4.7 Article

A Pareto supplier selection algorithm for minimum the life cycle cost of complex product system

期刊

EXPERT SYSTEMS WITH APPLICATIONS
卷 42, 期 9, 页码 4253-4264

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.eswa.2015.01.056

关键词

Supplier selection; Complex product system; Pareto optimal; Hybrid genetic algorithm; Life cycle cost

资金

  1. National Nature Science Fund Project of China [71171154]
  2. Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities [2013-YB-021, 2014-IV-104, 2014-IV-016]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Supplier selection has significant impact on life cycle cost of complex product system (CoPS). In this paper, a new variant of supplier selection problem named life cycle supplier selection of CoPS (LSS&CoPS) problem is addressed. There are three kinds of choices for a manufacturer to complete a CoPS: self-made, purchasing the finished component and outsourcing. Different selection not only results in difference of procurement cost of CoPS, but also results in reliability changing after it delivered to customer which greatly influences the operating cost in CoPS's lifecycle. However, the minimizing of two objectives is mutually conflicted. This paper presents a bi-objective LSS&CoPS model which considering operating stage of CoPS to balance the procurement cost and operating cost. Moreover, a hybridization of Pareto genetic algorithm (PGA) with multi-intersection and similarity crossover (MSC) strategy is proposed to solve the bi-objective problem. Also, a dual-chromosome is used to represent the variable-length chromosome. Finally, a cement equipment supplier optimal in a cement equipment enterprise is provided. Example indicates that the procurement cost and operating cost have been optimized, yields a Pareto optimal solution of supplier schema for project managers to make-decision and decrease the life cycle cost of CoPS. Additionally, the results show that the proposed approach is more preferably in Pareto optimal solution searching. (C) 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据