MATEC Web of Conferences 192, 01033 (2018) https://doi.org/10.

1051/matecconf/201819201033
ICEAST 2018

Selection of multi-criteria plant layout design by combining AHP

and DEA methodologies
Sirawadee Arunyanart*and Surangkana Pruekthaisong
Department of Industrial Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Khon Kaen University, Khon Kaen, Thailand

Abstract. This paper deals with the problem of finding the optimal plant layout design. Decision-making
methodologies based on analytic hierarchy process (AHP) and data envelopment analysis (DEA) approach
are applied in the selection of the best plant layout. New layouts are developed, in an efficient manner,
based on the systematic layout planning (SLP). By using the multiple criteria, AHP is applied to weigh the
qualitative performance measures. DEA is then used to determine the suitable layout design by measuring
layouts’ efficiency, using the information of AHP and combining with the quantitative data. The utilization
of the proposed procedure is applied to a real data set of a machining precision parts manufacturing
company.

1 Introduction both quantitative and qualitative performance criteria

which leads to the identification of the more optimal
Plant layout is one of the most important components plant layout design alternative.
that significantly has an impact on productivity,
profitability, and performance of any manufacturing
industries, regardless of the size of plant or the type of 2 Literature review
operation. The necessity of designing a plant layout
One of the effective and frequently used methods for
arises not only when a new plant is about to be elected
layout design or redesign is SLP. The method presents
but also during production process due to various
layout planning step that can be easily used in
reasons. The selection of an appropriate layout design is
developing a new layout or improving an existing layout
a multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) which
[1]. It is also a proven tool in providing layout design
requires joint consideration of multiple alternatives,
guidelines and it is widely used in the manufacturing
which are various designed layouts and several
industry for facility layout planning [2].
conflicting evaluation criteria that influence the layout
Pitil and Kuber [3] improved productivity of Auto
decision. Moreover, in the evaluation process, both of
Ancillary company by using SLP. Hossain et al. [4]
the qualitative and quantitative criteria are necessary to
developed plant layout of jute industry based on SLP
be taken into consideration. Consequently, it is
pattern theory. The new plant layout showed that the
challenging and time consuming for layout generation
distance and overall cost of material flow from stores to
and evaluation.
dispatch area were significantly decreased. Sutari and
This paper explores the problem of finding the
Rao [5] applied SLP to design plant layout of a nacelle
optimal plant layout design by applying a decision-
production. The new plant layout could significantly
making methodologies based on an integration of
decrease the distance of material and work flow travel
analytic hierarchy process (AHP) and data envelopment
and resulted in increasing the productivity. Ojaghi et al.
analysis (DEA). Empirical illustration from a practical
[6] minimized travel distance, material handling and
case study of a machining precision parts manufacturing
losses of company producing meatball and soup paste by
company illustrates the effectiveness of the proposed
using SLP to generate new layouts. Chen et al. [7]
methodology. Firstly, an existing plant layout is
adopted SLP approach to enhance the performance on
improved by adopting systematic layout planning (SLP)
optimizing the layout design of a large auto parts
methodology in order to generate new layouts as well as
manufacturing enterprise. In this study, AHP was
to collect quantitative performance data of each
adopted to evaluate optimal layout.
alternative, namely distance and cost. In the next step, an
AHP has been accepted as one of robust and flexible
expert judgment is applied to perform the individual
multi-criteria decision making tools for dealing with
pairwise comparisons of the qualitative performance data
complex problems [8,9]. The method requires the
related to flexibility, safety, and space utilization in
decision maker to provide judgements about the relative
AHP. Finally, DEA is used to solve the problem of
importance of each criterion which is then used in
layout design selection by simultaneously considering
specifying a preference for each decision alternative. The

*
Corresponding author: [email protected]
© The Authors, published by EDP Sciences. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution
License 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
MATEC Web of Conferences 192, 01033 (2018) https://doi.org/10.1051/matecconf/201819201033
ICEAST 2018

output of AHP is in a form of weights of each alternative 3 Methodology

based on the overall preferences evaluated by the
decision maker [10-13]. The methodology of AHP has The proposed framework used in solving the layout
been applied to support decision of facility layout design design problem is illustrated in Fig.1.
selection in various cases.
Yang and Deuse [14] made use of Matlab-based to Data collection
generate three new layout designs. Afterwards, the
Input data
weights for each of six decision criteria was obtained by
AHP calculation. Each layout alternative was then Layout alternative generation by SLP
evaluated using PROMETHEE to get final ranking.
Yang et al. [15] generated ten new layout alternatives of Qualitative data evaluation by AHP
a paint department by a Pareto-based multi-objective
optimization approach. Rough set theory was integrated Qualitative Quantitative
with AHP to determine the weights for each of five performance data performance data
criterion of alternatives. The final alternative facility
layout design was obtained by using TOPSIS method. Determination of efficient layout design by DEA
Hadi-Vencheh and Mohamadghasemi [16] adopted a
computer-aided layout planning tool, Spiral, to generate Selection of final layout design
the facility layout patterns. Six criteria were taken into Fig. 1. Framework for plant layout selection.
account. AHP was applied to determine weights of
qualitative criteria and nonlinear programming model
was then used to solve the problem of selecting one out 3.1 Data collection
of 18 alternatives by considering both quantitative and An important data of the existing plant including flow of
qualitative data. Shokri et al. [17] tackled the same materials, procedures and activities, space available and
facility layout design problem as Hadi-Vencheh and requirements have to be collected in order to assure the
Mohamadghasemi, by employing AHP to weigh the validity of input data at the layout design stage.
qualitative performance measures. VIKOR was then Information related to quantitative and qualitative
applied to find a compromise priority ranking of criteria also have to be assembled.
alternatives according to the selected criteria. Bacudio et
al. [18] generated three layout alternatives of a metal
manufacturing company by applying SLP. Considering 3.2 SLP for layout alternative generation
four criteria, AHP was applied to determine the priority
SLP is a procedural layout design approach which its
weights and the best layout.
process is relatively straightforward but yet is proven a
DEA is one of the most popular tools in management
powerful tool in providing the layout design guideline
analysis. The technique is applied to evaluate
[25]. A step-by-step planning procedure of SLP uses to
performance or efficiency of a homogeneous set of
determine a reasonable production system layout scheme
entities which is referred as decision making units
and develop a new plant layout with an improved
(DMUs) by considering multiple input and multiple
process flow and an effective utilization of space. A
output factors [19]. The DMUs could represent any
workplace in a plant is arranged by locating two areas
businesses, operations, or entities under an evaluation
that contain high frequency and logical relationships
that convert multiple inputs into multiple outputs. The
close to each other. Readers are suggested reference [25]
maximum ratio of weighted sum of outputs to weighted
for detailed discussion and explanation of the SLP
sum of inputs is defined as the efficiency, which is
technique.
calculated for each DMU. Then the efficiency of
observed DMU is evaluated relatively by other DMUs
[20]. The goal of DEA is to determine the productive 3.3 AHP for qualitative data evaluation
efficiency of DMUs by comparing how well the DMU
converts inputs into outputs [21]. Since qualitative data which is part of criteria to be
Liu [22] applied fuzzy DEA with an assurance region evaluated is usually complicated and conflict, AHP are
approach for selecting a flexible manufacturing system. applied in order to provide the weights that indicate the
Twelve alternatives were compared using two inputs and relative importance of the layout alternatives for each
four outputs performance measures. Yand and Kuo [23] criterion. The management are asked to determine a
used commercial software called Spiral for generation of comparison matrix by comparing any pairs of qualitative
17 layouts of IC packaging company. Qualitative criteria one at a time. Scale of importance according to
measures were weighted by AHP. The DEA was adopted Saaty 1-9 scale for the pairwise comparison is used in
to select the final design. Ertay et al. [24] utilized the comparison process. In order to avoid potential
VisFactory, which is a computer-aided layout-planning comparative inconsistency between any pairs of criteria
tool, to create 18 layout alternatives of a plastic in pairwise comparison matrix, a consistency ratio (CR),
production company. The performance measures on which is an index for consistency, is then calculated to
qualitative criteria were developed using AHP. Ranking assure the appropriateness of the comparisons. For the
of the alternatives was later obtained by considering six details of AHP methodology and CR development,
criteria using DEA. readers are referred to look further at Saaty [26].

2
MATEC Web of Conferences 192, 01033 (2018) https://doi.org/10.1051/matecconf/201819201033
ICEAST 2018

3.4 DEA for optimal layout design determination design, test, production, distribution and return/repair
services. The company located in Thailand offers its
DEA uses the linear programming to assess efficiencies products worldwide, especially in Europe and the USA.
of DMUs with the goal to determine the productive Due to a business expansion plan, the company has to
efficiency of DMUs by comparing how well the DMU double its machines in order to be able to handle the
converts inputs into outputs [21]. Assume that there are n plastics precision line of product separately. Therefore,
DMUs to be evaluated, where each DMU consumes to ensure the effectiveness of the production line, the
varying amounts of inputs to produce different amounts new plant layout needs to be function on supporting the
of outputs. xij and yrj are respectively amounts of input production’s upcoming activities.
ith and output rth of DMUj, which are positive number.
vi and ur are decision variables and are respectively
called input and output multipliers or input and output 4.1 Data collection
weights. The efficiency score, h0, of a particular DMU
Fundamental data of the company such as product data,
being evaluated, DMU0, is obtained by solving the
manufacturing process data, flow of process, plant layout
following model:
pattern, and manufacturing facilities are collected. The
 ur yr 0
max h0 (u, v)  r (1) current facility layout and the size of each area are
i i i 0
v x shown in Fig. 2 and Table 1. The criteria (or the
performance measures) for the selection of this plant
s.t.: uy r r rj
1 j (2) layout design are determined by reviewing literatures as
vx i i ij general layout guidelines and by discussing with the
u r , vi  0 r, i (3) company’s management. As a result, those criteria are:
The objective function is to maximize the ratio of distance, cost, flexibility, safety, and utilization.
weighted outputs to weighted inputs or efficiency value The distance is an average transit distance of any
for a particular DMU, subject to the constraints that the materials that are carried into and out of four department
ratio of weighted outputs to weighted inputs is less than areas throughout the production process—turning,
or equal to one. The model can be converted to a linear milling, quality control, and washing. The cost involves
programming model, which is called CCR model as an investment cost in a renovation of the plant for the
following: new layout design. The flexibility involves accessibility,
s maintenance, and ability to perform a variety of tacks for
max h0   u r y r 0 (4) the future expansion. The safety involves both of
r 1 personal and working environment that is safe from
m
s.t.: (5) danger or harm in manufacturing workplace. The
v x
i 1
i io 1
utilization is a proper utilization of the floor space.
s m
(6)
u r y rj   v i x ij  0 j
r 1 i 1 4.2 Generation of plant layout alternatives
u r , vi  0 r, i (7)
In order to support the expansion of the company’s
The model is run n times to identify the efficiency
production line, the management decides to move
scores of all DMUs. DEA will identify the DMU(s) that
several working areas from the current layout to the
produces the largest amounts of outputs by consuming
building nearby. The office area which includes meeting
the least amounts of inputs and then allocate efficiency
score equal to one to the DMU(s). Other inefficient Table 1. Size of facility’s areas.
DMUs will be given efficiency scores relatively to the
efficient DMU(s) which is less than one. Available floor space = 18 m (Width) × 45 m (Length)
No. Area W×L Size (m2)
1 Turning 14×15 210
4 Performance evaluation for selection 2 Milling 14×21 294
3 Finish goods storage 9×14 126
of plant layout design 4 Quality control (QC room) 4×6 24
A manufacturing company considered in this study 5 Washing room 4×6 24
6 Office 4×25 100
focuses on manufacturing and design of high precision 7 WC (East) 4×3 12
and high complexity mechanical components, including 8 WC (West) 4×5 20

Turning M/C M/C M/C M/C

F/G storage M/C
M/C M/C M/C M/C
M/C M/C IN/
M/C OUT
M/C
M/C M/C M/C M/C
Milling M/C

WC WC
Washing QC Office Office
WC WC
Fig. 2. Current facility layout.

3
MATEC Web of Conferences 192, 01033 (2018) https://doi.org/10.1051/matecconf/201819201033
ICEAST 2018

room, CAD/CAM and planning rooms, and finish good 4.4 Determination of optimal layout design
storage area will be moved. The washing and quality
control process, these working areas previously set The inputs and outputs of DMUs are necessary
separately but next to each other, are required during the information for the computation of the DEA model. The
manufacturing of turning and milling process. Since both criteria that are to be minimized are considered as inputs
processes are linked, the new layout will group them whereas the criteria to be maximized are viewed as
together for gaining advantage of the area extension. outputs. For this case study of the plant layout designs,
By applying SLP technique, the relationships all output variables—flexibility, safety, and utilization—
between departments in each process from material of DEA are from AHP analysis, and all inputs—distance
storage area to final product storeroom is collected. and cost—are from layout design.
Accordingly, a relationship chart is drawn. As shown in The DEA equations (4) to (7) are applied to the data
Fig. 3, the closeness values are defined as following: A set of the nine facility layout alternatives. Table 5 shows
as absolutely necessary, E as an especially important, I the efficiency scores obtained by using DEA. The results
as an important, O as ordinary closeness, and U as show that alternatives 1 and 7 are relatively efficient.
unimportant. Furthermore, the indicator of this They are equally viable candidates for the final layout
relationship are defined as following: 1 as continuous design.
operation, 2 as convenience, 3 as noise, 4 as lighting, 5
as shared workers, and 6 as vibration. 5 Conclusions
Three alternative plant layouts are developed based
on modifying of the current layout. Since the This paper addresses the evaluation of the facility layout
management is deciding if the restrooms are staying in design by developing framework based on AHP and
the new layout or not, six more choices of alternative DEA methodologies. SLP is adopted to develop the
layouts are generated, including three layouts with two layout alternatives as well as to gather the quantitative
WCs and other three layouts without any. All nine performance data. The qualitative performance data are
alternative plant layouts are displayed in Fig. 4 for obtained by applying AHP to assess weights expressing
further evaluation. The quantitative performance data
related with each alternative layout, which will be used 1. Raw material storage
as the parameters of the DMU for DEA methodology, U
2. Turning department U
are shown in Table 2. U U
3. Milling department E15 U
E15 A14 U
4. WIP area before QC A14 U E15
O1 U U
4.3 Evaluation of qualitative data 5. QC room U U
U U
6. Washing room U
The qualitative performance data are obtained by AHP U
7. Finish goods storage
methodology and solved by a spreadsheet. The
Fig. 3. Relationship chart.
eigenvector or relative weight of each three qualitative
criteria namely flexibility, safety, and utilization are Table 2. Quantitative measures for layout alternatives.
0.293, 0.078, and 0.629 respectively. The CR value is 0
(zero). Since CR is smaller than the commonly critical DMU no. Distance (m) Cost (thousand THB)
value of 0.1, there is no evidence of inconsistency. 1 117.75 10
The resulting relative weights of each criterion for 2 103.00 10
3 112.00 10
each of nine alternatives are shown in Table 3. These
4 117.75 15
weights then become parameters for the DMUs in DEA 5 120.00 15
calculation. The resulting CR values for the comparison 6 93.50 15
of alternatives are shown in Table 4. The pairwise 7 115.50 20
comparison is considered to be consistent enough since 8 128.50 20
all values are smaller than 0.1. 9 112.00 20

Turning
Milling Milling
Milling
Turning Turning
QC QC QC
Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3

Turning Milling

QC Milling Turning QC Milling Turning QC

Alternative 4 Alternative 5 Alternative 6

Milling Turning
Milling
Milling Turning
QC Turning QC QC

Alternative 7 Alternative 8 Alternative 9

Fig. 4. Layout alternatives.

4
MATEC Web of Conferences 192, 01033 (2018) https://doi.org/10.1051/matecconf/201819201033
ICEAST 2018

Table 3. Qualitative measures for layout alternatives. 2. T. Yang, C.T. Su, Y.R. Hsu, Int. J. Oper. & Prod.
Manage. 20, 11, 1360-1372 (2000)
DMU no. Flexibility Safety Utilization
1 0.0739 0.0197 0.0552 3. S.B. Patil, S.S. Kuber, Int. J. Res. in Eng. & Tech. 3,
2 0.0276 0.0067 0.0369 4, 770-775 (2014)
3 0.0215 0.0058 0.0323 4. R. Hossain, K. Rasel, S. Talapatra, Glob. J. Res. in
4 0.0522 0.0141 0.0287 Eng. J 14, 7, 71-75 (2014)
5 0.0232 0.0046 0.0244
6 0.0134 0.0039 0.0202 5. O. Sutari, S. RAO, Int. J. Mech. & Prod. Eng. 2, 8,
7 0.0429 0.0117 0.1672 63-66 (2014)
8 0.0276 0.0074 0.1414 6. Y. Ojaghi, A. Khademi, N.M. Yusof, N.G. Renani,
9 0.0107 0.0041 0.1227 S.A.H.B.S. Hassan, Procedia CIRP 26 247-251
Table 4. CR values. (2015)
7. W. Chen, C. Liu, X. Huang, H. Lai, B. Li, Sci. J. of
Criteria Flexibility Safety Utilization Busi. & Manag. 4, 5, 172-180 (2016)
CR 0.0652 0.0642 0.0656
8. N. Bhushan, K. Rai, Strategic decision making:
Table 5. Final efficiency scores. Applying the Analytic Hierarchy Process (Springer,
London, 2004)
DMU no. Efficiency score
9. T.L. Saaty, Eur. J. Oper. Res. 74, 426-447 (1994)
1 1.0000
2 0.5436 10. S.J. Chen, C.L. Hwang, Fuzzy multi attribute
3 0.4619 decision making-methods and applications
4 0.7143 (Springer-Verlag, 1992)
5 0.3282 11. J. Dyer, Manage. Sci. 36, 3, 249-258 (1990)
6 0.2807
7 1.0000 12. T.L. Saaty, L.G. Vargas, Fundamentals of decision-
8 0.8457 making and priority theory with AHP (RWS
9 0.7567 Publications, Pittsburgh, PA, 2000)
13. T.L. Saaty, Decision making for leaders: The
the relative importance of the layout alternatives for each Analytic Hierarchy Process for decision in a
criterion. DEA model is then applied to identify the complex world (RWS Publications, Pittsburgh, PA,
efficiency scores by considering both the quantitative 2012)
and qualitative performance data. The result indicates
14. L. Yang, J. Deuse, Procedia CIRP 3, 149-154 (2012)
that DEA model is useful for finding global priorities
among the layout designs. The proposed decision 15. L. Yang, J. Deuse, P. Jiang, Int. J. Adv. Manuf.
support framework offers a systematic guideline for the Tech. 66, 795-807 (2013)
decision makers in planning the facility layout which 16. A. Hadi-Vencheh, A. Mohamadghasemi, J. of
could contribute to a successful final decision. Manuf. Syst. 32, 40-45 (2013)
The framework is applied to a real data set of the 17. H. Shokri, B. Ashjari, M. Saberi, J.H. Yoon, Ind.
manufacturing company which consists of both the Eng. & Manage. Syst. 12, 4, 389-405 (2013)
quantitative and qualitative data for evaluating nine
alternative layouts. Since the optimize outcome turns out 18. L. Bacudio, D.M. Sy, M.A. Promentilla,
to be more than one option, the final decision still needs Proceedings of the DLSU Research Congress, 3
to be made on which layout to be selected. However, this (2015)
case study has successfully illustrated the effectiveness 19. R.D. Banker, A. Charns, W.W. Cooper, Manage.
of this proposed framework, as a result. Moreover, the Sci. 30, 1078-92 (1984)
framework presented in this paper can easily be 20. E. Thanassoulis, Introduction to the theory and
implemented without the need of using any software application of Data Envelopment Analysis: A
tools. foundation text with integrated software (Kluwer
Academic Publishers, Boston, 2001)
Acknowledgements 21. A. Charnes, W.W. Cooper, E.L. Rhodes, Eur. J.
Oper. Res. 2, 429-444 (1978)
This work is supported by the Supply Chain and 22. S.T. Liu, Comp. & Ind. Eng. 54, 66-76 (2008)
Logistics Systems Research Unit, Department of
23. T. Yang, C.A. Kuo, Eur. J. Oper. Res. 147, 128-136
Industrial Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Khon
(2003)
Kaen University, Khon Kaen, Thailand.
24. T. Ertay, D. Ruan, U.R. Tuzkaya, Info. Sci. 176, 3,
237-262 (2006)
References 25. R. Muther, Systematic layout planning (SLP)
1. M.M.D. Hassan, J. of Manuf. Tech. Manage. 18, 3, (Cahners Books, Boston, 1974)
292-303 (2007) 26. T.L Saaty, The Analytic Hierarchy Process
(McGraw-Hill, New York, 1980)