Interval type-2 fuzzy program evaluation and review technique for project management in shipbuilding

References

• Abd Rahman WW, Zaki NM, Husain MA. 2019. A review of work breakdown structure and man-hours estimation method used in shipbuilding production. Int. J. Mech. Eng. Technol. 10(01):1141–1158.
   Google Scholar
• Ammar MA, Abd-ElKhalek SI. 2019. Criticality measurement in fuzzy project scheduling. Int. J. Constr. Manag.: 1–10. doi:10.1080/15623599.2019.1619226.
   Google Scholar
• Barban O. 2016. Multiculturalism in shipbuilding projects [Master’s thesis]. University College of Southeast Norway.
   Google Scholar
• Barbosa EG, Duarte HO, Melo S, Bonnano JV. 2019. Project management methodology for boat designing: the case of an as-built project of a 33-foot boat in a Brazilian shipyard. Trans RINA, Vol 161, Part B2, Intl J Small Craft Tech, Jul-Dec 2019, 17–30.
   Google Scholar
• Bellman RE, Zadeh LA. 1970. Decision-making in a fuzzy environment. Manage Sci. 17(4):B-141–B-164.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bevilacqua M, Ciarapica FE, Mazzuto G. 2014. Critical chain and theory of constraints applied to yachting shipbuilding: a case study. Int J Project Organ Manage. 6(4):379–397.
   Google Scholar
• Buckley JJ. 1985. Fuzzy hierarchical analysis. Fuzzy Set Syst. 17:233–247.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Buckley JJ. 1989. Fuzzy PERT. In: Evans G., Karwowski W., Wilhelm M., editor. Applications of fuzzy Set methodologies in Industrial engineering. Amsterdam: Elsevier; p. 103–114.
   Google Scholar
• Carral L, Tarrío-Saavedra J, Iglesias G, San-Cristobal JR. 2020. Evaluation of the structural complexity of organisations and products in naval-shipbuilding projects. Ships Offshore Structures. 16(6):670–685. doi:10.1080/17445302.2020.1773049.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Çelebi UB, Bilgili L. 2018. An innovative theory of Constraints based approach for improvement of shipyard project management. Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Denizcilik Fakültesi Dergisi. 10(1):1–18.
   Google Scholar
• Chanas S, Dubois D, Zielinski P. 2002. On the sure criticality of tasks in activity networks with imprecise durations. IEEE Trans Syst, Man, Cybern – Part B: Cybern. 32:393–407.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chanas S, Kamburowski J. 1981. The use of fuzzy variables in PERT. Fuzzy Sets Syst. 5(1):11–19.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chanas S, Kuchta D. 1998. Discrete fuzzy optimization. In: Słowiński R., editor. Fuzzy sets in decision analysis, operations Research and statistics. The handbooks of fuzzy sets series, vol 1. Boston, MA: Springer; p. 249–280.
   Google Scholar
• Chanas S, Zielinski P. 2001. Critical path analysis in the network with fuzzy activity times. Fuzzy Sets Syst. 122(2):195–204.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chanas S, Zielinski P. 2002. The computational complexity of the criticality problems in a network with interval activity times. Eur J Oper Res. 136:541–550. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0377-2217(01)00048-0.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chanas S, Zielinski P. 2003. On the hardness of evaluating criticality of activities In planar network with duration intervals. Oper Res Lett. 31:53–59.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen S. 2007. Analysis of critical paths in a project network with fuzzy activity times. Eur J Oper Res. 183(1):442–459.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen C, Huang S. 2007. Applying fuzzy method for measuring criticality in project network. Inf Sci. 177(12):2448–2458.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen SM, Lee LW. 2010. Fuzzy multiple attributes group decision-making based on the interval type-2 TOPSIS method. Expert Syst Appl. 37:2790–2798.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dijk VR, Gademann AJRM, Schouten G, Schutten JMJ. 2002. Multi-project planning in shipbuilding. In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Computer Applications in Shipbuilding (ICCAS 2002); September, Malmö, Sweden, p. 9–12.
   Google Scholar
• Doğan ÜB, Helvacioğlu İH. 2017. Customized project management methods and their applications in shipbuilding projects. GİDB Dergi. 10:3–20.
   Google Scholar
• Dubois D, Fargier H, Fortin J. 2005. Computational methods for determining the latest starting times and floats of tasks in interval-valued activity networks. J Intell Manuf. 16:407–421.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dubois D, Fargier H, Galavagnon V. 2003. On latest starting times and floats in activity networks with ill-known durations. Eur J Operat Res. 147(2):266–280.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Elaiwi AH. 2018. Efficiency of critical path method (CPM) and PERT technique for yacht construction. Int J Mech Eng Technol (IJMET). 9:11–48.
   Google Scholar
• Fafandjel N, Zamarin A, Hadjina M. 2010. Shipyard production cost structure optimization model related to product type. Int J Prod Res. 48(5):1479–1491.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gazdik I. 1983. Fuzzy network planning. IEEE Trans Reliab R-32(3):304–313.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Haghighi MH, Mousavi SM, Antuchevičienė J, Mohagheghi V. 2019. A new analytical methodology to handle time-cost trade-off problem with considering quality loss cost under interval-valued fuzzy uncertainty. Technol Econ Dev Econ. 25(2):277–299. https://doi.org/10.3846/tede.2019.8422.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Han D, Yang B, Li J, Sun M, Zhou Q, Wang J. 2017. A three-layer parallel computing system for shipbuilding project scheduling optimization. Adv Mech Eng. 9(109):1–17.
   Google Scholar
• Hapke M, Jaszkiewicz A, Slowinski R. 1994. Fuzzy project scheduling system for software development. Fuzzy Sets Syst. 67:101–117.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hapke M, Slowinski R. 1996. Fuzzy priority heuristics for project scheduling. Fuzzy Sets Syst. 83:291–299.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jaswar and Syafwan bin Anah. 2013. Traditional ship production case study in Kepulauan Riau-Indonesia. Departement of Aeronautic, Automotive and Ocean Engineering, Faculty of Mechanical, University Teknologi Malaysia.
   Google Scholar
• Jiang G, Feng D, Zhu W. 2016. Toward efficient merchant shipbuilding based on the lean production methodology. J Ship Prod Design. 32(4): 245–257
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johansen D. 2019. Shipbuilding projects in Norway: Joint risk management in shipbuilding projects [Master’s thesis]. University of South-Eastern Norway.
   Google Scholar
• Kahraman C, Kaya I. 2010. A fuzzy multicriteria methodology for selection among energy alternatives. Expert Syst Appl. 37(9):6270–6281. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2010.02.095.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kaufmann A, Gupta MM. 1985. Introduction to fuzzy arithmetic theory and applications. New York, NY: Van Nostrand Reinhold Publishing Co.
   Google Scholar
• Kelley J. 1961. Critical path planning and scheduling—mathematical basis. Oper Res. 9:296–320.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kim H, Lee SS, Park JH, Lee JG. 2005. A model for a simulation-based shipbuilding system in a shipyard manufacturing process. Int J Computer Integr Manuf. 18(6):427–441.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee LW, Chen SM. 2008. Fuzzy multiple attributes group decision-making based on the extension of TOPSIS method and interval type-2 fuzzy sets. Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Machine Learning and Cybernetics, Kunming, 12–15 July 2008.
   Google Scholar
• Lin CK, Shaw HJ. 2017. Feature-based estimation of preliminary costs in shipbuilding. Ocean Eng. 144:305–319.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liu F, Chen C, Wu W. 2017. Research on intelligent design of luxury yacht. Procedia Eng. 174:927–933.
   Google Scholar
• Liu X, Li Z, Wang X, Zhao W. 2008. Study on dynamic production planning system oriented to shipbuilding process. In 2008 IEEE Industry Applications Society Annual Meeting, 5-9 October Admonton, AB Canada, p. 1–6. IEEE.
   Google Scholar
• Lorterapong P, Moselhi O. 1996. Project network analysis using fuzzy sets theory. Constr Eng Manage, ASCE. 122(4):308–318.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Malcolm DD, Roseboom JS, Clarc CI, Fazar W. 1959. Application of a technique for research and development program evaluation. Oper Res. 7(5):646–669.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mascaraque-Ramírez C, Para-González L, Moreno-Sánchez D. 2018. Improvement of the construction project of tuna purse seine vessels through a cost and term analysis. Ships Offsh Struct. 13(1):20–27. doi:10.1080/17445302.2017.1335576.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McCahon CS. 1993. Using PERT as an approximation of fuzzy project-network analysis. IEEE Trans Eng Manage. 40:146–153.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mccahon CS, Lee ES. 1988. Project network analysis with fuzzy activity times. Comput Math Appl. 15(10):829–838.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mei Y, Zeng Z, Ye J. 2020. A computing model: the closed-loop optimal control for large-scale one-of-a-kind production based on multilevel hierarchical PERT-Petri net. IEEE Trans Eng Manage. 1–13.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mendel JM, John RI, Liu F. 2006. Interval type-2 fuzzy logic systems made simple. IEEE Trans Fuzzy Syst. 14(6):808–821.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mohagheghi V, Meysam S, Mousavi SM, Vahdani B. 2017. Analyzing project cash flow by a new interval type-2 fuzzy model with an application to construction industry. Neural Comput Appl. 28:3393–3341. doi:10.1007/s00521-016-2235-6.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mullai N, Surya R. 2019. Neutrosophic project evaluation and review techniques. Neutrosophic Sets Syst. 24:1–9.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Müller-Plath G, Jung D, Müller M. 2018. Research-based design and usability guidelines for electronic charting systems (ECS) in yachting and boating. Int J e-Navig Maritime Econ. 10:032–048.
   Google Scholar
• Nasution SH. 1994. Fuzzy critical path method. IEEE Trans Syst, Man, Cybern. 24:48–57.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Niewiadomski A, Ochelska J, Szczepaniak PS. 2006. Interval-valued linguistic summaries of databases. Control Cybern. 35(2):415–443.
   Google Scholar
• Para-González L, Mascaraque-Ramírez C. 2020. The six dimensions of CSR as a driver of key results in the shipbuilding industry. Corporate Soc Responsibility Environ Manage. 27(2):576–584.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Park C, Chung KH, Park JC, Cho KK, Baek TH, Son EI. 2002. A spatial scheduling application at the block paint shop in shipbuilding: the HYPOS project. Prod Plan Control. 13(4):342–354.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Prade H. 1979. Using fuzzy sets theory in a scheduling problem: a case study. Fuzzy Sets Syst. 2:153–165.
   Google Scholar
• Roh MI, Lee KY. 2018. Analysis of ship owner’s requirements. In Computational Ship Design, p. 15–18. Singapore: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Rommelfanger H. 1994. Network analysis and information flow in fuzzy environment. Fuzzy Sets Syst. 67:119–128.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shetelig H. 2013. Shipbuilding Cost Estimation. Master’s Thesis, University of Trondheim, Trondheim, Norway, 2013.
   Google Scholar
• Shipley MF, De Korvin A, Omer K. 1997. BIFPET methodology versus PERT in project management: fuzzy probability instead of the beta distribution. J Eng Tech Manage. 14(1):49–65.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Taşdemir A, Nohut S. 2020. An overview of wire arc additive manufacturing (WAAM) in shipbuilding industry. Ships Offsh Struct. 1–18. doi:10.1080/17445302.2020.1786232.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tonchia S, Mahagaonkar. 2018. Industrial project management. Berlin, Germany: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Tresnadi A, Suparno S, Sutrisno S. 2020, October. Analysis of the acceleration time and optimal costs of the shipbuilding project specified in the electrical system with the critical path method. In Sttal Postgraduate-Internatıonal Conference (Vol. 4, No. 1).
   Google Scholar
• Turan E, Asar R. 2020. Ship repair and maintenance management: application of PERT analysis on a tanker vessel. J Ship Prod Design. 36(3): 181–188.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Uçal Sari I, Öztayşi B, Kahraman C. 2013. Fuzzy analytic hierarchy process using type-2 fuzzy sets: An Application to warehouse location selection. In: M. Doumpos, E. Grigoroudis, editors. Multicriteria decision Aid and artificial intelligence. West Sussex, United Kingdom: Wiley; p. 285–308. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118522516.ch12.
   Google Scholar
• UNCTAD. 2020. Review of Maritime Transport 2020, New York: United Nations Publications. ISBN 978-92-1-112993-9.
   Google Scholar
• Veenstra AW, Ludema MW. 2006. The relationship between design and economic performance of ships. Maritime Policy Manage. 33(2):159–171. doi:10.1080/03088830600612880.
   Google Scholar
• Vose D. 2008. Risk analysis: a quantitative guide. West Sussex, England: Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Zadeh LA. 1965. Fuzzy sets. Inf Control. 8(3):338–353. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0019-9958(65)90241-X.
   Google Scholar
• Zadeh LA. 1975. The concept of a linguistic variable and its application to approximate reasoning-I. Inf Sci (Ny). 8(3):199–249. https://doi.org/10.1016/0020-0255(75)90036-5.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zeng J, Min A, Smith NJ. 2007. Application of fuzzy based decision-making methodology to construction project risk assessment. Int J Proj Manage. 25:589–600.
   Google Scholar
• Zhou HG, Wang Z, Liu JF, Tian GZ, Jing XW, Li L. 2020. Research on block storage yard scheduling according to grid method. Concurrency Comput: Practice Exp. 32(23):1–11.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar