IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ejores/v136y2002i3p680-695.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Sizing the US destroyer fleet

Author

Listed:
  • Crary, Michael
  • Nozick, L. K.
  • Whitaker, L. R.

Abstract

No abstract is available for this item.

Suggested Citation

  • Crary, Michael & Nozick, L. K. & Whitaker, L. R., 2002. "Sizing the US destroyer fleet," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 136(3), pages 680-695, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ejores:v:136:y:2002:i:3:p:680-695
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0377-2217(01)00031-5
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Basak, Indrani, 1997. "Rank-based statistical procedures in analytic hierarchy process," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 101(1), pages 39-50, August.
    2. Korhonen, Pekka & Wallenius, Jyrki, 1990. "Using qualitative data in multiple objective linear programming," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 81-87, September.
    3. Forman, Ernest & Peniwati, Kirti, 1998. "Aggregating individual judgments and priorities with the analytic hierarchy process," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 108(1), pages 165-169, July.
    4. Hauser, David & Tadikamalla, Pandu, 1996. "The Analytic Hierarchy Process in an uncertain environment: A simulation approach," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 91(1), pages 27-37, May.
    5. William C. Jordan & Stephen C. Graves, 1995. "Principles on the Benefits of Manufacturing Process Flexibility," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 41(4), pages 577-594, April.
    6. Saaty, Thomas L., 1990. "How to make a decision: The analytic hierarchy process," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 9-26, September.
    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. Giovanni Pantuso & Kjetil Fagerholt & Stein W. Wallace, 2016. "Uncertainty in Fleet Renewal: A Case from Maritime Transportation," Transportation Science, INFORMS, vol. 50(2), pages 390-407, May.
    2. Chen, Shuo-Pei & Wu, Wann-Yih, 2010. "A systematic procedure to evaluate an automobile manufacturer-distributor partnership," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 205(3), pages 687-698, September.
    3. Hanson, Torbjørn, 2019. "Estimating output mix effectiveness: An applied scenario approach for the Armed Forces," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 39-49.
    4. Ho, William, 2008. "Integrated analytic hierarchy process and its applications - A literature review," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 186(1), pages 211-228, April.
    5. Hanson, Torbjørn, 2016. "Estimating output mix effectiveness: A scenario approach," Memorandum 14/2016, Oslo University, Department of Economics.
    6. Marielle Christiansen & Kjetil Fagerholt & David Ronen, 2004. "Ship Routing and Scheduling: Status and Perspectives," Transportation Science, INFORMS, vol. 38(1), pages 1-18, February.
    7. Vaidya, Omkarprasad S. & Kumar, Sushil, 2006. "Analytic hierarchy process: An overview of applications," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 169(1), pages 1-29, February.
    8. Pantuso, Giovanni & Fagerholt, Kjetil & Hvattum, Lars Magnus, 2014. "A survey on maritime fleet size and mix problems," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 235(2), pages 341-349.

    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. Marlow, David R. & Beale, David J. & Mashford, John S., 2012. "Risk-based prioritization and its application to inspection of valves in the water sector," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 67-74.
    2. Gerda Ana Melnik-Leroy & Gintautas Dzemyda, 2021. "How to Influence the Results of MCDM?—Evidence of the Impact of Cognitive Biases," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 9(2), pages 1-25, January.
    3. Zhu, Bin & Xu, Zeshui, 2014. "Analytic hierarchy process-hesitant group decision making," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 239(3), pages 794-801.
    4. Lee, Hakyeon & Geum, Youngjung, 2017. "Development of the scenario-based technology roadmap considering layer heterogeneity: An approach using CIA and AHP," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 12-24.
    5. Höfer, Tim & Sunak, Yasin & Siddique, Hafiz & Madlener, Reinhard, 2016. "Wind farm siting using a spatial Analytic Hierarchy Process approach: A case study of the Städteregion Aachen," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 163(C), pages 222-243.
    6. Gomez-Limon, J.A. & Atance, I., 2004. "Identification of public objectives related to agricultural sector support," Journal of Policy Modeling, Elsevier, vol. 26(8-9), pages 1045-1071, December.
    7. Kubińska, Elżbieta & Adamczyk-Kowalczuk, Magdalena & Andrzejewski, Mariusz & Rozakis, Stelios, 2022. "Incorporating the status quo effect into the decision making process: The case of municipal companies merger," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 84(C).
    8. Wu, Cheng-Ru & Lin, Chin-Tsai & Tsai, Pei-Hsuan, 2010. "Evaluating business performance of wealth management banks," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 207(2), pages 971-979, December.
    9. Dong, Qingxing & Cooper, Orrin, 2016. "A peer-to-peer dynamic adaptive consensus reaching model for the group AHP decision making," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 250(2), pages 521-530.
    10. Márcia Oliveira & Dalila B. M. M. Fontes & Teresa Pereira, 2013. "Multicriteria Decision Making: A Case Study in the Automobile Industry," FEP Working Papers 483, Universidade do Porto, Faculdade de Economia do Porto.
    11. Ualison Rébula De Oliveira & Hilda Anatiely Donato Souza & Carlos Augusto Gabriel Menezes & Henrique Martins Rocha, 2023. "Straightening machine preventive maintenance intervention plan based on AHP: a case study in a steel company in Brazil," Operations Management Research, Springer, vol. 16(3), pages 1577-1593, September.
    12. Rabelo, Luis & Eskandari, Hamidreza & Shaalan, Tarek & Helal, Magdy, 2007. "Value chain analysis using hybrid simulation and AHP," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 105(2), pages 536-547, February.
    13. Zhu, Bin & Xu, Zeshui & Zhang, Ren & Hong, Mei, 2016. "Hesitant analytic hierarchy process," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 250(2), pages 602-614.
    14. Munim, Ziaul Haque & Duru, Okan & Ng, Adolf K.Y., 2022. "Transhipment port's competitiveness forecasting using analytic network process modelling," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 70-82.
    15. B S Ahn & S H Choi, 2008. "ERP system selection using a simulation-based AHP approach: a case of Korean homeshopping company," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 59(3), pages 322-330, March.
    16. Tamer F. Abdelmaguid & Waleed Elrashidy, 2019. "Halting decisions for gas pipeline construction projects using AHP: a case study," Operational Research, Springer, vol. 19(1), pages 179-199, March.
    17. Leung, L. C. & Cao, D., 2000. "On consistency and ranking of alternatives in fuzzy AHP," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 124(1), pages 102-113, July.
    18. Vaidya, Omkarprasad S. & Kumar, Sushil, 2006. "Analytic hierarchy process: An overview of applications," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 169(1), pages 1-29, February.
    19. José A. Gómez-Limón & Ignacio Atance, 2004. "Identification of Public Objectives Related to Agricultural Sector Support," Economic Working Papers at Centro de Estudios Andaluces E2004/57, Centro de Estudios Andaluces.
    20. Nicola Bellantuono & Pierpaolo Pontrandolfo & Barbara Scozzi, 2016. "Capturing the Stakeholders’ View in Sustainability Reporting: A Novel Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(4), pages 1-12, April.

    More about this item

    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:eee:ejores:v:136:y:2002:i:3:p:680-695. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/eor .

    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.