IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/ijsaem/v12y2021i1d10.1007_s13198-020-01024-4.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

RETRACTED ARTICLE: Validation of portfolio allocation in NPD: fuzzy-TOPSIS and COPRAS-grey approach

Author

Listed:
  • Mahesh Caisucar

    (Goa College of Engineering)

  • Amey Naik Dessai

    (Goa College of Engineering)

  • Gajesh Usgaonkar

    (Goa College of Engineering)

Abstract

New Product Development has gotten significant for supportability in the present advanced and aggressive market. It is a critical factor in an organization’s success. A firm may encounter a situation where in a number of feasible alternatives are available and they would like to invest in all these available alternatives. In this situation, obstruction comes in apportioning assets to various new item on premise of item esteem, venture hazard and business system. New item portfolio allotment includes designating constrained arrangement of assets to extend with the end goal that equalization is built up as far as hazard, worth and business system arrangement. This paper deals with new product portfolio allocation in a pharmaceutical healthcare industry involved in manufacturing of various types of X-ray machines. The aim was to evaluate the available alternatives for resource allocation. Various decision makers were included having an equivalent state in basic leadership process. Information was taken in semantic structure from the partners and changed over into quantitative structure. Multi-Attribute Decision Making (MADM) is one such method which can solve this problem. To approve the outcome, Fuzzy-TOPSIS (Technique for Order of Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution) and (COPRAS) complex proportional assessment Grey strategy were utilized. The strategy includes getting the weightages for criteria, trailed by elective rating against every model from the leaders in an etymological structure. Fuzzy scale and Grey numbers were utilized to change over the phonetic information into quantitative structure. The methods were applied and the results were validated. Sensitivity examination was done to check the legitimacy of the outcome.

Suggested Citation

  • Mahesh Caisucar & Amey Naik Dessai & Gajesh Usgaonkar, 2021. "RETRACTED ARTICLE: Validation of portfolio allocation in NPD: fuzzy-TOPSIS and COPRAS-grey approach," International Journal of System Assurance Engineering and Management, Springer;The Society for Reliability, Engineering Quality and Operations Management (SREQOM),India, and Division of Operation and Maintenance, Lulea University of Technology, Sweden, vol. 12(1), pages 37-43, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:ijsaem:v:12:y:2021:i:1:d:10.1007_s13198-020-01024-4
    DOI: 10.1007/s13198-020-01024-4
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s13198-020-01024-4
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s13198-020-01024-4?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Liang, Gin-Shuh & Wang, Mao-Jiun J., 1994. "Personnel selection using fuzzy MCDM algorithm," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 78(1), pages 22-33, October.
    2. Lima-Junior, Francisco Rodrigues & Carpinetti, Luiz Cesar Ribeiro, 2016. "Combining SCOR® model and fuzzy TOPSIS for supplier evaluation and management," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 174(C), pages 128-141.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Jiuping Xu & Xianglan Jiang & Zhibin Wu, 2016. "A Sustainable Performance Assessment Framework for Plastic Film Supply Chain Management from a Chinese Perspective," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(10), pages 1-23, October.
    2. Zheng-Xin Wang & Dan-Dan Li & Hong-Hao Zheng, 2018. "The External Performance Appraisal of China Energy Regulation: An Empirical Study Using a TOPSIS Method Based on Entropy Weight and Mahalanobis Distance," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(2), pages 1-18, January.
    3. Pablo A. Pinto-DelaCadena & Vicente Liern & Andrea Vinueza-Cabezas, 2024. "A Comparative Analysis of Multi-Criteria Decision Methods for Personnel Selection: A Practical Approach," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 12(2), pages 1-18, January.
    4. Amirmahdi Malek & Sadoullah Ebrahimnejad & Reza Tavakkoli-Moghaddam, 2017. "An Improved Hybrid Grey Relational Analysis Approach for Green Resilient Supply Chain Network Assessment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(8), pages 1-28, August.
    5. Chia-Nan Wang & Van Thanh Nguyen & Jiin-Tian Chyou & Tsung-Fu Lin & Tran Ngoc Nguyen, 2019. "Fuzzy Multicriteria Decision-Making Model (MCDM) for Raw Materials Supplier Selection in Plastics Industry," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 7(10), pages 1-17, October.
    6. Lima-Junior, Francisco Rodrigues & Carpinetti, Luiz Cesar Ribeiro, 2019. "Predicting supply chain performance based on SCOR® metrics and multilayer perceptron neural networks," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 212(C), pages 19-38.
    7. Sahil Kashyap & Bartosz Paradowski & Neeraj Gandotra & Namita Saini & Wojciech Sałabun, 2024. "A Novel Trigonometric Entropy Measure Based on the Complex Proportional Assessment Technique for Pythagorean Fuzzy Sets," Energies, MDPI, vol. 17(2), pages 1-18, January.
    8. Kannan, Govindan & Pokharel, Shaligram & Sasi Kumar, P., 2009. "A hybrid approach using ISM and fuzzy TOPSIS for the selection of reverse logistics provider," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 54(1), pages 28-36.
    9. Liang, Gin-Shuh, 1999. "Fuzzy MCDM based on ideal and anti-ideal concepts," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 112(3), pages 682-691, February.
    10. Luan, Jing & Yao, Zhong & Zhao, Futao & Song, Xin, 2019. "A novel method to solve supplier selection problem: Hybrid algorithm of genetic algorithm and ant colony optimization," Mathematics and Computers in Simulation (MATCOM), Elsevier, vol. 156(C), pages 294-309.
    11. Lin, Hung-Tso & Chang, Wen-Ling, 2008. "Order selection and pricing methods using flexible quantity and fuzzy approach for buyer evaluation," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 187(2), pages 415-428, June.
    12. Lee, Hong Tau, 2001. "Cpk index estimation using fuzzy numbers," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 129(3), pages 683-688, March.
    13. Galo, Nadya Regina & Calache, Lucas Daniel Del Rosso & Carpinetti, Luiz Cesar Ribeiro, 2018. "A group decision approach for supplier categorization based on hesitant fuzzy and ELECTRE TRI," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 202(C), pages 182-196.
    14. Yazdi, Amir Karbassi & Wanke, Peter Fernandes & Hanne, Thomas & Abdi, Farshid & Sarfaraz, Amir Homayoun, 2022. "Supplier selection in the oil & gas industry: A comprehensive approach for Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 79(C).
    15. Wanke, Peter & Azad, Abul Kalam & Emrouznejad, Ali, 2018. "Efficiency in BRICS banking under data vagueness: A two-stage fuzzy approach," Global Finance Journal, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 58-71.
    16. Glock, Christoph H. & Grosse, Eric H. & Ries, Jörg M., 2017. "Reprint of “Decision support models for supplier development: Systematic literature review and research agenda”," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 194(C), pages 246-260.
    17. Giuseppe Caristi & Raffaele Boffardi & Cristina Ciliberto & Roberta Arbolino & Giuseppe Ioppolo, 2022. "Multicriteria Approach for Supplier Selection: Evidence from a Case Study in the Fashion Industry," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(13), pages 1-21, June.

    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:spr:ijsaem:v:12:y:2021:i:1:d:10.1007_s13198-020-01024-4. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.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.