Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
P
2
= P
5
= FLA
IV
; FLA
III
; FLA
II
; FLA
I
P
3
= P
7
= FLA
II
; FLA
I
; FLA
III
; FLA
IV
P
4
= P
8
= FLA
I
; FLA
IV
; FLA
II
; FLA
III
P
6
= FLA
IV
; FLA
I
; FLA
II
; FLA
III
i
w
i
= 1 (4)
At this stage, to determine the relative importance of the criteria, Saatys an-
alytic hierarchy process can be used [43]. Fig. 1 shows part of a questionnaire
form, which might facilitate the answering of pairwise comparison questions.
After obtaining the pairwise judgments, the next step is the computation of a
vector of priorities or weighting of elements in the matrix. In terms of matrix
142 C. Kahraman et al. / Information Sciences 157 (2003) 135153
algebra, this consists of calculating the principal vector (eigenvector) of the
matrix, and then normalizing it to sum to 1.0.
After a group of decision-makers lled in the questionnaire, the geometric
mean of the preference numbers is used to obtain a single preference number
[44]. Then the elements of each column is divided by the sum of that column
(i.e., normalize the column) and the elements in each resulting row are added
and this sum is divided by the number of elements in the row.
The process of determining a grade for a specic alternative is equivalent to
the process of determining a membership value for the alternative in each of
the evaluation categories, y
i
. This process is implemented through the com-
position operation,
~ee = ~ ww
RR (5)
where ~ee is a fuzzy vector containing the membership values for the alternative
in each of the y
i
evaluation categories.
3.2.1. A numeric example of fuzzy synthetic evaluation for the selection among
FLAs
Suppose we want to compare two FLAs. The evaluation criteria are prox-
imity to customers (PC), infrastructure (I), quality of labor (QL), free trade
zones (FTZ), and competitive advantage (CA). FLAs are measured against
these criteria and given ratings categorized as excellent (E), superior (S), ade-
quate (A), and inferior (I). Excellent means that FLA is the best available
with respect to the particular criterion. Superior means that FLA is among
the best with respect to this criterion. Adequate means that, although not
superior, FLA can meet the minimum acceptable requirements for this crite-
rion. Inferior means that FLA cannot meet the requirements for the par-
ticular criterion. Suppose that the relations based on the consensus of the
group of decision-makers are as in the Table 2.
With respect to: Best
overall FLA:
Criteria:
9
A
b
s
o
l
u
t
e
8
7
V
e
r
y
s
t
r
o
n
g
6
5
F
a
i
r
l
y
s
t
r
o
n
g
4
3
W
e
a
k
2
1
E
q
u
a
l
2
W
e
a
k
3
4
5
F
a
i
r
l
y
s
t
r
o
n
g
6
7
V
e
r
y
s
t
r
o
n
g
8
9
A
b
s
o
l
u
t
e
C
r
i
t
e
r
i
a
A
A
A
B
C
D
B
B
C
D
C D
Fig. 1. Questionnaire form, which could be used to facilitate preference comparisons.
C. Kahraman et al. / Information Sciences 157 (2003) 135153 143
Now the criterion vector, ~ ww, will be obtained by using Saatys analytic hi-
erarchy process. The matrix of relative weights of subjective estimates are given
in Table 3.
Using the matrix of subjective attribute weights in Table 3 and Saatys
method, the following vector is obtained:
w
aw
= (0:537; 0:230; 0:100; 0:100; 0:033)
Now the composition ~ee is calculated as 0:537; 0:400; 0:300; 0:200 for FLA
I
and 0:200; 0:500; 0:400; 0:300 for FLA
II
. FLA
I
has its highest membership in
the category excellent and FLA
II
has its highest membership in the category
superior. Hence, FLA
II
should be selected.
3.3. Yagers weighted goals method
Let X = x
1
; x
2
; . . . ; x
n
be a set of alternatives. The goals are represented by
the fuzzy sets
GG
j
, j = 1; 2; . . . ; m. The importance (weight) of goal j is ex-
pressed by w
j
. The attainment of goal
GG
j
by alternative x
i
is expressed by the
degree of membership l
~
GG
j
.
The decision is dened as the intersection of all fuzzy goals, that is,
DD =
GG
w
1
1
GG
w
2
2
GG
w
m
m
(6)
Table 2
Fuzzy relations between alternatives and evaluation criteria
Criteria Alternatives
FLA
I
FLA
II
E S A I E S A I
PC 0.7 0.4 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.5 0.4 0.3
I 0.5 0.6 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.5 0.8 0.4
QL 0.2 0.4 0.7 0.2 0.3 0.6 0.4 0.2
FTZ 0.8 0.7 0.2 0.1 0.7 0.8 0.2 0.1
CA 0.4 0.5 0.8 0.6 0.5 0.7 0.4 0.3
Table 3
The matrix of subjective attribute weights
PC I QL FTZ CA
PC 1 3 7 7 9
I 1/3 1 3 3 7
QL 1/7 1/3 1 1 5
FTZ 1/7 1/3 1 1 5
CA 1/9 1/7 1/5 1/5 1
144 C. Kahraman et al. / Information Sciences 157 (2003) 135153
and the optimal alternative is dened as that achieving the highest degree of
membership in
DD [50].
The weights are used as exponents to express the importance of a goal. The
higher the importance of a goal the larger should be the exponent of its rep-
resenting fuzzy set, at least for normalized fuzzy sets and when using the min-
operator for the intersection of the fuzzy goals.
The solution procedure can be described as follows: Given the set
X = x
1
; . . . ; x
n
and the degrees of membership l
~
GG
j
(x
i
) of all x
i
in the fuzzy sets
GG
j
representing the goals [53].
1. Establish by pairwise comparison the relative importance, a
i
, of the goals
among themselves. Arrange the a
i
in a matrix M.
M =
a
1
a
1
a
1
a
2
. . .
a
1
a
n
a
2
a
1
a
2
a
2
. . .
. . .
a
n
a
1
a
n
a
2
. . .
a
n
a
n
_
_
_
_
(7)
2. Determine consistent weights w
j
for each goal by employing Saatys eigen-
vector method.
3. Weight the degrees of goal attainment, l
~
GG
j
(x
i
) exponentially by the respec-
tive w
j
. The resulting fuzzy sets are (
GG
j
(x
i
))
w
j
.
4. Determine the intersection of all (
GG
j
(x
i
))
w
j
:
~
DD = x
i
; min
j
(l
~
GG
j
(x
i
))
w
j
_ _
i
_
= 1; . . . ; n; j = 1; . . . ; m
_
(8)
5. Select the x
i
with largest degree of membership in
DD as the optimal alterna-
tive.
3.3.1. A numeric example of Yagers weighted goals method for the selection
among FLAs
For two FLAs, Table 4 gives evaluation ratings for each alternative re-
garding the attributes. Membership degrees are used for ratings. So, the sum
does not need to be equal to 1 for each attribute.
Using the same matrix of subjective attribute weights in Table 3 and Saatys
method, the following vector is again obtained [27]:
w
aw
= (0:537; 0:230; 0:100; 0:100; 0:033)
Exponential weighting of the attributes by their respective weight yields
P
CC
0:537
I;II
= (I; 0:826); (II; 0:611)
II
0:230
I;II
= (I; 0:872); (II; 0:906)
C. Kahraman et al. / Information Sciences 157 (2003) 135153 145
Q
LL
0:100
I;II
= (I; 0:978); (II; 0:912)
FT
ZZ
0:100
I;II
= (I; 0:912); (II; 0:965)
C
AA
0:033
I;II
= (I; 0:974); (II; 0:991)
The fuzzy set decision
DD, as the intersection of the sets above becomes
m
j=1
M
j
g
i
n
i=1
m
j=1
M
j
g
i
_ _
1
(10)
The degree of possibility of M
1
PM
2
is dened as
V (M
1
PM
2
) = sup
x Py
[min(l
M
1
(x); l
M
2
(y)[ (11)
When a pair (x; y) exists such that x Py and l
M
1
(x) = l
M
2
(y), then we have
V (M
1
PM
2
) = 1. Since M
1
and M
2
are convex fuzzy numbers we have that
V (M
1
PM
2
) = 1 iff m
1
Pm
2
(12)
C. Kahraman et al. / Information Sciences 157 (2003) 135153 147
V (M
1
PM
2
) = hgt(M
1
M
2
) = l
M
1
(d) (13)
where d is the ordinate of the highest intersection point D between l
M
1
and l
M
2
(see Fig. 2).
When M
1
= (l
1
; m
1
; u
1
) and M
2
= (l
2
; m
2
; u
2
), the ordinate of D is given by
Eq. (14).
V (M
2
PM
1
) = hgt(M
1
M
2
) =
l
1
u
2
(m
2
u
2
) (m
1
l
1
)
(14)
To compare M
1
and M
2
, we need both the values of V (M
1
PM
2
) and
V (M
2
PM
1
) The intersection between M
1
and M
2
is shown in Fig. 2.
The degree possibility for a convex fuzzy number to be greater than k convex
fuzzy numbers M
i
(i = 1; 2; . . . ; k) can be dened by
V (M PM
1
; M
2
; . . . ; M
k
)
= V [(M PM
1
) and M PM
2
) and . . . and (M PM
k
)[
= min V (M PM
i
); i = 1; 2; 3; . . . ; k (15)
Assume that
d
/
(A
i
) = min V (S
i
PS
k
) (16)
For k = 1; 2; . . . ; n; k ,= i. Then the weight vector is given by
W
/
= (d
/
(A
1
); d
/
(A
/
2
); . . . ; d
/
(A
n
))
T
(17)
where A
i
(i = 1; 2; . . . ; n) are n elements.
Via normalization, the normalized weight vectors are
W = (d(A
1
); d(A
2
); . . . ; d(A
n
))
T
(18)
where W is a nonfuzzy number.
M
2
M
1
l
2
m
1
u
1
u
2
d l
1
m
2
V ( M
2
M
1
)
1