IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v9y2017i8p1352-d106583.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Consistent Fuzzy Preference Relations Based ANP Model for R&D Project Selection

Author

Listed:
  • Chia-Hua Cheng

    (Department of Industrial Engineering and Management, National Taipei University of Technology, Taipei 10608, Taiwan)

  • James J. H. Liou

    (Department of Industrial Engineering and Management, National Taipei University of Technology, Taipei 10608, Taiwan)

  • Chui-Yu Chiu

    (Department of Industrial Engineering and Management, National Taipei University of Technology, Taipei 10608, Taiwan)

Abstract

In today’s rapidly changing economy, technology companies have to make decisions on research and development (R&D) projects investment on a routine bases with such decisions having a direct impact on that company’s profitability, sustainability and future growth. Companies seeking profitable opportunities for investment and project selection must consider many factors such as resource limitations and differences in assessment, with consideration of both qualitative and quantitative criteria. Often, differences in perception by the various stakeholders hinder the attainment of a consensus of opinion and coordination efforts. Thus, in this study, a hybrid model is developed for the consideration of the complex criteria taking into account the different opinions of the various stakeholders who often come from different departments within the company and have different opinions about which direction to take. The decision-making trial and evaluation laboratory (DEMATEL) approach is used to convert the cause and effect relations representing the criteria into a visual network structure. A consistent fuzzy preference relations based analytic network process (CFPR-ANP) method is developed to calculate the preference-weights of the criteria based on the derived network structure. The CFPR-ANP is an improvement over the original analytic network process (ANP) method in that it reduces the problem of inconsistency as well as the number of pairwise comparisons. The combined complex proportional assessment (COPRAS-G) method is applied with fuzzy grey relations to resolve conflicts arising from differences in information and opinions provided by the different stakeholders about the selection of the most suitable R&D projects. This novel combination approach is then used to assist an international brand-name company to prioritize projects and make project decisions that will maximize returns and ensure sustainability for the company.

Suggested Citation

  • Chia-Hua Cheng & James J. H. Liou & Chui-Yu Chiu, 2017. "A Consistent Fuzzy Preference Relations Based ANP Model for R&D Project Selection," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(8), pages 1-17, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:9:y:2017:i:8:p:1352-:d:106583
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/9/8/1352/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/9/8/1352/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Michael Hoeck, 2008. "Decision rules for the project selection and scheduling problem of professional service firms," International Journal of Services and Operations Management, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 4(4), pages 427-440.
    2. Liou, James J.H. & Tzeng, Gwo-Hshiung, 2007. "A non-additive model for evaluating airline service quality," Journal of Air Transport Management, Elsevier, vol. 13(3), pages 131-138.
    3. Herrera-Viedma, E. & Herrera, F. & Chiclana, F. & Luque, M., 2004. "Some issues on consistency of fuzzy preference relations," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 154(1), pages 98-109, April.
    4. Rodrigues, Teresa C. & Montibeller, Gilberto & Oliveira, Mónica D. & Bana e Costa, Carlos A., 2017. "Modelling multicriteria value interactions with Reasoning Maps," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 258(3), pages 1054-1071.
    5. Keshavarz Ghorabaee, Mehdi & Amiri, Maghsoud & Zavadskas, Edmundas Kazimieras & Turskis, Zenonas & Antucheviciene, Jurgita, 2017. "A new hybrid simulation-based assignment approach for evaluating airlines with multiple service quality criteria," Journal of Air Transport Management, Elsevier, vol. 63(C), pages 45-60.
    6. Edmundas Kazimieras Zavadskas & Fausto Cavallaro & Valentinas Podvezko & Ieva Ubarte & Arturas Kaklauskas, 2017. "MCDM Assessment of a Healthy and Safe Built Environment According to Sustainable Development Principles: A Practical Neighborhood Approach in Vilnius," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(5), pages 1-30, April.
    7. Eilat, Harel & Golany, Boaz & Shtub, Avraham, 2008. "R&D project evaluation: An integrated DEA and balanced scorecard approach," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 36(5), pages 895-912, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Kao-Yi Shen & Gwo-Hshiung Tzeng, 2018. "Advances in Multiple Criteria Decision Making for Sustainability: Modeling and Applications," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(5), pages 1-7, May.
    2. Yu-Sheng Kao & Kazumitsu Nawata & Chi-Yo Huang, 2019. "Systemic Functions Evaluation based Technological Innovation System for the Sustainability of IoT in the Manufacturing Industry," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(8), pages 1-34, April.
    3. Jamile Eleutério Delesposte & Luís Alberto Duncan Rangel & Marcelo Jasmim Meiriño & Ramon Baptista Narcizo & André Armando Mendonça de Alencar Junior, 2021. "Use of multicriteria decision aid methods in the context of sustainable innovations: bibliometrics, applications and trends," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 41(4), pages 501-522, December.
    4. Thi Yen Pham & Gi-Tae Yeo, 2018. "A Comparative Analysis Selecting the Transport Routes of Electronics Components from China to Vietnam," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(7), pages 1-18, July.
    5. Dalton Garcia Borges de Souza & Erivelton Antonio dos Santos & Nei Yoshihiro Soma & Carlos Eduardo Sanches da Silva, 2021. "MCDM-Based R&D Project Selection: A Systematic Literature Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(21), pages 1-34, October.
    6. Qing He & Yaqin Liu & Qian Yu & Chao Wei, 2022. "Risk Dominance Analysis of R&D Investment Cooperation in Dynamic Option Game," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(1), pages 1-21, December.
    7. Seunghoon Lee & Yongju Cho & Minjae Ko, 2020. "Robust Optimization Model for R&D Project Selection under Uncertainty in the Automobile Industry," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(23), pages 1-15, December.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Vytautas Palevičius & Askoldas Podviezko & Henrikas Sivilevičius & Olegas Prentkovskis, 2018. "Decision-Aiding Evaluation of Public Infrastructure for Electric Vehicles in Cities and Resorts of Lithuania," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(4), pages 1-17, March.
    2. Bellizzi, Maria Grazia & dell’Olio, Luigi & Eboli, Laura & Mazzulla, Gabriella, 2021. "Detecting passengers' heterogeneity on airlines’ services using SP data," Journal of Air Transport Management, Elsevier, vol. 96(C).
    3. Fatemeh Akhyani & Alireza Komeili Birjandi & Reza Sheikh & Shib Sankar Sana, 2022. "New approach based on proximity/remoteness measurement for customer classification," Electronic Commerce Research, Springer, vol. 22(2), pages 267-298, June.
    4. Maria Grazia Bellizzi & Luigi dell’Olio & Laura Eboli & Carmen Forciniti & Gabriella Mazzulla, 2020. "Passengers’ Expectations on Airlines’ Services: Design of a Stated Preference Survey and Preliminary Outcomes," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(11), pages 1-14, June.
    5. Shah, Faisal Tehseen & Syed, Zaineb & Imam, Abeer & Raza, Aiman, 2020. "The impact of airline service quality on passengers’ behavioral intentions using passenger satisfaction as a mediator," Journal of Air Transport Management, Elsevier, vol. 85(C).
    6. Bice Cavallo, 2019. "Coherent weights for pairwise comparison matrices and a mixed-integer linear programming problem," Journal of Global Optimization, Springer, vol. 75(1), pages 143-161, September.
    7. Li, Yan-Lai & Tang, Jia-Fu & Chin, Kwai-Sang & Jiang, Yu-Shi & Han, Yi & Pu, Yun, 2011. "Estimating the final priority ratings of engineering characteristics in mature-period product improvement by MDBA and AHP," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 131(2), pages 575-586, June.
    8. Salimi, Negin & Rezaei, Jafar, 2018. "Evaluating firms’ R&D performance using best worst method," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 147-155.
    9. Chandra Mahapatra, Subas & Bellamkonda, Raja Shekhar, 2023. "Higher expectations of passengers do really sense: Development and validation a multiple scale-FliQual for air transport service quality," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 70(C).
    10. Paul Tae-Woo Lee & Cheng-Wei Lin & Yi-Shih Chung, 2014. "Comparison analysis for subjective and objective weights of financial positions of container shipping companies," Maritime Policy & Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 41(3), pages 241-250, May.
    11. Llamazares, Bonifacio & Pérez-Asurmendi, Patrizia, 2013. "Triple-acyclicity in majorities based on difference in support," MPRA Paper 52218, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    12. Zhou-Jing Wang & Yuhong Wang & Kevin W. Li, 2016. "An Acceptable Consistency-Based Framework for Group Decision Making with Intuitionistic Preference Relations," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 25(1), pages 181-202, January.
    13. Myungsook An & Chongho Lee & Yonghwi Noh, 2010. "Risk factors at the travel destination: their impact on air travel satisfaction and repurchase intention," Service Business, Springer;Pan-Pacific Business Association, vol. 4(2), pages 155-166, June.
    14. Fu, Chao & Yang, Shanlin, 2012. "An evidential reasoning based consensus model for multiple attribute group decision analysis problems with interval-valued group consensus requirements," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 223(1), pages 167-176.
    15. Rafael Lizarralde & Jaione Ganzarain & Mikel Zubizarreta, 2020. "Assessment and Selection of Technologies for the Sustainable Development of an R&D Center," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(23), pages 1-23, December.
    16. Wu, Zhibin & Huang, Shuai & Xu, Jiuping, 2019. "Multi-stage optimization models for individual consistency and group consensus with preference relations," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 275(1), pages 182-194.
    17. Partovi, Fariborz Y., 2011. "Corporate philanthropic selection using data envelopment analysis," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 39(5), pages 522-527, October.
    18. Faisal AlShareef & Mohammed Aljoufie, 2020. "Identification of the Proper Criteria Set for Neighborhood Walkability Using the Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process Model: A Case Study in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(21), pages 1-18, November.
    19. HakJun Song & Wenjia Ruan & Yunmi Park, 2019. "Effects of Service Quality, Corporate Image, and Customer Trust on the Corporate Reputation of Airlines," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(12), pages 1-14, June.
    20. Özlem Atalık & Mahmut Bakır & Şahap Akan, 2019. "The Role of In-Flight Service Quality on Value for Money in Business Class: A Logit Model on the Airline Industry," Administrative Sciences, MDPI, vol. 9(1), pages 1-15, March.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    R&; D; ANP; CFPR; DEMATEL; COPRAS-G;
    All these keywords.

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:9:y:2017:i:8:p:1352-:d:106583. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.