheh, A. and Mohamadghasemi, A (2012) “An Integrated AHP–NLP Methodology for Facility Layout Design”, Journal of Manufacturing Systems, 32 (1): 40-45.
• Hollnagel, E. (2008) “From Protection to Resilience: Changing Views on How to Achieve Safety”, 8th International Symposium of the Australian Aviation Psychology Association, Apr 2008, Sydney, Australia.
• Jung, H. (2011). “A Fuzzy AHP–GP Approach for Integrated Production-Planning Considering Manufacturing Partners” Expert Systems with Applications, 38(5): 5833-5840.
• Chin, K.S., Pun K.F, Xu, Y. and Chan, J.S.F. (2002) “An AHP Based Study of Critical Factors for TQM Implementation İn Shanghai Manufacturing Industries”, Technovation, 22(11): 707-715.
• Koilakuntla M., Patyal V.S., Modgil S. and Ekkuluri P. (2012), “A Research Study on Estimation of TQM ‘Factors Ratings’ through Analytical Hierarchy Process”, Procedia Economics and Finance, 3: 55-61.
• Moussavi, S.M., Tavakkoli-Moghaddam, R., Heydar, M. and Ebrahimnejad, S. (2013) “Multi-Criteria Decision Making for Plant Location Selection: An Integrated Delphi–AHP–PROMETHEE Methodology”, Arabian Journal For Science and Engineering, 38: 1255-1268.
• Moslem, S., Sarajı, M.K., Mardani, A., Alkharabsheh, A., Duleba S. and Esztergár-Kıss, D. (2023) “A Systematic Review of Analytic Hierarchy Process Applications to Solve Transportation Problems: From 2003 to 2022”, IEEE Access, 11: 11973-11990.
• Nagy, L., Ruppert, T. and Abonyi, J. (2020) “Analytic Hierarchy Process and Multilayer Network-Based Method for Assembly Line Balancing”, Applied Sciences,10:3932.
• Mu, E. and Pereya-Rojas, M. (2018) “Practical Decision Making using Super Decisions. An Introduction to Analytical Hierarchy Process”, Switzerland: Springer.
• Ohno, T. (1988) “Toyota Production System: Beyond Large Scale Production”, Productivity Press, New York.
• Önder, E. & Yıldırım, B. and Özdemir, M. (2013) “Multi Criteria Decision Making Approach for Evaluating Tourism Destinations in Turkey”, Academic Journal of Tourism and Management Research, 1. 1-15.
• Özdemir, S. and Şahin, G. (2018) “Multi-Criteria Decision-Making in The Location Selection for A Solar PV Power Plant Using AHP”, Measurement, 129: 218-226.
• Pereira, V. & Bamel, U. (2022) “Charting the Managerial and Theoretical Evolutionary Path of AHP Using Thematic and Systematic Review: A Decadal (2012–2021) Study”, Annals of Operations Research, 326: 1-17.
• Rahman,M.S., Ali, M.I., Hossain,U., and Mondal, T.K. (2018) “Facility Location Selection For Plastic Manufacturing Industry in Bangladesh by Using AHP Method”. International Journal of Research in Industrial Engineering, 7(3):307-319.
• Ramnath, V., Elanchezhian,C. and Kesavan, R. (2011) “A Multi Attribute Decision Making Method For Selection Optimum Assembly Line”, Management Science Letters, 1: 65-72.
• Rausand, M. and Bouwer Utne, I. (2009) “Product Safety – Principles and Practices in A Life Cycle Perspective”, Safety Science, 47(7): 939-947.
• Saaty, T.L. (1994) “How to Make A Decision: The Analytical Hierarchy Process”, Interfaces, 24: 19-43.
• Saaty, T. (2008) “Decision Making with the Analytic Hierarchy Process”, Int. J. Services Sciences, 1: 83-98.
• Sadeghi, L., Mathieu, L., Nicolas, T. and Al Bassit, L. (2015) “Developing A Safety Indicator to Measure the Safety Level During Design for Safety”, Safety Science, 80: 252–263.
• Shah, R. and Ward, P. (2007) “Defining and Developing Measures of Lean Production”, Journal of Operations Management, 25: 785-805.
• Van, N., Tucek, D. and Pham, N. T. (2022) “Indicators for TQM 4.0 Model: Delphi Method and Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) Analysis”, Total Quality Management & Business Excellence. 34: 1-15.
• Vaidya, O. and Kumar, S. (2006) “Analytic Hierarchy Process: An Overview of Applications”, European Journal of Operational Research. 169: 1-29.
• Vinodh, S., Shivraman, K. and Viswesh, S. (2012) “AHP-Based Lean Concept Selection in a Manufacturing Organization”, Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, 23:124-136.
• Womack, J. P., Jones, D. T. and, Roos, D. (1990) “The Machine That Changed the World”, New York: Rawson Association.
• Worklife Statistics by the Turkish Ministry of Labor: https://www.csgb.gov.tr/media/87376/calisma_hayati_2020.pdf , Access Date: 03.01.2024.
• Yıldırım, B. F., and Yeşilyurt, C. (2014) “Bulanık Analitik Hiyerarşi Prosesi Yaklaşımı ile Proje Değerlendirme Kriterlerinin Önceliklendirilmesi: Kalkınma Ajansı Örneği”, Atatürk İletişim Dergisi, 6: 23-50.