Selection of Best Scooter Model using the Fuzzy- AHP MCDM Methodology

Debojit Roy*, Soupayan Mitra**
*-** Department of Mechanical Engineering, Jalpaiguri Government Engineering College, Jalpaiguri, West Bengal, India.
Periodicity:March - May'2022

Abstract

The Multi-Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) is a new and advanced managerial tool for evaluating the best solution at the optimal level. The main purpose of the MCDM tool is to solve complex decision problems where the decision-makers are experiencing lots of conflicts. The decisions are to be made based on the criteria and their relative importance. If the decision that has to be taken have financial and resource involvement, the decision has to be taken very attentively. Selecting the best-suited scooter also involves many complex aspects like design and ergonomics, power output, fuel economy, price, and many other aspects. The objectives of this particular work are to find the best scooter model among four selective alternatives and to study and evaluate various MCDM tools like the Fuzzy-AHP methods, which are vigorously used in solving different complex decision or selection problems based on criteria associated with this problem.

Keywords

Fuzzy-AHP, MCDM, Selection, Scooter.

How to Cite this Article?

Roy, D., and Mitra, S. (2022). Selection of Best Scooter Model using the Fuzzy- AHP MCDM Methodology. i-manager’s Journal on Management, 16(4), 31-41.

References

[1]. Anupama, K. S. S., Gowri, S. S., Rao, B. P., & Rajesh, P. (2015). Application of madm algorithms to network selection. International Journal of Innovative Research in Electrical, Electronics, Instrumentation and Control Engineering, 3(6), 64-67.
[2]. Biswas, T. K., Chaki, S., & Das, M. C. (2019). MCDM technique application to the selection of an Indian institute of technology. Operational Research in Engineering Sciences: Theory and Applications, 2(3), 65-76.
[3]. Brauers, W.K. (2004). Optimization Methods for a Stakeholder Society. A Revolution in Economic Thinking by Multiobjective Optimization. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston.
[4]. Buckley, J. J. (1985). Fuzzy hierarchical analysis. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 17(3), 233-247. https://doi.org/10.1016/0165-0114(85)90090-9
[5]. Buckley, J. J., Feuring, T., & Hayashi, Y. (2001). Fuzzy hierarchical analysis revisited. European Journal of Operational Research, 129(1), 48-64. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0377-2217(99)00405-1
[6]. Chaibate, H., Hadek, A., Ajana, S., & Bakkali, S. (2021). Analytical hierarchy process applied to pedagogical method selection problems. Education Research International, 2021, 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/6664758
[7]. Chen, Y., & Qu, L. (2006). Evaluating the selection of logistics centre location using fuzzy MCDM model based on entropy weight. In 2006, 6th World Congress on Intelligent Control and Automation, 2, 7128-7132. https://doi.org/10.1109/WCICA.2006.1714468
[8]. de FSM Russo, R., & Camanho, R. (2015). Criteria in AHP: a systematic review of literature. Procedia Computer Science, 55, 1123-1132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2015.07.081
[9]. Hasan, M. F., & Sobhan, M. A. (2020). Describing Fuzzy membership function and detecting the outlier by using five number summary of data. American Journal of Computational Mathematics, 10(3), 410-424. https://doi.org/10.4236/ajcm.2020.103022
[10]. Hwang, C. L., Lai, Y. J., & Liu, T. Y. (1993). A new approach for multiple objective decision making. Computers & Operations Research, 20(8), 889-899. https://doi.org/10.1016/0305-0548(93)90109-V
[11]. Jozaghi, A., Alizadeh, B., Hatami, M., Flood, I., Khorrami, M., Khodaei, N., & Ghasemi Tousi, E. (2018). A comparative study of the AHP and TOPSIS techniques for dam site selection using GIS: A case study of Sistan and Baluchestan Province, Iran. Geosciences, 8(12), 494. https://doi.org/10.3390/geosciences8120494
[12]. Kao, J. C., Wang, C. N., Nguyen, V. T., & Husain, S. T. (2022). A fuzzy mcdm model of supplier selection in supply chain management. Intelligent Automation and Soft Computing, 31(3), 1451-1466.
[13]. Kaya, I., Colak, M., & Terzi, F. (2019). A comprehensive review of fuzzy multi criteria decision making methodologies for energy policy making. Energy Strategy Reviews, 24, 207-228. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esr.2019.03.003
[14]. Kung, J. Y., Chuang, T. N., & Ky, C. M. (2011). A fuzzy MCDM method to select the best company based on financial report analysis. In 2011, IEEE International Conference on Fuzzy Systems (FUZZ-IEEE 2011), 2013-2017. https://doi.org/10.1109/FUZZY.2011.6007679
[15]. Kuo, M. S., & Liang, G. S. (2011). Combining VIKOR with GRA techniques to evaluate service quality of airports under fuzzy environment. Expert Systems with Applications, 38(3), 1304-1312. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2010.07.003
[16]. Lokare, V. T., & Jadhav, P. M. (2016). Using the AHP and TOPSIS methods for decision making in best course selection after HSC. In 2016, International Conference on Computer Communication and Informatics (ICCCI), 1-6. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICCCI.2016.7479937
[17]. Mukhametzyanov, I., & Pamucar, D. (2018). A sensitivity analysis in MCDM problems: A statistical approach. Decision Making: Applications in Management and Engineering, 1(2), 51-80.
[18]. Opricovic, S., & Tzeng, G. H. (2004). Compromise solution by MCDM methods: A comparative analysis of VIKOR and TOPSIS. European Journal of Operational Research, 156(2), 445-455. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0377-2217(03)00020-1
[19]. Radwan, N. (2014). What is the difference between AHP, Fuzzy AHP, Fuzzy Logic and Fuzzy Delphi method? Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_is_the_difference_between_AHP_Fuzzy_AHP_Fuzzy_Logic_and_Fuzzy_Delphi_method/548dd83ed4c11826128b45f4/citation/download
[20]. Saaty, T. L. (2014). Analytic Heirarchy Process. Wiley StatsRef: Statistics Reference Online. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118445112.stat05310
[21]. Seçme, N. Y., Bayrakdaroğlu, A., & Kahraman, C. (2009). Fuzzy performance evaluation in Turkish banking sector using analytic hierarchy process and TOPSIS. Expert Systems with Applications, 36(9), 11699-11709. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2009.03.013
[22]. Tang, Y. C., & Beynon, M. J. (2005). Application and development of a fuzzy analytic hierarchy process within a capital investment study. Journal of Economics and Management, 1(2), 207-230.
[23]. Taweesangrungroj, A., Rattanabanchuen, R., & Sinthupinyo, S. (2022). A Decision-Making Model of Technological-Focused Government Agency Selection of Technological Start-Up Businesses. Trends in Sciences, 19(1), 1749-1749. https://doi.org/10.48048/tis.2022.1749
[24]. Zadeh, L. A. (1965). Fuzzy Sets. Information and Control, 8(3), 338-353. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0019-9958(65)90241-X
[25]. Zeynali, M., Aghdaie, M.H., Rezaeiniya, N., & Zolfani, S.H. (2012). A hybrid fuzzy multiple criteria decision making (MCDM) approach to combination of materials selection. African Journal of Business Management, 6(45), 11171-11178. https://doi.org/10.5897/AJBM11.2022
If you have access to this article please login to view the article or kindly login to purchase the article

Purchase Instant Access

Single Article

North Americas,UK,
Middle East,Europe
India Rest of world
USD EUR INR USD-ROW
Pdf 35 35 200 20
Online 35 35 200 15
Pdf & Online 35 35 400 25

Options for accessing this content:
  • If you would like institutional access to this content, please recommend the title to your librarian.
    Library Recommendation Form
  • If you already have i-manager's user account: Login above and proceed to purchase the article.
  • New Users: Please register, then proceed to purchase the article.