Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Application of fuzzy multi-attribute decision making in determining the critical path by using time, cost, risk, and quality criteria

  • ORIGINAL ARTICLE
  • Published:
The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In this paper, we attempt to introduce an algorithm which considers not only time factor but also cost, risk, and quality criteria to determine the critical path under fuzzy environment. In this algorithm first, decision makers allocate time, cost, risk, and quality to each activity. We are lacking in data and information, so in the proposed algorithm, the ratings of each activity and the weight of each criterion are described by fuzzy numbers and linguistic variables, which can be expressed in triangular fuzzy number. Linguistic variables are applied to represent the intensity of preferences of one criterion over another. Then, we add up triangular fuzzy numbers to determine the final evaluation value of each criterion for paths. Next, we use fuzzy TOPSIS, a technique for order preferences by similarity to an ideal solution, a method proposed by the authors in another paper, to choose the best alternative. Finally, numerical example is solved to illustrate the procedure of proposed method at the end of this paper.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Chen SP (2007) Analysis of critical paths in a project network with fuzzy activity times. Eur J Oper Res 183:442–459

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  2. Kelley JE (1961) Critical path planning and scheduling mathematical basis. Oper Res 9:296–320

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  3. Hillier FS, Lieberman GJ (2001) Introduction to operations research, 7th edn. McGraw-Hill, Singapore

    Google Scholar 

  4. Zadeh LA (1978) Fuzzy sets as basisfor a theory of possibility. Fuzzy Sets Syst 1:3–28

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  5. Chanas S, Zielinski P (2001) Critical path analysis in the network with fuzzy activity times. Fuzzy Sets Syst 122:195–204

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  6. Chen CT, Huang SF (2007) Applying fuzzy method for measuring criticality in project network. Inf Sci 177:2448–2458

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  7. Slyeptsov AI, Tyshchuk TA (2003) Fuzzy temporal characteristics of operations for project management on the network models basis. Eur J Oper Res 147:253–265

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  8. Zammori FA, Braglia M, Frosolini M (2009) A fuzzy multi-criteria approach for critical path definition. Int J Project Manage 27:278–291

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Zielinski P (2005) On computing the latest starting times and floats of activities in a network with imprecise durations. Fuzzy Sets Syst 150:53–76

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  10. Shipley MF, Korvin A, Omer K (1997) BIFPET methodology versus PERT in project management: fuzzy probability instead of the beta distribution. J Eng Tech Manage 14:46–65

    Google Scholar 

  11. Chanas S, Dubois D, Zielinski P (2002) On the sure criticality of tasks in activity networks with imprecise duration. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics-Part B 32:393–407

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Chanas S, Zielinski P (2002) The computational complexity of criticality problems in a network with interval activity times. Eur J Oper Res 136:541–550

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  13. Atkinson R (1999) Project management: cost, time and quality, two best guesses and a phenomenon, it’s time to accept other success criteria. Int J Project Manage 17:337–342

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. PMI Standards Committee (1996) A guide to the project management body of knowledge, 3rd edition. Project Management Institute.

  15. Cagno E, Caron F, Perego A (2001) Multi-criteria assessment of the probability of winning in the competitive bidding process. Int J Project Manage 19:313–324

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Lin CT, Ying TC, Frosolini M (2004) Bid no bid decision making, a fuzzy linguistic approach. Int J Project Manage 22:585–593

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Kamal M, Al-Subhi AH (2001) Application of the AHP to project management. Int J Project Manage 19:19–27

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Mahdi I, Alreshaid K (2005) Decision support system for select the proper project delivery method using analytical hierarchy process (AHP). Int J Project Manage 23:567–572

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Meade LA, Presley A (2002) R&D project selection using ANP. IEEE Potential 21(2):22–28

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Buckley JJ (1985) Fuzzy hierarchical analysis. Fuzzy Sets Syst 17:233–247

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  21. Chen CT (2000) Extensions of the TOPSIS for group decision-making under fuzzy environment. Fuzzy Sets Syst 114:1–9

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  22. Kaufmann A, Gupta MM (1985) Introduction to fuzzy arithmetic: (theory and application). Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York

    Google Scholar 

  23. Klir G, Yuan B (1995) Fuzzy sets and fuzzy logic: theory and applications. Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  24. Zadeh LA (1975) The concept of a linguistic variable and its application to approximate reasoning. Inform Sci 8(I):199–249, 301–357(II)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  25. Zimmerman HJ (1996) Fuzzy set theory and its applications, 3rd edn. Kluwer, Norwell

    Google Scholar 

  26. Chen CT, Lin CT, Huang SF (2006) A fuzzy approach for supplier evaluation and selection in supply chain management. Int J Prod Econ 102:289–301

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Chen SJ, Hwang CL (1992) Fuzzy multiple attribute decision making: methods and application. Springer, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  28. Hwang CL, Yoon K (1981) Multiple attribute decision making: methods and applications. Springer, Berlin

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  29. Yager RR (1981) A procedure for ordering fuzzy subsets of the unit interval. Inf Sci 24:143–161

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Industrial Management and Accounting Faculty, Allameh Tabatabaei University, Valiasr Street, Tavanir Street, Nezamiganjavi Street, Haftpaikar Avenue, Tehran, Iran

    Maghsoud Amiri

  2. Department of Industrial Engineering, University of Science and Culture (USC), Farredanesh Aveneue, Keshavarz Street, Valiasr Square, Tehran, Iran

    Farhaneh Golozari

Authors
  1. Maghsoud Amiri
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Farhaneh Golozari
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Maghsoud Amiri or Farhaneh Golozari.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Amiri, M., Golozari, F. Application of fuzzy multi-attribute decision making in determining the critical path by using time, cost, risk, and quality criteria. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 54, 393–401 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-010-2928-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-010-2928-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation