Journal of Engineering Manufacture

r
Fo

An integrated analytic network process and modified

TOPSIS based SWOT analysis for the lean strategy selection
in foundry industry

Manuscript ID:

Date Submitted by the Author:

Original article
31-Jul-2015

Prasad, Suresh; National Institute of Technology, Kurukshetra (Research

Scholar), Mechanical Engineering Department
Sharma, Surrender; National Institute of Technology, Kurukshetra (Former
Professor), Mechanical Engineering

vi

Keywords:

JEM-15-0508

Re

Complete List of Authors:

Part B: Journal of Engineering Manufacture

er

Manuscript Type:

Pe

Journal:

Manufacturing Management < Optimisation, Multiple Criteria DecisionMaking, SWOT Analysis, ANP, TOPSIS

ew

The purpose of this article is to deal with the lean strategy selection
process in Indian foundry industry by using Strengths, Weaknesses,
Opportunities and Threats (SWOT) analysis aimed at determining
strategies and for providing an initial decision framework. It involves
specifying of the objective of an industry and identification of internal and
external factors, its sub-factors and strategies, which are either favourable
or unfavourable to achieve the stated objective. However, the SWOT
method does not provide any logical way to assess the priorities of the
identified strategies. In order to overcome this limitation, this study
presents two multiple criteria decision-making (MCDM) methods, analytical
network process (ANP) and modified technique for order of preference by
similarity to ideal solution (TOPSIS), for providing a quantifiable basis to
analytically ascertain the ranking of criteria, sub- criteria and strategies in
SWOT analysis. At first, lean strategies are determined on the basis of
SWOT analysis, followed by the calculation of priorities of the SWOT criteria
and sub-criteria using ANP, and finally the priorities of strategies are
analysed through the modified TOPSIS. The results shows that the
quantitative SWOT analysis based approach is a feasible and exceedingly
capable method that provides vital sensitivity for selecting lean strategy in
the Indian foundry industry, and can be employed as an effective method
for many other complex decision-making processes as well.

Abstract:

http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/JOEM

Page 1 of 26

r
Fo
er

Pe
ew

vi

Re

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

Journal of Engineering Manufacture

http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/JOEM

Journal of Engineering Manufacture

An integrated analytic network process and modified TOPSIS based

SWOT analysis for the lean strategy selection in foundry industry
Suresh Prasada,*, Surrender K. Sharmab,
a

Research Scholar, Mechanical Engineering Department, National Institute of Technology,

Kurukshetra, India

Mechanical Engineering Department (Former Professor), National

Institute of Technology, Kurukshetra, India

*Corresponding author. E-mail: suresh_iftm@rediffmail.com

r
Fo
er

Pe
ew

vi

Re

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/JOEM

Page 2 of 26

Page 3 of 26

An integrated analytic network process and modified TOPSIS based

SWOT analysis for the lean strategy selection in foundry industry
Abstract
The purpose of this article is to deal with the lean strategy selection process in Indian foundry
industry by using Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats (SWOT) analysis aimed
at determining strategies and for providing an initial decision framework. It involves
specifying of the objective of an industry and identification of internal and external factors,
its sub-factors and strategies, which are either favourable or unfavourable to achieve the
stated objective. However, the SWOT method does not provide any logical way to assess the

r
Fo

priorities of the identified strategies. In order to overcome this limitation, this study presents
two multiple criteria decision-making (MCDM) methods, analytical network process (ANP)
and modified technique for order of preference by similarity to ideal solution (TOPSIS), for

Pe

providing a quantifiable basis to analytically ascertain the ranking of criteria, sub- criteria and
strategies in SWOT analysis. At first, lean strategies are determined on the basis of SWOT
analysis, followed by the calculation of priorities of the SWOT criteria and sub-criteria using

er

ANP, and finally the priorities of strategies are analysed through the modified TOPSIS. The
results shows that the quantitative SWOT analysis based approach is a feasible and

Re

exceedingly capable method that provides vital sensitivity for selecting lean strategy in the
Indian foundry industry, and can be employed as an effective method for many other
complex decision-making processes as well.

ew

vi

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

Journal of Engineering Manufacture

Keywords: Lean strategy selection; MCDM; SWOT analysis; ANP; TOPSIS; foundry
industry
1. Introduction
The twentieth century was marked by the development of several advanced manufacturing
strategies which were beginning to transform the traditional approaches due to intense global
competition, rapid technological changes, and advances in manufacturing and information
technology for improving quality and productivity, and for the optimisation of manufacturing
processes which will enable manufacturers to deliver high-quality products in a short period

http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/JOEM

Journal of Engineering Manufacture

of time.1 Lean philosophy, which originated from the Toyota production system (TPS), is one
of the initiatives that many businesses have been trying to implement so as to minimise
wastage of resources, eliminate non-value added activities and focus on cost reduction.2, 3 In
India, many foundries have been trying to adopt lean manufacturing (LM) in order to stay
alive in todays competitive marketplace by improving productivity and operational
performance. The foundries can become economically and environmentally sustainable
industry only when the strategies proposed by LM system are implemented in an appropriate
way.4

r
Fo

Bhasin 5 stated that any strategy, regardless of its strengths, will not be accepted if it is
outside the bounds of an organisations culture. Existing methods for selecting the

Pe

appropriate lean strategy relies on the manufacturers common sense of judgement rather than
any sequence of analytical justification.1 SWOT analysis is a commonly implemented method

er

to systematically analyse an organisations internal and external factors, and is capable of

formulating strategies based on these factors. Therefore, for identification of lean strategies,

Re

SWOT analysis of the industry can be helpful since almost every function within the
organisation is influenced by the internal and external factors. However, the qualitative

vi

SWOT analysis method is not without limitations as it does not provide an analytical means

ew

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

to determine the relative importance of the decisive factors or the ability to assess the
relevance of defined alternatives based on these factors.6,

In order to overcome this

limitation, researchers employed strategic decision-making models which would consider

multiple criteria in their analysis, such as analytic hierarchy process (AHP) 8 or the technique
for order of preference by similarity to ideal solution (TOPSIS).9 AHP is an undeniably
efficient method as it makes the best judgement between both tangible and intangible aspects
of a decision. However there is a major drawback, it is incapable of measuring possible
interdependencies among the criteria, as these criteria are often dependent with each other.6, 10

http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/JOEM

Page 4 of 26

Page 5 of 26

The analytical network process (ANP) is a comparatively new and improved version of AHP
which could be employed for solving various complex decision-making problems involving
feedback approach and can easily represent many complicated relationships.
In this article, we applied SWOT analysis to determine lean strategies based on the
internal and external factors, and two multiple criteria decision-making (MCDM) methods,
i.e., the ANP and the modified TOPSIS, for obtaining the relative importance of each
strategy. The approach in this article is to use ANP for the calculation of priorities of the
SWOT criteria and sub-criteria, and modified TOPSIS for assessing the priorities of lean

r
Fo

strategies in the Indian foundry industry. Thus, we developed a methodology that facilitates
finding the priorities of the SWOT criteria, sub-criteria and lean strategies. Therefore, to the

Pe

best of our knowledge, we applied integrated ANP and modified TOPSIS for the first time to
assess the lean strategies of foundry industry in India.

er

This article is structured as follows. The literature review is provided in section

Literature review. Section Multiple criteria decision-making (MCDM) methods describes

Re

the research methodology of ANP and modified TOPSIS. Section Proposed research
methodology for lean strategy selection analyses the lean strategies of Indian foundry

vi

industry so as to provide decision aid to these foundries in developing their strategies.

ew

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

Journal of Engineering Manufacture

Finally, the conclusions of this article is discussed in Section Conclusion.

2. Literature review
With the advent of liberalization and globalization, the products and processes have
undergone a lot of changes and manufacturing companies are facing a tough competition in
all aspect of business. In todays competitive environment, lean manufacturing (LM)
strategies are the most powerful strategies for achieving operational and service excellence in
manufacturing industries. Lean concept has evolved as a philosophy with the motto to do

http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/JOEM

Journal of Engineering Manufacture

more with less aimed at elimination of non-valued added activities in every aspects of
industry while adding value to the product with a systematic and continuous approach.11
According to Shah and Ward 12, LM can be defined as an integrated socio-technical system
whose main objective is to eliminate waste by concurrently reducing or minimizing supplier,
customer, and internal variability. LM has originated from Toyota with the title given by few
researchers as Toyota Production System (TPS),13 or just-in-time (JIT) production14, 15 in the
1960s. The reason behind this might be that both these systems aims to increase the valueadded work by eliminating waste from the systems and operations, reducing incidental work,

r
Fo

and extracting as much output as they can acquire from lesser inputs,14 which makes LM
highly synonymous with JIT production. Monden

15

stated that any process inside a

Pe

manufacturing facility can be classified as incidental activity, value-adding (VA) activity

and/or non-value-adding (NVA) activity. Russell and Taylor

16

defined waste as anything

er

other than the minimum amount of equipment, effort, materials, parts, space and time that is
essential to add value to the product, and for which the customer is unwilling to pay for. The

Re

most commonly identified NVA waste categories in any industry include over-production,
waiting of equipment and human resources, transportation, inventory, motion, defects, and
over-processing.17

ew

vi

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

Page 6 of 26

In the pursuit for improvement in quality and equipment productivity, organizations

have practiced revolutionary programs or quality initiatives such as total quality management
(TQM) and continuous improvement methodologies such as Kaizen.18 Bayazit and Karpak 19
described TQM as an integrated management philosophy aimed at continuously refining the
performance of products, processes and services for meeting or exceeding on customers
expectations. The aim of a continuous improvement program is to continuously recognize
and reduce the extent of waste in a system since it is essential to identify and separate waste
from incidental and VA work.20 LM is governed by a pull type production control system

http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/JOEM

Page 7 of 26

where the parts are pulled from upstream work centres to downstream work centres as they
are needed. Pull production system is a production monitoring technique for JIT production
which makes full use of workers capabilities.21 Eswaramoorthi, Kathiresan

22

stated that the

main cause for low level of lean implementation is anxiety in changing the mind-set of
workers for adaption to varying manufacturing circumstances. Porter and van der Linde

23

proposed in their study that organizations can develop some capabilities through their
environmental effort, which translates into competitive advantage leading to higher
24

profitability. Moreover, Yang, Hong

r
Fo

investigated the relationships between LM practices,

environmental management and business performance outcomes in the context of

manufacturing industry. Their research reveals that, on the one hand, LM practices have

Pe

positive effects on environmental management practices, while on the other hand, isolated
operation of environmental management practices have negative effects on market and

er

financial performance. Furthermore, the firm level strategic commitment for LM and
environmental management requires well-communication and understanding by issuing

Re

comprehensive sustainability reports.

However, evaluating LM strategies is a complex task which does not only involve a

vi

trade-off between strengths and weaknesses entailed but also takes opportunities and threats
into consideration. Hisrich and Peters

25

ew

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

Journal of Engineering Manufacture

stated that responding to internal strengths and

weaknesses is a fundamental constituent of the strategic management process. Several

strategic management approaches have been developed to solve such sort of real-life
problems. SWOT analysis, which was originally described by Learned, Christensen 26, is one
of the essential methods to address complex strategic situations by reducing the magnitude of
information which improves decision-making. SWOT analysis is a prevalent method of
strategic planning and is commonly implemented to provide a basic framework for
identifying the internal and external factors, and formulating strategies.27 Using the SWOT

http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/JOEM

Journal of Engineering Manufacture

analysis, any entity or individual can determine the way to leverage its strength, overcome its
weaknesses, seize opportunities and elude hypothetically detrimental threats or nonetheless
scrutinise them through more consistent perusing.28-30 Despite its advantages and usages to
strategists, SWOT analysis is often criticised because of its inability of not providing any
analytical method for ascertaining the relative importance of the decisive SWOT criteria or
the ability to assess the importance of defined feasible alternatives based on these criteria.
Therefore, researchers employed strategic decision-making models which would assess the
relative importance of SWOT criteria and sub-criteria on the strategies by incorporating

r
Fo

AHP, known as the SWOT-AHP method.8, 31, 32 Since the selection of criteria for alternatives
may interact with each other and not be independent in some cases, few researchers like

Pe

Ekmekioglu, Can Kutlu 9 and Yang 33 employed the SWOT-TOPSIS method. Although the
AHP and the classical TOPSIS method have proven their efficacy in dealing with the MCDM

er

and their simplicity of implementation, they do possess some sort of limitations. First of all,
the AHP provides a quantifiable basis and hierarchical structure to the SWOT analysis

Re

framework, it lacks the ability of encapsulating potential interactions, interdependencies, and

feedbacks amongst the SWOT criteria. In order to overcome this drawback, the researchers
developed an ANP based SWOT-model.6,

7, 34

vi

Secondly, on the other hand, the SWOT-

ew

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

TOPSIS method possesses an inherent difficulty of assigning reliable subjective preferences

to the criteria even though the concept of TOPSIS is rational and reasonable, and the
computation involved is uncomplicated. Therefore, in order to overcome this limitation, the
modified TOPSIS method proposed by Deng, Yeh 35 could be applied. The modified TOPSIS
uses a new defined weighted Euclidean distance and ranks the alternatives in terms of their
overall performance with respect to the weighted criteria.
Ho

36

reviewed the literature appearing in the international journals from 1997 to

2006, providing the evidence that the integrated AHPs are better than the stand-alone AHP

http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/JOEM

Page 8 of 26

Page 9 of 26

and also expressed that the five commonly integrated tools with the AHP include
mathematical programming, quality function deployment (QFD), meta-heuristics, data
envelopment analysis (DEA) and Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats (SWOT)
analysis. More recently, Azimi, Yazdani-Chamzini 10 had developed a SWOT model in three
stages. In their study, they used SWOT analysis to determine alternative strategies, then ANP
was applied in order to obtain the priority of SWOT criteria and sub-criteria, and ranked the
strategies using the TOPSIS. The outcome of their study was distinguishing between the
efficient and inefficient strategies. Although these methods have produced new insights into

r
Fo

the literature and deserve merit in terms of their analytical means for ascertaining the ranking
of SWOT criteria, they still possess a major limitation: ignoring the intrinsic intricacy of

Pe

determining consistent subjective preferences to the criteria. To simultaneously overcome

these limitations, we propose an integrated ANP and modified TOPSIS based SWOT

er

methodology which would fill the above mentioned limitation in the literature. The proposed
methodology may provide organisations a systematic approach to formulate and enhance on

Re

adequate criteria, and minimise the risk of selecting sub-optimal strategies.

vi

3. Multiple criteria decision-making (MCDM) methods

ew

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

Journal of Engineering Manufacture

MCDM refers to the process of problem solving for finding the best alternative that is
employed to solve decision problems involving selection from among a set of feasible and
finite number of alternatives. These methods often involve experts to provide qualitative
and/or quantitative judgements for defining the performance of each alternative with respect
to criteria, and the relative importance of criteria with respect to the overall objective or goal.
The advantage of most MCDM methods is that they possess the ability of simultaneously
analysing both qualitative and quantitative evaluation criteria. The ANP and modified

http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/JOEM

Journal of Engineering Manufacture

TOPSIS are both logical and rational decision-making methods, which deal with problems of
selecting the best alternative from a set of feasible alternatives.
In this study, the main objective is to develop an integrated methodology by using
SWOT based MCDM methods for solving the lean strategy selection problem. Therefore,
these methods are briefly described in the following subsections.

3.1 Analytic network process

ANP is the generalised form of the AHP and it is used to solve various complex decision

r
Fo

problems involving feedback, interactions and interdependencies in the decision-making

system with more accuracy and precision. In the AHP approach, the analytical aspects of a
decision problem are decomposed into an independent unidirectional hierarchy structure with

Pe

overall goal or objective at the top level of the hierarchy, followed by criteria and sub-criteria

er

at the middle level and feasible alternatives at the bottom level. However, several decision
problems cannot be designed hierarchically as they involve dependence and interaction of

Re

higher-level elements on a lower-level element.37 ANP does not presume this independence
among distinct levels of criteria and within the level of a hierarchy. It structures a network

vi

without levels, which signifies that certain element may exhibit influence over certain others.

ew

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

A comparison of structure and super matrix between AHP and ANP methods is presented in
Figure 1. ANP is effective in assisting the mind of analysts to systematise its experiences and
views to elicit judgements recorded in memory and quantify them in form of priorities.38

http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/JOEM

Page 10 of 26

Page 11 of 26

r
Fo
er

Pe
Figure 1. A comparison of the structure and super matrix between AHP and ANP.
As is apparent from Figure 1, ANP involves a system-with-feedback approach since it

Re

includes both internal and external relationships with feedbacks, and thus making it possible
for the elements in a cluster to either influence some or all of the elements of same or another

vi

cluster. External relationship indicates dependence of elements of a cluster with same or other

ew

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

Journal of Engineering Manufacture

clusters elements. Internal relationship, which is shown by a looped arc, relates to the
dependence of an element of a cluster among other elements in the same clusters integrated
with feedback. Eliciting priorities of elements of each cluster requires pairwise comparison of
elements of clusters with respect to their upper level control criterion. The priorities of
elements of each cluster for internal relationship are obtained by comparing it with respect to
their influence on other elements within their own cluster. Pairwise comparisons of elements
in a cluster are made for external relationship by comparing them among elements of other
clusters to which they are connected. These pairwise comparison are made systematically by

http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/JOEM

Journal of Engineering Manufacture

using the fundamental scale of absolute numbers, as tabulated in Table 1.39 By means of the
super matrix, the influences of interdependence that exists between the criteria and subcriteria of the system can be determined. The super matrix is a partitioned matrix which
represents priorities obtained from the pairwise comparison of the elements that are arranged
hierarchically into the appropriate columns of the matrix. As is represented in Figure 1,
 is
the super matrix whose elements represents clusters, where,  is an element which signifies
the influence of the goal on the criteria,  is an element which signifies the influence of the
criteria on the sub-criteria,  is an element which signifies the influence of the sub-criteria

r
Fo

on the defined alternatives, and I represents the identity matrix. The dependence and
feedback amongst the elements of criteria and sub-criteria are signified by
 and
 ,
respectively.

Pe

Table 1. Pairwise comparison scale of absolute numbers.

Definition
Equal importance
Moderate importance
Strong importance
Demonstrated importance
Absolute importance
Intermediate values for compromise between the above values
If activity i has one of the above non-zero numbers assigned to it when
compared with activity j, then j is assigned the reciprocal value when
compared with i

ew

vi

Re

Intensity of importance
1
3
5
7
9
2,4,6,8
Reciprocals
of above

er

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

Note that the elements of the super matrix have to be raised to arbitrarily large powers
by taking the necessary limit in order to obtain the limit matrix. This matrix is inclusive of the
final priority required to attain a set of long-lasting stable weights. Higher values in the final
priorities conveys the higher desirability of that alternative. The selection of the best
alternative depends on the calculation of the desirability index, for an alternative i and
determinant a, 
can be obtained as defined by Meade and Sarkis 40.

3.2 Modified TOPSIS

http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/JOEM

Page 12 of 26

Page 13 of 26

The TOPSIS is a multiple criteria decision-making (MCDM) method proposed by Hwang

and Yoon

41

, based on the concept that the chosen alternative should have the shortest

distance from the positive-ideal solution and the longest distance from the negative-ideal
solution. In the classical TOPSIS method, the elements of the normalised decision matrix are
weighted by multiplying each column of the matrix by its associated criterion weight. The
priority of an alternative is then determined by its Euclidean distances to the positive-ideal
and the negative-ideal solutions. Conversely, in the modified TOPSIS presented by Deng,
Yeh 35, these distances are interconnected with criterion weights and should be incorporated

r
Fo

in the distance measurement. Since all alternatives are compared with the positive-ideal and
the negative-ideal solutions, instead of directly comparing among themselves. The modified

Pe

TOPSIS method uses the weighted Euclidean distances instead of representing weighted
decision matrix. It is required to establish a decision matrix based on all the information

er

available on criteria, which can be structured with ith alternative in each row,  = 1,2, ;
each column is assigned to a criterion,  = 1,2, , ; and   represents a crisp value

Re

indicating the performance of an alternative with respect to a criterion.

Geometric mean could be employed to group multiple opinions of experts into a

vi

single judgement. Considering a group of k experts, an element of decision matrix from each

ew

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

Journal of Engineering Manufacture

expert can be aggregated by taking the geometric mean to attain the group importance weight
of that element, as shown in Eq. (7).
/

  =    

(7)

The elements of the normalised decision matrix R (=  ) can be calculated by using

the vector normalisation method as:

  =

!

$
"%
&'  !

,  = 1,2, , ,  = 1,2, , 

http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/JOEM

(8)

Journal of Engineering Manufacture

The positive-ideal solution ( ) and the negative-ideal solution ( * from the normalised
decision matrix can be expressed as:

( ) = +max /  0 3, min /  0 36 | = 1,2, , 8 = 9) , ) , , ) :

(9)

( * = +min /  0 3, max /  0 3| = 1,2, , 8 = 9* , * , , * :

(10)

where, 3 = < = 1,2, , )| is associated with the criterion having a positive impact and

3 = < = 1,2, , )| is associated with the criterion having a negative impact.
The weighted distances of each alternative from () and ( * can be calculated by the

r
Fo

following equations using the n-dimensional Euclidean distance, respectively, as:



(11)

(12)

 ) = "    )  ,  = 1,2, , 

Pe

 * = "    *  ,  = 1,2, , 

er

where,  (for  = 1,2, , ) represents the associated criterion weights for the
elements; and  ) and  * are the distances of alternative from the positive-ideal and the

Re

negative-ideal solutions, respectively.

The relative closeness coefficient of a particular alternative, ? , to the ideal solutions

can be calculated by the following equation:

? =

@A

@B )@A

ew

vi

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

Page 14 of 26

,  = 1,2, , 

(13)

where, ? is an index value which lies between 0 and 1. The larger the coefficient of
closeness, the better the performance of alternative.
Finally, the set of alternatives can be ranked in descending order, according to the
value of ? , indicating the most and the least preferred feasible solutions.

4. Proposed research methodology for lean strategy selection

4.1 Integrated ANP-modified TOPSIS model

http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/JOEM

Page 15 of 26

The proposed research methodology of this article is based on the integrated approach of
ANP and modified TOPSIS based SWOT analysis. Thus, the problem is decomposed into a
network decision-making model such that the priorities of lean strategies can be measured
based on the identified criteria and sub-criteria as shown in Figure 2. The overall goal of
selection of the best lean strategy was placed at the top level of the model, followed by
SWOT criteria and SWOT sub-criteria at the second and third level, respectively. As can be
seen from Figure 3, each SWOT criterion includes five sub-criteria. Therefore, a total of 20
sub-criteria were identified. The bottom level of the model consists of feasible eight lean

r
Fo

strategies developed for this study. For the sake of simplicity, eight potential lean strategies
identified in this study are abbreviated as S1, S2, S3, S4, S5, S6, S7, and S8 in following

Pe

discussion. As the key steps of this study involves the identification of SWOT criteria, subcriteria and lean strategies, it provides a framework for obtaining priorities of identified

er

criteria and sub-criteria by using the ANP. Finally, the ranking of identified lean strategies
can be obtained by using the modified TOPSIS. Figure 3 shows the flowchart for the

Re

proposed decision-making model. Table 2 presents all the criteria, sub-criteria and lean
strategies used.

vi

Three stages are proposed, in order to implement the proposed methodology, which

ew

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

Journal of Engineering Manufacture

are described as follows. The first stage involves analysis of the organisation for SWOT. In
this manner, strategically important SWOT sub-criteria, i.e., the internal and external factors,
which significantly affect the success of the organisations future goals are identified and
determined. The second stage involves the determination of priorities of criteria and subcriteria by using the pairwise comparison of ANP. The last stage involves the ranking of lean
strategies and selection of the optimal strategy by using the modified TOPSIS method.

http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/JOEM

Journal of Engineering Manufacture

r
Fo

Figure 2. Proposed decision-making model for lean strategy selection.

er

Pe
ew

vi

Re

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

Figure 3. Flowchart of the proposed decision-making model.

Table 2. LM strategy selection framework for the foundry industry.

http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/JOEM

Page 16 of 26

Page 17 of 26

Internal
factors

SWOT criteria and its sub-criteria

Strengths (S)
S1. Most of the raw materials are easily available
from the local suppliers
S2. Company believes in cleanliness of the shop
floor and is quite concerned about the
environment
S3. State-of-the-art production technologies are
used, which leads to high productivity and less
pollution
S4. High level of support from the top management
for introducing lean concepts
S5. Committed manpower and team spirit
Weaknesses (W)
W1. Lack of Management Information System
(MIS) for inventory control
W2. Lack of communication between management
and workers
W3. Lack of skill up-gradation training and formal
training for workers and managers
W4. Anxiety in changing the mind-set of workers to
adapt varying circumstances
W5. Lack of senior managements committed
leadership
Opportunities (O)
O1. Rise in demand of casting products at local and
national level
O2. Growing environmental concern in foundries of
western countries provides opportunities for
sourcing of castings from developing countries
like China and India.
O3. Low labour costs in India
O4. Technology available for castings are well
established in India
O5. Improvement in economic and political
relations with different countries
Threats (T)
T1. Looming shortage of skilled workers and
trained engineers in foundry industry
T2. Foundries are forced to invest more in R&D to
increase productivity and reduce pollution
T3. Producing the castings with limited effects on
the environment under present technological
and economic challenges
T4. Other competitors, in particular China and
United States are emerging as potential supplier
in global market due to better technology and
infrastructure
T5. Fluctuations of raw materials prices in the
market

r
Fo

Lean strategies
A1. Identify
wastes
in
the
manufacturing
system
and
restructure
manufacturing
processes and layout
A2. Take management support for
using better technology
A3. Collaborate with customer and
supplier in product development
processes
A4. Share production planning and
forecasting
knowledge
with
customers and suppliers
A5. Consider employee suggestions on
products
and
processes
improvement
A6. Undertake programs for quality
improvement and control and for
the improvement of equipment
productivity
A7. Undertake programs to improve
environmental performance of
processes and products
A8. Undertake actions to implement
pull production system

er

Pe

ew

vi

External
factors

Re

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

Journal of Engineering Manufacture

4.2 Analysis of criteria and sub-criteria priorities using ANP

In this section, ANP is used for evaluating priorities of SWOT criteria and sub-criteria.
Assuming independence among the SWOT criteria, a pairwise independent comparison
matrix is formed among the criteria with respect to the overall goal by using pairwise

http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/JOEM

Journal of Engineering Manufacture

comparison scale. The pairwise comparison matrix has been analysed as shown in Table 3,
and the following priorities ( ) are obtained.

S 0.410
W 0.269

w21 = =
O 0.212

T 0.109
Table 3. Pairwise comparison of SWOT criteria with independence among them.
SWOT criteria

S
W
O
T

2
1

2
2
1

3
2
3
1

r
Fo

Priorities of
SWOT criteria
0.410
0.269
0.212
0.109

Internal dependence among the SWOT criteria is then determined by evaluating the influence

Pe

of each criterion on other criteria. Since, it is unrealistic to assume the SWOT criteria as
independent, the existence of internal dependence among these criteria is modelled more

er

realistically through the ANP approach. The pairwise comparison matrices are formed for the
SWOT criteria based on the internal dependencies by using pairwise comparison scale as

Re

shown in Tables 4-7. The internal dependence matrix of the SWOT factors (
 ) is formed

vi

using the obtained internal dependence priorities of each criterion.

ew

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

Page 18 of 26

Table 4. The internal dependence matrix of the SWOT factors with respect to strengths.
S
W
O
T

W
1

O
1/5
1

3
1

Priorities
0.094
0.627
0.279

Table 5. The internal dependence matrix of the SWOT factors with respect to weaknesses.
W
S
O
T

S
1

O
4
1

T
3
2
1

Priorities
0.630
0.218
0.152

Table 6. The internal dependence matrix of the SWOT factors with respect to opportunities.
O
S
W

S
1

W
5
1

T
6

http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/JOEM

Priorities
0.729
0.162

Page 19 of 26

0.109

Table 7. The internal dependence matrix of the SWOT factors with respect to threats.
T
S
W
O

S
1

W
7
1

O
4
1/3
1

Priorities
0.705
0.084
0.211

0.630 0.729 0.705

1
0.094
1
0.162 0.084
W 22 =
0.627 0.218
1
0.211

1
0.279 0.152 0.109
The interdependent priorities (CDEFGDEH) of the SWOT criteria are calculated as
follows:

r
Fo

er

0.405
0.176

wcriteria = W 22 w 21 =
0.275

0.144

Pe

The local priorities of the SWOT sub-criteria are calculated by using the pairwise
comparison matrices as follows:

Re

1 1/ 3 1/ 7 1/ 5 1/ 3 0.044

1 1/ 5 1/ 4 1/ 2 0.082

wsub criteria ( strengths ) =

1
2
8 = 0.483

1
5 0.295

1 0.096

ew

vi

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

Journal of Engineering Manufacture

1 5 1/ 2 1/ 5 3 0.137
1 1/ 7 1/ 9 1/ 3 0.033

wsub criteria ( weaknesses ) =

1 1/ 3 6 = 0.247

1
8 0.523

1 0.060

http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/JOEM

Journal of Engineering Manufacture

1 2 3 3 5 0.372
1 3 5 7 0.322

wsub criteria ( opportunities ) =

1 4 7 = 0.187

1 3 0.080

1 0.039
1 3 5 1/ 3
1 2 1/ 5

wsub criteria (threats ) =

1 1/ 7

r
Fo

7 0.264
5 0.118
3 = 0.068

9 0.516
1 0.034

The global priorities of the SWOT sub-criteria IJK*CDEFGDEH<LMNK

M) are obtained by
calculating the product of the interdependent priorities of SWOT criteria and the local

Pe

priorities of SWOT sub-criteria. The calculations are provided in Table 8.

Table 8. Priorities of criteria and sub-criteria with respect to the case scenario.
SWOT criteria

Opportunities

0.275

Threats

0.144

Global priorities of the

sub-criteria
0.018
0.033
0.196
0.119
0.039
0.024
0.006
0.043
0.092
0.011
0.102
0.089
0.051
0.022
0.011
0.038
0.017
0.010
0.074
0.005

ew

0.176

Local priorities of the

sub-criteria
0.044
0.082
0.483
0.295
0.096
0.137
0.033
0.247
0.523
0.060
0.372
0.322
0.187
0.080
0.039
0.264
0.118
0.068
0.516
0.034

vi

Weakness

SWOT subcriteria
S1
S2
S3
S4
S5
W1
W2
W3
W4
W5
O1
O2
O3
O4
O5
T1
T2
T3
T4
T5

Re

Strengths

Priorities of the
criteria
0.405

er

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

Page 20 of 26

4.3 Analysis of lean strategies priorities using modified TOPSIS

In this section, TOPSIS is used for evaluating priorities of the identified lean strategies.
Firstly, a decision matrix is established by the comparison of each identified lean strategy

http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/JOEM

Page 21 of 26

amongst the SWOT sub-criteria by inputs from each expert. The multiple opinions on
elements of decision matrix obtained are aggregated into the group importance rating by
taking the geometric mean, using the Eq. (7) and the aggregated rating of each lean strategies
with respect to the sub-criteria was obtained as shown in Table 9. Then, the elements of the
normalised decision matrix are calculated for each element of the aggregated decision matrix
using the vector normalisation method using Eq. (8), and the normalised decision matrix is
formed as shown in Table 10. By using the Eq. (9) and (10), the positive-ideal and the
negative-ideal solutions are determined for each SWOT sub-criteria from the normalised

r
Fo

decision matrix. The weighted Euclidean distances of each lean strategy are calculated from
the positive-ideal and the negative-ideal solutions by using the Eq. (11) and (12) and the
obtained distances are shown in Table 11. Finally, the relative closeness coefficient ? of

Pe

each lean strategy to the ideal solutions are calculated by using the Eq. (13) and are relatively

er

listed in Table 11. The relative closeness coefficient indicates the most and the least
preferable lean strategies.

Re

In addition to this, the same model has been applied and analysed with the ANP based
TOPSIS method. In order to compute the ANP based TOPSIS satisfaction values, the data

vi

obtained from the weighted decision matrix has been used. It is specified that the results

ew

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

Journal of Engineering Manufacture

obtained by the application of the modified TOPSIS may perhaps vary from those calculated
by the classical TOPSIS method. The modified method, however, maybe considered to
provide better and more reliable results, because of its analytical derivation in view of the
weighted

Euclidean

http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/JOEM

distances.

Journal of Engineering Manufacture

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48

Page 22 of 26

Table 9. The aggregated rating of the lean strategies with respect to the sub-criteria.

A1
A2
A3
A4
A5
A6
A7
A8

S1
2.25
1.67
6.91
6.57
2.81
3.62
7.25
8.71

S2
7.28
3.56
3.47
2.65
8.43
7.35
8.09
6.55

S3
5.27
8.64
5.57
6.38
6.86
8.38
6.25
7.29

S4
3.65
5.53
7.31
7.45
8.93
6.75
5.93
8.78

S5
4.38
4.27
2.35
2.19
5.15
4.78
2.13
5.47

W1
5.12
7.83
3.52
6.37
3.16
7.87
4.93
8.09

Fo

W2
4.45
6.25
1.96
2.15
8.42
5.37
3.63
5.68

W3
3.25
5.38
3.68
2.57
7.19
7.03
5.47
6.92

W4
2.13
7.13
3.35
3.97
6.75
8.26
2.31
7.56

W2
0.305
0.429
0.134
0.147
0.578
0.368
0.249
0.390

W3
0.210
0.348
0.238
0.166
0.465
0.455
0.354
0.448

W4
0.132
0.443
0.208
0.247
0.420
0.514
0.144
0.470

rP

Table 10. Normalised decision matrix.

A1
A2
A3
A4
A5
A6
A7
A8

S1
0.143
0.106
0.439
0.417
0.178
0.230
0.460
0.553

S2
0.408
0.200
0.195
0.149
0.473
0.412
0.454
0.367

S3
0.269
0.441
0.284
0.326
0.350
0.428
0.319
0.372

S4
0.185
0.280
0.370
0.377
0.452
0.342
0.300
0.444

S5
0.382
0.372
0.205
0.191
0.449
0.417
0.186
0.477

W1
0.295
0.450
0.202
0.366
0.182
0.453
0.284
0.465

ee

W5
5.37
8.17
4.03
3.53
4.27
6.67
4.49
6.59

O1
8.21
6.52
7.28
6.23
2.27
7.15
5.79
8.45

rR
W5
0.339
0.516
0.255
0.223
0.270
0.421
0.284
0.416

O1
0.431
0.342
0.382
0.327
0.119
0.375
0.304
0.444

O2
7.73
6.43
8.67
7.93
3.28
6.49
5.35
7.82

O3
2.37
4.89
1.77
2.85
5.07
4.37
2.23
4.76

O4
5.42
8.35
3.67
7.95
5.81
8.78
6.39
7.93

O5
1.79
2.47
7.17
5.15
1.97
4.63
1.47
3.35

T1
4.38
3.77
2.54
3.65
4.15
7.35
2.63
6.72

T2
7.85
4.92
5.37
4.67
3.31
6.53
7.45
4.59

T3
3.34
6.23
6.94
4.84
4.41
7.27
8.05
6.97

T4
8.53
8.06
8.74
7.23
2.19
7.79
5.84
8.35

T5
2.94
3.67
5.89
8.35
1.09
2.43
3.95
8.18

O2
0.396
0.329
0.444
0.406
0.168
0.332
0.274
0.400

O3
0.223
0.460
0.166
0.268
0.476
0.411
0.210
0.447

O4
0.274
0.423
0.186
0.402
0.294
0.444
0.323
0.401

O5
0.160
0.220
0.639
0.459
0.176
0.413
0.131
0.299

T1
0.330
0.284
0.191
0.275
0.312
0.553
0.198
0.506

T2
0.481
0.301
0.329
0.286
0.203
0.400
0.456
0.281

T3
0.191
0.355
0.396
0.276
0.252
0.415
0.459
0.398

T4
0.409
0.386
0.419
0.346
0.105
0.373
0.280
0.400

T5
0.200
0.250
0.401
0.568
0.074
0.165
0.269
0.556

ev

iew

http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/JOEM

Page 23 of 26

Table 11. Closeness coefficients and ranking of lean strategies with ANP based TOPSIS and
ANP based modified TOPSIS methods.
Alternatives
A1
A2
A3
A4
A5
A6
A7
A8

ANP based TOPSIS method

Si+
SiCi
0.0549
0.0550
0.5002
0.0466
0.0499
0.5167
0.0464
0.0550
0.5421
0.0393
0.0508
0.5639
0.0539
0.0503
0.4824
0.0490
0.0509
0.5095
0.0438
0.0488
0.5273
0.0450
0.0583
0.5643

5. Conclusions

Rank
7
5
3
2
8
6
4
1

ANP based modified TOPSIS method

Di+
DiCi
Rank
0.1847
0.1990
0.5185
5
0.1850
0.1631
0.4686
7
0.1649
0.2069
0.5565
2
0.1487
0.1896
0.5604
1
0.1922
0.1926
0.5005
6
0.1919
0.1687
0.4679
8
0.1622
0.1850
0.5329
3
0.1771
0.2020
0.5328
4

r
Fo

The purpose of this article has been to evaluate lean strategies as a MCDM problem by using
integrated ANP and modified TOPSIS based on the SWOT analysis. This research explores

Pe

and identifies sub-criteria in order to generate a basic hierarchical model for analysing lean
strategies by using SWOT analysis. To find out the best lean strategy for the foundry

er

industry, we proposed a new integrated method for the first time based on the ANP and
modified TOPSIS. Thus, an integrated evaluation system has been designed to provide

Re

practitioners a point of view to construct a SWOT model for ascertaining the relative
importance of the SWOT sub-criteria and to assess the lean strategies based on these sub-

vi

criteria. By quantitatively comparing our method with classical TOPSIS approach, we have

ew

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

Journal of Engineering Manufacture

shown that the proposed method successfully contributes to the knowledge in the
development of a systematic methodology and enables decision makers to understand the
complete evaluation process of lean strategy selection problem. Managerially, this article
provides a novel approach to examine various lean strategy using decision-making methods.
Furthermore, this approach provides a more accurate, effective, and systematic decision
support tool. Finally, it is recommended that managers of the foundry industry can utilize this
model to evaluate their organisations strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats to
prioritise the strategies for further development and higher productivity.

http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/JOEM

Journal of Engineering Manufacture

Regardless of the benefits summarised, there are some limitations. This paper could
be extended by using intuitionistic fuzzy sets in conjunction with ANP and modified TOPSIS
based SWOT methodology to capture possible uncertainty. The refinement of the proposed
approach for sophisticated modelling would be an appropriate approach for future research. It
is also suggested that future research may include the application of the proposed
methodology to other manufacturing industries. This work can also be further extended by
developing a mathematical software package for the selection of lean strategies.

References
1.

r
Fo

Karim A and ArifUzZaman K. A methodology for effective implementation of lean

strategies and its performance evaluation in manufacturing organizations. Business Process

Pe

Management Journal. 2013; 19: 169-96.

2.

Womack JP and Jones DT. From lean production to lean enterprise. Harvard Business

er

Review. 1994; 72: 93-103.

3.

Abdullah F. Lean manufacturing tools and techniques in the process industry with a focus on

steel. University of Pittsburgh, 2003.

Torielli RM, Abrahams RA, Smillie RW and Voigt RC. Using lean methodologies for

vi

4.

Re

economically and environmentally sustainable foundries. China Foundry. 2011; 8: 74-88.

5.

ew

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

Bhasin S. An appropriate change strategy for lean success. Management Decision. 2012; 50:

439-58.
6.

Yksel and Dagdeviren M. Using the analytic network process (ANP) in a SWOT analysis

A case study for a textile firm. Information Sciences. 2007; 177: 3364-82.
7.

Sevkli M, Oztekin A, Uysal O, Torlak G, Turkyilmaz A and Delen D. Development of a

fuzzy ANP based SWOT analysis for the airline industry in Turkey. Expert Systems with
Applications. 2012; 39: 14-24.
8.

Shinno H, Yoshioka H, Marpaung S and Hachiga S. Quantitative SWOT analysis on global

competitiveness of machine tool industry. Journal of Engineering Design. 2006; 17: 251-8.

http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/JOEM

Page 24 of 26

Page 25 of 26

9.

Ekmekioglu M, Can Kutlu A and Kahraman C. A Fuzzy Multi-Criteria SWOT Analysis: An

Application to Nuclear Power Plant Site Selection. International Journal of Computational

Intelligence Systems. 2011; 4: 583-95.
10.

Azimi R, Yazdani-Chamzini A, Fouladgar MM, Zavadskas EK and Basiri MH. Ranking the

strategies of mining sector through anp and topsis in a swot framework. Journal of Business
Economics and Management. 2011; 12: 670-89.
11.

Womack JP, Jones DT and Roos D. The Machine that Changed the World. New York:

Rawson Associates, 1990.

12.

r
Fo

Shah R and Ward PT. Defining and developing measures of lean production. Journal of

Operations Management. 2007; 25: 785-805.

13.

Ohno T. Toyota Production System. Portland, OR: Productivity Press, 1988.

14.

Monden Y. Adaptable Kanban system helps Toyota maintain just-in-time production.

Pe

Industrial Engineering. 1981; 13: 29-&.

15.

er

Monden Y. Toyota Production System: an integrated approach to just-in-time. 3rd ed.

Norcross, Georgia: Engineering and Management Press, 1998.

16.

Russell RS and Taylor BW. Operations management. 2nd ed. Upper Saddle River, New

York: Prentice Hall, 1999.

vi

17.

Re

Hines P and Rich N. The seven value stream mapping tools. International Journal of

Operations & Production Management. 1997; 17: 46-64.

18.

ew

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

Journal of Engineering Manufacture

Kumar M and Antony J. Multiple case-study analysis of quality management practices within

UK Six Sigma and non-Six Sigma manufacturing small- and medium-sized enterprises. Proceedings
of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part B: Journal of Engineering Manufacture. 2009; 223:
925-34.
19.

Bayazit O and Karpak B. An analytical network process-based framework for successful total

quality management (TQM): An assessment of Turkish manufacturing industry readiness.

International Journal of Production Economics. 2007; 105: 79-96.

http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/JOEM

Journal of Engineering Manufacture

20.

Chen JC, Li Y and Shady BD. From value stream mapping toward a lean sigma continuous

improvement process: An industrial case study. International Journal of Production Research. 2010;
48: 1069-86.
21.

Sugimori Y, Kusunoki K, Cho F and Uchikawa S. Toyota production system and kanban

system materialization of just-in-time and respect-for-human system. International Journal of

Production Research. 1977; 15: 553-64.
22.

Eswaramoorthi M, Kathiresan GR, Prasad PSS and Mohanram PV. A survey on lean

practices in Indian machine tool industries. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing

r
Fo

Technology. 2011; 52: 1091-101.

23.

Porter ME and van der Linde C. Green and Competitive: Ending the Stalemate. Harvard

Business Review. 1995; 73: 120-34.

24.

Pe

Yang MGM, Hong P and Modi SB. Impact of lean manufacturing and environmental

management on business performance: An empirical study of manufacturing firms. International

er

Journal of Production Economics. 2011; 129: 251-61.

25.

Hisrich RD and Peters MP. Entrepreneurship: Starting, Developing, and Managing a New

Re

Enterprise. Homewood, Boston: McGraw-Hill/Irwin, 1992.

26.

Learned EP, Christensen CR, Andrews KR and Guth WD. Business Policy: Text and Cases.

Homewood, IL: McGraw-Hill/Irwin, 1969.

ew

27.

vi

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

Glaister KW and Falshaw JR. Strategic Planning: Still Going Strong? Long Range Planning.

1999; 32: 107-16.

28.

McDonald M. Marketing Plans. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann Press, 1999.

29.

Kotler P. Marketing Management. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 2000.

30.

Helms MM, Rodrguez MA, Ros Ldl and Hargrave W. Entrepreneurial potential in

Argentina: a SWOT analysis. Competitiveness Review. 2011; 21: 269-87.

31.

Shrestha RK, Alavalapati JRR and Kalmbacher RS. Exploring the potential for silvopasture

adoption in south-central Florida: an application of SWOTAHP method. Agricultural Systems. 2004;

81: 185-99.

http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/JOEM

Page 26 of 26

Page 27 of 26

32.

Kahraman C, Demirel NC and Demirel T. Prioritization of e-Government strategies using a

SWOT-AHP analysis: the case of Turkey. European Journal of Information Systems. 2007; 16: 28498.
33.

Yang Y. SWOT-TOPSIS Integration Method for Strategic Decision. E-Business and E-

Government (ICEE), 2010 International Conference on. 2010, p. 1575-8.

34.

Shakoor Shahabi R, Basiri MH, Rashidi Kahag M and Ahangar Zonouzi S. An ANPSWOT

approach for interdependency analysis and prioritizing the Irans steel scrap industry strategies.
Resources Policy. 2014; 42: 18-26.
35.

r
Fo

Deng H, Yeh C-H and Willis RJ. Inter-company comparison using modified TOPSIS with

objective weights. Computers & Operations Research. 2000; 27: 963-73.

36.

Ho W. Integrated analytic hierarchy process and its applications A literature review.

Pe

European Journal of Operational Research. 2008; 186: 211-28.

37.

Saaty TL. The Analytic Network Process: Decision Making with Dependence and Feedback;

er

The Organization and Prioritization of Complexity. Pittsburgh: RWS Publications, 1996.

38.

Saaty TL and Vargas LG. Decision Making with the Analytic Network Process; Economic,

Re

Political, Social and Technological Applications with Benefits, Opportunities, Costs and Risks.
Springer US, 2006, p.363.

vi

39.

Saaty TL. The Analytic Hierarchy Process. New York: McGraw-Hill. 1980.

40.

Meade LM and Sarkis J. Analyzing organizational project alternatives for agile

ew

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

Journal of Engineering Manufacture

manufacturing processes: An analytical network approach. International Journal of Production

Research. 1999; 37: 241-61.
41.

Hwang CL and Yoon K. Multiple Attribute Decision Making: Methods and Applications.

Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 1981.

http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/JOEM