A Combined Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Framework for Process-Based Digitalisation Opportunity and Priority Assessment (DOPA)

被引:1
|
作者
Yildirim, Nihan [1 ]
Siyahi, Birden Tulug [2 ]
Ozbek, Oguz [2 ]
Ahioglu, Imran [1 ]
Kahya, Almira Selin [3 ]
机构
[1] Istanbul Tech Univ, Istanbul, Turkey
[2] Biligopex, Istanbul, Turkey
[3] Tech Univ Munich, Munich, Germany
关键词
AHP; Digital Transformation; Digitalisation Roadmap; FAHP; FMEA; Industry; 4.0; Priority Setting; Quality Management; Technology Selection; TOPSIS; Voice of Customer; SUPPORT-SYSTEM; FAILURE MODE; FUZZY; TOPSIS; AHP; SELECTION; SOFTWARE; FMEA;
D O I
10.4018/IJBAN.298018
中图分类号
F [经济];
学科分类号
02 ;
摘要
With the introduction of Industry 4.0 and supporting technologies, both service and manufacturing companies faced external and internal pressure for "going digital." In many cases, companies cannot decide on the digitalisation initiative due to preliminary groundwork to justify the required investment. For digitalisation priority setting under uncertain benefits, available digital technology selection methods lack the focus on process needs and do not fully utilise quality management tools in the multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) framework. In this context, this study aims to propose a novel, context-independent, and process-based digital opportunity priority assessment (DOPA) methodology. The proposed approach utilizes critical to quality measures (CTQs), the causes with potential adversary effects as alternatives, and the importance, frequency, and digital control level of CTQs as the criteria in TOPSIS. AHP and Fuzzy AHP validate CTQ importance criteria. The study also presents a real industry application to validate the proposed model.
引用
收藏
页数:22
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] A Sustainable Manufacturing Strategy Decision Framework in the Context of Multi-Criteria Decision-Making
    Ocampo, Lanndon
    Clark, Eppie
    JORDAN JOURNAL OF MECHANICAL AND INDUSTRIAL ENGINEERING, 2015, 9 (03): : 177 - 186
  • [22] Urban bus network of priority lanes: A combined multi-objective, multi-criteria and group decision-making approach
    Hadas, Yuval
    Nahum, Oren E.
    TRANSPORT POLICY, 2016, 52 : 186 - 196
  • [23] Comparison of multi-criteria decision-making methods for online controlled experiments in a launch decision-making framework
    Wu, Jie J. W.
    Mazzuchi, Thomas A.
    Sarkani, Shahram
    INFORMATION AND SOFTWARE TECHNOLOGY, 2023, 155
  • [24] Multi-criteria decision-making framework on process water treatment of minimally processed leafy greens
    Schryvers, Sofie
    De Bock, Thomas
    Uyttendaele, Mieke
    Jacxsens, Liesbeth
    FOOD CONTROL, 2023, 148
  • [25] Fuzzy Multi-Criteria Decision-Making: Example of an Explainable Classification Framework
    Yusuf, Hesham
    Yang, Kai
    Panoutsos, George
    ADVANCES IN COMPUTATIONAL INTELLIGENCE SYSTEMS, 2022, 1409 : 15 - 26
  • [26] An evidential game theory framework in multi-criteria decision making process
    Deng, Xinyang
    Zheng, Xi
    Su, Xiaoyan
    Chan, Felix T. S.
    Hu, Yong
    Sadiq, Rehan
    Deng, Yong
    APPLIED MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTATION, 2014, 244 : 783 - 793
  • [27] A MODEL BASED ON INFLUENCE DIAGRAMS FOR MULTI-CRITERIA DECISION-MAKING
    Sedki, Karima
    Delcroix, Veronique
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL ON ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE TOOLS, 2012, 21 (04)
  • [28] Characteristics of the Analytic Network Process, a Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Method
    Kadoic, Nikola
    CROATIAN OPERATIONAL RESEARCH REVIEW, 2018, 9 (02) : 235 - 244
  • [29] Assessing business process orientation using multi-criteria decision-making
    Viegas, Renan Alves
    Costa, Ana Paula Cabral Seixas
    BUSINESS PROCESS MANAGEMENT JOURNAL, 2023, 29 (02) : 352 - 368
  • [30] Selection of opencast mining equipment by a multi-criteria decision-making process
    Samanta, B
    Sarkar, B
    Mukherjee, SK
    TRANSACTIONS OF THE INSTITUTION OF MINING AND METALLURGY SECTION A-MINING TECHNOLOGY, 2002, 111 : A136 - A142