MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W3158920981 · doi:10.1108/ijicc-03-2021-0040

A comparison study of fuzzy-based multiple-criteria decision-making methods to evaluating green concept alternatives in a new product development environment

2021· article· en· W3158920981 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Zeki Ayağ

Notice bibliographique

RevueInternational Journal of Intelligent Computing and Cybernetics · 2021
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineDecision Sciences
ThématiqueMulti-Criteria Decision Making
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMultiple-criteria decision analysisPairwise comparisonRanking (information retrieval)VaguenessTOPSISFuzzy logicComputer scienceAnalytic hierarchy processIdeal solutionFuzzy numberFuzzy setOperations researchSet (abstract data type)Rank (graph theory)MathematicsArtificial intelligence

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Purpose In this paper, the four popular multiple-criteria decision-making (MCDM) methods in fuzzy environment are utilized to reflect the vagueness and uncertainty on the judgments of decision-makers (DMs), because the crisp pairwise comparison in these conventional MCDM methods seems to be insufficient and imprecise to capture the right judgments of DMs. Of these methods, as Fuzzy analytic hierarchy process (F-AHP) is used to calculate criteria weights, the other methods; Fuzzy Technique for Order of Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (F-TOPSIS), Fuzzy Grey relational analysis (F-GRA) and Fuzzy Preference Ranking Organization METhod for Enrichment of Evaluations (F- PROMETHEE II) are used to rank alternatives in the three different ways for a comparative study. Design/methodology/approach The demand for green products has dramatically increased because the importance and public awareness of the preservation of natural environment was taken into consideration much more in the last two decades. As a result of this, especially manufacturing companies have been forced to design more green products, resulting in a problem of how they incorporate environmental issues into their design and evaluate concept options. The need for the practical decision-making tools to address this problem is rapidly evolving since the problem turns into an MCDM problem in the presence of a set of green concept alternatives and criteria. Findings The incorporation of fuzzy set theory into these methods is discussed on a real-life case study, and a comparative analysis is done by using its numerical results in which the three fuzzy-based methods reveal the same outcomes (or rankings), while F-GRA requires less computational steps. Moreover, more detailed analyses on the numerical results of the case study are completed on the normalization methods, distance metrics, aggregation functions, defuzzification methods and other issues. Research limitations/implications The designing and manufacturing environmental-friendly products in a product design process has been a vital issue for many companies which take care of reflecting environmental issues into their product design and meeting standards of recent green guidelines. These companies have utilized these guidelines by following special procedures at the design phase. Along the design process consisting of various steps, the environmental issues have been considered an important factor in the end-of-life of products since it can reduce the impact on the nature. In the stage of developing a new product with the aim of environmental-friendly design, the green thinking should be incorporated as early as possible in the process. Practical implications The case study was inspired from the previous work of the author, which was realized in a hot runner systems manufacturer, used in injection molding systems in a Canada. In a new product development process, the back- and front-ends of development efforts mainly determine the following criteria: cost, risk, quality and green used in this paper. The case study showed that the three fuzzy MCDM methods come to the same ranking outcomes. F-GRA has a better time complexity compared to the other two methods and uses a smaller number of computational steps. Moreover, a comparative analysis of the three F-MCDM methods; F-PROMETHEE II, F-TOPSIS and F-GRA used in ranking for green concept alternatives using the numerical results of the case study. For the case study; as seen in table 20, the three F-MCDM methods produced the numerical results on the rankings of the green concept alternatives as follows; {Concept A-Concept C–Concept B–Concept D}. Social implications Inclusion of environmental-related criteria into concept selection problem has been gaining increasing importance in the last decade. Therefore, to facilitate necessary calculations in applying each method especially with its fuzzy extension, it can be developed a knowledge-based (KB) or an expert system (ES) to help the DMs make the required calculations of each method, and interpret its results with detailed analysis. Originality/value The objective of the research was to propose a F-AHP based F-MCDM approach to green concept selection problem through F-PROMETHEE II, F-TOPSIS and F-GRA methods. As the F-AHP is used to weight evaluation criteria, the other methods are respectively used for ranking the concept alternatives and determine the best concept alternative.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,017
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,031
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Simulation ou modélisation · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,017
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,091

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0170,031
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,001
Bibliométrie0,0050,003
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,001
Communication savante0,0020,002
Science ouverte0,0020,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0040,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,219
Tête enseignante GPT0,539
Écart entre enseignants0,320 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeSimulation ou modélisation
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations24
Publié2021
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueInternational Journal of Intelligent Computing and CyberneticsMême sujetMulti-Criteria Decision MakingTravaux en français237 207