Advertisement

A Framework for Multi-Attribute Group Decision-Making Using Double Hierarchy Hesitant Fuzzy Linguistic Term Set

  • R. Krishankumar
  • L. S. Subrajaa
  • K. S. Ravichandran
  • Samarjit KarEmail author
  • Arsham Borumand Saeid
Article
  • 17 Downloads

Abstract

As a generalization to hesitant fuzzy linguistic term set (HFLTS), double hierarchy hesitant fuzzy linguistic term set (DHHFLTS) is presented which circumvents the weakness of HFLTS in representing complex linguistic terms. DHHFLTS has two linguistic hierarchies with the second hierarchy supplementing the primary which enables decision-makers (DMs) to represent complex linguistic terms better. Motivated by the power of DHHFLTS, in this paper, a new decision framework is presented under DHHFLTS context. Initially, a new aggregation operator called double hierarchy hesitant fuzzy hybrid aggregation (DHHFHA) operator is proposed for sensible aggregation of DMs’ preference information. Further, weights of attributes are calculated by extending statistical variance (SV) method under DHHFLTS context. Objects are prioritized by extending the popular WASPAS (weighted aggregated sum product assessment) method to DHHFLTS context. The applicability and usefulness of the proposed framework are realized by demonstrating a risk management technique (RMT) selection problem for a construction project. Finally, the superiority and weakness of the proposed framework are discussed by comparison with other methods.

Keywords

Double hierarchy hesitant fuzzy linguistic term set Group decision-making Hybrid aggregation Statistical variance and WASPAS method 

Notes

Acknowledgement

Authors dedicate their earnest gratitude to the editor and the anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments that helped us improve the quality of the paper.

Funding

Authors thank University Grants Commission (UGC), India, and Department of Science & Technology (DST), India, for their financial support from Grant Nos. F./2015-17/RGNF-2015-17-TAM-83 and SR/FST/ETI-349/2013.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

All authors of this research paper declare that there is no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all participants included in the study.

References

  1. 1.
    Triantaphyllou, E., Shu, B.: Multi-criteria decision making: an operations research approach. Encycl. Electr. Electron. Eng. 15, 175–186 (1998)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Zadeh, L.A.: The concept of a linguistic variable and its application to approximate reasoning-I. Inf. Sci. 8, 199–249 (1975)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Herrera, F., Herrera-Viedma, E.: Linguistic decision analysis: steps for solving decision problems under linguistic information. Fuzzy Sets Syst. 115, 67–82 (2000)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Herrera, F., Herrera-Viedma, E., Verdegay, J.L.: Linguistic measures based on fuzzy coincidence for reaching consensus in group decision making. Int. J. Approx. Reason. 16, 309–334 (1997)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Herrera, F., Herrera-Viedma, E., Verdegay, J.L.: A rational consensus model in group decision making using linguistic assessments. Fuzzy Sets Syst. 88, 31–49 (1997)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Rodriguez, R.M., Martinez, L., Herrera, F.: Hesitant fuzzy linguistic term sets for decision making. IEEE Trans. Fuzzy Syst. 20, 109–119 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Herrera, F., Herrera-Viedma, E., Verdegay, J.L.: A sequential selection process in group decision making with a linguistic assessment approach. Inf. Sci. 239, 223–239 (1995)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Torra, V.: Hesitant fuzzy sets. Int. J. Intell. Syst. 25, 529–539 (2010)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Liao, H., Xu, Z., Herrera-Viedma, E., Herrera, F.: Hesitant fuzzy linguistic term set and its application in decision making: a state-of-the-art survey. Int. J. Fuzzy Syst. 20, 2084–2110 (2017)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gou, X., Liao, H., Xu, Z., Herrera, F.: Double hierarchy hesitant fuzzy linguistic term set and MULTIMOORA method: a case of study to evaluate the implementation status of haze controlling measures. Inf. Fusion. 38, 22–34 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Pang, Q., Wang, H., Xu, Z.: Probabilistic linguistic term sets in multi-attribute group decision making. Inf. Sci. 369, 128–143 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Wang, J.H., Hao, J.: A new version of 2-tuple fuzzy linguistic representation model for computing with words. IEEE Trans. Fuzzy Syst. 14, 435–445 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Tang, Y., Zheng, J.: Linguistic modelling based on semantic similarity relation among linguistic labels. Fuzzy Sets Syst. 157, 1662–1673 (2006)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Meng, F., Chen, X., Zhang, Q.: Multi-attribute decision analysis under a linguistic hesitant fuzzy environment. Inf. Sci. 267, 287–305 (2014)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Xu, Z.: Uncertain linguistic aggregation operators based approach to multiple attribute group decision making under uncertain linguistic environment. Inf. Sci. 168, 171–184 (2004)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Wang, H., Xu, Z., Zeng, X.J.: Modeling complex linguistic expressions in qualitative decision making: an overview. Knowledge-Based Syst. 144, 174–187 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Rodríguez, R.M., Labella, A., Martínez, L.: An overview on fuzzy modelling of complex linguistic preferences in decision making. Int. J. Comput. Intell. Syst. 9, 81–94 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Montserrat-Adell, J., Xu, Z., Gou, X., Agell, N.: Free double hierarchy hesitant fuzzy linguistic term sets: an application on ranking alternatives in GDM. Inf. Fusion. 47, 45–59 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Gou, X., Xu, Z., Herrera, F.: Consensus reaching process for large-scale group decision making with double hierarchy hesitant fuzzy linguistic preference relations. Knowledge-Based Syst. 157, 20–33 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Muirhead, R.F.: Some methods applicable to identities and inequalities of symmetric algebraic functions of n letters. Proc. Edinburgh Math. Soc. 21, 144–162 (1902)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Liu, P., Teng, F.: Some Muirhead mean operators for probabilistic linguistic term sets and their applications to multiple attribute decision-making. Appl. Soft Comput. 68, 396–431 (2018).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2018.03.027 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kao, C.: Weight determination for consistently ranking alternatives in multiple criteria decision analysis. Appl. Math. Model. 34, 1779–1787 (2010)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Rao, R.V., Patel, B.K., Parnichkun, M.: Industrial robot selection using a novel decision making method considering objective and subjective preferences. Rob. Auton. Syst. 59, 367–375 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Mardani, A., Nilashi, M., Zakuan, N., Loganathan, N., Soheilirad, S., Saman, M.Z.M., et al.: A systematic review and meta-analysis of SWARA and WASPAS methods: theory and applications with recent fuzzy developments. Appl. Soft Comput. 57, 265–292 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Singh, S., Olugu, E.U., Musa, S.N., Mahat, A.B., Wong, K.Y.: Strategy selection for sustainable manufacturing with integrated AHP-VIKOR method under interval-valued fuzzy environment. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 84, 547–563 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Büyüközkan, G., Görener, A.: evaluation of product development partners using an integrated AHP-VIKOR model. Kybernetes 44, 220–237 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Zhang, Y., Wang, Y., Wang, J.: Objective attributes weights determining based on shannon information entropy in hesitant fuzzy multiple attribute decision making. Math. Probl. Eng. 2014, 1–7 (2014)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Hafezalkotob, A., Hafezalkotob, A.: Fuzzy entropy-weighted MULTIMOORA method for materials selection. J. Intell. Fuzzy Syst. 31, 1211–1226 (2016).  https://doi.org/10.3233/IFS-162186 CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Chýna, V., Kuncová, M., Sekni, J.: Estimation of weights in multi-criteria decision-making optimization models. In: Proceedings of 30th International Conference Mathematical Methods in Economics, 2013: pp. 355–360Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Xu, Z., Zhang, X.: Hesitant fuzzy multi-attribute decision making based on TOPSIS with incomplete weight information. Knowledge-Based Syst. 52, 53–64 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Liu, S., Chan, F.T.S., Ran, W.: Decision making for the selection of cloud vendor: an improved approach under group decision-making with integrated weights and objective/subjective attributes. Expert Syst. Appl. 55, 37–47 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Chakraborty, S., Zavadskas, E.K.: Applications of WASPAS method in manufacturing decision making. Informatica. 25, 1–20 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Chatterjee, K., Zavadskas, E.K., Tamošaitiene, J., Adhikary, K., Kar, S.: A hybrid MCDM technique for risk management in construction projects. Symmetry. 10, 1–31 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Lyons, T., Skitmore, M.: Project risk management in the Queensland engineering construction industry: a survey. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 22, 51–61 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Lima Jr., F.R., Osiro, L., Carpinetti, L.C.R.: A comparison between fuzzy AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS methods to supplier selection. Appl. Soft Comput. 21, 194–209 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Gou, X., Xu, Z., Liao, H., Herrera, F.: Multiple criteria decision making based on distance and similarity measures under double hierarchy hesitant fuzzy linguistic environment. Comput. Ind. Eng. 126, 516–530 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Saaty, T.L., Ozdemir, M.S.: Why the magic number seven plus or minus two. Math. Comput. Model. 38, 233–244 (2003)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Spearman, C.: The proof and measurement of association between two things. Am. J. Psychol. 15, 72–101 (1904)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Chen, J., Li, S., Ma, S., Wang, X.: M-Polar fuzzy sets: an extension of bipolar fuzzy sets. Sci. World J. 2014, 1–8 (2014)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Deng, S., Liu, J., Wang, X.: The properties of fuzzy tensor and its application in multiple attribute group decision making. IEEE Trans. Fuzzy Syst. (2018).  https://doi.org/10.1109/TFUZZ.2018.2865923 Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Yager, R.R.: Generalized orthopair fuzzy sets. IEEE Trans. Fuzzy Syst. 25, 1222–1230 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Taiwan Fuzzy Systems Association 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • R. Krishankumar
    • 1
  • L. S. Subrajaa
    • 1
  • K. S. Ravichandran
    • 1
  • Samarjit Kar
    • 2
    Email author
  • Arsham Borumand Saeid
    • 3
  1. 1.School of ComputingSASTRA UniversityThanjavurIndia
  2. 2.Department of MathematicsNational Institute of TechnologyDurgapurIndia
  3. 3.Department of Pure Mathematics, Faculty of Mathematics and ComputerShahid Bahonar University of KermanKermanIran

Personalised recommendations