2018
DOI: 10.1504/ijpqm.2018.094768
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Modelling and analysis of energy efficiency drivers by fuzzy ISM and fuzzy MICMAC approach

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

0
7
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
6
3

Relationship

1
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 15 publications
(7 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
0
7
0
Order By: Relevance
“… Portrays an intricate system in a simplified way Fails to handle imprecise and vague information usually exists in real cases Identifies the structure of the influential aspects in a system typically in a hierarchical way, i.e. digraph Cannot answer “why” aspects which typically helps in a theory building Evaluate the driving and dependence power of aspects Used a Consensus vote method to aggregate the experts’ judgments, which itself comprises drawbacks (Huang et al, 2021 ; Jena et al, 2017 ; Sindhwani & Malhotra, 2017 ; Sushil, 2012 ) Explain “what” and “how” characteristics of a system (Kamble et al, 2018 ; Li et al, 2019 ; Majumdar & Sinha, 2019 ; Sivaprakasam et al, 2015 ) Total ISM (TISM) Includes all the benefits of ISM Uses binary scale to measure the influence Attempts to answer the “why” phenomenon (Huang et al, 2021 ; Jena et al, 2017 ; Sindhwani & Malhotra, 2017 ; Sushil, 2018 ) Fails to compute the level of influence Fails to handle imprecise and vague information usually exists in real cases Uses consensus vote method to aggregate the experts’ judgments (Huang et al, 2021 ; Jena et al, 2017 ) Fuzzy ISM Includes all the benefits of classical ISM We have identified the following drawbacks in Fuzzy ISM Effectively Handles the imprecise or vague nature through one-grade membership degree Aggregates the experts’ opinions using the consensus vote method Describe the preference judgment values of the decision-maker efficiently Unable to incorporate the membership degrees, namely—‘truth, indeterminacy, and falsity’ degrees Computes the level of influence (Lamba & Singh, 2018 ; Sindhwani et al, 2018 ; Srivastava & Dashora, 2021 ...…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“… Portrays an intricate system in a simplified way Fails to handle imprecise and vague information usually exists in real cases Identifies the structure of the influential aspects in a system typically in a hierarchical way, i.e. digraph Cannot answer “why” aspects which typically helps in a theory building Evaluate the driving and dependence power of aspects Used a Consensus vote method to aggregate the experts’ judgments, which itself comprises drawbacks (Huang et al, 2021 ; Jena et al, 2017 ; Sindhwani & Malhotra, 2017 ; Sushil, 2012 ) Explain “what” and “how” characteristics of a system (Kamble et al, 2018 ; Li et al, 2019 ; Majumdar & Sinha, 2019 ; Sivaprakasam et al, 2015 ) Total ISM (TISM) Includes all the benefits of ISM Uses binary scale to measure the influence Attempts to answer the “why” phenomenon (Huang et al, 2021 ; Jena et al, 2017 ; Sindhwani & Malhotra, 2017 ; Sushil, 2018 ) Fails to compute the level of influence Fails to handle imprecise and vague information usually exists in real cases Uses consensus vote method to aggregate the experts’ judgments (Huang et al, 2021 ; Jena et al, 2017 ) Fuzzy ISM Includes all the benefits of classical ISM We have identified the following drawbacks in Fuzzy ISM Effectively Handles the imprecise or vague nature through one-grade membership degree Aggregates the experts’ opinions using the consensus vote method Describe the preference judgment values of the decision-maker efficiently Unable to incorporate the membership degrees, namely—‘truth, indeterminacy, and falsity’ degrees Computes the level of influence (Lamba & Singh, 2018 ; Sindhwani et al, 2018 ; Srivastava & Dashora, 2021 ...…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…By application of approach such as analytic hierarchy process (AHP) the interdependencies between the factors cannot be observed (Mittal et al , 2019). Singh et al (2019) observed that DEMATEL is the preferred technique over AHP, total interpretive structural modeling, interpretive structural modeling or any multiple-criteria decision making techniques as it dissevers challenges into cause and effect group and indicates the severity of their effects too (Sindhwani et al , 2018; Shanker et al , 2019; Sindhwani et al , 2019a; Sindhwani et al , 2021). Bai and Satir (2020) stated that DEMATEL has a range to respond (0, 1, 2, 3 and 4) to explore the relationship between factors and further help in formulating futuristic strategies.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…); (2) Unable to handle vague and ambiguous information; (3) The multiple experts' opinions are aggregated using the consensus, which itself comprises subjectivity; (4) Does not include membership degrees viz. "truth, indeterminacy and falsity" (Dohale et al, 2022a;Jena et al, 2017;Sindhwani et al, 2018). To overcome these shortcomings in the existing forms of ISM, Enablers of circular supply chain Dohale et al (2022a, b, c) developed N-ISM approach by integrating ISM with Neutrosophic theory to cope with uncertainties and inconsistencies in experts' judgments (Nabeeh et al, 2019).…”
Section: Neutrosophic Interpretive Structural Modeling (N-ism)mentioning
confidence: 99%