The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/2043-9377.htm

Selection of
An application of grey based manufacturing
decision making approach for the system
selection of manufacturing
system 447
Received 30 June 2014
Om Ji Shukla and Gunjan Soni Revised 1 September 2014
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Accepted 1 September 2014
Malaviya National Institute of Technology, Jaipur, India, and
G. Anand
Department of Quantitative Methods and Operations Management,
Indian Institute of Management Kozhikode, Kerala, India

Abstract
Purpose – In the current customer-driven market, the manufacturers have to be highly responsive
and flexible to deliver a variety of products. Hence, to meet this dynamic and uncertain market
changes, the production system, which enables the manufacturing of such variety of products should
be able to meet such diverse, dynamic changes. Hence, selecting a suitable manufacturing system is
a key strategic decision for today’s manufacturing organization, which needs to survive in these
uncertain market conditions. Hence, the purpose of this paper is to present a decision-making model
for selecting the best manufacturing system and also discuss the criteria on the basis of which the
management can select the same.
Design/methodology/approach – A case of small- and medium-sized company is presented,
in which the management is deciding to establish a most suitable manufacturing system. To supplement
this, a suitable multi-criteria decision-making model (MCDM), the grey approach is used to analyze
manufacturing system alternatives based on various decision criteria to arrive a comparative ranking.
Findings – An extensive analysis of grey-based decision-making model described grey decision
matrix, grey normalized decision matrix, grey weighted normalized decision matrix and grey
possibility degrees for three alternatives revealed that lean manufacturing systems was found to be
the most suitable manufacturing system among three alternatives for a given case.
Research limitations/implications – The same study can be extended by including sub-criteria
with main criteria for selection of manufacturing system by utilizing two MCDM techniques such as
AHP or ANP with Grey approach.
Practical implications – The Grey approach has been discussed in a detailed way and it will be
useful for the managers to use this approach as a tool for solving similar type of decision-making
problems in their organizations in the future.
Originality/value – Although, the problem of selecting a suitable manufacturing system is often
addressed both in practice and research, very few reports are available in the literature of Grey-based
decision models that demonstrated its application for selecting a suitable manufacturing systems.
Keywords Lean manufacturing, Manufacturing system, Grey theory,
Multi-criteria decision making (MCDM)
Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction Grey Systems: Theory and

Presently in a highly competitive scenario due to market complexities and high Application
Vol. 4 No. 3, 2014
expectations of customers, manufacturing sector is under high pressure to sustain pp. 447-462
r Emerald Group Publishing Limited
in the market. Over the years, a number of production improvement techniques, 2043-9377
strategies, methodologies and practices have been suggested for increasing DOI 10.1108/GS-06-2014-0022
GS productivity, profits and overall performance of the manufacturing companies.
4,3 Six-sigma, lean and agile concepts, total quality management (TQM), total productive
maintenance (TPM) and some specific quality improvement studies are some examples.
In mid 1990s, Muhlemann et al. (1995) conducted a longitudinal study in smaller
manufacturing enterprises which proposed a computer-based approach for enhancing
the quality of production management decisions. Jagadeesh (1999) analyzed TQM from
448 starting to present status in Indian scenario and described customer-focused initiatives
taken by some Indian companies with the help of TQM. Antony et al. (2005) discussed
the improvement of process capability in Indian automotive company by using six-sigma
approach which also resulted in removing engine-overheating problem. Herron and
Hicks (2008) used lean manufacturing tools and techniques through change agents
for productivity improvement and cost savings in north east England companies. Ahuja
and Khamba (2008) evaluated the contributions of TPM in Indian manufacturing
industries and identified critical TPM success factors for enhancing the manufacturing
performance.
Despite the reported success of above discussed methodologies or techniques
at improving the effectiveness of the manufacturing organizations, there are still a
number of companies that are struggling to maintain their performance (Hines, 2004;
Pham and Thomas, 2012). Such situations arise, if the managers in these organizations
are attempting to implement these improvement methodologies as a quick fix or if such
implementations are forced by their customers or top management. Rather, the managers
need to understand clearly whether implementing such improvement philosophies and
methodologies are really relevant and applicable for their organizations. Hence, in this
paper, a case of small- and medium- sized enterprise (SME) involved in steering wheel
manufacturing is presented in which the management was contemplating to implement
a most suitable manufacturing system. The main criteria and sub-criteria for selection of
manufacturing system are taken from Anand and Kodali (2008) as the size of the case
organization and the business situation are similar. Thus, the selection of manufacturing
system for SME is a multi-criteria decision-making model (MCDM) problem. This
paper addresses the issue of selecting the best manufacturing system among three
manufacturing system alternatives which are lean manufacturing system (LMS),
computer integrated manufacturing system (CIMS) and traditional manufacturing
system (TMS). The main objectives of the paper are:
. to perform a literature review of selection techniques/strategies of
manufacturing system;
. to get expert opinion about criteria weights and criteria ratings of the
alternatives; and
. to develop a grey-based decision-making model for selection of best
manufacturing system.
The paper is organized as follows: Literature review is discussed in Section 2; Section 3
describes case study description while Section 4 presents grey approach and its
application. Section 5 deals with results and discussion followed by conclusion in Section 6.

2. Literature review
The literature has been reviewed from two perspectives; applications of various
techniques for selection of manufacturing systems and applications that use grey-based
approach.
2.1 Application of various MCDM techniques for selection of manufacturing systems Selection of
A significant amount of work related to selection of manufacturing systems and manufacturing
its associated decisions are addressed in the literature. A representative set of
articles are reviewed to highlight the different methodologies, the context of usage, system
etc. Table I shows a brief review of papers related to selection of manufacturing
systems.
As evident from Table I, it is clear that various methods and algorithms exist to 449
address the MCDM problems. Notable ones are AHP, Analytic Network Process (ANP),
PROMETHEE, etc. One of the drawbacks of these methods is that they presume the
relative importance of criteria and alternatives with certainty. The preference
information on alternatives and criteria are basically depending upon decision makers
(DMs) subjective judgments. Generally these judgments are often uncertain and cannot
be defined by exact value. Hence, the uses of fuzzy and grey concepts are warranted to
address such decision making. It is clearly evident from the literature review that both
fuzzy and grey theories are getting more attention by researchers in solving MCDM
problems under uncertain situations. Researchers have developed MCDM models
incorporating fuzziness such as fuzzy AHP, fuzzy ANP, fuzzy PROMETHEE, etc. For
example, Chen and Hwang (1992) have written a book fuzzy MADM. However, there
are another set of researchers who advocate that grey theory is better than fuzzy (Klir
and Yuan, 1995; Zimmermann, 1996). They stated that grey-based decision-making
method considers condition of the fuzziness and hence grey approach can deal flexibly
with the fuzziness situation (Deng, 1989; Li et al., 2007). In fuzzy theory, the criteria
are represented initially in fuzzy linguistic values (interval-valued fuzzy sets) and
then converted into known exact values. Whereas in grey approach, fuzziness in terms
of uncertainty represented linguistic criteria using interval grey numbers continues
until the estimation of weights and evaluation of alternatives (Zhang et al., 2005).
Considering these advantages, we attempted to model the above problem using
Grey-based MCDM techniques.

2.2 Brief review of Grey-based MCDM approach

There are a growing number of research papers based on grey approach. Some studies
where MCDM problems have been solved by grey theory are as follows: Li and Liu
(2008) proposed an effective tool to study an economic system under uncertain
circumstances by grey matrix and grey input-output analysis. Tseng et al. (2012)
presented an empirical study of green innovation drivers in the domains of
environmental management using a grey relational analysis with entropy weight.
Wang et al. (2012) evaluated the hazards of an urban rail transit dynamic operating
systems and conducted quantitative risk analysis in the operation process using grey
system theory. Yang and Chen (2006) proposed an integrated model of analytical
hierarchy process and grey relational analysis for supplier selection MCDM problem
in an outsourcing manufacturing organization. Mishra et al. (2013) developed
a grey-based and fuzzy TOPSIS MCDM approach to select the most suitable agile
system for implementing mass customization strategies. Goyal and Grover (2012)
proposed a fuzzy-grey relational analysis MCDM method for the selection of proper
advanced manufacturing system. Huang et al. (2011) described a real estate demand
analyzing model using grey system theory and multivariate regression analysis. Tseng
and Chiu (2012) suggested an evaluation strategy for green innovation practices in
world’s largest printed circuit board manufacturing firm under uncertainties using
integrated model of grey theory, entropy weight and analytical network process.

Table I.
related to selection of
Brief review of papers
manufacturing systems
Author(s)
SN and year
1 Almannai et al.
(2008)
2 Kulak and
Kahraman (2005) design
3 Kodali et al.
(2004)
4 Kodali and
Sangwan (2004)
Methodology used Factors considered
QFD and FMEA General relevance, Specific
relevance, credibility
Fuzzy axiomatic Annual depreciation and
maintenance costs, quality of
results, ease of use, competitive,
adaptability, expandability
Performance value Performance measures: direct
analysis and indirect
Analytical hierarchy Intangible benefits offered by
process (AHP) and AMS
performance value
analysis (PVA)
4,3
GS
450
Real case
or demo Remarks
Real case The paper described an integrated approach that uses
both the quality function deployment (QFD) technique
and the failure mode and effects analysis (FMEA)
technique for supporting management in addressing
technology, organization, and people at the earliest
stages of manufacturing automation decision making
Real case This paper proposed axiomatic design (AD), which has
the characteristics of multi-attribute evaluation, for
comparison of advanced manufacturing systems (AMS).
The authors utilized crisp AD approach for complete
information and the fuzzy AD approach for incomplete
information and demonstrated numeric applications of
both crisp and fuzzy AD approaches in the comparison
of flexible-manufacturing systems (FMS)
Demo In this paper, the authors utilized performance value
analysis (PVA), a MCDM model for examining the
feasibility of world class manufacturing systems
(WCMS) in Indian industries
Real case This paper noted that there is a general challenge offered
to the field of engineering economics by the introduction
of Advanced Manufacturing Systems (AMSs). The
authors commented that the traditional evaluation
approaches do not account for the significant intangible
benefits offered by AMS such as cellular manufacturing
systems. Hence, they demonstrated two MADM
models – namely the AHP and PVA – for the
justification of CMS for a case situation
(continued )
 Author(s) Real case
SN and year Methodology used Factors considered or demo Remarks

5 Bozdag et al.
(2003)
6 Anand and
Kodali (2008)
7 Vinodh and
Chintha (2011)
8 Sheu et al. (2003) Theory of constraints
9 Jozefczyk (2004) Heuristic solution
Blin fuzzy model, Better quality, greater Real case This paper presented four different fuzzy multi-attribute
fuzzy synthetic flexibility, competition, group decision-making methods to select the best CIMs
evaluation, Yager’s experience with new by considering both intangible and tangible factors
weighted goals technology and expandability
method and fuzzy
AHP
PROMETHEE Type I (usual criterion), type II Real case This paper suggested a decision strategy for the
(U-shape criterion), type III selection of lean manufacturing system in a SME using
(V-shape criterion), Type IV decision-making technique PROMETHEE
(level criterion), type V
(V-shape criterion with
indifference threshold
criterion), type VI
(Gaussian criterion)
Fuzzy QFD Agility decision domains, agile Real case This paper incorporated QFD approach with fuzzy logic
attributes and agile enablers and applied in traditional manufacturing organization
for agility improvement
Three operational measures: Demo This paper discussed overall strategy for integrating
(TOC) and activity- throughput, inventory, theory of constraints (TOC) and activity based costing
based costing (ABC) operating expenses (ABC) to improve manufacturing decision making
Two-level complex operation Demo The paper presented a decision-making algorithm for
algorithms system with scheduling of complex manufacturing operation system
tasks and motion control
of a group of executors

(continued )
manufacturing
system

451

Table I.
Selection of
 4,3
GS

452

Table I.
Author(s) Real case
SN and year Methodology used Factors considered or demo Remarks

10 Karsak and Fuzzy decision Economic evaluation criterion Demo This paper described a fuzzy decision technique for
Tolga (2001) algorithm and strategic criteria such as selecting advanced manufacturing system which was
flexibility, quality improvement based on economic and strategic justification
parameters using fuzzy indices
11 Chuu (2009) Fusion method of Subjective and objective Real case This paper proposed a fuzzy multiple attribute decision-
fuzzy information and attributes making model for selecting advanced manufacturing
sensitivity analysis technology on the basis of available subjective attributes
12 Samvedi et al. Fuzzy AHP and grey Cost, operative flexibility, Real case This paper addressed a selection problem of suitable
(2012) relational analysis Installation easiness, machine tool and proposed an integrated model of fuzzy
maintainability and based AHP and grey relational analysis to enhance the
serviceability, productivity, manufacturing performance
machine tool compatibility,
safety, user friendliness
13 Yao et al. (2011) Multi-objective Three dispatching criteria: the Demo The paper suggested a hybrid multi attribute decision-
dynamic scheduling due date criterion, the setup making model to make the process flow smooth from
approach cost criterion and the line uncertainty in product and line balancing information in
balance criterion semiconductor manufacturing system
After scanning the plethora of literature it can be pointed out that there is a lack of Selection of
evidence in the recent literature to suggest that grey methodology is yet to be used for manufacturing
addressing the decision problem of “selecting a suitable manufacturing system”.
Therefore, this study proposes a grey-based decision-making approach for the case system
organization to facilitate comparing the manufacturing systems and the same has
explained with adequate numerical illustration.
453
3. Case study description
The case study is about selection of most suitable manufacturing system in a steering
wheel manufacturing company, located in northern India. It has the capacity of
producing 90,000 steering wheels per month. The case organization is one of the first
tier suppliers to the automobile company in steering wheel supplies. Since, the
numbers of automobile companies establishing plants in India are growing, naturally
the demand for such auto component supplies are also growing. Moreover, the
organization was deciding to revamp their production system as the existing system
suffers from various quality problems, not being able to meet the competitive priorities
and improving overall production effectiveness. The DMs of the case organization
comprising of the owner, the business development manager, the operations manager
and the maintenance manager was considering various options and alternatives to
improve upon the production systems. They were considering the implementation of
various concepts of LMS) to improve upon the existing system, which was based on
TMS. They are currently following the mass production system to make the steering
wheels. Lean concept is basically a set of management tools and techniques which
reduces the wastes in manufacturing and increases the productivity in the organization
(Womack and Jones, 1996). Matt and Rauch (2013) revealed the benefits of adopting the
lean production in a SME. One of the DM was also interested in evaluating whether
they can adapt CIMS. CIM is a set of techniques which provides fundamental changes
in manufacturing industries through computer assistance, control and high level of
integrated automation at all levels of manufacturing industries (Lefebvre et al., 1996;
Marri et al., 2003). Marri et al. (2003) suggested to SMEs that they should emphasize
on long-term advantages rather than short-term profits while justifying CIM
implementation in their organizations.
Next step is identifying the decision criteria to analyze and assess the above-
mentioned alternatives. However, the decision criteria used for this problem have been
picked up from Anand and Kodali (2008) as a similar problem was also handled by them.
However, in this study only main criteria were considered as the DMs felt that
these criteria broadly cover all sub-criteria and they considered it appropriate for the case
organization. The list of criteria for selection of manufacturing system is given in Table II.

4. Grey approach and its application

Grey approach (Deng, 1989) is one of the methods used for studying uncertainty and
this approach is based on degree of information known. This approach is appropriate
for solving the MCDM problem in an uncertain environment (Li et al., 2007). Assuming
A ¼ {A1, A2, y, Am} is a set of m possible alternatives while C ¼ {C1, C2,yCn} is
a set of n criteria, which are additively independent. W ¼ {w1, w2, y, wn} is the
vector of criteria weights. This paper considers the criteria weights and ratings of
manufacturing systems as linguistic variables (Li et al., 2007). Table III represents
linguistic criteria weights in grey numbers and Table IV represents criteria ratings in
grey numbers.
GS Code
4,3 Criteria name Descriptions

Financial C1 It includes operational cost, i.e. cost expending in implementing new

system, training cost, i.e. cost incurred in providing the trainings to the
workers, overhead cost, consultant cost, etc.
Organizational C2 It includes time required to implement the changes by the organization,
454 readiness of the organization towards changes, degree of ease in
implementing the changes, etc.
Role of top C3 It includes top management’s initiatives and high-level commitment
management towards the changes
Impact on C4 It includes increase in roles and responsibilities of employees due to job
employees enlargement, empowerment, hiring and firing, etc. It needs multi skilling
of the employees and also refers to the increase in stress and fatigue due to
alternative manufacturing system
Impact on C5 It includes the changes in supplier requirements and infrastructure and
suppliers changes in supply practices due to alternative manufacturing system
Impact on C6 It includes providing the better value products with lower prices and easy
customers accessibility to the customers
Impact on C7 It includes improving in the brand value of the company due to alternative
shareholders manufacturing systems consequently increase in sales and profits
Perceived C8 It includes reduction in delivery time, inventory, manpower and defects
Table II. benefits and improves manufacturing performance due to alternate manufacturing
List of criteria for systems
selection of
manufacturing system Source: Anand and Kodali (2008)

Scale Weight

Very low (VL) [0.0,0.1]

Low (L) [0.1,0.3]
Medium low (ML) [0.3,0.4]
Medium (M) [0.4,0.5]
Medium high (MH) [0.5,0.6]
High (H) [0.6,0.9]
Table III. Very high (VH) [0.9,1.0]
Scale of criteria
weights (w) Source: Li et al. (2007)

Scale Weight

Very poor (VP) [0,1]

Poor (P) [1,3]
Medium poor (MP) [3,4]
Fair (F) [4,5]
Medium good (MG) [5,6]
Good (G) [6,9]
Table IV. Very good (VG) [9,10]
Scale of criteria
ratings (G) Source: Li et al. (2007)
A group of four DMs as mentioned earlier gave responses for selection of criteria, Selection of
criteria weights, rating of each criterion with respect to three alternative manufacturing
manufacturing systems in terms of grey numbers. The implementation of grey
approach in selection of manufacturing system is as follows. system
Step 1: in this step, criterion weights are identified by a group of DMs. If the group
has k persons then the criterion weight is calculated as:
1h i 455
W ¼ Wj1 þ Wj2 þ . . . . . . . . . þ Wjk ð1Þ
k
where Wjk ð j ¼ 1; 2; 3; . .h. nÞ is thei criterion weight of kth DM and can be described
k
by grey number Wjk ¼ W kj ; W j . The operator “#” denotes grey number and W kj
k
and W j describe lower and upper value of the jth criterion weight, respectively.
The grey values for criterion weights can be obtained from the group of four DMs
DM1, DM2, DM3 and DM4 according to Equation (1). Thus the weight for criterion
C1 is #Wj ¼ [(0.9 þ 0.9 þ 0.9 þ 0.5)/4, (1.0 þ 1.0 þ 1.0 þ 0.6)/4] ¼ [0.8, 0.9]. Similarly, the
weight values were computed for other criteria and the weights for C1 to C8 are shown
in Table V.
Step 2: criterion rating values are calculated using linguistic variables as:
1h i
Gij ¼ G1ij þ G2ij þ . . . . . . þ Gkij ð2Þ
k
where Gkij (i ¼ 1, 2, yy, m; j ¼ 1, 2, yy, n)his thekcriterion
i rating value of kth DM
and can be described by grey number Gkij ¼ Gkij ; Gij .
Obtain criterion rating values for each of the three manufacturing systems from the
DMs. For example, as per Equation (2) the criterion rating value for LMS with respect
to criterion C1 is #Gij ¼ [(6 þ 6 þ 4 þ 5)/4, (9 þ 9 þ 5 þ 6)/4] ¼ [5.25, 7.25]. In a similar
manner, the criterion rating values for three manufacturing system alternatives with
respect to C1-C8 are shown in Table VI.
Step 3: in this step grey decision matrix is established:
2 3
G11 G12    G1n
6 G21 G22 . . . G2n 7
6 7
D ¼ 6 .. .. .. .. 7 ð3Þ
4 . . . . 5
Gm1 Gm2 ... Gmn

Criterion DM1 DM2 DM3 DM4 #Wj

C1 VH [0.9,1.0] VH [0.9,1.0] VH [0.9,1.0] MH [0.5,0.6] [0.8,0.9]

C2 H [0.6,0.9] VH [0.9,1.0] H [0.6,0.9] H [0.6,0.9] [0.675,0.925]
C3 VH [0.9,1.0] H [0.6,0.9] VH [0.9,1.0] VH [0.9,1.0] [0.825,0.975]
C4 MH [0.5,0.6] H [0.6,0.9] M [0.4,0.5] H [0.6,0.9] [0.525,0.725]
C5 M [0.4,0.5] MH [0.5,0.6] M [0.4,0.5] M [0.4,0.5] [0.425,0.525]
C6 H [0.6,0.9] M [0.4,0.5] L [0.1,0.3] H [0.6,0.9] [0.425,0.650]
C7 VH [0.9,1.0] MH [0.5,0.6] L [0.1,0.3] ML [0.3,0.4] [0.450,0.575] Table V.
C8 H [0.6,0.9] MH [0.5,0.6] MH [0.5,0.6] MH [0.5,0.6] [0.525,0.675] Criterion weights
GS Criteria Manufacturing system DM1 DM2 DM3 DM4 #Gij
4,3
C1 LMS G [6,9] G [6,9] F [4,5] MG [5,6] [5.25,7.25]
CIMS F [4,5] VG [9,10] VG [9,10] VG [9,10] [7.75,8.75]
TMS MP[3,4] G [6,9] MG [5,6] MP [3,4] [4.25,5.75]
C2 LMS MG [5,6] G [6,9] VG [9,10] VG [9,10] [7.25,8.75]
456 CIMS MG [5,6] VG [9,10] G [6,9] G [6,9] [6.5,8.5]
TMS MP [3,4] F [4,5] G [6,9] F [4,5] [4.25,5.75]
C3 LMS VG [9,10] VG [9,10] G [6,9] VG [9,10] [8.25,9.75]
CIMS MG [5,6] VG [9,10] VG [9,10] G [6,9] [7.25,8.75]
TMS F [4,5] F [4,5] MG [5,6] F [4,5] [4.25,5.25]
C4 LMS VG [9,10] VG [9,10] VG [9,10] VG [9,10] [9,10]
CIMS MG [5,6] G [6,9] G [6,9] G [6,9] [5.75,8.25]
TMS MP [3,4] MG [5,6] F [4,5] MP [3,4] [3.75,4.75]
C5 LMS VG [9,10] VG [9,10] G [6,9] G [6,9] [7.5,9.5]
CIMS MG [5,6] MG [5,6] VG [9,10] VG [9,10] [7,8]
TMS F [4,5] MP [3,4] MP [3,4] MP [3,4] [3.25,4.25]
C6 LMS G [6,9] VG [9,10] MG [5,6] VG [9,10] [7.25,8.75]
CIMS VG [9,10] G [6,9] G [6,9] MG [5,6] [6.5,8.5]
TMS F [4,5] F [4,5] MP [3,4] MP [3,4] [3.5,4.5]
C7 LMS G [6,9] G [6,9] MG [5,6] G [6,9] [5.75,8.25]
CIMS MG [5,6] G [6,9] G [6,9] G [6,9] [5.75,8.25]
Table VI. TMS F [4,5] MP [3,4] F [4,5] MP [3,4] [3.5,4.5]
Criterion ratings C8 LMS VG [9,10] VG [9,10] VG [9,10] VG [9,10] [9,10]
for three manufacturing CIMS MG [5,6] G [6,9] VG [9,10] G [6,9] [6.5,8.5]
systems TMS MP [3,4] F [4,5] MP [3,4] P [1,3] [2.75,4]

Establish the grey decision matrix according to Equation (3), using criterion rating
grey values #Gij for all three manufacturing system alternatives with respect to C1-C8
form Table VII.
Step 4: normalize the grey decision matrix:
2 3
G11 G12    G1n
6 G21 G22 . . . G2n 7
6 7
D ¼ 6 . .. .. .. 7 ð4Þ
4 .. . . . 5
Gm1 Gm2 . . . Gmn

For a benefit criterion, Gij is expressed as:

" #
G ij G ij
Gij ¼ ; max ð5Þ
Gmax
j Gj
where Gmax
j ¼ max1 pipmGij :

Alternatives C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8

LMS [5.25,7.25] [7.25,8.75] [8.25,9.75] [9,10] [7.5,9.5] [7.25,8.75] [5.75,8.25] [9,10]

Table VII. CIMS [7.75,8.75] [6.5,8.5] [7.25,8.75] [5.75,8.25] [7,8] [6.5,8.5] [5.75,8.25] [6.5,8.5]
Grey decision matrix (D) TMS [4.25,5.75] [4.25,5.75] [4.25,5.25] [3.75,4.75] [3.25,4.25] [3.5,4.5] [3.5,4.5] [2.75,4]
For a cost criterion is expressed as, Gij is expressed as: Selection of
" #

Gmin
j Gmin
j
manufacturing
Gij ¼ ; ð6Þ system
Gij G ij

where Gmin
j ¼ min1 pipmG ij :
The normalization method mentioned above is to preserve the property that the ranges 457
of the normalized grey number belong to [0, 1].
Normalize the grey decision matrix using benefit criterion for LMS w.r.t. C1 is
D* ¼ [5.25/8.75, 7.25/8.75] ¼ [0.6, 0.83] and similarly normalized grey values for three
manufacturing system alternatives with respect to C1-C8 as in Table VIII.
Step 5: in this step, considering the importance of each criterion, establish the
weighted normalized grey decision matrix:
2 3
V11 V12    V1n
6 V21 V22 . . . V2n 7
6 7
D ¼ 6 .. .. .. .. 7 ð7Þ
4 . . . . 5
Vm1 Vm2 ... Vmn

where Vij ¼ Gij  Wj :

After normalization, the grey decision matrix is weighted to obtain the weighted
normalized grey decision matrix which is the product of normalized grey
decision values (#Gij) and criterion weight values (#Wj ) using Equation (7).
D** ¼ [0.6  0.8, 0.83  0.9] ¼ [0.48, 0.75]. Similarly, other grey weighted normalized
values are obtained and are shown in Table IX.
Step 6: make the ideal alternative as a referential alternative. For m possible
alternatives set A ¼ {A1, A2,y, Am}, the ideal referential alternative Amax ¼

Gmax max
1 ; G2 ; . . . . . .  Gn
max
can be obtained by:
max  max  max 
Amax ¼ 1pipm V i1 ; max max max
1pipm V i1 ; 1pipm V i2 ; 1pipm Vi2 ; . . . . . . ; 1pipm V in ; 1pipm V in

ð8Þ

Criteria
Alternatives C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8

LMS [0.60,0.83] [0.83,1.00] [0.85,1.00] [0.90,1.00] [0.79,1.00] [0.83,1.0] [0.7,1.0] [0.9,1.0] Table VIII.
CIMS [0.89,1.00] [0.74,0.97] [0.74,0.90] [0.58,0.83] [0.74,0.84] [0.74,0.97] [0.7,1.0] [0.65,0.85] Grey normalized
TMS [0.49,0.66] [0.49,0.66] [0.44,0.54] [0.38,0.48] [0.34,0.45] [0.40,0.51] [0.4,0.55] [0.28,0.40] decision matrix (D)*

Criteria
Alternatives C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8
Table IX.
LMS [0.48,0.75] [0.56,0.93] [0.70,0.98] [0.47,0.73] [0.34,0.53] [0.35,0.65] [0.32,0.58] [0.47,0.68] Grey weighted
CIMS [0.71,0.9] [0.50,0.90] [0.61,0.88] [0.30,0.60] [0.31,0.44] [0.31,0.63] [0.32,0.58] [0.34,0.57] normalized decision
TMS [0.39,0.59] [0.33,0.61] [0.36,0.52] [0.20,0.35] [0.14,0.24] [0.17,0.33] [0.18,0.32] [0.15,0.27] matrix (D)**
GS Set ideal alternative manufacturing system as a referential manufacturing system
4,3 according to Equation (8) which is given as below.
Amax ¼ {[0.71, 0.9], [0.56, 0.93], [0.70, 0.98], [0.47, 0.73], [0.34, 0.53], [0.35, 0.65], [0.32,
0.58], [0.47, 0.68]}.
The grey values in Amax are the maximum value of each criterion in grey weighted
normalized decision matrix.
458 Step 7: calculate the grey possibility degree between compared alternatives set
A ¼ {A1, A2, y, Am } and ideal referential alternative Amax:

1X n n o
P fAi pAmax g ¼ P Vij p  Gmax
j ð9Þ
n j¼1

Grey possibility degrees for three manufacturing systems, according to Equation (9),
are as follows (Shi et al., 2005):
2       3
11 p  G1 12 p  G2 13 p  G3
max max max
P V þ
 P V
 þ
 P V
 
1
P ðA1 pAmax Þ ¼ 4 þ P V14 p  Gmax
4  þ P V15 p  G5  þ P V16 p  G6
max max 5
8
þ P V17 p  Gmax
7 þ P V18 p  Gmax
8

       
P V11 p  Gmax
1 ¼ max 0; L  max 0; V 11  Gmax
1 =L

where #V11 ¼ [0.48, 0.75], #Gma 1 ¼ [0.71, 0.9].

max
L* ¼ L(#V11) þ L(#G1 ) ¼ (V 11  V 11 ) þ (G1  Gmax
max
1 ) ¼ (0.750.48) þ
(0.90.71) ¼ 0.46.
 
P V11 p  Gmax 1 ¼ [max(0, 0.460.04)/0.46] ¼ 0.913.
Here #V12 ¼ #Gmax max
2 , and hence P(#V12p#G2 ) ¼ 0.5,
Similarly P(#V 13 p#G3 ) ¼ 0.5, P(#V 14 p#G max
max
4 ) ¼ 0.5, P(#V 15 p
#G max
5 ) ¼ 0.5, P(#V 16 p#G max 6 ) ¼ 0.5, P(#V 17 p#G max7 ) ¼ 0.5, P(#V 18 p
#Gmax8 ) ¼ 0.5.
P( A1pAmax) ¼ 1/8(0.913 þ 0.5 þ 0.5 þ 0.5 þ 0.5 þ 0.5 þ 0.5 þ 0.5) ¼ 0.55
Similarly grey possibility degrees for other alternative manufacturing systems can
be calculated which are shown in Table X.
Step 8: rank the order of alternatives based on P{AipAmax} comparison. If Ai value
is smaller, the ranking order of Ai is better than other Ai values.
Three manufacturing systems are prioritized on the basis of grey possibility
degrees. The alternative which has lowest grey possibility value (Ai) will be the best
alternative and which has highest grey possibility value will be the worst alternative.
The physical significance of lower and higher Ai values is the smaller and larger

Alternatives Grey possibility degree

Table X.
Grey possibility LMS, P(A1pAmax) 0.55
degree of alternative CIMS, P(A2pAmax) 0.62
manufacturing systems TMS, P(A3pAmax) 0.99
differences from ideal grey possibility value, respectively. The ranking order as Selection of
follows: LMS4CIMS4TMS. manufacturing
5. Results and discussion system
The criterion C3 “Role of top management” has highest criterion weight (from Table IV)
which signifies the importance of interest taken by top management of the case
organization for selecting the most suitable manufacturing system. It is evident from 459
Table IX that the grey weighted normalized value of criterion C3 for LMS is highest
among all other criteria and for CIMS and TMS its value is second highest. It indicates
that the role of top management is very important for the implementation of LMS
whereas in the case of CIMS and TMS implementation, criterion C1 “finance” requires
highest attention.
The grey weighted normalized value of only criterion C1 “financial (or cost)” for
LMS is lower than CIMS (from Table IX), it represents finances are not much required
for LMS as compare to CIMS because CIMS needs more money for integrating
the computers with manufacturing system. Whereas the criterion C7 “impact on
shareholders” is equally important for LMS and CIMS as the grey weighted
normalized value of this criteria is equal for LMS and CIMS. It means that both
manufacturing systems equally emphasize on improving the brand value of the
organization. For TMS, the grey weighted normalized values of all criteria are lowest
among other manufacturing systems.
The grey possibility degrees for three manufacturing systems LMS, CIMS and TMS
are calculated as 0.55, 0.62 and 0.99, respectively. These values represent the deviation
from ideal alternative values. The smaller grey possibility value of an alternative
represents low deviation from ideal alternative value and hence considered to be the
most suitable alternative among others. On the other hand, higher grey possibility
value represents high deviation and hence it is considered to be the least suitable
alternative. In this problem grey possibility degree for LMS is lowest and for TMS it is
highest. So it can be concluded that LMS is the most suitable among the available
alternative manufacturing systems. Thus the comparative order can be given as:
LMS4CIMS4TMS.

6. Conclusions
This study suggested a grey-based technique to deal with the selection problem of
manufacturing system. To solve this MCDM problem, initially eight critical factors or
criteria were identified from the literature (Anand and Kodali, 2008). The information
regarding criteria weights and criteria ratings provided by DMs were uncertain and
represented as grey numbers. In the implementation of grey approach, “grey decision
matrix, grey normalized decision matrix and grey weighted normalized decision
matrix” were developed according to grey theory discussed in literature Li et al. (2007).
After applying grey-based approach the ranking of available alternative
manufacturing systems were derived by calculating grey possibility degrees of each
alternative. The LMS is the most suitable and TMS is the least suitable option among
three alternative manufacturing systems.
In this paper, a case of selecting the most suitable manufacturing system was used
to illustrate the application of proposed methodology in an organization. The results
obtained from numerical illustrations indicated that the proposed approach is
reasonable and reliable. This proposed approach establishes a foundation for the
managers to use this method as a tool for solving future MCDM problems in their
GS organizations when confronted with such similar decision-making circumstances.
4,3 Although this study has some limitations such as the expert’s qualifications need to be
validated as they perform a key role to assign weights and ratings which may greatly
affect the final grey possibility values. However, this study confirmed that all the
experts were well familiar with the manufacturing systems. The future research
direction in this area can be to use ANP with grey approach as the assumption of
460 independence among the decision criteria can be relaxed and the entire problem can be
remodeled with inter-related decision criteria.

References
Ahuja, I.P.S. and Khamba, J.S. (2008), “An evaluation of TPM initiatives in Indian industry for
enhanced manufacturing performance”, International Journal of Quality & Reliability
Management, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 147-172.
Almannai, B., Greenough, R. and Kay, J. (2008), “Decision support tool based on QFD and FMEA for
the selection of manufacturing automation technologies”, Robotics and Computer-Integrated
Manufacturing, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 501-507.
Anand, G. and Kodali, R. (2008), “Selection of lean manufacturing systems using PROMETHEE”,
Journal of Modelling in Management, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 40-70.
Antony, J., Kumar, M. and Tiwari, M.K. (2005), “An application of six sigma methodology
to reduce the engine-overheating problem in an automotive company”, Proceedings of
Institute of Mechanical Engineers Part B: J. Engineering Manufacture, Vol. 219 No. 8,
pp. 633-646.
Bozdağ, C.E., Kahraman, C. and Ruan, D. (2003), “Fuzzy group decision making for selection
among computer integrated manufacturing systems”, Computers in Industry, Vol. 51 No. 1,
pp. 13-29.
Chen, S.J. and Hwang, C.L. (1992), “Fuzzy multiple attribute decision making, methods and
application”, Vol. 375, Springer-Verlag, Berlin and Heidelberg.
Chuu, S.J. (2009), “Selecting the advanced manufacturing technology using fuzzy multiple
attributes group decision making with multiple fuzzy information”, Computers &
Industrial Engineering, Vol. 57 No. 3, pp. 1033-1042.
Deng, J.L. (1989), “The introduction of grey system”, The Journal of Grey System, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 1-24.
Goyal, S. and Grover, S. (2012), “Applying fuzzy grey relational analysis for ranking the advanced
manufacturing systems”, Grey Systems: Theory and Application, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 284-298.
Herron, C. and Hicks, C. (2008), “The transfer of selected lean manufacturing techniques from
Japanese automotive manufacturing into general manufacturing (UK) through change
agents”, Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 524-531.
Hines, P. (2004), “Manufacturing in London: where should development effort be focused”, Theme
Paper No. 5, London Development Agency, London.
Huang, Y., Wang, Y. and Gai, S. (2011), “The application and research of a new combinatorial
analysis and forecasting method in real estate area based on grey system theory and
multivariate linear regression”, Procedia Engineering, Vol. 15, pp. 4532-4537.
Jagadeesh, R. (1999), “Total quality management in India: perspective and analysis”, The TQM
Magazine, Vol. 11 No. 5, pp. 321-327.
Jozefczyk, J. (2004), “Decision-making algorithms in two-level complex operation system”,
Decision Support Systems, Vol. 38 No. 2, pp. 171-182.
Karsak, E.E. and Tolga, E. (2001), “Fuzzy multi-criteria decision-making procedure for
evaluating advanced manufacturing system investments”, International Journal of
Production Economics, Vol. 69 No. 1, pp. 49-64.
Klir, G.J. and Yuan, B. (1995), Fuzzy Sets and Fuzzy Logic: Theory and Applications, Prentice-Hall, Selection of
Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
manufacturing
Kodali, R. and Sangwan, K.S. (2004), “Multi-attribute decision models for justification of cellular
manufacturing systems”, International Journal of Business Performance Management, system
Inderscience Publisher, Vol. 6 Nos 3/4, pp. 298-320.
Kodali, R., Sangwan, K.S. and Sunnapwar, V.K. (2004), “Performance value analysis for the
justification of world-class manufacturing systems”, Journal of Advanced Manufacturing 461
Systems, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 85-102.
Kulak, O. and Kahraman, C. (2005), “Multi-attribute comparison of advanced manufacturing
systems using fuzzy vs crisp axiomatic design approach”, International Journal of
Production Economics, Vol. 95 No. 3, pp. 415-424.
Lefebvre, L.A., Lefebvre, E. and Harvey, J. (1996), “Intangible assets as determinants of
advanced manufacturing technology adoption in SMEs: toward an evolutionary model”,
International Journal of IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, Vol. 43 No. 3,
pp. 307-322.
Li, Q.X. and Liu, S.F. (2008), “The foundation of the grey matrix and the grey input-output
analysis”, Applied Mathematical Modelling, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 267-291.
Li, G.D., Yamaguchi, D. and Nagai, M. (2007), “A grey-based decision-making approach to the
supplier selection problem”, Mathematical and Computer Modelling, Vol. 46 No. 3, pp. 573-581.
Marri, H.B., Gunasekaran, A. and Kobu, B. (2003), “Implementation of computer-integrated
manufacturing in small and medium enterprises”, Industrial and Commercial training,
Vol. 35 No. 4, pp. 151-157.
Matt, D.T. and Rauch, E. (2013), “Implementation of lean production in small sized enterprises”,
Procedia CIRP, Vol. 12, pp. 420-425.
Mishra, S., Datta, S. and Mahapatra, S.S. (2013), “Grey-based and fuzzy TOPSIS decision-making
approach for agility evaluation of mass customization systems”, Benchmarking: An
International Journal, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 440-462.
Muhlemann, A., Price, D. and Afferson, M. (1995), “A computer based approach for enhancing
manufacturing decision making in smaller manufacturing enterprises: a longitudinal
study”, Omega International Journal of Management Science, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 97-107.
Pham, D.T. and Thomas, A.J. (2012), “Fit manufacturing: a framework for sustainability”,
Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 103-123.
Samvedi, A., Jain, V. and Chan, F.T.S. (2012), “An integrated approach for machine tool selection
using fuzzy analytical hierarchy process and grey relational analysis”, International
Journal of Production Research, Vol. 50 No. 12, pp. 3211-3221.
Sheu, C., Chen, M.H. and Kovar, S. (2003), “Integrating ABC and TOC for better manufacturing
decision making”, Integrated Manufacturing Systems, Vol. 14 No. 5, pp. 433-441.
Shi, J.R., Liu, S.Y. and Xiong, W.T. (2005), “A new solution for interval number linear
programming”, Journal of Systems Engineering Theory and Practice, Vol. 2, pp. 101-106.
Tseng, M.L. and Chiu, A.S.F. (2012), “Grey-entropy analytical network process for green
innovation practices”, Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 57, pp. 10-21.
Tseng, M.L., Huang, F.H. and Chiu, A.S. (2012), “Performance drivers of green innovation under
incomplete information”, Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 40, pp. 234-250.
Vinodh, S. and Chintha, S.K. (2011), “Application of fuzzy QFD for enabling agility in
a manufacturing organization: a case study”, The TQM Journal, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 343-357.
Wang, Y., Li, M., Yang, B. and Yang, C. (2012), “An urban rail transit hazard evaluation
methodology based on grey system theory”, Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences,
Vol. 43, pp. 764-772.
GS Womack, J. and Jones, D. (1996), Lean, Thinking, Simon & Schuster, New York, NY.
4,3 Yang, C.-C. and Chen, B.-S. (2006), “Supplier selection using combined analytical hierarchy
process and grey relational analysis”, Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management,
Vol. 17 No. 7, pp. 926-941.
Yao, S., Jiang, Z., Li, N., Zhang, H. and Geng, N. (2011), “A multi-objective dynamic scheduling
approach using multiple attribute decision making in semiconductor manufacturing”,
462 International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 130 No. 1, pp. 125-133.
Zhang, J.J., Wu, D.S. and Olson, D.L. (2005), “The method of grey related analysis to multiple
attribute decision making problems with interval numbers”, Mathematical and Computer
Modeling, Vol. 42 Nos 9/10, pp. 991-998.
Zimmermann, H.J. (1996), Fuzzy Set Theory and its Applications, 3rd ed., Kluwer Academic
Publishers, Norwell, MA.

Corresponding author
Dr Gunjan Soni can be contacted at: gunjan1980@gmail.com

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
Reproduced with permission of copyright owner. Further
reproduction prohibited without permission.