Jurnal Manajemen Operasional

Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management
A new holistic conceptual framework for layout performance assessment

Muhittin Sagnak, Erhan Ada, Yigit Kazancoglu,
Article information:
To cite this document:
Muhittin Sagnak, Erhan Ada, Yigit Kazancoglu, (2018) "A new holistic conceptual framework for
layout performance assessment", Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, https://
doi.org/10.1108/JMTM-03-2018-0086
Permanent link to this document:
https://doi.org/10.1108/JMTM-03-2018-0086
Downloaded on: 02 October 2018, At: 23:52 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 53 other documents.
Downloaded by INSEAD At 23:52 02 October 2018 (PT)
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com

The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 7 times since 2018*
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-
srm:178665 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald
for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission
guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as
well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and
services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the
Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for
digital archive preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/1741-038X.htm
Layout
A new holistic conceptual performance
framework for layout assessment
performance assessment
Muhittin Sagnak
Department of Information and Document Management,
Received 21 March 2018
Izmir Katip Celebi University, Izmir, Turkey Revised 27 June 2018
Erhan Ada 7 September 2018
Accepted 15 September 2018
Ege University, Izmir, Turkey, and
Yigit Kazancoglu
Department of International Logistics Management, Yasar University,
Izmir, Turkey
Abstract
Purpose – Performance assessment of layouts requires a systematic approach because of its multi-objective
nature. The purpose of this paper is to propose a framework to the performance assessment of layout designs.
Design/methodology/approach – A layout performance assessment framework is proposed, grounded on
a literature review. Then, the causal relationships and prioritization of the sub-criteria are analyzed by fuzzy
Decision Making Trial and Evaluation Laboratory technique in an elevator and escalator-manufacturing firm.
Findings – An integrated holistic performance assessment framework, specifically, the 7 criteria, 19 sub-criteria
and 112 measures, are studied in this model which represents causal relationships and prioritization of sub-criteria.
Research limitations/implications – The proposed framework can be generalized, because an integrative
framework can be used in future empirical studies to analyze performance of layout design. However, the
causal relationships and prioritization among sub-criteria are analyzed based on the needs and capabilities of
the individual company; therefore, the results of the causal relationships are company specific.
Practical implications – With this framework, the companies may assess their current layout’s
performance, may analyze causal relationships and prioritization of sub-criteria.
Originality/value – There are very few models or frameworks regarding the performance assessment of
layout designs. In this paper, a new conceptual holistic framework was proposed as three-dimensional
hierarchy, which includes the main criteria, sub-criteria and the measures, respectively. Cost, flow, flexibility,
surrounding environment, environment quality, time and characteristics are identified as the main criteria for
the layout design performance assessment. In addition, cause-effect relationships, which will be the base for
improvement of the performance, are found.
Keywords Performance measurement, Fuzzy logic, Facility layout
Paper type Research paper
1. Introduction
In recent years, the most important manufacturing issue is the efficient use of scarce
resources. Within this context, the design of the facility, which may be defined as the
physical arrangement of a facility, is strongly associated with this perspective. The tangible
fixed assets (building, machines, etc.) are organized in such a manner that the efficient use of
resources is improved (Ashayeri et al., 2005).
The facility layout problem (FLP) is the organization of efficient arrangement of
interrelated facilities (departments, machines) on a manufacturing floor in order to satisfy
the objectives of the firm (Aiello et al., 2013). FLP deals with the optimality on placement of
facilities (departments, machines) in order to minimize the operation costs and maximize the
system utilization (Aiello et al., 2012). In other words, FLP is concerned with the location of Journal of Manufacturing
Technology Management
facilities (departments, machines), i.e., which facilities (department, machines) are located © Emerald Publishing Limited
1741-038X
adjacently (Wäscher and Merker, 1997). DOI 10.1108/JMTM-03-2018-0086
JMTM An unfavorable layout, without regard to other factors, refers to inefficiency (Abdinnour-Helm
and Hadley, 2000). Therefore, the most interacted facilities (departments, machines) are positioned
next to each other so as to minimize material handling time, waiting time in queue, processing
time and to maximize throughput and machine utilization (Altuntas and Selim, 2012). The
interactions between the facilities (departments, machines) denote the flow of items (material,
personnel, information) between the departments.
An efficient arrangement of facility reduces the material handling cost, lead time, production
time, and as a consequence, enhances the productivity (El-Baz, 2004), while an unfavorable
layout leads to inefficient material handling with an extensive amount of work-in-process
inventory (Chiang and Chiang, 1998).
Generally speaking, between 20 and 50 percent of operation cost is related with material
handling. Since the minimization of material handling cost is the main objective of the
facility layout planning, previous research has indicated that such minimization can result a
cost reduction in between 10 and 30 percent (Tompkins et al., 1996).
The minimization of material handling cost is a commonly used objective in mathematical
models; however, there are also qualitative criteria, such as flexibility, safety and aesthetics of
the facility (Francis et al., 2009) to be taken into consideration (Singh and Sharma, 2006).
The simplest FLP is called static facility layout problem (SFLP), which deals with the
arrangement of same-sized facilities with a constant flow between them. SFLP is
formulated as a quadratic assignment problem by Koopmans and Beckmann (1957)
(Bozorgi et al., 2015).
FLPs are demonstrated as NP-hard, in which the exact solution is nearly impossible within
a reasonable computation time (Amaral, 2013). In NP-hard problems, exact solution methods
are only applicable for small-sized problems (Francis et al., 2009); therefore, former research
includes solution techniques based on heuristics and metaheuristics (Castillo and Sim, 2004).
The facility layout analysis is a much-studied combinatorial optimization problem,
which takes place in many applications (Singh and Sharma, 2006). Two popular
approaches were considered for FLP design. The first deals with the environment of FLP,
which is whether it is certain or uncertain. The problem data, for instance, demand, is
deterministic in certain environments, and stochastic in uncertain environments. The
second approach deals with the flexibility of FLP, i.e. whether it is static or dynamic. Both
approaches are planned in single or multi-period time horizons (Moslemipour et al., 2012).
Up to the present, many different solution techniques have been applied. There is no exact
best solution approach for the FLP; the solution technique is selected in accordance with
the characteristics of the problem.
The models for the evaluation of the layout, in fact, evaluate the performance of the
operations. The evaluation of layout should examine the main characteristics of layouts before
the operation starts in order to avoid high costs and loss of time caused by the re-layout
process. Therefore, for the performance evaluation of a layout, the indices, in other words, the
criteria, should be specified in order to gain insight into the impacts depending on a layout
alternative (Lin and Sharp, 1999a).
The limitations of the criteria or indexes determined in previous research are as follows:
(1) The criteria or index set determined in previous research did not fully describe the
effectiveness of the layout. For example, Lin and Sharp’s (1999a, b) criteria set lacks
flexibility criteria, time criteria and lacks many measurements.
(2) The appropriate data are not available before the operations start. The machines are
arranged into current locations, then the performance of the facility layout will be
assessed after the operation started; however, it may lead to a need for
rearrangement in cases where the effectiveness of the facility cannot be achieved
(Lin and Sharp, 1999a).
(3) There is almost no validation accessed to assure the practicability of the criteria and Layout
the indexes. In other words, the applicability of the criteria and the indexes are not performance
clear, because they are not justified. assessment
(4) Some of the criteria or the index parameters are sometimes not practical for the real-life
cases. For example, the parameters of appearance, promotional value, public or
community relations, and fitness with organization structure criteria in Muther’s (1973)
approach are hard to obtain and estimate.
Therefore, in this study, first, the main criteria were set, then the sub-criteria were
determined, and finally the measurement variables were identified. The main three
contributions of this study are, first, to reveal the different dimensions of layout design
such as cost, flow, flexibility, surrounding environment, environment quality, time and
characteristics; second, to present a new holistic framework to support manufacturers in
the understanding of the systematic and holistic assessment of layout strategy through
three-dimensional hierarchy which includes the main criteria, sub-criteria and the
measures; and finally, to use fuzzy Decision Making Trial and Evaluation Laboratory
(DEMATEL) technique to identify the importance and causal relationships between the
sub-criteria.
This study supports the understanding of the systematic and holistic assessment of
layout performance. Cost, flow, flexibility, surrounding environment, environment
quality, time and characteristics are identified as the main criteria for the layout
performance assessment, which have great significance to implement effective layout
design. This study integrates 7 criteria, 19 sub-criteria and 112 measures to propose an
assessment framework.
In this paper, following the introduction, literature review of layout performance items
are presented in Section 2. The proposed framework presents criteria, sub-criteria and
measures of layout performance in Section 3. In Section 4, methodology is presented. Section
5 describes the application, Section 6 identifies the implications, and finally, Section 7
discusses the conclusion, and future research directions.
2. Literature review
There are very few models or frameworks regarding the performance assessment of layout
designs. The criteria or indexes, which are identified in previous research, are as follows.
Gantz and Pettit (1953) determined 11 indexes, namely, index of indirect materials
handling, index of direct materials handling, index of gravity utilization, primary index of
automatic machine loading, secondary index of automatic machine loading, index of
production line flexibility, index of workstation flexibility, index of floor-area loading
density, index of aisle space, index of storage space and index of storage volume utilization.
Muther (1973) discussed 20 potential criteria, namely, ease of future expansion or
contraction, adaptability and versatility, layout flexibility, flow or movement effectiveness,
materials handling effectiveness, storage effectiveness, space utilization, supporting service
integration, safety and housekeeping, working conditions and employee satisfaction, ease of
supervision and control, appearance, promotional value, public or community relations,
quality of the product, maintenance, fitness with organization structure, equipment
utilization, security and theft, utilization of natural conditions, ability to meet capacity and
compatibility with long-range plans.
Konz (1985) determined three ratio classifications, namely, resource utilization ratios (for
people, equipment, space and energy), management control ratios (for materials, movement
and loss) and operation efficiency ratios (for manufacturing, storage and retrieval, receiving
and shipping) (Lin and Sharp, 1999a).
JMTM Lin and Sharp (1999a, b) developed 18 criteria, namely, initial cost, annual operation and
maintenance cost, future salvage value, raw materials inventory holding cost, work-in-process
(WIP) inventory holding cost, finished goods inventory holding cost, clearness, space sufficiency
and utilization, aisle, distance and volume density, robustness of equipment capacity, building
expansion, topography and topology, community environment, human-related safety,
worker-related comfort, property-related security and access for maintenance.
Besides these frameworks, some multi criteria decision-making (MCDM) applications,
which examine the ranking of the layouts, exist in the literature. Table I shows the related
literature review on facility layout planning and selection.
When “performance indicators” and “objectives” columns of Table I are examined in
detail, it can be seen that the researchers of these studies deal either with the selection of
the best layout within different layout alternatives, or planning of the facility layout by
integrating some MCDM techniques with mathematical programming, heuristics or
metaheuristics. In addition, performance indicators that were covered in Table I are not
fully capable of providing a holistic performance assessment framework. Thus, there is a
lack of overall understanding of the theoretical and methodological dimensions, and an
important gap in the layout literature: a lack of integrated and holistic framework for
layout performance assessment. Hence, in this study, the main aim is to build a new
holistic framework. The main difference between the studies in the literature and this
study is the point of view, that is, former deals with the selection of the best layout within
different layout alternatives, or planning of the facility layout, latter presents a framework
including all aspects of the layout.
In the layout literature, the researchers used various solution techniques such as exact
methods, heuristics, metaheuristics and hybrid approaches (Moslemipour et al., 2012). On
the other hand, although the FLP was one of the main research topics in industrial
engineering and operations management areas, very few research has focused on the
evaluation of facilities’ layout based on a holistic framework.
3. Proposed framework
Most of the research was organized around building a layout, rather than evaluating the
performance of it. However, the evaluation of the performance of the layout is also a very
important process. Within this perspective, the need arises for a holistic framework that can
incorporate and integrate tangible and intangible criteria related with cost, flow, flexibility,
surrounding environment, environment quality, time and characteristics. This study is,
therefore, unique in that, it investigates layout performance employing multiple levels as
criteria, sub-criteria and measures. Table II presents the general layout performance
assessment framework including the criteria and sub-criteria.
3.1 Cost
For many researchers, cost is agreed as the most important factor for determining a layout.
Controlling the cost values helps the companies create efficient layouts; however, there are many
cost items that the companies are faced with. Some cost items are related with the inventory, and
some are not. Inventory cost, and non-inventory cost are determined as the sub-criteria for the
cost criterion, and many measurements are regarded within this perspective. Table III shows the
sub-criteria, and the respective measurements regarding cost criterion.
3.2 Flow
Like cost criterion, flow can also be regarded as critical factor for determining a layout. The
companies face with space characteristics, material flow and flow of some items not related
with the materials such as information, personnel and equipment flow. Space relationship,
Researcher (year) Performance indicators Objectives Research method
Hadi-Vencheh and Material handling distance, adjacency score,To incorporate qualitative criteria in addition to Simple nonlinear programming model (NLP)
Mohamadghasemi shape ratio, accessibility, maintenance, quantitative criteria for evaluating facility layout and AHP
(2013) flexibility patterns (FLPs)
Yang and Kuo Material handling distance, adjacency score,To propose a hierarchical analytic hierarchy Analytic hierarchy process (AHP) and data
(2003) shape ratio, accessibility, maintenance, process (AHP) and data envelopment analysis envelopment analysis (DEA)
flexibility (DEA) approach to solve a plant layout design
problem
Ertay et al. (2006) Flow distance, handling cost, defuzzified To present a decision-making methodology based Analytic hierarchy process (AHP) and data
adjacency score, material handling vehicle on data envelopment analysis (DEA), which uses envelopment analysis (DEA)
utilization, shape ratio, flexibility, quality both quantitative and qualitative criteria, for
evaluating facility layout design
Kuo et al. (2008) Flow distance, adjacency score, shape ratio, To propose a multiple attribute decision making Grey relation analysis (GRA) and data
accessibility, maintenance, flexibility (MADM) method, grey relational analysis (GRA), for envelopment analysis (DEA)
solving facility layout problem and compared the
result with DEA
Tayal and Singh Material handling cost, rearrangement cost, To propose an integrated methodology of Simulated annealing, data envelopment
(2017) closeness rating, flow distance combining algorithmic (meta-heuristic) and analysis (DEA), and TOPSIS
procedural (decision making) techniques to identify
a layout that has the highest degree of satisfaction
for all the criteria
Shokri et al. (2013) Material handling distance, adjacency score, To propose a hierarchical analytic hierarchy AHP and VIKOR
shape ratio, flexibility, accessibility, process (AHP) and VIKOR approach to solve the
maintenance FLD problem
Kumar and Singh Distance, adjacency score, shape ratio, To decide about the optimal decision integrating the Integer linear programming, AHP,
(2017) flexibility, accessibility, maintenance quantitative and qualitative criteria in unequal area interpretive ranking process (IRP) and
facility layout problem Borda-Kendall (BK)
Singh and Singh Distance, work flow, closeness rating, material To resolve the issues of selecting the objective Mean weight method, geometric mean weight
(2010) handling time, hazardous movement weight for each objective to make the facility layout methods, standard deviation weight method,
design process of completely designer independent
(continued )
performance
assessment
Layout
Literature review on
Table I.
layout performance
Table I.
JMTM
Researcher (year) Performance indicators Objectives Research method
critical importance through the inter-criteria

correlation method
Altuntas et al. Material flow, information flow, personnel To propose fuzzy DEMATEL-based solution Fuzzy DEMATEL
(2014) flow, equipment flow, environmental condition, approach for facility layout problem by taking into
supervision of personnel, closeness rating account both qualitative and quantitative
location factors
Yang and Hung Material handling distance, adjacency score, To explore the use of MADM approaches in solving TOPSIS, and fuzzy TOPSIS
(2007) shape ratio, flexibility, accessibility, a layout design problem
maintenance
Yang et al. (2000) Capacity, productivity, flexibility, WIP flow To propose a procedure for solving a fab layout Systematic layout planning procedure
problem through a real world case study (SLP), AHP
Maniya and Bhatt Material flow, information flow, equipment To propose an alternative decision-making Preference selection index (PSI), and
(2011) flow, maintenance, flexibility, adjacency, methodology for the selection of optimal facility subjective cost benefit analysis
distance, shape ratio, accessibility layout design alternative based on preference
selection index (PSI) method
Singh and Singh Safety, noise, flexibility, aesthetics, To propose a new three-level AHP-based heuristic AHP
(2011) temperature, work-in-process, work flow approach for solving multi-objective facility
layout problem
Al-Hawari et al. Closeness gap value, expansion flexibility, To select the best facility layout plan based on ANP
(2014) routing flexibility, productive area utilization, multiple dependent and independent criteria
volume flexibility, human issues
Dweiri (1999) Material flow, information flow, personnel To present a distinct methodology to develop a crisp Fuzzy AHP
flow, equipment flow, environmental condition, activity relationship charts (CARC) based on fuzzy
supervision of personnel, closeness rating set theory
Cost
Layout
Non-inventory cost – C1 Lin and Sharp (1999a, b) performance
Inventory cost – C2 Lin and Sharp (1999a, b) assessment
Flow
Space relationship – C3 Gantz and Pettit (1953), Muther (1973), Lin and Sharp (1999a, b)
Material flow – C4 Lin and Sharp (1999a, b), Altuntas et al. (2014), Maniya and Bhatt (2011),
Dweiri (1999)
Non-material flow – C5 Our contribution
Flexibility
Robustness – C6 Lin and Sharp (1999a, b)
Volume flexibility – C7 Al-Hawari et al. (2014)
Routing flexibility – C8 Our contribution
Surrounding environment
Topography and topology – C9 Lin and Sharp (1999a, b)
Community environment – C10 Lin and Sharp (1999a, b)
Environment quality
Human safety – C11 Muther (1973), Lin and Sharp (1999a, b), Al-Hawari et al. (2014)
Worker comfort – C12 Muther (1973), Lin and Sharp (1999a, b)
Property security – C13 Muther (1973), Lin and Sharp (1999a, b)
Maintenance – C14 Muther (1973), Lin and Sharp (1999a, b), Hadi-Vencheh and
Mohamadghasemi (2013), Yang and Kuo (2003), Kuo et al. (2008), Shokri
et al. (2013), Kumar and Singh (2017), Yang and Hung (2007), Maniya and
Bhatt (2011)
Sustainability – C15 Our contribution
Time
Time in production – C16 Our contribution
Time in non-production – C17 Our contribution Table II.
Main criteria and
Characteristics sub-criteria for layout
Production characteristics – C18 Our contribution performance
Other characteristics – C19 Our contribution assessment framework
Non-inventory cost Inventory cost
Cost
Land cost Raw material inventory holding cost
Building cost (floor construction cost) WIP inventory holding cost
Production machinery cost Finished goods inventory holding cost
Material handling cost Backordering cost
Labor cost Loss (production+damage+spoilage+obsolescence)
Maintenance cost
Future salvage value
Quality cost
Capital cost of material handling equipment (investment)
Rearrangement cost
Setup cost Table III.
Energy cost Sub-criteria and
Safety cost measures for the cost
Manufacturing operation cost main criterion
JMTM material flow and non-material flow are determined as the sub-criteria for the flow criterion,
and many measurements are regarded within this perspective. Table IV shows the
sub-criteria, and the respective measurements regarding flow criterion.
3.3 Flexibility
Especially for the environments in which the change is inevitable, being flexible means
being responsive to the changes. The companies face with changes about equipment,
volume and routing over time. Robustness, volume flexibility and routing flexibility are
determined as the sub-criteria for the flexibility criterion, and many measurements
are regarded within this perspective. Table V shows the sub-criteria, and the respective
measurements regarding flexibility criterion.
3.4 Surrounding environment

Efficient layout also has to consider the environment based on topography and topology, and
community. The term topography identifies the standard considerations of the plant site, and
topology identifies how well the shape and structure of the buildings suit to the topographical
characteristics (Lin and Sharp, 1999a). Topography and topology, and community environment
are determined as the sub-criteria for the surrounding environment criterion, and many
measurements are regarded within this perspective. Table VI shows the sub-criteria, and the
respective measurements regarding surrounding environment criterion.
Space relationship Material flow Non-material flow
Flow
Value-added area Volume Information flow (frequency)
Non-value-added area Dimensions of the aisles Personnel flow (frequency)
Storage space (m3) Number of loaded travel of material handling Equipment flow (frequency)
Dead (empty) space (m3) equipment
Required area (area Number of empty travel of material handling
requirements) equipment
Space efficiency (m3) Adjacency score
Space utilization (m3) Speed
Table IV. Intermodule distances
Sub-criteria and Accessibility
measures for the Aspect ratio
flow main criterion Interferences (overlapping)
Robustness Volume flexibility Routing flexibility
Flexibility
Robustness of equipment Adaptation to variations in production volume Average number of
Building expansion Adaptation to variations in demand volume alternate routes
Free space availability Adaptation to variations in material handling cost Accessibility of
Adaptation to variations in material flow alternate routes
Adaptation to variations in equipment
Adaptation to variations in technology
Table V. Adaptation to variations in product mix
Sub-criteria and Adaptation to variations in order arrival time
measures for Adaptation to variations in processing requirements
the flexibility Adaptation to variations in due date requirements
main criterion Adaptation to variations in processing time
3.5 Environment quality Layout
Some factors such as human safety and worker comfort affect the space utilization, and the performance
layout efficiency negatively; however, the companies have to be careful about the safety and assessment
comfort of workers, security of the property and maintenance issues. The quality of the
environment is sometimes determined by the social issues. Human safety, worker comfort,
property security, maintenance and sustainability are determined as the sub-criteria for the
environment quality criterion, and many measurements are regarded within this
perspective. Table VII shows the sub-criteria, and the respective measurements regarding
environment quality criterion.
3.6 Time
The companies always face with the time challenge when they do business. Time is also a
critical factor for determining an efficient layout. However, there are many time items the
companies are faced with. Some of the time items are related with the production, and some
are not. Production time, and non-production time are determined as the sub-criteria for the
time criterion, and many measurements are regarded within this perspective. Table VIII
shows the sub-criteria, and the respective measurements regarding time criterion.
3.7 Characteristics
Some factors cannot be classified in some of above criteria; therefore, there is a need to
create a new criterion for the remaining characteristics. Production characteristics, and
other characteristics are determined as the sub-criteria for the characteristics criterion, and
many measurements are regarded within this perspective. Table IX shows the sub-criteria,
and the respective measurements regarding characteristics criterion.
4. Methodology
4.1 Fuzzy set theory
The decision-makers experience uncertainties in the decision-making process due to the
subjective manner of their judgments. To deal with this subjectivity and vagueness in
human judgment, Zadeh (1965) introduced the fuzzy set theory to demonstrate the linguistic
terms used when dealing with a decision process. In the theory, mathematical operators and
programming are also allowed to apply to the fuzzy domain. A class of objects with a
continuum of grades of membership is called a fuzzy set. Characteristic function is used to
assign a grade of membership (from 0 to 1) to each object and this grade characterizes fuzzy
sets. If a fuzzy set is represented by a symbol, then a tilde “~” is placed above the symbol
(Zadeh, 1965).
There are various fuzzy membership functions. In this paper, we use triangular fuzzy
numbers (TFNs). A TFN, M ~ , is shown in Figure 1.
A TFN is indicated as (lij, mij, rij). The parameters lij, mij, rij, respectively, refer the smallest
possible, the most likely and the largest possible values that characterize a fuzzy event.
Topography and topology Community environment Table VI.

Sub-criteria and
Surrounding environment measures for
Natural site conditions and construction Impact of traffic congestion and noise the surrounding
Truck access and circulation pattern Waste management and pollution control environment main
Connection with external material handling equipment Appearance of external or viewable features criterion
JMTM Human safety Worker comfort Property security Maintenance Sustainability
Environment quality
Human building Lighting Theft from outside Compatibility of Number of reused/
accidents Aesthetics the building building construction recycled materials
Human vehicle Ease of supervision Theft from within and material handling Environmental
crossings Noise the building equipment sustainability
Human/machine/ Ventilation/heating Special caution for Space for maintenance index
material/material Ergonomics dangerous areas work Environmental
handling Handicapped access Appropriate location of performance index
interfaces Employee maintenance activities
Table VII. Fire/earthquake/ satisfaction Complexity of material
Sub-criteria and evacuation Hygiene handling equipment
measures for the Humidity
environment quality Pressure
main criterion Signs and artifacts
Time in production Time in non-production
Time
Production time Storage time
Setup time Retrieval time
Table VIII. Overall processing time Loading time
Sub-criteria and Idle time Unloading time
measures for the time Stoppages
main criterion Transportation time (flow time)
Production characteristics Other characteristics
Characteristics
Production volume Average machine utilization
Production/machine capacity Size (department, block, cell)
Total quality management (Kaizen) Shape of departments
Table IX. Quality of product Shape of machines
Sub-criteria and Raw material inventory Number of departments
measures for the WIP inventory Number of machines
characteristics Finished goods inventory Average availability of facilities
main criterion Manpower requirements (skills, qualifications)
M
1.0
M l( y) M r( y)
Figure 1.
A triangular M
fuzzy number 0.0
m1 m2 m3
4.2 Fuzzy DEMATEL Layout
DEMATEL method measures the cause-effect relationships between complicated criteria in performance
order to construct and analyze a structural model. The procedure of fuzzy DEMATEL assessment
method will be discussed in the following sections.
4.2.1 DEMATEL method. The DEMATEL method originated from the Battelle
Memorial Institute, aiming to search for integrated solutions (Gabus and Fontela, 1972,
1973). The method became popular because it easily envisions the complex structure of
cause-effect relationships (Lin and Wu, 2008).
The structure of DEMATEL method is subject to matrices or digraphs, which are able to
distinguish the complicated criteria into cause and effect groups, and manage the inner
dependencies. Digraphs are able to indicate the directed relationships of sub-systems;
therefore, they are more practical and valuable than directionless graphs. A digraph may
reflect a network, or a dominated relationship between criteria (Wu and Lee, 2007).
The matrices or digraphs represent the relations between the criteria, in which the
numerical expressions show the strength of the influence. According to the fundamental
principles of the DEMATEL method, the system consists of a set of criteria, that is,
C ¼ {C1, C2, …, Cn}, and the pairwise comparisons are used to show the mathematical
relations (Tseng, 2009). Hence, the DEMATEL method intelligently shows the cause-effect
relationships between the complicated criteria.
The solution steps are as follows:
Definition 1. The measurement scale for pairwise comparisons were designed as four levels,
0 (no influence), 1 (low influence), 2 (high influence) and 3 (very high influence).
Definition 2. The direct relation matrix, Z, is an n × n matrix acquired from pairwise
comparisons based on relationships and influences between a set of criteria. Zij
symbolizes the degree of the effect of criterion i to criterion j, i.e. Z ¼ [zij]n×n.
Definition 3. The normalized direct relation matrix, X, i.e., X ¼ [xij]n×n, and 0 ⩽ xij ⩽ 1, is
attained by way of the following formulas:
X ¼ sUZ; (1)
1
s¼ P ; i; j ¼ 1; 2; . . .; n: (2)
max1 p i p n nj¼1 zij
Definition 4. The total relation matrix, T, is obtained by the following formula, in which I
represents the identity matrix:
T ¼ XðI–XÞ1 : (3)
Definition 5. The row totals and the column totals of the total relation matrix, T, are
represented as D and R by the following formulas:
T ¼ t ij ; i; j ¼ 1; 2; . . .; n; (4)
X
n
D¼ t ij ; (5)
j¼1
X
n
R¼ t ij ; (6)
i¼1
where D and R represents the row totals and the column totals, respectively.
JMTM Definition 6. A cause-effect diagram can be obtained by graphing the data set, in which
the (D+R) represents the horizontal axis, and is comprised of summing up
D with R, and (D−R) represents the vertical axis, and is comprised of
subtracting R from D.
4.2.2 Converting fuzzy data into crisp scores (CFCS). There are various defuzzification
techniques, divided into two categories: vertical or horizontal representation of possibility
distribution (Oussalah, 2002). However, Opricovic and Tzeng (2003) stated that, an effective
defuzzification technique should take into consideration that the shape, height, spread and
the relative location of x-axis are the main characteristics of the fuzzy number.
The most popular defuzzification technique is the centroid (center-of-gravity) method
(Yager and Filev, 1994), however, this method cannot make a distinction between the same
crisp-valued fuzzy numbers, even though they have different shapes Therefore, CCFCS
defuzzification technique is adopted, because it can give better crisp scores than the centroid
method (Wu and Lee, 2007).
The CFCS method is proposed by Opricovic and Tzeng (2003), and its procedure is subject
to identifying the left and right scores by fuzzy minimum and fuzzy maximum. The total score
is identified by taking a weighted average in accordance with the membership functions.

Let z~ kij ¼ ðl kij ; mkij ; r kij Þ states the fuzzy judgments of the evaluator k (k ¼ 1, 2, …, p) about the
level of the influence of criterion i to criterion j. Five-step algorithm is expressed as follows
(Opricovic and Tzeng, 2003):
(1) Normalization:

xl kij ¼ l kij min l kij =Dmax
min ; (7)

xmkij ¼ mkij min l kij =Dmax min ; (8)

xrkij ¼ r kij min l kij =Dmax min ; (9)
k
where Dmax
min ¼ max r ij min l ij .
k
(2) Calculate left and right normalized values:

xlskij ¼ xmkij = 1 þxmkij xl kij ; (10)

xrskij ¼ xr kij = 1 þxrkij xmkij : (11)
(3) Calculate total normalized crisp value:
h i h i
xkij ¼ xlskij 1xlskij þxrskij xrskij = 1xlskij þxrskij : (12)
(4) Calculate crisp values:
zkij ¼ min l kij þxkij Dmax
min : (13)
(5) Integrate crisp values:
1 1 2
zkij ¼ zij þzij þ þzijp : (14)
p
4.2.3 The procedure of fuzzy DEMATEL method. Under a fuzzy environment, the analytical
procedure of the proposed method is described as follows.
Step 1: identifying the decision goal and forming a committee. Decision-making process Layout
involves the following steps: describing the decision goals, collecting the relevant data, performance
identifying the possible alternatives, assessing the alternatives with regard to their assessment
advantages and disadvantages, selecting the best alternative and monitoring the results
whether the decision goals are attained or not (Hess and Siciliano, 1996; Opricovic and
Tzeng, 2004). For this reason, the decision-making process starts with determining and
describing the decision goals. Another important aspect is to appoint a committee for
collecting the group knowledge for problem solving (Wu and Lee, 2007).
Step 2: developing evaluation criteria and designing the fuzzy linguistic scale. Due to the
nature of cause-effect relationships the criteria have, they involve many complex aspects.
The DEMATEL method should be used to create a structural model in order to divide the
significant criteria into cause group and effect group. To deal with the subjectivity and
vagueness of human judgment, the influence of the criteria between each other are
expressed in five linguistic terms (Li, 1999) as no influence (No), very low influence (VL), low
influence (L), high influence (H) and very high influence (VH). Those linguistic terms are
described in positive TFNs (lij, mij, rij) as shown in Table X.
Step 3: acquiring and aggregating the assessments of decision-makers. A group of

experts are asked to evaluate the influences of criteria to each other in order to measure
the relationships between all criteria, that is, C ¼ {C1, C2, …, Cn}. Then, those
fuzzy evaluations are defuzzified into crisp values, zij, by CFCS method. As a
consequence, the direct relation matrix, Z ¼ ½zij nn , is acquired by the formulas (7)–(14)
(Lin and Wu, 2008).
Step 4: establishing and analyzing the structural model. After gathering the direct relation
matrix, Z, by the formulas (1) and (2), the normalized direct relation matrix, X, can be acquired.
Then, the total relation matrix, T can be obtained by the formula (3). The row totals and the
column totals of the total relation matrix, T, are represented as D and R by the formulas
(4)–(6). A cause-effect diagram can be obtained by graphing the data set, in which the (D+R)
represents the horizontal axis, and is comprised of the sums of D with R, and (D−R) represents
the vertical axis, and is calculated by subtracting R from D. (D+R) and (D−R) are called
“Prominence,” and “Relation,” respectively. Prominence represents the degree of importance of
the criterion, and the relation distinguishes the criteria as cause and effect criteria. If the (D−R)
is positive, then the criterion falls into the cause group, if negative, into the effect group. Hence,
the cause-effect diagrams make clear the complex relationships of a set of criteria, and allow
the visualization of the structural model. An appropriate decision could be made by
determining the cause group and effect group, and distinguishing the differences between
cause criteria and the effect criteria based on cause-effect diagrams (Wu and Lee, 2007).
5. Application
This paper focuses on the application, which was conducted in an elevator and
escalator-manufacturing firm located in Izmir. Fuzzy DEMATEL technique is employed to
identify the causal relationships.
Linguistic terms Triangular fuzzy numbers
Very high influence (VH) (0.75,1.0,1.0)

High influence (H) (0.5,0.75,1.0)
Low influence (L) (0.25,0.5,0.75)
Very low influence (VL) (0,0.25,0.5) Table X.
No influence (No) (0,0,0.25) Fuzzy linguistic scale
JMTM Hervani et al. (2005) pointed out that there is no perfect tool for traditional performance
measurement systems, and that their usage is greatly dependent on acceptance by
organizations. In other words, there is no single generally applicable approach for
generalizing the performance measurements, because the scales and the applications are
usually specific to the organizations. Consistent with this, the proposed framework was
built in order to include the different factors for layout performance assessment; therefore,
the proposed framework may be generalized. However, the application is unique to the
company. The framework can be used for every company to reach a conclusion about their
layouts’ performance, but the results may be different. The critical point here is to build and
use the proposed framework.
In data collection process, the pairwise comparisons were made by all of the authorities
responsible for layout activities within the company, and conducted with the consent of the
board of directors. These authorities have been considered as experts due to their experience
of minimum 15 years in the field.
Five experts carried out pairwise comparisons; the general manager, the operations
manager, the vice operations manager, the member of the executive board and the craft
supervisor. Each expert made the pairwise comparisons using linguistic variables shown in
Table X. Table XI shows the pairwise comparison matrix of one of the experts. Table XII
shows the direct relation matrix, Z, Table XIII shows the normalized direct relation matrix,
X, and Table XIV shows the total relation matrix, T, respectively.
According to the results, the cause-effect diagram is occurred as seen in Figure 2.
According to the result of fuzzy DEMATEL causal diagram:
(1) robustness (C6), volume flexibility (C7), routing flexibility (C8), topography and
topology (C9), community environment (C10), property-related security (C13),
maintenance (C14), sustainability (C15) and other characteristics (C19) belong to the
cause group; and
(2) non-inventory cost (C1), inventory cost (C2), space relationship (C3), material flow
(C4), non-material flow (C5), human-related safety (C11), worker-related comfort
(C12), time in production (C16), time in non-production (C17) and production
characteristics (C18) belong to the effect group.
To achieve high performance from the effect group factors, we should monitor and deal with
the cause group factors; because cause group refers to the influencing factors and effect
group refers to the influenced factors (Fontela and Gabus, 1976). Within this context,
material flow (C4) is the most important factor, because it has the most significant relation
among all factors. Sustainability (C15) is the most influencing factor, located at the highest
level of the cause group, and inventory cost (C2) is the most influenced factor, located at the
lowest level of effect group.
6. Implications
In this study, fuzzy DEMATEL method was hired to analyze and assess the relationships
between the sub-criteria in terms of layout performance assessment. In total, 19 sub-criteria
were evaluated using pairwise comparisons, and some implications were obtained in order
to determine the key sub-criteria.
First, the results of fuzzy DEMATEL method are taken into consideration as the basis
for defining the importance levels of the factors. Within this context, our investigation
illustrated that material flow (C4) is found to be the most important factor. Volume of the
materials, the dimensions of the aisles, number of loaded and empty material handling
equipment, speed and intermodule distances are the important measures that make the
material flow (C4) sub-criteria most important. Non-inventory cost (C1) is found to be the
Expert 1 Non- Inventory Space Material Non-material Robustness Volume Routing Topography Community
inventory cost relationship flow flow flexibility flexibility and topology environment
cost
Non-inventory cost NO VH H H VH NO L VL VH VH
Inventory cost NO NO NO NO NO NO H NO NO NO
Space relationship L VH NO VH VH VL H H L L
Material flow H L H NO H VH VH VH H H
Non-material flow H H VH H NO L L VH H H
Robustness VL VH VL H VL NO H VL NO NO
Volume flexibility H H VH VH VH H NO L L NO
Routing flexibility L VH VH VH VH L VH NO L NO
Topography and topology VH H H VH VH L VL VL NO L
Community environment L VL H H H VL NO L H NO
Human-related safety H VH H H H VL L H NO NO
Worker-related comfort H H H L L NO L NO NO NO
Property-related security VH H VH VH VH L L VH H NO
Maintenance VH VH NO VH VL VH VH H NO NO
Sustainability VH H H VH VH VL L H VH VH
Time in production VL VH H VH VL NO VH H NO NO
Time in non-production VH H H H H NO L H NO NO
Production characteristics H VH H H H L L H NO NO
Other characteristics VL L VH L L NO L NO NO NO
(continued )
performance
assessment
Layout
of expert 1
Table XI.
Pairwise comparison
JMTM
Table XI.
Expert 1 Human- Worker- Property- Maintenance Sustainability Time in Time in Production Other
related related related Production non- characteristics characteristics
safety comfort security production
Non-inventory cost VH VH H VH H VH VH VH VH
Inventory cost NO VL L H NO NO NO NO NO
Space relationship VH VH L VL VL H H L H
Material flow H VL H H H VH VH VH NO
Non-material flow VH VL H H H L VH H NO
Robustness VL NO NO H NO VH VH H L
Volume flexibility VH H H H H VH VH VH L
Routing flexibility L H H H H VH VH VH H
Topography and topology H VH H L L VL VH NO NO
Community environment VH VH VL NO VH H H VL NO
Human-related safety NO VH NO NO VL H H VL H
Worker-related comfort VH NO NO NO VL H VH H H
Property-related security NO NO NO NO NO L VL NO NO
Maintenance VH VH L NO VH VH H H L
Sustainability VH VH VH NO NO VH H H H
Time in production VH VH NO VL NO NO H H VH
Time in non-production H H VH H NO H NO NO H
Production characteristics NO NO NO H L H L NO H
Other characteristics H H L H VH H L H NO
Z Non- Inventory Space Material Non-Material Robustness Volume Routing Topography Community
Inventory Cost Relationship Flow flow flexibility flexibility and topology environment
Cost
Non-inventory cost 0.03333 0.78000 0.78000 0.82667 0.82667 0.17333 0.50000 0.36000 0.59333 0.54667
Inventory cost 0.54667 0.03333 0.45333 0.22000 0.03333 0.12667 0.64000 0.03333 0.03333 0.03333
Space relationship 0.59333 0.92000 0.03333 0.87333 0.78000 0.45333 0.73333 0.73333 0.54667 0.59333
Material flow 0.87333 0.36000 0.87333 0.03333 0.73333 0.68667 0.82667 0.82667 0.59333 0.31333
Non-material flow 0.87333 0.45333 0.92000 0.73333 0.03333 0.50000 0.36000 0.78000 0.59333 0.31333
Robustness 0.26667 0.92000 0.40667 0.68667 0.22000 0.03333 0.78000 0.45333 0.12667 0.03333
Volume flexibility 0.82667 0.73333 0.87333 0.96667 0.73333 0.59333 0.03333 0.59333 0.40667 0.03333
Routing flexibility 0.68667 0.50000 0.87333 0.96667 0.73333 0.59333 0.87333 0.03333 0.50000 0.03333
Topography and topology 0.82667 0.31333 0.68667 0.82667 0.82667 0.26667 0.45333 0.45333 0.03333 0.31333
Community environment 0.22000 0.17333 0.68667 0.40667 0.45333 0.17333 0.17333 0.36000 0.45333 0.03333
Human-related safety 0.64000 0.40667 0.59333 0.73333 0.73333 0.36000 0.31333 0.73333 0.22000 0.26667
Worker-related comfort 0.59333 0.40667 0.59333 0.59333 0.64000 0.26667 0.50000 0.22000 0.26667 0.36000
Property-related security 0.73333 0.64000 0.59333 0.87333 0.73333 0.50000 0.50000 0.82667 0.78000 0.22000
Maintenance 0.78000 0.78000 0.31333 0.36000 0.17333 0.68667 0.64000 0.54667 0.31333 0.31333
Sustainability 0.82667 0.82667 0.59333 0.82667 0.78000 0.54667 0.59333 0.68667 0.78000 0.78000
Time in production 0.50000 0.96667 0.73333 0.87333 0.40667 0.31333 0.82667 0.73333 0.03333 0.03333
Time in non-production 0.92000 0.64000 0.82667 0.78000 0.73333 0.31333 0.59333 0.73333 0.08000 0.08000
Production characteristics 0.73333 0.82667 0.73333 0.78000 0.73333 0.31333 0.59333 0.64000 0.36000 0.36000
Other characteristics 0.50000 0.54667 0.82667 0.64000 0.64000 0.22000 0.22000 0.03333 0.45333 0.31333
(continued )
performance
assessment
Layout
matrix, Z
Direct relation
Table XII.
JMTM
Table XII.
Z Human- Worker- Property- Maintenance Sustainability Time in Time in Production Other
related related related production non- characteristics characteristics
Non-inventory cost 0.73333 0.68667 0.59333 0.78000 0.73333 0.87333 0.92000 0.82667 0.59333
Inventory cost 0.03333 0.17333 0.50000 0.59333 0.12667 0.22000 0.31333 0.31333 0.03333
Space relationship 0.40667 0.59333 0.31333 0.54667 0.26667 0.87333 0.82667 0.59333 0.54667
Material flow 0.54667 0.17333 0.31333 0.59333 0.73333 0.64000 0.82667 0.78000 0.31333
Non-material flow 0.59333 0.54667 0.31333 0.45333 0.59333 0.54667 0.82667 0.64000 0.03333
Robustness 0.36000 0.12667 0.03333 0.68667 0.17333 0.82667 0.87333 0.82667 0.36000
Volume flexibility 0.54667 0.45333 0.54667 0.54667 0.73333 0.82667 0.96667 0.87333 0.50000
Routing flexibility 0.50000 0.50000 0.31333 0.50000 0.73333 0.82667 0.92000 0.82667 0.64000
Topography and topology 0.64000 0.73333 0.45333 0.36000 0.50000 0.45333 0.78000 0.22000 0.08000
Community environment 0.82667 0.82667 0.26667 0.12667 0.73333 0.45333 0.40667 0.36000 0.12667
Human-related safety 0.03333 0.82667 0.17333 0.17333 0.40667 0.73333 0.73333 0.40667 0.64000
Worker-related comfort 0.78000 0.03333 0.03333 0.03333 0.40667 0.64000 0.73333 0.64000 0.64000
Property-related security 0.22000 0.22000 0.03333 0.22000 0.17333 0.36000 0.45333 0.12667 0.12667
Maintenance 0.73333 0.73333 0.59333 0.03333 0.78000 0.78000 0.68667 0.73333 0.50000
Sustainability 0.78000 0.78000 0.78000 0.54667 0.03333 0.78000 0.78000 0.73333 0.54667
Time in production 0.68667 0.68667 0.03333 0.40667 0.17333 0.03333 0.73333 0.64000 0.82667
Time in non-production 0.64000 0.54667 0.64000 0.64000 0.45333 0.68667 0.03333 0.36000 0.73333
Production characteristics 0.54667 0.50000 0.36000 0.82667 0.40667 0.82667 0.40667 0.03333 0.54667
Other characteristics 0.59333 0.64000 0.50000 0.64000 0.78000 0.59333 0.59333 0.59333 0.03333
X Non- Inventory Space Material Non-material Robustness Volume Routing Topography Community
cost
Inventory cost 0.04205 0.00256 0.03487 0.01692 0.00256 0.00974 0.04923 0.00256 0.00256 0.00256
Material flow 0.06718 0.02769 0.06718 0.00256 0.05641 0.05282 0.06359 0.06359 0.04564 0.02410
Robustness 0.02051 0.07077 0.03128 0.05282 0.01692 0.00256 0.06000 0.03487 0.00974 0.00256
Maintenance 0.06000 0.06000 0.02410 0.02769 0.01333 0.05282 0.04923 0.04205 0.02410 0.02410
Sustainability 0.06359 0.06359 0.04564 0.06359 0.06000 0.04205 0.04564 0.05282 0.06000 0.06000
(continued )
performance
assessment
Layout
Normalized direct
relation matrix, X
Table XIII.
JMTM
Table XIII.
X Human- Worker- Property- Maintenance Sustainability Time in Time in Production Other
Inventory cost 0.00256 0.01333 0.03846 0.04564 0.00974 0.01692 0.02410 0.02410 0.00256
Material flow 0.04205 0.01333 0.02410 0.04564 0.05641 0.04923 0.06359 0.06000 0.02410
Robustness 0.02769 0.00974 0.00256 0.05282 0.01333 0.06359 0.06718 0.06359 0.02769
Maintenance 0.05641 0.05641 0.04564 0.00256 0.06000 0.06000 0.05282 0.05641 0.03846
Sustainability 0.06000 0.06000 0.06000 0.04205 0.00256 0.06000 0.06000 0.05641 0.04205
T Non- Inventory Space Material Non-material Robustness Volume Routing Topography Community
cost
Inventory cost 0.11711 0.07612 0.11065 0.09800 0.07170 0.05609 0.11344 0.06631 0.04771 0.03453
Material flow 0.24920 0.20259 0.25354 0.20160 0.22214 0.16195 0.22054 0.21445 0.15194 0.10075
Robustness 0.15483 0.19545 0.16722 0.19205 0.13532 0.08288 0.17498 0.14379 0.08398 0.05559
Maintenance 0.22497 0.21721 0.19573 0.20721 0.16589 0.15046 0.19268 0.17812 0.12045 0.09323
Sustainability 0.26706 0.25299 0.25624 0.28080 0.24478 0.16335 0.22102 0.22073 0.17801 0.14336
(continued )
performance
assessment
Layout
Table XIV.
matrix, T
Total relation
JMTM
Table XIV.
T Human- Worker- Property- Maintenance Sustainability Time in Time in Production Other
Inventory cost 0.06559 0.07275 0.08221 0.10169 0.06554 0.09283 0.10373 0.09107 0.05512
Material flow 0.19432 0.16105 0.13011 0.18381 0.18977 0.23252 0.25716 0.22179 0.15034
Robustness 0.13646 0.11440 0.08029 0.15364 0.11080 0.19368 0.20409 0.17981 0.11983
Maintenance 0.19383 0.18765 0.14025 0.12862 0.17939 0.22478 0.22792 0.20290 0.15365
Sustainability 0.22931 0.22166 0.17472 0.19354 0.15404 0.26112 0.27489 0.23501 0.17972
1.5 Layout
C15 C1 performance
1 C2 assessment
C10 C9 C3
C8
0.5 C13 C14 C7 C4
C19
C6
C5
0 C1 C6
C18
0 2 4 6 8 10
C11 C5 C7
C12 C3
–0.5 C4 C8
C16 C17 C9
–1 C10
C11
–1.5 C12
C13
–2 C14 Figure 2.
C2 C15
The cause effect
diagram
–2.5
second most important factor. Material handling cost, future salvage value, capital cost of
the material handling equipment, setup cost, safety cost and energy costs are the important
measures that make the non-inventory cost (C1) sub-criteria very important.
Space relationship (C3) is found to be the third most important factor. Value-added area,
non-value-added area, storage space, dead space, required area, space efficiency and space
utilization are the important measures that make the space relationship (C3) sub-criteria
very important. Also, material flow (C1) and space relationship (C3) are the sub-criteria of
flow criterion, which means, flow is the most important criterion with respect to layout
performance assessment.
Second, the results of fuzzy DEMATEL method are taken into consideration as the basis
for the cause group. Within this context, sustainability (C15) has been found to be the most
influencing factor. Number of reused/recycled materials, environmental sustainability index,
and environmental performance index are the measures that make the sustainability (C15)
sub-criterion that affects the effect group criteria. Topography and topology (C9) is found to
be the second most influencing factor. Natural site conditions and construction, truck access
and circulation pattern and connection with external material handling equipment are the
measures of the topography and topology (C9) sub-criterion that helps the companies to
decrease the costs related with material handling and material flow activities. Community
environment (C10) is found to be the third most influencing factor. Impact of traffic congestion
and noise, waste management and pollution control, appearance of external or viewable
features are the measures of the community environment (C10) sub-criterion that decreases
the complexity and chaos within the work environment.
Finally, the results of fuzzy DEMATEL method are taken into consideration as the basis
for the effect group. Our investigation illustrated that inventory cost (C2) is found to be the
most influenced factor. Raw material, WIP and finished goods inventory holding costs,
backordering cost and losses are the measures of the inventory cost (C2) sub-criterion that
helps the companies decrease the costs related with inventory activities. Time in production
(C16) is found to be the second most influenced factor. Production time, setup time, overall
processing time and idle time are the measures of the time in production (C16) sub-criterion
JMTM that helps the companies save time within their production activities. Time in non-production
(C17) is found to be the third most influenced factor. Storage time, retrieval time, loading time,
unloading time, stoppages, transportation time are the measures of the time in non-production
(C17) sub-criterion that helps the companies decrease the time of non-value-added activities.
When the most influencing sub-criteria are analyzed, sustainability (C15) belongs to
environmental quality criterion, topography and topology (C9) and community environment
(C10) belong to surrounding environment criterion. Whereas when the most influenced
sub-criteria are analyzed, inventory cost (C2) belongs to cost criterion. Therefore, based on
the results of the study it can be revealed that the environmental quality and surrounding
environment criteria influence the time and the cost criteria.
From managerial point of view, the ultimate aim of competitiveness has diverged to a
point that cost leadership shall not be the only option for competitiveness but should be
supported by time in terms of speed, and this phenomenon is referred as responsiveness.
Hence, the managerial implications should involve cost and time reduction simultaneously.
In this study, the environmental quality and surrounding environment is found to be the
two criteria mostly affecting time and cost criteria. When a deeper analysis is conducted, it
is observed that sustainability (C15), topography and topology (C9), community

environment (C10) were the main influencing criteria. Hence, from managerial perspective
other than site and location selection, it may not be possible to change the topography and
topology. However, there can be significant actions to be taken to foster sustainability and
community environment.
This result proceeds us to the triple bottom line (TBL) approach, which is composed of
people, environment and economic dimensions. Increased popularity of sustainability and
sustainable production lead an extension in organizations focus area from traditional
financial objectives to other aspects (Hollos et al., 2012). These aspects were summarized by
Elkington (1997) by presenting a model called TBL, which is an integration of economic and
social/people dimensions of sustainability with environmental dimensions (Govindan et al.,
2013). In business management, TBL reporting gained an importance to measure important
elements of sustainability.
The economic term can be translated as competiveness in the long run, in terms of time
and cost criteria within the study. On the other hand, environmental quality is in line with
environment through sustainability (C15) sub-criterion, whereas surrounding environment
is in line with people dimension of the TBL approach through community environment (C10)
sub-criterion. Based on the results of the study, another contribution of the paper shall be
stated as the TBL approach for layout management. Thus, the layout management may
clearly contribute to achieve competitiveness through TBL. Since, the influencing criteria
mimic the environment and people dimensions, and influenced criteria behave as economic
dimension; TBL can play an important role to achieve competitiveness.
7. Conclusion and discussion

The FLP was one of the main research topics in industrial engineering and operations
management areas. It is the organization of efficient arrangement of interrelated facilities
(departments, machines) on a manufacturing floor in order to satisfy the objectives of the
firm (Aiello et al., 2013). An unfavorable layout, without regard to other factors, refers to
inefficiency (Abdinnour-Helm and Hadley, 2000). Therefore, the most interacted facilities
(departments, machines) are positioned next to each other.
Generally, the solution techniques may be classified in four categories: exact methods,
heuristics, metaheuristics and hybrid approaches (Moslemipour et al., 2012). On the other hand,
although the FLP was one of the main research topics in industrial engineering and operations
management areas, very little research has focused on the evaluation of facilities’ layout.
Most research aims to develop mathematical, heuristics, metaheuristics, and simulation models Layout
to constitute a layout, but fails to examine the performance of it. However, the evaluation performance
process of a layout is equally as important as the constitution of it. assessment
The models for the evaluation of the layout, in fact, evaluate the performance of the
operations. The evaluation of layout should examine the main characteristics of layouts
before the operation started to avoid high costs and loss of time caused by the re-layout
process. Therefore, for the performance evaluation of a layout, the indices, in other words,
the criteria, should be specified in order to gain insight into the impacts depending on a
layout alternative (Lin and Sharp, 1999a).
The past research was either dealing with the selection process of the best layout, or
planning process of an optimal layout. In this point, there is a gap in the literature about
overall understanding of the theoretical and methodological dimensions within a holistic
framework perspective. In this study, the main aim is to construct a new holistic
framework for layout performance assessment. Therefore, there are important and
distinctive differences between this study, and the past research with respect to holistic
point of view. Hence, in this study, first, the main criteria were set, then the sub-criteria
were determined, and finally the measurement variables were identified. The main three
contributions of this study are, first, to reveal the different dimensions of layout design
such as cost, flow, flexibility, surrounding environment, environment quality, time and
characteristics; second, to present a new holistic framework to support manufacturers in
the understanding of the systematic and holistic assessment of layout strategy through
three-dimensional hierarchy which includes the main criteria, sub-criteria and the
measures; and finally, to use fuzzy DEMATEL technique to identify the importance and
causal relationships between the sub-criteria.
The proposed framework may be generalized. The proposed framework was built in
order to include the different factors for layout performance assessment. The framework
can be used for every company to reach a conclusion about their layouts’ performance. The
application is unique to the company; however, the results may differ. The critical point here
is to build and use the proposed framework within a holistic view.
Further research may focus on finding the causal relationships among the criteria and
sub-criteria, weights of the criteria, respective weights of the measures and an overall
performance score of the company in order to reveal a road map.
References
Abdinnour-Helm, S. and Hadley, S.W. (2000), “Tabu search based heuristics for multi-floor facility
layout”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 38 No. 2, pp. 365-383.
Aiello, G., Scalia, G.L. and Enea, M. (2012), “A multi objective genetic algorithm for the facility layout
problem based upon slicing structure encoding”, Expert Systems with Applications, Vol. 39
No. 12, pp. 10352-10358.
Aiello, G., Scalia, G.L. and Enea, M. (2013), “A non-dominated ranking multi objective genetic algorithm
and ELECTRE method for unequal area facility layout problems”, Expert Systems with
Applications, Vol. 40 No. 12, pp. 4812-4819.
Al-Hawari, T., Mumani, A. and Momani, A. (2014), “Application of the analytic network process to
facility layout selection”, Journal of Manufacturing Systems, Vol. 33 No. 4, pp. 488-497.
Altuntas, S. and Selim, H. (2012), “Facility layout using weighted association rule-based data mining
algorithms: evaluation with simulation”, Expert Systems with Applications, Vol. 39 No. 1, pp. 3-13.
Altuntas, S., Selim, H. and Dereli, T. (2014), “A fuzzy DEMATEL-based solution approach for facility
layout problem: a case study”, International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology,
Vol. 73 No. 5, pp. 749-771.
JMTM Amaral, A.R.S. (2013), “Optimal solutions for the double row layout problem”, Optimization Letters,
Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 407-413.
Ashayeri, J., Heuts, R. and Tammel, B. (2005), “A modified simple heuristic for the p-median problem,
with facilities design applications”, Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing, Vol. 21
Nos 4-5, pp. 451-464.
Bozorgi, N., Abedzadeh, M. and Zeinali, M. (2015), “Tabu search heuristic for efficiency of dynamic
facility layout problem”, International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, Vol. 77
Nos 1-4, pp. 689-703.
Castillo, I. and Sim, T. (2004), “A spring-embedding approach for the facility layout problem”, Journal
of the Operational Research Society, Vol. 55 No. 1, pp. 73-81.
Chiang, W.C. and Chiang, C. (1998), “Intelligent local search strategies for solving facility layout
problems with the quadratic assignment problem formulation”, European Journal of Operational
Research, Vol. 106 Nos 2-3, pp. 457-488.
Dweiri, F. (1999), “Fuzzy development of crisp activity relationship charts for facilities layout”,
Computers & Industrial Engineering, Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. 1-16.
El-Baz, M.A. (2004), “A genetic algorithm for facility layout problems of different manufacturing
environments”, Computers and Industrial Engineering, Vol. 47 Nos 2-3, pp. 233-246.
Elkington, J. (1997), Cannibals with Forks: The Triple Bottom Line of 21st Century Business,
Capstone, Oxford.
Ertay, T., Ruan, D. and Tuzkaya, U.R. (2006), “Integrating data envelopment analysis and analytic
hierarchy for the facility layout design in manufacturing systems”, Information Sciences,
Vol. 176 No. 3, pp. 237-262.
Fontela, E. and Gabus, A. (1976), “The DEMATEL observer, DEMATEL 1976 report”, Battelle Geneva
Research Center, Geneva.
Francis, R.L., McGinnis, L.F. and White, J.A. (2009), Facility Layout and Location, an Analytical
Approach, 2nd ed., Prentice-Hall, New Delhi.
Gabus, A. and Fontela, E. (1972), World Problems, An Invitation to Further Thought Within the
Framework of DEMATEL, Battelle Geneva Research Centre, Geneva.
Gabus, A. and Fontela, E. (1973), “Perceptions of the world problematique: communication procedure,
communicating with those bearing collective responsibility”, DEMATEL Report No. 1, Battelle
Geneva Research Centre, Geneva.
Gantz, S.P. and Pettit, R.B. (1953), “Plant layout efficiency”, Modern Materials Handling, Vol. 9 No. 1,
pp. 65-67.
Govindan, K., Khodaverdi, R. and Jafarian, A. (2013), “A fuzzy multi criteria approach for measuring
sustainability performance of a supplier based on triple bottom line approach”, Journal of
Cleaner Production, Vol. 47, pp. 345-354.
Hadi-Vencheh, A. and Mohamadghasemi, A. (2013), “An integrated AHP-NLP methodology for facility
layout design”, Journal of Manufacturing Systems, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 40-45.
Hervani, A.A., Helms, M.M. and Sarkis, J. (2005), “Performance measurement for green supply chain
management”, Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 330-353.
Hess, P. and Siciliano, J. (1996), Management: Responsibility for Performance, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Hollos, D., Blome, C. and Foerstl, K. (2012), “Does sustainable supplier co-operation affect performance?
Examining implications for the triple bottom line”, International Journal of Production Research,
Vol. 50 No. 11, pp. 2968-2986.
Konz, S. (1985), Facility Design, Wiley, New York, NY.
Koopmans, T.J. and Beckmann, M. (1957), “Assignment problems and the location of economics
activities”, Econometrica, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 53-76.
Kumar, R. and Singh, S.P. (2017), “Optimal selection of multi-criteria unequal area facility layout Layout
problem: an integer linear program and Borda-Kendall-based method”, International Journal of performance
Business and Systems Research, Vol. 11 Nos 1-2, pp. 62-81.
assessment
Kuo, Y., Yang, T. and Huang, G.-W. (2008), “The use of grey relational analysis in solving multiple
attribute decision making problems”, Computers & Industrial Engineering, Vol. 55 No. 1, pp. 80-93.
Li, R.J. (1999), “Fuzzy method in group decision making”, Computers and Mathematics with
Applications, Vol. 38 No. 1, pp. 91-101.
Lin, C.L. and Sharp, G.P. (1999a), “Quantitative and qualitative indices for the plant layout evaluation
problem”, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 116 No. 1, pp. 100-117.
Lin, C.L. and Sharp, G.P. (1999b), “Application of the integrated framework for the plant layout
evaluation problem”, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 116 No. 1, pp. 118-138.
Lin, C.J. and Wu, W.W. (2008), “A causal analytical method for group decision-making under fuzzy
environment”, Expert Systems with Applications, Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 205-213.
Maniya, K.D. and Bhatt, M.G. (2011), “An alternative multiple attribute decision making methodology
for solving optimal facility layout design selection problems”, Computers & Industrial
Engineering, Vol. 61 No. 3, pp. 542-549.
Moslemipour, G., Lee, T.S. and Rilling, D. (2012), “A review of intelligent approaches for designing
dynamic and robust layouts in flexible manufacturing systems”, International Journal of
Advanced Manufacturing Technology, Vol. 60 Nos 1-4, pp. 11-27.
Muther, R. (1973), Systematic Layout Planning, Cahners Books, Boston, MA.
Opricovic, S. and Tzeng, G.H. (2003), “Defuzzification within a multicriteria decision model”,
International Journal of Uncertainty, Fuzziness and Knowledge-Based Systems, Vol. 11 No. 5,
pp. 635-652.
Opricovic, S. and Tzeng, G.H. (2004), “Compromise solution by MCDM methods: a comparative
analysis of VIKOR and TOPSIS”, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 156 No. 2,
pp. 445-455.
Oussalah, M. (2002), “On the compatibility between defuzzification and fuzzy arithmetic operations”,
Fuzzy Sets and Systems, Vol. 128 No. 2, pp. 247-260.
Shokri, H., Ashjari, B., Saberi, M. and Yoon, J.H. (2013), “An integrated AHP-VIKOR methodology for
facility layout design”, Industrial Engineering & Management Systems, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 389-405.
Singh, S.P. and Sharma, R.R.K. (2006), “A review of different approaches to the facility layout
problems”, International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, Vol. 30 Nos 5-6,
pp. 425-433.
Singh, S.P. and Singh, V.K. (2010), “An improved heuristic approach for multi-objective approach for
facility layout problem”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 48 No. 4,
pp. 1171-1194.
Singh, S.P. and Singh, V.K. (2011), “Three-level AHP-based heuristic approach for a multi-objective
facility layout problem”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 49 No. 4, pp. 1105-1125.
Tayal, A. and Singh, S.P. (2017), “Integrated SA-DEA-TOPSIS-based solution approach for multi
objective stochastic dynamic facility layout problem”, International Journal of Business and
Systems Research, Vol. 11 Nos 1-2, pp. 82-100.
Tompkins, J.A., White, J.A., Bozer, Y.A. and Tanchoco, J.M.A. (1996), Facilities Planning, Wiley,
New York, NY.
Tseng, M.L. (2009), “A causal and effect decision making model of service quality expectation using
grey-fuzzy DEMATEL approach”, Expert Systems with Applications, Vol. 36 No. 4, pp. 7738-7748.
Wäscher, G. and Merker, J. (1997), “A comparative evaluation of heuristics for the adjacency problem in
facility layout planning”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 35 No. 2, pp. 447-466.
Wu, W.W. and Lee, Y.T. (2007), “Developing global managers’ competencies using the fuzzy
DEMATEL method”, Expert Systems with Applications, Vol. 32 No. 2, pp. 499-507.
JMTM Yager, R.R. and Filev, D.P. (1994), Essentials of Fuzzy Modelling and Control, John Wiley and Sons,
New York, NY.
Yang, T. and Kuo, C. (2003), “A hierarchical AHP/DEA methodology for the facilities layout design
problem”, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 147 No. 1, pp. 128-136.
Yang, T. and Hung, C.C. (2007), “Multiple-attribute decision making methods for plant layout design
problem”, Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 126-137.
Yang, T., Su, C.T. and Hsu, Y.R. (2000), “Systematic layout planning: a study on semiconductor wafer
fabrication facilities”, International Journal of Operations and Production Management, Vol. 20
No. 11, pp. 1360-1372.
Zadeh, L.A. (1965), “Fuzzy sets”, Information and Control, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 338-353.
Corresponding author
Muhittin Sagnak can be contacted at: muhittin.sagnak@ikc.edu.tr
For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com

Jurnal Manajemen Operasional

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Jurnal Manajemen Operasional

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management

A new holistic conceptual framework for layout performance assessment

To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

Researcher (year) Performance indicators Objectives Research method

Researcher (year) Performance indicators Objectives Research method

critical importance through the inter-criteria

Non-inventory cost Inventory cost

3.4 Surrounding environment

Space relationship Material flow Non-material flow

Robustness Volume flexibility Routing flexibility

Topography and topology Community environment Table VI.

Time in production Time in non-production

Production characteristics Other characteristics

is identified by taking a weighted average in accordance with the membership functions.

(2) Calculate left and right normalized values:

Step 3: acquiring and aggregating the assessments of decision-makers. A group of

Linguistic terms Triangular fuzzy numbers

Very high influence (VH) (0.75,1.0,1.0)

is observed that sustainability (C15), topography and topology (C9), community

7. Conclusion and discussion

You might also like