Concept selection with hesitant fuzzy ANP-PROMETHEE II

References

• Ayaǧ Z, Özdemir RG. An analytic network process-based approach to concept evaluation in a new product development environment. J Eng Des. 2007;18(3):209–226.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ulrich KT, Eppinger SD. Product Design and Development. Fifth ed. McGraw-Hill; 2012.
   Google Scholar
• Ayaǧ Z, Özdemir RG. A hybrid approach to concept selection through fuzzy analytic network process. Comput Ind Eng. 2009;56(1):368–379.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhai L-Y, Khoo L-P, Zhong Z-W. Design concept evaluation in product development using rough sets and grey relation analysis. Expert Syst Appl. 2009;36(3):7072–7079.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee H, Kim C, Park Y. Evaluation and management of new service concepts: an ANP-based portfolio approach. Comput Ind Eng. 2010;58(4):535–543.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Akay D, Kulak O, Henson B. Conceptual design evaluation using interval type-2 fuzzy information axiom. Comput Ind. 2011;62(2):138–146.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vinodh S, Jeya Girubha R. PROMETHEE based sustainable concept selection. Appl Math Model. 2012;36(11):5301–5308.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee C, Lee H, Seol H, et al. Evaluation of new service concepts using rough set theory and group analytic hierarchy process. Expert Syst Appl. 2012;39(3):3404–3412.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tadić S, Zečević S, Krstić M. A novel hybrid MCDM model based on fuzzy DEMATEL, fuzzy ANP and fuzzy VIKOR for city logistics concept selection. Expert Syst Appl. 2014;41(18):8112–8128.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jayakrishna K, Vimal KE, Sekar V. ANP based sustainable concept selection. J Model Manag. 2015;10(1):118–136.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhu G-N-N, Hu J, Qi J, et al. An integrated AHP and VIKOR for design concept evaluation based on rough number. Adv Eng Informatics. 2015;29(3):408–418.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tiwari V, Jain PK, Tandon P. Product design concept evaluation using rough sets and VIKOR method. Adv Eng Informatics. 2016;30(1):16–25.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vinodh S, Sai Balagi TS, Patil A. A hybrid MCDM approach for agile concept selection using fuzzy DEMATEL, fuzzy ANP and fuzzy TOPSIS. Int J Adv Manuf Technol. 2016;83(9–12):1979–1987.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ayağ Z. An integrated approach to concept evaluation in a new product development. J Intell Manuf. 2016;27(5):991–1005.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Azammi AMN, Sapuan SM, Ishak MR, et al. Conceptual design of automobile engine rubber mounting composite using TRIZ-Morphological chart-analytic network process technique. Def Technol. 2018;14(4):268–277.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tiwari V, Jain PK, Tandon P. An integrated Shannon entropy and TOPSIS for product design concept evaluation based on bijective soft set. J Intell Manuf. 2019;30(4):1645–1658.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hayat K, Ali MI, Karaaslan F, et al. Design concept evaluation using soft sets based on acceptable and satisfactory levels: an integrated TOPSIS and Shannon entropy. Soft Comput. 2020;24(3):2229–2263.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Olabanji OM, Mpofu K. Hybridized fuzzy analytic hierarchy process and fuzzy weighted average for identifying optimal design concept. Heliyon. 2020;6(1):e03182.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Samanlioglu F, Fuzzy AZ. ANP-based PROMETHEE II approach for evaluation of machine tool alternatives. J Intell Fuzzy Syst. 2016;30(4):2223–2235.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zadeh LA. Fuzzy logic, neural networks, and soft computing. Commun ACM. 1994;37(3):77–84.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zimmermann H-J. Fuzzy Logic for Planning and Decision Making. Lootsma, F.A., Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1997. 195 pp. ISBN 0-7923-4681-5. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making. 1999;12(4):341–342.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kheybari S, Rezaie FM, Farazmand H. Analytic network process: an overview of applications. Appl Math Comput. 2020;367.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rodriguez RM, Martinez L, Herrera F. Hesitant fuzzy linguistic term sets for decision making. IEEE Trans Fuzzy Syst. 2012;20(1):109–119.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Torra V, Narukawa Y On hesitant fuzzy sets and decision. In: 2009 IEEE International Conference on Fuzzy Systems; 2009. p. 1378–1382.
   Google Scholar
• Gitinavard H, Ghaderi H, Pishvaee MS. Green supplier evaluation in manufacturing systems: a novel interval-valued hesitant fuzzy group outranking approach. Soft Comput. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00500-017-2697-1
   Google Scholar
• Gitinavard H, Hossein M, Zarandi F. A mixed expert evaluation system and dynamic interval-valued hesitant fuzzy selection approach. 2016;10(7):341–349.
   Google Scholar
• Dong JY, Yuan FF, Wan SP. Extended VIKOR method for multiple criteria decision-making with linguistic hesitant fuzzy information. Comput Ind Eng. 2017;112:305–319.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wan S-P, Qin Y-L, Dong J-Y. A hesitant fuzzy mathematical programming method for hybrid multi-criteria group decision making with hesitant fuzzy truth degrees. Knowledge-Based Syst. 2017;138:232–248.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dong JY, Chen Y, Wan SP. A cosine similarity based QUALIFLEX approach with hesitant fuzzy linguistic term sets for financial performance evaluation. Appl Soft Comput J. 2018;69:316–329.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yu Zheng SPW. Supplier selection of foreign trade sourcing company using ANP-VIKOR method in hesitant fuzzy environment. Industrial Engineering & Management. 2015;04(3):03.
   Google Scholar
• Lu X, Dong J, Wan S. A Novel Three-Phase LINMAP Method for hybrid multi-criteria group decision making with dual hesitant fuzzy truth degrees. IEEE Access. 2020;8:112462–112483.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Xu GL, Wan SP, Dong JY, et al. Programming Method for Hybrid MADM with Incomplete Attribute Weight Information. Inform. 2016;27(4):863–892.
   Google Scholar
• Gitinavard H, Mousavi SM, Vahdani B. A new balancing and ranking method based on hesitant fuzzy sets for solving decision-making problems under uncertainty. Int J Eng Trans B Appl 2015;28(2):214–223.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ebrahimnejad S, Gitinavard H, Sohrabvandi S. A new extended analytical hierarchy process technique with incomplete interval valued information for risk assessment in IT outsourcing. Int J Eng Trans B Appl 2017;30(5):739–748.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mousavi SM, Gitinavard H. An extended multi-attribute group decision approach for selection of outsourcing services activities for information technology under risks. Int J Appl Decis Sci. 2019.
   Google Scholar
• Davoudabadi R, Mousavi SM, Šaparauskas J, et al. Solving construction project selection problem by a new uncertain weighting and ranking based on compromise solution with linear assignment approach. JOURNAL OF CIVIL ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT. 2019;25(3):241–251.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhu B, Xu Z, Zhang R, et al. Generalized analytic network process. Eur J Oper Res. 2015;244(1):277–288.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zheng Y, He Y, Xu Z, et al. Assessment for hierarchical medical policy proposals using hesitant fuzzy linguistic analytic network process. Knowledge-Based Syst. 2018;161(June):254–267.
   Google Scholar
• Gao X, Shi C, Zhai K. An evaluation of environmental governance in urban China based on a hesitant fuzzy linguistic analytic network process. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2018;15(11):2456.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brans JP L’ingenierie de la decision; Elaboration d’instruments d’aide a la decision. La methode PROMETHEE. In: L’aide a la decision: Nature, Instruments et Perspectives d’Avenir. 1982.
   Google Scholar
• Dong J, Wan S. A PROMETHEE-FLP method for heterogeneous multi-attributes group decision making. IEEE Access. 2018;6:46656–46667.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Samanlioglu F, Ayağ Z. A fuzzy AHP-PROMETHEE II approach for evaluation of solar power plant location alternatives in Turkey. J Intell Fuzzy Syst. 2017;33(2):859–871.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mahmoudi A, Sadi-Nezhad S, Makui A, et al. An extension on PROMETHEE based on the typical hesitant fuzzy sets to solve multi-attribute decision-making problem. Kybernetes. 2016;45(8):1213–1231.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peng -J-J, Wang J-Q, Wu X-H. Novel multi-criteria decision-making approaches based on hesitant fuzzy sets and prospect theory. Int J Inf Technol Decis Mak. 2016;15(3):621–643.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liang R-X, Wang J-Q, Zhang H-Y. Projection-based PROMETHEE methods based on hesitant fuzzy linguistic term sets. Int J Fuzzy Syst. 2018;20(7):2161–2174.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liu N, He Y, Xu Z. Evaluate public-private-partnership’s advancement using double hierarchy hesitant fuzzy linguistic promethee with subjective and objective information from stakeholder perspective. Technol Econ Dev Econ. 2019;25(3):386–420.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wan S, Zou W, Zhong L, Dong J. Some new information measures for hesitant fuzzy PROMETHEE method and application to green supplier selection. Soft Comput. 2020;24:9179–9203
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Samanlioglu F, Ayag Z. An intelligent approach for the evaluation of transformers in a power distribution project. J Intell Fuzzy Syst. 2020;39:3.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Velasquez M, Hester P. An analysis of multi-criteria decision making methods. Int J Oper Res. 2013;10(2):56–66.
   Google Scholar
• Macharis C, Springael J, De Brucker K, et al. PROMETHEE and AHP: the design of operational synergies in multicriteria analysis. Eur J Oper Res. 2004;153(2):307–317.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tuzkaya G, Gülsün B, Kahraman C, et al. An integrated fuzzy multi-criteria decision making methodology for material handling equipment selection problem and an application. Expert Syst Appl. 2010;37(4):2853–2863.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Khorasaninejad E, Fetanat A, Hajabdollahi H. Prime mover selection in thermal power plant integrated with organic Rankine cycle for waste heat recovery using a novel multi criteria decision making approach. Appl Therm Eng. 2016;102:1262–1279.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kilic HS, Zaim S, Delen DD. Selecting “The Best” ERP system for SMEs using a combination of ANP and PROMETHEE methods. Expert Syst Appl. 2015;42(5):2343–2352.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tabaraee E, Ebrahimnejad S, Bamdad S. Evaluation of power plants to prioritise the investment projects using fuzzy PROMETHEE method. Int J Sustain Energy. 2018;37(10):941–955.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Govindan K, Shankar M, Kannan D. Supplier selection based on corporate social responsibility practices. Int J Prod Econ. 2018;200:353–379.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maghrabie HF, Beauregard Y, Schiffauerova SA, Grey-based multi-criteria decision analysis approach: addressing uncertainty at complex decision problems. Technol Forecast Soc Change. 2019; June. 146:366–379.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rezaei-Malek M, Torabi SA, Tavakkoli-Moghaddam R. Prioritizing disaster-prone areas for large-scale earthquakes‘ preparedness: methodology and application. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences. 2019;67:9–25. January 2017.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wu Y, Tao Y, Zhang B, et al. A decision framework of offshore wind power station site selection using a PROMETHEE method under intuitionistic fuzzy environment: a case in China. Ocean & Coastal Management. 2020;184:105016. October 2019.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bhalaji RKA, Bathrinath S, Ponnambalam SG, et al. A soft computing methodology to analyze sustainable risks in surgical cotton manufacturing companies. Sadhana - Acad Proc Eng Sci. 2020;45:1.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zha S, Guo Y, Huang S, et al. A hybrid MCDM method using combination weight for the selection of facility layout in the manufacturing system: a case study. Math Probl Eng. 2020; 2020.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Li R, Dong J, Wang D. Competition ability evaluation of power generation enterprises using a hybrid MCDM method under fuzzy and hesitant linguistic environment. J Renew Sustain Energy. 2018;10(5):055905.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wu Y, Wang Y, Chen K, et al. Social sustainability assessment of small hydropower with hesitant PROMETHEE method. Sustainable Cities and Society. 2017;35:(March):522–37.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lootsma FA. Fuzzy Logic for Planning and Decision Making, Applied Optimization. Springer US; 1997. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4757-2618-3.
   Google Scholar
• Klir GJ, Yuan B. Fuzzy Sets and Fuzzy Logic: theory and Applications. Prentice Hall; Upper Saddle River, NJ; 1995
   Google Scholar
• Anojkumar L, Ilangkumaran M, Sasirekha V. Comparative analysis of MCDM methods for pipe material selection in sugar industry. Expert Syst Appl. 2014;41(6):2964–2980.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wu Z, Ahmad J, Xu J. A group decision making framework based on fuzzy VIKOR approach for machine tool selection with linguistic information. Appl Soft Comput. 2016;42:314–324.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Samanlioglu F, Ayağ Z, Kahraman C. An intelligent approach for the evaluation of innovation projects. J Intell Fuzzy Syst. 2020;38(1):905–915.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yong D. Plant location selection based on fuzzy TOPSIS. Int J Adv Manuf Technol. 2006;28(7–8):839–844.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Torra V. Hesitant fuzzy sets. Int J Intell Syst. 2010;25(6):529–539.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yu YD. Triangular hesitant fuzzy set and its application to teaching quality evaluation. J Inf Comput Sci. 2013;10(7):1925–1934.
   Google Scholar
• Başar, A. Hesitant fuzzy pairwise comparison for software cost estimation: a case study in Turkey. Turkish Journal of Electrical Engineering & Computer Sciences. 2017;25(4):2897–2909
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liu H, Rodríguez RM. A fuzzy envelope for hesitant fuzzy linguistic term set and its application to multicriteria decision making. Inf Sci (NY). 2014;258:220–238
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Filev D, Yager RR. On the issue of obtaining OWA operator weights. Fuzzy Sets Syst. 1998;94(2):157–169.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Samanlioglu F, Taskaya YE, Gulen UC, et al. A fuzzy AHP–TOPSIS-based group decision-making approach to IT personnel selection. Int J Fuzzy Syst. 2018;20(5):1576–1591.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Saaty TL. The Analytic Hierarchy Process. New York: McGraw-Hill Inc; 1980.
   Google Scholar
• Yuen KKF, Ting TO. Textbook selection using fuzzy PROMETHEE II method. International Journal of Future Computer and Communication. 2012;22(19):6441–6460. .
   Google Scholar
• Kaya T, Kahraman C. Multicriteria renewable energy planning using an integrated fuzzy VIKOR & AHP methodology: the case of Istanbul. Energy. 2010;35(6):2517–2527.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Samanlioglu F. Evaluation of influenza intervention strategies in Turkey with fuzzy AHP-VIKOR.J Healthc Eng. 2019; 2019.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen LY, Wang T-C. Optimizing partners’ choice in IS/IT outsourcing projects: the strategic decision of fuzzy VIKOR. Int J Prod Econ. 2009;120(1):233–242.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar