Prioritization of Business Analytics Projects Using Interval Type-2 Fuzzy AHP

  • Basar OztaysiEmail author
  • Sezi Cevik Onar
  • Cengiz Kahraman
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 643)


Because of emerging technologies, a vast amount of data can be stored and processed very easily. These advances also affect companies and many new projects are being proposed. Business analytics is the umbrella term for these projects and it denotes to the skills, technologies, activities aiming at assessment and exploration of past performance to gain an understanding for better decision making. Data and analytical models are the two main pillars of business analytics. Business analytics project can be grouped into three main groups: (i) descriptive analytics, efforts to understand what has happened in the company, (ii) predictive analytics, efforts to figure out the result of an future event, and (iii) prescriptive analytics use mathematical and computational sciences to suggest decision options to take advantage of the results of descriptive and predictive analytics. In this study a prioritization method for possible business analytics projects using Type-2 fuzzy AHP is proposed. Proposed model is composed of six criteria namely, strategic value, competitiveness, customer relations, improved decision-making, improved operations, and data quality.


Type-2 fuzzy AHP Interval type-2 fuzzy sets Business analytics Project selection Multicriteria decision making 


  1. Gartner: CIO’s Agenda (2016) Accessed 16 Apr 2017
  2. Holsapple, C., Lee-Post, A., Pakath, R.: A unified foundation for business analytics. Decis. Support Syst. 64, 130–141 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Kiron, D., Shockley, R., Kruschwitz, N., Finch, G., Haydock, M.: Analytics: the widening divide. Sloan Manage. Rev. 53(3), 1–22 (2011)Google Scholar
  4. Read, L., Madani, K., Mokhtari, S., Hanks, C.: Stakeholder-driven multi-attribute analysis for energy project selection under uncertainty. Energy 119, 744–753 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Stojcetovic, B., Nikolic, D., Velinov, V., Bogdanovic, D.: Application of integrated strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats and analytic hierarchy process methodology to renewable energy project selection in Serbia. J. Renew. Sustain. Energ. 8, 35906 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Oztaysi, B., Onar, S.C., Goztepe, K.: Kahraman C: Evaluation of research proposals for grant funding using interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy sets. Soft. Comput. 21(5), 1203–1218 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Adebanjo, D., Samaranayake, P., Mafakheri, F., Tritos, L.: Prioritization of Six-Sigma project selection A resource-based view and institutional norms perspective. Benchmarking-An Int. J. 23(7), 1983–2003 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Ortz M.A., Felizzola, H.A.; Isaza, S.N.: A contrast between DEMATEL-ANP and ANP methods for six sigma project selection: a case study in healthcare industry, BMC Med. Inform. Decis. Making 15, Supplement: 3, (2015)Google Scholar
  9. Mousavi, S.M., Vahdani, B., Hashemi, H., Ebrahimnejad, S.: An artificial intelligence model-based locally linear neuro-fuzzy for construction project selection. J. Multiple-Valued Logic Soft Comput. 25(6), 589–604 (2015)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  10. Wey, M.W., Wu, K.Y.: Interdependent Urban renewal project selection under the consideration of resource constraints. Environ. Plann. B: Urban Anal. City Sci. 35(1), 122–147 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Oztaysi, B., Cevik Onar, B., Kahraman, C.: Fuzzy multicriteria prioritization of Urban transformation projects for Istanbul. J. Int. Fuzzy Syst. 30(4), 2459–2474 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Oztaysi, B.: A group decision making approach using interval type-2 fuzzy AHP for enterprise information systems project selection. J. Multiple-Valued Logic Soft Comput. 24(5–6), 475–500 (2015)Google Scholar
  13. Rouhani, S.: A fuzzy superiority and inferiority ranking based approach for IT service management software selection. Kybernetes 46(4), 728–746 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Morton, A., Keiser, J.M:, Salo, A.: Multicriteria portfolio decision analysis for project selection, multiple criteria decision analysis. In: International Series in Operations Research & Management Science, vol. 233, pp. 1269–1298 (2016)Google Scholar
  15. Zadeh, L.A.: Fuzzy sets. Inf. Control 8(3), 338–353 (1965)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. Zadeh, L.A.: The concept of a linguistic variable and its application to approximate reasoning – I. Inform. Sci. 8(3), 199–249 (1975)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. Karnik, N.N., Mendel, J.M.: Centroid of a type-2 fuzzy set. Inf. Sci. 132, 195–220 (2001)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. Buckley, J.J.: Fuzzy hierarchical analysis. Fuzzy Sets Syst. 17, 233–247 (1985)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. Chen, S.M., Lee, L.W.: Fuzzy multiple attributes group decision-making based on the interval type-2 TOPSIS method. Expert Syst. Appl. 37, 2790–2798 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Sari, I.U., Oztaysi, B., Kahraman, C.: Fuzzy AHP using type II fuzzy sets: an application to warehouse location selection. In: Doumpos, M., Grigoroudis, E. (eds.) Multicriteria Decision Aid and Artificial Intelligence: Links, Theory and Applications, pp. 258–308. Wiley, Hoboken (2013)Google Scholar
  21. Kahraman, C., Öztayşi, B., Uçal Sarı, I., Turanoğlu, U.: Fuzzy analytic hierarchy process with interval type-2 fuzzy sets. Knowl.-Based Syst. 59, 48–57 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Mendel, J.M.: Uncertainty, fuzzy logic, and signal processing. Sign. Process. 80(6), 913–933 (2000)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  23. Mendel, J.M., John, R.I., Liu, F.L.: Interval type-2 fuzzy logical systems made simple. IEEE Trans. Fuzzy Syst. 14(6), 808–821 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kahraman, C., Kaya, İ.: A fuzzy multicriteria methodology for selection among energy alternatives. Expert Syst. Appl. 37(9), 6270–6281 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Chang, D.Y.: Applications of the extent analysis method on fuzzy AHP. Eur. J, Operational Res. 95, 649–655 (1996)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  26. Zeng, J., Min, A., Smith, N.J.: Application of fuzzy based decision making methodology to construction Project risk assessment. Int. J. Project Manage. 25, pp. 589–600 (2007) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Laursen, G.H.N., Thorlund, J.: Business Analytics for Managers: Taking Business Intelligence Beyond Reporting. Wiley (2017)Google Scholar
  28. de Araújo, M.C.B., Alencar, L.H., Mota, C.M.M.: Project procurement management: a structured literature review. Int. J. Project Manage. 35(3), 353–377 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Redman T.C.: Data quality management past, present, and future: towards a management system for data. In: Sadiq, S. (ed.) Handbook of Data Quality Research and Practice. Springer (2013) Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Basar Oztaysi
    • 1
    Email author
  • Sezi Cevik Onar
    • 1
  • Cengiz Kahraman
    • 1
  1. 1.Faculty of Management, Industrial Engineering DepartmentIstanbul Technical UniversityIstanbulTurkey

Personalised recommendations