IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jmathe/v11y2023i10p2249-d1144518.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Industrial and Management Applications of Type-2 Multi-Attribute Decision-Making Techniques Extended with Type-2 Fuzzy Sets from 2013 to 2022

Author

Listed:
  • Aleksandar Aleksić

    (Faculty of Engineering, University of Kragujevac, 34000 Kragujevac, Serbia)

  • Danijela Tadić

    (Faculty of Engineering, University of Kragujevac, 34000 Kragujevac, Serbia)

Abstract

The ongoing research in the field of decision-making can be analyzed from different perspectives. Research trends indicate that multi-attribute decision-making (MADM) methods have a significant impact on engineering and management scientific areas. Since many of the problems existing in the mentioned areas are associated with a certain level of uncertainty, type 2 fuzzy sets represent a common solution for the enhancement of conventional MADM methods. In this way, the decision-makers are encouraged to use linguistic expressions for the assessment of attributes’ relative importance and their values. The purpose of this paper is to review a determination of attributes’ relative importance, and their values, as well as the extension of ranking methods with type 2 fuzzy sets. The papers are systematically adjoined to groups consisting of hybrid models with the following characteristics: (1) indicating the procedure for modeling attribute relative importance and their values, (2) determining the extension of MADM methods with type 2 fuzzy sets to determine attributes’ vector weights, and (3) the extension of MADM for attributes ranking with type 2 fuzzy sets. This study reviewed a total of 42 papers in the domain of engineering and management published from 2013 to 2023 in different journals indexed by the Springer, Science Direct, Emerald, Wiley, ProQuest, Taylor, and Francis research platforms.

Suggested Citation

  • Aleksandar Aleksić & Danijela Tadić, 2023. "Industrial and Management Applications of Type-2 Multi-Attribute Decision-Making Techniques Extended with Type-2 Fuzzy Sets from 2013 to 2022," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 11(10), pages 1-24, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jmathe:v:11:y:2023:i:10:p:2249-:d:1144518
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7390/11/10/2249/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7390/11/10/2249/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. R. E. Bellman & L. A. Zadeh, 1970. "Decision-Making in a Fuzzy Environment," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 17(4), pages 141-164, December.
    2. Fatih Ecer, 2022. "Multi-criteria decision making for green supplier selection using interval type-2 fuzzy AHP: a case study of a home appliance manufacturer," Operational Research, Springer, vol. 22(1), pages 199-233, March.
    3. Mehdi Keshavarz Ghorabaee & Maghsoud Amiri & Jamshid Salehi Sadaghiani & Edmundas Kazimieras Zavadskas, 2015. "Multi-Criteria Project Selection Using an Extended VIKOR Method with Interval Type-2 Fuzzy Sets," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 14(05), pages 993-1016.
    4. Nikola Komatina & Marko Djapan & Igor Ristić & Aleksandar Aleksić, 2021. "Fulfilling External Stakeholders’ Demands—Enhancement Workplace Safety Using Fuzzy MCDM," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(5), pages 1-21, March.
    5. Xiuzhi Sang & Xinwang Liu, 2016. "An interval type-2 fuzzy sets-based TODIM method and its application to green supplier selection," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 67(5), pages 722-734, May.
    6. Kiracı, Kasım & Akan, Ercan, 2020. "Aircraft selection by applying AHP and TOPSIS in interval type-2 fuzzy sets," Journal of Air Transport Management, Elsevier, vol. 89(C).
    7. Deveci, Muhammet & Cali, Umit & Kucuksari, Sadik & Erdogan, Nuh, 2020. "Interval type-2 fuzzy sets based multi-criteria decision-making model for offshore wind farm development in Ireland," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 198(C).
    8. Ehsan Pourmand & Najmeh Mahjouri & Maryam Hosseini & Farzaneh Nik-Hemmat, 2020. "A Multi-Criteria Group Decision Making Methodology Using Interval Type-2 Fuzzy Sets: Application to Water Resources Management," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 34(13), pages 4067-4092, October.
    9. Manuel Sousa & Maria Fatima Almeida & Rodrigo Calili, 2021. "Multiple Criteria Decision Making for the Achievement of the UN Sustainable Development Goals: A Systematic Literature Review and a Research Agenda," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(8), pages 1-37, April.
    10. Thomas L. Saaty, 2013. "The Modern Science of Multicriteria Decision Making and Its Practical Applications: The AHP/ANP Approach," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 61(5), pages 1101-1118, October.
    11. 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.
    12. Deveci, Muhammet & Demirel, Nihan Çetin & Ahmetoğlu, Emine, 2017. "Airline new route selection based on interval type-2 fuzzy MCDM: A case study of new route between Turkey- North American region destinations," Journal of Air Transport Management, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 83-99.
    13. Chang, Da-Yong, 1996. "Applications of the extent analysis method on fuzzy AHP," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 95(3), pages 649-655, December.
    14. Qin, Jindong & Liu, Xinwang & Pedrycz, Witold, 2017. "An extended TODIM multi-criteria group decision making method for green supplier selection in interval type-2 fuzzy environment," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 258(2), pages 626-638.
    15. Badri Ahmadi, Hadi & Kusi-Sarpong, Simonov & Rezaei, Jafar, 2017. "Assessing the social sustainability of supply chains using Best Worst Method," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 99-106.
    16. Rezaei, Jafar, 2015. "Best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 49-57.
    17. Darius Danesh & Michael J. Ryan & Alireza Abbasi, 2018. "Multi-criteria decision-making methods for project portfolio management: a literature review," International Journal of Management and Decision Making, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 17(1), pages 75-94.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Kiracı, Kasım & Akan, Ercan, 2020. "Aircraft selection by applying AHP and TOPSIS in interval type-2 fuzzy sets," Journal of Air Transport Management, Elsevier, vol. 89(C).
    2. Ehsan Khanmohammadi & Maryam Azizi & HamidReza Talaie & Fatih Ecer & Erfan Babaee Tirkolaee, 2024. "A novel hybrid decision-making framework based on modified fuzzy analytic network process and fuzzy best–worst method," Operational Research, Springer, vol. 24(4), pages 1-32, December.
    3. Hisham Alidrisi, 2021. "Measuring the Environmental Maturity of the Supply Chain Finance: A Big Data-Based Multi-Criteria Perspective," Logistics, MDPI, vol. 5(2), pages 1-24, April.
    4. Harsha Cheemakurthy & Karl Garme, 2022. "Fuzzy AHP-Based Design Performance Index for Evaluation of Ferries," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(6), pages 1-27, March.
    5. Ehsan Khanmohammadi & Mostafa Zandieh & Talieh Tayebi, 2019. "Drawing a Strategy Canvas Using the Fuzzy Best–Worst Method," Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management, Springer;Global Institute of Flexible Systems Management, vol. 20(1), pages 57-75, March.
    6. Jelena Lukić & Mirjana Misita & Dragan D. Milanović & Ankica Borota-Tišma & Aleksandra Janković, 2022. "Determining the Risk Level in Client Analysis by Applying Fuzzy Logic in Insurance Sector," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 10(18), pages 1-17, September.
    7. Sajid Ali & Sang-Moon Lee & Choon-Man Jang, 2017. "Determination of the Most Optimal On-Shore Wind Farm Site Location Using a GIS-MCDM Methodology: Evaluating the Case of South Korea," Energies, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-22, December.
    8. Petr Iakovlevitch Ekel & Matheus Pereira Libório & Laura Cozzi Ribeiro & Mateus Alberto Dorna de Oliveira Ferreira & Joel Gomes Pereira Junior, 2024. "Multi-Criteria Decision under Uncertainty as Applied to Resource Allocation and Its Computing Implementation," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 12(6), pages 1-20, March.
    9. Vieira, Fabiana C. & Ferreira, Fernando A.F. & Govindan, Kannan & Ferreira, Neuza C.M.Q.F. & Banaitis, Audrius, 2022. "Measuring urban digitalization using cognitive mapping and the best worst method (BWM)," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 71(C).
    10. Bartłomiej Kizielewicz & Jarosław Wątróbski & Wojciech Sałabun, 2020. "Identification of Relevant Criteria Set in the MCDA Process—Wind Farm Location Case Study," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(24), pages 1-40, December.
    11. Olcer, A. I. & Odabasi, A. Y., 2005. "A new fuzzy multiple attributive group decision making methodology and its application to propulsion/manoeuvring system selection problem," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 166(1), pages 93-114, October.
    12. Chen, Faan & Li, Yaxin & Feng, Qianqian & Dong, Zehao & Qian, Yiming & Yan, Yi & Ho, Mun S. & Ma, Qianchen & Zhang, Dashan & Jin, Yuanzhe, 2023. "Road safety performance rating through PSI-PRIDIT: A planning tool for designing policies and identifying best practices for EAS countries," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 85(C).
    13. Xiao-Kang Wang & Wen-Hui Hou & Chao Song & Min-Hui Deng & Yong-Yi Li & Jian-Qiang Wang, 2021. "BW-MaxEnt: A Novel MCDM Method for Limited Knowledge," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 9(14), pages 1-17, July.
    14. Mohamed Hanine & Omar Boutkhoum & Abderrafie El Maknissi & Abdessadek Tikniouine & Tarik Agouti, 2016. "Decision making under uncertainty using PEES–fuzzy AHP–fuzzy TOPSIS methodology for landfill location selection," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 36(4), pages 351-367, December.
    15. Deveci, Muhammet & Özcan, Ender & John, Robert & Öner, Sultan Ceren, 2018. "Interval type-2 hesitant fuzzy set method for improving the service quality of domestic airlines in Turkey," Journal of Air Transport Management, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 83-98.
    16. Chong Li & He Huang & Ya Luo, 2022. "An Integrated Two-Dimension Linguistic Intuitionistic Fuzzy Decision-Making Approach for Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Supplier Selection," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(18), pages 1-24, September.
    17. Amelia Bilbao-Terol & Mar Arenas-Parra & Raquel Quiroga-García & Celia Bilbao-Terol, 2022. "An extended best–worst multiple reference point method: application in the assessment of non-life insurance companies," Operational Research, Springer, vol. 22(5), pages 5323-5362, November.
    18. Madjid Tavana & Mehdi Soltanifar & Francisco J. Santos-Arteaga, 2023. "Analytical hierarchy process: revolution and evolution," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 326(2), pages 879-907, July.
    19. Li, Deqiang & Zhao, Laijun & Wang, Chenchen & Sun, Wenjun & Xue, Jian, 2018. "Selection of China’s imported grain distribution centers in the context of the Belt and Road initiative," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 16-34.
    20. Gholamreza Haseli & Reza Sheikh & Jianqiang Wang & Hana Tomaskova & Erfan Babaee Tirkolaee, 2021. "A Novel Approach for Group Decision Making Based on the Best–Worst Method (G-BWM): Application to Supply Chain Management," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 9(16), pages 1-20, August.

    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:gam:jmathe:v:11:y:2023:i:10:p:2249-:d:1144518. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.