Best–worst method for robot selection | Soft Computing Skip to main content

Advertisement

Springer Nature Link
Log in

Best–worst method for robot selection

  • Methodologies and Application
  • Published:
Soft Computing Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

For different applications, there are different robots having capabilities and specifications accordingly. For a particular application and industrial requirement, proper and suitable selection of robot is a difficult task. Numerous robot selection methods are available. Considering the research works on industrial robot selection, group best–worst method is employed in this paper for the proper selection of robots. Weighing the decision makers by considering their past experience is an important factor considered for expert and reliable selection of robot. Objective weights to describe the importance of the attributes along with the decision maker subjective preferences to describe the weights of the attribute are considered. Two problems are discussed for a detailed description and results are compared with the well-known group analytical hierarchy process method. The results show that due to lower minimum violation and lower total deviation, the proposed method performs better.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
¥17,985 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price includes VAT (Japan)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12

Similar content being viewed by others

Explore related subjects

Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.

References

  • Agrawal V, Kohli V, Gupta S (1991) Computer aided robot selection: a multiple attribute decision making approach. Int J Prod Res 29(8):1629–1644

    Google Scholar 

  • Ahamad G, Naqvi S, Beg M (2013) A model for talent identification in cricket based on OWA operator. Int J Inf Technol Manag Inf Syst 4(2):40–55

    Google Scholar 

  • Ahamad G, Naqvi S, Beg S (2014) OWA based model for talent selection in cricket. In: Jamshidi M, Kreinovich V, Kacprzyk J (eds) Advance trends in soft computing. Springer, Berlin, pp 229–239

    Google Scholar 

  • Ahamad G, Naqvi S, Beg S, Ahmed T (2015) A web based system for cricket talent identification, enhancement and selection (C-TIES). Procedia Comput Sci 62:134–142

    Google Scholar 

  • Ahamad G, Naqvi S, Beg S (2016) An OWA-based model for talent enhancement in cricket. Int J Intell Syst 31(8):763–785

    Google Scholar 

  • Ali A, Rashid T (2019) Hesitant fuzzy best–worst multi-criteria decision-making method and its applications. Int J Intell Syst 34(8):1953–1967

    Google Scholar 

  • Ali A, Rashid T (2020) Generalized interval-valued trapezoidal fuzzy best–worst multiple criteria decision-making method with applications. J Intell Fuzzy Syst 38(2):1705–1719

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Bairagi B, Dey B, Sarkar B, Sanyal S (2014) Selection of robot for automated foundry operations using fuzzy multi-criteria decision making approaches. Int J Manag Sci Eng Manag 9(3):221–232

    Google Scholar 

  • Bairagi B, Dey B, Sarkar B, Sanyal S (2015) A de novo multi-approaches multi-criteria decision making technique with an application in performance evaluation of material handling device. Comput Ind Eng 87:267–282

    Google Scholar 

  • Bhangale P, Agrawal V, Saha S (2004) Attribute based specification, comparison and selection of a robot. Mech Mach Theory 39(12):1345–1366

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Booth D, Khouja M, Hu M (1992) A robust multivariate statistical procedure for evaluation and selection of industrial robots. Int J Oper Prod Manag 12(2):15–24

    Google Scholar 

  • Boubekri N, Sahoui M, Lakrib C (1991) Development of an expert system for industrial robot selection. Comput Ind Eng 20(1):119–127

    Google Scholar 

  • Breaz R, Bologa O, Racz S (2017) Selecting industrial robots for milling applications using AHP. Procedia Comput Sci 122:346–353

    Google Scholar 

  • Chatterjee P, Athawale V, Chakraborty S (2010) Selection of industrial robots using compromise ranking and outranking methods. Robot Comput Integr Manuf 26(5):483–489

    Google Scholar 

  • Chu T, Lin Y (2003) A fuzzy TOPSIS method for robot selection. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 21(4):284–290

    Google Scholar 

  • Dooner M (1983) Computer simulation to aid robot selection. Peter Perigrinus Ltd., London

    Google Scholar 

  • Fu Y, Li M, Luo H, Huang G (2019) Industrial robot selection using stochastic multicriteria acceptability analysis for group decision making. Robot Auton Syst 122:103304

    Google Scholar 

  • Ghorabaee M (2016) Developing an MCDM method for robot selection with interval type-2 fuzzy sets. Robot Comput Integr Manuf 37:221–232

    Google Scholar 

  • Goh CH (1997) Analytic hierarchy process for robot selection. J Manuf Syst 16(5):381–386

    Google Scholar 

  • Goh C, Tung Y, Cheng C (1996) A revised weighted sum decision model for robot selection. Comput Ind Eng 30(2):193–199

    Google Scholar 

  • Hinson R (1983) Knowing work envelops helps in evaluating robots. Ind Eng 15(7):22–27

    Google Scholar 

  • Huang P, Ghandforoush P (1984) Robotics: procedures given for evaluating, selecting robots. Ind Eng 16:44–48

    Google Scholar 

  • Imany M, Schlesinger R (1989) Decision models for robot selection: a comparison of ordinary least squares and linear goal programming method. Decis Sci 7(3):40–53

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones M, Malmhorg C, Agee M (1985) Robotics: decision support systems used for robot selection. Ind Eng 17:66–73

    Google Scholar 

  • Joshi D, Kumar S (2016) Interval-valued intuitionistic hesitant fuzzy choquet integral based topsis method for multi-criteria group decision making. Eur J Oper Res 248(1):183–191

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Kahraman C, Cevik S, Ates N, Gulbay M (2007) Fuzzy multi-criteria evaluation of industrial robotic systems. Comput Ind Eng 52(4):414–433

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Kapoor V, Tak S (2005) Fuzzy application to the analytic hierarchy process for robot selection. Fuzzy Optim Decis Mak 4:209–234

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Karsak E (2008) Robot selection using an integrated approach based on quality function deployment and fuzzy regression. Int J Prod Res 46(3):723–738

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Khouja M (1995) The use of data envelopment analysis for technology selection. Comput Ind Eng 28(1):123–132

    Google Scholar 

  • Khouja M, Offodile O (1994) The industrial robot selection problem: literature review and directions for future research. IIE Trans 26(4):50–61

    Google Scholar 

  • Knott K, Getto R (1982) A model for evaluating alternative robot systems under uncertainty. Int J Prod Res 20(2):155–165

    Google Scholar 

  • Koulouriotis D, Ketipi M (2011) A fuzzy digraph method for robot evaluation and selection. Expert Syst Appl 38:11901–11910

    Google Scholar 

  • Kumar R, Garg R (2010) Optimal selection of robots by using distance based approach method. Robot Comput Integr Manuf 26(5):500–506

    Google Scholar 

  • Liang G, Wang M (1993) A fuzzy multi-criteria decision-making approach for robot selection. Robot Comput Integr Manuf 10(4):267–274

    Google Scholar 

  • Liu H, Ren M, Wu J, Lin Q (2014) An interval 2-tuple linguistic MCDM method for robot evaluation and selection. Int J Prod Res 52(10):2867–2880

    Google Scholar 

  • Narayanamoorthy S, Geetha S, Rakkiyappan R, Joo Y (2019) Interval-valued intuitionistic hesitant fuzzy entropy based VIKOR method for industrial robots selection. Expert Syst Appl 121:28–37

    Google Scholar 

  • Parameshwaran R, Kumar SP, Saravanakumar K (2015) An integrated fuzzy MCDM based approach for robot selection considering objective and subjective criteria. Appl Soft Comput 26:31–41

    Google Scholar 

  • Parkan C, Wu M (1999) Decision-making and performance measurement models with applications to robot selection. Comput Ind Eng 36(3):503–523

    Google Scholar 

  • Rao R, Padmanabhan K (2006) Selection, identification and comparison of industrial robots using diagraph and matrix methods. Robot Comput Integr Manuf 22(4):373–383

    Google Scholar 

  • Rashid T, Beg I, Husnine S (2014) Robot selection by using generalized interval-valued fuzzy numbers with TOPSIS. Appl Soft Comput 21:462–468

    Google Scholar 

  • Rezaei J (2015) Best–worst multi-criteria decision-making method. Omega 53:49–57

    Google Scholar 

  • Safarzadeh S, Khansefid S, Barzoki M (2018) A group multi-criteria decision-making based on best–worst method. Comput Ind Eng 126:111–121

    Google Scholar 

  • Sen D, Datta S, Mahapatra S (2016) Extension of PROMETHEE for robot selection decision making: simultaneous exploration of objective data and subjective (fuzzy) data. Benchmarking Int J 23(4):983–1014

    Google Scholar 

  • Tansel Y, Yurdakul M, Dengiz B (2013) Development of a decision support system for robot selection. Robot Comput Integr Manuf 29(4):142–157

    Google Scholar 

  • Vahdani B, Mousavi S, Tavakkoli-Moghaddam R, Ghodratnama A, Mohammadi M (2014) Robot selection by a multiple criteria complex proportional assessment method under an interval-valued fuzzy environment. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 73(5–8):687–697

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang M, Singh H, Huang W (1991) A decision support system for robot selection. Decis Support Syst N Holl 7(3):273–283

    Google Scholar 

  • Xue YX, You JX, Zhao X, Liu HC (2016) An integrated linguistic MCDM approach for robot evaluation and selection with incomplete weight information. Int J Prod Res 54(18):5452–5467

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors are very much thankful to associate editor Mohammad Atif Omar and the anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments and suggestions to improve the paper.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Management and Technology, Lahore, 54770, Pakistan

    Asif Ali & Tabasam Rashid

Authors
  1. Asif Ali
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  2. Tabasam Rashid
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tabasam Rashid.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

All authors has no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with animals performed by any of the authors.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Additional information

Communicated by V. Loia.

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendices

Appendix: G-AHP preferences tables for case 1

See Tables 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41 and 42.

Table 35 The preferences of senior expert about the decision makers
Full size table
Table 36 The preferences of decision makers for criteria w.r.t overall selection of robots
Full size table
Table 37 The preferences of decision makers for sub criteria of performance
Full size table
Table 38 The preferences of decision makers for robots w.r.t cost
Full size table
Table 39 The preferences of decision makers for robots w.r.t quality
Full size table
Table 40 The preferences of decision makers for robots w.r.t velocity
Full size table
Table 41 The preferences of decision makers for robots w.r.t repeatability
Full size table
Table 42 The preferences of decision makers for robots w.r.t load capacity
Full size table

Appendix B: G-AHP preferences tables for case 2

See Tables 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49 and 50.

Table 43 The preferences of senior expert about the decision makers
Full size table
Table 44 The preferences of decision makers for criteria w.r.t overall selection of robots
Full size table
Table 45 The preferences of decision makers for robots w.r.t purchase cost
Full size table
Table 46 The preferences of decision makers for robots w.r.t load capacity
Full size table
Table 47 The preferences of decision makers for robots w.r.t repeatability error
Full size table
Table 48 The preferences of decision makers for robots w.r.t maximum tip speed
Full size table
Table 49 The preferences of decision makers for robots w.r.t memory capacity
Full size table
Table 50 The preferences of decision makers for robots w.r.t manipulator reach
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ali, A., Rashid, T. Best–worst method for robot selection. Soft Comput 25, 563–583 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00500-020-05169-z

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00500-020-05169-z

Keywords