MOBILE SELECTION USING VIKOR METHOD

Project Report submitted in partial fulfillment of

The requirements for the degree of

BACHELOR OF TECHNOLOGY
In

MECHANICAL ENGINEERING Of
MAULANA ABDUL KALAM AZAD UNIVERSITY OF
TECHNOLOGY(FORMERLY KNOWN AS WBUT)
By

ARNAB ROY,
MAKAUT ROLL: 10900713014

SK RAIHANUR RAHMAN,
MAKAUT ROLL: 10900713041

Under the guidance of

DR. ANUPAM HALDER

DEPARTMENT OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERING

NETAJI SUBHASH ENGINEERING COLLEGE

TECHNO CITY, GARIA, KOLKATA 700 152
ACADEMIC YEAR OF PASS OUT 2016-2017

CERTIFICATION
This is to certify that this project report titled MOBILE SELECTION USING VIKOR METHOD

submitted in partial fulfillment of requirements for award of the degree Bachelor of Technology

(B. Tech) in MECHANICAL ENGINEERING Maulana Abul Kalam Azad University of

Technology is a faithful record of the original work carried out by, ARNAB ROY, ROLL NO.-

10900713014, REG. NO.-131090110388 SK RAIHANUR RAHAMAN, ROLL NO.-

10900713041, REG NO.-131090110415 under my guidance and supervision.

It is further certified that it contains no material, which to a substantial extent has been

submitted for the award of any degree/diploma in any institute or has been published in

any form, except the assistances drawn from other sources, for which due

acknowledgement has been made.

___________
Date:.. Guides signature

Dr. Anupam Halder

Sd/ __________________

(Head of the Department)

Mechanical Engineering

NETAJI SUBHASH ENGINEERING COLLEGE

TECHNO CITY, GARIA, KOLKATA 700 152

2 | Page
 DECLARATION

We hereby declare that this project report titled MOBILE SELECTION USING VIKOR METHOD

is our own original work carried out as a under graduate student in Netaji Subhash

Engineering College except to the extent that assistances from other sources are duly

acknowledged.

All sources used for this project report have been fully and properly cited. It contains no

material which to a substantial extent has been submitted for the award of any

degree/diploma in any institute or has been published in any form, except where due

acknowledgement is made.

NAME SIGNATURE DATE

ARNAB ROY
Sk RAIHANUR RAHAMAN

3 | Page
 CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL

We hereby approve this dissertation titled

MOBILE SELECTION Using VIKOR METHOD

carried out by

ARNAB ROY;

WBUT ROLL NO.-10900713014; Reg. No.-131090110388

Sk RAIHANUR RAHAMAN;

WBUT ROLL NO.-10900713041; Reg. No.-131090110415

under the guidance of

Dr. Anupam Halder

of Netaji Subhash Engineering College, Kolkata in partial fulfillment of requirements

for award of the degree Bachelor of Technology (B. Tech) in Mechanical Engineering

of Maulana Abul Kalam Azad University of Technology

Date:..

Examiners signatures:

1. .

2. .

3. .

4 | Page
 CONTENTS

Serial no. Topics Page no.

1 6
Acknowledgement
2 7
Abstract
3 Introduction 8

4 About VIKOR Method 9

5 Mobile Selection (Example) 9-12

6 Conclusion 13

7 References 14

5 | Page
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I wish to express my profound gratitude and indebtedness to Dr. Anupam Halder,

Assistant Professor, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Netaji Subhash
Engineering College, Garia, for introducing the present topic and for his inspiring
guidance, constructive criticism and valuable suggestions throughout this project work.

I am also thankful to Prof. Malay KantiNaskar, Professor and Head, Department of

Mechanical Engineering, Netaji Subhash Engineering College, Garia, for his constant
support and encouragement. I am also grateful for his help and support in providing us
valuable inputs for the project work.

Last but not least, my sincere thanks to all our friends who have
patiently extended all sorts of help for accomplishing this
undertaking.

Arnab Roy

Sk Raihanur Rahaman

Dated:

6 | Page
 ABSTRUCT

In the present study an efficient Multi-Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) approach has
been proposed for quality evaluation and performance appraisal in vendor selection.
Vendor selection is a Multi-Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) problem influenced by
multiple performance criteria/attributes. These criteria attributes may be both qualitative
as well as quantitative. Qualitative criteria estimates are generally based on previous
experience and expert opinion on a suitable conversion scale (Likert Scale). This
conversion is based on human judgment; therefore, predicted result may not be
accurate always because the method doesnt explore real data. These are analyzed
using AHP, QFD, Fuzzy techniques etc. reported in literature. In solution of MCDM
problems there should be a common trend is to convert quantitative criteria values into
an equivalent single performance index called Multi-attribute Performance Index (MPI).
Benchmarking and selection of the best alternative can be made in accordance with the
MPI values of all the alternatives. In this context, present study highlights application of
VIKOR method adapted from MCDM for utilizing quantitative real performance estimate
scores. Detail methodology of VIKOR method has been illustrated in this reporting
through a case study.

Key words:

Mobile Selection Problem

VIKOR Method
Mobile Management
Multicriteria Decision Making.

7 | Page
 Introduction

Multiple-criteria decision-making (MCDM) or multiple-criteria decision

analysis (MCDA) is a sub-discipline of operations research that explicitly evaluates
multiple conflicting criteria in decision making (both in daily life or in professional
settings). Conflicting criteria are typical in evaluating options: cost or price is usually one
of the main criteria, and some measure of quality is typically another criterion, easily in
conflict with the cost. In purchasing a car, cost, comfort, safety, and fuel economy may
be some of the main criteria we consider it is unusual that the cheapest car is the
most comfortable and the safest one. In portfolio management, we are interested in
getting high returns but at the same time reducing our risks, but the stocks that have the
potential of bringing high returns typically also carry high risks of losing money. In a
service industry, customer satisfaction and the cost of providing service are
fundamental conflicting criteria.
The VIKOR method is a multicriteria decision making (MCDM) or Multi-criteria decision
analysis method. It was originally developed by Serafim Opricovic to solve decision
problems with conflicting and noncommensurable (different units) criteria, assuming
that compromise is acceptable for conflict resolution, the decision maker wants a
solution that is the closest to the ideal, and the alternatives are evaluated according to
all established criteria. VIKOR ranks alternatives and determines the solution named
compromise that is the closest to the ideal.
The idea of compromise solution was introduced in MCDM by Po-Lung Yu in 1973, and
by Milan Zeleny.
S.Opricovic had developed the basic ideas of VIKOR in his Ph.D. dissertation in 1979,
and an application was published in 1980. The name VIKOR appeared in 1990 from
Serbian: VIseKriterijumska Optimizacija I Kompromisno Resenje, that means:
Multicriteria Optimization and Compromise Solution, with pronunciation: vikor. The real
applications were presented in 1998.[ The paper in 2004 contributed to the international
recognition of the VIKOR method. (The most cited paper in the field of Economics,
Science Watch, Apr.2009).
The MCDM problem is stated as follows: Determine the best (compromise) solution in
multicriteria sense from the set of J feasible alternatives A1, A2, AJ, evaluated
according to the set of n criterion functions. The input data are the elements fij of the
performance (decision) matrix, where fij is the value of the i-th criterion function for the
alternative Aj.

8 | Page
 VIKOR METHOD

The MCDM method is very popular technique widely applied for determining the best
solution among several alternatives having multiple attributes or alternatives. A MCDM
problem can be represented by a decision matrix as follows:

Here, i A represents ith alternative, i 1, 2,.........,m; j Cx represents the jth criterion, j 1,

2,.........,n ; and ij x is the individual performance of an alternative. The procedures for
evaluating the best solution to an MCDM problem include computing the utilities of
alternatives and ranking these alternatives. The alternative solution with the highest
utility is considered to be the optimal solution.

MOBILE SELECTION (AN EXAMPLE)

CRITERIA:

COST;
RAM;
ROM;
BATTERY

MODEL:

MOTO G4 PLUS;
REDMI NOTE 3;
LE 2;
REDMI 3S PRIME

9 | Page
 MOBILE SELECTION EXAMPLE (DECISION MATRIX)

STEP-1: Representation of normalized decision matrix

The normalized decision matrix can be expressed as follows:

F= [ fij]m * n

Here, Ai represents ith alternative, i 1, 2,.........,m; j 1, 2,.........,n and xij is the individual
performance of an alternative.

TABLE-1: Attributes for mobile selection criterias

SL. NO. MOBILES ATTRIBUTES

COST RAM ROM BATTERY
1 MOTO G4 14999 3 32 3000
PLUS
2 REDMI 11999 2 16 4050
NOTE 3
3 LE 2 12999 1.5 32 3500
4 REDMI 3S 8999 2.5 32 4100
PRIME

STEP-2: Calculation of normalized quality loss (NQL) for individual attributes in each
experimental run.
The NQL can be obtained as follows:

fij = xij / x2ij ; i = 1,2,3,....,m. .....................(1)

10 | P a g e
 TABLE-2: Normalized quality loss estimates (NQL)

SL. NO. MOBILES ATTRIBUTES

COST RAM ROM BATTERY
1 MOTO G4 0.6029 0.6470 0.5547 0.4065
PLUS
2 REDMI 0.4823 0.4313 0.2773 0.5488
NOTE 3
3 LE 2 0.5225 0.3235 0.5547 0.4743
4 REDMI 3S 0.3617 0.5392 0.5547 0.5556
PRIME

Here, according to the formula:

f11 = 14999 / ( 149992 + 119992 + 129992 + 89992 )

= 0.6029

STEP-3: Determination of ideal and negative-ideal solutions:

The ideal solution A* and the negative ideal solution A- are determined as follows:

A* = { f*1,f*2,f*3,....,f*n } ............(3); A- = { f-1,f-2,f-3,....f-n } .............(4)

Here,
A*= { 0.6029,0.6470,0.5547,0.5556 }
A-= { 0.3617,0.3235,0.2773,0.4065 }

STEP-4: Calculation of utility measure and regret measure:

The utility measure and the regret measure for each alternative are given as

Si = wj * {(f*j - fij) / (f*j - f-j)} [ j = 1,2,3,...,n ] ;........................(5)

Ri = Maxj wj * {(f*j - fij) / (f*j - f-j)} [ j = 1,2,3,...,n ] ;................(6)

where, Si and Ri , represent the utility measure and the regret measure, respectively,
and wj is the weight of the jth criterion.
Here, we considered wj = 0.2

11 | P a g e
 TABLE-3: Utility measures of individual criteria attribute

SL. NO. MOBILES ATTRIBUTES

COST RAM ROM BATTERY
1 MOTO G4 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.2000
PLUS
2 REDMI 0.1000 0.1333 0.2000 0.0091
NOTE 3
3 LE 2 0.0667 0.2000 0.0000 0.1090
4 REDMI 3S 0.2000 0.0666 0.0000 0.0000
PRIME

Here, according to the table-3:

S31 = 0.2 * {( 0.6029 - 0.5225 ) / ( 0.6029 - 0.3617 )}

= 0.0667

STEP-5: Calculation of the utility and regret measures for each response in
each experimental run using equation (5) and (6) respectively.

TABLE-4: Utility measures ( Si ) and regret measures ( Ri ) of alternatives

MOBILES Si Ri
MOTO G4 PLUS 0.3667 0.0000
REDMI NOTE 3 0.3999 0.1333
LE 2 0.2000 0.2000
REDMI 3S PRIME 0.3181 0.0666

Here, Si [MOTO G4 PLUS] =(0.0000 + 0.1000 + 0.0667 + 0.2000)

=0.3667

12 | P a g e
STEP-6: Computation of VIKOR index
The VIKOR index can be expressed as follows:

Qi = * [(Si - S*) / (S- - S*)] + (1 - ) * [(Ri - R*) / (R- - R*)]...............(7)

Calculation of VIKOR index of the ith experimental run. Substituting

Si and Ri into equation (7) yields the VIKOR index of theith experimental run as follows.
A smaller VIKOR index produces better multi-response performance.

TABLE-5: VIKOR index of individual alternatives

MOBILES VIKOR INDEX RANKING

MOTO G4 PLUS 0.4169 1
REDMI NOTE 3 0.5000 3
LE 2 0.5000 3
REDMI 3S PRIME 0.4619 2

Thus the ranks for the alternatives in the mobile selection problem using VIKOR method
is as :

MOTO G4 PLUS

REDMI 3S PRIME

(REDMI NOTE 3) / (LE 2)

13 | P a g e
 CONCLUSION:

In the present study, application feasibility of a MCDM approach: VIKOR method has
been highlighted to solve multi-criteria decision making problems through a case study
of mobile selection. The study demonstrates the effectiveness of the said MCDM
techniques in solving such a vendor selection problem.

REFERENCE:

1. http://operationstech.about.com/od/vendorselection/a/VendorSelection
Hub.htm

2. Datta S, Mahapatra SS, Banerjee S and Bandyopadhyay A, Comparative study on

application of utility concept and VIKOR method for vendor selection, AIMS
International Conference on Value-based Management, organized by Indus Business
AcademyIndia, International Forum of Management Scholars, AIMS International, held
during August 11-13, 2010 at Dev Sanskriti Vishwavidyalaya, Haridwar, India.

3. Roodhooft F and Konings J, (1996), Vendor selection and evaluation an activity

based costing approach, European Journal of Operational Research, 96, 97-102.

4. Charles A. Weber, John R. Current, Anand Desai, (1998), Theory and Methodology
Non-cooperative negotiation strategies for vendor selection, European Journal of
Operational Research, 108, 208-223.

5. Ding H, Benyoucef L and Xie X, (2003), A simulation-optimization approach using

genetic search for supplier selection, Proceedings of the 2003 Winter Simulation
Conference, S. Chick, P. J. Snchez, D. Ferrin, and D. J. Morrice, eds.
6. Chih-Hung Tsai, Ching-Liang Chang, and Lieh Chen, (2003), Applying Grey
Relational Analysis to the Vendor Evaluation Model, International Journal of the
Computer, the Internet and Management, 11(3), 4553.

7. Kumar M, Vrat P and Shankar R, (2004), A fuzzy goal programming approach for
vendor selection problem in a supply chain, Computers and Industrial Engineering, 46,
6985.

8. Heung-Suk Hwang, Chiung Moon, Chun-Ling Chuang and Meng-Jong Goan, (2005),
Supplier selection and planning model using AHP, International Journal of the
Information Systems for Logistics and Management (IJISLM), 1(1), 47-53.

14 | P a g e
9. Bayazita O, Karpakb B, (2005), An AHP application in vendor selection, ISAHP
2005, Honolulu, Hawaii, July 8-10, 1-24.

10. Sonmez M, (2006), A Review and Critique of Supplier Selection Process and
Practices, Business School Occasional Papers Series Paper 2006: 1 ISBN 1 85901
197 7, Loughborough University.

11. Chen KS and Chen KL, (2006), Supplier selection by testing the process
incapability index, International Journal of Production Research, 44(3), 589600.

12. Kubat C and Yuce B, (2006), Supplier Selection with Genetic Algorithm and Fuzzy
AHP, Proceedings of 5th International Symposium on Intelligent Manufacturing
Systems, Department of Industrial Engineering, Sakarya University, May 29-31, 1382-
1401.

13. Xiao G, Dunne K and OSullivan D, (2006), Development of an online supplier

selection module, International Journal of Services Technology and Management, 7(1),
52-67.

14. Chandra Mouli KVV, Venkata Subbaiah K, Mallikarjuna Rao K and Acharyulu SG,
(2006), Particle Swarm Optimization Approach for Vendors Selection, IE(I)
JournalPR, 86, 3-6.

15. Gencer C and Grpinar D, (2007), Analytic network process in supplier selection: A
case study in an electronic firm, Applied Mathematical Modelling, 31, 24752486.

16. Tahriri F, Osman MR, Ali A and Yusuff R M, (2008), A review of supplier selection
methods in manufacturing industries, Suranaree Journal of Science and Technology,
15(3):201-208

17. Ketata R, Mahmoud HB, Romdhan TB, (2008), A new approach for resolving a
supplier selection and evaluation model, Malaysian Journal of Computer Science,
21(1), 66-79.

18. Omid Jadidi, Tang Sai Hong, Fatemeh Firouzi and Rosnah Mohd Yusuff, (2008),
An optimal grey based approach based on TOPSIS concepts for supplier selection
problem, International Journal of Management Science and Engineering Management,
4(2), 104-117.

19. Taghavifard MT and Mirheydari D, (2008), A New Framework for Evaluation and
Prioritization of Suppliers using a Hierarchical Fuzzy TOPSIS, proceedings of World
Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology, Volume 31, July 2008, ISSN 2070-
3740.

20. Opricovic S and Tzeng G-H, (2007), Extended VIKOR Method in Comparison with
Outranking Methods, European Journal of Operations Research, 178, 514-529.

15 | P a g e
21. Walia RS, Shan HS and Kumar P, (2006), Multi-Response Optimization of
CFAAFM Process Through Taguchi Method and Utility Concept, Materials and
Manufacturing Processes, 21, 907-914.

22. Kumar P, Barua PB and Gaindhar JL, (2000), Quality Optimization (Multi-
Characteristics) Through Taguchis Technique and Utility Concept, Quality and
Reliability Engineering International, 16, 475-
485.

16 | P a g e