A comparison study of fuzzy-based multiple-criteria decision-making methods to evaluating green concept alternatives in a new product development environment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.017 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".