Advertisement

Analyzing the Key Performance Indicators of Advanced Sustainable Manufacturing System Using AHP Approach

  • Ranjitsinh A. Deshmukh
  • Rahul Hiremath
Conference paper

Abstract

The objective focused for the current study is to incorporate the latest techniques including energy saving methods, to promote advanced sustainable manufacturing. The study at hand analyzes the drivers of energy saving method through a proposed framework validated through a case study in India. Key performance indicators are collected from the literature, calibrated with speculations from professionals, and investigated through the analytical hierarchy process (AHP), which is a (MCDM) multi-criteria decision making approach. The present study reveals that flue gas losses are the primary markers that seriously have an effect on energy efficiency methods. Manufacturers can easily note the top-ranked driver and adapt it to implement advanced sustainable manufacturing decisively.

Keywords

Analytical hierarchy process (AHP) Multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) Sustainable manufacturing etc. 

References

  1. 1.
    Cousins PD, Handfield RB, Lawson B, Petersen KJ (2006) Creating supply chain relational capital: the impact of formal and informal socialization processes. J Oper Manag 24:851–863CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Tao F, Cheng Y, Zhang L, Nee AYC (2014) Advanced manufacturing systems: socialization characteristics and trends. J Intell Manuf 28:1079–1094CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Govindan K, Diabat A, Shankar KM (2015) Analyzing the drivers of green manufacturing with fuzzy approach. J Clean Prod 96:182–193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Zhu Q, Lujia F, Mayyas A, Omar MA, Al-Hammadi Y, Al Saleh S (2015) Production energy optimization using low dynamic programming, a decision support tool for sustainable manufacturing. J Clean Prod 105:178–183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dyer JS (1990) Remarks on the analytic hierarchy process. Manag Sci 36:249–258MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Harker PT, Vargas LG (1990) Reply to ‘remarks on the analytic hierarchy process’ by J.S. Dyer. Manag Sci 36:269–273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Wangikar SS, Patowari PK, Misra RD (2017) Effect of process parameters and optimization for photochemical machining of brass and german silver. Mater Manuf Process 32(15):1747–1755CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Wangikar SS, Patowari PK, Misra RD (2018) Parametric optimization for photochemical machining of copper using overall evaluation criteria. Mat Today Proc 5(2):4736–4742CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Wangikar SS, Patowari PK, Misra RD (2016) Parametric optimization for photochemical machining of copper using grey relational method. In: Techno-societal 2016, international conference on advanced technologies for societal applications. Springer, Cham, pp 933–943Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Wangikar SS, Patowari PK, Misra RD, Misal ND (2019) Photochemical machining: a less explored non-conventional machining process. In: Non-conventional machining in modern manufacturing systems. IGI Global, Hershey, pp 188–201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lee DM, Drake PR (2010) A portfolio model for component purchasing strategy and the case study of two SouthKorean elevator manufacturers. Int J Prod Res 48:6651–6682CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ishizaka A, Pearman C, Nemery P (2012) AHPSort: an AHP-based method for sorting problems. Int J Prod Res 50:4767–4784CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Saaty TL (1990) An exposition of the AHP in reply to the paper ‘remarks on the analytic hierarchy process. Manag Sci 36:259–268. Manag Decis Mak 2008, 9, 163–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ranjitsinh A. Deshmukh
    • 1
  • Rahul Hiremath
    • 2
  1. 1.Walchnad Institute of TechnologySolapurIndia
  2. 2.SCMHRDPuneIndia

Personalised recommendations