Group decision making based on novel fuzzy modified TOPSIS method

Vahdani, Behnam; Mousavi, Seyed Meysam; Tavakkoli–Moghaddam, Reza

doi:10.1016/j.apm.2011.02.040

Cited by 150 publications

(56 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…(9-15). The related defuzzification is based on centroid method (Vahdani et al, 2011). From Table 6, it is observed that synthetic polycrystal diamond and yttria stabilized zirconia are respectively the best and the worst grinding wheel abrasive materials.…”

Section: Tablementioning

confidence: 99%

A comparative analysis of VIKOR method and its variants

Chatterjee¹,

Chakraborty²

2016

10.5267/j.dsl

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The VIKOR (Vlse Kriterijumska Optimizacija Kompromisno Resenje which means multicriteria optimization and compromise solution, in Serbian) method has already become a quite popular multi-criteria decision making tool for its computational simplicity and solution accuracy. This method focuses on selecting and ranking from a set of feasible alternatives, and determines compromise solution for a problem with conflicting criteria to help the decision maker in reaching a final course of action. It determines the compromise ranking list based on the particular measure of closeness to the ideal solution. Depending upon the type of decision problem and necessity of the decision maker, apart from VIKOR method, different variants of it, like comprehensive VIKOR, fuzzy VIKOR, regret theory-based VIKOR, modified VIKOR and interval VIKOR methods have also been subsequently developed. In this paper, the ranking performance of original VIKOR method and its five variants is analyzed based on two demonstrative examples. It is observed that interval VIKOR method performs unsatisfactorily and when the information in a decision problem is imprecise, fuzzy VIKOR method should always be preferred. But, for any decision problem, original VIKOR is the best method for solution without unnecessarily complicating the related mathematical computations.

show abstract

Section: Tablementioning

confidence: 99%

A comparative analysis of VIKOR method and its variants

Chatterjee¹,

Chakraborty²

2016

10.5267/j.dsl

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In order to validate our method by comparing other proposed ones, we collected all the attributes being considered in the above AM process selection literature (see Appendix I). This paper selects the example of Byun and Lee [7], as it is a typical case which has been utilized and compared by many other research work [33,57,20,21,19,29,22]. According to Section 4, the procedures are described in six steps.…”

Section: An Illustrative Examplementioning

confidence: 99%

A weighted rough set based fuzzy axiomatic design approach for the selection of AM processes

Zheng

Wang

et al. 2016

Int J Adv Manuf Technol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Additive manufacturing (AM) or 3D printing, as an enabling technology for mass customisation or personalization, has been developed rapidly in recent years. Va r io u s design tools, materials, machines and service bureaus can be found in the market. Clearly, the choices are abundant, but users can be easily confused as to which AM process they should use. This paper first reviews the existing multi-attribute decision-making methods for AM process selection and assesses their suitability with regards to two aspects, preference rating flexibility and performance evaluation objectivity. We propose that an approach that is capable of handling incomplete attribute information and objective assessment within inherent data has advantages over other approaches. Based on this proposition, this paper proposes a weighted preference graph method for personalized preference evaluation, and a rough set based fuzzy axiomatic design approach for performance evaluation and the selection of appropriate AM processes.An example based on the previous research work of AM machine selection is given to validate its robustness for the priori articulation of AM process selection decision support.

show abstract

“…In this paper a integrated approach is proposed which can be used for the assessment of risk in the mining sector. This approach comes under the category of Multi criteria decision making (MCDM) method, it refers to making decision in the presence of multiple and conflicting criteria (Tang, Tzeng & Wang, 2000;Huang, An & Baker, 2005;Saaty, 1980;Mikhaiov, 2004;An, Huang & Baker, 2007;Venkatrao, 2013;Coyle G., 2004;Vahdani, Mousavi & Tavakkoli-Moghaddam, 2011;Ross, 2010;MATLAB help). MCDM is used by many researchers in different areas like, supply chain management, Energy management, chemical engineering, aviation industry, nuclear industry, health and safety management, drought disasters, fabrication industry (MATLAB help; Ross, 2010;Tang et al, 2000;Huang et al, 2005;Mikhailov, 2004;An et al, 2007).…”

Section: Risk Assessment Is a Requirement Of The Occupational Health mentioning

confidence: 99%

Integration of fuzzy reasoning approach (FRA) and fuzzy analytic hierarchy process (FAHP) for risk assessment in mining industry

Verma

Chaudhri

2014

JIEM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:Purpose: Mining industry has always been known for its unsafe working environment. This industry is one of the most hazard prone industries. To maintain safety in workplace timely assessment of risk associated with different operations performed to extract ore from the ore body has become necessity. To serve the said purpose, present work demonstrates a robust hybrid risk assessment approach for mining industry.Design/Methodology: Accident data from 1995 to 2012 is reviewed to identify hazards contributed to negative outcomes. The FRA approach is implemented to evaluate the risk levels associated with identified hazard factors. Thereafter AHP pairwise comparison matrix is developed to obtain priority weights for the hazard factors. Final priority of hazards based on severity of level of risk associated with them is obtained considering the outcome of FRA approach in terms of risk score for the hazards, combined with the priority weights obtained from AHP technique.Findings: Defuzzified FAHP weight of hazard factors, this weight gives priority sequence of hazards to be considered for development of plan of mitigation.

show abstract

Group decision making based on novel fuzzy modified TOPSIS method

Cited by 150 publications

References 21 publications

A comparative analysis of VIKOR method and its variants

A comparative analysis of VIKOR method and its variants

A weighted rough set based fuzzy axiomatic design approach for the selection of AM processes

Integration of fuzzy reasoning approach (FRA) and fuzzy analytic hierarchy process (FAHP) for risk assessment in mining industry

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About