Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2014) 70:2169–2186

DOI 10.1007/s00170-013-5369-z

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

An integrated design methodology based on the use of group

AHP-DEA approach for measuring lean tools efficiency
with undesirable output
Alireza Anvari & Norzima Zulkifli &
Shahryar Sorooshian & Omid Boyerhassani

Received: 17 December 2011 / Accepted: 27 September 2013 / Published online: 15 November 2013
# Springer-Verlag London 2013

Abstract The selection of lean tools is one of the crucial approaches has created synergy and shown to be even more
factors for decision makers and practitioners in a competitive powerful. Thus, the proposed integrated AHP-DEA model
environment. A few efforts have been made based on problem can evaluate and rank different alternatives while considering
selection. Conversely, numerical studies have been done on desirable and undesirable variables in the production
analytical hierarchy process (AHP)–data envelopment analy- processes.
sis (DEA) as well as DEA-undesirable variables separately.
Thus, there is a shortage of lean practitioners as well as the Keywords Lean manufacturing . Lean tools selection . AHP .
methods involved. The present research aims at integrating DEA . DMU's . Desirable and undesirable variables
AHP and DEA with desirable and undesirable factors to
evaluate the lean tools and techniques and to rank the aspect Nomenclature
of efficacy. We suggest a logical procedure to measure the AHP Analytical hierarchy process
efficacy of lean tools on leanness and to prioritize them as BCC Banker–Charnes–Cooper
decision makers. In this extensive research, we apply the CCR Charnes–Cooper–Rhodes
integrated multicriteria decision-making approach, including CM Continuous process manufacturing
the hybrid groups AHP and DEA models with desirable and CRS Constant returns to scale
undesirable variables, to assess the relative efficiency of lean DEA Data envelopment analysis
manufacturing tools and techniques. Case studies are used to DM Discrete manufacturing
demonstrate the lean implementation in companies while DMU Decision-making units
being validated by a panel of experts. The integration of these LM Lean manufacturing
SMED Single-minute exchange of dies
A. Anvari (*) TPM Total productive maintenance
Department of Industrial Engineering, Gachsaran Branch, TPS Toyota production system
Gachsaran, Iran TQM Total quality management
e-mail: ar_anvar@yahoo.com
VRS Variable returns to scale
N. Zulkifli VSM Value stream mapping
Department of Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering, UPM,
Serdang, Malaysia
e-mail: norzima@eng.upm.edu.my
1 Introduction
S. Sorooshian
Department of Industrial Engineering, Science and Research Branch,
Kerman, Iran There has been a paradigm shift from craft to mass production
e-mail: sorooshian@gmail.com and then lean manufacturing (LM) [1–3]. Mass production is
specified with repetitive high volume with limited variety;
O. Boyerhassani
meanwhile, LM is an integrated system with many tools and
Department of Industrial Engineering, Najafabad Branch,
Najafabad, Iran techniques, focused on waste elimination and value added,
e-mail: omidboyer@gmail.com thus leading to cost reduction [4, 5]. Some of the most
2170
important techniques of LM include total quality management
(TQM), total productive maintenance (TPM), 5S, single-
minute exchange of dies (SMED), kanban, kaizen, poka-
yoke, Jidoka, etc. [3, 6, 7].
Numerous tools and techniques have been developed to
tackle specific problems to eliminate nonvalue-added activi-
ties and become lean. Compared with the efforts made to
address “how to become leaner,” the statement “how lean
the system is” received less attention. An objective, quantita-
tive, and integrated measure of overall leanness has not been
established for lean practitioners; how tools and techniques
affect leanness, and to measure their effect on leanness.
In this paper, a methodology is proposed to quantify the
leanness level of manufacturing systems based on the data
envelopment analysis (DEA) technique [8]. Cost, lead time,
defects, and value are the four variables comprising the
decision-making units (DMUs) of the DEA model. Through
a cost–time-defects-value analysis, the value-added portions
of input and output variables are extracted to form the ideal
DMUs.
Analytical hierarchy process (AHP) and DEA are methods
that have been widely used to assess and rank multi-objective
decision alternatives [9]. This paper aims to clarify and rank
effective tools and techniques using an integrated qualitative
(AHP) and quantitative (DEA) approaches with desirable and
undesirable variables.
The next section reviews previous studies related to lean
tools selection of manufacturing systems. Section 3 presents
the AHP-DEA with undesirable output, including the input
and output variables and mathematical programs. Applica-
tions of the AHP-DEA with undesirable output are introduced
in Section 4, followed by the weighted DEA-leanness mea-
surement in Section 5. Finally, the contributions and future
extensions of this research are concluded in the last section.
2 Lean manufacturing
LM evolved from Toyota production system (TPS) and is an
integrated manufacturing strategy which is focused on the
maximization of capacity and minimization of system vari-
ability [10–12]. The term “lean” is defined as the elimination
of waste. The objective is to create the highest product value
for the customer while consuming the least amount of re-
sources to design, build, and sustain the product [13]. One
of the fundamental objectives of lean implementation is im-
proving competence in the market [15].
Lean tools selection for manufacturing, attracts researches
and there are several research reports in the subject area [16].
Reviewing available literature and finding missed links, this
paper found an interest in lean tools selection based on desir-
able and undesirable variables with the approach of
multicriteria decision making.
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2014) 70:2169–2186
2.1 Lean tools selection
One of the best ways to understand the essence of the LM
system is the “TPS house” of Liker [17]. Although, other
sources present different versions of the house, but the core
principles are the same. Quality, low cost, and shorter lead-
time are the results of having a good foundation. The founda-
tion of LM includes the following tools [18]. Andon,
Heijunka, Hoshin-Kanri, Five why, Jidoka, just in time,
Kaizen, Kanban, one-piece flow, point-of-use storage, poka-
yoke, SMED/quick changeover, standardized work, Takt
time, TPM, visual factory, value stream mapping (VSM),
and workplace organization/5S.
Some authors (e.g., [1, 3, 19, 20]), besides those mention-
ing tools and techniques, counted other practices such as
TQM, theory of constraint, six sigma, statistical process con-
trol, cellular layout, pull production system, etc., as founda-
tion, methods, tools, and techniques of LM.
Furthermore, lean tools selection is one of the major chal-
lenges facing managers and stakeholders. Lean tools selection
is the most important factor in success or failure in leanness. In
other words, techniques selection and implementation play a
critical role in leanness level. Consequently, leanness is knot-
ted to tools and techniques. As without implementation of a
proper technique, leanness level cannot be achieved. Success-
ful level in implementing techniques and achieving desired
goals can be defined in terms of leanness level.
Little effort has been committed to Lean tools selection.
Some studies (e.g., [21–25]) have been done directly or indi-
rectly on lean tools selection taxonomy. A number of studies
have investigated on the waste-based approach to lean tools
selection (e.g., [26–29]) classifying LM tools in seven levels
(system, object, operation, activity, resource, characteristic,
and application) based on some elements: information, time,
money, space, people, machines, material, management per-
formance, etc. Singh et al. [28] did a study on lean tools
selection in two industries: die casting industry and steel
industry. They found ten types of waste including over pro-
duction, waiting, transport, inappropriate processing, unnec-
essary inventory, unnecessary motion, defects, energy, inap-
propriate design, and human potential. The methodology of
tools selection study was fuzzy AHP waste-based. The results
show that the rank of selected tools is different in casting
compared with steel industries.
Meanwhile, Mahanpatra and Mohanty [30] have researched
LM in continuous process and discrete industry (continuous
process manufacturing (CM), such as chemical, metal extraction,
and textile and “discrete manufacturing” (DM) as in electronic
assembly and shipping). The survey was conducted to get rank-
ings of various tools in their level of applicability depending on
the type of operation of the industry/organization on a Likert-type
5-point scale. Result shows some tools and techniques including
Takt time, poka-yoke, work standardization, visual management,
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2014) 70:2169–2186
5S, TPM, VSM, changeover reduction, cellular manufacturing,
quality function deployment (QFD), and six sigma obtained
higher scores. From the study, obtained score level of tools were
different (e.g., the Takt time and poka-yoke obtained the highest
scores in DM, while TPM and changeover reduction in CM).
As a result, in this study, after defining and conceptualizing
leanness, the measurable quantitative factors are explained
considering cost and lead time as inputs and defects and value
as outputs. Moreover, a methodology is proposed to quantita-
tive lean tools selection of manufacturing systems using the
DEA technique. Selection of each tool and technique is de-
fined as a DMU that transforms inputs of cost, time, and
product defects into output values.
The DEA-lean tools selection is developed to quantify the
leanness level of each DMU. A cost–time-defect-value anal-
ysis is developed to create virtual DMUs to push the frontiers
towards ideal leanness. The lean tools selection can also be
weighted between cost, time, defects, and value variables.
2.2 Leanness in manufacturing systems
An explanation of the process of lean principle application is
termed leanness [31], which has been understood in different
ways by different researchers [32]. Leanness is the performance
measure of LM practices [12, 33]. The essence of leanness is the
efficient use of resources through the minimization of waste. The
fact leanness is a strategy to incur less input to better achieve
organizational goals through producing better output where
“input” refers to the physical quantity of resources used and their
costs and “output” refers to the quality and quantity of the
products sold and the corresponding customer services [33, 34].
3 Methodology
In this study, a combining approach of AHP-DEA with desir-
able and undesirable variables is applied. Thus, this section
describes each method separately and explains an integrated
AHP-DEA method.
3.1 AHP method
AHP was developed by Saaty [36]. This approach has been
utilized and studied widely and has been used mainly for
multicriteria decision making [9]. Moreover, AHP has been
used in different fields, such as alternative choosing, resource
allocation, optimization, conflict resolution, activity planning,
etc. [37, 38].
Additionally, AHP has been used to evaluate multi-objective
design alternatives for facility layouts and to integrate mathemat-
ical linear approaches [39]. Some researchers have focused on
integrating this method with others [40].When the AHP process
is applied to take the weights of attributes and alternative,
2171
decision makers should be consistent in the preference ratings.
Equation 1 labels the process of taking the overall weights of
alternatives based on group AHP. Furthermore, lean tools selec-
tion (as example) has been conducted using AHP method (Ap-
pendix B).
D ¼ ∥aij ¼ wi =w j ∥
0
1=k ð1Þ
a ij ¼ ∏ki¼1 aijl
D Pairwise comparison matrix
Wi Weight of each element
Wj Summation of the weight of each column
a′ ij Geometric average
l 1, 2, … k number of decision makers
i, j 1, 2, …, n, i ≠j
3.2 DEA evaluation method
The DEA model, as a mathematical programming linear
method, can support academics, practitioners, and researchers
to achieve the best results for multicriteria decision making
[9]. The DEA was first established as the Charnes–Cooper–
Rhodes (CCR) [41] and Banker–Charnes–Cooper (BCC)
models [42], which have been applied to assess the relative
efficiency of similar economic production systems. In fact,
DEA is a popular mathematical programming methodology
based on the efficiency frontier. It has been successfully
employed to study the comparative performance of units that
consume similar inputs and produce similar outputs. These
units are generally referred to DMUs [9].
It is noticeable that there is extensive research on ranking
techniques of the DEA-based approach. The typically used
DEA-based ranking techniques include cross-efficiency rank-
ing methods [48, 53]; benchmark ranking method [49]; rank-
ing with multivariate statistics in the DEA context, including
linear discriminant analysis [50]; super efficiency ranking
methods [51]; discriminant analysis of ratios [52]; and a few
other techniques. Furthermore, the rankings of inefficient
DMUs [54]; DEA and multicriteria decision-making methods
[55, 56] have performed satisfactorily in previous studies.
When evaluating the performance of lean tools in leanness,
DEA integrates the effect of lean tools of several desirable and
undesirable criteria through a single scalar degree, called the
efficiency score. An efficiency score of unity specifies the
maximum values of desirable/required attributes and the min-
imum values of undesirable/unrequested attributes. Whereas
an efficiency score of one indicates a better technical efficien-
cy, meanwhile an efficiency score of less than one is measured
as sub-optimal for an assumed set of criteria.
Figure 1 shows the hierarchy structure of the DEA process,
which consists of two input factors and two output factors. The
input factor consists of the lead time; cost and the two output
2172 Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2014) 70:2169–2186

factors are defects and value. The relative weights calculated Table 1 DMUs and inputs–outputs for DEA model
using group AHP approach is applied in conjunction with the DMUs Input Input ... Input Output Output ... Output
input and output factors employed in the DEA approach. 1 2 n 1 2 n
Assume that there are m DMUs producing n outputs using n
inputs. Let the mth DMU produce outputs y n using X n inputs. 1 X 11 X 12 ... X 1n y 11 y 12 ... y 1n
The resulting input–output structure of DMUs is shown in 2 X 21 X 22 ... X 2n Y 21 Y 22 ... Y 2n
Table 1. The objective of the DEA models is to identify the ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
DMUs that produce the highest amounts of outputs by consum- m X m1 X m2 ... X mn Y m1 Y m2 ... Y mn
ing lowest inputs. The efficiencies of other inefficient DMUs are
obtained relative to the efficient DMUs and are assigned effi-
inefficient. The other basic difference between DEA models is
ciencies score between zero and one. The efficiency scores are
return to scale. As shown in Fig. 2, the envelopment surface
computed using mathematical programming [58]. Additionally,
can take the form of CRS as evaluated in the CCR model, and
lean tools selection (as in the example) has been conducted using
VRS as evaluated in the BCC model too.
the DEA method (Appendix C).
Normally, the DEA models have been established to mea-
sure the efficiency in two dissimilar ways, namely input and
3.3 DEA and return to scale output oriented. The input-oriented model refers to using a
minimum of inputs; meanwhile the output-oriented model
Return to scale—it has long been recognized that DEA, by its refers to the capacity of a DMU to achieve the maximum
use of mathematical programming, is particularly adept at outcomes with the available inputs (Fig. 2). 0≤Input-oriented
estimating inefficiencies in multiple input and multiple output efficiency scores range≤1; whereas output-oriented efficiency
production correspondences. The CCR [41] model is based on scores≥1. In both cases, 1 is the efficient score [61].
the constant returns to scale (CRS). To allow for this possibil-
ity, Banker et al. [42] introduced the variable returns to scale
3.4 Undesirable outputs
(VRS) DEA model. In this study, technical efficiency is cal-
culated using the input-oriented VRS-DEA model. Thus,
There are two items in the DEA model, inputs and outputs.
“return to scale” is one of the major issues in DEA.
Nature of inputs should be decreased, and nature of outputs
According to Banker and Thrall [59]:
should be increased. Sometimes some inputs/outputs items are
If ; u−p ≤ 0 ≤ uþ
p then; RTS is constant;
unfavorable, e.g., finished goods perhaps are defective instead
Otherwise; RSC is variable; it means : of being of good quality. In this case, the defect product as
ð2Þ
If ; uþp < 0 then; RTS is increasing; output is named undesirable output. Therefore, most studies
If ; u−p > 0 then; RTS is decreasing: concerning the application of DEA-based models to activity
management performance measurement assume that the re-
The definition can be extended to the case of extreme scale duction of undesirable inputs/outputs and the increase of
size by considering only u +p for the smallest and u −p for the desirable outputs are proportional [16]. The difficulty is how
largest scale sizes.
In general, if the score of DMU equals to 1, then it is
efficient, but if the score of DMU is less than 1, then it is
Measuring
Lean Tools Efficiency
Set up Goal With Undesirable Outputs

Inputs Outputs

Criteria Lead time Cost Defects Value

Alternatives Tool 1 Tool 2 ... Tool 13

Fig. 2 The DEA models to measure the efficiency in input/output-
Fig. 1 Hierarchical structure of the DEA approach oriented models
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2014) 70:2169–2186 2173

to treat undesirable outputs jointly produced with desirable multiply each undesirable output by “−1” and then find a
outputs. Traditional literature only values the desirable and proper translation vector w to let all negative undesirable
simply ignores the undesirable. outputs be positive.
However, ignorance of the undesirable is equal to saying n o
that they have no value in the final evaluation and may present Where W ¼ Max ybj þ 1 ð6Þ
misleading results. It is therefore necessary to credit DMUs for
their provision of desirables and penalize them for their pro- where the jth column of (translated) bad output now y bi =
vision of undesirables. In the presence of undesirable outputs, −y bi +w >0
however, technologies with desirable outputs and undesirable Thus, it turns into the following linear program:
outputs relative to less input resources should be recognized as Max h
efficient [62–64]. Nevertheless, this method was proposed by St:
Seiford and Zhu [63] and supported by others (e.g., [64–68]). Xn
A DEA data domain can be characterized by a data matrix z ¼ 1
j¼1 j
with m rows and n columns.
Xn
  z j ygj ≥ hyg0
Y ð7Þ
p¼ ¼ ðP1 ; …; Pn Þ ð3Þ j¼1
−X X n
z j ybj ≥ hyb0
Xi As an input vector j¼1
Yi As an output vector Xn
z j x j ≤ x0
Each column corresponds to one of the DMUs. The jth j¼1

column is composed of an input vector x j whose ith compo- z j ≥ 0; n ¼ 1;2; …; n

nent x rj is the amount of input i used by DMUj and an output
y0 Efficiency score of DMU0
vector y j whose rth component y rj is the amount of output r
x ij Input variable i of DMUj
produced by DMUj .
y rj Output variable r of DMUj
The BCC efficiency can be obtained by calculating the
n Number of DMUs
following linear programming problem:
h Relative efficiency score
An input-oriented BCC model.
zj Eeighted input and output value
Xs
Max Z0 ¼ u y þw
r¼1 r r0
Xm
St: 3.5 A hybrid AHP-DEA with undesirable output model
yi xi0 ¼ 1
Xi¼1 t Xt ð4Þ
u ir y − v i x ij < 0; Generally, efficiency and flexibility of one single approach is not
i¼1 rj i¼1
j ¼ 1; 2; …; n sufficient to satisfy the requirements of practitioners who wish to
ur ; v j > 0 w  select the best alternative, so a synergistic integration of two or
more models is therefore desirable for solving the problem of
y0 Efficiency score of DMU0 alternative selection. There have been many attempts to do this
x ij Input variable i of DMUj [40]. Within this framework, a number of alternatives for inte-
y rj Output variable r of DMUj grated AHP and DEA models have been suggested [69–75].
n Number of DMUs Furthermore, in recent years, some researchers have
vi Weight for input variable i attempted to make variety on this area, such as [9, 58,
ur Weight for output variable r 76–88]. In addition, other authors like [40, 58, 83, 89–91]
m Number of input variables claimed that combined AHP-DEA approach is significant and
s Number of output variables has also been used in different ways. Moreover, a number of
authors have worked on DEA models with undesirable inputs
Now suppose the DEA data domain is expressed as: and outputs such as [63, 65–67, 70, 78, 92–97], etc. However,
0 g 1
  y AHP-DEA-Undesirable integrated was not to be conducted.
Y
¼ @ yb A ð5Þ In this study, a hybrid AHP-DEA with undesirable output
−X model for decision making regarding tools evaluation and
−X
selection is proposed. AHP-DEA in this model is mainly
where y g and y b represent the desirable (good) and undesir- devoted to evaluation of efficiency; all tools are evaluated
able (bad) outputs, respectively. Thus, to increase the y g and and compared with one each other based on their overall
to decrease the y b to improve the performance, we initially performance. The basic structure of this hybrid model is
2174
illustrated in Fig. 3 which shows the tools selection model
including efficiency evaluation. AHP-DEA is used for effi-
ciency evaluation for defining the goal, criteria, and the alter-
natives. Generally, the integrated AHP-DEA model enables
more efficient and effective selection [16, 82, 98].
Furthermore, integrated AHP-DEA with undesirable model
has been developed for performance measurement of LM
tools. AHP is used for deriving the weights for each multiple
input and output. The quality of each input and output is
captured through associating weight to each output measure
to obtain the weighted output score before applying the DEA.
Figure 3 shows the flow diagram of the integrated approach.
4 The proposed integrated algorithm
The present study proposes an integrated algorithm which deter-
mines lead time and cost as input variables and defects and value
as output variables, the ranking and efficiency of the lean tools
through BCC-DEA methods. Regarding the results of DEA
Fig. 3 Flow diagram of
integrated AHP-DEA with
undesirable variable model
Determining essentials lean attributes
Make pairwise comparison
Calculating weights of criteria
Check for consistency
0< CR< 0.1
Yes
Aggregate the weights
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2014) 70:2169–2186
method in addition to determine the ranking and efficiency of
the lean tools, it is possible to identify the optimization values of
the determined criteria. Figure 3 shows the stages involved in the
proposed algorithm for lean tools selection.
As is shown in Fig. 3, the first step in the proposed
algorithm pertains to identifying the criteria which affect the
operations evaluation as well as providing a list of lean tools
and techniques. The second step is to identify the criteria to
leanness; meanwhile identifying critical techniques has been
done in this step. After make pairwise comparison and
collecting data (weights) in step number 3, they should be
converted into quantitative indexes using AHP method for
calculating inconsistency ration and (if IR<0.1) modifying the
weights of techniques has been done.
In step number 5, the undesirable should be converted to
the desire through calculation. Then, after identification of
input and output criteria in step number 5, in the 6th step,
DEA method is used for weighing the alternatives on the basis
of four criteria as inputs and outputs. In step number 7, the
results of DEA method are verified and validated by some
Start
Set up Goal
Short list of tools & techniques
Determining critical techniques by
voting
Make pairwise comparison
Revision
Computing the weights of
techniques based on each criterion
No
Modifying the weights of
techniques using AHP
Change undesirable outputs to desirable
W=Max { } +1
Execution of proper DEA method for
determining the DMUs efficiency
Analyzing the results of DEA efficient and
in efficient
Finished
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2014) 70:2169–2186 2175

Table 2 Variables' attributes used in the study
Attributes Description
Lead time The time which a customer needs to wait to receiving product/
services. Lead time is the “key” measure of leanness
Cost The total amount should be paid for per product/service. So,
determination of the cost of a product/service by evaluating
the use of resources in its manufacturing has always been a
matter of great importance for companies
Defects Defects are products which do not match the desired design in
properties and/or quality. There is the product defect that
are defined here as defects in goods produced that are
not caught by in-line or end-of-line inspections and are
therefore passed on to customers
Value The customer's perspective is that value, the customer is
willing to pay for
criteria; if the result are verified and validated, then we should
go to step 8 which pertains to analyzing the results of DEA
optimization. Otherwise, we should go back to step number 4.
5 Application
Part of the data (criteria) used in this study is provided from
the published research report by Wan and Chen [8]. They
determined three criteria (lead time, cost as input; value as
output) based on the DEA technique. In this research, lead
time, cost (inputs), defects, value (outputs) are the four vari-
ables comprising the DMU of the DEA model. The proposed
methodology for this study quantifies the leanness level of
manufacturing systems based on the DEA technique [8].
“DMU” of the DEA model—each of the variables/
attributes is described in detail [99–103] in Table 2.
Moreover, a total of 35 alternatives (main lean tools and
techniques) were obtained through the combination of litera-
ture review and interview. Majority voting was used to select
main alternatives, because:
1- Voting can be defined as “a possible way to make the
decisions that allows large number of decision makers,
who are made in the community”. In other words, the
concept of voting is well known, where multiple opinions
shared by people must be merged into one final decision
[104].
2- The majority vote is just as effective as the other more
complex systems in refining the identified rate for the data
set used [105, 106].
Consequently, thirteen tools and techniques were selected
as alternatives based on majority voting (21 experts), so that
the winner gets over 50 % of the votes [104]. As a result,
thirteen tools and techniques designated as alternatives and/or
DMUs are important. A summary description of the men-
tioned practices [107, 108] are presented in Table 3.
Moreover, in this research, we apply AHP-DEA and unde-
sirable output hybrid model to prioritize (by five experts) lean
tools. It should be noted that even though the use of DEA
scores for ranking is problematic, DEA is a suitable meth-
odology for performance evaluations using experts’
model. The value and acceptance of a study and any
resulted rankings are directly dependent upon expert opin-
ion; experts who are experienced and have the relevant
expertise [109].

Table 3 Decision making units (DMUs) in the study

DMUs Description

5S Five related terms, beginning with an S sound, describing workplace practices conducive to visual control
Six sigma A methodology and set of tools used to improve quality to than 3.4 defects per million or better
Cellular manufacturing The layout of machines of different types performing different operations in a tight sequence
(typically in a U-shape) to permit single piece flow and flexible deployment of human effort
Continuous flow Producing and moving one item / items at a time through a series of processing steps as continuously
as possible, with each step making just what is requested by the next step
Jidoka One of the two pillars of the Toyota Production System along with just in time. Stopping a line automatically
when a defective part is detected
Leveling Smoothing out the production schedule by averaging out both the volume and mix of products
Poka-yoke Refers to a mistake-proofing device or procedure used to prevent a defect during the production process
Multiskills This encourages people to adapt to planned changes or occurrence of unanticipated events
Pull system A method of production control in which downstream activities signal their needs to upstream activities
Setup reduction The ability to change tooling and fixtures rapidly, so multiple products can be run on the same machine
Standard works Establishing precise procedures for each operator's work in a production process, based on three elements:
Takt time, the precise work sequence, and the standard inventory
Synchronize The bringing together of materials information and anything else needed in a coordinated manner such
that no part is waiting long for another
TPM A set of techniques to ensure that every machine in a production process always is able to perform its required tasks
2176 Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2014) 70:2169–2186

Table 4 Scores of four criteria by decision makers

Lead time Cost Defects Value

Lead time (1,1,1,1,1) (2,3,2,4,3) (1,1/2,1/3,1/3,1/2) (1/3,1/2,1/5,1/2,1/4)

Cost (1/3,1/3,1/2,1/4,1/3) (1,1,1,1,1) (2/5,1/2,1/2,1/4,1/2) (1/5,1/3,1/5,1/4,1/5)
Defects (1,2,3,3,2) (5/2,2,2,4,2) (1,1,1,1,1) (1/3,1/3,1/5,1/2,1/5)
Value (3,2,5,2,4) (5,3,5,4,5) (3,3,5,2,5) (1,1,1,1,1)

AHP is to produce a weighing of the effective units; the determined to belong to the efficient frontier group using the
BCC-DEA as an analytical procedure, based on mathematical DEA model. In addition, an efficiency score of 1.0 is the
programming; and undesirable output as a negative factor are optimal status considering the ratio of output variables over
applied in this integrated model. This study aims to clarify and input variables from benefit cost analysis concept.
rank effective tools and techniques using an integrated quali- The efficient frontier group, consisting of lean tools, in-
tative (AHP) and quantitative (DEA) approaches with unde- cludes five techniques achieving relative efficiency scores of
sirable outputs. 1.0: continuous flow, poka-yoke, standard works, synchro-
We made pairwise comparisons of four criteria to assess the nize, and TPM. The other eight tools and techniques have
leanness. Table 4 shows the evaluation matrix with response been found to be relatively inefficient DMUs, following a
(five experts) to the goal. comparison with the relative efficiency scores. After deter-
The result of the evaluation of criteria, which is the mean mining efficiency DMUs, according to Table 11, it is possible
value, is shown in Table 5; so that the final weights of lead to rank all of them as follows: (continuous flow, poka-
time, cost, defects, and values are 0.18, 0.09, 0.22, and 0.51 yoke, standard works, synchronize, and TPM )>leveling>6
respectively (Appendix A). Among four criteria, value is sigma>cellular>setup reduction>Jidoka>pull system>
preferred over the other three. After having known the weights multiskill>5S (Table 11).
of each criterion, the optimum selection model can be used. This hybrid model of AHP-DEA with undesirable variable
Table 6 shows multiple inputs and outputs data, which are is used for efficiency evaluation for defining the goal, criteria,
shortlisted for the selection of lean tools to leanness. We made and the alternatives. The integrated model enables more effi-
pairwise comparisons of the 13 alternatives based on the four cient and effective selection. The advantage of using the
criteria's effect on leanness. Table 6 shows the evaluation combined model has been developed for performance mea-
matrix with response (five experts) to leanness. surement of LM tools.
Table 7 shows multiple inputs and outputs data, with de- The attempt of this study is the first time of using the
sirable and undesirable variables which are aggregated to explained integrated methods. Moreover, there is no similar
select lean tools.
Table 8 shows the preferred data applied to the relative
weights of the group AHP criteria (Eq. 1), where in four
Table 6 Scores of thirteen alternatives by decision makers under all
multiple inputs and outputs data did not undergo any changes. criteria
It describes the data multiplied by the group AHP results for
measuring the relative efficiency of lean tools using the DEA Alternatives Lead time Cost Defects Value
approach.
5S (1,2,1,2,3) (3,4,3,2,7) (5,5,5,3,7) (3,3,3,2,3)
Table 9 shows the preferred data applied to the group AHP
Six sigma (3,2,3,2,3) (4,5,4,4,3) (5,4,8,5,3) (5,4,5,2,3)
criteria, where four multiple inputs and outputs data are
Cellular (4,5,4,4,7) (4,4,4,3,3) (2,3,2,2,3) (3,2,2,2,7)
changed to desirable (Eq. 6). manufacturing
Table 10 shows the relative efficiency scores and the ranks Continuous flow (5, 5,5,4,9) (5,4,5,3,7) (3,3,3,2,5) (5,4,4,2,9)
of thirteen lean tools and techniques. Jidoka (3,3,2,2,5) (5,5,5,2,3) (5,5,5,4,3) (3,2,4,3,3)
The efficiency scores of all DMUs were calculated using Leveling (5,0,5,2,7) (5,3,5,3,3) (3,2,2,2,3) (4,4,5,2,7)
basic BCC-DEA model as the local weights (Eq. 7). An Multiskill workers (4,3,4,3,3) (4,4,4,3,5) (4,5,4,3,7) (3,2,2,2,3)
efficiency score of 1.0 means a lean tool/technique has been Poka-yoke (1,2,1,3,2) (3,4,2,3,3) (5,5,7,5,5) (2,1,3,2,3)
Pull system (5, 5,7,4,3) (5,3,5,5,5) (2,2,2,2,5) (5,5,6,3,3)
Table 5 Weight importance of the criteria Setup reduction (5,5,5,4,5) (5,3,6,2,5) (3,4,2,2,1) (5,5,5,2,3)
Standard works (2,4,1,3,3) (3,4,3,3,3) (5,4,5,2,5) (3,2,3,2,3)
Criteria Lead time Cost Defects Value
Synchronize (2,3,2,2,5) (3,5,2,2,3) (4,5,4,3,2) (1,1,2, 2,5)
Wj 0.175902 0.087615 0.223401 0.513082 TPM (3,5,3,4,3) (4,5,4,3,7) (5,5,5,2,5) (3,5,4,2,3)
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2014) 70:2169–2186 2177

Table 7 DMUs data-calculated scores of alternatives based on desirable Table 9 DMUs data-calculated scores of alternatives after changing to
and undesirable criteria desirable criteria

No. Input Output Input Output

Alternatives Lead time Cost Defects Value Alter Lead time Cost Defects Value

1 5S 3.5195 4.4163 4.162766 3.2453 1 0.619087 0.386934 1.264794 1.665105

2 Six sigma 2.5508 3.9487 4.742881 3.5944 2 0.448691 0.345965 1.135196 1.844222
3 Cellular 4.6779 3.5652 2.352158 2.7866 3 0.822852 0.312365 1.669286 1.429754
4 Continuous flow 3.8981 4.6179 3.063887 4.2823 4 0.685684 0.404597 1.510285 2.197171
5 Jidoka 2.8252 3.7585 4.317359 2.9302 5 0.496958 0.329301 1.230258 1.503433
6 Leveling 2.3522 3.1777 3.981071 2.5508 6 0.413757 0.278414 1.305385 1.30877
7 Multiskill 3.3659 3.9487 4.416333 2.3522 7 0.592069 0.345965 1.208147 1.206871
8 Poka-yoke 1.6438 2.9302 5.348051 2.0477 8 0.289148 0.256729 1 1.050638
9 Pull system 4.6179 4.5144 2.402248 4.2273 9 0.812298 0.395529 1.658095 2.168952
10 Setup reduction 4.7818 3.8981 2.168943 3.7585 10 0.841128 0.341532 1.710216 1.928419
11 Standard works 3.2271 3.6801 2.352158 4.0723 11 0.567653 0.322432 1.669286 2.089424
12 Synchronize 2.6052 2.8252 3.437543 1.8206 12 0.45826 0.24753 1.426809 0.934117
13 TPM 1.6438 3.4713 4.828651 2.7663 13 0.289148 0.304138 1.116035 1.419339

work in the available literature, comparable to the hybrid based) that the final results shown in Tables 10 and 11. Finally,
model; thus, in the absence of appropriate standards, expert methods and results, validated within experts as it is shown in
opinion seems to be the best yardstick for welfare assessment Fig. 4. Therefore, this study had achieved its objectives with
[110]. validated method and result.
Consequently, a questionnaire including four features with
ten questions was provided (Appendix D). The questions were
focused on four items, factors by objectives (arranging factors,
6 Discussion and conclusions
interface, and availability), implementing (confidence and
usability), user friendly (clarity, feasibility, flexibility, and
The lean tools selection is a multicriteria decision making
easiness), and topic importance. Figure 4 shows the summary
problem that involves subjective value judgments. This study
of results. Therefore, the study proposed a method for system-
is an attempt to use a new methodology to solve this complex
atically selecting lean tools (Fig. 3), named wholly (leanness
multicriteria problem with qualitative and quantitative factors.
A number of multiple criteria decision models may be used for
Table 8 DMUs data-calculated scores of alternatives based on all criteria
with weighing achieved

Input Output Table 10 Efficiency and ranking results of proposed method

Alter Lead time Cost Defects Value No Alternative Tools Efficiency Ranked

1 0.619087 0.386934 0.929966 1.665105 1 5S 0.7634957 9

2 0.448691 0.345965 1.059564 1.844222 2 Six sigma 0.9795341 3
3 0.822852 0.312365 0.525474 1.429754 3 Cellular 0.9626443 4
4 0.685684 0.404597 0.684475 2.197171 4 Continuous flow 1 1
5 0.496958 0.329301 0.964502 1.503433 5 Jidoka 0.8660377 6
6 0.413757 0.278414 0.889375 1.30877 6 Leveling 0.9877086 2
7 0.592069 0.345965 0.986613 1.206871 7 Multiskill 0.7673754 8
8 0.289148 0.256729 1.19476 1.050638 8 Poka-yoke 1 1
9 0.812298 0.395529 0.536665 2.168952 9 Pull system 0.8462198 7
10 0.841128 0.341532 0.484544 1.928419 10 Setup reduction 0.9467484 5
11 0.567653 0.322432 0.525474 2.089424 11 Standard works 1 1
12 0.45826 0.24753 0.767951 0.934117 12 Synchronize 1 1
13 0.289148 0.304138 1.078725 1.419339 13 TPM 1 1
2178 Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2014) 70:2169–2186

Table 11 Final result of main lean tools ranking based on integrated method

DMUs Continuous flow, poka-yoke, standard works, Leveling Six Cellular Setup Jidoka Pull Multiskill 5S
synchronize, and TPM sigma reduction system

Efficiency 1 0.99 0.98 0.96 0.95 0.87 0.85 0.77 0.76

Ranked 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

evaluation of the lean tools with desirable and undesirable
variables. Clearly, there is more work to be done on the
development of AHP-DEA or DEA-undesirable variables
with qualitative and quantitative criteria. However, AHP-
DEA-undesirable integrated was not conducted. Therefore,
this may present itself as a challenge for the present research.
In this study, we applied AHP-DEA, and undesirable out-
put hybrid model to prioritize lean tools. AHP is used here to
derive the weights for the different input and output measures
to reflect their respective importance. The advantage of using
the AHP is its ability to make qualitative index into the
quantitative one. Likewise, using DEA individual may not
provide the suitable results to the decision makers about the
performance of the organizations for interpreting the results.
Thus, AHP is to produce a weighing of the effective units; the
BCC-DEA as an analytical procedure, based on mathematical
programming; and undesirable output as a negative factor are
applied in this integrated model. The integrated AHP-DEA-
undesirable approach can improve the discriminating ability
for preferences to avoid the confusion of inputs and outputs
criteria that is often encountered when solely implementing the
DEA approach. A hybrid model can take advantage of various
methodologies. The hybrid model will be more helpful in
assisting integrated decision making for the purpose of tools
evaluation and selection.
The results show the relative efficiency scores and the
ranks of the thirteen lean tools and techniques studied. The
efficient DMUs (lean tools), are five tools and techniques
(with items such as continuous flow, poka-yoke, standard
works, synchronize, and TPM); and the other eight tools and
techniques are inefficient DMUs (with items such as leveling,
six sigma, cellular, setup reduction, Jidoka, pull system,
multiskill, and 5S).
However, empirical results indicate that this proposed ap-
proach provides a comprehensive measure of influence incor-
porating tools and techniques, which in general reflect effi-
ciency and effectiveness of the manufacturing systems, re-
spectively. A methodology that provides lean tools selection
to assist the practitioners in defining the objectives and
implementing of LM is developed.
This paper showed the applicability and superiority
of the integrated AHP-DEA with undesirable output in

Fig. 4 A diagram of method

dimensions and positive percent
agreement
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2014) 70:2169–2186 2179

lean tools selection. Moreover, the proposed framework
may be used to study the lean tools selection in other
industries as well as other countries. This is the first
study that integrated DEA and AHP with undesirable
variable for optimization of lean tools selection in au-
tomotive industry based on both qualitative and quanti-
tative indicators.
The results show that the rank of selected tools is different
from other researches. The reason is previous studies which
have been conducted using the problem-based approach; it is
not based on a holistic, structured, and systematic procedure.
In this study, the proposed methodology for lean tools
selection is holistic based. Accepting a holistic lean approach
through the whole enterprise is a path rather than a target. It
requires frequent monitoring and additive improvement with-
in each functional department and through all outward rela-
tionships. A holistic approach provides insight into the overall
aspects of a holistic LM program and demonstrates how to
setup and manage a lean program. A holistic approach to lean
is beneficial in securing sustained improvement; it provides an
overall view of what to do and leads to a structured system.
Finally, this paper provides a logical and rational method-
ology for selection of lean tools thus resulting in identification
path of leanness in the organization. The integrated method
described in this paper can be used to categorize LM tools and
metrics systematically and logically, making tool selection
easier for organizations.
Acknowledgments This research was conducted by Department of
Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering, “University Putra Malaysia.”
Moreover, authors thank knowledgeable reviewers of the journal for their
helpful comments to improve the work from the first submission to the
final acceptance.

Appendix A

Calculating the consistency ratio

Table 12 Rating weights of

criteria by the comparison matrix Lead time Cost Defects Value

Lead time (1,1,1,1,1) (3,3,2,4,3) (1,1/2,1/3,1/3,1/2) (1/3,1/2,1/5,1/2,1/4)

Cost (1/3,1/3,1/2,1/4,1/3) (1,1,1,1,1) (2/5,1/2,1/2,1/4,1/2) (1/5,1/3,1/5,1/4,1/5)
Defects (1,2,3,3,2) (5/2,2,2,4,2) (1,1,1,1,1) (1/3,1/3,1/5,1/2,1/5)
Value (3,2,5,2,4) (5,3,5,4,5) (3,3,5,2,5) (1,1,1,1,1)

Table 13 Geometric average of rating weights of criteria by the compar-

ison matrix

Lead time Cost Defects Value Table 15 Weight importance of the criteria

Criteria Lead time Cost Defects Value

Lead time 1 2.93 0.4883 0.3341
Cost 0.3413 1 0.4163 0.2316 Wj 0.1759 0.0876 0.2234 0.5131
Defects 2.0476 2.402 1 0.2947 Ranked 3 4 2 1
Value 2.9925 4.317 3.393 1
∑ 6.3814 10.649 5.2976 1.8604

Table 14 Normalization of rating weights of criteria by the comparison Table 16 Weights criteria multiplied by Geometric average of matrix
matrix
Wj 0.175902 0.087615 0.223401 0.513082
Lead time Cost Defects Value Average Lead time Cost Defects Value

Lead time 0.156705 0.275143 0.092174 0.179585 0.175902 Lead time 1 2.930 0.4883 0.3341
Cost 0.053484 0.093906 0.078583 0.124489 0.087615 Cost 0.3413 1 0.4163 0.2316
Defects 0.32087 0.225561 0.188765 0.158407 0.223401 Defects 2.0476 2.402 1 0.2947
Value 0.468941 0.40539 0.640479 0.537519 0.513082 Value 2.9925 4.317 3.393 1
2180 Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2014) 70:2169–2186

Table 17 Calculating weighted

sum vector by weights criteria Lead time Cost Defects Value Sum
multiplied by geometric average
of matrix Lead time 0.175902 0.256712 0.109087 0.171421 0.713121
Cost 0.060035 0.087615 0.093002 0.11883 0.359482
Defects 0.360177 0.210451 0.223401 0.151205 0.945234
Value 0.526387 0.378234 0.758 0.513082 2.175702

Table 18 Calculation of the consistency vector

0.713121 ÷ 0.175902 = 4.054081

0.359482 0.087615 4.102973
0.945234 0.223401 4.231109
2.175702 0.513082 4.240457
Average 4.157155

Average of weighted sum vector=γ max =4.157155. CI=(γ max −n)/n .

CI=(4.157155–4)/3= 0.052. CR = CI/RI. RI = 0.052/0.9 = 0.06. As
0.06<0.1, so the judgments are acceptably
CI consistency indexes, n number of alternatives, CR consistency rate,
RI random indexes

Appendix B

Prioritization of the thirteen alternatives under four criteria

by AHP Method

Table 19 Scores of 13 alterna-

tives by decision makers under all Alternatives Lead time Cost Defects Value
criteria
5S (1,2,1,2,3) (3,4,3,2,7) (5,5,5,3,7) (3,3,3,2,3)
Six sigma (3,2,3,2,3) (4,5,4,4,3) (5,4,8,5,3) (5,4,5,2,3)
Cellular manufacturing (4,5,4,4,7) (4,4,4,3,3) (2,3,2,2,3) (3,2,2,2,7)
Continuous flow (5, 5,5,4,9) (5,4,5,3,7) (3,3,3,2,5) (5,4,4,2,9)
Jidoka (3,3,2,2,5) (5,5,5,2,3) (5,5,5,4,3) (3,2,4,3,3)
Leveling (5,0,5,2,7) (5,3,5,3,3) (3,2,2,2,3) (4,4,5,2,7)
Multiskill workers (4,3,4,3,3) (4,4,4,3,5) (4,5,4,3,7) (3,2,2,2,3)
Poka-yoke (1,2,1,3,2) (3,4,2,3,3) (5,5,7,5,5) (2,1,3,2,3)
Pull system (5, 5,7,4,3) (5,3,5,5,5) (2,2,2,2,5) (5,5,6,3,3)
Setup reduction (5,5,5,4,5) (5,3,6,2,5) (3,4,2,2,1) (5,5,5,2,3)
Standard works (2,4,1,3,3) (3,4,3,3,3) (5,4,5,2,5) (3,2,3,2,3)
Synchronize (2,3,2,2,5) (3,5,2,2,3) (4,5,4,3,2) (1,1,2, 2,5)
TPM (3,5,3,4,3) (4,5,4,3,7) (5,5,5,2,5) (3,5,4,2,3)
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2014) 70:2169–2186 2181

Table 20 DMUs data—weights

of criteria multiplied by weights No. Wj 0.175902 0.087615 0.223401 0.513082
geometric average of alternatives Alternatives Lead time Cost Defects Value
matrix
A1 5S 3.5195 4.4163 4.162766 3.2453
A2 Six sigma 2.5508 3.9487 4.742881 3.5944
A3 Cellular 4.6779 3.5652 2.352158 2.7866
A4 Continuous flow 3.8981 4.6179 3.063887 4.2823
A5 Jidoka 2.8252 3.7585 4.317359 2.9302
A6 Leveling 2.3522 3.1777 3.981071 2.5508
A7 Multiskill 3.3659 3.9487 4.416333 2.3522
A8 Poka-yoke 1.6438 2.9302 5.348051 2.0477
A9 Pull system 4.6179 4.5144 2.402248 4.2273
A 10 Setup reduction 4.7818 3.8981 2.168943 3.7585
A 11 Standard works 3.2271 3.6801 2.352158 4.0723
A 12 Synchronize 2.6052 2.8252 3.437543 1.8206
A 13 TPM 1.6438 3.4713 4.828651 2.7663

Table 21 Normalization of rat-

ing weights of alternatives based No Alternatives Lead time Cost Defects Value Average
on all criteria and prioritizing
alternatives A1 5S 0.619087 0.386934 0.929966 1.665105 0.900273
A2 Six sigma 0.448691 0.345965 1.059564 1.844222 0.924611
A3 Cellular 0.822852 0.312365 0.525474 1.429754 0.772611
A4 Continuous flow 0.685684 0.404597 0.684475 2.197171 0.992982
A5 Jidoka 0.496958 0.329301 0.964502 1.503433 0.823549
A6 Leveling 0.413757 0.278414 0.889375 1.30877 0.722579
A7 Multiskill 0.592069 0.345965 0.986613 1.206871 0.78288
A8 Poka-yoke 0.289148 0.256729 1.19476 1.050638 0.697819
A9 Pull system 0.812298 0.395529 0.536665 2.168952 0.978361
A 10 Setup reduction 0.841128 0.341532 0.484544 1.928419 0.898906
A 11 Standard works 0.567653 0.322432 0.525474 2.089424 0.876246
A 12 Synchronize 0.45826 0.24753 0.767951 0.934117 0.601964
A 13 TPM 0.289148 0.304138 1.078725 1.419339 0.772837
2182 Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2014) 70:2169–2186

0.772837
Appendix C

TPM
A13

9
BCC-DEA method-without considering AHP, weighting,
Synchronize
and undesirable variables.
0.601964
Table 23 Scores of 13 alternatives by decision makers under all criteria
A12

12

No. Alternatives Lead Cost Defects Value

Standard works

time
0.876246

A1 5S (1,2,1,2,3) (3,4,3,2,7) (5,5,5,3,7) (3,3,3,2,3)

A2 Six sigma (3,2,3,2,3) (4,5,4,4,3) (5,4,8,5,3) (5,4,5,2,3)
A11

A3 Cellular (4,5,4,4,7) (4,4,4,3,3) (2,3,2,2,3) (3,2,2,2,7)

manufacturing
Setup reduction

A4 Continuous flow (5, 5,5,4,9) (5,4,5,3,7) (3,3,3,2,5) (5,4,4,2,9)

A5 Jidoka (3,3,2,2,5) (5,5,5,2,3) (5,5,5,4,3) (3,2,4,3,3)
0.898906

A6 Leveling (5,0,5,2,7) (5,3,5,3,3) (3,2,2,2,3) (4,4,5,2,7)

A10

A7 Multiskill workers (4,3,4,3,3) (4,4,4,3,5) (4,5,4,3,7) (3,2,2,2,3)

5

A8 Poka-yoke (1,2,1,3,2) (3,4,2,3,3) (5,5,7,5,5) (2,1,3,2,3)

Pull system
0.978361

A9 Pull system (5, 5,7,4,3) (5,3,5,5,5) (2,2,2,2,5) (5,5,6,3,3)

A 10 Setup reduction (5,5,5,4,5) (5,3,6,2,5) (3,4,2,2,1) (5,5,5,2,3)
A9

A 11 Standard works (2,4,1,3,3) (3,4,3,3,3) (5,4,5,2,5) (3,2,3,2,3)

2

A 12 Synchronize (2,3,2,2,5) (3,5,2,2,3) (4,5,4,3,2) (1,1,2, 2,5)

Poka-yoke
0.697819

A 13 TPM (3,5,3,4,3) (4,5,4,3,7) (5,5,5,2,5) (3,5,4,2,3)

A8

12
Multiskill
0.78288
A7

8
0.722579
Leveling
A6

11
0.823549
Jidoka
A5

Table 24 DMUs data—geometric average of alternatives based on all

criteria
Continuous flow

No Inputs Output
0.992982

Alternatives Lead time Cost Defects Value

A4

A1 5S 3.5195 4.4163 4.162766 3.2453

0.772611
Cellular

A2 Six sigma 2.5508 3.9487 4.742881 3.5944

A3 Cellular 4.6779 3.5652 2.352158 2.7866
A3

10
Table 22 Final ranking of 13 alternatives

A4 Continuous flow 3.8981 4.6179 3.063887 4.2823

Six sigma

A5 Jidoka 2.8252 3.7585 4.317359 2.9302

0.924611

A6 Leveling 2.3522 3.1777 3.981071 2.5508

A2

A7 Multiskill 3.3659 3.9487 4.416333 2.3522

3

A8 Poka-yoke 1.6438 2.9302 5.348051 2.0477

0.900273

A9 Pull system 4.6179 4.5144 2.402248 4.2273

A1

5S

A 10 Setup reduction 4.7818 3.8981 2.168943 3.7585

4

A 11 Standard works 3.2271 3.6801 2.352158 4.0723

Alternative

A 12 Synchronize 2.6052 2.8252 3.437543 1.8206

Ranked
Weight

A 13 TPM 1.6438 3.4713 4.828651 2.7663

No.
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2014) 70:2169–2186 2183

1.000000
BCC Method by Lingo Software
A 13
Tool (0.7725496)
1.000000 Maximize 3.2453u1+w
Subject to
A 12

1. 3.5195v1+4.4163v2+4.162766v 3=1
2. 3.2453u1−3.5195v1−4.4163v2−4.162766v3+w ≤0
3. 3.5944u1−2.5508v1−3.9487v2−4.742881v3+w ≤0
1.000000

4. 2.7866u1−4.6779v1−3.5652v2−2.352158v3+w ≤0
A 11

5. 4.2823u1−3.8981v1−4.6179v2−3.063887v3+w ≤0
6. 2.9302u1−2.8252v1−3.7585v2−4.317359v3+w ≤0
7. 2.5508u1−2.3522v1−3.1777v2−3.981071v3+w ≤0
1.000000

8. 2.3522u1−3.3659v1−3.9487v2−4.416333v3+w ≤0
A 10

9. 2.0477u1−1.6438v1−2.9302v2−5.348051v3+w ≤0
10. 4.2273u1−4.6179v1−4.5144v2−2.402248v3+w ≤0
11. 3.7585u1−4.7818v1−3.8981v2−2.168943v3+w ≤0
1.000000

12. 4.0723u1−3.2271v1−3.6801v2−2.352158v3+w ≤0
13. 1.8206u1−2.6052v1−2.8252v2−3.437543v3+w ≤0
A9

14. 2.7663u1−1.6438v1−3.4713v2−4.828651v3+w ≤0
15. u1>=0
1.000000

16. v1>=0
17. v2>=0
A8

18. v3>=0
19. w >=0
0.7737939

Similarly, this formula has been applied for the other alter-
natives (tools and techniques). As a result Table 24 shows
A7

scores of each alternatives.

0.9908674
Table 25 Ranking of thirteen alternatives under four criteria using the BCC-DEA method

A6

Appendix D
0.8705180
A5

Table 26 The ten questions put to experts for the purpose of measuring
method validation
0.8631099

Survey aspects Questions

A4

Factors by objectives 1. How do you rate the arrangement of

(arranging factors, interface, main factors in this method?
and availability) 2. How do you rate the overall user
1.000000

interface of the method to selection?

3. How do you rate the result
A3

(availability) of this “lean tools

selection” method (is this result
reasonable)?
0.9795339

Implementation 4. How do you rate the overall

(confidence and usability) confidence in implementing
A2

process of this method?

5. How do you rate the application
(usability) of the tools selection
0.7725496

model to the automotive industry

(do you think that this model can be
A1

implemented in real projects)?

2184
Table 26 (continued)
Survey aspects Questions
Using Friendliness (clarity, 6. How do you rate the clarity of this
feasibility, flexibility, and method? (i.e., clarity in terms of
easiness) objectives and methods used)
7. How do you rate the overall
navigation throughout the plan and
the navigation between the stages
(is it feasible?)?
8. How do you rate the application
(flexibility) of the tools selection
model to the automotive industry
(do you think that this model can be
implemented in various situations
of projects?)?
9. How do you rate the easiness of
making selections in the lean tools?
Importance of the topic 10. How do you rate the importance of
this topic (lean tools selection) to
the automotive industry?
A panel comprising of twelve experts was selected in order
to validate the method and results. All members of the panel
were interviewed personally and were informed of the objec-
tives and the process of lean tools selection
A panel of experts as the more professional group in LM
uses the linguistic variables to assess the method. The linguis-
tic evaluations are converted into crisp numbers. The results of
this validation are illustrated in Fig. 4.
References
1. Abdulmalek FA, Rajgopal J (2007) Analyzing the benefits of lean
manufacturing and value stream mapping via simulation: a process
sector case study. Int J Prod Econ 107(1):223–236
2. Vinodh S, Sundararaj G, Devadasan SR (2009) TADS-ABC: a
system for costing total agile design system. Int J Prod Res
47(24):6941–6966
3. Vinodh S, Balaji SR (2011) Fuzzy logic based leanness assessment
and its decision support system. Int J Prod Res 49(2):431–445
4. Anand G, Kodali R (2008) Selection of lean manufacturing systems
using the PROMETHEE. J Model Manag 3(1):40–70
5. Hicks BJ (2007) Lean information management: understanding and
eliminating waste. Int J Inf Manag 27(4):233–249
6. Salem O, Solomon J, Genaidy A, Minkarah I (2006) Lean construc-
tion: from theory to implementation. J Manag Eng 22(4):168–175
7. Alvarez R, Calvo R, Peña MM, Domingo R (2009) Redesigning an
assembly line through lean manufacturing tools. Int J Adv Manuf
Technol 43(9–10):949–958
8. Wan H, Chen F (2008) A leanness measure of manufacturing
systems for quantifying impacts of lean initiatives. Int J Prod Res
46(23):6567–6584
9. Lin M-L, Lee Y-D, Ho T-N (2011) Applying integrated DEA/AHP
to evaluate the economic performance of local governments in
China. Eur J Oper Res 209:129–140
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2014) 70:2169–2186
10. Toma SG NS (2007) IFIP International Federation for Information
Processing. In: Olhager J, Persson F (eds) Advances in production
management systems, vol 246. Springer, Boston, pp 387–395
11. Shah R, Ward T (2003) Lean manufacturing: context, practice
bundles, and performance. J Oper Manag 21:129–149
12. Vinodh S, Vimal KEK (2011) Thirty criteria based leanness assess-
ment using fuzzy logic approach. Int J Adv Manuf Technol. doi:10.
1007/s00170-011-3658-y
13. George L, Hodge GK, Ross KG, Joines JA, Thoney K (2011)
Adapting lean manufacturing principles to the textile industry. Pro-
duction Planning & Control 22 (3): 237–247
14. Womack J, Jones D (1996) Lean Thinking: Banish Waste and
Create Wealth in Your Corporation. Simon and Schuster,
New York, NY
15. Pheng LS, Shang G (2011) Bridging Western management theories
and Japanese management practices: case of the Toyota Way model.
Emerging Markets Case Studies Collection, Emerald
16. Zhang X, Lee CKM, Chen S (2011) Supplier evaluation and selec-
tion: a hybrid model based on DEAHP and ABC. International
Journal of Production Research 1–13, iFirst
17. Liker JL (2004) The Toyota way: 14 management principles from
the world's greatest manufacturer. McGraw-Hill, New York, NY
18. Ohno T (1988) Toyota production system: beyond large-scale pro-
duction. Productivity Press, Portland
19. Doolen TL, Hacker ME (2005) A review of lean assessment in
organizations: an exploratory study of lean practices by electronics
manufacturers. J Manuf Syst 24(1):55
20. Gander MJ, Snyder K (2011) The journey toward lean manufactur-
ing: applying the Kaizen blitz method to improving operations. Int
Bus Econ Res J 1(11):9–14
21. Jina J, Bhattacharya AK, Walton AD (1997) Applying lean princi-
ples for hig product variety and low volumes: some issues and
propositions. Logist Inf Manag 10(1):5–13
22. Mahoney M (1997) High-mix low-volume manufacturing.
Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ
23. Conner G (2001) Lean Manufacturing for the Small Shop. Society
of Manufacturing Engineers, Dearborn, MI
24. Greene BM (2002) A taxonomy of the adoption of lean production
tools and techniques. The University of Tennessee, Knoxville, US
25. Lander E (2007) Implementation Toyota—style systems in high
variability environments. Ph.D. thesis, The University of Michigan
26. Duggan KJ (2002) Creating Mixed Model Value Streams, Practical
Lean Techniques for Building to. Productivity Press, Demand
27. Pavnaskar SJ, Gershenson JK, Jambekar AB (2003) Classification
scheme for lean manufacturing tools. Int J Prod Res 41(13):16
28. Singh RK, Kumar S, Choudhury AK, Tiwari MK (2006) Lean tool
selection in a die casting unit: a fuzzy-based decision support
heuristic. Int J Prod Res 44(7):1399–1429
29. Singh RK, Choudhury AK, Tiwari MK, Maull RS (2006) An
integrated fuzzy-based decision support system for the selection of
lean tools: a case study from the steel industry. Proc IME E B J Eng
Manuf 220:1735–1749
30. Mahapatra SS, Mohanty SR (2007) Lean Manufacturing in contin-
uous process industry: an empirical study. J Sci Ind Res 66:19–27
31. Towill D, Christopher M (2002) The supply chain strategy conun-
drum: to be lean or agile or to be lean and agile? Int J Logist 5(3):
299–309
32. Wan H, Chen F (2006) An application of slacks-based measure on
quantifying leanness. In: Proc. of Annual Industrial Engineering
Research Conference, Orlando, FL, May 20–24
33. Bayou ME, De Korvin A (2008) Measuring the leanness of
manufacturing systems—a case study of Ford Motor Company
and General Motors. J Eng Technol Manag 25:287–304
34. Vinodh S, Chintha SK (2011) Application of fuzzy QFD for en-
abling leanness in a manufacturing organization. Int J Prod Res
49M(6):1627–1644
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2014) 70:2169–2186
35. Green JC, Lee J, Kozman TA (2010) Managing lean manufacturing
in material handling operations. Int J Prod Res 48(10):2975–2993
36. Saaty TL (1980) The analytic hierarchy process: planning, priority
setting and resource allocation. McGraw-Hill, New York
37. Ahmad N, Berg D, Simons GR (2006) The Integration of analytical
hierarchy process and data envelopment analysis in a multi-criteria
decision making problem. Int J Inf Technol Decis Mak 5(2):263–276
38. Tam MCY, RaoTummala VM (2001) An application of the AHP in
vendor selection of a telecommunications system. Omega 29:171–182
39. Vaidya OS, Kumar S (2006) Analytic hierarchy process: an over-
view of applications. Eur J Oper Res 169:1–29
40. Ho W (2008) Integrated analytic hierarchy process and its applica-
tions: a literature review. Eur J Oper Res 186:211–228
41. Charnes A, Cooper WW, Rhodes E (1978) Measuring the efficiency
of decision making units. Eur J Oper Res 2(6):429–444
42. Banker RD, Charnes A, Cooper WW (1984) Some methods for
estimating technical and scale inefficiencies in data envelopment
analysis. Manag Sci 30(9):1078–1092
43. Lee SK, Mogi G, Li Z, Hui KS, Lee SK, Hui KN, Park SY,
Ha YJ, Kim JW (2011) Measuring the relative efficiency of
hydrogen energy technologies for implementing the hydrogen econ-
omy: an integrated fuzzy AHP/DEA approach. Int J Hydrog Energy
36:12655–12663
44. Casu B, Thanassoulis E (2006) Evaluating cost efficiency in central
administrative services in UK universities. Omega 34:417–426
45. Vitner G, Rozenes S, Spraggett S (2006) Using data envelope
analysis to compare project efficiency in a multi-project environ-
ment. Int J Proj Manag 24:323–329
46. Lee SK, Mogi G, Kim JW (2008) Multi-Criteria decision making
for measuring relative efficiency of greenhouse gas technologies:
AHP/DEA hybrid model approach. Eng Lett 16:493–497
47. Lee SK, Mogi G, Lee SK, Hui KS, Kim JW (2010) Econometric
analysis of the R&D performance in the national hydrogen energy
technology development for measuring relative efficiency: the fuzzy
AHP/DEA integrated model approach. Int J Hydrog Energy 35:
2236e46
48. Dyson RJ, Allen R, Camanho AS (2001) Pitfalls and protocols in
DEA. Eur J Oper Res 132(2):245–259
49. Sueyoshi T (1999) Data envelopment analysis non-parametric rank-
ing test and index measurement: slack-adjusted DEA and an appli-
cation to Japanese agriculture cooperatives. Omega 27:315–326
50. Torgersen AM, Forsund FR, Kittelsen SAC (1996) Slack adjusted
efficiency measures and ranking of efficient units. J Prod Anal 7:
379–398
51. Anderson P, Peterson NC (1993) A procedure for ranking efficient
units in DEA. Manag Sci 39(10):1261–1264
52. Sinuany-Stern Z, Mehrez A, Barboy A (1994) Academic depart-
ments' efficiency via data envelopment analysis. Comput Oper Res
21(5):543–556
53. Doyle J, Green R (1999) Efficiency and cross efficiency in DEA:
derivations, meanings and the uses. J Oper Res Soc 45:567–578
54. Sinuany-Stern Z, Friedman L (1998) Data envelopment analysis
and the discriminant analysis of ratios for ranking units. Eur J Oper
Res 111:470–478
55. Bardhan I, Bowlin WF, Cooper WW (1996) Models for efficiency
dominance in data envelopment analysis. Part I: additive models
and MED measures. J Oper Res Soc Jpn 39:322–332
56. Cook WD, Kress M, Seiford LM (1993) On the use of
ordinal data in data envelopment analysis. J Oper Res Soc
44:133–140
57. Yang F, Yang C, Liang L, Du S (2010) New approach to determine
common weights in DEA efficiency evaluation model. J Syst Eng
Electron 21(4):609–615
58. Ramanathan R (2006) Evaluating the comparative performance of
countries of the Middle East and North Africa: A DEA application.
Socio Econ Plan Sci 40:156–167
2185
59. Banker RD, Thrall RM (1992) Estimation of returns to scale using
data envelopment analysis. Eur J Oper Res 62:74–84
60. Banker RD, Cooper WW, Seiford LM, Thrall RM, Zhu J (2004)
Returns to scale in different DEA models. Eur J Oper Res 154:345–
362
61. Yylmaz B, Yurdusev MA (2011) Use of data envelopment analysis
as a muticriteria decision tool—a case of irrigation management.
Math Comput Appl 16(3):669–679
62. Schee H (2001) Undesirable outputs in efficiency valuations. Eur J
Oper Res 132(2):400–410
63. Seiford LM, Zhu J (2002) Modeling undesirable factors in efficien-
cy evaluation. Eur J Oper Res 142(1):16–20
64. Zhu J (2003) Quantitative models for performance evaluation and
benchmarking, Kluwer, Boston
65. Fare R, Grosskopf S (2004) Modeling undesirable factors in effi-
ciency evaluation: comment. Eur J Oper Res 157:242–245
66. Seiford LM, Zhu J (2005) A response to comments on modeling
undesirable factors in efficiency evaluation. Eur J Oper Res 161:
579–581
67. Liu WB, Meng W, Li XX, Zhang DQ (2010) DEA models with
undesirable inputs and outputs. Ann Oper Res 173:177–194
68. Chang K-C, Lin C-L, Cao Y, Lu C-F (2011) Evaluating branch
efficiency of a Taiwanese bank using data envelopment analysis
with an undesirable factor. Afr J Bus Manag 5(8):3220–3228
69. Wang G, Huang SH, Dismukes JP (2004) Product-driven supply
chain selection using integrated multi-criteria decision making
methodology. Int J Prod Econ 91(1):1–15
70. Farzinpour -Saen R, Memariani A, Lotfi FH (2005) Determining
relative efficiency of slightly non-homogeneous decision making
units by data envelopment analysis: a case study in IROST. Appl
Math Comput 165:313–328
71. Jahanshahloo GR, Lotfi FH, Memariani A, Rezai HZ (2005) A note
on some of DEA models and finding efficiency and complete ranking
using common set of weights. Appl Math Comput 166:265–281
72. Yang T, Kuo C (2003) A hierarchical AHP/DEA methodology for
the facilities layout design problem. Eur J Oper Res 147:46–51
73. Lovell CAK, Pastor JT (1999) Radial DEA models without inputs
or without outputs. Eur J Oper Res 118:46–51
74. Adolphson DL, Cornia GC, Walters LC (1992) A unified frame-
work for classifying DEA models. In: Operational Research'90.
Pergamon Press, New York, pp. 647–657
75. Charnes A, Cooper WW, Lewin AY (1994) Data envelopment
analysis: theory, methodology and application. Kluwer, Boston
76. Azadeh A, Ghaderi SF, Mirjalili M, Moghaddam M (2011) Integra-
tion of analytic hierarchy process and data envelopment analysis for
assessment and optimization of personnel productivity in a large
industrial bank. Expert Syst Appl 38:5212–5225
77. Farzipoor-Saen R (2010) Developing a new data envelopment
analysis methodology for supplier selection in the presence of both
undesirable outputs and imprecise data. Int J Adv Manuf Technol
51:1243–1250
78. Wu T, Blackhurst J (2009) Supplier evaluation and selection: an
augmented DEA approach. Int J Prod Res 47(16):4593–4608
79. Azadeh A, Ghaderi SF, Izadbakhsh H (2008) Integration of DEA
and AHP withcomputer simulation for railway system improvement
and optimization. Appl Math Comput 195(2):775–785
80. Korpela J, Lehmusvaara A, Nisonen J (2007) Warehouse operator
selection by combining AHP and DEA methodologies. Int J Prod
Econ 108(1–2):135–142
81. Wu T, Shunk D, Blackhurst J (2007) AIDEA: a methodology for
supplier evaluation and selection in a supplier-based manufacturing
environment. Int J Manuf Technol Manag 11(2):174–192
82. Sevkli M, Lenny Koh SC, Zaim S, Demirbag M, Tatoglu E (2007)
An applicationof data envelopment analytic hierarchy process for
supplier selection: a case study of BEKO in Turkey. Int J Prod Res
45(9):1973–2003
2186
83. Ramanathan R (2006) Data envelopment analysis for weight deri-
vation and aggregation in the analytic hierarchy process. Comput
Oper Res 33:1289–1307
84. Ertay T, Ruan D, Tuzkaya UR (2006) Integrated data envelopment
analysis and analytic hierarchy for the facility layout design in
manufacturing systems. Inf Sci 176(3):237–262
85. Guo JY, Liu J Qiu L (2006) Research on supply chain performance
evaluation: based on DEA/AHP model. In: Proceedings of the IEEE
Asia-Pacific Conference on Services Computing (APSCC'02)
86. Wang YM, Liu J, Elhag MS (2007) An integrated AHP-DEA method-
ology for bridge risk assessment. Comp Ind Eng 54(3):513–525
87. Hsu KH (2005) Using balanced scorecard and fuzzy data envelop-
ment analysis for multinational R&D project performance assess-
ment. J Am Acad Bus 7(1):189–196
88. Chen TY, Chen LH (2007) DEA performance evaluation based on
BSC indicators incorporated: the case of semiconductors industry.
Int J Product Perform Manag 56(4):335–357
89. Lozano S, Villa G (2007) Multiobjective target setting in data
envelopment analysis using AHP. Comp Oper Res 36(2):549–564
90. Jing-yuan G, Jia L, Li Q (2006) Research on supply chain performance
evaluation based on DEA/AHP model. In: Proceedings of the 2006 I.E.
Asia-Pacific Conference on Services Computing (APSCC'06)
91. Banwet DK, Deshmukh SG (2008) Evaluating performance of
national R&D organizations using integrated DEA-AHP technique.
Int J Product Perform Manag 57(5):370–388
92. Barros MCP, Managi S, Matousek R (2012) The technical efficien-
cy of the Japanese banks: non-radial directional performance mea-
surement with undesirable output. Omega 40:1–8
93. Hosseinzadeh Lotfi F, Poursakhi N (2012) A mathematical model
for dynamic efficiency using desirable and undesirable input–out-
put. Appl Math Sci 6(3):141–151
94. Pan S-C, Liu S-Y, Peng C-J, Wu P-C (2011) Local government
efficiency evaluation: consideration of undesirable outputs and
super-efficiency. Afr J Bus Manag 5(12):4746–4754
95. Ke T-Y, Li Y, Chiu Y-H (2011) Analyzing for profit efficiency of
banks with undesirable output. Afr J Bus Manag 5(20):8141–8149
96. Tone K, Tsutsui M (2011) Applying an efficiency measure of
desirable and undesirable outputs in DEA to U.S. electric utilities.
J CENTRUM Cathedra 4(2):236–249
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2014) 70:2169–2186
97. Zhang H, ShilunGe XS (2011) A slacks-based measure of efficiency
of electric arc furnace activity with undesirable outputs. J Serv Sci
Manag 4:227–233
98. Farzinpour-Saen R (2007) A new mathematical approach for sup-
plier selection: accounting for non-homogeneity is important. Appl
Math Comput 185(1):84–95
99. Hines P, Rich N (1997) The seven value stream mapping tools. Int J
Oper Prod Manag 17(1):46–64
100. Rivera L, Chen F (2007) Measuring the impact of lean tools on the
cost–time investment of a product using cost–time profiles. Robot
Comput Integr Manuf 23(6):684–689
101. Wan H-D, Chen FF (2007) Leanness Score of Value Stream Maps.
In: G. Bayraksan, W. Lin, Y. Son, and R. Wysk (eds) Proceedings of
the 2007 Industrial Engineering Research Conference
102. Naderi B, Zandieh M, Fatemi Ghomi SMT (2009) Scheduling job
shop problems with sequence-dependent setup times. Int J Prod Res
47(21):5959–5976
103. Wilson L (2010) How to Implement Lean Manufacturing. McGraw-
Hill, New York
104. Van Erp M, Vuurpijl L, Schomaker L (2002) An overview and
comparison of voting methods for pattern recognition. In: Proc.
8th Int. Workshop Frontiers Handwriting Recognition, pp. 195–200
105. Lee D-S, Srihari SN (1993) Hand printed digit recognition: a
comparison of algorithms. In: Proc. 3rd Int. Workshop Frontiers
Hand writing Recognition, Buffalo, NY, pp. 153–162
106. Lam L, Suen CY (1997) Application of majority voting to pattern
recognition: an analysis of its behavior and performance. IEEE
Trans Syst Man Cybern Part A Syst Hum 27(5):553
107. Smith R, Hawkins B (2004) Lean maintenance, 99. Elsevier,
Butterworth, pp. 42–43
108. Marchwinski C, Shoo J (2010) Lean Lexicon: a graphical glossary
for lean thinkers lean enterprise institute. Lean Enterprise Institute,
Cambridge
109. Bougnol M-L, Dul'a JH (2006) Validating DEA as a ranking tool: an
application of DEA to assess performance in higher education. Ann
Oper Res 145:339–365
110. Bracke MBM, Metz JHM, Spruij BM, Schouten WGP (2002)
Decision support system for overall welfare assessment in pregnant
sows B: Validation by expert opinion. J Anim Sci 80(7):1834–1845