Grey‐based and fuzzy TOPSIS decision‐making approach for agility evaluation of mass customization systems

Abstract

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to develop an agility evaluation approach to determine the most suitable agile system for implementing mass customization (MC) strategies. Evaluating the alternatives and comparing across them, the best practices of the efficient organization can be identified and transferred to different organizations.Design/methodology/approachGrey relation approach is a simple mathematical technique useful in situations where the information is not known precisely. Grey relation approach has been applied to measure the agility of various organizations based on agile entities and accordingly the organizations are ranked. The ranking so obtained is compared with the ranking obtained by a popular multi‐attribute decision making (MADM) process known as Fuzzy TOPSIS (technique for order preference by similarity to ideal solution) to test the robustness of the proposed method. It is to be noted that grey theory considers the condition of the fuzziness and can deal flexibly with the fuzziness situation.FindingsIt is demonstrated that the grey approach is an appropriate method for solving MADM problems in an uncertain situation with less computational efforts. The alternatives can easily be benchmarked and the best agile system can be selected. As the ranking obtained through grey relation approach closely agree with the ranking found from Fuzzy TOPSIS method, the robustness of the proposed approach is validated. Both the methods lead to choosing a suitable agile system related to mass customization.Research limitations/implicationsIn this paper, the proposed approach has been compared with Fuzzy TOPSIS method to test the robustness of the method. Other MADM approaches may be used for comparison purpose to gain insight into the methodology of the proposed approach.Originality/valueAn alternative approach for MADM is proposed to obtain good decisions in an uncertain environment and used for agility evaluation in selected organizations. As agile manufacturing is relatively a new concept, certain and complete information on systems are not available. In such situations, the proposed method can deal with the issue conveniently and results in workable solutions.

Organizational agility: ill-defined and somewhat confusing? A systematic literature review and conceptualization

“…The following table summarizes previously identified external and internal agility drivers and provides a selection of references (Table 2). Sharifi and Zhang (2001) introduced an alternative classification of agility drivers and assigned changes to the marketplace, competition, customer requirements, Gunasekaran (1998), Vázquez-Bustelo et al (2007 Quicker delivery time Katayama andBennett (1999), van Oosterhout et al (2006) Increased speed of innovations Mishra et al (2013), Zhang and Sharifi (2007) Customer needs changes Aravindraj et al (2013), Vázquez-Bustelo et al 2007Environmental pressures Calvo et al (2008), Lin et al (2006), Zhang and Sharifi (2007) Business network changes Van Oosterhout et al 2006Technology changes and innovations Gunasekaran (1998), Vázquez-Bustelo et al (2007 Legal/political pressures and changes Lin et al (2006), Zhang and Sharifi (2007) Stricter financial regulations Zhang (1999), van Oosterhout et al (2006) Broader product ranges Iyer and Nagi (1997) Social contract changes Zhang and Sharifi (2007) Intense rivalry…”

“…Agility drivers are defined as specific characteristics of the dynamic environment (Ganguly et al 2009) that require an agile response from the organization in order to weaken the negative impact on business performance. The accumulated number of agility drivers leads to hypercompetition in the market (Chakravarty et al 2013;Mishra et al 2013). Moreover, environmental characteristics determine which specific agility strategies are chosen (Zhang 2011).…”

A Literature Review on the Progression of Agile Manufacturing Paradigm and Its Scope of Application in Pump Industry

“…This global competition enabled the customers to demand products with innovative features at low price and high degree of quality [ 2 – 6 ]. In order to meet the dynamic demands of the customers, few companies in the world acquired agile capabilities to manufacture innovative products within a short period of time to withstand the global competition [ 7 ]. A very apt example to be cited to support this claim is the capabilities being demonstrated in contemporary days by the mobile phone manufacturing companies.…”

A multi-criteria fuzzy method for selecting the location of a solid waste disposal facility

“… Human resource management: human resource selection (Kelemenis et al, 2011;Polychroniou and Giannikos, 2009) and employee performance evaluation (Beheshti and Lollar, 2008).  Process management: quality performance assessment (Chan et al, 2002) and agility evaluation for implementing mass customisation strategies (Mishra et al, 2013).…”