Fuzzy MCDM application for strategy evaluation

The essence of strategy formulation is coping with competition. Therefore, the nature and degree of competition in an industry hinge on four basic forces: Production, Technology, Marketing and R&D are defined. To establish a strategic agenda for dealing with these contending currents and to grow despite them, a company must understand how they work in its industry and how they affect the company in its particular situation. This study adopt Fuzzy MCDM methods and details how these forces operate and suggests ways of adjusting to them, and, where possible of evaluation, of taking advantage of them. Knowledge of these underlying sources of competitive pressure provides the groundwork for a strategic agenda of action. The result highlights the critical strategies distance of the company, animate the positioning of the company in its industry, clarify the areas where strategic changes may yield the greatest payoff, and highlight the places where industry trends promise to hold the greatest significance as either opportunities or threats.

[1]  Gwo-Hshiung Tzeng,et al.  Extended VIKOR method in comparison with outranking methods , 2007, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[2]  T. L. Saaty,et al.  Decision making with dependence and feedback , 2001 .

[3]  Thomas L. Saaty,et al.  Theory and Applications of the Analytic Network Process: Decision Making With Benefits, Opportunities, Costs, and Risks , 2005 .

[4]  Mei-Chen Lo,et al.  Technology assessment as a guidance to business management of new technologies , 2007, 2007 IEEE International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management.

[5]  Gwo-Hshiung Tzeng,et al.  Evaluating intertwined effects in e-learning programs: A novel hybrid MCDM model based on factor analysis and DEMATEL , 2007, Expert Syst. Appl..

[6]  Gwo-Hshiung Tzeng,et al.  Compromise solution by MCDM methods: A comparative analysis of VIKOR and TOPSIS , 2004, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[7]  T. Saaty Axiomatic foundation of the analytic hierarchy process , 1986 .

[8]  Thomas L. Saaty,et al.  Fundamentals of the analytic network process — multiple networks with benefits, costs, opportunities and risks , 2004 .

[9]  T. Saaty,et al.  The Analytic Hierarchy Process , 1985 .

[10]  Thomas L. Saaty,et al.  Decision making with dependence and feedback : the analytic network process : the organization and prioritization of complexity , 1996 .

[11]  Yuichi Nakamura,et al.  Approximation of dynamical systems by continuous time recurrent neural networks , 1993, Neural Networks.

[12]  T. Saaty Fundamentals of the analytic network process — Dependence and feedback in decision-making with a single network , 2004 .

[13]  M. Porter Towards a dynamic theory of strategy , 1991 .

[14]  Thomas L. Saaty What is the analytic hierarchy process , 1988 .

[15]  T. Saaty RANK GENERATION, PRESERVATION, AND REVERSAL IN THE ANALYTIC HIERARCHY DECISION PROCESS , 1987 .

[16]  Gwo-Hshiung Tzeng,et al.  Multicriteria Planning of Post‐Earthquake Sustainable Reconstruction , 2002 .

[17]  P. Yu A Class of Solutions for Group Decision Problems , 1973 .

[18]  M. Freimer,et al.  Some New Results on Compromise Solutions for Group Decision Problems , 1976 .

[19]  Gwo-Hshiung Tzeng,et al.  Fuzzy decision maps: a generalization of the DEMATEL methods , 2010, Soft Comput..

[20]  A. Michel,et al.  Stability theory for hybrid dynamical systems , 1998, IEEE Trans. Autom. Control..