A Fuzzy-Weighted Approach to the Problem of Selecting the Right Strategy Using the Robustness Analysis (Case Study: Iran Automotive Industry)

Figures & data

Figure 1. A general triangular fuzzy number $\left(a,\alpha ,\text{β}\right)$.

Table 1. The general form of the scenario components.

Factors	Indicators	Situations
Political	$P_i$	$i=1,\dots ,l$
Economic	$E{c}_i$	$i=1,\dots ,n$
Social	$S{o}_i$	$i=1,\dots ,t$
Technological	$T_i$	$i=1,\dots ,s$
Environmental	$E{n}_i$	$i=1,\dots ,c$
Legal	$L_i$	$i=1,\dots ,p$

Table 2. Fuzzy comparison measures.

Linguistic terms	Equal	Weak advantage	Not bad	Preferable	Good	Fairly good	Very good	Absolute	Perfect
Triangular numbers	(1, 1, 1)	(1, 2, 3)	(2, 3, 4)	(3, 4, 5)	(4, 5, 6)	(5, 6, 7)	(6, 7 8)	(7, 8, 9)	(8, 9, 10)

Table 3. Indicators affecting the problem and their different states.

Factors	Indicators	Situation
Political	Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA)	Continuation of JCPOA (P1)Rejection of JCPOA (P2)
Economic	Economic growth	Positive (Ec1)Negative (Ec2)
Social	The potential of market size	Improvement (So1)Stability (So2)Decline (So3)
Technological	Technology development	Maintaining technology over the period under review (T1)Changing the technology used to the benefit of the organisation (T2)Changing the technology used to the detriment of the organisation (T3)
Environmental	Community’s sensitivity to environmental degradation	Disregarding (En1)Highly regarding (En2)
Legal	Supporting the domestic monopoly	Continue to support (L1)Ending the support (L2)

Table 4. Fuzzy pairwise comparison.

	P	Ec	So	T	En	L
P	$(1,1,1)$	$(0.33,0.50,1)$	$(0.20,0.25,0.33)$	$(4,5,6)$	$(3,4,5)$	$(2,3,4)$
Ec	$(1,2,3)$	$(1,1,1)$	$(0.20,0.25,0.33)$	$(6,7,8)$	$(5,6,7)$	$(3,4,5)$
So	$(3,4,5)$	$(1,2,3)$	$(1,1,1)$	$(7,8,9)$	$(6,7,8)$	$(5,6,7)$
T	$(0.17,0.20,0.25)$	$(0.12,0.14,0.17)$	$(0.11,0.12,0.14)$	$(1,1,1)$	$(0.33,0.50,1)$	$(0.25,0.33,0.50)$
En	$(0.20,0.25,0.33)$	$(0.14,0.17,0.20)$	$(0.12,0.14,0.17)$	$(1,2,3)$	$(1,1,1)$	$(0.33,0.50,1)$
L	$(0.25,0.33,0.50)$	$(0.20,0.25,0.33)$	$(0.14,0.17,0.20)$	$(2,3,4)$	$(1,2,3)$	$(1,1,1)$

Table 5. Fuzzy weights of the criteria.

Factors	a	α	β
Political	$0.16$	$0.13$	$0.21$
Economical	$0.24$	$0.19$	$0.30$
Social	$0.43$	$0.34$	$0.50$
Technological	$0.03$	$0.03$	$0.04$
Environmental	$0.05$	$0.04$	$0.07$
Legal	$0.08$	$0.06$	$0.10$

Figure 2. Comparing robustness and debility of the main strategies.

Table 6. Robustness and debility scores of the main strategies.

Main Strategy	Robustness	Debility
Offensive (MS1)	$\frac{44}{90}$	$\frac{46}{90}$
Competitive (MS2)	$\frac{32}{60}$	$\frac{28}{60}$
Defensive (MS3)	$\frac{35}{60}$	$\frac{25}{60}$
Conservative (MS4)	$\frac{36}{75}$	$\frac{39}{75}$

Figure 3. Dolan-Moré performance profile for the main strategies.