First paper conference (presentation) at MITC Melaka

1. Sivaraos, Dimin M.F., Faris N.M.F., A. Hambali, S. Dhar
Malingam and Sapuan S.M.
Faculty of Manufacturing Engineering, Universiti Teknikal Malaysia
Melaka (UTeM).
Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, UniversitiTeknikal Malaysia
Melaka (UTeM).
Department of Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering,
University Putra Malaysia (UPM).

2. 


Veracious concept selection process is crucial in design
engineering where, a concept with concise description will
fulfill customer requirements. Failure in concept selection
can lead to inaccurate design which will result in
unnecessary process repetition of the initial stage.
One of the best tools that can be used in determining the
best design concept is Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP).
Micro Hot-Marking Tool (HMT) is a super finished tool with
micro tip which is to be used for alphabetical marking
process using CNC milling machine. In this research, AHP
was successfully employed in selecting design concept for
HMT.
Four significant and robust concepts were analyzed,
namely C1, C2, C3 & C4. Concept 2 (C2) has been chosen
as the best concept with the highest score of 27% among
all the evaluated concepts which will be taken into next
design stage.

3. 


The early stage of design selection is considered to be the
most difficult, sensitive and critical process in product
development [1]. Selecting the right design concepts at the
conceptual design stage in product development process is
a crucial decision [2,3].
In both academic research and industrial practice, AHP has
been widely used to solve multi-criteria decision making.
AHP has been implemented in almost all applications
related to decision-making and is now predominantly used
in the theme of selection and evaluation especially in the
area of engineering, personal and social categories [4].
Implementing appropriate evaluation and decision tool
should be considered at the conceptual design stage that
involves many complex decision-making tasks [5]. AHP is
based on experience and knowledge of the experts or
users to determine the factors affecting the decision
making process [6]. Majority of product cost and quality is
fixed by selecting particular concepts [7].

4.  AHP
is one of the decision making tools
that can be employed to assist decision
makers to determine the right decision.
 In general AHP can be divided into three
main phases [8] :
1. Hierarchy structure
2. Priority analysis
3. Consistency verification

5. Selection of the Best HMT Conceptual
Design
Manufacturing
(M)
Performance
(P)
Temperature
(T)
Cost
(C)
Simplicity of
design (SD)
Easy to use (EU)
Easy to
installation (EI)
Flexible type of
Word (FW)
CRITERIA
Manufacturing
cost (MFC)
Easy to
manufacturing
(EM)
Easy to store
(ES)
GOAL
Material cost
(MTC)
SUB-CRITERIA
(S-C)
Easy to
assemble (EA)
Light weight
(LW)
C1
C2
C3
C4
Factor Influence Selecting Teaching and Learning Tools
ALTERNATIVES

6.  Pairwise comparison is a fundamental of AHP steps.
 The decision makers have to compare each element by
using the relative scale pairwise comparison and the
signed value is made based on the decision makers or
users experience and knowledge [10].
Pairwise Comparison of Criteria with Respect to Overall Goal
Goal
P
M
T
C
FW
Performance (P)
1
3
3
3
1
Manufacturing (M)
1/3
1
1
1
1
Temperature (T)
1/3
1
1
3
1
Cost (C)
1/3
1
1/3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3.000
7.000
6.333
9.000
5.000
Flexible type of word (FW)
Total Column ( ∑ )
Pairwise comparison of criteria
with respect to overall goal

7. Since the comparisons are carried out through
personal or subjective judgments, some
degree of inconsistency may be arising.
 To ensure the judgments are consistent, the
final operation called consistency verification
must be performed.
 Consistency verification is considered as one
of the most advantages of the AHP which is
incorporated in order to measure the degree of
consistency among the pairwise comparisons
by computing the consistency ratio [10].


8. The consistency is determined by the consistency ratio
(CR). Consistency ratio (CR) is the ratio of consistency
index (CI) to random index (RI) for the same order
matrices. Table 2 shows the consistency ratio for the
main factors with respect to the goal in this case study.
If CR is less that 0.1 and the judgments are acceptable.

Goal
NV
M
T
MT
FW
PV
P
1
3
3
3
1
0.354
1.914
5.411 =
M
1/3
1
1
1
1
0.145
0.764
5.285
T
1/3
1
1
3
1
0.189
1.011
MT
1/3
1
1/3
1
1
0.124
0.638
FW
1
1
1
1
1
0.189
1.000
Total ( ∑ )
Maximum eigenvalue ( )
NV /PV
Consistency index (CI)
P
𝝀 𝒎𝒂𝒙−𝒏
𝒏−𝟏
= 0.075
𝐂𝐈 =
5.349 Consistency ratio (CR)
5.165 = 𝐂𝐑 = 𝑪𝑰
𝑹𝑰
5.290
= 0.07
26.500 Note: A the value of
CR is less than 0.1,
the judgments are
5.300 acceptable because
CR < 0.1
Consistency test for the Main Factors

9. 

Table below represents the overall priority vector for four
decision options with respect to the sub-factors.
The overall priority vector can be obtained by multiplying the
priority vector for the decision options by the vector of priority of
the sub-factors.
Overall Priority Vector
∑
%
C1
0.244
0.079
0.313
0.079
0.380
0.238
24%
C2
0.238
0.201
0.313
0.201
0.380
0.269
27%
C3
0.281
0.519
0.063
0.519
0.062
0.262
26%
C4
0.238
0.201
0.313
0.201
0.179
0.231
23%
Overall Priority Vectors for Sub-Factors
with respect to the Main Factors

10. 


The overall priority vector can be obtained by multiplying the
priority vector for the design alternatives by the priority
vector of the criteria.
The C-2 is the preferred choice since it has the highest value
(0.269 or 26.9% ≈ 27%) among four decision options. the
overall priority calculation is as follow; 0.238(0.354) +
0.201(0.145) + 0.313(0.189) + 0.201(0.124) + 0.38(0.189) =
0.269.
The second highest is the C-3 with a value of 0.262 (26.2%),
and the lowest value or last choice is the email approach with
a value of only 0.231 (23.1%).
Best Selection
Alternative
∑
%
C-1
0.238
24%
C-2
0.269
27%
C-3
0.262
26%
C-4
0.231
23%

11. 


AHP was effectively applied in selecting the best
micro Hot-Marking Tool concept among the four
significant and robust alternatives. HMT design
concept 2 was most appropriate as per all the
analyzed criteria.
Since the Consistency ratio (CR) were less than 0.1,
concept C2 stood at the top ranking with score of
0.269 (27%) followed by C3, C1 and C4 with their
scores of 0.262, 0.238 and 0.231 respectively. Hence,
based on requirements, C2 is selected as the best
concept for the intended design and development of
HMT.
Application of AHP for selecting conceptual design at
conceptual design stage can drastically improve the
product quality while shortening the product
development stages and processes.

12. [1] K.T. Ulrich, and S.D. Eppinger, Product Design and Development
2nd ed., McGraw-Hill, New York, 2000.
[2] O. S. Vaidya, and S. Kumar. Analytical Hierarchy Process: An
Overview of Applications. European Journal of Operational Research,
(2006), 169: 1-29.
[3]A. Hambali, S.M. Sapuan, I. Napsiah, and Y.Nukman, Use of
analytical hierarchy process (AHP) for selecting the best design
concept, Journal Teknologi, (2008), pp.1-18(1)
[4] V. Laemlaksakul, S.Bangsarantrip, Analytic Hierarchy Process for
design selection of Laminated Bamboo Chair, Proceedings of the
international multi conference of engineers and computer Scientists
Volume II, (2008), pp.1-6(7)
[5] T.L. Saaty, How to make a decision: The analytical hierarchy
process, European journal of operation research 48, 1990, pp.9-26.

13. [6] F. Dweiri, and F.M. Al-Oqla, Material Selection Using Analytical
Hierarchy Process. International Journal of Computer Applications in
Technology, (2006), 26(4): 82-189.
[7] F.Rehman, and X.T. Yan, Product design elements as means to
realise functions in mechanical conceptual design. Proceedings of the
International Conference on Engineering design ICED 03, (2003), pp.
1-10.
[8] T. L. SaatyThe Analytic Hierarchy Process. New York: McGraw Hill,
1980.
[9] A. Perego, and A. Rangone, On integrating tangible and intangible
measures in AHP application a reference framework, IEEE international
conference on systems, man and cybermetics, (1996), pp. 18361841(14)
[10] Y. Jun, M. Xin-sheng, L. Yang, Design and realization of AHP
Toolbox in MATLAB, IEEE international conference on granular
computing, (2008), pp.740-745
[11] S.W. Hsiao, Concurrent Design Method for Developing a New
Product. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, (2002), 29: 4155.