IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cys/ecocyb/v50y2016i1p39-68.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A New Method Of Assessment Based On Fuzzy Ranking And Aggregated Weights (Afraw) For Mcdm Problems Under Type-2 Fuzzy Environment

Author

Listed:
  • Mehdi KESHAVARZ GHORABAEE

    (Department of Industrial Management, Faculty of Management and Accounting, AllamehTabataba’i University, Tehran, Iran)

  • Edmundas Kazimieras ZAVADSKAS

    (Department of Construction Technology and Management, Faculty of Civil Engineering, Vilnius Gediminas Technical University, Lithuania)

  • Maghsoud AMIRI

    (Department of Industrial Management, Faculty of Management and Accounting,AllamehTabataba’i University, Tehran, Iran)

  • Jurgita ANTUCHEVICIENE

    (Department of Construction Technology and Management, Faculty of Civil Engineering, Vilnius Gediminas Technical University, Lithuania)

Abstract

Fuzzy multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) methods and problems have increasingly been considered in the past years. Type-1 fuzzy sets are usually used by decision-makers (DMs) to express their evaluations in the process of decision-making. Interval type-2 fuzzy sets (IT2FSs), which are extensions of type-1 fuzzy sets, have more degrees of flexibility in modeling of uncertainty. In this research, a new ranking method to calculate the ranking values of interval type-2 fuzzy sets is proposed. A comparison is performed to show the efficiency of this ranking method. Using the proposed ranking method and the arithmetic operations of IT2FSs, a new method of Assessment based on Fuzzy Ranking and Aggregated Weights (AFRAW)is developed for multi-criteria group decision-making. To obtain more realistic and practical weights for the criteria, the subjective weights expressed by DMs and objective weights calculated based on a deviation-based method are combined, and the aggregated weights are used in the proposed method. A numerical example related to assessment of suppliers in a supply chain and selecting the best one is used to illustrate the procedure of the proposed method. Moreover, a comparison and a sensitivity analysis are performed in this study. The results of these analyses show the validity and stability of the proposed method.

Suggested Citation

  • Mehdi KESHAVARZ GHORABAEE & Edmundas Kazimieras ZAVADSKAS & Maghsoud AMIRI & Jurgita ANTUCHEVICIENE, 2016. "A New Method Of Assessment Based On Fuzzy Ranking And Aggregated Weights (Afraw) For Mcdm Problems Under Type-2 Fuzzy Environment," ECONOMIC COMPUTATION AND ECONOMIC CYBERNETICS STUDIES AND RESEARCH, Faculty of Economic Cybernetics, Statistics and Informatics, vol. 50(1), pages 39-68.
    • Handle: RePEc:cys:ecocyb:v:50:y:2016:i:1:p:39-68
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: ftp://www.eadr.ro/RePEc/cys/ecocyb_pdf/ecocyb1_2016p39-68.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Celik, Erkan & Bilisik, Ozge Nalan & Erdogan, Melike & Gumus, Alev Taskin & Baracli, Hayri, 2013. "An integrated novel interval type-2 fuzzy MCDM method to improve customer satisfaction in public transportation for Istanbul," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 28-51.
    2. Zhi-Xin Su, 2011. "A Hybrid Fuzzy Approach To Fuzzy Multi-Attribute Group Decision-Making," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 10(04), pages 695-711.
    3. Chen, Ting-Yu & Chang, Chien-Hung & Rachel Lu, Jui-fen, 2013. "The extended QUALIFLEX method for multiple criteria decision analysis based on interval type-2 fuzzy sets and applications to medical decision making," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 226(3), pages 615-625.
    4. Chin-Tsai Lin & Chuan Lee & Cheng-Shiung Wu, 2010. "Fuzzy Group Decision Making In Pursuit Of A Competitive Marketing Strategy," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 9(02), pages 281-300.
    5. Nicky J. Welton & Howard H. Z. Thom, 2015. "Value of Information," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 35(5), pages 564-566, July.
    6. Ana Nieto-Morote & Francisco Ruz-Vila, 2011. "A Fuzzy Ahp Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Approach Applied To Combined Cooling, Heating, And Power Production Systems," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 10(03), pages 497-517.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Joan Carles FERRER-COMALAT & Salvador LINARES-MUSTAROS & Dolors COROMINAS-COLL, 2016. "A Model For Optimal Investment Project Choice Using Fuzzy Probability," ECONOMIC COMPUTATION AND ECONOMIC CYBERNETICS STUDIES AND RESEARCH, Faculty of Economic Cybernetics, Statistics and Informatics, vol. 50(4), pages 187-203.
    2. Deyun Zhou & Yongchuan Tang & Wen Jiang, 2017. "An Improved Belief Entropy and Its Application in Decision-Making," Complexity, Hindawi, vol. 2017, pages 1-15, March.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Paulo Cesar Schotten & Danielle Costa Morais, 2019. "A group decision model for credit granting in the financial market," Financial Innovation, Springer;Southwestern University of Finance and Economics, vol. 5(1), pages 1-19, December.
    2. Vincenzo Varriale & Antonello Cammarano & Francesca Michelino & Mauro Caputo, 2021. "Sustainable Supply Chains with Blockchain, IoT and RFID: A Simulation on Order Management," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(11), pages 1-23, June.
    3. Valeria Costantini & Francesco Crespi & Giovanni Marin & Elena Paglialunga, 2016. "Eco-innovation, sustainable supply chains and environmental performance in European industries," LEM Papers Series 2016/19, Laboratory of Economics and Management (LEM), Sant'Anna School of Advanced Studies, Pisa, Italy.
    4. Lee, Alice J. & Ames, Daniel R., 2017. "“I can’t pay more” versus “It’s not worth more”: Divergent effects of constraint and disparagement rationales in negotiations," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 141(C), pages 16-28.
    5. Hussain, Hadia & Murtaza, Murtaza & Ajmal, Areeb & Ahmed, Afreen & Khan, Muhammad Ovais Khalid, 2020. "A study on the effects of social media advertisement on consumer’s attitude and customer response," MPRA Paper 104675, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    6. A. G. Fatullayev & Nizami A. Gasilov & Şahin Emrah Amrahov, 2019. "Numerical solution of linear inhomogeneous fuzzy delay differential equations," Fuzzy Optimization and Decision Making, Springer, vol. 18(3), pages 315-326, September.
    7. Cyril Chalendard, 2015. "Use of internal information, external information acquisition and customs underreporting," Working Papers halshs-01179445, HAL.
    8. Arun Advani & William Elming & Jonathan Shaw, 2023. "The Dynamic Effects of Tax Audits," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 105(3), pages 545-561, May.
    9. Philippe Aghion & Ufuk Akcigit & Matthieu Lequien & Stefanie Stantcheva, 2017. "Tax simplicity and heterogeneous learning," CEP Discussion Papers dp1516, Centre for Economic Performance, LSE.
    10. Marie Bjørneby & Annette Alstadsæter & Kjetil Telle, 2018. "Collusive tax evasion by employers and employees. Evidence from a randomized fi eld experiment in Norway," Discussion Papers 891, Statistics Norway, Research Department.
    11. Chuangen Gao & Shuyang Gu & Jiguo Yu & Hai Du & Weili Wu, 2022. "Adaptive seeding for profit maximization in social networks," Journal of Global Optimization, Springer, vol. 82(2), pages 413-432, February.
    12. Koessler, Frederic & Laclau, Marie & Renault, Jérôme & Tomala, Tristan, 2022. "Long information design," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 17(2), May.
    13. Jamal El-Den & Pratap Adikhari & Pratap Adikhari, 2017. "Social media in the service of social entrepreneurship: Identifying factors for better services," Journal of Advances in Humanities and Social Sciences, Dr. Yi-Hsing Hsieh, vol. 3(2), pages 105-114.
    14. Annette Alstadsæter & Wojciech Kopczuk & Kjetil Telle, 2019. "Social networks and tax avoidance: evidence from a well-defined Norwegian tax shelter," International Tax and Public Finance, Springer;International Institute of Public Finance, vol. 26(6), pages 1291-1328, December.
    15. Xiongnan Jin & Sejin Chun & Jooik Jung & Kyong-Ho Lee, 0. "A fast and scalable approach for IoT service selection based on a physical service model," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 0, pages 1-16.
    16. Jun Hong Park & Sang Ho Kook & Hyeonu Im & Soomin Eum & Chulung Lee, 2018. "Fabless Semiconductor Firms’ Financial Performance Determinant Factors: Product Platform Efficiency and Technological Capability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(10), pages 1-22, September.
    17. Sebastian Kaumanns, 2019. "“Some fuzzy math”: relational information on debt value adjustments by managers and the financial press," Business Research, Springer;German Academic Association for Business Research, vol. 12(2), pages 755-794, December.
    18. Samuel J Gershman, 2015. "A Unifying Probabilistic View of Associative Learning," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(11), pages 1-20, November.
    19. Arun Advani, 2022. "Who does and doesn't pay taxes?," Fiscal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 43(1), pages 5-22, March.
    20. Steve Fortin & Ahmad Hammami & Michel Magnan, 2021. "Re‐exploring Fair Value Accounting and Value Relevance: An Examination of Underlying Securities," Abacus, Accounting Foundation, University of Sydney, vol. 57(2), pages 220-250, June.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    MCDM; interval type-2 fuzzy sets; fuzzy ranking method; multi-criteria group decision-making; AFRAW.;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C02 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - General - - - Mathematical Economics
    • C44 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Econometric and Statistical Methods: Special Topics - - - Operations Research; Statistical Decision Theory
    • C61 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Mathematical Methods; Programming Models; Mathematical and Simulation Modeling - - - Optimization Techniques; Programming Models; Dynamic Analysis
    • C63 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Mathematical Methods; Programming Models; Mathematical and Simulation Modeling - - - Computational Techniques
    • L6 - Industrial Organization - - Industry Studies: Manufacturing

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cys:ecocyb:v:50:y:2016:i:1:p:39-68. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Corina Saman (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/feasero.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.