Search

Industrial relocation (IR) is a business strategy consisting of moving operations locations. The purpose of this paper is to present how to assess, with multi-attribute decision-making (MADM), alternatives for IR. With MADM, IR strategies can be assessed not only based on a single attribute, as costs, or profits. This paper presents the application of MADM in a real case of IR. Four leading methods of MADM were applied: analytic hierarchy process (AHP), multi-attribute utility theory (MAUT), multi-attribute value theory (MAVT), and technique of order preference by similarity to ideal solution (TOPSIS). Results of AHP, MAUT, MAVT, and TOPSIS were quite similar, indicating the decision for the company not to relocate. A joint comparison of results with compatibility indices and correlation coefficients is the major novelty presented by this paper to the field of Operations Research, known as MADM. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Organisations need to develop long-term strategies to ensure they incorporate innovation for environmental sustainability (IES) to remain competitive in the market. This can be challenging given the high level of uncertainty regarding the future (e.g., following the COVID pandemic). Supplier selection is an important decision that organisations make and can be designed to support IES. While the literature provides various criteria in the field of IES strategies, it does not identify the criteria which can be utilised to assist organisations in their supplier selection decisions. Moreover, the literature in this field does not consider uncertainty related to the occurrence of possible future events which may influence the importance of these criteria. To address this gap, this paper develops a novel criteria decision framework to assist supplier evaluation in organisations, taking into consideration different events that may occur in the future. The framework that combines three decision-making methods: the stratified multi-criteria decision-making method, best worst method, and technique for order of preference by similarity to ideal solution. The framework, proposed in this paper, can also be adopted to enable effective and sustainable decision making under uncertainty in various fields. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Technique for Order of Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) and Simple Additive Weighting (SAW) are among the most employed approaches for aggregating performances in Multi-Criteria Decision-Making (MCDM). TOPSIS and SAW are two MCDM methods based on the value function approach and are often used in combination with other MCDM methods in order to produce rankings of alternatives. In this paper, first, we analyse some common features of these two MCDM methods with a specific reference to the additive properties of the value function and to the sensitivity of the value function to trade-off weights. Based on such methodological insights, an experimental comparison of the results provided by these two aggregation methods across a computational test is performed. Specifically, similarities in rankings of alternatives produced by TOPSIS and SAW are evaluated under three different Minkowski distances (namely, the Euclidean, Manhattan and Tchebichev ones). Similarities are measured trough a set of statistical indices. Results show that TOPSIS, when used in combination with a Manhattan distance, produces rankings which are extremely similar to the ones resulting from SAW. Similarities are also Experimental results confirm that rankings produced by TOPSIS methods are closer to SAW ones when similar formal properties are satisfied. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Failure mode and effects analysis (FMEA) is known to be a proactive reliability analysis model broadly utilized to recognize and evaluate potential failure modes in various industries. The normal risk priority number (RPN) method, however, has suffers from a lot of criticisms, such as requirement of precise risk estimation, lack of scientific basis in computing RPN, and neglecting the weights of risk factors. Therefore, this paper devises a new FMEA model to evaluate and prioritize the risk of failure modes by integrating probabilistic linguistic term sets and TODIM (an acronym in Portuguese for interactive multi-criteria decision making) method. The probabilistic linguistic term sets are utilized to handle the intrinsic ambiguity existed in the risk assessments of FMEA team members, whilst an extended TODIM method is employed for determining the priority ranking of the individuated failure modes. Further, based on the technique for order of preference by similarity to ideal solution (TOPSIS), an objective weighting method is presented to derive the relative weights of risk factors. Finally, two illustrative examples are implemented and comparisons with other existing methods are performed to demonstrate the rationality and superiority of our proposed FMEA model. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this study, we propose an effective integration of multi criteria decision making methods and Bayesian networks (BN) that incorporates expert knowledge. The novelty of this approach is that it provides decision support in case the experts have partial knowledge. We use decision-making trial and evaluation laboratory (DEMATEL) to elicit the causal graph of the BN based on the causal knowledge of the experts. BN provides the evaluation of alternatives based on the decision criteria which make up the initial decision matrix of the technique for order of preference by similarity to the ideal solution (TOPSIS). We then parameterize BN using Ranked Nodes which allows the experts to submit their knowledge with linguistic expressions. We propose the analytical hierarchy process to determine the weights of the decision criteria and TOPSIS to rank the alternatives. A supplier selection case study is conducted to illustrate the effectiveness of the proposed approach. Two evaluation measures, namely, the number of mismatches and the distance due to the mismatch are developed to assess the performance of the proposed approach. A scenario analysis with 5% to 20% of missing values with an increment of 5% is conducted to demonstrate that our approach remains robust as the level of missing values increases. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]