Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2006) 30: 11011110

DOI 10.1007/s00170-005-0150-6

ORIGINA L ARTI CLE

R. Venkata Rao

A decision-making framework model for evaluating flexible

manufacturing systems using digraph and matrix methods

Received: 13 December 2004 / Accepted: 15 April 2005 / Published online: 11 January 2006
# Springer-Verlag London Limited 2006

Abstract In the present work, a methodology based on

digraph and matrix methods is developed for evaluation of
alternative flexible manufacturing systems. A flexible manufacturing system selection index is proposed that evaluates
and ranks flexible manufacturing systems for a given industrial application. The methodology is illustrated by an
example.
Keywords Flexible manufacturing systems . Digraph
and matrix methods

1 Introduction
A flexible manufacturing system (FMS) consists of a group
of processing workstations (usually CNC machine tools)
interconnected by an automated material handling and
storage system and controlled by a distributed computer
system. The reason the FMS is called flexible is that it is
capable of processing a variety of different part styles
simultaneously at the various workstations, and the mix of
part styles and quantities of production can be adjusted in
response to changing demand patterns. The evolution of
flexible manufacturing systems offers great potential for
increasing flexibility and changing the basis of competition
by ensuring both cost-effective and customized manufacturing at the same time.
The decision to invest in FMS and other advanced manufacturing technology has been an issue in the practitioner
and academic literature for over two decades. An effective
justification process requires the consideration of many
quantitative factors (e.g. costs involved, floor space requirements, etc.) and qualitative factors (e.g. product-mix flexi-

R. V. Rao (*)
School of Mechanical Engineering,
Shri Mata Vaishno Devi University,
Kakrial Post, Near Panthal, Udhampur District,
J&K State, 182 121, India
e-mail: ravipudirao@rediffmail.com

bility, routing flexibility, etc.). To help address this issue of

effective evaluation and justification of flexible manufacturing systems, various mathematical and systems modeling approaches are proposed [129]. However, there is a
need for a simple, systematic and logical scientific method
or mathematical tool to guide user organizations in taking a
proper decision. The objective of a FMS selection procedure is to identify the FMS selection attributes and obtain
the most appropriate combination of FMS selection attributes in conjunction with the real requirement. Thus, efforts
need to be extended to determine attributes that influence
FMS selection, using a simple logical approach, to eliminate unsuitable FMS and selection of a proper FMS to
strengthen the existing FMS selection procedure. This is
considered in this paper using digraph and matrix methods.
Graph theory is a logical and systematic approach. The
advanced theory of graphs and its applications are very well
documented. Graph/digraph model representations have
proved to be useful for modeling and analyzing various
kinds of systems and problems in numerous fields of
science and technology [3039]. The matrix approach is
useful in analyzing the graph/digraph models expeditiously
to derive the system function and index to meet the objectives. In view of these, digraph and matrix methods are
proposed in this paper for FMS selection.

2 FMS selection attributes digraph

FMS selection attribute is defined as a factor that influences
the selection of a flexible manufacturing system for a given
application. These attributes include: costs involved, floor
space requirements, labor requirements, throughput time,
work-in-process, setup cost, quality, volume flexibility,
product-mix flexibility, process/routing flexibility, expansion flexibility, utilization rate, risk, ease of operation,
maintenance aspects, payback period, reconfiguration time,
company policy, etc.
The FMS selection attributes digraph models the FMS
selection attributes and their interrelationship. This digraph
consists of a set of nodes N={ni}, with i=1, 2, ..., M and a

1102

set of directed edges E={eij}. A node ni represents i-th FMS

selection attribute and edges represent the relative importance among the attributes. The number of nodes M considered is equal to the number of FMS selection attributes
considered. If a node i has relative importance over another node j in the FMS selection, then a directed edge or
arrow is drawn from node i to node j (i.e. eij). If j has
relative importance over i, then a directed edge or arrow is
drawn from node j to node i (eji).
To demonstrate the FMS selection attributes digraph, an
example of flexible manufacturing system selection for a
given industrial application is considered. Let the FMS
selection attributes of interest be: total costs involved (TC),
floor space requirement (SR), number of employees (EMP),
throughput time (TT), product-mix flexibility (PF), and
routing flexibility (RF). A FMS selection attributes digraph
for the considered example is shown in Fig. 1. As six FMS
selection attributes are considered, there are six nodes in the
FMS selection attributes digraph with nodes 1, 2, 3, 4, 5,
and 6 representing the FMS selection attributes TC, SR,
EMP, TT, PF, and RF, respectively. Total costs involved
(TC) is relatively more important than the floor space requirement (SR) in FMS selection procedure. However, SR
is also important in FMS selection even though less important than TC. Thus the relative importance exists between
these two attributes in both directions. Similarly the relative
importance can be represented between the other attributes.
The FMS selection attributes digraph is developed based on
the above and is shown in Fig. 1.

The FMS selection attributes digraph gives a graphical

representation of the attributes and their relative importance
for quick visual appraisal. As the number of nodes and their
interrelations increases, the digraph becomes complex. In
such a case the visual analysis of the digraph is expected to
be difficult and complex. To overcome this constraint, the
digraph is represented in a matrix form.

3 Matrix representation of the FMS selection

attributes digraph
Matrix representation of the FMS selection attributes digraph
gives one-to-one representation. A matrix called the FMS
selection attributes matrix is defined. This is an MM matrix
and considers all of the attributes (i.e. Ai) and their relative
importance (i.e. aij). The matrix B for the FMS selection
attributes digraph shown in Fig. 1 is represented as:

Attributes TC
2
A1
TC
6a
SR
6 21
6
a
B EMP 6
6 31
6a
TT
6 41
6
4 a51
PF
RF

a61

SR EMP TT
a12 a13 a14
A2
a32

a23
A3

a24
a34

a42

a43

A4

a52

a53

a54

PF RF
3
a15 a16
a25 a26 7
7
7
a35 a36 7
7
a45 a46 7
7
7
A5 a56 5

a62

a63

a64

a65

A6
(1)

Where Ai is the value of the i-th attribute represented by

node ni and aij is the relative importance of the i-th attribute
over the j-th represented by the edge eij. The permanent of
this matrix B, i.e. per (B), is defined as the FMS selection
attributes function. The permanent is a standard matrix
function and is used in combinatorial mathematics [4042].
Application of the permanent concept will lead to a better
appreciation of flexible manufacturing system selection
attributes. Moreover, using this no negative sign will appear
in the expression (unlike determinant of a matrix in which a
negative sign can appear) and hence no information will be
lost. The permanent function is nothing but the determinant
of a matrix but considering all the determinant terms as
Fig. 1 Flexible manufacturing system selection attributes digraph

1103

positive terms [3238]. The FMS selection attributes

function for matrix expression (Eq. 1) is written as:

perB

6
Y

Ai

i1

5
6
3
4
X
X
X
X

5
X

6
X


aij aji Ak Al Am An

i1 ji1 k1 lk1 m11 nm1

4
X

5
X

6
4
5
X
X
X

6
X


aij ajk aki aik akj aji Al Am An

i1 ji1 kj1 l1 ml1 nm1

3
6
5
6
5
X
X
X
X
X

6
X

aij aji akl alk Am An

i1 ji1 kj1 li2 ml1 nm1

3
5
6
6
5
6
X
X
X
X
X
X




aij ajk akl ali ail alk akj aji Am An

i1 ji1 ki1 lj1 ml nm1

4
5
6
5
6
6

X
X
X
X
X
X

aij ajk aki aik akj aji alm aml An
i1 ji1 kj1 l1 ml1 n1

2
5
6
6
6
6

X
X
X
X
X
X

(2)

aij ajk akl alm ami aim aml alk akj aji An

i1 ji1 ki1 li1 mj1 n1

3
5
6
6
5
6
X
X
X
X
X
X



aij ajk akl ali ail alk akj aji amn anm
i1 ji1 ki1 lj1 ml nm1

1
5
6
4
5
X
X
X
X
X

6
X


aij ajk aki aik akj aji alm amn anl aln anm aml

i1 ji1 kj1 l1 ml1 nm1

1
6
3
6
5
X
X
X
X
X

6
X


aij aji akl alk amn anm

i1 ji1 ki1 li2 mk1 nk2

1
5
6
6
6
6

X
X
X
X
X
X

aij ajk akl alm amn ani ain anm aml alk akj aji

i1 ji1 ki1 li1 mi1 nj1

Equation 2 is the complete expression for the considered

FMS selection problem, as it considers the presence of all
attributes and all of the possible relative importance
between the attributes. The terms are the sets of distinct
diagonal elements and loops of off-diagonal elements of
different sizes (i.e. aijaji, aij ajk aki, etc.). As already exAttributes 2 1
1
A1
6 a21
2
6
6 a31
C 3
6



6
6






4



M
aM1

2
3




a12
a13




A2
a23




a32
A3
























aM2
aM3

plained, this expression is nothing but the determinant of a

66 matrix but considering all the terms as positive terms.
In general, if there are M number of FMS selection
attributes and relative importance exists between all of the
attributes, then the FMS selection attributes matrix C, for the
considered FMS selection attributes digraph, is written as:
M
3
a1M
7
a2M
7
7
a3M
7



7
7



5
AM

(3)

1104

The FMS selection attributes function for this matrix C

contains factorial M number of terms. In sigma form, it is
written as:

perC

M
Y

Ai

i1

M
X

M

1
X

M
X

::::::::::
l1

i1 ji1 kj1

M
3
X

M
X

M
1
X

M

X

M
X

M
X

M
2
X
X M
1

M

X

::: ::: ::: :

::: ::: ::: :

M

X

M M
1
M
X
X X

M
X

M
X

M
3
X
X M
1

M
X

M

X

M
5
X
X M
1

M

X

::: ::: ::: :
aij ajk akl alm ami aim aml alk akj aji An Ao ::: ::At AM

::: ::: ::: :

M
X

M
5
X

M
M
3
M
M
1
X
X X
X

Mt1

M
X

M
M
M
M
X
X
X
X

i1 ji1 ki1 li1 mi1 nj1


aij ajk akl ali ail alk akj aji amn anm Ao ::: ::At AM

M

X

aij ajk aki aik akj aji alm amn anl aln anm aml Ao ::: ::At AM

::: ::: ::: :

::: ::: ::: :

i1 ji1 ki1 li2 mk1 nk2

M
5
X
X M
1

M

X
Mt1

i1 ji1 kj1 l1 ml1 nm1

Mt1

M
M M
1
M
X
X
X X

M M
2
X
X M
1
X


aij ajk aki aik akj aji alm aml An Ao ::: ::At AM

Mt1

i1 ji1 ki1 lj1 m1 nm1

aij ajk akl ali ail alk akj aji Am An Ao ::: ::At AM

::: ::: ::: :

i1 ji1 ki1 li1 mj1

Mt1

i1 ji1 kj1 l1 m11

M
4
X M
1
X


aij aji akl alk Am An Ao ::: ::At AM

Mt1

i1 ji1 ki1 lj1


aij ajk aki aik akj aji Al Am An Ao ::: ::At AM

Mt1

M
X

i1 ji1 ki1 li2

M
3
X
X M
1


aij aji Ak Al Am An Ao ::: ::At AM

Mt1

i1 ji1

M
2
X
X M
1

M

X

::: ::: ::: :

::: ::: ::: :

M

X

aij aji akl alk amn anm Ao ::: ::At AM
Mt1
M

X

aij ajk akl alm amn ani ain anm aml alk akj aji Ao ::: ::At AM

Mt1

(4)

The FMS selection attributes function contains terms

arranged in (M+1) groupings and these groupings represent
the measures of attributes and the relative importance
loops. The first grouping represents the measures of M
attributes. The second grouping is absent as there is no selfloop in the digraph. The third grouping contains 2-attribute
relative importance loops and measures of (M-2) attributes.
Each term of the fourth grouping represents a set of 3attribute relative importance loop or its pair and measures
of (M-3) attributes. The fifth grouping contains two
subgroupings. The terms of the first subgrouping are a
set of two 2-attribute relative importance loops and the
measures of (M-4) attributes. Each term of the second
subgrouping is a set of 4-attribute relative importance loop
or its pair and the measures of (M-4) attributes. The sixth

grouping contains two subgroupings. The terms of the first

subgrouping is a set of 3-attribute relative importance loop
or its pair and 2-attribute relative importance loop and the
measures of (M-5) attributes. Each term of the second
subgrouping is a set of 5-attribute relative importance loop
or its pair and the measures of (M-5) attributes. Similarly
other terms of the expression are defined. Thus, the FMS
selection attributes function characterizes the considered
FMS selection problem as it contains all possible structural
components of the attributes and their relative importance.
Once again it may be mentioned that this expression is
nothing but the determinant of an MM matrix but
considering all the terms as positive terms.
A computer program, PERMANENT-FUNCTION, was
developed using C++ language, during the previous works

1105

4 Flexible manufacturing system selection index

The flexible manufacturing system selection index (FMSSI) is a measure of degree or extent by which a flexible
manufacturing system can be successfully selected for a
given industrial application. The FMS selection attributes
function defined above, i.e. Eq. 2, contains measures of
attributes and their relative importance, and hence appropriate, and is used for evaluation of the flexible
manufacturing system selection index. The numerical
value of the FMS selection attributes function is called
the flexible manufacturing system selection index. As the
FMS selection attributes function contains only the positive
terms, therefore higher values of Ai and aij will result in
increased value of the flexible manufacturing system
selection index. To calculate this index, the required
information is the values of Ai and aij.
The value of Ai should preferably be obtained from
available or estimated data. When quantitative values of the
attribute are available, normalized values of an attribute
assigned to the alternatives are calculated by vi/vj, where vi
is the measure of the attribute for the i-th alternative and vj
is the measure of the attribute for the j-th alternative which
has a higher measure of the attribute among the considered
alternatives. This ratio is valid for beneficial attributes only.
A beneficial attribute (e.g. product-mix flexibility) means its
higher measures are more desirable for the given application. Whereas, the non-beneficial attribute (e.g. costs involved) is the one whose lower measures are desirable and
the normalized values assigned to the alternatives are
calculated by vj/vi. In this case, vj is the measure of the
attribute for the j-th alternative which has a lower measure of
the attribute among the considered alternatives.
If a quantitative value is not available, then a ranked value
judgment on a fuzzy conversion scale is adopted. By using
fuzzy set theory, the value of the attributes (Ai) can be first
decided as linguistic terms, converted into corresponding
fuzzy numbers and then converted to the crisp scores. Cheng
and Hwang [43] have proposed a numerical approximation
system to systematically convert linguistic terms to their
corresponding fuzzy numbers. It contains eight conversion
scales and in the present work, an 11-point scale is considered. Venkatasamy and Agrawal [35, 36] have used a
similar approach in their work. Table 1 is suggested which
represents the FMS selection attribute on a qualitative scale
using fuzzy logic, corresponding to the fuzzy conversion
scale as shown in Fig. 2. Once a qualitative attribute is
represented on a scale then the normalized values of the
attribute assigned for different alternatives are calculated in
the same manner as that for quantitative attributes.

Table 1 Value of FMS selection attribute

Qualitative measure of FMS selection attribute
Exceptionally low
Extremely low
Very low
Low
Below average
Average
Above average
High
Very high
Extremely high
Exceptionally high

Assigned value
0.045
0.135
0.255
0.335
0.410
0.500
0.590
0.665
0.745
0.865
0.955

The relative importance between two attributes (i.e. aij)

is also assigned value on a fuzzy conversion scale, similar
to the one described above. The relative importance implies
that an attribute i is compared with another attribute j in
terms of relative importance for the given FMS selection
problem. The relative importance is expressed in 11 classes
that lead to minimization of subjectivity to a large extent
while deciding the relative importance between two FMS
selection attributes. Table 2 is suggested which aids in
assigning aij values based on the above. It may be
mentioned that one may choose any scale for Ai and aij.
But the final ranking will not change, as these are relative
values. It is, however, desirable to choose a lower scale for
Ai and aij to obtain a manageable value of FMS-SI.
The flexible manufacturing system selection index for
different alternative flexible manufacturing systems is
evaluated using Eq. 2 or 4 and substituting the values of
Ai and aij. A flexible manufacturing system, for which the
value of FMS-SI is highest, is the best choice for the given
industrial application.
M1 M2 M3

M4

M5

M6

M7

M8

M9

0.3

0.4

0.5
x

0.6

0.7

0.8

M10 M11

1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
(x)

of the author [3234], and the program can be used for

calculating the value of permanent function of a square
matrix of MM size.

0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0.1

0.2

0.9

1.0

Fig. 2 Linguistic terms to fuzzy numbers conversion (11-point scale)

1106
Table 2 Relative importance of FMS selection attributes
Class description

One attribute is exceptionally

less important over the other
One attribute is extremely less
important over the other
One attribute is very less
important over the other
One attribute is less important
over the other
One attribute is slightly less
important over the other
Two attributes are equally
important over the other
One attribute is slightly more
important over the other
One attribute is more important
over the other
One attribute is very more
important over the other
One attribute is extremely
more important over the other
One attribute is exceptionally
more important over the other

Relative
importance (aij)

3.

0.045
0.135

4.

0.255

5.

0.335
0.410
0.500
0.590
0.665
0.745
0.865
0.955

5 Methodology

6.

will be determined from the relative importance

between the attributes. Refer to Sect. 2 for details.
Develop the FMS selection attributes matrix for the
FMS selection attributes digraph. This will be an MM
matrix with diagonal elements of Ai and off-diagonal
elements of aij. Refer to Sect. 3 for details.
Obtain the FMS selection attributes function for the
FMS selection attributes matrix.
Substitute the values of aij and normalized values of Ai,
obtained in step 1, in FMS selection attributes function
to evaluate the flexible manufacturing system selection
index (FMS-SI) for the considered flexible manufacturing systems. Refer to Sect. 4 for details.
Arrange the flexible manufacturing systems in descending order of FMS-SI. The flexible manufacturing
system having the highest value of FMS-SI is the best
choice for the given industrial application.

5.3 Step 3
Take a final decision keeping in view the practical considerations. All possible constraints likely to be experienced
by the user are looked into during this stage. These include
constraints such as availability, management constraints,
political constraints, economical constraints, etc. However,
compromise may be made in favor of a flexible manufacturing system with a higher FMS-SI.
Now an example is considered to demonstrate and
validate the proposed procedure.

The main steps of the methodology are as follows:

6 Example
5.1 Step 1
Identify the FMS selection attributes for the given
industrial application and short-list the flexible manufacturing systems on the basis of the identified attributes
satisfying the requirements. A quantitative or qualitative
value or its range may be assigned to each identified
attribute as a limiting value or threshold value for its
acceptance for the considered application. A flexible
manufacturing system with each of its attribute, meeting
the criterion, may be short-listed.
5.2 Step 2
1. After short-listing the flexible manufacturing systems,
find out the relative importance (aij) relations between
the attributes and normalize the values of attributes (Ai)
for different alternatives. Refer to Sect. 4 for details.
2. Develop the FMS selection attributes digraph considering the selection attributes identified and their
relative importance. The number of nodes must be
equal to the number of attributes considered in step 1
above. The magnitude of the edges and their directions

Sarkis [7] has presented an illustrative problem for evaluating flexible manufacturing systems for an industrial
application. The problem considering 8 attributes and 24
alternative flexible manufacturing systems is shown in
Table 3. Now to demonstrate and validate the proposed procedure of flexible manufacturing system selection through
digraph and matrix methods, various steps of the methodology, given in Sect. 5, are carried out as described below:
6.1 Step 1
In the present work, the attributes considered are the same
as those of Sarkis [7]: total cost (TC), work-in-process
(WIP), throughput time (TT), employees (EMP), space
requirements (SR), volume flexibility (VF), product-mix
flexibility (PF), and routing flexibility (RF).
6.2 Step 2
1. The quantitative values of the FMS selection attributes,
which are given in Table 3, are to be normalized. VF,
PF, and RF are beneficial attributes and higher values

1107
Table 3 Quantitative data
of attributes of the example
considered

TC total cost (millions of dollars),

WIP work-in-process inventory
(units), TT throughput time
(hours per unit of production),
EMP number of persons required,
SR floor space requirements
(thousands of square feet),
VF volume flexibility (average
range of production capacity per
product type), PF product-mix
flexibility (product types),
RF routing flexibility (average
number of operations per
machining center)

Alternative FMS
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T
U
V
W
X

TC

WIP

1.19
4.91
4.6
3.69
1.31
3.04
1.83
2.07
3.06
1.44
2.47
2.85
4.85
1.31
4.18
1.99
1.60
404
3.79
4.76
3.60
3.24
3.05
1.60

98
297
418
147
377
173
202
533
898
423
470
87
915
852
924
273
983
106
955
416
660
771
318
849

2 TC




6 0:41
6
6 0:41
6
6 0:225
6
6 0:335
6
6 0:335
6
4 0:335
0:255

WIP
0:59




0:5
0:335
0:41
0:41
0:41
0:335

TT
0:59
0:5




0:335
0:41
0:41
0:41
0:335

EMP
0:745
0:665
0:665




0:59
0:59
0:59
0:5

However, it may be added that, in actual practice, the

user organization depending on the requirements can
judiciously decide these values of relative importance.
The assigned values in this paper are for demonstration
purposes only.
2. The FMS selection attributes digraph, showing the
presence as well as relative importance of the above
attributes, is similar to Fig. 1 but with 8 attributes drawn.
However, it is not shown here due to reasons of space.

12.33
34.84
18.68
40.83
20.82
38.87
49.67
30.07
27.67
6.02
4.00
43.09
54.79
86.87
54.46
91.08
37.93
23.29
54.98
1.55
3.98
52.26
35.09
62.83

EMP
5
14
12
10
3
4
13
14
2
10
13
8
5
3
4
3
13
11
1
9
6
8
4
15

SR
5.3
1.1
6.3
3.8
9.8
1.6
4.3
8.8
3.9
5.4
5.3
2.4
2.4
0.5
6.0
2.5
8.8
2.9
9.4
1.5
3.9
1.6
9.2
7.3

VF
619
841
555
778
628
266
46
226
354
694
513
884
439
401
491
937
709
615
499
58
592
535
124
923

PF

RF

88
14
39
31
51
13
60
21
86
20
40
17
58
18
27
6
39
91
46
2
29
61
25
60

2
4
1
2
6
5
4
4
5
3
5
7
4
4
4
3
2
3
3
6
4
1
2
3

manufacturing systems are normalized and given in

Table 4 in the respective columns.
Relative importance of attributes (aij) is also assigned
the values as explained in Sect. 4. Let the decision
maker (i.e. user organization) make the following
assignments:

are desirable. Values of these attributes are normalized,

as explained in Sect. 4, and given in Table 4 in the
respective columns. TC, WIP, TT, EMP, and SR are
non-beneficial attributes and lower values are desirable. The values of these attributes for different flexible

Attribute
TC
WIP
TT
B1 EMP
SR
VF
PF
RF

TT

SR
VF
0:665
0:665
0:59
0:59
0:59
0:59
0:41
0:41



0:5
0:5




0:5
0:5
0:41
0:41

PF
0:665
0:59
0:59
0:41
0:5
0:5




0:41

RF 3
0:745
0:665 7
7
0:665 7
7
7
0:5
7
0:59 7
7
0:59 7
7
0:59 5

3. The FMS selection attributes matrix of this digraph is

written based on Eq. 3. However, it is not shown here
due to reasons of space.
4. The FMS selection attributes function is written but not
shown here due to reasons of space. However, it may
be added that as a computer program is developed for
calculating the permanent function value of a matrix,
this step can be skipped.

1108

5&6. The FMS-SI is calculated using the values of Ai and

aij for each alternative flexible manufacturing system.
The FMS-SI values of different flexible manufacturing
systems are given below in descending order:
A
L
E
N
R
I
X
K
P
S
J
T
U
B
F
D
G
Q
M
V
O
H
C
W

128.7054
117.8464
114.0216
109.6577
107.2269
100.4074
96.1469
94.4433
94.4421
94.0641
92.9924
90.5901
88.4792
88.4310
88.0370
86.9361
86.2746
83.5420
83.2910
80.9024
77.1785
74.2029
71.9071
69.7684

Table 4 Normalized data of

attributes of the example
considered

From the above values of FMS-SI, it is understood that

flexible manufacturing system designated as A is the right
choice for the given industrial application under the given
conditions. This result matches with that suggested by
Sarkis [7] in his data envelopment analysis (DEA)
approach. Sarkis [7] has used analytic hierarchy process
(AHP) and DEA methods together and presented six DEA
models and the results of the application of these six
models differ from each other, though the methods (except
one method) suggest A as the right choice. However, it may
be mentioned that the ranking depends upon the judgments
of relative importance made by the user. The ranking
presented in this paper may change if the user assigns
different relative importance values to the attributes. The
same is true with the approach proposed by Sarkis [7]. The
proposed approach ranks the alternatives in a single stage
unlike the two-stage approach proposed by Sarkis [7].
Further, DEA may be at a disadvantage in terms of the
methods rationale if the decision maker is unfamiliar with
linear programming concepts.
The proposed flexible manufacturing system selection
procedure using digraph and matrix methods is a relatively
new approach and can be used for any type of decisionmaking situation and has an edge over the multiple attribute
decision-making methods. The computation used is very
simple compared to other multiple attribute decisionmaking (MADM) methods. Also, it enables a more critical
analysis than the MADM methods since any number of
quantitative and qualitative attributes can be considered. In
the permanent procedure, even a small variation in the
attributes leads to a significant difference in the selection

FMS

TC

WIP

TT

EMP

SR

VF

PF

RF

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T
U
V
W
X

1
0.2424
0.2587
0.3225
0.9084
0.3915
0.6503
0.5749
0.3889
0.8264
0.4818
0.4175
0.2454
0.9084
0.2847
0.598
0.7438
0.2946
0.314
0.25
0.3306
0.3673
0.3902
0.7438

0.8878
0.2929
0.2081
0.5918
0.23077
0.5029
0.4307
0.1632
0.0969
0.2057
0.1851
1
0.0951
0.1021
0.0942
0.3187
0.0885
0.8208
0.0911
0.2091
0.1318
0.1128
0.2736
0.1025

0.1257
0.0445
0.083
0.03796
0.07444
0.0399
0.0312
0.0516
0.056
0.2575
0.3875
0.0359
0.02829
0.01784
0.0285
0.017
0.0409
0.0663
0.0282
1
0.3895
0.02966
0.0442
0.0247

0.2
0.0714
0.08333
0.1
0.333
0.25
0.0769
0.0714
0.5
0.1
0.0769
0.125
0.2
0.3333
0.25
0.3333
0.0769
0.0909
1
0.1111
0.1667
0.125
0.25
0.0667

0.0943
0.4545
0.07936
0.1316
0.051
0.3125
0.1163
0.0568
0.1282
0.0926
0.0943
0.2083
0.2083
1
0.0833
0.2
0.0568
0.1724
0.0532
0.3333
0.1282
0.3125
0.0544
0.0685

0.6606
0.8975
0.5923
0.8303
0.6702
0.2839
0.0491
0.2412
0.3778
0.7407
0.5475
0.9434
0.4685
0.428
0.524
1
0.7567
0.6564
0.5325
0.0619
0.6318
0.5964
0.1323
0.985

0.967
0.1538
0.4286
0.3406
0.5604
0.1429
0.6593
0.2308
0.9451
0.2198
0.4396
0.1868
0.6374
0.1978
0.2967
0.0659
0.4286
1
0.5055
0.022
0.3187
0.6703
0.2747
0.6593

0.2857
0.5714
0.1428
0.2857
0.8571
0.7143
0.5714
0.5714
0.7143
0.4286
0.7143
1
0.5714
0.5714
0.5714
0.4286
0.2857
0.4286
0.4286
0.8571
0.5714
0.1428
0.2857
0.4286

1109

index and hence it is easy to rank the alternatives in the

descending order with clear-cut difference in the selection
index. Further, the proposed procedure not only provides
the analysis of the alternatives, but also enables the
visualization of various attributes present and their interrelations, using the graphical representation. The measures of the attributes and their relative importance are used
combinedly to rank the alternatives and hence provide a
better evaluation of the alternatives. The use of a permanent
concept helps in better appreciation of the attributes and it
characterizes the considered selection problem as it
contains all possible structural components of the attributes
and their relative importance.

7 Conclusions
1. A methodology based on digraph and matrix methods
is suggested which helps in selection of a suitable
flexible manufacturing system from among a large
number of available alternative flexible manufacturing
systems.
2. The proposed method identifies and considers flexible
manufacturing system selection attributes and their
interrelations for a given flexible manufacturing system selection problem.
3. The proposed method is a general method and can
consider any number of quantitative and qualitative
flexible manufacturing system selection attributes
simultaneously and offers a more objective and simple
flexible manufacturing system selection approach.
4. The proposed flexible manufacturing system selection
index evaluates and ranks flexible manufacturing
systems for a given flexible manufacturing system
selection problem.

References
1. Tseng MC (2004) Strategic choice of flexible manufacturing
technologies. Int J Prod Econ 91(3):201298
2. Karsak EE, Kuzgunkaya O (2002) A fuzzy multiple objective
programming approach for the selection of a flexible
manufacturing system. Int J Prod Econ 79(2):101111
3. Karsak EE, Tolga E (2001) Fuzzy multi-criteria decisionmaking procedure for evaluating advanced manufacturing
system investments. Int J Prod Econ 69(1):4964
4. Talluri S, Whiteside MM, Seipel SJ (2000) A nonparametric
stochastic procedure for FMS evaluation. Eur J Oper Res 124
(3):529538
5. Chan FTS, Jiang B, Tang NKH (2000) The development of
intelligent decision support tools to aid the design of flexible
manufacturing systems. Int J Prod Econ 65(1):7384
6. Sarkis J (1997) An empirical analysis of productivity and
complexity for flexible manufacturing systems. Int J Prod Econ
48(1):3948
7. Sarkis J (1997) Evaluating flexible manufacturing systems
using data envelopment analysis. Eng Econ 43(1):2546
8. Albayrakoglu M (1996) Justification of new manufacturing
technology: a strategic approach using the analytical hierarchy
process. Prod Invent Manage J 37(1):7177

9. Shang J, Sueyoshi T (1995) A unified framework for the

selection of a flexible manufacturing system. Eur J Oper Res 85
(2):297315
10. Elango B, Meinhart WA (1994) Selecting a flexible manufacturing systema strategic approach. Long Range Plann 27
(3):118126
11. Myint S, Tabucanon MT (1994) A multiple-criteria approach to
machine selection for flexible manufacturing systems source.
Int J Prod Econ 33(13):121131
12. Tabucanon MT, Batanov DN, Verma DK (1994)A decision
support system for multicriteria machine selection for flexible
manufacturing systems. Comput Ind 25(2):131143
13. Kuula M (1993) A risk management model for FMS selection
decisions: a multiple-criteria decision-making approach.
Comput Ind 23(12):99108
14. Mohanty RP, Venkataraman S (1993) Use of the analytic
hierarchy process for selecting automated manufacturing
systems. Int J Oper Prod Manage 13(8):4557
15. Gerwin D, Kolodny H (1992) Management of advanced
manufacturing technology: strategy, organization, and innovation. Wiley, New York
16. Slagmulder R, Bruggeman W (1992) Justification of strategic
investments in flexible manufacturing technology. Integr Manuf
Syst 3(3):414
17. Suresh NC, Kaparthi S (1992) Flexible automation investments: a synthesis of two multi-objective modeling approaches.
Comput Ind Eng 22(3):257272
18. Sriram RS, Gupta YP (1991) Strategic cost measurement for
flexible manufacturing systems. Long Range Plann 24(5):34
40
19. A Stam, Kuula M (1991) Selecting a flexible manufacturing
system using multiple criteria analysis. Int J Prod Res 29
(4):803820
20. Suresh NC (1991) An extended multi-objective replacement
model for flexible automation investments. Int J Prod Res 29
(9):18231844
21. Troxler JW (1990) Estimating the cost impact of flexible
manufacturing. J Cost Manage 4(2):2635
22. Dean JW, Susman GI, Porter PS (1990) Technical, economic
and political factors in advanced manufacturing technology
implementation. J Eng Technol Manage 7:129144
23. Dhavale DG (1990) A manufacturing cost model for computerintegrated manufacturing systems. Int J Oper Prod Manage 10
(8):518
24. Troxler JW, Blank L (1989) A comprehensive methodology for
manufacturing system evaluation and comparison. J Manuf
Syst 8(3):175183
25. Canada JR, Sullivan WG (1989) Economic and multiattribute
evaluation of advanced manufacturing systems. Prentice-Hall,
Englewood Cliffs, NJ
26. Monahan GE, Smunt TL (1989) Optimal acquisition of flexible
manufacturing processes. Oper Res 37(2):288300
27. Padmanabhan S (1989) A tandem expert support system as
justification for a flexible manufacturing system. J Manuf Syst
8(3):195205
28. Kulatilaka N (1988) Valuing the flexibility of flexible manufacturing systems. IEEE Trans Eng Manage 35(4):250257
29. Wabalackis RN (1988) Justification of FMS with the analytic
hierarchy process. J Manuf Syst 7(3):175182
30. Chen WK (1997) Graph theory and its engineering applications. Advanced series in electrical and computer engineering.
University of Illinois, Chicago
31. Jense JB, Gutin G (2000) Digraph theory, algorithms, and
organizations. Springer, London
32. Rao RV, Gandhi OP (2002) Digraph and matrix methods for
machinability evaluation of work materials. Int J Mach Tools
Manuf 212(3):321330
33. Rao RV, Gandhi OP (2002) Failure cause analysis of machine
tools using digraph and matrix methods. Int J Mach Tools
Manuf 212(4):521528

1110
34. Rao RV, Gandhi OP (2001) Digraph and matrix method for
selection, identification and comparison of metal-cutting fluids.
J Eng Tribology 215(1):2533
35. Venkatasamy R, Agrawal VP (1997) A digraph approach to
quality evaluation of an automotive vehicle. Qual Eng 9(3):
405417
36. Venkatasamy R, Agrawal VP (1996) Selection of automobile
vehicle by evaluation through graph theoretic methodology. Int
J Veh Des 17(4):449471
37. Sethi VK, Agrawal VP (1993) Hierarchical classification of
kinematic chains: a multigraph approach. Mech Mach Theory
28:601614
38. Gandhi OP, Agrawal VP, Shishodia KS (1991) Reliability
analysis and evaluation of systems. Reliab Eng Syst Saf
32:283305

39. Mukhopadhyay SK, Babu KR, Sai KVV (2000) Modified

Hamiltonian chain: a graph theoretic approach to group
technology. Int J Prod Res 38:24592470
40. Marcus M, Minc H (1965) Permanents. Am Math Mon 72:571
591
41. Jurkat WB, Ryser HJ (1966) Matrix factorisation of determinants and permanents. J Algebra 3:111
42. Nijenhuis A, Wilf H (1975) Combinatorial algorithms. Academic Press, New York
43. Chen SJ, Hwang CL (1992) Fuzzy multiple attribute decision
makingmethods and applications. Lecture notes in economics and mathematical systems. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg
New York