PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
March 5, 2026The Journal of Supercomputing3 citationsOpen Access

An integrated multi-criteria decision-making approach for facility layout problems

MŞMehmet Şahin

Key Points

  • The aim is to develop a robust approach for selecting optimal facility layouts by integrating multiple decision-making methods.
  • Developed an integrated group decision-making approach for facility layouts.
  • Combined objective weighting methods: MEREC and statistical variance.
  • Used four distinct ranking methods: COCOSO, COPRAS, CODAS, and MABAC.
  • Applied Spearman’s correlation to examine ranking consistency and divergence.
  • Demonstrated approach applicability through three facility layout problems.
  • Ranking outcomes varied significantly among methods with Spearman coefficients from strong to weak agreement.
  • Consistent results in the first problem, but rank reversals occurred in the second and third problems.
  • Sensitivity analyses indicated some methods are stable while others are sensitive to weight changes.

Abstract

Abstract Optimum facility layout is of great importance for businesses seeking competitive advantage and sustainable operational performance, as layout decisions directly affect cost, time, efficiency, and productivity. However, determining an optimal facility layout is inherently complex due to the presence of multiple alternatives evaluated under conflicting criteria and the need to evaluate large numbers of candidate layouts and what-if scenarios. Relying on a single multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) method, as commonly observed in the literature, may therefore lead to method-dependent or unstable conclusions. To address this limitation, this study proposes a robustness-oriented integrated group decision-making approach for facility layout selection that is designed to scale through parallel evaluation of method combinations and scenario batches. The approach combines two objective weighting methods—method based on the removal effects of criteria (MEREC) and statistical variance (SV)—with four conceptually distinct ranking methods, namely, combined compromise solution (COCOSO), complex proportional assessment (COPRAS), combinative distance-based assessment (CODAS), and multi-attributive border approximation area comparison (MABAC). Ranking consistency and divergence are systematically examined using Spearman’s correlation coefficient, and a consensus solution is obtained through the Copeland aggregation method. The applicability of the proposed approach is demonstrated using three facility layout problems. The numerical results show that ranking outcomes vary considerably across weighting–ranking combinations, with Spearman correlation coefficients ranging from strong agreement (r s > 0.95) to weak or negative association (r s as low as − 0.018), depending on the problem structure and aggregation logic. In the first problem, all method combinations consistently identify the same best alternative, indicating high robustness. In the second and third problems, notable rank reversals are observed, highlighting method- and weight-induced sensitivity. Additional sensitivity analyses based on extreme weight-dominance scenarios and method-specific parameter variation (CODAS threshold τ) demonstrate that while some methods exhibit stable top-ranked alternatives, others are more sensitive to changes. From a supercomputing perspective, the integrated pipeline naturally supports parallel or distributed execution across method pairs, alternatives, and scenario sets, enabling practical use in large-scale or near-real-time layout assessment settings. These findings confirm that the proposed integrated framework provides decision-relevant robustness insights that cannot be obtained from single-method analyses, thereby enhancing the reliability of facility layout selection.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Mehmet Şahin (2026) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/69a91e1fd6127c7a504c1c61https://doi.org/10.1007/s11227-026-08278-y
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper