IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/syseng/v20y2017i4p318-334.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Multiattribute Decision Making Using Multiperiod Probabilistic Weighted Fuzzy Axiomatic Design

Author

Listed:
  • Mumtaz Karatas

Abstract

Axiomatic Design is a methodology that provides a framework to systematically analyze the transformation of customer needs into functional requirements and design parameters. Decision‐makers use Weighted Fuzzy Axiomatic Design (wFAD) in cases where there is imperfect information, and decision criteria have different priorities. In this paper, the wFAD approach is extended to situations which include uncertainty in future events and decision payoffs. In particular, we consider multiple future scenarios with different probabilities and time‐dependent decision payoffs for each system range (SR). For such decision problems, we propose the Multiperiod Probabilistic Weighted Fuzzy Axiomatic Design (MPP‐wFAD) methodology. The methodology utilizes probabilistic scenario analysis and SR forecast data to assist decision makers in attaining better decisions with improved expected payoffs. As a case study, we apply MPP‐wFAD to tackle a multiattribute industry selection problem in Turkey and show the impact and usability of the method.

Suggested Citation

  • Mumtaz Karatas, 2017. "Multiattribute Decision Making Using Multiperiod Probabilistic Weighted Fuzzy Axiomatic Design," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 20(4), pages 318-334, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:syseng:v:20:y:2017:i:4:p:318-334
    DOI: 10.1002/sys.21397
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/sys.21397
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/sys.21397?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. R. E. Bellman & L. A. Zadeh, 1970. "Decision-Making in a Fuzzy Environment," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 17(4), pages 141-164, December.
    2. Daim, Tugrul & Yates, Diane & Peng, Yicheng & Jimenez, Bertha, 2009. "Technology assessment for clean energy technologies: The case of the Pacific Northwest," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 31(3), pages 232-243.
    3. Kok, M. & Lootsma, F. A., 1985. "Pairwise-comparison methods in multiple objective programming, with applications in a long-term energy-planning model," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 22(1), pages 44-55, October.
    4. JosÉ Figueira & Salvatore Greco & Matthias Ehrogott, 2005. "Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis: State of the Art Surveys," International Series in Operations Research and Management Science, Springer, number 978-0-387-23081-8, September.
    5. Vaidya, Omkarprasad S. & Kumar, Sushil, 2006. "Analytic hierarchy process: An overview of applications," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 169(1), pages 1-29, February.
    6. Yoram Wind & Thomas L. Saaty, 1980. "Marketing Applications of the Analytic Hierarchy Process," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(7), pages 641-658, July.
    7. Kaya, Tolga & Kahraman, Cengiz, 2010. "Multicriteria renewable energy planning using an integrated fuzzy VIKOR & AHP methodology: The case of Istanbul," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 35(6), pages 2517-2527.
    8. Zanakis, Stelios H. & Solomon, Anthony & Wishart, Nicole & Dublish, Sandipa, 1998. "Multi-attribute decision making: A simulation comparison of select methods," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 107(3), pages 507-529, June.
    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. Chai, Naijie & Zhou, Wenliang & Hu, Xinlei, 2022. "Safety evaluation of urban rail transit operation considering uncertainty and risk preference: A case study in China," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 125(C), pages 267-288.
    2. Karatas, Mumtaz & Sulukan, Egemen & Karacan, Ilknur, 2018. "Assessment of Turkey's energy management performance via a hybrid multi-criteria decision-making methodology," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 153(C), pages 890-912.

    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. Hocine, Amine & Kouaissah, Noureddine, 2020. "XOR analytic hierarchy process and its application in the renewable energy sector," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 97(C).
    2. J Aznar & J Ferrís-Oñate & F Guijarro, 2010. "An ANP framework for property pricing combining quantitative and qualitative attributes," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 61(5), pages 740-755, May.
    3. Karatas, Mumtaz & Sulukan, Egemen & Karacan, Ilknur, 2018. "Assessment of Turkey's energy management performance via a hybrid multi-criteria decision-making methodology," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 153(C), pages 890-912.
    4. Büyüközkan, Gülçin & Güleryüz, Sezin, 2016. "An integrated DEMATEL-ANP approach for renewable energy resources selection in Turkey," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 182(C), pages 435-448.
    5. Zhu, Bin & Xu, Zeshui, 2014. "Analytic hierarchy process-hesitant group decision making," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 239(3), pages 794-801.
    6. Cortés-Aldana, Félix Antonio & García-Melón, Mónica & Fernández-de-Lucio, Ignacio & Aragonés-Beltrán, Pablo & Poveda-Bautista, Rocío, 2009. "University objectives and socioeconomic results: A multicriteria measuring of alignment," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 199(3), pages 811-822, December.
    7. Hatami-Marbini, Adel & Tavana, Madjid, 2011. "An extension of the Electre I method for group decision-making under a fuzzy environment," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 39(4), pages 373-386, August.
    8. Jose Martino Neto & Valerio Antonio Pamplona Salomon & Miguel Angel Ortiz-Barrios & Antonella Petrillo, 2023. "Compatibility and correlation of multi-attribute decision making: a case of industrial relocation," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 326(2), pages 831-852, July.
    9. Dinulescu Ruxandra & Dobrin Cosmin, 2022. "Applying the fuzzy analytical hierarchy process for classifying and prioritizing healthcare quality attributes," Management & Marketing, Sciendo, vol. 17(1), pages 15-40, March.
    10. Eric L. Sevigny & Michaela Saisana, 2016. "Measuring Interstate Variations in the Consequences of Illegal Drugs: A Composite Indicator Approach," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 128(2), pages 501-529, September.
    11. Yeh, Chung-Hsing & Chang, Yu-Hern, 2009. "Modeling subjective evaluation for fuzzy group multicriteria decision making," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 194(2), pages 464-473, April.
    12. Morteza Alaeddini & Masoud Mir-Amini, 2020. "Integrating COBIT with a hybrid group decision-making approach for a business-aligned IT roadmap formulation," Information Technology and Management, Springer, vol. 21(2), pages 63-94, June.
    13. Denys Yemshanov & Frank H. Koch & Yakov Ben‐Haim & Marla Downing & Frank Sapio & Marty Siltanen, 2013. "A New Multicriteria Risk Mapping Approach Based on a Multiattribute Frontier Concept," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(9), pages 1694-1709, September.
    14. Jitendar Kumar Khatri & Bhimaraya Metri, 2016. "SWOT-AHP Approach for Sustainable Manufacturing Strategy Selection: A Case of Indian SME," Global Business Review, International Management Institute, vol. 17(5), pages 1211-1226, October.
    15. Mulliner, Emma & Smallbone, Kieran & Maliene, Vida, 2013. "An assessment of sustainable housing affordability using a multiple criteria decision making method," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 41(2), pages 270-279.
    16. Sajid Ali & Sang-Moon Lee & Choon-Man Jang, 2017. "Determination of the Most Optimal On-Shore Wind Farm Site Location Using a GIS-MCDM Methodology: Evaluating the Case of South Korea," Energies, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-22, December.
    17. Choudhary, Devendra & Shankar, Ravi, 2012. "An STEEP-fuzzy AHP-TOPSIS framework for evaluation and selection of thermal power plant location: A case study from India," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 42(1), pages 510-521.
    18. Madjid Tavana & Mariya Sodenkamp & Leena Suhl, 2010. "A soft multi-criteria decision analysis model with application to the European Union enlargement," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 181(1), pages 393-421, December.
    19. Zanakis, Stelios H. & Mandakovic, Tomislav & Gupta, Sushil K. & Sahay, Sundeep & Hong, Sungwan, 1995. "A review of program evaluation and fund allocation methods within the service and government sectors," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 29(1), pages 59-79, March.
    20. García Cáceres, Rafael Guillermo & Aráoz Durand, Julián Arturo & Gómez, Fernando Palacios, 2009. "Integral analysis method - IAM," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 192(3), pages 891-903, February.

    More about this item

    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:wly:syseng:v:20:y:2017:i:4:p:318-334. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1002/(ISSN)1520-6858 .

    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.