Professional Documents
Culture Documents
ISSN 2229-5518
566
Index Terms AHP, Interval Neutrosophic Values, MCGDM, Lean Facilitator, TOPSIS, Fuzzy Sets, Intuitionistic Fuzzy Sets
1 INTRODUCTION
Multi Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) is a strategy of eval-
terms of crisp values. Fuzzy Set (FS) theory [7] gives truth
tionistic Fuzzy Sets (IFS) [8,9] which can represent truth mem-
strate its vast applicability [1b, 1c, 1d, 1e]. Briefing MCDM
available [2] and benefits [1a]. More than one decision maker
independent.
IJSER 2016
http://www.ijser.org
567
+()] and
for
all
That
is,
, if () (),
[15]
2.4 INS E
2.5 A
[16]
(Equation: 1)
The real scientific and engineering applications can be ex- Where is the weight of (=1,2,,), [0,1] and
. Principally, assume =1/ (=1,2,,),
pressed as INS values.
Let be a space of points (objects) and Int [0,1] be the set of all
INSs.
with 0sup ()+sup ()+sup ()3 for all . The intervals (), () and () denote the truth membership de-
IJSER 2016
http://www.ijser.org
FOR
Let x = ([T 1
568
L
,T 1 U ],[I 1
,T 2 U
lows (Equation: 5)
(Equation: 2)
Where is the weight of (=1,2,,), [0,1]
and
Principally,
assume
=1/
The above aggregation operators remain INS values. The emphasis on above definitions 2.13 and 2.14 can be defined as the
3. Methodology Adopted
lem
( ) =
(Equation: 3)
where ( ) [1,1].
the rank)
4. CASE STUDY
STEP 1:
IJSER 2016
http://www.ijser.org
The
569
from the data will reduce the time and increases the
effectiveness.
as follows.
DM1
DM2
DM3
Education Knowledge
Leadership Quality
VG
Process Knowledge
AA
Experience/Achievements
VG
AA
Report Writing
VG
STEP 3:
Table 3: Aggregated Criteria matrix
Education Knowledge
Leadership Quality
Process Knowledge
Experience/Achievements
Report Writing
IJSER 2016
http://www.ijser.org
570
STEP 4:
Table 4: Score and Weights of each criterion
Criteria
Score
Weights
Education Knowledge
0.6701
0.1984
Leadership Quality
0.7042
0.2085
Process Knowledge
0.7043
0.2085
Experience/Achievements
0.5949
0.1761
Report Writing
0.7042
0.2085
STEP 5:
Table 5: Criteria-Alternative group decision matrix
Alternatives
Education
Knowledge
DMs
DM1
DM2
Facilitator 1
VG
Facilitator 2
Experience
/Achievements
Leadership Quality
Process Knowledge
Report Writing
DM3
DM1
DM2
DM3
DM1
DM2
DM3
DM1
DM2
DM3
DM1
DM2
DM3
VG
VG
VG
VG
VG
VG
VG
AA
VG
AA
VG
AA
AA
AA
AA
Facilitator 3
VG
AA
VG
AA
VG
AA
Facilitator 4
Facilitator 5
G
VG
G
G
G
G
AA
G
A
G
AA
AA
VG
VG
G
VG
VG
G
G
G
AA
G
G
AA
AA
E
A
G
AA
VG
STEP 6:
For instance first column Positive and Negative Ideal solu-
STEP 7:
min(f ij )]}
([0.1316
0.1693]
[0.6766
0.7610]
For
[0.5649
all
0.7116])
{[min
(a ij )
0.1420] [0.6766
IJSER 2016
http://www.ijser.org
F1
F2
0.0539
F3
0.0310
F4
0.0516
F5
0.0310
REFERENCES
[1a] N Caterino, I Iervolino (2008), A Comparative Analysis Of Decision Making Methods For The Seismic Retrofit Of Rc Buildings, The
14thWorld Conference on Earthquake Engineering October 12-17, 2008,
Beijing, China.
[1b] Milan Janic and Aura Reggiani (2002), An Application of the Multiple Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) Analysis to the Selection of a
New Hub Airport, OTB Research institute Delft University of Technology Delft The Netherlands.
IJSER 2016
http://www.ijser.org
572
Group Decision Making based on Generalized Interval-valued Trapezoidal Fuzzy Numbers, Informatica 35 ( 2011) 185-196.
[25]S. Mohammadi and N. Mousavi, Selecting adequate security
mechanisms in e-business processes using fuzzy TOPSIS, International
Journal of Fuzzy System Application 2(2012) 35-53.
[26] A.K. Verma & R. Verma, Facility location selection: an interval
valued intuitionistic fuzzy TOPSIS approach, Journal of Modern Mathematics and Statistics 4 (2010) 68-72.
[27] Pingping Chi and Peide Liu (2013), An extended TOPSIS method
for the multiple attribute decision making problems based on interval
neutrosophic set, Neutrosophic Sets and Systems, Vol.1, China-Asean
International College, Dhurakij Pundit University, Bangkok 10210,
Thailand
IJSER 2016
http://www.ijser.org