Evaluation of shipyard selection criteria for shipowners using a fuzzy technique

References

• Badizadeh A, Khanmohammadi S. 2011. Developing a fuzzy model for assessment and selection of the best idea of new product development. Indian J Sci Technol. 4:1749–1762.
   Google Scholar
• Bilgen B, Sen M. 2012. Project selection through fuzzy analytic hierarchy process and a case study on Six Sigma implementation in an automotive industry. Prod Plan Control. 23:2–25.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bilisik ON, Demirtas N, Tuzkaya UR, Baracli H. 2014. Garage location selection for public transportation system in Istanbul: an integrated fuzzy AHP and fuzzy axiomatic design based approach. J Appl Math. 2014:1–13.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Buckley JJ. 1985. Fuzzy hierarchical analysis. Fuzzy Set Syst. 17:233–247.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Celik M, Kahraman C, Cebi S, Er ID. 2009. Fuzzy axiomatic design-based performance evaluation model for docking facilities in shipbuilding industry: the case of Turkish shipyards. Expert Syst Appl. 36:599–615.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Celik M, Kandakoglu A. 2012. Maritime policy development against ship flagging out dilemma using a fuzzy quantified SWOT analysis. Marit Policy Manag. 39:401–421.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Celik M, Kandakoglu A, Er ID. 2009. Structuring fuzzy integrated multi-stages evaluation model on academic personnel recruitment in MET institutions. Expert Syst Appl. 36:6918–6927.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chan FT, Kumar N, Tiwari M, Lau H, Choy K. 2008. Global supplier selection: a fuzzy-AHP approach. Int J Prod Res. 46:3825–3857.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen S-J, Hwang C-L. 1992. Fuzzy multiple attribute decision making (methods and applications). London: Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg.
   Google Scholar
• Chou Y-C, Sun C-C, Yen H-Y. 2012. Evaluating the criteria for human resource for science and technology (HRST) based on an integrated fuzzy AHP and fuzzy DEMATEL approach. Appl Soft Comput. 12:64–71.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chryssolouris G, Makris S, Xanthakis V, Mourtzis D. 2004. Towards the Internet-based supply chain management for the ship repair industry. Int J Comput Integ M. 17:45–57.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ding J-F. 2011. An Integrated fuzzy TOPSIS method for ranking alternatives and its application. J Mar Sci Technol. 19:341–352.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Erensal YC, Oncan T, Demircan ML. 2006. Determining key capabilities in technology management using fuzzy analytic hierarchy process: A case study of Turkey. Inf Sci (Ny). 176:2755–2770.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ghadimi P, Azadnia AH, Mohd Yusof N, Mat Saman MZ. 2012. A weighted fuzzy approach for product sustainability assessment: a case study in automotive industry. J Clean Prod. 33:10–21.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goksu A. 2008. Fuzzy analytic hierarchy process and its application of university preference ranking [PhD]. Isparta: University of Suleyman Demirel.
   Google Scholar
• Hsieh T-Y, Lu S-T, Tzeng G-H. 2004. Fuzzy MCDM approach for planning and design tenders selection in public office buildings. Int J Proj Manag. 22:573–584.
   Google Scholar
• Jaskowski P, Biruk S, Bucon R. 2010. Assessing contractor selection criteria weights with fuzzy AHP method application in group decision environment. Automat Constr. 19:120–126.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kilincci O, Onal SA. 2011. Fuzzy AHP approach for supplier selection in a washing machine company. Expert Syst Appl. 38:9656–9664.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Miri Lavasani S, Yang Z, Finlay J, Wang J. 2011. Fuzzy risk assessment of oil and gas offshore wells. Process Saf Environ. 89:277–294.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nepal B, Yadav OP, Murat A. 2010. A fuzzy-AHP approach to prioritization of CS attributes in target planning for automotive product development. Expert Syst Appl. 37:6775–6786.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ozyigit I. 2006. Planning and production stages in shipbuilding [MSc]. İstanbul: Yildiz Technical University.
   Google Scholar
• Public Works and Government Services Canada. 2014. Backgrounder: Achieving Best Value in Shipyard Selection: Available from: http://www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/app-acq/sam-mps/ddi-bkgr-6-eng.html
   Google Scholar
• Rathi R, Khanduja D, Sharma S. 2015. Synergy of fuzzy AHP and Six Sigma for capacity waste management in Indian automotive industry. Decision Sci Lett. 4:441–452.
   Google Scholar
• Rezaei J, Fahim PB, Tavasszy L. 2014. Supplier selection in the airline retail industry using a funnel methodology: Conjunctive screening method and fuzzy AHP. Expert Syst Appl. 41:8165–8179.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shaw K, Shankar R, Yadav SS, Thakur LS. 2012. Supplier selection using fuzzy AHP and fuzzy multi-objective linear programming for developing low carbon supply chain. Expert Syst Appl. 39:8182–8192.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tayal DK, Jain A, Aggarwal N, Bhasin P. 2009. A fuzzy analytical hierarchical process-based career decision making. IUP J Inf Technol. 5:36–51.
   Google Scholar
• Wang Y-M, Chin K-S. 2011. Fuzzy analytic hierarchy process: A logarithmic fuzzy preference programming methodology. Int J Approx Reason. 52:541–553.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Xie X, Xu D-L, Yang J-B, Wang J, Ren J, Yu S. 2008. Ship selection using a multiple-criteria synthesis approach. J Mar Sci Technol. 13:50–62.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yanar L, Tozan H. 2012. A fuzzy hybrid decision support system for interceptor Baywatch boat propulsion system selection. Teh Vjesn. 19:407–413.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yucenur GN, Vayvay O, Demirel NC. 2011. Supplier selection problem in global supply chains by AHP and ANP approaches under fuzzy environment. Int J Adv Manuf Technol. 56:823–833.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zadeh LA. 1965. Fuzzy sets. Inf Control. 8:338–353.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zimmermann H-J. 2001. Fuzzy set theory—and its applications. 4th ed. New York (NY): Springer Netherland.
   Google Scholar