Mobilya üretiminde bulanık AHP ve bulanık EDAS kullanılarak tesis yerleşim tasarımının optimizasyonu ve bulanık ARAS ile karşılaştırma

Abstract

Üretim ortamlarında operasyonların optimize edilmesi, maliyetlerin azaltılması ve verimliliğin artırılması açısından etkili bir tesis yerleşim tasarımı büyük önem taşır. Bu çalışma, Türkiye’deki bir mobilya üretim tesisine yönelik yerleşim alternatiflerini değerlendirmeye ve önceliklendirmeye odaklanmaktadır. Problemin çözümünde, bulanık AHP (analitik hiyerarşi süreci) ve bulanık EDAS (ortalama çözüme uzaklığa dayalı değerlendirme) yöntemlerini birleştiren entegre bir karar verme metodolojisi kullanılmaktadır. Bulanık AHP yöntemi, tesis yerleşim kararlarını etkileyen kriterlerin önem derecesini değerlendirmek için uygulanmaktadır. Bulanık EDAS yöntemi ise tesis yerleşim alternatiflerini değerlendirmek ve sıralamak amacıyla kullanılmaktadır. Model sonuçlarını desteklemek amacıyla, bulanık ARAS kullanılarak bir karşılaştırmalı analiz ve ağırlık değişimlerine dayalı bir duyarlılık analizi gerçekleştirilmektedir. Esneklik %35,56 ağırlık ile en önemli kriter olarak öne çıkmaktadır. Alternatifler arasında, A3 yerleşim seçeneği 0,9872 puanla en iyi performansı sergilemekte olup, bu değer %68,28’lik bir paya karşılık gelmektedir. Çalışma sonuçları; üretim mesafelerinin azaltılması, enerji verimliliğinin artırılması, darboğazların en aza indirilmesi ve montaj süreçlerinin hızlandırılması gibi önemli operasyonel iyileşmeleri ortaya koymaktadır. Bu araştırma, çeşitli endüstrilerde benzer optimizasyon sorunlarının ele alınmasında değerli bir kaynak niteliği taşımaktadır.

Keywords

• Tesis yerleşimi
• AHP
• EDAS
• Bulanık küme
• Mobilya endüstrisi

Optimization of facility layout design in furniture manufacturing using fuzzy AHP and fuzzy EDAS and comparison with fuzzy ARAS

Abstract

Efficient facility layout design is crucial for optimizing operations, reducing costs, and enhancing productivity in manufacturing environments. This study focuses on evaluating and prioritizing layout alternatives for a furniture manufacturing facility in Türkiye. An integrated decision-making methodology combining fuzzy AHP (analytic hierarchy process) and fuzzy EDAS (evaluation based on distance from average solution) is employed to solve the problem. The fuzzy AHP procedure is applied to assess the importance of criteria influencing facility layout decisions. The fuzzy EDAS procedure is used to evaluate and rank facility layout alternatives. To support the model results, a comparative analysis using fuzzy ARAS and a sensitivity analysis based on weight variations are conducted. Flexibility emerges as the most important criterion with a weight of 35.56%. Among the alternatives, layout option A3 demonstrates the best performance with a score of 0.9872, corresponding to a 68.28% share. The study results demonstrate significant operational improvements, including reduced production distances, enhanced energy efficiency, minimized bottlenecks, and accelerated assembly processes. This research serves as a valuable reference for addressing similar optimization challenges across various industries.

Keywords

• Facility layout
• AHP
• EDAS
• Fuzzy set
• Furniture industry

References

1. Abdullah, A.G., Shafii, M.A., Pramuditya, S., Setiadipura, T., & Anzhar, K, (2023). Multi-criteria decision making for nuclear power plant selection using fuzzy AHP: Evidence from Indonesia, Energy and AI, 14, 100263, DOI: 10.1016/j.egyai.2023.100263
2. Akdag, H., Kalayci, T., Karagöz, S., Zülfikar, H., & Giz, D, (2014). The evaluation of hospital service quality by fuzzy MCDM, Applied Soft Computing, 23, 239-248, DOI: 10.1016/j.asoc.2014.06.033
3. Ali Sadat, S., Vakilalroaya Fini, M., Hashemi-Dezaki, H., and Nazififard, M, (2021). Barrier analysis of solar PV energy development in the context of Iran using fuzzy AHP-TOPSIS method, Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments, 47, 101549, DOI: 10.1016/j.seta.2021.101549
4. Al-Zubaidi, S.Q.D., Fantoni, G., & Failli, F, (2021). Analysis of drivers for solving facility layout problems: A literature review, Journal of Industrial Information Integration, 21, 100187, DOI: 10.1016/j.jii.2020.100187
5. Besbes, M., Zolghadri, M., Costa Affonso, R., Masmoudi, F., & Haddar, M, (2020). A methodology for solving facility layout problem considering barriers: genetic algorithm coupled with A* search, Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, 31(3), 615-640, DOI: 10.1007/s10845-019-01468-x
6. Buckley, J.J, (1985). Fuzzy hierarchical analysis, Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 17(3), 233-247, DOI: 10.1016/0165-0114(85)90090-9
7. Budak, A., & Ustundag, A, (2015). Fuzzy decision making model for selection of real time location systems, Applied Soft Computing, 36, 177-184, DOI: 10.1016/j.asoc.2015.05.057
8. Darko, A., Chan, A.P.C., Ameyaw, E.E., Owusu, E.K., Pärn, E., & Edwards, D.J, (2019). Review of application of analytic hierarchy process (AHP) in construction, International Journal of Construction Management, 19(5), 436-452, DOI: 10.1080/15623599.2018.1452098

9. Demirtas, O., Derindag, O.F., Zarali, F., Ocal, O., & Aslan, A, (2021). Which renewable energy consumption is more efficient by fuzzy EDAS method based on PESTLE dimensions?, Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 28(27), 36274-36287, DOI: 10.1007/s11356-021-13310-0
10. Duan, Y., Xiong, J., Cheng, W., Wang, N., Li, Y., He, Y., Liu, J., He, W., & Yang, G. (2022). Flood vulnerability assessment using the triangular fuzzy number-based analytic hierarchy process and support vector machine model for the Belt and Road region, Natural Hazards, 110(1), 269-294, DOI: 10.1007/s11069-021-04946-9
11. Erden, C., Yener, F., Çil, İ., & Çerezci, F, (2016). Fuzzy axiomatic design for solving the facility layout problem of a furniture company, International Journal of Operations and Logistics Management, 5(3), 145-153.
12. Ghorabaee, M.K., Zavadskas, E.K., Amiri, M., & Turskis, Z, (2016). Extended EDAS method for fuzzy multi-criteria decision-making: an application to supplier selection, International Journal of Computers Communications & Control, 11(3), 358-371, DOI: 10.15837/ijccc.2016.3.2557
13. Hasheminasab, H., Hashemkhani Zolfani, S., Bitarafan, M., Chatterjee, P., & Abhaji Ezabadi, A, (2019). The role of façade materials in blast-resistant buildings: an evaluation based on fuzzy Delphi and fuzzy EDAS, Algorithms, 12(6), 119, DOI: 10.3390/a12060119
14. Heidary Dahooie, J., Estiri, M., Zavadskas, E.K., & Xu, Z, (2022). A novel hybrid fuzzy DEA-fuzzy ARAS method for prioritizing high-performance innovation-oriented human resource practices in high tech SME’s, International Journal of Fuzzy Systems, 24(2), 883-908, DOI: 10.1007/s40815-021-01162-2
15. İnce, M.N., & Taşdemir, C. (2024). Facility location selection and layout planning through AHP, PROMETHEE, and CORELAP methods in the furniture industry, BioResources, 19(3), 6478-6509, DOI: 10.15376/biores.19.3.6478-6509
16. Keshavarz Ghorabaee, M., Amiri, M., Zavadskas, E.K., & Antucheviciene, J, (2018). A new hybrid fuzzy MCDM approach for evaluation of construction equipment with sustainability considerations, Archives of Civil and Mechanical Engineering, 18(1), 32-49, DOI: 10.1016/j.acme.2017.04.011
17. Keshavarz Ghorabaee, M., Zavadskas, E.K., Olfat, L., & Turskis, Z, (2015). Multi-criteria inventory classification using a new method of evaluation based on distance from average solution (EDAS), Informatica, 26(3), 435-451, DOI: 10.15388/Informatica.2015.57
18. Kumar, A., Sah, B., Singh, A.R., Deng, Y., He, X., Kumar, P., & Bansal, R.C, (2017). A review of multi criteria decision making (MCDM) towards sustainable renewable energy development, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 69, 596-609, DOI: 10.1016/j.rser.2016.11.191
19. Kuşcuoğlu, M.Ö., & Dilik T, (2023). Sipariş tipi üretim yapan orta ölçekli mobilya işletmelerinde makine seçimi, Mobilya ve Ahşap Malzeme Araştırmaları Dergisi, 6(1), 80-89, DOI: 10.33725/mamad.1287852
20. Le, M.-T., & Nhieu, N.-L, (2022). A novel multi-criteria assessment approach for post-COVID-19 production strategies in Vietnam manufacturing industry: OPA–fuzzy EDAS model, Sustainability, 14(8), 4732, DOI: 10.3390/su14084732
21. Lins, P.S., Kiperstok, A., Cunha, R.D.A., e Silva Rapôso, A.L.Q.R., Merino, E.A.D., & César, S.F. (2021). (Re)layout as a strategy for implementing cleaner production: proposal for a furniture industry company, Sustainability, 13, 13109, DOI: 10.3390/su132313109
22. Luhaniwal, J., Agarwal, S., & Mathur, T, (2025). An integrated DEA-fuzzy AHP method for prioritization of renewable energy sources in India, Scientific Reports, 15(1), 838, DOI: 10.1038/s41598-024-84891-2
23. Moeinaddini, M., Khorasani, N., Danehkar, A., Darvishsefat, A.A., & Zienalyan, M, (2010). Siting MSW landfill using weighted linear combination and analytical hierarchy process (AHP) methodology in GIS environment (case study: Karaj), Waste Management, 30(5), 912-920, DOI: 10.1016/j.wasman.2010.01.015
24. Mofarrah, A, (2008). Decision making tool for produced water management : an application of multicriteria decision making approach, Masters thesis, Memorial University of Newfoundland.
25. Nenzhelele, T., Trimble, J.A., Swanepoel, J.A., & Kanakana-Katumba, M.G, (2023). MCDM model for evaluating and selecting the optimal facility layout design: a case study on railcar manufacturing, Processes, 11(3), 869, DOI: 10.3390/pr11030869
26. Nguyen, H.-T., Md Dawal, S.Z., Nukman, Y., P. Rifai, A., & Aoyama, H, (2016). An integrated MCDM model for conveyor equipment evaluation and selection in an FMC based on a fuzzy AHP and fuzzy ARAS in the presence of vagueness, PLOS ONE, 11(4), e0153222, DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0153222
27. Özşahin, Ş., Singer, H., Temiz, A., & Yildirim, İ, (2019). Selection of softwood species for structural and non-structural timber construction by using the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) and the multiobjective optimization on the basis of ratio analysis (MOORA), Baltic Forestry, 25(2), 281-288, DOI: 10.46490/vol25iss2pp281
28. Petrović, G., Mihajlović, J., Ćojbašić, Ž., Madić, M., & Marinković, D, (2019). Comparison of three fuzzy MCDM methods for solving the supplier selection problem, Facta Universitatis, Series: Mechanical Engineering, 17(3), 455, DOI: 10.22190/FUME190420039P
29. Saaty, T.L, (1977). A scaling method for priorities in hierarchical structures, Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 15(3), 234-281, DOI: 10.1016/0022-2496(77)90033-5
30. Savsar, M., & Aldehaim, A, (2020). Analysis and improvement of facility layout in a furniture factory: a case application, Proceedings of the International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Operations Management, Dubai, March 10-12, 436-447.
31. Singer, H., & Över Özçelik, T, (2022). Metallic biomaterial assessment via a risk-based decision-making approach, Journal of the Faculty of Engineering and Architecture of Gazi University, 37(2), 641-654, DOI: 10.17341/gazimmfd.935288
32. Torkayesh, A.E., Deveci, M., Karagoz, S., & Antucheviciene, J, (2023). A state-of-the-art survey of evaluation based on distance from average solution (EDAS): Developments and applications, Expert Systems with Applications, 221, 119724, DOI: 10.1016/j.eswa.2023.119724
33. Tüysüz, N., & Kahraman, C, (2023). A novel Z-fuzzy AHP&EDAS methodology and its application to wind turbine selection, Informatica, 34(4), 847-880, DOI: 10.15388/23-INFOR515
34. Wang, C.-N., Thi-Be-Oanh-Cao, Dang, T.-T., & Nguyen, N.-A.-T, (2024). Third-party logistics provider selection in the industry 4.0 era by using a fuzzy AHP and fuzzy MARCOS methodology, IEEE Access, 12, 67291-67313, DOI: 10.1109/ACCESS.2024.3392892
35. Yilmaz, M., & Atan, T, (2021). Hospital site selection using fuzzy EDAS method: case study application for districts of Istanbul, Journal of Intelligent and Fuzzy Systems, 41(2), 2591-2602, DOI: 10.3233/JIFS-201757
36. Zha, S., Guo, Y., Huang, S., & Wang, S, (2020). A hybrid MCDM method using combination weight for the selection of facility layout in the manufacturing system: a case study, Mathematical Problems in Engineering, 2020, 1320173, DOI: 10.1155/2020/1320173