授课老师林水顺

1、A Group Decision Model for Selecting Facility Layout Alternatives授課老師：林水順 老師導讀學生：張群泓Abstracto Facility layout problems (FLP) are usually treated as design problems. Lack of systematic and objective tools to compare design alternatives results in decision-making to be dominated by the experiences or

2、preferences of designers or managers.o To increase objectivity and effectiveness of decision-making in facility layout selections, a decision support model is necessary.Abstracto The enormous alternatives, various attributes, and comparison of assigned qualitative values to each attribute, form a co

3、mplicated decision problem. To treat facility layout selection problems as a MADM problem, we used the linear assignment method to rank before selecting those high ranks as candidates.Abstracto We modelled the application of the Nemawashi process to simulate the group decision-making procedure and h

4、elp efficiently achieve agreement.o Our models are helpful to them. We use an electronics manufacturing service company to illustrate the decision-making process of our models.INTRODUCTIONo 1.1Facility Layouts facility layouts,or facility layout planning, are to arrange limited space in an organizat

5、ion for the various use of personnel,equipments, or departments. This arrangement has great influence on the activities in the organization.INTRODUCTIONo 1.2 Facility Layout Problems in EMS Industry The EMS (Electronics Manufacturing Service) industry provides OEMs (Original Equipment Manufacturers)

6、 all kinds of electronic products and customized products with lower cost and faster time-to-market. EMS company simultaneously offers manufacture service to several OEMs. Because of product secrets, quality assurance, and other management concerns, almost all OEMs request private production areas.I

7、NTRODUCTIONp 1.3 Motivation and ObjectivesReal facility layout planning is as follows:1.Design several alternatives in a short time. New layout designs do not need to be perfect, but must be quick and flexible.2.Select one of the alternatives.3.Quickly execute the layout modifications.o Under this s

8、cenario, a good tool for evaluating layout alternatives is critical for making decisions and controlling modification costsINTRODUCTIONo 2.1 Attributes for Facility Layout Selectionso After examining the shortcomings in the current decision-making process, we set these goals for developing a decisio

9、n support model:1.Objective decision-making.2.Systematic decision making process.3.Time saving.4.Overall approval.LITERATURE REVIEWo Lin and Sharps study (1999b), show that there are few studies of facility layout selection. Most studies are of facility layout design problems.o For judging facility

10、layout alternatives, Muther (1973) proposed another set of detailed attributes. The attributes were classified into 20 groups. (P.75左邊)o Francis et al. (1992) specified 13 attributes for ranking facility layout alternatives.(P.75右邊)LITERATURE REVIEWo Lin and Sharp (1999a) also developed a set of str

11、uctured attributes for comparison among layout alternatives.p They classified 18 attributes into three groups. (Including：cost，flow and environment)LITERATURE REVIEWo 2.2 Qualitative Indices of AttributesLITERATURE REVIEWo Lin and Sharp (1999b) also proposed some qualitative indices for his 18 attri

12、butes. The qualitative indices are required for flow and environment groups. In cost group, all indices use economic dollar values. Therefore, there is no need for another qualitative index.LITERATURE REVIEWo 2.3 Methods for Ranking Alternativeso With this method, decision maker assigns weights to a

13、ttributes, selecting the alternative with the highest score.p Since facility layout designs must satisfy various conflicting objectives, various attributes must be considered when judging among alternatives. Therefore, facility layout selection problems can be considered Multiple Attributes Decision

14、 Making (MADM) problems.CONSTRUCTION OF A GROUP DECISION SUPPORT MODEL FOR FACILITY LAYOUT SELECTIONCONSTRUCTION OF A GROUP DECISION SUPPORT MODEL FOR FACILITY LAYOUT SELECTIONo 3.23.3o 這部分只要是介紹先前探討過的線性指派方法(Linear Assignment Method)並對各方案加上權重後整理出產品屬性矩陣(Product-attribute matrix)，再利用線性規劃(LP Model)方法，目的

15、在於排序各個可選擇的方案，待方案排序完成後，最後利用Nemawashi(根回)模式來得到所有參與決策者的一致性意見。CONSTRUCTION OF A GROUP DECISION SUPPORT MODEL FOR FACILITY LAYOUT SELECTIONo 3.3.1 Japanese Decision Makingo In general, a person or a small group is assigned the role of coordinator. This person works toward gaining consensus among particip

16、ants by obtaining their opinions, carrying out negotiations, and engaging in persuasion. In Japanese, the process of gaining consensus is called Nemawashi.CONSTRUCTION OF A GROUP DECISION SUPPORT MODEL FOR FACILITY LAYOUT SELECTIONo After gaining consensus, the coordinator prepares a formal document

17、 detailing the proposal and circulates it among participants for consent. This document circulation stage of decision-making is called “ringi.”o This model attempts to improve the disadvantages mentioned above. A Numerical ExampleA Numerical Exampleo The IE engineer developed many alternatives, sele

18、cting eight possible plans. A, B, C, D, E, F, G, and H. The eight alternatives are illustrated in Figure 3.o The IE engineer applied the 18 attributes of Lin and Sharp 1999a (Table 2) and the liner assignment method of Barnade and Blin (1977) to rank these eight alternatives.o The decision maker wei

19、ghts each attribute in sequence. And planA-PlanH was created.A Numerical Exampleo 在初期成本初期成本方面的改變方案排序為： IE工程師利用前述Table2的分類與線性指派的方法，配合決策者賦予權重後排出下列順序； Plan： C,GE,HF,D,A,B。 在建立產品屬性矩陣與使用LP方法後，得到最佳的計畫排序，依序為Plan：B, A, F, H, E, D, C, G。 IE工程師挑選了前四名的計畫來做群體決策方案。 在相關決策者提出本身考量的意見後，IE工程師建立方案評估矩陣(E)與優先選擇條件標準的矩陣(C)，依照方案選擇矩陣(S)的結果將Plan F和Plan H剔除。A Numerical Example 承上頁 剩下的兩個方案(Plan A和Plan B)各有支持者，所以IE工程師必須針對這兩個方案發展新的優先選擇方案矩陣C(A)與C(B)以取得協調。 最後利用針對不同偏好所設計的矩陣P(A)= C(A)-C 與P(B)= C(B)-C 求出最佳方案，在此最佳方案結果為Plan A。