Advertisement

A New Fuzzy Multi-criteria Decision Making Approach: Extended Hierarchical Fuzzy Axiomatic Design Approach with Risk Factors

  • Hacer Güner GörenEmail author
  • Osman Kulak
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing book series (LNBIP, volume 184)

Abstract

In recent years, Axiomatic Design (AD) has been widely used as a multi criteria decision making approach. AD approach compares the design objects and system capabilities in a framework and then selects the best alternative based on these comparisons. Some researchers then include fuzziness in the AD approach which helps to evaluate alternatives in fuzzy environments. The main advantage of fuzzy AD approach is the ability to evaluate both crisp and fuzzy values at the same time during decision process. However, these approaches are not appropriate for hierarchical decision problems. Therefore, these are extended to solve the hierarchical decision problems and Hierarchical Fuzzy Axiomatic Design Approach (HFAD) is presented. In this study, HFAD is extended to include risk factors for the first time in literature and a new approach called RFAD is proposed. Moreover, the application of the new approach is shown on a real world supplier selection problem and the results are compared to the other widely used decision making approaches in literature.

Keywords

Multi criteria decision making Hierarchical fuzzy axiomatic design Risk factors Axiomatic design Fuzzy analytic hierarchy process Supplier selection 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This study was supported by Pamukkale University under the Project no 1719.

References

  1. 1.
    Babic, B.: Axiomatic design of flexible manufacturing systems. Int. J. Prod. Res. 37(5), 1159–1173 (1999)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bang, I.C., Heo, G.: An axiomatic design approach in development of nanofluid coolants. Appl. Therm. Eng. 29(1), 75–90 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chan, F.T.S.: Interactive selection model for supplier selection process: an analytical hierarchy process approach. Int. J. Prod. Res. 41(15), 3549–3579 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Chang, D.Y.: Applications of the extent analysis method on fuzzy AHP. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 95(3), 649–655 (1996)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chang, P.L., Chen, Y.C.: A fuzzy multi-criteria decision making method for technology transfer selection in biotechnology. Fuzzy Set. and Syst. 63, 131–139 (1994)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chen, S.J., Hwang, C.L.: Fuzzy multi attribute decision making. Methods and Applications. Lecture Notes in Economics and Mathematical Systems, vol. 375. Springer, Heidelberg (1992)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Chen, S.M.: Evaluating weapon systems using fuzzy arithmetic operations. Fuzzy Set. Syst. 77, 265–276 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Chen, S.M.: A new method for tool steel materials selection under fuzzy environments. Fuzzy Set. Syst. 92(2), 265–274 (1997)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cheng, C.H., Yang, K.L., Hwang, C.H.: Evaluating attack helicopters by AHP based on linguistic variable weight. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 116, 423–435 (1999)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Çelik, M., Çebi, S., Kahraman, C., Er, I.D.: An integrated fuzzy QFD model proposal on routing of shipping investment decisions in crude oil tanker market. Expert Syst. Appl. 36(3), 6227–6235 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Güner, H., Mutlu, O., Kulak, O.: Supplier selection in fuzzy environment. In: Durmuşoğlu, B., Kahraman, C. (eds.) 35th Computers and Industrial Engineering, Turkey, Istanbul, 2005, pp. 839–844 (2005)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ho, W., Xu, X., Dey, P.K.: Multi-criteria decision making approaches for supplier evaluation and selection: a literature review. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 202, 16–24 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kahraman, C., Çebi, S.: A new multi-attribute decision making method: hierarchical fuzzy axiomatic design. Expert Syst. Appl. 36, 4848–4861 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kulak, O., Durmuşoğlu, B., Tufekci, S.: A complete cellular manufacturing system design methodology based on axiomatic design principles. Comput. Ind. Eng. 48, 765–787 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kulak, O.: A decision support system for fuzzy multi-attribute selection of material handling equipments. Expert Syst. Appl. 29(2), 310–319 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kulak, O., Durmuşoğlu, B., Kahraman, C.: Fuzzy multi-attribute equipment selection based on information axiom. J. Mater. Process. Technol. 169(3), 337–345 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kulak, O., Kahraman, C.: Fuzzy multi-attribute selection among transportation companies using axiomatic design and analytic hierarchy process. Inf. Sci. 170, 191–210 (2005)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kulak, O., Kahraman, C.: Multi-attribute comparison of advanced manufacturing systems using fuzzy vs. crisp axiomatic design. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 95, 415–424 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kulak, O., Durmuşoğlu, B.: A methodology for the design of Office cells using axiomatic design principles. Omega 36(4), 633–652 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kulak, O., Çebi, S., Kahraman, C.: Applications of axiomatic design principles: A literature review. Expert Syst. Appl. 37, 6705–6717 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lee, A.H.I.: A fuzzy supplier selection model with the consideration of benefits, opportunities, costs and risks. Expert Syst. Appl. 36, 2879–2893 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Levary, R.R.: Using the analytic hierarchy process to rank foreign suppliers based on supply risks. Comput. Ind. Eng. 55(2008), 535–542 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Lindkvist, L., Soderberk, R.: Computer-aided tolerance chain and stability analysis. J. Eng. Des. 14(1), 17–39 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Ravindran, A.R., Bilsel, R.U., Wadhwa, V., Yang, T.: Risk adjusted multicriteria supplier selection models with applications. Int. J. Prod. Res. 48(2), 405–424 (2010)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Saen, R.F.: Suppliers selection in the presence of both cardinal and ordinal data. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 183(2), 741–747 (2007)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Saaty, T.L.: The Analytic Hierarchy Process. McGraw-Hill, New York (1980)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Suh, N.P.: The Principles of Design. Oxford University Press, New York (1990)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Suh, N.P.: Designing –in of quality through axiomatic design. IEEE Trans. Reliab. 44(2), 256–264 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Suh, N.P., Cochran, D.S., Lima, P.C.: Manufacturing system design. Ann. CIRP 47(2), 627–639 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Suh, N.P.: Axiomatic Design: Advances and Applications. Oxford University Press, New York (2001)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Talluri, S., Narasimhan, R.: A methodology for strategic sourcing. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 154(1), 236–250 (2004)CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Tang, D., Zhang, G., Dai, S.: Design as integration of axiomatic design and design structure matrix. Rob. Comput. Integr. Manuf. 25(3), 610–619 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Togay, C., Dogru, A.H., Tanik, C.U.: Systematic component-oriented development with axiomatic design. J. Syst. Softw. 81(11), 803–1815 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Van Laarhoven, P.J.M., Pedrycz, W.: A fuzzy extension of Saaty’s priority theory. Fuzzy Set. Syst. 11, 229–241 (1983)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Wu, T., Shunk, D., Blackhurst, J., Appalla, R.: AIDEA: a methodology for supplier evaluation and selection in a supplier-based manufacturing environment. Int. J. Manuf. Technol. Manag. 11(2), 174–192 (2007)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Xiao, Z., Weijie, C., Lingling, L.: An integrated FCM and fuzzy soft set for supplier selection problem based on risk evaluation. Appl. Math. Model. 36, 1444–1454 (2012)CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Xu, Z., Yager, R.R.: Dynamic intutionistic fuzzy multi-attribute decision making. Int. J. Approx. Reason. 48, 246–262 (2008)CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Zhu, K.J., Jing, Y., Chang, D.Y.: A discussion on extent analysis method and applications of fuzzy AHP. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 116, 450–456 (1999)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Industrial EngineeringPamukkale UniversityDenizliTurkey

Personalised recommendations