The multi-criteria group decision making methodology using type 2 fuzzy linguistic judgments
Graphical abstract
Introduction
Decision maker judgments including preference information are highly appropriate stated in linguistic terms. There are many approaches proposed for modeling the decision linguistic term sets. Zadeh defined the linguistic variable a variable whose values are words or sentences in a natural or artificial language in his three consecutive papers [97], [98], [99]. Recently, Morente-Molinera et al. [74] provided a systematic review of fuzzy linguistic modeling approaches for the last decade. The reviewed methods are classified into six categories based on different approaches. Cabrerizo et al. [9] found that linguistic term sets are sometimes not uniformly and symmetrically distributed and proposed a methodology which is able to manage the unbalanced fuzzy linguistic information. Montes et al. [73] presented a practical application in the housing market and developed a web tool using a 2-tuple linguistic fuzzy model with hesitant information.
Words mean different things to different people. The uncertainty of the relative importance among criteria can be further given by words. Zadeh [100] originated the phrase Computing With Words (CW or CWW) one that is a methodology for which the propositions are extracted from a human language. There are many various CWW approaches applying to decision making task with linguistic terms. To overcome the drawback “loss of information” while using linguistic information in CWW, Herrera and Martínez [41] firstly proposed a 2-tuple fuzzy linguistic representation model for CWW. Also, they claimed that such kind of model is more precise than the previous ones. Dong et al. [33] drew upon the generalized inverse operation to map an interval numerical scale to the linguistic 2-tuples and proposed an interval version of the 2-tuple linguistic representation model which connects the linguistic 2-tuples, intervals and IT2FSs in CWW. Later, based on consistency of preference relations, Dong and Herrera-Viedma [29] proposed a consistency-driven methodology to set the 2-tuple linguistic term sets with linguistic preference relations. By extending the proportional 2-tuple fuzzy linguistic representation model [90], Dong et al. [32] developed a consensus model based on multi-granular unbalanced 2-tuple linguistic preference relations.
This paper is mainly concerning with developing a complete approach to multi-criteria group decision making (MCGDM) based on the AHP by extending the crisp judgments to IT2FS linguistic scales. The typical AHP consists of the following stages: 1. Construct pairwise comparison matrix (PCM), 2. Elicit criteria weights and alternative rates, 3. Normalize the weights and rates, 4. Synthesize the weights and rates, 5. Calculate the global rates for each alternative, 6. Determine the final decision priority. This paper develops at least one approach for each stage. That is the major contribution of this article. For example, we propose two approaches to synthesis or aggregate the IT2FS. One is the linear programming models, and the other is a direct extension of interval weighted average. At the outset of the aggregation studies, Yager [94] proposed the ordered weighted averaging (OWA) operator for aggregating criteria guided by quantifiers. The OWA operator providing a parametric class of averaging operators is for discrete and crisp quantifiers and arguments. Later, for extending the OWA operator applications Yager [95] developed the continuous OWA (C-OWA) operator by considering the arguments in a continuous interval rather than a finite set of values. Based on Zadeh's extension principle [97], Zhou et al. [101] was the first study that extends the OWA operator for T1FS quantifiers and arguments. For the T2FS linguistic quantifiers, Zhou et al. [101] also provided the procedure for obtaining the linguistic weights for the T1FS OWA operator. Later, Zhou et al. [102], [103] proposed the T2FS OWA operator which is a direct approach to the aggregation of IT2FS. The centroid value is one of the defuzzification method used in the final stage of AHP for T1FS scales. However, the centroid of an IT2FS has no universal definition. Some of the systematic studies about IT2FS centroid are Karnik and Mendel [47], Mendel and Wu [70], and Mendel [69]. Greenfield et al. [37] proposed a defuzzification approach of IT2FS by introducing a collapsing method to convert IT2FS into T1FS representative embedded set. They claim that such approach is more accurate than Karnik and Mendel [47]. Chiclana and Zhou [19] developed a method to determine the centroid of the IT2FS by using T1FS OWA. Torshizi et al. [83] give a literature review for IT2FS type reduction studies.
The best mapping to the so-called “words” can be modeled by IT2FS [66]. To capture the word uncertainty, we need to collect the various opinions from experts and to map into an overall representative term. Some approaches were proposed for gathering experts information mapping into a T1FS as surveyed by Mendel [68], for example, polling [42], [54], direct rating [12], [94], [75], [85], reverse rating [94], [85], [84], [86], interval estimation [21], [34], [104], [25], and transition interval estimation [25]. However, Mendel [68] also pointed out that none of the methods transfers the uncertainties from a group of experts judgments into a T1FS because a T1FS does not have enough degrees of freedom. That is why we do need T2FS the one that has the potential to capture decision uncertainties. In addition to the scholarly publications, some excellent reviews about introducing the concept of T2FS are given by Mendel [62], [63], [64].
This paper develops a complete approach for solving the multi-criteria group decision making problems based on the analytical hierarchy process (AHP). AHP developed by Saaty [78], [80] is an effective and popular approach to MCGDM. It has been widely applied to many fields such as logistics and supply chain management [50], [45], manufacturing system and facility layout [35], resource allocation [82], economics and social sciences [81]. There are many authors published the reviews for the applications of AHP and fuzzy AHP (FAHP). Vaidya and Kumar [88] reviewed and critically analyzed AHP applications categorized according to the areas such as, personal, manufacturing, industry, social, education, etc. Instead of reporting the applications of AHP, Ishizaka and Labib [44] reviewed the methodological developments of AHP. They discussed the problem modeling, pairwise comparisons, judgment scales, derivation methods, consistency indexes, incomplete matrix, synthesis of the weights, sensitivity analysis and group decisions. Ho [43] reviewed the literature of the applications of the integrated AHP including mathematical programming, quality function deployment (QFD), meta-heuristics, SWOT analysis, and data envelopment analysis (DEA). Since 1980, critics have raised questions about the proper uses of AHP. Some heated topics are about the ranks of the alternatives. Upon changing the structure of the decision hierarchy, the ranking of some alternatives are changed and it is often referred to as rank reversal. Maleki and Zahir [60] specifically presented a comprehensive literature review to the research on AHP methodologies and rank reversals. However, AHP is still the most popular approach among the decision making tools, like ELECTRE, MacBeth, MAUT, PROMETHEE, SMART, TOPSIS, UTA (and its variants) [4], [36]. It offers a comprehensive and rational framework for structuring the decision making problems. AHP is capable of evaluating quantitative and qualitative criteria and alternatives on the same preference scales for the tangible and intangible decision problems. The multiple dimensional scaling problems are transformed to the single dimensional scaling problem with AHP. The most critical stage while applying AHP is to elicit the absolute weight for each criterion or rate for each alternative from PCM. Many approaches have been developed in Literature. Bryson [6], [7] developed the goal programming model. Laininen and Hämäläinen [52] proposed a method by robust regression.
In real world, most of the decision problems are under uncertain environment. The judgments might not be given as an exact relative scale. The criteria are characterized as possessing not only quantitative but also qualitative. In addition, some attributes of the alternative and criteria are intangible. For example, the performance or skill cannot be measured as numbers. It is highly appropriate using linguistic scales. The original Saaty's AHP model is of crisp opinions, which is too restrictive for experts to judge. The fuzzy version of the extension of Saaty's priority theory was proposed by de Graan [27] and Loostma [59]. Based on their fuzzy extension, Van Laarhoven and Pedrycz [89] formally presented a method to find the fuzzy priority vector from a fuzzy pairwise comparison matrix (FPCM) with the triangular fuzzy numbers (TFN) as the matrix elements. By proposing a normalization modification of the fuzzy priority vector from Loostma's LSMR algorithm, Boender et al. [5] pointed out that the normalized solution violates the first-order conditions, i.e. the applied normalization destroys optimality. Another approach to find the priority vector was based on the row and column geometric means (RCGM) which was studied by Crawford and Williams [1], [26], [49], [87]. Buckley [8] was the first one to develop the fuzzy geometric mean method to find the fuzzy priority vector (weights). Actually, Buckley developed the interval geometric mean method for obtaining the interval priority vector for interval comparison matrix. His algorithm can be applied to any general fuzzy numbers and not just for TFN. However, the numerical evaluation process is tedious.
In this paper, a MCGDM integrated methodology with IT2FS extension of AHP is developed. The judgments in the context of linguistic comparison scales are represented by IT2FS characterized by trapezoidal and triangular T1FS. The original AHP scales proposed by Saaty are the crisp numbers, {1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9} as well as the reciprocals. They are to be relaxed for including more uncertain judgment information. For instance, one of the Saaty's crisp scale as in Table 1, “Weak importance of one over another” might have different meanings to different people. Because the word “slightly” in the explanation is actually a matter of linguistic term, it is not appropriate to be simply given the 3 out of the set of scales 1–9.
The critical step for performing AHP is to determine the set of scales. The AHP scales should be defined case by case for various decision making task. [30] developed a methodology to create numerical scales under the 2-tuple fuzzy linguistic representation model. In addition, Dong et al. [31] set up two subproblems for optimally matching DM's characteristics and proposed a framework for AHP scales also based on the 2-tuple fuzzy linguistic model. In this paper, the traditional crisp AHP scales are extended by using IT2FS scales.
The procedure for the proposed integrated methodology can be summarized as:
- 1.
Construct IT2FS PCM.
- 2.
Elicit IT2FS priorities for criteria and rates for alternatives.
- 3.
Normalize the IT2FS weights.
- 4.
Aggregate or synthesize the IT2FS rates on each hierarchical level.
- 5.
Calculate the overall (global) IT2FS rates for each alternatives.
- 6.
Determine the final decision priority.
Section snippets
Background
This section provides the brief introduction of IT2FS and the associated operations.
Eliciting weights for criteria and rates for alternatives
The first stage of AHP is to collect the judgments given by experts to construct the so-called PCM. The interval type 2 fuzzy pairwise comparison matrix (IT2FPCM) is like
where and δij is the number of judgments given by experts for the preference of the criterion i to the criterion j. The IT2FS is the relative comparison judgment of the criterion i to the criterion j given by the kth expert. Note that δij = δji and
Normalization
From the previous section, the solutions obtained by minimizing the logarithmic least squares regression function (7) are infinite. Such data are unable to represent the weights of the decision criteria. It is necessary that the weighta trapezoidal IT2FS be well-defined and satisfied the inequalities
The general solutions of (41), (42), (43) and (45) have four degrees of freedom or parameters, {p1,
Aggregation
The next stage of AHP is to get the global rates of the alternatives, and it is a process of aggregation or synthesis of rates and weights. For crisp numbers, the aggregation process is just taking the weighted average of the lower level rates of a certain alternative with respective to the criteria on the same level. This results in the aggregated rate with respective to the very upper level criterion. The final global rate then is determined by performing such kind of tasks level by level to
New Product Development
New Product Development (NPD) is largely uncertain, because of competition accompanied with modern technology and market changes. It always leads to failure of New Product Development, as a result of not paying close attention to the project screening decision. Some researchers are devoted to such kind of study [3], [11], [76]. To claim most potential of success on NPD, the most outstanding project should be selected among the candidate projects [24], [57]. Some models [10], [15], [24], [57],
Remarks and conclusions
Uncertainty is most likely an inherent condition in decision making process. In this article, we introduce an overall process for implementing IT2FS on group decision making problems. Most of the decision making problems in real world are under uncertainty environment. If the decision judgments given by experts can be allowed to as flexible as possible, then the collected decision data would be much more valuable. T2FS are the better mathematical quantities than T1FS and even better than the
Acknowledgements
The author highly appreciate the editors and the anonymous referees for their helpful comments and suggestions in revising this article.
References (104)
- et al.
Procedures for synthesizing ratio judgments
J. Math. Psychol.
(1983) - et al.
Multi-criteria decision analysis with fuzzy pairwise comparisons
Fuzzy Sets Syst.
(1989) - et al.
Generating consensus priority point vectors: a logarithmic goal programming approach
Comput. Oper. Res.
(1999) Fuzzy hierarchical analysis
Fuzzy Sets Syst.
(1985)- et al.
Using the analytic hierarchy process in new product screening
J. Prod. Innov. Manag.
(1999) - et al.
Membership functions. I: Comparing methods of measurement
Int. J. Approx. Reason.
(1987) - et al.
Fuzzy multiple attributes group decision-making based on the ranking values and the arithmetic operations of interval type-2 fuzzy sets
Expert Syst. Appl.
(2010) - et al.
A decision process for new product selection
Ind. Mark. Manag.
(1973) - et al.
Group-based ER-AHP system for product project screening
Expert Syst. Appl.
(2008) - et al.
Constructing membership functions using statistical data
Fuzzy Sets Syst.
(1986)
The impact of new product strategies
Ind. Mark. Manag.
Selecting winning new product projects: using the NewProd system
J. Prod. Innov. Manag.
A note on the analysis of subjective judgment matrices
J. Math. Psychol.
Fuzzy weighted average and implementation of the extension principle
Fuzzy Sets Syst.
Numerical scales generated individually for analytic hierarchy process
Eur. J. Oper. Res.
Fuzzy sets and statistical data
Eur. J. Oper. Res.
Integrating data envelopment analysis and analytic hierarchy for the facility layout design in manufacturing systems
Inf. Sci.
The collapsing method of defuzzification for discretised interval type-2 fuzzy sets
Inf. Sci.
Fuzzy weighted average: the linear programming approach via Charnes and Cooper's rule
Fuzzy Sets Syst.
Integrated analytic hierarchy process and its applications – a literature review
Eur. J. Oper. Res.
Review of the main developments in the analytic hierarchy process
Expert Syst. Appl.
Fractional programming approach to fuzzy weighted average
Fuzzy Sets Syst.
Centroid of a type-2 fuzzy set
Inf. Sci.
Computing a consistent approximation to a generalized pairwise comparison matrix
Comput. Math. Appl.
An analytic approach to production capacity allocation and supply chain design
Int. J. Prod. Econ.
A note on the fuzzy extension of Saaty's priority theory
Fuzzy Sets Syst.
Analyzing AHP-matrices by regression
Eur. J. Oper. Res.
An efficient algorithm for fuzzy weighted average
Fuzzy Sets Syst.
Fuzzy weighted average: an improved algorithm
Fuzzy Sets Syst.
Type-1 OWA methodology to consensus reaching processes in multi-granular linguistic contexts
Knowl. Based Syst.
Computing with words and its relationships with fuzzistics
Inf. Sci.
New results about the centroid of an interval type-2 fuzzy set, including the centroid of a fuzzy granule
Inf. Sci.
Fuzzy sets of type-2 under algebraic product and algebraic sum
Fuzzy Sets Syst.
A web tool to support decision making in the housing market using hesitant fuzzy linguistic term sets
Appl. Soft Comput.
On multi-granular fuzzy linguistic modeling in group decision making problems: a systematic review and future trends
Knowl. Based Syst.
A model for the measurement of membership and the consequences of its empirical implementation
Fuzzy Sets Syst.
Generating and screening new products ideas
Ind. Mark. Manag.
The allocation of intangible resources: the analytic hierarchy process and linear programming
Socioecon. Plan. Sci.
On type-reduction of type-2 fuzzy sets: a review
Appl. Soft Comput.
Measurement of membership functions and their acquisition
Fuzzy Sets Syst.
Analytic hierarchy process: an overview of applications
Eur. J. Oper. Res.
A linear goal programming priority method for fuzzy analytic hierarchy process and its applications in new product screening
Int. J. Approx. Reason.
The continuous ordered weighted geometric operator and its application to decision making
Fuzzy Sets Syst.
The concept of a linguistic variable and its application to approximate reasoning II
Inf. Sci.
The concept of a linguistic variable and its application to approximate reasoning III
Inf. Sci.
Calculating functions of interval type-2 fuzzy numbers for fault current analysis
IEEE Trans. Fuzzy Syst.
Recent advances in R&D benefit measurement and project selection methods
Manag. Sci.
Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis: An Integrated Approach
A goal programming method for generating priority vectors
J. Oper. Res. Soc.
A consensus model for group decision making problems with unbalanced fuzzy linguistic information
Int. J. Inf. Technol. Decis. Mak.
Cited by (50)
Multi-source fuzzy comprehensive evaluation
2023, Applied Soft ComputingType-2 fuzzy envelope of extended hesitant fuzzy linguistic term set: Application to multi-criteria group decision making
2022, Computers and Industrial EngineeringCitation Excerpt :Wu et al. (2021) also provided a consensus MCGDM scheme under type-2 fuzzy environment. However, in most existing MCGDM methods based on type-2 fuzzy sets (Wang et al., 2015; Chiao, 2016; Wan et al., 2021), the flexibility for experts to provide linguistic evaluations is limited to single terms with pre-defined type-2 fuzzy semantics, or unworkable if experts lack mathematic knowledge about type-2 fuzzy sets. Therefore, effective construction schemes for type-2 fuzzy semantic models of more complex linguistic models such as EHFLTS attract the attention from researchers, to enhance the flexibility of linguistic expression in MCGDM.
Multi-criteria decision making involving uncertain information via fuzzy ranking and fuzzy aggregation functions
2022, Journal of Computational and Applied MathematicsMulti-criteria decision making with interval type 2 fuzzy Bonferroni mean
2021, Expert Systems with ApplicationsIncomplete interval type-2 fuzzy preference relations based on a multi-criteria group decision-making model for the evaluation of wastewater treatment technologies
2020, Measurement: Journal of the International Measurement ConfederationCitation Excerpt :The MCGDM method with linguistic information arose from a wide range of real-world situations [16–19]. In previous studies, fuzzy sets and 2-tuple fuzzy sets have been applied to qualify these linguistic variables [20–23,12,24,25]. However, with increasingly complex socioeconomic environments, the inherent uncertainty in decision problems (e.g., the treatment capacity of one technology is represented as intervals with left and right points under a changing natural environment) and the inherently subjective nature of human thinking, it is difficult to determine crisp membership for fuzzy sets.