Use of consistency index, expert prioritization and direct numerical inputs for generic fuzzy-AHP modeling: A process model for shipping asset management

The aim of this paper is to develop a generic version of the conventional fuzzy-analytic hierarchy process (FAHP) method and investigate the shipping asset management (SAM) problem in the dry bulk shipping market. The recent literature has various applications of the FAHP, but these studies lack consistency control, use identical decision support rather than weighted expert choices, and lack measurable criteria. The proposed model, generic fuzzy-AHP (here after GF-AHP), provides a standard control of consistency on the decision matrix for the expert group. GF-AHP also improves the capabilities of the FAHP by executing direct numerical inputs without expert consultation. In practical business, some of the criteria can be easily calculated and expert consultation is a redundant process. Therefore, GF-AHP presents how to transform such numerical inputs to a priority scale. Finally, expertise differences on the decision group are reflected in the GF-AHP process by an expert weighting algorithm.

[1]  Okan Duru,et al.  Multi-Attribute Decision Making for Crew Nationality Pattern Selection in the Shipping Business: An Empirical Study for Turkish Shipping Case , 2010 .

[2]  José María Moreno-Jiménez,et al.  The geometric consistency index: Approximated thresholds , 2003, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[3]  G. Crawford,et al.  A note on the analysis of subjective judgment matrices , 1985 .

[4]  D. Chang Applications of the extent analysis method on fuzzy AHP , 1996 .

[5]  Victor B. Kreng,et al.  Evaluation of knowledge portal development tools using a fuzzy AHP approach: The case of Taiwanese stone industry , 2007, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[6]  Luis G. Vargas,et al.  Uncertainty and rank order in the analytic hierarchy process , 1987 .

[7]  Cengiz Kahraman,et al.  Multi-attribute comparison of catering service companies using fuzzy AHP: The case of Turkey , 2004 .

[8]  R. Ramanathan,et al.  Group preference aggregation methods employed in AHP: An evaluation and an intrinsic process for deriving members' weightages , 1994 .

[9]  Fritz Klocke,et al.  Evaluating alternative production cycles using the extended fuzzy AHP method , 1997, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[10]  J. Buckley,et al.  Fuzzy hierarchical analysis , 1999, FUZZ-IEEE'99. 1999 IEEE International Fuzzy Systems. Conference Proceedings (Cat. No.99CH36315).

[11]  Felix T.S. Chan,et al.  Evaluation methodologies for technology selection , 2000 .

[12]  Thomas L. Saaty,et al.  DECISION MAKING WITH THE ANALYTIC HIERARCHY PROCESS , 2008 .

[13]  A. D. Pearman,et al.  Judgment and Decision Making: An Interdisciplinary Reader , 1999 .

[14]  Alev Taskin Gumus,et al.  Evaluation of hazardous waste transportation firms by using a two step fuzzy-AHP and TOPSIS methodology , 2009, Expert Syst. Appl..

[15]  L. C. Leung,et al.  On consistency and ranking of alternatives in fuzzy AHP , 2000, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[16]  J W Hedge,et al.  Personnel selection. , 1997, Annual review of psychology.

[17]  W. Pedrycz,et al.  A fuzzy extension of Saaty's priority theory , 1983 .

[18]  Ludmil Mikhailov,et al.  Evaluation of services using a fuzzy analytic hierarchy process , 2004, Appl. Soft Comput..

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

[20]  Ozan Çakir,et al.  A web-based decision support system for multi-criteria inventory classification using fuzzy AHP methodology , 2008, Expert Syst. Appl..

[21]  T. L. Saaty A Scaling Method for Priorities in Hierarchical Structures , 1977 .

[22]  Hoang Pham,et al.  A methodology for priority setting with application to software development process , 1999, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[23]  Kirti Peniwati,et al.  Aggregating individual judgments and priorities with the analytic hierarchy process , 1998, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[24]  Francisco Herrera,et al.  Integrating three representation models in fuzzy multipurpose decision making based on fuzzy preference relations , 1998, Fuzzy Sets Syst..