Alternative Manufacturing Process Selection by Weighted

Average Method

Manufacturing Process Selection:

For the manufacturing of our Automatic Coin Collector, we have decided to purchase mild steel
for base and collector, hopper, power panel, sorting panel, vibrator DC motor and main slot. For
this reason, we are going to purchase mild steel sheet metal. Further manufacturing of these raw
materials in our production facility will result in desired shape and size for different parts of the
product. We have identified several manufacturing processes for our product. They are given
below,

1. Cutting of mild steel for base and collector

2. Mechanical Joining
i) Permanent Joining
ii) Temporary Joining
3. Finishing Process
4. Coloring
5. Purchasing Decisions
Cutting of Mild steel for Base and Collector:

Figure 1: Base and Collector

(All dimensions are in cm)
Determination of Relative Performance of Goals Using Digital Logic Method:

Table 01: Determination of relative performance of goals using digital logic method

Relative
Emphasis
Positive
Number of Positive Decisions, N = n(n-1)/2 = 6(6-1)/2 = 15 Co-
Selection Decision
efficient
Criteria α

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Cost 1 0 1 1 1 4 0.267

Dimensional
0 1 1 0 0 2 0.133
Accuracy
Material
1 1 0 0 1 3 0.200
Wastage
Power
0 0 1 0 0 1 0.067
Requirement

Surface Finish 0 1 1 1 1 4 0.267

Metallurgical
0 0 0 1 0 1 0.067
Change
∑α =
Total Number of Positive Decisions 15
1.000

Description of Table no 01:

 Among dimensional accuracy and cost, cost is more important. Therefore we rated cost 1
and dimension accuracy 0.
 For dimensional accuracy and Metallurgic Change, dimensional accuracy is more
important. Therefore we rated metallurgic change 0 and dimension accuracy 1.
 For dimensional accuracy and surface finishing, surface finishing is more important
therefore we rated surface finishing 1 and dimensional accuracy 0.
 Between material wastage and surface finishing, surface finishing is more important.
Therefore we rated surface finishing 1 and material wastage 0.
 Among material wastage and cost, material wastage is more important. Therefore we
rated cost 0 and material wastage 1.
 Similarly for metallurgic change and surface finishing, surface finishing is more
important. Therefore we rated metallurgic change 0 and surface finishing 1.
 Between metallurgic change and cost, cost is more important. Therefore we rated
metallurgic change 0 and cost 1.
  Among surface finishing and cost, cost is more important. Therefore we rated surface
finishing 0 and cost 1.
 For positive decision we calculate every selected criteria row by adding them.
 For Relative Emphasis Co-efficient we use the formula

𝐏𝐨𝐬𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐝𝐞𝐜𝐢𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝟏
𝛂= = = 𝟎. 𝟔𝟕
𝐓𝐨𝐭𝐚𝐥 𝐧𝐮𝐦𝐛𝐞𝐫 𝐨𝐟 𝐝𝐞𝐜𝐢𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬 𝟏𝟓

Table no 02: Numerical Value Rating

Very Large 5

Large 4

Medium 3

Low 2

Very Low 1
Calculation of the Performance Index:

Table 03: Calculation of the performance index

Gas Cutting Shearing Laser Cutting

Weighing Weighted Weighted Weighted

Goals Scaled Scaled Scaled
Factor Score Score Score
Property β Property β Property β
αβ αβ Αβ

Cost 0.267 66.67 17.8 100 26.7 50 13.35

Dimensional
0.133 80 10.64 80 10.64 100 13.3
Accuracy
Material
0.200 25 5.00 100 20 50 10
Wastage
Power
0.067 33.33 2.23 100 6.7 25 1.675
Requirement
Surface
0.267 80 21.36 60 16.02 100 26.7
Finish
Metallurgical
0.067 33.33 2.23 100 6.7 50 3.35
Change
Material
Performance 59.26 86.76 68.375
Index, γ

Result:
Material Performance Index is greatest for shearing (86.76). So we should select shearing for the
cutting of mild steel for Base & Collector.

Description of Table no 03:

 Cost: Gas and Laser cutting is more costly than Shearing. So we rated Shearing 4, Gas
and Laser cutting 2.
 Dimensional Accuracy: Laser cutting is more accurate than Shearing and Gas cutting. So
we rated Laser cutting 5, Shearing and Gas cutting 4.
 Material Wastage: In Shearing material wastage is less so we rated Shearing 5, Laser
cutting 4 and Gas cutting 3.
 Power Requirement: Shearing need less power than Gas and Laser cutting so we rated
Shearing 5, Laser cutting 4 and Gas cutting 3.
 Surface Finish: In Laser cutting surface finishing is more than Shearing and Gas cutting.
So we rated Laser cutting 5, Shearing 3 and Gas cutting 4.
  Metallurgical Change: In Shearing metallurgical structure change is more so we rated
shearing 5, Laser cutting 4 and Gas cutting 3.

Joining Process for Different Parts:

Permanent Joining:

Table 04: Determination of relative performance of goals using digital logic method

Relative
Emphasis
Positive
Number of Positive Decisions, N = n(n-1)/2 = 6(6-1)/2 = 15 Co-
Selection Decision
efficient
Criteria α

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Cost 0 1 1 0 0 2 0.133

Dimensional
1 1 1 0 1 4 0.267
Accuracy

Availability 0 0 1 0 0 1 0.067

Power
0 0 0 0 1 1 0.067
Requirement

Strength 1 1 1 1 1 5 0.33

Metallurgical
1 0 1 0 0 2 0.133
Change
∑α =
Total Number of Positive Decisions 15
1.000
.

Description of Table no 04:

 Between strength and availability, strength is more important. Therefore we rated strength
1 and availability 0.
 Between strength and power requirement, strength is more important therefore we rated
strength 1 and power requirement 0.
 Similarly strength is more important than cost. So strength 1 and cost 0.
 Between dimensional accuracy and Power requirement, dimensional accuracy is more
important. Therefore we rated Power requirement 0 and dimensional accuracy 1.
 Between dimensional accuracy and cost, dimensional accuracy is more important.
Therefore we rated dimensional accuracy 1 and cost 0.
 Between strength and power requirement, strength is more important. Therefore we rated
strength 1 and power requirement 0.
  Between availability and cost, cost is more important. Therefore we rated availability 0
and cost 1.
 Between Power Requirement and cost, Power Requirement is more important. Therefore
we rated cost 0 and Power Requirement 1.
 For positive decision we calculate every selected criteria row by adding them.
 For Relative Emphasis Co-efficient we use the formula,

𝐏𝐨𝐬𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐝𝐞𝐜𝐢𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝟏
𝛂= = = 𝟎. 𝟔𝟕
𝐓𝐨𝐭𝐚𝐥 𝐧𝐮𝐦𝐛𝐞𝐫 𝐨𝐟 𝐝𝐞𝐜𝐢𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬 𝟏𝟓

Table no 05: Numerical Value Rating

Very Large 5

Large 4

Medium 3

Low 2

Very Low 1
Calculation of the Performance Index:

Table 06: Calculation of the performance index

Arc Welding TIG Welding MIG Welding

Selection Weighing
Criterion Factor Weighted
Scaled Weighted Scaled Weighted Scaled
Score
Property β Score αβ Property β Score αβ Property β
Αβ

Cost 0.133 100 13.3 50 6.65 50 6.65

Dimensional
0.267 80 21.36 100 26.7 60 16.02
Accuracy

Availability 0.067 100 6.7 80 5.36 60 4.02

Power
0.067 100 6.7 80 5.36 80 5.36
Requirement

Strength 0.33 80 26.4 60 19.8 100 33.0

Metallurgical
0.133 100 13.3 75 9.975 60 7.98
Change
Material
Performance 87.76 73.845 73.03
Index, γ

Result:
Material Performance Index is greatest for Arc welding (74.43). So we should select Arc
Welding for permanent joining.

Description of Table no 06:

 Cost: TIG and MIG welding is more costly than Arc welding. So we rated Arc welding 5,
TIG and MIG welding 2.
 Dimensional Accuracy: TIG is much more accurate than Arc and MIG welding. So we
rated TIG 5, Arc 4 and MIG 3.
 Availability: Arc welding is more available than TIG and MIG. So we rated Arc 5, TIG 4
and MIG 3.
 Power Requirement: We need more power in TIG and MIG than Arc welding. So we rated
Arc welding 4, TIG and MIG 5.
  Strength: MIG has more strength than Arc and TIG welding. So we rated Arc welding 4,
TIG 3 and MIG 5.
 Metallurgical Change: In MIG welding metallurgical structure change more so we rated
Arc welding 3, TIG welding 4 and MIG welding 5.

Temporary Joining:

Table 07: Determination of relative performance of goals using digital logic method
Relative
Positive Emphasis
Number of Positive Decisions, N = n(n-1)/2 = 6(6-1)/2 = 15 Decisions Co-
Selection efficient α
Criteria
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Cost 0 1 0 1 0 2 0.133

Strength 1 1 0 1 0 3 0.200

Availability 0 0 0 0 1 1 0.067

Longevity 1 1 1 1 0 4 0.267

Surface
0 0 1 0 0 1 0.067
Finish

Design
1 1 0 1 1 4 0.267
Flexibility

Total Number of Positive Decisions 15 ∑α = 1.000

Description of Table no 07:

 Between strength and availability, strength is more important. Therefore we rated strength
1 and availability 0.
 Between strength and surface finish, strength is more important therefore we rated
strength 1 and surface finish 0.
 Similarly strength is more important than cost. So strength 1 and cost 0.
 Between strength and cost, strength is more important. Therefore we rated strength 1 and
cost 0.
 Between longevity and cost, longevity is more important. Therefore we rated longevity 1
and cost 0.
  For positive decision we calculate every selected criteria row by adding them.
 For Relative Emphasis Co-efficient we use the formula,

𝐏𝐨𝐬𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐝𝐞𝐜𝐢𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝟏
𝛂= = = 𝟎. 𝟔𝟕
𝐓𝐨𝐭𝐚𝐥 𝐧𝐮𝐦𝐛𝐞𝐫 𝐨𝐟 𝐝𝐞𝐜𝐢𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬 𝟏𝟓

Table no 08: Numerical Value Rating

Very Large 5

Large 4

Medium 3

Low 2

Very Low 1
Calculation of the Performance Index:

Table 09: Calculation of the performance index

Rivets Nut-bolts

Weighing
Goals
Factor, α Scaled Weighted Scaled Weighted
Property, β Score, αβ Property, β Score, αβ

Cost 0.133 100 13.3 100 13.3

Strength 0.200 80 16 100 20

Availability 0.067 80 5.36 100 6.7

Longevity 0.267 80 21.36 100 26.7

Surface Finish 0.067 100 6.7 80 5.36

Design
0.267 80 21.36 100 26.7
Flexibility
Material
Performance 84.08 98.76
Index, γ

Result:
Material Performance Index is Greater for Nut-bolts (98.76). So we should select Nut-bolts for
temporary joining.

Description of Table no 09:

 Strength: Nut-bolts joining is more strength than Rivets joining. So we rated Nut-bolts 5
and Rivets joining 4.
 Availability: Nut-bolts joining is more available than Rivets joining. So we rated Nut-bolts
5 and Rivets joining 4.
 Longevity: The longevity of Nut-bolts joining is more than Rivets joining. So we rated
Nut-bolts 5 and Rivets joining 4.
 Surface Finish: Nut-bolts joining is less surface finish than Rivets joining. So we rated Nut-
bolts 4 and Rivets joining 5.
 Design Flexibility: The design flexibility of Nut-bolts joining is more than Rivets joining.
So we rated Nut-bolts 5 and Rivets joining 4.
Finishing Process:
Table 10: Determination of relative performance of goals using digital logic method
Relative
Positive Emphasis
Number of Positive Decisions, N = n(n-1)/2 = 6(6-1)/2 = 15 Decision Co-
Goals efficient α

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Cost 0 1 1 0 1 3 0.200

Smoothness 1 1 1 0 1 4 0.267

Availability 0 0 0 0 1 1 0.067

Longevity 0 0 1 1 0 2 0.133

Material
1 1 1 0 1 4 0.267
Wastage

Time Duration 0 0 0 1 0 1 0.067

Total Number of Positive Decisions 15 ∑α = 1.000

Description of Table no 10:

 Between cost and smoothness, smoothness is more important. Therefore we rated cost 0
and smoothness 1.
 Between smoothness and availability, smoothness is more important therefore we rated
smoothness 1 and availability 0.
 Between longevity and cost, longevity is more important. Therefore we rated longevity 1
and cost 0.
 Between smoothness and material wastage, smoothness is more important therefore we
rated smoothness 1 and material wastage 1.
 For positive decision we calculate every selected criteria row by adding them.
 For Relative Emphasis Co-efficient we use the formula,

𝐏𝐨𝐬𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐝𝐞𝐜𝐢𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝟏
𝛂= = = 𝟎. 𝟔𝟕
𝐓𝐨𝐭𝐚𝐥 𝐧𝐮𝐦𝐛𝐞𝐫 𝐨𝐟 𝐝𝐞𝐜𝐢𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬 𝟏𝟓
Table no 11: Numerical Value Rating

Very Large 5

Large 4

Medium 3

Low 2

Very Low 1

Calculation of Performance Index:

Table 12: Calculation of performance index

Non-Precision Grinding and

Precision Grinding
Polishing
Weighing
Goals
Factor, Scaled Weighted Scaled Weighted
Α Property, β Score, αβ Property, β Score, αβ

Cost 0.200 75 15 100 20

Smoothness 0.267 100 26.7 100 26.7

Availability 0.067 75 5.025 100 6.7

Longevity 0.133 100 13.3 80 10.64

Material
0.267 100 26.7 80 21.36
Wastage

Time Duration 0.067 100 6.7 80 5.36

Material
Performance 93.425 90.76
Index, γ
Result:. Material Performance Index is Greater for Precision Grinding (93.425). So we should
select Precision Grinding for the the finishing process

Description of Table no 13:

 Cost: Precision Grinding is more costly than Non-Precision Grinding and Polishing so we
rated Precision Grinding 3 and Non-Precision Grinding 4.
 Availability: Precision Grinding is less available than Non-Precision Grinding and
Polishing so we rated Precision Grinding 3 and Non-Precision Grinding 4.
 Longevity: The longevity of Precision Grinding is more than Non-Precision Grinding and
Polishing so we rated Precision Grinding 5 and Non-Precision Grinding 4.
 Material Wastage: The material wastage of Precision Grinding is less than Non-Precision
Grinding and Polishing so we rated Precision Grinding 5 and Non-Precision Grinding 4.
 Time Duration: The duration of time of Precision Grinding is more than Non-Precision
Grinding and Polishing so we rated Precision Grinding 5 and Non-Precision Grinding 4.

Coloring Process:

Table 13: Determination of relative performance of goals using digital logic method

Relative
Number of Positive Decisions, N= n(n-1)/2 = 6(6-1)/2 =15
Positive Emphasis
Decision Co-efficient
Goals Α

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Cost 0 1 0 1 1 3 0.20

Durability 1 1 0 1 1 4 0.27

Power
0 0 0 0 1 1 0.07
Requirement

Availability 1 1 1 1 1 5 0.33

Wastage of
0 0 1 0 0 1 0.07
Color

Smoothness 0 0 0 0 1 1 0.07

Total Number of Positive Decisions 15 ∑α = 1.000

Description of Table no 13:
 Between cost and durability, durability is more important. Therefore we rated cost 0 and
durability 1.
 Between durability and power requirement, durability is more important therefore we rated
durability 1 and power requirement 0.
 Between power requirement and availability, availability is more important. Therefore we
rated availability 1 and power requirement 0.
 Between availability and smoothness, availability is more important therefore we rated
availability 1 and smoothness 0.
 For positive decision we calculate every selected criteria row by adding them.
 For Relative Emphasis Co-efficient we use the formula,
𝐏𝐨𝐬𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐝𝐞𝐜𝐢𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝟏
𝛂= = = 𝟎. 𝟔𝟕
𝐓𝐨𝐭𝐚𝐥 𝐧𝐮𝐦𝐛𝐞𝐫 𝐨𝐟 𝐝𝐞𝐜𝐢𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬 𝟏𝟓

Table no 14: Numerical Value Rating

Very Large 5

Large 4

Medium 3

Low 2

Very Low 1
Calculation of Performance Index:

Table 15: Calculation of performance index

Color Spray Heat Print by Color Powder

Weighing
Goals Scaled
Factor, α Weighted Scaled Weighted
Property,
Score, αβ Property, β Score, αβ
β
Cost 0.20 100 20.0 60 12.0

Durability 0.27 75 20.25 100 27

Power
0.07 100 7.00 80 5.6
Requirement
Availability 0.33 100 33.0 80 26.4

Wastage of
0.07 75 5.25 100 7.00
Color
Smoothness 0.07 100 7.00 80 5.6
Material
Performance 92.5 83.6
Index, γ

Result:
Material Performance Index is Greater for Color Spray (87.4). So we should select Color Spray
for coloring process.

Description of Table no 15:

 Cost: Color Spray is less costly than Heat Print Color Powder. So we rated Color Spray 5
and Heat Print Color Powder 4.
 Durability: Color Spray is less durable than Heat Print Color Powder. So we rated Color
Spray 3 and Heat Print Color Powder 4.
 Power Requirement: Color Spray need less power than Heat Print Color Powder. So we
rated Color Spray 5 and Heat Print Color Powder 4.
 Availability: Color Spray is more available than Heat Print Color Powder. So we rated
Color Spray 5 and Heat Print Color Powder 4.
 Wastage of Color: Wastage of Color in Color Spray is more than Heat Print Color
Powder. So we rated Color Spray 3 and Heat Print Color Powder 4.
  Smoothness: Color Spray is smooth than Heat Print Color Powder. So we rated Color
Spray 5 and Heat Print Color Powder 4.

Purchasing Decision:

It is not possible or feasible to manufacture all the parts from their raw materials. Therefore we are
going to buy several parts. Their name and required units are given below:

Table 16: Parts name and required units

Name of the Part No. of Pieces per Unit

Motor 1

Switch 1

Wire As much as needed

Nut-Bolt 10

Spring 3