Advertisement

International Journal of Fuzzy Systems

, Volume 21, Issue 2, pp 369–387 | Cite as

A Generalized TOPSIS Method for Intuitionistic Fuzzy Multiple Attribute Group Decision Making Considering Different Scenarios of Attributes Weight Information

  • Pankaj GuptaEmail author
  • Mukesh Kumar Mehlawat
  • Nishtha Grover
Article
  • 44 Downloads

Abstract

In this paper, the technique for order preference by similarity to an ideal solution (TOPSIS) method is extended to solve multiple attribute group decision making (MAGDM) problems under intuitionistic fuzzy environment. The input data involve assessment information about the alternatives, the weights of the decision makers (DMs) provided by the experts, and weights of the multiple attributes. Here, we generalize the TOPSIS method under the realm of both the intuitionistic fuzzy set (IFS) and interval valued intuitionistic fuzzy set (IVIFS), taking into consideration different variations of weights of the attributes provided by the DMs depending upon their psychology, subjectivity and cognitive thinking. The assessment information and attributes weights are aggregated over each decision maker’s weight using weighted arithmetic and weighted geometric operators. The score functions, namely, the advantage and disadvantage scores are implemented to capture the preferences of the DMs in the context of reliability of information. These score functions are based on the positive contribution of the parameters of IFS, i.e. membership, non-membership and hesitation degrees, evaluating the performance of each alternative with the rest on the given attributes. The performance degree of each alternative is then determined to select the preferable alternative using strength and weakness scores as a function of the obtained attribute weight vector. Numerical illustrations in the form of an investment decision making problem are demonstrated in the context of both the IFS and IVIFS, taking different forms of attribute weight information so as to better reflect the working of the proposed methodology. Further, the methodology is compared with some existing works and major highlights of the proposed work are presented.

Keywords

Multiple attribute group decision making Intuitionistic fuzzy set Interval valued intuitionistic fuzzy set TOPSIS Attributes weights 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We are thankful to the Editor-in-chief, Associate Editor, and anonymous referees for their valuable suggestions to improve the presentation of the paper.

References

  1. 1.
    Zadeh, L.A.: Fuzzy sets. Inf. Control 8, 338–353 (1965)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bellman, R.E., Zadeh, L.A.: Decision-making in a fuzzy environment. Manag. Sci. 17, B-141–B-164 (1970)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Zimmermann, H.J.: Fuzzy set theory. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Comput. Stat. 2, 317–332 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Chen, S.J., Hwang, C.L.: Fuzzy Multiple Attribute Decision Making: Methods and Applications. Springer, Berlin (1992)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Atanassov, K.T.: Intuitionistic fuzzy sets. Fuzzy Sets Syst. 20, 87–96 (1986)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Atanassov, K.T.: Intuitionistic Fuzzy Sets. Physica-Verlag, Heidelberg (1999)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Atanassov, K.T., Gargov, G.: Interval valued intuitionistic fuzzy sets. Fuzzy Sets Syst. 31, 343–349 (1989)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Podinovski, V.V.: Set choice problems with incomplete information about the preferences of the decision maker. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 207, 371–379 (2010)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Wang, Z., Li, K.W., Wang, W.: An approach to multiattribute decision making with interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy assessments and incomplete weights. Inf. Sci. 179, 3026–3040 (2009)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kim, S.H., Ahn, B.S.: Interactive group decision making procedure under incomplete information. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 116, 498–507 (1999)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Park, K.S.: Mathematical programming models for characterizing dominance and potential optimality when multicriteria alternative values and weights are simultaneously incomplete. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. Part A Syst. Hum. 34, 601–614 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hwang, C.L., Yoon, K.: Multiple Attribute Decision Making: Methods and Applications. Springer, Berlin (1981)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Su, Z.X., Chen, M.Y., Xia, G.P., Wang, L.: An interactive method for dynamic intuitionistic fuzzy multi-attribute group decision making. Expert Syst. Appl. 38, 15286–15295 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Aikhuele, D.O., Turan, F.B.M.: Intuitionistic fuzzy-based model for failure detection. SpringerPlus (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1186/s40064-016-3446-0 Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Boran, F.E., Genç, S., Kurt, M., Akay, D.: A multi-criteria intuitionistic fuzzy group decision making for supplier selection with TOPSIS method. Expert Syst. Appl. 36, 11363–11368 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Liu, H.C., You, J.X., Shan, M.M., Shao, L.N.: Failure mode and effects analysis using intuitionistic fuzzy hybrid TOPSIS approach. Soft Comput. 19, 1085–1098 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Rouyendegh, B.D.: The DEA and intuitionistic fuzzy TOPSIS approach to departments’ performances: a pilot study. J. Appl. Math. 2011, Article ID 712194, 16 (2011)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Yue, Z.: TOPSIS-based group decision-making methodology in intuitionistic fuzzy setting. Inf. Sci. 277, 141–153 (2014)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Büyüközkan, G., Güleryüz, S.: Multi criteria group decision making approach for smart phone selection using intuitionistic fuzzy TOPSIS. Int. J. Comput. Intell. Syst. 9, 709–725 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Li, D.F., Nan, J.X.: Extension of the TOPSIS for multi-attribute group decision making under Atanassov IFS environments. Int. J. Fuzzy Syst. Appl. 1, 47–61 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ye, F.: An extended TOPSIS method with interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy numbers for virtual enterprise partner selection. Expert Syst. Appl. 37, 7050–7055 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Park, J.H., Park, I.Y., Kwun, Y.C., Tan, X.: Extension of the TOPSIS method for decision making problems under interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy environment. Appl. Math. Model. 35, 2544–2556 (2011)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Tan, C.: A multi-criteria interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy group decision making with Choquet integral-based TOPSIS. Expert Syst. Appl. 38, 3023–3033 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Zhang, X., Xu, Z.: Soft computing based on maximizing consensus and fuzzy TOPSIS approach to interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy group decision making. Appl. Soft Comput. 26, 42–56 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Izadikhah, M.: Group decision making process for supplier selection with TOPSIS method under interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy numbers. Adv. Fuzzy Syst. 2012, Article ID 407942, 14 (2012)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Wei, C., Zhang, Y.: Entropy measures for interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy sets and their application in group decision-making. Math. Prob. Eng. 2015, Article ID 563745, 13 (2015)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Xu, Z.: Intuitionistic fuzzy aggregation operators. IEEE Trans. Fuzzy Syst. 15, 1179–1187 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Xu, Z., Cai, X.: Recent advances in intuitionistic fuzzy information aggregation. Fuzzy Optim. Decis. Mak. 9, 359–381 (2010)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Xu, Z.S.: Methods for aggregating interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy information and their application to decision making. Control Decis. 22, 215–219 (2007)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Liu, H.W., Wang, G.J.: Multi-criteria decision-making methods based on intuitionistic fuzzy sets. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 179, 220–233 (2007)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Gupta, P., Lin, C.T., Mehlawat, M.K., Grover, N.: A new method for intuitionistic fuzzy multiattribute decision making. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. Syst. 46, 1167–1179 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Wang, J.Q., Zhang, H.Y.: Multicriteria decision-making approach based on Atanassov’s intuitionistic fuzzy sets with incomplete certain information on weights. IEEE Trans. Fuzzy Syst. 21, 510–515 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    French, S., Hartley, R., Thomas, L.C., White, D.J.: Multi-Objective Decision Making. Academic Press, New York (1983)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Wang, Z., Xu, J., Wang, W.: Intuitionistic fuzzy multiple attribute group decision making based on projection method. In: Chinese Control and Decision Conference, IEEE, pp. 2919–2924 (2009)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Meng, F., Chen, X.: Interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy multi-criteria group decision making based on cross entropy and 2-additive measures. Soft Comput. 19, 2071–2082 (2015)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Schrage, L.E.: Optimization Modelling with LINGO. LINDO Systems Inc., Chicago (2006)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Taiwan Fuzzy Systems Association and Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Pankaj Gupta
    • 1
    Email author
  • Mukesh Kumar Mehlawat
    • 1
  • Nishtha Grover
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Operational ResearchUniversity of DelhiDelhiIndia

Personalised recommendations