IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v10y2018i8p2608-d159891.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Decision Framework under a Linguistic Hesitant Fuzzy Set for Solving Multi-Criteria Group Decision Making Problems

Author

Listed:
  • R. Krishankumar

    (School of computing, SASTRA University, Thanjavur 613401, India)

  • K. S. Ravichandran

    (School of computing, SASTRA University, Thanjavur 613401, India)

  • J. Premaladha

    (School of computing, SASTRA University, Thanjavur 613401, India)

  • Samarjit Kar

    (Department of Mathematics, National Institute of Technology Durgapur, West Bengal 713209, India)

  • Edmundas Kazimieras Zavadskas

    (Department of Construction Technology and Management, Vilnius Gediminas Technical University, Sauletekio al. 11, Vilnius LT-10223, Lithuania)

  • Jurgita Antucheviciene

    (Laboratory of Operational Research, Research Institute of Sustainable Construction, Vilnius Gediminas Technical University, Sauletekio al. 11, Vilnius LT-10223, Lithuania)

Abstract

With fast-growing interest in sustainable healthcare management, proper selection and evaluation of hospitals become highly essential. Generally, experts/decision-makers (DMs) prefer qualitative information for rating objects. Motivated by this idea, in this paper, a linguistic hesitant fuzzy set (LHFS) is adopted for elicitation of preference information. The LHFS provides qualitative preferences of DMs as well as reflects their hesitancy, inconsistency, and vagueness. Motivated by the power of LHFS, in this paper we present a new decision framework that initially presents some operational laws and properties. Further, a new aggregation operator called simple linguistic hesitant fuzzy weighted geometry (SLHFWG) is proposed under the LHFS context that uses the strength of power operators. Some properties of SLHFWG are also investigated. Criteria weights are estimated using a newly proposed linguistic hesitant fuzzy statistical variance (LHFSV) method, and objects are ranked using the newly proposed linguistic hesitant fuzzy VIKOR (visekriterijumska optimizacijai kompromisno resenje) (LHFVIKOR) method, which is an extension of VIKOR under the LHFS context. The practicality and usefulness of the proposal are demonstrated by using a hospital evaluation example for sustainable healthcare management. Finally, the strengths and weaknesses of the proposal are realized by comparison with other methods.

Suggested Citation

  • R. Krishankumar & K. S. Ravichandran & J. Premaladha & Samarjit Kar & Edmundas Kazimieras Zavadskas & Jurgita Antucheviciene, 2018. "A Decision Framework under a Linguistic Hesitant Fuzzy Set for Solving Multi-Criteria Group Decision Making Problems," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(8), pages 1-21, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:10:y:2018:i:8:p:2608-:d:159891
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/8/2608/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/8/2608/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Hassan Hashemi & Seyed Meysam Mousavi & Edmundas Kazimieras Zavadskas & Alireza Chalekaee & Zenonas Turskis, 2018. "A New Group Decision Model Based on Grey-Intuitionistic Fuzzy-ELECTRE and VIKOR for Contractor Assessment Problem," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(5), pages 1-19, May.
    2. Opricovic, Serafim & Tzeng, Gwo-Hshiung, 2007. "Extended VIKOR method in comparison with outranking methods," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 178(2), pages 514-529, April.
    3. Huan Zhou & Jian-qiang Wang & Hong-yu Zhang & Xiao-hong Chen, 2016. "Linguistic hesitant fuzzy multi-criteria decision-making method based on evidential reasoning," International Journal of Systems Science, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 47(2), pages 314-327, January.
    4. Huchang Liao & Di Wu & Yulong Huang & Peijia Ren & Zeshui Xu & Mohit Verma, 2018. "Green Logistic Provider Selection with a Hesitant Fuzzy Linguistic Thermodynamic Method Integrating Cumulative Prospect Theory and PROMETHEE," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(4), pages 1-16, April.
    5. Su-Min Yu & Huan Zhou & Xiao-Hong Chen & Jian-Qiang Wang, 2015. "A Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Method Based on Heronian Mean Operators Under a Linguistic Hesitant Fuzzy Environment," Asia-Pacific Journal of Operational Research (APJOR), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 32(05), pages 1-35.
    6. Animesh Debnath & Jagannath Roy & Samarjit Kar & Edmundas Kazimieras Zavadskas & Jurgita Antucheviciene, 2017. "A Hybrid MCDM Approach for Strategic Project Portfolio Selection of Agro By-Products," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(8), pages 1-33, July.
    7. Opricovic, Serafim & Tzeng, Gwo-Hshiung, 2004. "Compromise solution by MCDM methods: A comparative analysis of VIKOR and TOPSIS," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 156(2), pages 445-455, July.
    8. Jung In Kim & Devini Manouri Senaratna & Jacobo Ruza & Calvin Kam & Sandy Ng, 2015. "Feasibility Study on an Evidence-Based Decision-Support System for Hospital Site Selection for an Aging Population," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(3), pages 1-15, March.
    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. Mohammad A. Shbool & Manuel D. Rossetti, 2020. "Decision-Making Framework for Evaluating Physicians’ Preference Items Using Multi-Objective Decision Analysis Principles," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(16), pages 1-22, August.
    2. Wojciech Sałabun & Krzysztof Palczewski & Jarosław Wątróbski, 2019. "Multicriteria Approach to Sustainable Transport Evaluation under Incomplete Knowledge: Electric Bikes Case Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(12), pages 1-19, June.
    3. Peide Liu & Xiaoxiao Liu & Guiying Ma & Zhaolong Liang & Changhai Wang & Fawaz E. Alsaadi, 2020. "A Multi-Attribute Group Decision-Making Method Based on Linguistic Intuitionistic Fuzzy Numbers and Dempster–Shafer Evidence Theory," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 19(02), pages 499-524, April.
    4. Xue-Guo Xu & Hua Shi & Li-Jun Zhang & Hu-Chen Liu, 2019. "Green Supplier Evaluation and Selection with an Extended MABAC Method Under the Heterogeneous Information Environment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(23), pages 1-16, November.
    5. Kiruba Nagini R. & S. Uma Devi & Sayed Mohamed, 2020. "A Proposal on Developing a 360° Agile Organizational Structure by Superimposing Matrix Organizational Structure with Cross-functional Teams," Management and Labour Studies, XLRI Jamshedpur, School of Business Management & Human Resources, vol. 45(3), pages 270-294, August.
    6. Raghunathan Krishankumar & Arunodaya Raj Mishra & Fausto Cavallaro & Edmundas Kazimieras Zavadskas & Jurgita Antuchevičienė & Kattur Soundarapandian Ravichandran, 2022. "A New Approach to the Viable Ranking of Zero-Carbon Construction Materials with Generalized Fuzzy Information," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(13), pages 1-24, June.

    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. Ateekh Ur Rehman & Syed Hammad Mian & Usama Umer & Yusuf Siraj Usmani, 2019. "Strategic Outcome Using Fuzzy-AHP-Based Decision Approach for Sustainable Manufacturing," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(21), pages 1-22, October.
    2. Serafim Opricovic, 2009. "A Compromise Solution in Water Resources Planning," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 23(8), pages 1549-1561, June.
    3. Sirirat Sae Lim & Hong Ngoc Nguyen & Chia-Li Lin, 2022. "Exploring the Development Strategies of Science Parks Using the Hybrid MCDM Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(7), pages 1-29, April.
    4. Zeynep Gamze Mert & Gülşen Akman, 2011. "The Profile of the Organized Industrial Zones in Kocaeli/TURKEY," ERSA conference papers ersa11p1137, European Regional Science Association.
    5. Haji Vahabzadeh, Ali & Asiaei, Arash & Zailani, Suhaiza, 2015. "Reprint of “Green decision-making model in reverse logistics using FUZZY-VIKOR method”," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 104(PB), pages 334-347.
    6. Saja Kosanović & Mirjana Miletić & Ljubo Marković, 2021. "Energy Refurbishment of Family Houses in Serbia in Line with the Principles of Circular Economy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(10), pages 1-14, May.
    7. Hsu, C.-H. & Wang, Fu-Kwun & Tzeng, Gwo-Hshiung, 2012. "The best vendor selection for conducting the recycled material based on a hybrid MCDM model combining DANP with VIKOR," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 95-111.
    8. Junling Zhang & Gajanan G. Hegde & Jennifer Shang & Xiaowen Qi, 2016. "Evaluating Emergency Response Solutions for Sustainable Community Development by Using Fuzzy Multi-Criteria Group Decision Making Approaches: IVDHF-TOPSIS and IVDHF-VIKOR," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(4), pages 1-28, March.
    9. Arash Malekian & Ali Azarnivand, 2016. "Application of Integrated Shannon’s Entropy and VIKOR Techniques in Prioritization of Flood Risk in the Shemshak Watershed, Iran," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 30(1), pages 409-425, January.
    10. Lei Xiong & Cheng-Lein Teng & Bo-Wei Zhu & Gwo-Hshiung Tzeng & Shan-Lin Huang, 2017. "Using the D-DANP-mV Model to Explore the Continuous System Improvement Strategy for Sustainable Development of Creative Communities," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 14(11), pages 1-37, October.
    11. Julian Canto-Perello & Maria P. Martinez-Garcia & Jorge Curiel-Esparza & Manuel Martin-Utrillas, 2015. "Implementing Sustainability Criteria for Selecting a Roof Assembly Typology in Medium Span Buildings," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(6), pages 1-18, May.
    12. Haji Vahabzadeh, Ali & Asiaei, Arash & Zailani, Suhaiza, 2015. "Green decision-making model in reverse logistics using FUZZY-VIKOR method," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 103(C), pages 125-138.
    13. Jifei Zhang & Shuai Zhang, 2022. "Assessing Integrated Effectiveness of Rural Socio-Economic Development and Environmental Protection of Wenchuan County in Southwestern China: An Approach Using Game Theory and VIKOR," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(11), pages 1-17, October.
    14. Jau-Yang Liu, 2018. "An Internal Control System that Includes Corporate Social Responsibility for Social Sustainability in the New Era," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(10), pages 1-27, September.
    15. Juin-Hao Ho & Gwo-Guang Lee & Ming-Tsang Lu, 2020. "Exploring the Implementation of a Legal AI Bot for Sustainable Development in Legal Advisory Institutions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(15), pages 1-17, July.
    16. Li, Chengjiang & Negnevitsky, Michael & Wang, Xiaolin & Yue, Wen Long & Zou, Xin, 2019. "Multi-criteria analysis of policies for implementing clean energy vehicles in China," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 129(C), pages 826-840.
    17. Francesco Ciardiello & Andrea Genovese, 2023. "A comparison between TOPSIS and SAW methods," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 325(2), pages 967-994, June.
    18. Muhammad Ikram & Qingyu Zhang & Robert Sroufe, 2020. "Developing integrated management systems using an AHP‐Fuzzy VIKOR approach," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 29(6), pages 2265-2283, September.
    19. Saeed Khorram, 2020. "A novel approach for ports’ container terminals’ risk management based on formal safety assessment: FAHP-entropy measure—VIKOR model," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 103(2), pages 1671-1707, September.
    20. Alikhani, Reza & Torabi, S. Ali & Altay, Nezih, 2019. "Strategic supplier selection under sustainability and risk criteria," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 208(C), pages 69-82.

    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:10:y:2018:i:8:p:2608-:d:159891. 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.