Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

A fuzzy opportunity and threat aggregation approach in multicriteria decision analysis

  • Published:
Fuzzy Optimization and Decision Making Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Economic expansion in developed countries coupled with dramatically growing economies in countries such as China and India have precipitated a steady increase in demand for oil and natural gas. The Caspian Sea region holds large quantities of both oil and natural gas. Because the Caspian Sea is landlocked and the region’s nations are distant from the largest energy markets, transportation must at least begin by pipeline. While some lines currently exist, pipelines with the capacity of transporting larger amounts of energy resources must be constructed to meet the global demand. This study is conducted for a multinational oil and natural gas producer to develop a multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) framework for evaluating five possible pipeline routes in the Caspian Sea region. The proposed MCDA model considers a large number of conflicting criteria in the evaluation process and captures decision makers’ (DMs’) beliefs through a series of intuitive and analytical methods such as the analytic network process and fuzzy scoring. A defuzzification method is used to obtain crisp values from the subjective judgments and estimates provided by multiple DMs. These crisp values are aggregated and synthesized with the concept of entropy and the theory of the displaced ideal. The alternative routes are plotted on a diagram in a polar coordinate system and a classification scheme is used along with the Euclidean distance to measure which alternative is closer to the ideal route.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abacoumkin C., Ballis A. (2004) Development of an expert system for the evaluation of conventional and innovative technologies in the intermodal transport area. European Journal of Operational Research 152: 420–436

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bouyssou, D. (1989). Problemes de construction de criteres. Cahier du LAMSADE, 91.

  • Bouyssou D. (1990) Building criteria: A prerequisite for MCDA. In: Bana e Costa C. A. (eds) Readings in MCDA. Springer, Heidelberg

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen, S. J., & Hwang, C. (1992). Fuzzy multiple attribute decision making methods and applications. In Lecture Notes in Economics and Mathematical Systems, No. 375, New York: Springer.

  • Chen C.-T., Cheng H.-L. (2009) A comprehensive model for selecting information system projects under fuzzy environment. International Journal of Project Management 27(4): 389–399

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chou S. Y., Chang Y. H., Shen C. Y. (2008) A fuzzy simple additive weighting system under group decision-making for facility location selection with objective/subjective attributes. European Journal of Operational Research 189(1): 132–145

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Cooper R. G. (1992) The NewProd system: The industry experience. Journal of Product Innovation Management 9: 113–127

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cooper R. G., Edgett S. J., Kleinschmidt E. J. (1999) New product portfolio management: Practices and performance. Journal of Product Innovation Management 16: 333–351

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Luca A., Termini S. (1972) A definition of a nonprobabilistic entropy in the setting of fuzzy sets theory. Information and Control 20: 301–312

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • De Kluyver C. A., Moskowitz H. (1984) Assessing scenario probabilities via interactive goal programming. Management Science 30(3): 273–278

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • De Tré G., De Caluwe R. (2003) Level 2 fuzzy sets and their usefulness in object-oriented database modeling. Fuzzy Sets and Systems 140: 29–49

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Deng H. (2009) Developments in fuzzy multicriteria analysis. Fuzzy Information and Engineering 1(1): 103–109

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dimova L., Sevastianov P., Sevastianov D. (2006) MCDM in a fuzzy setting: Investment projects assessment application. International Journal of Production Economics 100: 10–29

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dubois D., Prade H. (1980) Fuzzy sets and systems: Theory and applications. Academic Press, New York

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Dubois D., Prade H. (2000) Fundamentals of fuzzy sets. Kluwer, Boston

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Felsenthal D. S., Machover M. (2004) A priori voting power: What is it all about? Political Studies Review 2: 1–23

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Girotra K., Terwiesch C., Ulrich K. T. (2007) Valuing R&D projects in a portfolio: Evidence from the pharmaceutical industry. Management Science 53: 1452–1466

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graves S. B., Ringuest J. L. (1991) Evaluating competing R&D investments. Research-Technology Management 34(4): 32–36

    Google Scholar 

  • Hazelrigg G. A. Jr, Huband F. L. (1985) RADSIM—A methodology for large-scale R&D program assessment. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management 32(3): 106–116

    Google Scholar 

  • Hites R., De Smet Y., Risse N., Salazar-Neumann M., Vincke P. (2006) About the applicability of MCDA to some robustness problems. European Journal of Operational Research 174(1): 322–332

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Huang C.-C., Chu P.-Y., Chiang Y.-H. (2008) A fuzzy AHP application in government-sponsored R&D project selection. Omega 36(6): 1038–1052

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klare M. T. (2003) The empire’s new frontiers. Current History 102: 383–387

    Google Scholar 

  • Laruelle, A., & Widgren, M. (2000). Voting power in a sequence of cooperative games: The case of EU procedures, Homo Oeconomicus XVII, pp. 67–84. Reprint in Holler, M. J. and G. Owen (Eds.), 2001, Power Indices and Coalition Formation (pp. 253–271), Netherlands: Kluwer.

  • Lootsma F. A., Mensch T. C. A., Vos F. A. (1990) Multi-criteria analysis and budget reallocation in long-term research planning. European Journal of Operational Research 47(3): 293–305

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mandakovic T., Souder W. E. (1985) An interactive decomposable heuristic for project selection. Management Science 31(10): 1257–1271

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mathieu R. G., Gibson J. E. (1993) A methodology for large-scale R&D planning based on cluster analysis. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management 40(3): 283–292

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mehrez A. (1988) Selecting R&D projects: A case study of the expected utility approach. Technovation 8(4): 299–311

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mojsilovi A., Ray B., Lawrence R., Takriti S. (2007) A logistic regression framework for information technology outsourcing lifecycle management. Computers and Operations Research 34: 3609–3627

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moore J. R., Baker N. R. (1969) An analytical approach to scoring model design—Application to research and development project selection. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management 16(3): 90–98

    Google Scholar 

  • Osawa Y. (2003) How well did the new Sumitomo Electric project ranking method predict performance? Research & Development Management 33: 343–350

    Google Scholar 

  • Osawa Y., Murakami M. (2002) Development and application of a new methodology of evaluating industrial R&D projects. Research & Development Management 32: 79–85

    Google Scholar 

  • Paisittanand S., Olson D. L. (2006) A simulation study of IT outsourcing in the credit card business. European Journal of Operational Research 175: 1248–1261

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Roy B. (1975) Vers une methodologie generale d.aide a la decision . Metra 14(3): 59–497

    Google Scholar 

  • Roy B. (1985) Methodologie Multicritiere d”Aide a la decision. Economica, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Roy, B., & Bouyssou, D. (1987). Famille de critères: Problème de cohérence et de dépendence. Decument du Lamsade 37, Universite Paris-Dauphine.

  • Roy B., Bouyssou D. (1993) Decision-aid: An elementary introduction with emphasis on multiple criteria. Investigacion Operativa 3: 175–190

    Google Scholar 

  • Roychowdhury S., Pedrycz W. (2001) A survey of defuzzification strategies. International Journal of Intelligent Systems 16: 679–695

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Russo J. E., Schoemaker P. J. H. (1989) Decision traps. Fireside, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Saaty T. L. (1977) A scaling method for priorities in hierarchical structures. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 15: 234–281

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Saaty T. L. (2001) Decision making with dependence and feedback: The analytic network process. RWS Publications, Pittsburgh

    Google Scholar 

  • Saaty T. L., Ozdemir M. (2005) The Encyclicon. RWS Publications, Pittsburgh

    Google Scholar 

  • Saaty T. L., Shang J. S. (2007) Group decision-making: Head-count versus intensity of preference. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences 41(1): 22–37

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saaty T. L., Sodenkamp M. (2008) Making decisions in hierarchic and network systems. International Journal of Applied Decision Sciences 1(1): 24–79

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schoemaker P. J. H. (1993) Multiple scenario development: Its conceptual and behavioral foundation. Strategic Management Journal 14(3): 193–213

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schoemaker P. J. H., Russo J. E. (1993) A pyramid of decision approaches. California Management Review 36(1): 9–31

    Google Scholar 

  • Sevastjanov P., Figat P. (2007) Aggregation of aggregating modes in MCDM: Synthesis of Type 2 and Level 2 fuzzy sets. Omega 35: 505–523

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shannon C.E. (1948) A Mathematical theory of communication. Bell System Technical Journal 27: 379–423 623–656

    MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Tavana M., Banerjee S. (1995) Strategic assessment model (SAM): A multiple criteria decision support system for evaluation of strategic alternatives. Decision Sciences 26: 119–143

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tavana, M., & Sodenkamp, M. A. (2009). A fuzzy multi-criteria decision analysis model for advanced technology assessment at the Kennedy Space Center. Journal of the Operational Research Society, doi:10.1057/jors.2009.107.

  • Thomas H. (1985) Decision analysis and strategic management of research and development. Research & Development Management 15(1): 3–22

    Google Scholar 

  • Triantaphyllou E. (2000) Multi-criteria decision making methods: A comparative study. Kluwer, Boston

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Triantaphyllou E., Mann S. H. (1995) Using the analytic hierarchy process for decision making in engineering applications: Some challenges. International Journal of Industrial Engineering: Applications and Practice 2(1): 35–44

    Google Scholar 

  • Uno, T. (2003). Efficient computation of power indices for weighted majority games, NII Technical Report, National Institute of Informatics.

  • Vepsalainen A. P. J., Lauro G. L. (1988) Analysis of R&D portfolio strategies for contract competition. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management 35(3): 181–186

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vickers B. (1992) Using GDSS to examine the future European automobile industry. Futures 24: 789–812

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang J., Hwang W.-L. (2007) A fuzzy set approach for R&D portfolio selection using a real options valuation model. Omega 35: 247–257

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weigelt K., Macmillan I. (1988) An integrative strategic analysis framework. Strategic Management Journal 9: 27–40

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yang T., Hsieh C.-H. (2009) Six-Sigma project selection using national quality award criteria and the Delphi fuzzy multiple criteria decision-making method. Expert Systems with Applications 36(4): 7594–7603

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yeh C.-H., Chang Y.-H. (2009) Modeling subjective evaluation for fuzzy group multicriteria decision making. European Journal of Operational Research 194(2): 464–473

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Yoe, C. (2002). Trade-Off Analysis Planning and Procedures Guidebook. Prepared for Institute for Water Resources, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

  • Zadeh L. A. (1965) Fuzzy sets. Information and Control 8: 338–353

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Zadeh L. A. (1971) Quantitative fuzzy semantics. Information Sciences 3: 177–200

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Zadeh L. A. (1996) Fuzzy logic and the calculi of fuzzy rules and fuzzy graphs. Multiple-Valued Logic 1: 1–38

    MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Zeleny M. A. (1982) Multiple criteria decision making. McGraw-Hill, New York

    MATH  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Management Information Systems, Lindback Distinguished Chair of Information Systems, La Salle University, Philadelphia, PA, 19141, USA

    Madjid Tavana

  2. Business Information Systems Department, Faculty of Business Administration and Economics, University of Paderborn, Tuensberg 27, 59602, Ruethen 5, Germany

    Mariya A. Sodenkamp

  3. Chemical Engineering Department, Faculty of Engineering, Shomal University, Amol, Iran

    Mohsen Pirdashti

Authors
  1. Madjid Tavana
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mariya A. Sodenkamp
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Mohsen Pirdashti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Madjid Tavana.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Tavana, M., Sodenkamp, M.A. & Pirdashti, M. A fuzzy opportunity and threat aggregation approach in multicriteria decision analysis. Fuzzy Optim Decis Making 9, 455–492 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10700-010-9087-9

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10700-010-9087-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation