Advertisement

Application of an Artificial Intelligence Decision-Making Method for the Selection of Maintenance Strategy

  • Mohammad Yazdi
  • Tulen SanerEmail author
  • Mahlagha Darvishmotevali
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 1095)

Abstract

Multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) methods have been extensively used in different types of engineering applications. Therefore, the viability and reliability of the methods are always considered as a requirement in order to be adopted in different situations. Best worst method (BWM) which has recently been introduced to increase the consistency and uniformity of MCDM, using a multi-objective mathematical programming, has enough capability to determine the optimum results in a decision making problem. The study aims to utilize the BWM to select and prioritize maintenance strategy in offshore operation. In this respect, a group of decision makers participated in the assessment by expressing their opinions. Typically, if the final evaluation result is close to each expert’s opinion, subsequently the expert will accept it. Due to the fact that, BWM results in the optimum values; the results would be accepted by all the experts that have participated in the study.

Keywords

BWM Multi-criteria decision making Off-shore operation Optimization 

References

  1. 1.
    Yazdi, M., Nikfar, F., Nasrabadi, M.: Failure probability analysis by employing fuzzy fault tree analysis. Int. J. Syst. Assur. Eng. Manag. 8(4), 1177–1193 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Di Bona, G., Silvestri, A., Forcina, A., Falcone, D.: AHP-IFM target: an innovative method to define reliability target in an aerospace prototype based on analytic hierarchy process. Qual. Reliab. Eng. Int. 33, 1731–1751 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Wang, C.-N., Huang, Y.-F., Cheng, I.-F., Nguyen, V.: A multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) approach using hybrid SCOR metrics, AHP, and TOPSIS for supplier evaluation and selection in the gas and oil industry. Processes. 6(12), 252 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Yazdi, M., Darvishmotevali, M.: Fuzzy-based failure diagnostic analysis in a chemical process industry. In: Aliev, R., Kacprzyk, J., Pedrycz, W., Jamshidi, M., Sadikoglu, F. (eds.) 13th International Conference on Theory and Application of Fuzzy Systems and Soft Computing - ICAFS-2018. Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing, vol. 896, pp. 724–731. Springer, Cham (2019)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Yazdi, M.: Risk assessment based on novel intuitionistic fuzzy-hybrid-modified TOPSIS approach. Saf. Sci. 110, 438–448 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Tsai, S.-B., Chien, M.-F., Xue, Y., Li, L., Jiang, X., Chen, Q.: Using the fuzzy DEMATEL to determine environmental performance: a case of printed circuit board industry in Taiwan. PLoS ONE 10, e0129153 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Saaty, T.L.: The analytic network process. Decis. Mak. Anal. Netw. Process. 95, 1–26 (2005)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Zhang, X., Xu, Z.: Extension of TOPSIS to multiple criteria decision making with pythagorean fuzzy sets. Int. J. Intell. Syst. 29, 1061–1078 (2014)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Liao, H., Shen, W., Tang, M., Mi, X., Lev, B.: The state-of-the-art survey on integrations and applications of the best worst method in decision making: why, what, what for and what’s next? Omega 87, 205–225 (2019)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Rezaei, J.: Best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method. Omega 53, 49–57 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Saaty, T.L.: Creative thinking, problem solving and decision making. RWS Publications, Pittsburgh (2010)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Yazdi, M.: Footprint of knowledge acquisition improvement in failure diagnosis analysis. Qual. Reliab. Eng. Int. 35(1), 405–422 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Yazdi, M.: Acquiring and sharing tacit knowledge in failure diagnosis analysis using intuitionistic and pythagorean assessments. J. Fail. Anal. Prev. 19(2), 369–386 (2019)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Rezaei, J.: Best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method: Some properties and a linear model. Omega 64, 126–130 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Asuquo, M.P., Wang, J., Zhang, L., Phylip-Jones, G.: Application of a multiple attribute group decision making (MAGDM) model for selecting appropriate maintenance strategy for marine and offshore machinery operations. Ocean Eng. 179, 246–260 (2019)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Universidade de LisboaLisbonPortugal
  2. 2.Department of Tourism and Hotel ManagementNear East UniversityNicosiaTurkey

Personalised recommendations