Soft Computing

, Volume 21, Issue 5, pp 1203–1218 | Cite as

Evaluation of research proposals for grant funding using interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy sets

  • Basar Oztaysi
  • Sezi Cevik Onar
  • Kerim Goztepe
  • Cengiz Kahraman
Methodologies and Application


It is a well-known fact that the most appealing external funding for a project is grant funding. Therefore, evaluation of research proposal task needs an elaborate approach so as not to finance inconvenient projects. It is indispensable to establish a detailed study for submitted research proposals to have a clearer picture of the grant funding candidates. This study has contributed to research proposal evaluation using a multicriteria approach based on interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy sets. An interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy preference relation matrix is initially constructed to determine the relative importance of criteria based on pairwise comparisons in the presence of insufficient information about the criteria. The proposed evaluation method for grand funding allocation problem is composed of six main criteria and 24 sub-criteria. A sensitivity analysis is applied to see the robustness of the decision made.


Research proposal Grant funding Fuzzy logic Interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy sets Project evaluation group (PEG) 


  1. Atanassov K, Gargov G (1989) Interval valued intuitionistic fuzzy sets. Fuzzy Sets Syst 31(3):343–349MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. Atanassova L (2008) On interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy versions of L. Zadeh’s extension principle. In: Atanassov K, Kacprzyk J, Krawczak M, Szmidt (eds) Issues in intuitionistic fuzzy sets and generalized nets, Warsaw, vol 7, pp 13–19Google Scholar
  3. Bloch C, Sørensen MP, Graversen EK, Schneider JW, Schmidt EK, Aagaard K, Mejlgaard N (2014) Developing a methodology to assess the impact of research grant funding: a mixed methods approach. Eval Progr Plan 43:105–117Google Scholar
  4. Chapin PG (2004) Research projects and research proposals. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  5. Chen TY, Wang HP, Lu YY (2011) A multicriteria group decision-making approach based on interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy sets: a comparative perspective. Expert Syst Appl 38(6):7647–7658CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Denscombe M (2013) The role of research proposals in business and management education. Int J Manag Educ 11(3):142–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Fogelholm M, Leppinen S, Auvinen A, Raitanen J, Nuutinen A, Väänänen K (2012) Panel discussion does not improve reliability of peer review for medical research grant proposals. J Clin Epidemiol 65(1):47–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Galbraith CS, McKinney BC, DeNoble AF, Ehrlich SB (2014) The impact of presentation form, entrepreneurial passion, and perceived preparedness on obtaining grant funding. J Bus Tech Commun 28(2):222–248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Geuna A, Martin BR (2003) University research evaluation and funding: an international comparison. Minerva 41(4):277–304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hills PV, Dale AJ (1995) Research and technology evaluation in the United Kingdom. Res Eval 5(1):35–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hong LC, Fong S (2012) Presenting a research proposal: the examiners’ expectations. Proc Soc Behav Sci 66:537–543CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Jacob BA, Lefgren L (2011) The impact of research grant funding on scientific productivity. J Public Econ 95(9):1168–1177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kahraman C, Ruan D, Dogan I (2003) Fuzzy group decision-making for facility location selection. Inf Sci 157:135–153CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. Kasvi JJ, Vartiainen M, Hailikari M (2003) Managing knowledge and knowledge competences in projects and project organisations. Int J Proj Manag 21(8):571–582CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kim S, Koo J, Lee YH (1999) Infrastructure and production efficiency: an analysis on the Korean manufacturing industry. Contemp Econ Policy 17(3):390–400CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kondolf GM (1995) Five elements for effective evaluation of stream restoration. Restor Ecol 3(2):133–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Li DF (2011) Extension principles for interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy sets and algebraic operations. Fuzzy Optim Decis Mak 10(1):45–58MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. Lichtenberg FR (1987) The effect of government funding on private industrial research and development: a re-assessment. J Ind Econ 36:97–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Iutcovich JM, Iutcovich M (1987) The politics of evaluation research. A case study of community development block grant funding for human services. Eval Progr Plan 10(1):71–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Ogden TE, Goldberg IA (eds) (2002) Research proposals: a guide to success. Academic Press, San DiegoGoogle Scholar
  21. Oral M, Kettani O, Ç\(\imath \)nar Ü (2001) Project evaluation and selection in a network of collaboration: a consensual disaggregation multi-criterion approach. Eur J Oper Res 130(2):332–346Google Scholar
  22. Punch KF (2006) Developing effective research proposals. SAGE, LondonGoogle Scholar
  23. Santos-Vijande ML, Álvarez-González LI (2007) Innovativeness and organizational innovation in total quality oriented firms: the moderating role of market turbulence. Technovation 27(9):514–532CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Silyn-Roberts H (2013) A research proposal. In: Silyn-Roberts H (ed) Writing for science and engineering, 2nd edn. Elsevier, Oxford, pp 75–82. doi:10.1016/B978-0-08-098285-4.00005-4
  25. Sugeno M, Kang GT (1986) Fuzzy modelling and control of multilayer incinerator. Fuzzy Sets Syst 18(3):329–345CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  26. Tang SL (2003) Economic feasibility of projects: managerial and engineering practice. Chinese University Press, Hong KongGoogle Scholar
  27. Thomas D, Nedeva M (2012) Characterizing researchers to study research funding agency impacts: the case of the European Research Council’s Starting Grants. Res Eval 21(4):257–269CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Ward D (2010) Effective grants management. Jones & Bartlett Publishers, SudburyGoogle Scholar
  29. Willcocks L, Lester S (1991) Information systems investments: evaluation at the feasibility stage of projects. Technovation 11(5):283–302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Xu Z (2010) A method based on distance measure for interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy group decision making. Inf Sci 180(1):181–190CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  31. Xu ZS, Chen J (2007) Approach to group decision making based on interval valued intuitionistic judgment matrices. Syst Eng Theory Pract 27(4):126–133 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Zimmermann HJ (1992) Fuzzy set theory and its applications. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht (second revised edition)Google Scholar
  33. Zhu JJ, Wang HH, Ye C, Lang Q (2014) Project evaluation method using non-formatted text information based on multi-granular linguistic labels. Inf Fusion 24:93–107Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Basar Oztaysi
    • 1
  • Sezi Cevik Onar
    • 1
  • Kerim Goztepe
    • 2
  • Cengiz Kahraman
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Industrial EngineeringIstanbul Technical UniversityIstanbulTurkey
  2. 2.Department of Operations and IntelligenceTurkish Army War CollegeIstanbulTurkey

Personalised recommendations