5 tayangan

Diunggah oleh michael17ph2003

Risk

- Panasonic 8020E Manual
- f312811710649125.pdf
- QCP - Mill Fabrication
- 7184362-Toshiba_E-studio_200l_230_280_Service_Handbook.pdf
- Developing Nigeria Oil and Gas Pipeline Using Multi-criteria Decision Analysis (Mcda
- mcda
- Lean Supplier Selection based on Hybrid MCGDM Approach using Interval Valued Neutrosophic Sets: A Case Study
- switzerland style election
- Grillage Properties for PSC Girders
- Stylus Pro 7600-9600
- 25045-19-3PS-01305r0
- Solidworks Drawing and Detailing
- Toshiba Fax Board Gd1220 1221 Sm v02
- Evaluation Grids
- Comparative Analysis of AHP and Fuzzy AHP Models for Multicriteria Inventory Classification
- Develope bumper standarsd
- cx11n_ba
- Decision Making
- service manual sharp ar5618
- Part 6 - Option Items & System

Anda di halaman 1dari 6

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/eswa

with extended VIKOR method under fuzzy environment

G. Nilay Ycenur, Nihan etin Demirel

Yldz Technical University, Mechanical Faculty, Industrial Engineering Department, Besiktas, Istanbul, Turkey

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Keywords: In recent years, because of the high potential for insurability in Turkey and the rapid improvement of

Multi-criteria decision making insurance sector, foreign investors are interested in Turkish insurance market. Since insurability rate

VIKOR method has reached saturation point in their countries, foreign investors tended to make investments in Turkey

Fuzzy sets and start to purchase local insurance companies in Turkey. In this paper we analyze ve Turkish insur-

Selection problem

ance companies for a foreign investor who wants to purchase a local insurance company. For selecting

Insurance sector

the most appropriate alternative we used the extended VIKOR method which applied to determine the

best feasible solution according to the selected criteria. This method was developed to solve multiple cri-

teria decision making problems with conicting and non-commensurable criteria, assuming that com-

promising is acceptable for conict resolution. In this paper, the alternatives are evaluated according

to all established criteria with the VIKOR method completely under fuzzy environment with fuzzy sets.

2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

sion making problems with conicting and non-commensurable

Multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) refers to making prefer- (different units) criteria, assuming that compromising is accept-

ence decision (e.g., evaluation, prioritization, and selection) over able for conict resolution, the decision maker wants a solution

the available alternatives that are characterized by multiple, usu- that is the closest to the ideal, and the alternatives are evaluated

ally conicting, criteria. As decision making requires multiple per- according to all established criteria. This method focuses on rank-

spectives of different people, most organizational decisions are ing and selecting from a set of alternatives in the presence of con-

made in groups (Ma, Lu, & Zhang, 2010). icting criteria, and on proposing compromise solution (one or

Multi-criteria decision making comprises a nite set of alterna- more) (Opricovic & Tzeng, 2007).

tives, amongst which the decision-makers have to select, evaluate The usage of VIKOR method has been increasing. In the litera-

or rank according to the weights of a nite set of criteria (attri- ture, Liou, Tsai, Lin, and Tzeng (2010) used a modied VIKOR meth-

butes). There are several methods for dealing with multi-criteria od for improving the domestic airlines service quality and Chang

decision making problems, such as multiplicative exponential and Hsu (2009) used VIKOR method for prioritizing land-use re-

weighting (MEW), simple additive weighting (SAW), technique straint strategies in the TsengWen reservoir watershed. Sayadi,

for ordering preference by similarity to ideal solution (TOPSIS), Heydari, and Shahanaghi (2009) used extension VIKOR method

analytic hierarchy process (AHP) and so forth. It is unrealistic to as- for the solution of the decision making problem with interval num-

sign a crisp value for a subjective judgment, especially when the bers. On the other hand some researchers have evaluated VIKOR

information is vague or imprecise (Chang & Wang, 2009). The mul- method under fuzzy environment. For example Kaya and Kahr-

ti-criteria decision making models face different kinds of uncer- aman (2010) used an integrated fuzzy VIKOR and AHP methodol-

tainty, which generally could be taken into account by using _

ogy for multi-criteria renewable energy planning in Istanbul and

stochastic analysis or fuzzy set theory. Stochastic approach suits also Sanayei, Mousavi, and Yazdankhah (2010) used VIKOR method

the condition when a probabilistic data set represents the uncer- for a supplier selection problem with fuzzy sets. Chen and Wang

tainty. Fuzzy approach is appropriate when parameters are subjec- (2009) optimized partners choice in IS/IT outsourcing projects by

tive and vague (Zarghami & Szidarovszky, 2009). fuzzy VIKOR.

In this study, we applied the VIKOR method, which was devel-

Corresponding author. Tel.: +90 212 3832868. oped for multi-criteria optimization for complex systems, to nd a

E-mail addresses: nserbest@yildiz.edu.tr (G.N. Ycenur), nihan@yildiz.edu.tr compromise priority ranking of alternatives according to the se-

(N. etin Demirel). lected criteria for a selection problem. The objective of this study

0957-4174/$ - see front matter 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2011.09.065

G.N. Ycenur, N.. Demirel / Expert Systems with Applications 39 (2012) 37023707 3703

was to determine the priority ranking of alternative Turkish to 2010 (http, 2010). That is why, in this paper we analyze ve

insurance companies for the evaluating of suitability of their pur- Turkish insurance companies for our foreign investor who wants

chasable by an international investor. to purchase a local company and be included by the Turkish

As an outline, the Turkish insurance sector and rm purchasing economy.

reasons are presented in Section 2. The denition and the back-

ground of VIKOR method and its applications are presented in Sec-

tion 3. Section 4 is about a proposed solution method for selection 3. VIKOR method and its applications

problem under fuzzy environment. A numerical example illus-

trates an application of VIKOR method for selection problem in VIKOR was developed by Opricovic (1998) and Opricovic and

Section 5 and in the nal section some conclusions are drawn for Tzeng (2002) with the Serbian name: VlseKriterijumska Optimiza-

the study. cija I Kompromisno Resenje, means multi-criteria optimization and

compromise solution. The VIKOR method was developed for multi-

2. Insurance sector and rm purchasing in Turkey criteria optimization of complex systems and this method focuses

on ranking and selecting from a set of alternatives, and determines

Having enjoyed a spectacular growth consistently after the compromise solutions for a problem with conicting criteria,

nancial crisis in 2001 the insurance industry in Turkey experi- which can help the decision makers to reach a nal decision. Here,

enced a slight decline at the last quarter of the 2008 and concluded the compromise solution is a feasible solution which is the closest

the year with a growth rate below ination as a result of the global to the ideal, and a compromise means an agreement established by

nancial crisis. Contrary to the insurance market, the individual mutual concessions. It introduces the multi-criteria ranking index

pension system coming into force in 2003 continued to grow with- based on the particular measure of closeness to the ideal solu-

out its losing enthusiasm of the rst years. In 2008, the number of tion (Sanayei et al., 2010).

the participants and the total amount of contributions in the sys- According to Sayadi et al. (2009), the multi-criteria measure for

tem increased by 18% and 39%, respectively (http, 2010). compromise ranking is developed from the PLp-metric used as an

A major indicator of the importance of insurance industry for an aggregating function in a compromise programming method. The

economy is the total amount of coverage. There is not any industry various m alternatives are denoted as A1, A2, . . . , Am. For alternative

which immunes from effects of the crisis. However, the direct im- Ai, the rating of the jth aspect is denoted by fij, i.e. fij is the value of

pact of the crisis in Turkish insurance market has been limited. The jth criterion function for the alternative Ai; n is the number of cri-

biggest effects have been observed on the premium production. teria. Development of the VIKOR method started with the follow-

After the seven-year period of growth the trend reversed in 2008 ing form of Lp-metric:

and we witnessed a slight growth below ination rate. However, ( )1=p

the industry was recovered from the negative effects of the crisis Xn

p

shortly and entered into the period of high growth again in 2010 Lp;j wi fi fij = fi fi 1 6 p 6 1; j

i1

(http, 2010). In Table 1, premium generation by the insurance mar-

ket in Turkey is shown for 20 yrs. 1; 2; . . . ; J: 1

The high potential of insurability in Turkey and the rapid

improvement of insurance and pension sector pointed Turkish In the VIKOR method L1,i (as Si) and L1,i (as Ri) are used to formulate

insurance market to foreign investors. Since insurability rate has ranking measure. The solution obtained by Si is with a maximum

reached saturation point in their countries, foreign investors group utility (majority rule), and the solution obtained by min

tended to make investments in developing countries and briskness Ri is with a minimum individual regret of the opponent (Sayadi

in Turkish insurance sector that started in 2006 continued to grow et al., 2009).

Table 1

Premium generation by the insurance market in Turkey (http, 2010).

Amount (million USD) Increase (%) Amount (million USD) Increase (%)

1987 363 29.2 6.9 26.2 52.6

1988 401 10.5 7.5 8.2 53.7

1989 497 23.9 9.1 21.2 54.9

1990 710 42.9 12.7 39.8 56.1

1991 964 35.8 16.8 33.0 57.3

1992 1187 23.1 20.3 20.4 58.6

1993 1563 31.6 26.0 28.6 60.0

1994 1066 31.8 17.4 33.3 61.4

1995 1377 29.2 21.9 25.9 63.0

1996 1535 11.4 24.3 11.3 64.6

1997 1811 18.0 29.6 20.1 62.6

1998 2119 17.0 32.7 15.1 64.8

1999 2314 8.6 35.9 7.0 64.4

2000 2847 23.0 43.6 21.2 65.3

2001 2033 28.6 30.7 29.6 66.2

2002 2426 19.6 36.1 18.0 67.1

2003 3316 36.6 46.8 34.4 70.9

2004 4656 59.5 64.7 38.2 72.0

2005 5829 25.2 79.7 23.3 73.1

2006 6713 15.2 90.8 13.9 73.9

2007 8359 24.5 118.4 30.4 70.6

3704 G.N. Ycenur, N.. Demirel / Expert Systems with Applications 39 (2012) 37023707

Very Poor (VP) Medium Poor (MP) Medium Good (MG) Very Good (VG)

environment

Poor (P) Fair (F) Good (G)

uncertainty. One of these uncertain parameters is the decision

maker (DM)s degree of optimism, which has an important effect

on the results. Fuzzy linguistic quantiers are used to obtain the

assessments of this parameter from DM and then, because of its

uncertainty it is assumed to have stochastic nature (Zarghami &

Szidarovszky, 2009). In this paper the problem is evaluated under

fuzzy environment with fuzzy sets.

The main steps of the algorithm are taken from Sanayei et al.s

(2010) study:

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1

Step 1: Identifying the objectives of the decision making pro-

cess and dene the problem scope. Our objective is to Fig. 2. Linguistic variables for ratings (Sanayei et al., 2010).

choosing the most suitable insurance company for the

foreign investor who wants to purchase a local insur-

ance company in Turkey.

where

Step 2: Arranging the decision making group and dene and

describe a nite set of relevant attributes. For our selec-

1X K

1X K

xij1 minfxijk1 gk ; xij2 xijk2 ; xij3 xijk3 ;

tion problem we have eight different criteria and ve K k1 K k1

different alternative companies. The criteria identied xij4 maxfxijk4 gk

and analyzed in this paper can be seen in the literature

and the professional insurance life. ~ j of each criterion can be

The aggregated fuzzy weights w

Step 3: Identifying the appropriate linguistic variables: In this calculated as:

step, the appropriate linguistic variables for the impor- ~ j wj1 ; wj2 ; wj3 ; wj4 ;

w 3

tance weight of criteria, and the fuzzy rating for alterna-

tives with regard to each criterion these linguistic where

variables can be expressed in positive trapezoidal fuzzy

1X K

numbers, as in Figs. 1 and 2 must be dened. The deci- wj1 minfwjk1 gk ; wj2 wjk2 ; wj3

K k1

sion makers use the linguistic variables shown in Figs.

1 and 2 to evaluate the importance of the criteria and 1X K

K k1

criteria.

Step 4: Pull the decision makers opinions to get the aggregated A suitable insurance rm selection problem can be concisely

fuzzy weight of criteria, and aggregated fuzzy rating of expressed in matrix format as follows:

alternatives and construct a fuzzy decision matrix: Let 2 3

~x11 ~x12 ~x1n

the fuzzy rating and importance weight of the k th deci- 6 ~x

sion maker be ~ ~ jk wjk1 ;

xijk xijk1 ; xijk2 ; xijk3 ; xijk4 and w 6 12 ~x22 ~x2n 77

e 6 f w

wjk2 ; wjk3 ; wjk4 ; i 1; 2; . . . ; m and j = 1, 2, . . . , n respec-

D 6 .. .. .. 7

7; W ~ 1; w

~ 2; . . . ; w

~ n ;

4 . . . 5

tively. Hence, the aggregated fuzzy ratings ~ xij of alter-

~xm1 ~xm2 ~xmn

natives with respect to each criterion can be calculated

as: where ~ xij the rating of alternative Ai with respect to C j ; w ~ j the

importance weight of the jth criterion holds,

~xij xij1 ; xij2 ; xij3 ; xij4 ; 2 ~xij xij1 ; xij2 ; xij3 ; xij4 and

~ j wj1 ; wj2 ; wj3 ; wj4 ; i 1; 2; . . . ; m and j = 1, 2, . . . , n are lin-

w

guistic variables can be approximated by positive trapezoidal

fuzzy numbers.

Step 5: Defuzzify the fuzzy decision matrix and fuzzy weight of

Very Low (VL) Medium Low (ML) Medium High (MH) Very High (VH) each criterion into crisp values: This calculation is done

Low (L) Medium (M) High (H) by using center of area defuzzication method.

Step 6: Determine the best fj and the worst fj values of all cri-

terion ratings, j = 1, 2, . . ., n

i

i

X

n

Si wj fj fij = fi fi ; 6

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 j1

Fig. 1. Linguistic variables for importance weight of each criteria (Sanayei et al., Ri max wj fj fij = fi fi : 7

2010). j

G.N. Ycenur, N.. Demirel / Expert Systems with Applications 39 (2012) 37023707 3705

Table 2

where A(2) is the alternative with second position in the ranking

Importance weight of criteria from three decision makers. list by Q;DQ = 1/(J 1).

C2. Acceptable stability in decision making: The alternative A(1)

Criteria Decision makers

must also be the best ranked by S or/and R. This compromise

D1 D2 D3 solution is stable within a decision making process, which could

C1 H VH VH be the strategy of maximum group utility (when v > 0.5 is

C2 H H H needed), or by consensus v 0.5, or with veto (v < 0.5).

C3 MH H MH

Here, v is the weight of decision making strategy of maximum

C4 MH MH M

C5 M MH M group utility. If one of the conditions is not satised, then a

C6 ML ML M set of compromise solutions is proposed, which consist of

C7 ML ML ML Alternatives A(1) and A(2) if only the conditions C2 is not sat-

C8 M ML ML ised, or

Alternatives A(1), A(2), . . ., A(M) if the condition C1 is not satis-

ed; A(M) is determined by the relation Q(A(M)) Q(A(1)) < DQ

Step 8: Compute the values Qi by the relations

for maximum M (the positions of these alternatives are in

Q i v Si S =S S 1 v Ri R =R R 8 closeness).

where S = miniSi, S = maxiSi, R = min Rii, R = maxRii and v is

5. Numerical example for selection problem

introduced as a weight for the strategy of maximum group

utility, whereas 1 v is the weight of the individual regret.

The proposed model has been applied to an insurance company

Step 9: Rank the alternatives, sorting by the values S, R and Q in

selection problem of an international insurance rm which wants

ascending order

to purchase a public insurance company in Turkey.

Step 10: Propose as a compromise solution the alternative (A(1))

The steps of the solution process can be dened as in follows:

which is the best ranked by the measure Q (minimum)

if the following two conditions are satised

Step 1: The international company desires to select a suitable

public insurance rm in Turkey to purchase its nancial struc-

C1. Acceptable advantage:

ture. After preliminary screening, ve candidate Turkish insur-

Q A2 Q A1 P DQ; 9 ance rms (A1, A2, A3, A4, A5) remain for further evaluation.

Table 3

Ratings of the ve alternative insurance rms by the decision makers under the various criteria.

Alternatives Criteria

C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8

Decision maker

D1 A1 MP MP MP MG G G F MP

A2 MG P P P MP MP MP MP

A3 MP F VG F MG G F F

A4 VG P P VP P P P MP

A5 VP MG MG G G VG F MG

D2 A1 MP F MP G G VG MG MP

A2 F P P P MP MP MP MP

A3 P MG VG MG G G F F

A4 VG P VP VP P VP P P

A5 VP F MG VG G VG MG MG

D3 A1 F MP P MG G G F F

A2 MG MP VP MP P F MP MP

A3 P MG G MG G MG F F

A4 VG P VP P VP P VP P

A5 P G MG G MG VG MG MG

3706 G.N. Ycenur, N.. Demirel / Expert Systems with Applications 39 (2012) 37023707

Table 5

(0.10, 0.23, 0 27, 0.50)

Crisp values for decision matrix and weight of each criterion.

(0.20, 0.37, 0.43, 0.60)

(0.20, 0.30, 0.40, 0.50)

(0.40, 0.50, 0.50, 0.60)

Criteria

C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8

Weight 0.87 0.80 0.70 0.60 0.57 0.40 0.35 0.40

C8 A1 0.40 0.40 0.30 0.70 0.80 0.85 0.57 0.40

A2 0.60 0.27 0.15 0.27 0.30 0.40 0.35 0.35

A3 0.27 0.60 0.87 0.60 0.72 0.72 0.50 0.50

A4 0.92 0.20 0.12 0.12 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.27

(0. 40, 0.53, 0.57, 0.80)

(0.00, 0.13, 0.17, 0.30)

(0.20, 0.30, 0.40, 0.50)

A5 0.12 0.65 0.65 0.85 0.72 0.92 0.60 0.65

(0.20, 030, 0.40, 0.50)

Table 6

The values of S, R and Q for all alternative insurance rms.

C7

Alternatives

A1 A2 A3 A4 A5

(0.80, 0.90, 1.00, 1 00)

(0.30, 0.73, 0.77, 0.90)

(0.20, 0.37, 0.43, 0.60)

(0.70, 0.83, 0.87, 1.00)

(0.20, 0.37, 0.43, 0.60)

R 0.76 0.96 0.81 1 1

Q 0.14 0.80 0.18 1.00 0.50

C6

Table 7

The ranking of the alternative insurance rms by S, R and Q in decreasing order.

(0.40, 0.53, 0.57, 0.80)

(0.50, 0.73, 0.77, 0.90)

(0.00, 0.13, 0.17, 0.30)

(0.70, 0.80, 0.80, 0.90)

Ranking alternatives

1 2 3 4 5

By S A5 A3 A1 A2 A4

By R A1 A3 A2 A5 A4

By Q A1 A3 A5 A2 A4

C5

(0.40, 0.57, 0 63, 0.80)

(0.40, 0.57, 0.63, 0.80)

(0.50, 0.67, 0.73, 0.90)

(0.10, 0.23, 0.27, 0.50)

has been formed to select the most suitable insurance rm.

The following criteria have been dened:

Price

Protability

C4

Portfolio structure

Portfolio size

(0.50, 0.67, 0.73, 0.90)

(0.10, 0.27, 0.33, 0.50)

(0.00, 0.13, 0.17, 0.30)

Brand equity

Organizational quality (Technical and social structure).

Aggregated fuzzy weight of criteria and aggregated fuzzy rating of alternatives.

companys ability to meet its long-term obligations and

C3

(0.20, 0.37, 0.43, 0.60)

(0.10, 0.23, 0.27, 0.50)

(0.40, 0.57, 0.63, 0.80)

(0.70, 0.80, 0.80, 0.90)

in Fig. 3.

Step 3: Three decision makers use the linguistic weighting vari-

ables shown in Fig. 2 to assess the importance of the criteria.

The importance weights of the criteria determined by these

C2

makers use the linguistic rating variables shown in Fig. 2 to

(0.70, 0.87, 0.93, 1.00)

(0.20, 0.37, 0.43, 0.60)

(0.40, 0.57, 0.63, 0.80)

(0.10, 0.23, 0.27, 0.50)

(0.80, 0.90, 1.00, 1.00)

(0.00, 0.07, 0.13, 0.30)

The ratings of the ve insurance rm alternatives by the

decision makers under the various criteria are shown in

Table 3.

Criteria

converted into trapezoidal fuzzy numbers. Then the aggregated

Cl

calculated to construct the fuzzy decision matrix and determine

Weight

Table 4

A2

A3

A4

A5

Step 5: The crisp values for decision matrix and weight of each

Al

G.N. Ycenur, N.. Demirel / Expert Systems with Applications 39 (2012) 37023707 3707

Step 6: The best and the worst values of all criterion ratings are recommended alternative insurance companies according to criteria

determined as follows: such as price, protability, portfolio structure, portfolio size,

f 1 = 0.92 f 2 = 0.65 f 3 = 0.87 f 4 = 0.85 f 5 = 0.80 f 6 = 0.92 f 7 = 0.60 f 8 = 0.65

f 1 =0.12 f 2 = 0.20 f 3 = 0.12 f 4 = 0.12 f 5 = 0.15 f 6 = 0.15 f 7 = 0.15 f 8 = 0.27

Steps 7: The value of S is calculated for all alternative rms as sales channel structure, brand equity, organizational quality and

Table 6. solvency ratio.

Steps 8: The value of R is calculated for all alternative rms as

Table 6. References

Steps 9: The value of Q is calculated for all alternative rms as

Table 6. Chang, C.-L., & Hsu, C.-H. (2009). Multi-criteria analysis via the VIKOR method for

prioritizing land-use restraint strategies in the TsengWen reservoir watershed.

Step 10: The ranking of the alternative rms by S, R and Q in Journal of Environmental Management, 90, 32263230.

decreasing order is shown in Table 7. Chang, T.-H., & Wang, T.-C. (2009). Using the fuzzy multi-criteria decision making

approach for measuring the possibility of successful knowledge management.

Information Sciences, 179, 355370.

Alternative I is the most suitable insurance company for Chen, L. Y., & Wang, T.-C. (2009). Optimizing partners choice in IS/IT outsourcing

purchasing by the foreign investor and the alternative insurance projects: The strategic decision of fuzzy VIKOR. International Journal of

companies after this are third and fth ones according to Production Economics, 120, 233242.

<www.treasury.gov.tr>, Arrival date: 28.04.2010.

Q value. <www.turkisheconomy.org.uk>, Arrival date: 28.04.2010.

Kaya, T., Kahraman, C., (2010). Multicriteria renewable energy planning using an

integrated fuzzy VIKOR & AHP methodology: The case of Istanbul. Energy, (pp.

111), doi:10.1016/j.energy.2010.02.051.

6. Conclusion

Kelemenis, A., & Askounis, A. (2010). A new TOPSIS-based multi-criteria approach to

personnel selection. Expert Systems with Applications, 37, 49995008.

The multi-criteria nature of the problem makes multi-criteria Liou, J. J. H., Tsai, C.-Y., Lin, R.-H., & Tzeng, G.-H. (2010). A modied VIKOR multiple-

decision making methods and fuzzy logic ideal to cope with this, criteria decision method for improving domestic airlines service quality. Journal

of Air Transport Management, 15. doi:10.1016/j.jairtraman.2010.03.004.

given that they consider many criteria at the same time, with var- Ma, J., Lu, J., & Zhang, G. (2010). Decider: A fuzzy multi-criteria group decision

ious weights and thresholds, having the potential to reect at a support system. Knowledge-Based Systems, 23, 2331.

very satisfactory degree the vague most of the times prefer- Opricovic, S. (1998). Multicriteria optimization of civil engineering systems (in

Serbian, Visekriterijumska optimizacija sistema u gradjevinarstvu). Faculty of

ences of the DMs (Kelemenis & Askounis, 2010). Civil Engineering, Belgrade.

In this paper extended VIKOR method is proposed to deal with Opricovic, S., & Tzeng, G. H. (2002). Multicriteria planning of post-earthquake

the criteria and select the most suitable alternative insurance com- sustainable reconstruction. Computer-Aided Civil and Infrastructure Engineering,

17, 211220.

pany for the foreign investor who wants to purchase a local insur- Opricovic, S., & Tzeng, G.-H. (2007). Extended VIKOR method in comparison with

ance company in Turkey. The VIKOR method focuses on ranking outranking methods. European Journal of Operational Research, 178, 514529.

and selecting from a set of alternatives in the presence of conict- Sanayei, A., Mousavi, S. F., & Yazdankhah, A. (2010). Group decision making process

for supplier selection with VIKOR under fuzzy environment. Expert Systems with

ing criteria. It determines a compromise solution that could be ac- Applications, 37, 2430.

cepted by the decision makers. In this paper, VIKOR method is used Sayadi, M. K., Heydari, M., & Shahanaghi, K. (2009). Extension of VIKOR method for

under fuzzy environment with fuzzy sets. decision making problem with interval numbers. Applied Mathematical

Modelling, 33, 22572262.

According to the nal score, rst insurance company is the most

Zarghami, M., & Szidarovszky, F. (2009). Revising the OWA operator for multi

suitable company for the foreign investor. This alternative has the criteria decision making problems under uncertainty. European Journal of

minimum Q value. Third and fth alternatives are the next Operational Research, 198, 259265.

- Panasonic 8020E ManualDiunggah olehKate Hook
- f312811710649125.pdfDiunggah olehHadiBies
- QCP - Mill FabricationDiunggah olehGustav
- 7184362-Toshiba_E-studio_200l_230_280_Service_Handbook.pdfDiunggah olehHettiarachchi Jayasinghe
- Developing Nigeria Oil and Gas Pipeline Using Multi-criteria Decision Analysis (McdaDiunggah olehRowland Adewumi
- mcdaDiunggah olehwbotha
- Lean Supplier Selection based on Hybrid MCGDM Approach using Interval Valued Neutrosophic Sets: A Case StudyDiunggah olehMia Amalia
- switzerland style electionDiunggah olehSiti Munirah
- Grillage Properties for PSC GirdersDiunggah olehMohammad Munazir Ali
- Stylus Pro 7600-9600Diunggah olehRoberto Torrez Kraudy
- 25045-19-3PS-01305r0Diunggah olehSiltee
- Solidworks Drawing and DetailingDiunggah olehAura Omelco
- Toshiba Fax Board Gd1220 1221 Sm v02Diunggah olehTJ
- Evaluation GridsDiunggah olehtibisan6950
- Comparative Analysis of AHP and Fuzzy AHP Models for Multicriteria Inventory ClassificationDiunggah olehorlandoduran
- Develope bumper standarsdDiunggah olehmanideep219
- cx11n_baDiunggah olehFlorian Mihailescu
- Decision MakingDiunggah olehedgar jr. suyat
- service manual sharp ar5618Diunggah olehAfif Zarrad
- Part 6 - Option Items & SystemDiunggah olehLeandro Pinto
- OPTDiunggah olehvikram
- Aficio1224-32Diunggah olehgetjamey
- KM-4230-5230S-1Diunggah olehJose Garcia Silva
- decision Making - mktg.pptDiunggah olehjayabalan68
- AR5316_CTLGDiunggah olehPodupani Thurai
- Brochure Bizhub PRO 951Diunggah olehmrdavidjohn
- CanonLBP3200Diunggah olehparsfama
- Brave Diggers Skill Trigger ChanceDiunggah olehJancolin Yani
- CS 460 Management of Corrugated Steel Buried Structures-webDiunggah olehSurendra Mishra
- conceptual design reportDiunggah olehapi-248063185

- 8D4C95F18EBA - 2012shuttlebus Logo eDiunggah olehmichael17ph2003
- Wu (2014) Business intelligence in risk management Some recent progresses.pdfDiunggah olehmichael17ph2003
- Wu (2014) Business intelligence in risk management Some recent progresses.pdfDiunggah olehmichael17ph2003
- FADesignManual v2 12 SPDiunggah olehmichael17ph2003
- 9783642036460-c1 (3)Diunggah olehmichael17ph2003
- Roof DrainageDiunggah olehISAIASHEREDIA
- Iwata (2014) Public AndprivatemitigationfornaturaldisastersinJapanDiunggah olehmichael17ph2003
- Aoki and Rothwell (2013) a ComparativeinstitutionalanalysisoftheFukushimanucleardisaster ENERGY POLICYDiunggah olehmichael17ph2003
- 491038Diunggah olehmichael17ph2003
- Noy (2010) the Economics of Natural Disasters in a Developing Country the Case of VietnamDiunggah olehmichael17ph2003
- Noy (2010) the Economics of Natural Disasters in a Developing Country the Case of VietnamDiunggah olehmichael17ph2003
- Abbas (2013) a Semi-quantitativeriskassessmentmodelofprimaryhealth Care Service Interruption During Flood Case Study of Aroma Locality Kassala State of SudanDiunggah olehmichael17ph2003
- 2 22 2013Sudano-Perz PresentationDiunggah olehmichael17ph2003
- Ainuddin (2012) Communityresilienceframeworkforanearthquake Prone Area in BaluchistanDiunggah olehmichael17ph2003
- Wu (2013) Multi-scaleseismichazardandriskintheChinamainland With Implication for the Preparedness Mitigation and Management of Earthquake Disasters an OverviewDiunggah olehmichael17ph2003
- Hood (2013) Investor Response to a Natural Disaster Evidence From Japan's 2011 EarthquakeDiunggah olehmichael17ph2003
- Paul, S. and Routray, J. (2011). Household response to cyclone and induced surge in costal Bangladesh coping strategies and explanatory variables. Nat Hazards..pdfDiunggah olehmichael17ph2003
- Joerin (2012) Assessingcommunityresiliencetoclimate-relateddisastersin Chennai IndiaDiunggah olehmichael17ph2003
- Pasaribu (2010) Developing rice farm insurance in Indonesia.pdfDiunggah olehmichael17ph2003
- Pasaribu (2010) Developing rice farm insurance in Indonesia.pdfDiunggah olehmichael17ph2003
- Zeng (2010) Development Evaluation of China’s Policy-Oriented Agricultural Insurance Based on the Realization Degree of Policy ObjectivesDiunggah olehmichael17ph2003
- Iwata (2014) Public AndprivatemitigationfornaturaldisastersinJapanDiunggah olehmichael17ph2003
- Pasupuleti (2013) Designingculturallyresponsivebuiltenvironmentsinpost disaster.pdfDiunggah olehmichael17ph2003
- You (2014) Risk, Under-Investment in Agricultural Assets and Dynamic Asset Poverty in Rural ChinaDiunggah olehmichael17ph2003
- You (2014) Risk, Under-Investment in Agricultural Assets and Dynamic Asset Poverty in Rural ChinaDiunggah olehmichael17ph2003
- Chen Et Al. (2Policy Support, Social Capital, And Farmers' Adaptation to Drought in China. Global Environmental Change.Diunggah olehmichael17ph2003
- Panda (2013) Adaptive Capacity Contributing to Improved Agricultural Productivity at the Household Level Empirical Findings Highlighting the Importance of Crop InsuranceDiunggah olehmichael17ph2003
- Eiser (2012) Risk Interpretationandaction Aconceptualframeworkfor Responses to Natural HazardsDiunggah olehmichael17ph2003
- Eiser (2012) Risk Interpretationandaction Aconceptualframeworkfor Responses to Natural HazardsDiunggah olehmichael17ph2003

- Supply Chain Management PaperDiunggah olehSwapnil Jaiswal
- Simple-Additive-Weighting-Methods-of-Multi.pdfDiunggah olehRumanul Bustomi Muhammad
- 28824_Facility Layout Paper (1)Diunggah olehAhmed El Kady
- 74 MCDA FerrettiDiunggah olehIvoGraziotin
- Bipolar Neutrosophic Projection Based MoDiunggah olehManjiraSaha
- 45 ModellingDiunggah olehcvenkatasunil
- 1.pdfDiunggah olehdarshanpokar
- NEUTROSOPHIC OPERATIONAL RESEARCH, Volume IIIDiunggah olehAnonymous 0U9j6BLllB
- The Risk Assessment Of Earth Dam.pdfDiunggah olehDewa Gede Soja Prabawa
- 1-s2.0-S0957417410004720-mainDiunggah olehKchiey Sshi
- XuYang MSM WorkingPaperFinalDiunggah olehSidneyMenezes
- A Study on the Role of Intuitionistic Fuzzy Set InDiunggah olehmarijaas
- An MCDA Approach for Project Selection in Public SectorDiunggah olehMauricio Spinola
- GIS and Multi Criteria Decision AnalysisDiunggah olehLuci Zendonadi
- Topsis and AhpDiunggah olehnskumar_19986252
- 1Diunggah olehMBRMSM
- cp04-4fuzzyDiunggah olehZuhair Mohammed Omer
- v110n08p415Diunggah olehpaulogmello
- Priorities - Evidence Synthesis - Kapiriri - SSM 2017Diunggah olehbrayanseixas7840
- yuichi.pdfDiunggah olehRyan Ali
- Multi Criteria Decision Making a Case of Locating Low Cost Carrier Terminal (Air) in MalaysiaDiunggah olehmyie83
- Cost Benefit of RFID implementationDiunggah olehReel Lee
- Multi Criteria Decision Making_PresentationDiunggah olehaditya719
- Selection of Materials Using Multi-criteria Decision-making Methods With Minimum DataDiunggah olehParamasivam Veerappan
- Rezaei Rezaie Nazari-Shirkouhi Tajabadi 45Diunggah olehdev2945
- Decision ModelsDiunggah olehAkhil Antony Jacob
- Environmental Refugees- Obinna OkaforDiunggah olehOkafor Obinna R
- A Fuzzy Multi Criteria Risk Assessment Based on Decision Matrix Technique a Case Study for Aluminum IndustryDiunggah olehsatheeshsep24
- Advances in Decision Analysis (Mathematical Modelling Theory and Applications) by Nadine MeskensDiunggah olehOzgur Tung
- d44Diunggah olehAhmed