Analytical hierarchy process for optimised choice of machines for secondary wood industries

Abstract

The choice of the best machines for furniture industries is very important due to the high investment in the industry. The aim of this research was to determine and prioritize three types of machine which can be used in the secondary wood industries. After obtaining the information in the field of machines and technology characteristics, the criteria were divided into three major groups and 19 subsections. The comparisons of the mentioned criteria and subsections were done by experts and their weighing values were calculated by the analytical hierarchy process (AHP) method while group decision were conducted using Expert Choice software. The results indicated that among the 3 kinds of the machines, CNC machines should have the highest priority.

Keywords

SECONDARY WOOD INDUSTRIES MACHINE ALTERNATIVE CRITERIA AHP PRIORITY INCONSISTENCY RATIO

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Asgharpoor

M.J

., 1999, Multi-criteria decision making, Tehran University, Tehran, p. 398.

Azizi

., 2005,Decision making for raw materialprocurement in paper making factory’, Proceeding of 8th International Symposium of the AHP, University of Hawaii, USA

Burdurlu

, Ejder

., (2003), Location choice for furniture industry firms by using Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) method, G.U. Journal of Science, 16(2): 369–373

Chen

E. W.

, Li

., (2001), An approach to determine measures for business performance, Measuring Business Excellence, 3

Edward

., 2001, Farm machinery selection’, IOWA MAG

Gam

J.C.

, Bok

, Mion

, 1999, Stone machinery ‘, Kopia, 150–729

Giresunlu

, Tanritanir

, Ozturk

T. A

., (1998), Using of AHP for location selection of MDF industries, Istanbul symposium 1998, 612–620

Kely

., 2002, ‘Kiln drying design’, Wood digest.

Memariani

and Azar

., 1995, AHP : A New Technique for Group Decision Making. Management Science. NO. 28, pp 22–32.

10.

Memariani

, Kishore

., Na7iri

, 1992, How to make decision in conflicting environment: Analytical Hierarchy Process. Udyog Pragati. January June, pp32–35 .

11.

Radan

., 2003, ‘Paper quality controlling system’, Pulp and paper international.

12.

Saaty

T. L

., 2000, Decision making for leaders, RWA Publications, Pittsburg,PA.

13.

Saaty

T. L

., 1998, Decision Support Software, Expert Choice INC, Pittsburg, PA.

14.

Saaty

and Cho

., (2001), ‘The Decision by the US Congress on China's Trade Status: a Multicriteria analysis’, Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, 35, 243–252, Elsevier ScienceLtd.

15.

Samari

. 2005,Selecting an appropriate forestryextension model for the Zagros area in Iran through AHP’, Proceeding of 8th International symposium of the AHP, University of Hawaii, USA