IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ejores/v116y1999i1p118-138.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Application of the integrated framework for the plant layout evaluation problem

Author

Listed:
  • Lin, Lie Chien
  • Sharp, Gunter P.

Abstract

No abstract is available for this item.

Suggested Citation

  • Lin, Lie Chien & Sharp, Gunter P., 1999. "Application of the integrated framework for the plant layout evaluation problem," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 116(1), pages 118-138, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ejores:v:116:y:1999:i:1:p:118-138
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0377-2217(98)00174-X
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Belton, Valerie & Gear, Tony, 1983. "On a short-coming of Saaty's method of analytic hierarchies," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 11(3), pages 228-230.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Parveen Sharma & Sandeep Singhal, 2017. "Analysis of facility layout alternatives using proposed integrated approach," OPSEARCH, Springer;Operational Research Society of India, vol. 54(1), pages 1-20, March.
    2. Yang, Taho & Kuo, Chunwei, 2003. "A hierarchical AHP/DEA methodology for the facilities layout design problem," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 147(1), pages 128-136, May.
    3. Parveen Sharma & Sandeep Singhal, 2016. "Design and evaluation of layout alternatives to enhance the performance of industry," OPSEARCH, Springer;Operational Research Society of India, vol. 53(4), pages 741-760, December.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Mikhailov, L., 2004. "A fuzzy approach to deriving priorities from interval pairwise comparison judgements," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 159(3), pages 687-704, December.
    2. Roszkowska, Ewa & Wachowicz, Tomasz, 2015. "Application of fuzzy TOPSIS to scoring the negotiation offers in ill-structured negotiation problems," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 242(3), pages 920-932.
    3. Bolloju, N., 2001. "Aggregation of analytic hierarchy process models based on similarities in decision makers' preferences," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 128(3), pages 499-508, February.
    4. Salo, Ahti A., 1995. "Interactive decision aiding for group decision support," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 84(1), pages 134-149, July.
    5. Ahammed, Faisal & Azeem, Abdullahil, 2013. "Selection of the most appropriate package of Solar Home System using Analytic Hierarchy Process model in rural areas of Bangladesh," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 6-11.
    6. Finan, J. S. & Hurley, W. J., 1999. "Transitive calibration of the AHP verbal scale," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 112(2), pages 367-372, January.
    7. Lai, S-K., 1995. "A preference-based interpretation of AHP," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 23(4), pages 453-462, August.
    8. Zahir, Sajjad, 1999. "Geometry of decision making and the vector space formulation of the analytic hierarchy process," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 112(2), pages 373-396, January.
    9. Leung, Lawrence C. & Cao, Dong, 2001. "On the efficacy of modeling multi-attribute decision problems using AHP and Sinarchy," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 132(1), pages 39-49, July.
    10. Carmone, Frank J. & Kara, Ali & Zanakis, Stelios H., 1997. "A Monte Carlo investigation of incomplete pairwise comparison matrices in AHP," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 102(3), pages 538-553, November.
    11. Contreras, Francisco & Hanaki, Keisuke & Aramaki, Toshiya & Connors, Stephen, 2008. "Application of analytical hierarchy process to analyze stakeholders preferences for municipal solid waste management plans, Boston, USA," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 52(7), pages 979-991.
    12. Kurka, Thomas & Blackwood, David, 2013. "Selection of MCA methods to support decision making for renewable energy developments," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 27(C), pages 225-233.
    13. Akbari, Negar & Irawan, Chandra A. & Jones, Dylan F. & Menachof, David, 2017. "A multi-criteria port suitability assessment for developments in the offshore wind industry," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 102(PA), pages 118-133.
    14. Van den Honert, R. C., 1998. "Stochastic group preference modelling in the multiplicative AHP: A model of group consensus," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 110(1), pages 99-111, October.
    15. Darshini, Dina & Dwivedi, Puneet & Glenk, Klaus, 2013. "Capturing stakeholders´ views on oil palm-based biofuel and biomass utilisation in Malaysia," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 1128-1137.
    16. Majumdar, Abhijit & Tiwari, Manoj Kumar & Agarwal, Aastha & Prajapat, Kanika, 2021. "A new case of rank reversal in analytic hierarchy process due to aggregation of cost and benefit criteria," Operations Research Perspectives, Elsevier, vol. 8(C).
    17. Liu, Qizhi, 2022. "Identifying and correcting the defects of the Saaty analytic hierarchy/network process: A comparative study of the Saaty analytic hierarchy/network process and the Markov chain-based analytic network ," Operations Research Perspectives, Elsevier, vol. 9(C).
    18. Wang, Xiaoting & Triantaphyllou, Evangelos, 2008. "Ranking irregularities when evaluating alternatives by using some ELECTRE methods," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 36(1), pages 45-63, February.
    19. Antonopoulos, I.-S. & Perkoulidis, G. & Logothetis, D. & Karkanias, C., 2014. "Ranking municipal solid waste treatment alternatives considering sustainability criteria using the analytical hierarchical process tool," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 149-159.
    20. Yang, Taho & Chen, Mu-Chen & Hung, Chih-Ching, 2007. "Multiple attribute decision-making methods for the dynamic operator allocation problem," Mathematics and Computers in Simulation (MATCOM), Elsevier, vol. 73(5), pages 285-299.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:ejores:v:116:y:1999:i:1:p:118-138. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/eor .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.