Advertisement

Soft Computing

, Volume 22, Issue 15, pp 5073–5090 | Cite as

An enhanced fuzzy evidential DEMATEL method with its application to identify critical success factors

Focus

Abstract

Due to the frequent occurrence of accidental and destructive disasters, it is essential to improve the performance of emergency systems. Facing the fact that the performance of emergency system depends on various factors and it is not feasible to optimize all these factors simultaneously due to the limitation of resources. A feasible solution is to select and improve some important factors. In this paper, a novel enhanced fuzzy evidential decision-making trial and evaluation laboratory (DEMATEL) method to identifying critical success factors (CSFs) is proposed. In the proposed method, we combine Dempster–Shafer evidence theory and DEMATEL method. Firstly, direct relations between factors are evaluated by multiple domain experts with intuitionistic fuzzy numbers (IFNs). Then, IFNs are transformed to basic probability assignments (BPAs) and can be combined by Dempster combination rule. In addition, the uncertainty and fuzziness of BPAs due to the lack of knowledge are taken into consideration to make final decision. Finally, implementing DEMATEL method, we can figure out cause–effect categories of factors with the DEMATEL method. The cause factors are identified as CSFs. The proposed method can well tackle subjectivity and fuzziness of experts evaluations. Based on the proposed method, the optimization of emergency management can be significantly simplified into optimizing CSFs. Through optimizing these CSFs, the performance of the whole systems can be significantly improved.

Keywords

Emergency management Intuitionistic fuzzy sets Dempster–Shafer evidence theory Total uncertainty measure DEMATEL 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful to anonymous reviewers for their useful comments and suggestions on improving this paper.

Funding

The work is partially supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant Nos. 61573290, 61503237), and China Scholarship Council.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

Yuzhen Han declares that he has no conflict of interest. Yong Deng declares that he has no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

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

References

  1. Azzolin A, Dueñas-Osorio L, Cadini F, Zio E (2018) Electrical and topological drivers of the cascading failure dynamics in power transmission networks. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 175:196–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bai C, Sarkis J (2013) A grey-based dematel model for evaluating business process management critical success factors. Int J Prod Econ 146(1):281–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Belassi W, Tukel OI (1996) A new framework for determining critical success/failure factors in projects. Int J Proj Manag 14(3):141–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bian T, Deng Y (2018) Identifying influential nodes in complex networks: a node information dimension approach. Chaos Interdiscip J Nonlinear Sci 10(1063/1):5030894MATHGoogle Scholar
  5. Bian T, Zheng H, Yin L, Deng Y (2018) Failure mode and effects analysis based on Dnumbers and topsis. Qual Reliab Eng Int. Article ID: QRE2268.  https://doi.org/10.1002/qre.2268
  6. Bronevich A, Rozenberg I (2015) The choice of generalized Dempster–Shafer rules for aggregating belief functions. Int J Approx Reason 56:122–136MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. Bullen CV, Rockart JF (1981) A primer on critical success factors. Center for Information Systems Research, Sloan School of ManagementGoogle Scholar
  8. Cebi S, Kahraman C, Kaya I (2011) Soft computing and computational intelligent techniques in the evaluation of emerging energy technologies. In: Vasant P, Barsoum N, Webb J (eds) Innovation in power, control, and optimization: emerging energy technologies: emerging energy technologies. MIT press, USA, p 164Google Scholar
  9. Cowing MM, Paté-Cornell ME, Glynn PW (2004) Dynamic modeling of the tradeoff between productivity and safety in critical engineering systems. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 86(3):269–284CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Deng W, Yao R, Zhao H, Yang X, Li G (2017a) A novel intelligent diagnosis method using optimal ls-svm with improved pso algorithm. Soft Comput 2C4:1–18Google Scholar
  11. Deng W, Zhao H, Yang X, Xiong J, Sun M, Li B (2017b) Study on an improved adaptive pso algorithm for solving multi-objective gate assignment. Appl Soft Comput 59:288–302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Deng W, Zhao H, Zou L, Li G, Yang X, Wu D (2017c) A novel collaborative optimization algorithm in solving complex optimization problems. Soft Comput 21(15):4387–4398CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Deng X, Deng Y (2018) D-AHP method with different credibility of information. Soft Comput.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00,500-017-2993-9 Google Scholar
  14. Deng W, Lu X, Deng Y (2018) Evidential model validation under epistemic uncertainty. Math Probl Eng.  https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/6789635 MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  15. Fan ZP, Suo WL, Feng B (2012) Identifying risk factors of it outsourcing using interdependent information: an extended dematel method. Expert Syst Appl 39(3):3832–3840CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fei L, Wang H, Chen L, Deng Y (2017) A new vector valued similarity measure for intuitionistic fuzzy sets based on OWA operators. Iran J Fuzzy Syst (accepted) Google Scholar
  17. Guan P, Zhuang J (2015) Modeling and validating public-private partnerships in disaster management. Decis Anal 12(4):173–189MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Han Y, Deng Y (2018) A hybrid intelligent model for assessment of critical success factors in high-risk emergency system. J Ambient Intell Humanized Comput 1–21Google Scholar
  19. Han D, Han C, Yang Y (2008) A modified evidence combination approach based on ambiguity measure. In: 2008 11th international conference on Information Fusion. IEEE, pp 1–6Google Scholar
  20. Harmanec D, Klir GJ (1994) Measuring total uncertainty in dempster–shafer theory: a novel approach. Int J Gen Syst 22(4):405–419CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  21. Hartley RV (1928) Transmission of information. Bell Labs Tech J 7(3):535–563CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Holland C, Light B (1999) A critical success factors model for erp implementation. IEEE Softw 16(3):30–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hung SJ (2011) Activity-based divergent supply chain planning for competitive advantage in the risky global environment: a dematel-anp fuzzy goal programming approach. Expert Syst Appl 38(8):9053–9062CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Ilbahar E, Karaşan A, Cebi S, Kahraman C (2018) A novel approach to risk assessment for occupational health and safety using pythagorean fuzzy ahp & fuzzy inference system. Saf Sci 103:124–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Jatoth C, Gangadharan GR, Fiore U, Buyya R (2018) Selcloud: a hybrid multi-criteria decision-making model for selection of cloud services. Soft Comput.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00500-018-3120-2 Google Scholar
  26. Patil KS, Kant R (2014) Knowledge management adoption in supply chain: identifying critical success factors using fuzzy dematel approach. J Model Manag 9(2):160–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kahraman C (2009) Risk analysis and crisis response. Stochast Environ Res Risk Assess 23(4):413–414MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kahraman C (2014) Preface for the special issue: Uncertainty modeling and analytics in knowledge engineering. Knowl Based Syst 70:1–2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kahraman C, Kaya I, Cebi S (2009) A comparative analysis for multiattribute selection among renewable energy alternatives using fuzzy axiomatic design and fuzzy analytic hierarchy process. Energy 34(10):1603–1616CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kahraman C, Cebi S, Onar SC, Oztaysi B (2018) A novel trapezoidal intuitionistic fuzzy information axiom approach: an application to multicriteria landfill site selection. Eng Appl Artif Intell 67:157–172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kang B, Deng Y (2018) Generating Z-number based on OWA weights using maximum entropy. Int J Intell Syst (accepted) Google Scholar
  32. Kang B, Chhipi-Shrestha G, Deng Y, Hewage K, Sadiq R (2018a) Stable strategies analysis based on the utility of z-number in the evolutionary games. Appl Math Comput 324:202–217MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  33. Kang B, Deng Y, Hewage K, Sadiq R (2018b) Generating Z-number based on OWA weights using maximum entropy. Int J Intell Syst.  https://doi.org/10.1002/int.21995 Google Scholar
  34. Karaşan A, Kahraman C (2018) A novel interval-valued neutrosophic EDAS method: prioritization of the united nations national sustainable development goals. Soft Comput.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00500-018-3088-y Google Scholar
  35. Klir G, Yuan B (1995) Fuzzy sets and fuzzy logic, vol 4. Prentice hall, New JerseyMATHGoogle Scholar
  36. Larson RC (1974) A hypercube queuing model for facility location and redistricting in urban emergency services. Comput Oper Res 1(1):67–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lefevre E, Colot O, Vannoorenberghe P, De Brucq D (2000) A generic framework for resolving the conflict in the combination of belief structures. In: Proceedings of the third international conference on information fusion, 2000. FUSION 2000, vol 1. IEEE, pp MOD4–MOD11Google Scholar
  38. Lefevre E, Colot O, Vannoorenberghe P (2002) Belief function combination and conflict management. Inf Fusion 3(2):149–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Leidecker JK, Bruno AV (1984) Identifying and using critical success factors. Long Range Plan 17(1):23–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Li C, Mahadevan S (2016) An efficient modularized sample-based method to estimate the first-order sobol index. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 153:110–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Li Y, Hu Y, Zhang X, Deng Y, Mahadevan S (2014) An evidential dematel method to identify critical success factors in emergency management. Appl Soft Comput 22:504–510CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Lin XH, Jia WH (2016) FMEA method combining OWA operator and fuzzy dematel. Comput SciGoogle Scholar
  43. Liu HC (2016) FMEA using uncertainty theories and MCDM methods. Springer, Singapore, pp 13–27Google Scholar
  44. Liu Z, Liu Y, Zhou K, He Y (2017) Pattern classification based on the combination of the selected sources of evidence. In: 2017 20th international conference on information fusion (Fusion). IEEE, pp 1–8Google Scholar
  45. Liu T, Deng Y, Chan F (2018a) Evidential supplier selection based on DEMATEL and game theory. Int J Fuzzy Syst 20(4):1321–1333CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Liu Z, Pan Q, Dezert J, Martin A (2018b) Combination of classifiers with optimal weight based on evidential reasoning. IEEE Trans Fuzzy Syst 26(3):1217–1230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Luthra S, Govindan K, Kharb RK, Mangla SK (2016) Evaluating the enablers in solar power developments in the current scenario using fuzzy dematel: an indian perspective. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 63:379–397CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Mangla SK, Govindan K, Luthra S (2016) Critical success factors for reverse logistics in indian industries: a structural model. J Clean Prod 129:608–621CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Meza J, Espitia H, Montenegro C, Crespo RG (2016) Statistical analysis of a multi-objective optimization algorithm based on a model of particles with vorticity behavior. Soft Comput 20(9):3521–3536CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Pal NR, Bezdek JC, Hemasinha R (1992) Uncertainty measures for evidential reasoning i: a review. Int J Approx Reason 7(3–4):165–183MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  51. Park J, Jung W (2007) Operaa human performance database under simulated emergencies of nuclear power plants. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 92(4):503–519CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Park J, Jung W, Yang JE (2012) Investigating the effect of communication characteristics on crew performance under the simulated emergency condition of nuclear power plants. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 101:1–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Rouvroye JL, van den Bliek EG (2002) Comparing safety analysis techniques. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 75(3):289–294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Sangaiah AK, Gao XZ, Ramachandran M, Zheng X (2015) A fuzzy dematel approach based on intuitionistic fuzzy information for evaluating knowledge transfer effectiveness in GSD projects. Int J Innov Comput Appl 6(3–4):203–215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Senvar O, Tuzkaya UR, Kahraman C (2014) Supply chain performance measurement: an integrated DEMATEL and fuzzy-ANP approach. In: Supply chain management under fuzziness. Springer, Berlin, pp 143–165Google Scholar
  56. Shafer G et al (1976) A mathematical theory of evidence. Princeton University Press, PrincetonMATHGoogle Scholar
  57. Shannon CE (2001) A mathematical theory of communication. ACM SIGMOBILE Mob Comput Commun Rev 5(1):3–55MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Shen KY, Tzeng GH (2015) A decision rule-based soft computing model for supporting financial performance improvement of the banking industry. Soft Comput 19(4):859–874CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Sheu JB (2007) An emergency logistics distribution approach for quick response to urgent relief demand in disasters. Transp Res Part E Logist Transp Rev 43(6):687–709CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Shieh JI, Wu HH, Huang KK (2010) A dematel method in identifying key success factors of hospital service quality. Knowl Based Syst 23(3):277–282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Smarandache F, Dezert J (eds) (2015) Advances and applications of DSmT for information fusion, vol IV: collected works. Infinite StudyGoogle Scholar
  62. Somers TM, Nelson K (2001) The impact of critical success factors across the stages of enterprise resource planning implementations. In: Proceedings of the 34th annual Hawaii international conference on system sciences, 2001. IEEE, p 10Google Scholar
  63. Song Y, Wang X, Lei L, Xue A (2014) Combination of interval-valued belief structures based on intuitionistic fuzzy set. Knowl Based Syst 67:61–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Suder A, Kahraman C (2018) Multiattribute evaluation of organic and inorganic agricultural food investments using fuzzy topsis. Technol Econ Dev Econ 24(3):844–858CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Tolga E, Kahraman C (1991) Multi-criteria investment analysis under uncertainty. In: Technology management: the new international language. IEEE, p 396Google Scholar
  66. Tsai SB, Zhou J, Gao Y, Wang J, Li G, Zheng Y, Ren P, Xu W (2017) Combining fmea with dematel models to solve production process problems. PLoS ONE 12(8):e0183634CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Tseng ML, Lin YH (2009) Application of fuzzy dematel to develop a cause and effect model of municipal solid waste management in metro manila. Environ Monit Assess 158(1):519–533CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Tüysüz F, Kahraman C (2006) Project risk evaluation using a fuzzy analytic hierarchy process: an application to information technology projects. Int J Intell Syst 21(6):559–584CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  69. Tzeng GH, Chiang CH, Li CW (2007) Evaluating intertwined effects in e-learning programs: a novel hybrid mcdm model based on factor analysis and dematel. Expert Syst Appl 32(4):1028–1044CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Umble EJ, Haft RR, Umble MM (2003) Enterprise resource planning: implementation procedures and critical success factors. Eur J Oper Res 146(2):241–257CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  71. Wang Jq, Wu Jt, Wang J, Zhang Hy, Chen Xh (2016) Multi-criteria decision-making methods based on the hausdorff distance of hesitant fuzzy linguistic numbers. Soft Comput 20(4):1621–1633CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Wang F, Hu L, Zhou J, Hu J, Zhao K (2017) A semantics-based approach to multi-source heterogeneous information fusion in the internet of things. Soft Comput 21(8):2005–2013CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Wu WW (2008) Choosing knowledge management strategies by using a combined anp and dematel approach. Expert Syst Appl 35(3):828–835CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Wu WW (2012) Segmenting critical factors for successful knowledge management implementation using the fuzzy dematel method. Appl Soft Comput 12(1):527–535CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Xu H, Deng Y (2018) Dependent evidence combination based on shearman coefficient and pearson coefficient. IEEE Access 6(1):11,634–11,640MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Xu Y, Zhang W, Wang H (2015) A conflict-eliminating approach for emergency group decision of unconventional incidents. Knowl Based Syst 83(1):92–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Xue Y, Jiang J, Zhao B, Ma T (2018) A self-adaptive artificial bee colony algorithm based on global best for global optimization. Soft Comput 22(9):2935–2952CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Yager RR (1999) A class of fuzzy measures generated from a dempster-shafer belief structure. Int J Intell Syst 14(12):1239–1247CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  79. Yang JB, Singh MG (1994) An evidential reasoning approach for multiple-attribute decision making with uncertainty. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern 24(1):1–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Yang JB, Xu DL (2002) On the evidential reasoning algorithm for multiple attribute decision analysis under uncertainty. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern Part A Syst Hum 32(3):289–304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Yang JB, Wang YM, Xu DL, Chin KS (2006) The evidential reasoning approach for mada under both probabilistic and fuzzy uncertainties. Eur J Oper Res 171(1):309–343MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  82. Yang Y, Han D, Han C (2013) Discounted combination of unreliable evidence using degree of disagreement. Int J Approx Reason 54(8):1197–1216CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  83. Yang YPO, Shieh HM, Tzeng GH (2013b) A vikor technique based on dematel and anp for information security risk control assessment. Inf Sci 232:482–500CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Yu L, Lai KK (2011) A distance-based group decision-making methodology for multi-person multi-criteria emergency decision support. Decis Support Syst 51(2):307–315CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Zappini L, Marchesi S, Polo A, Viani F, Massa A (2016) Evolutionary optimization strategies applied to wireless fleet management in emergency scenarios. In: Microwave symposium, pp 1–4Google Scholar
  86. Zhang Q, Li M, Deng Y (2018a) Measure the structure similarity of nodes in complex networks based on relative entropy. Physica A 491:749–763MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Zhang R, Ashuri B, Deng Y (2018b) A novel method for forecasting time series based on fuzzy logic and visibility graph. Adv Data Anal Classif 11(4):759–783.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11634-017-0300-3 MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Zhang X, Mahadevan S, Sankararaman S, Goebel K (2018c) Resilience-based network design under uncertainty. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 169:364–379CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Zhao H, Sun M, Deng W, Yang X (2016) A new feature extraction method based on eemd and multi-scale fuzzy entropy for motor bearing. Entropy 19(1):14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Zheng H, Deng Y (2017) Evaluation method based on fuzzy relations between Dempster-Shafer belief structure. Int J Intell Syst.  https://doi.org/10.1002/int.21956 Google Scholar
  91. Zheng X, Deng Y (2018) Dependence assessment in human reliability analysis based on evidence credibility decay model and iowa operator. Ann Nucl Energy 112:673–684CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Zhou Q, Huang W, Zhang Y (2011) Identifying critical success factors in emergency management using a fuzzy dematel method. Saf Sci 49(2):243–252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Zhou X, Shi Y, Deng X, Deng Y (2017) D-DEMATEL: a new method to identify critical success factors in emergency management. Saf Sci 91:93–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Zografos KG, Douligeris C, Tsoumpas P (1998) An integrated framework for managing emergency-response logistics: the case of the electric utility companies. IEEE Trans Eng Manag 45(2):115–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Fundamental and Frontier ScienceUniversity of Electronic Science and Technology of ChinaChengduChina
  2. 2.School of Computer and Information ScienceSouthwest UniversityChongqingChina

Personalised recommendations