SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Anadolu Üniversitesi Bilim ve Teknoloji Dergisi :A-Uygulamalı Bilimler ve Mühendislik / 2018 / Cilt: 19 - Sayı: 1

MULTIPLE CRITERIA DECISION MAKING APPROACH FOR INDUSTRIAL ENGINEER SELECTION USING FUZZY AHP-FUZZY TOPSIS

Özden ÜSTÜN
Derya DELİKTAŞ
Pages
58–82
Publication Date
2022-10-11
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The consistencies of pair-wise comparisons matrices are controlled and a crisp overallperformance value is obtained for each candidate based on the Best Non-fuzzy Performance Value.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:In this study, a fuzzy multiple criteria decision-making approach is proposed to select an industrial engineer among tencandidates in a manufacturing environment.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The consistencies of pair-wise comparisons matrices are controlled and a crisp overallperformance value is obtained for each candidate based on the Best Non-fuzzy Performance Value.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The candidates are also evaluated by fuzzy TOPSIS method and the result obtained by fuzzy AHP iscompared with the result achieved by fuzzy TOPSIS.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

In this study, a fuzzy multiple criteria decision-making approach is proposed to select an industrial engineer among tencandidates in a manufacturing environment. The industrial engineer selection problem is a special case of the personalselection problem. This problem, which has hierarchical structure of criteria and many decision makers, contains manycriteria. The evaluation process of decision makers also includes ambiguous parameters. The fuzzy AHP is used to determinethe weights for evaluation criteria. The consistencies of pair-wise comparisons matrices are controlled and a crisp overallperformance value is obtained for each candidate based on the Best Non-fuzzy Performance Value. The sensitivity of thecandidates’ overall performance values is analyzed by taking into account both the weight of decision makers and the weightsof basis criteria. The candidates are also evaluated by fuzzy TOPSIS method and the result obtained by fuzzy AHP iscompared with the result achieved by fuzzy TOPSIS.

🔖

Cite This Article

ÜSTÜN, Ö., DELİKTAŞ, D. (2022). MULTIPLE CRITERIA DECISION MAKING APPROACH FOR INDUSTRIAL ENGINEER SELECTION USING FUZZY AHP-FUZZY TOPSIS. Anadolu Üniversitesi Bilim ve Teknoloji Dergisi :A-Uygulamalı Bilimler ve Mühendislik, Cilt: 19 - Sayı: 1, 58–82. https://ajindex.com/articles/438239

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (12)

  1. Golden BL, Harker PT, Wasil EE. The analytic hierarchy process: Applications and studies. Berlin: Springer-Verlag; 1989.
  2. Kwong C-K, Bai H. Determining the importance weights for the customer requirements in QFD using a fuzzy AHP with an extent analysis approach. Iie Transactions 2003; 35 (7): 619-626.
  3. Wang T-C, Chang T-H. Application of TOPSIS in evaluating initial training aircraft under a fuzzy environment. Expert Systems with Applications 2007; 33 (4): 870-880.
  4. Hwang C-L, Yoon K. Multiple Attribute Decision Making: Methods and Applications A State-ofthe-art survey. New York: Springer Science & Business Media; 1981. Chen C-T. Extensions of the TOPSIS for group decision-making under fuzzy environment. Fuzzy sets and systems 2000; 114 (1): 1-9.
  5. Hsieh T-Y, Lu S-T, Tzeng G-H. Fuzzy MCDM approach for planning and design tenders selection in public office buildings. International journal of project management 2004; 22 (7): 573-584. Buckley JJ. Ranking alternatives using fuzzy numbers. Fuzzy sets and systems 1985; 15 (1): 21- 31. Chen S-JJ, Hwang CL. Fuzzy Multiple Attribute Decision Making: Methods and Applications. NJ, USA: Springer-Verlag New York, Inc.; 1992.
  6. Van Laarhoven P, Pedrycz W. A fuzzy extension of Saaty's priority theory. Fuzzy sets and Systems 1983; 11 (1-3): 229-241. Saaty TL. The analytic hierarchy process. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1980.
  7. Quang NH, Vincent FY, Lin AC, Dat LQ, Chou S-Y. Parting curve selection and evaluation using an extension of fuzzy MCDM approach. Applied Soft Computing 2013; 13 (4): 1952-1959.
  8. Van de Kaa G, Rezaei J, Kamp L, de Winter A. Photovoltaic technology selection: a fuzzy MCDM approach. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 2014; 32: 662-670.
  9. Bongo MF, Ocampo LA. A hybrid fuzzy MCDM approach for mitigating airport congestion: a case in Ninoy Aquino International Airport. Journal of Air Transport Management 2017; 63: 1- 16. ] Önüt S, Kara SS, Işik E. Long term supplier selection using a combined fuzzy MCDM approach: a case study for a telecommunication company. Expert systems with applications 2009; 36(2): 3887-3895.
  10. Erol İ, Sencer S, Özmen A, Searcy C. Fuzzy MCDM framework for locating a nuclear power plant in Turkey. Energy Policy 2014; 67: 186-197.
  11. Büyüközkan G, Karabulut Y, Arsenyan J. RFID service provider selection: an integrated fuzzy MCDM approach. Measurement 2017; 112: 88-98.
  12. Dursun M, Karsak EE. A QFD-based fuzzy MCDM approach for supplier selection. Applied Mathematical Modelling 2013; 37 (8): 5864-5875. K