Advertisement

Soft Computing

, Volume 22, Issue 22, pp 7377–7397 | Cite as

A task-based fuzzy integrated MCDM approach for shopping mall selection considering universal design criteria

  • Gülin Feryal Can
  • Elif Kılıç Delice
Focus
  • 158 Downloads

Abstract

Shopping malls (SMs) are one of the prides of cities with their attractive appearance, charming stores and different consumer types. The heavy competition, ever increasing and diversifying consumer expectations alongside the changes in the demand equilibrium in the mall sector force managers to a really hard struggle to remain alive in the sector. This study aims to resolve the decision-making problem of SM selection by considering several different main criteria such as universal design, technical characteristics, esthetic appearance etc. The method used to resolve this problem is a task-based integrated fuzzy multi-criteria decision-making (TB-IFMCDM) approach that includes Modified Fuzzy Decision-Making Trial and Evaluation Laboratory (MF-DEMATEL) and Fuzzy Multi-Objective Optimization on the Basis of Ratio Analysis (F-MOORA). It also aims to determine the best SM through the support of universal design criteria by simultaneously considering the needs of all consumers including those of diverse populations, which is a rapidly growing market. As such, SM-selection-related tasks are given to experts who are treated like and act as consumers. Criteria weights are computed considering direct and indirect effect relations by transforming criteria importance to criteria effect, via utilization of MF-DEMATEL. Additionally, rankings of four SMs are obtained by implementing F-MOORA. Finally, a comparative analysis is conducted to determine the consistency of the ranking of the proposed approach by comparing them with the results of the fuzzy complex proportional assessment. As a result of this study, it is identified that design-related criteria are most important for SM selection.

Keywords

Universal design criteria Fuzzy numbers MCDM DEMATEL MOORA Shopping malls Consumers Fuzzy logic COPRAS 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Abdullah L, Zulkifli N (2015) Integration of fuzzy AHP and interval type-2 fuzzy DEMATEL: an application to human resource management. Expert Syst Appl 42(9):4397–4409CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Afacan Y, Erbug C (2009) An interdisciplinary heuristic evaluation method for universal building design. Appl Ergon 40(4):731–744CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Aghdaie MH, Hashemkhani Zolfani S, Zavadskas EK (2013) Market segment evaluation and selection based on application of fuzzy AHP and COPRAS-G methods. J Bus Econ Manag 14(1):213–233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ahmed ZU, Ghingold M, Dahari Z (2007) Malaysian shopping mall behavior: an exploratory study. Asia Pac J Mark Logist 19(4):333–348CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Archana M, Sujatha V (2012) Application of fuzzy MOORA and GRA in multi criteria decision making problems. Int J Comput Appl 53(9):46–50Google Scholar
  6. Akkaya G, Turanoğlu B, Öztaş S (2015) An integrated fuzzy AHP and fuzzy MOORA approach to the problem of industrial engineering sector choosing. Expert Syst Appl 42:9565–9573CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Akhavan P, Barak S, Maghsoudlou H, Antuchevičienė J (2015) FQSPM-SWOT for strategic alliance planning and partner selection; case study in a holding car manufacturer company. Technol Econ Dev Econ 21(2):165–185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Allard T, Babin BJ, Chebat JC (2009) When income matters: customers evaluation of shopping malls’ hedonic and utilitarian orientations. J Retail Consum Serv 16(1):40–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Anselmsson J (2006) Sources of customer satisfaction with shopping malls: a comparative study of different customer segments. Int Rev Retail Distrib Consum Res 16(1):115–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Aslaksen F, Bergh S, Bringa OR, Heggem EK (1997) Universal design: planning and design for all. http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1329&context=gladnetcollect. Accessed 31 March 2017
  11. Atalay KD, Can GF (2017) A new hybrid intuitionistic approach for new product selection. Soft Comput, pp 1–8.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00500-017-2517-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Baležentis A, Baležentis T, Brauers WKM (2012) Personnel selection based on computing with words and fuzzy MULTIMOORA. Expert Syst Appl 39(9):7961–7967zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bausys R, Zavadskas EK, Kaklauskas A (2015) Application of neutrosophic set to multicriteria decision making by COPRAS. Econ Comput Econ Cybern Stud Res 49(2):91–105Google Scholar
  14. Baležentis T, Baležentis A (2014) A survey on development and applications of the multi-criteria decision making method MULTIMOORA. J Multi-Criteria Decis Anal 21(3–4):209–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Brauers WKM, Zavadskas EK (2006) The MOORA method and its application to privatization in a transition economies. Control Cybern. 35(2):445–469zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. Brauers WKM, Zavadskas EK (2012) Robustness of MULTIMOORA: a method for multi-objective optimization. Informatica 23(1):1–25MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. Beecher V, Paquet V (2005) Survey instrument for the universal design of consumer products. Appl Ergon 36(3):363–372CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Bellenger DN, Robertson DH, Greenberg BA (1977) Shopping center patronage motives. J Retail 53(2):29–38Google Scholar
  19. Büyüközkan G, Çifçi G (2012) A novel hybrid MCDM approach based on fuzzy DEMATEL, fuzzy ANP and fuzzy TOPSIS to evaluate green suppliers. Expert Syst Appl 39(3):3000–3011CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Chatterjee N, Bose G (2013) A COPRAS-F base multi-criteria group decision making approach for site selection of wind farm. Decis Sci Lett 2(1):1–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Chang KH, Cheng CH (2010) A risk assessment methodology using intuitionistic fuzzy set in FMEA. Int J Syst Sci 41(12):1457–1471MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Chiu WY, Tzeng GH, Li HL (2014) Developing e-store marketing strategies to satisfy customers’ needs using a new hybrid gray relational model. Int J Inf Technol Decis Mak 13(02):231–261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Connell BR, Jones M, Mace R, Mueller J, Mullick A, Ostroff, E, Sanford J, Steinfeld E, Story M, Vanderheiden G (1997) Principles of universal design. Raleigh: North Carolina State University Center for Universal Design. Retrieved July 27, 2009, from http://www.design.ncsu.edu/cud/about_ud/udprinciples.htm
  24. Copeland E (2014) Promoting universal design in public buildings: an action research study of community participation (Doctoral dissertation, Auckland University of Technology)Google Scholar
  25. Darses F, Wolff M (2006) How do designers represent to themselves the users’ needs? Appl Ergon 37(6):757–764CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. DeLisle JR (2005) US shopping center classifications: challenges and opportunities. Res Rev 12(2):96–101Google Scholar
  27. Dey B, Bairagi B, Sarkar B, Sanyal S (2012) A MOORA based fuzzy multi-criteria decision making approach for supply chain strategy selection. Int J Ind Eng Comput 3:649–662Google Scholar
  28. El-Adly IM (2007) Shopping malls attractiveness: a segmentation approach. Int J Retail Distrib Manag 35(11):936–950CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Fontela E, Gabus A (1974) DEMATEL, innovative methods. Report no. 2 structural analysis of the world problematique, Battelle Geneva Research Institute, pp 67–69Google Scholar
  30. Garg R, Jain D (2017) Fuzzy multi-attribute decision making evaluation of e-learning websites using FAHP, COPRAS, VIKOR, WDBA. Decis Sci Lett 6(4):351–364CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Ghadikolaei AS, Esbouei SK, Antuchevičienė J (2014) Applying fuzzy MCDM for financial performance evaluation of Iranian companies. Technol Econ Dev Econ 20(2):274–291CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Ghorabaee MK, Amiri M, Sadaghiani JS, Goodarzi GH (2014) Multiple criteria group decision-making for supplier selection based on COPRAS method with interval type-2 fuzzy sets. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 75(5–8):1115–1130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Gilboa S, Vilnai-Yavetz I (2013) Shop until you drop? An exploratory analysis of mall experiences. Eur J Mark 47(1/2):239–259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Gitinavard H, Mousavi SM, Vahdani B (2017) Soft computing-based new interval-valued hesitant fuzzy multi-criteria group assessment method with last aggregation to industrial decision problems. Soft Comput 21(12):3247–3265zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Govindan K, Khodaverdi R, Vafadarnikjoo A (2015) Intuitionistic fuzzy based DEMATEL method for developing green practices and performances in a green supply chain. Expert Syst Appl 42(20):7207–7220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Hajiagha SHR, Hashemi SS, Zavadskas EK (2013) A complex proportional assessment method for group decision making in an interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy environment. Technol Econ Dev Econ 19(1):22–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Hauser JR, Koppelman FS (1979) Alternative perceptual mapping techniques: relative accuracy and usefulness. J Mark Res 495–506CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Howell R, Rogers JD (1980) Research into shopping mall choice behavior. Adv Consum Res 8(1):671–681Google Scholar
  39. Haytko DL, Baker J (2004) It’s all at the mall: exploring adolescent girls’ experiences. J Retail 80(1):67–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Huang D, Chen T, Wang MJJ (2001) A fuzzy set approach for event tree analysis. Fuzzy Sets Syst 118(1):153–165MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Imrie R (2012) Universalism, universal design and equitable access to the built environment. Disabil Rehabil 34(10):873–882CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Javadin SRS, Khalili S, Rajabani N (2015) An integrated assessment of companies based on value based measures in fuzzy environment. Boletim da Sociedade Paranaense de Matemática 34(2):87–98MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Karande P, Chakraborty S (2012) A fuzzy-MOORA approach for ERP system selection. Decis Sci Lett 1:11–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Keshavarzfard R, Makui A (2015) An IF-DEMATEL-AHP based on triangular intuitionistic fuzzy numbers (TIFNs). Decis Sci Lett 4(2):237–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Khare A (2011) Mall shopping behavior of Indian small town consumers. J Retail Consum Serv 18(1):110–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Kumar A, Mussada EK, Ashif M, Tyagi D, Srivastava AK (2017) Fuzzy Delphi and hybrid AH-MATEL integration for monitoring of paint utilization. Adv Prod Eng Manag 12(1):41Google Scholar
  47. Larsen V, Shelton R, Wright ND (2015) Shopping center attitudes: an empirical test of predictive attributes. Acad Mark Stud J 19(2):93–102Google Scholar
  48. Liu HC, You JX, Lin QL, Li H (2015a) Risk assessment in system FMEA combining fuzzy weighted average with fuzzy decision-making trial and evaluation laboratory. Int J Comput Integr Manuf 28(7):701–714CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Lin RJ (2013) Using fuzzy DEMATEL to evaluate the green supply chain management practices. J Clean Prod 40:32–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Lenker JA, Lien L, Nasarwanji M, Feathers D, Paquet V (2016) Universal design as a conceptual framework for describing usability of products and environments: an applied example using the kitchen environment. J Des Res 14(3):219–240Google Scholar
  51. Liu YE, Lee ST, Kascak LR, Sanford JA (2015b) The bridge connecting theory to practice: a case study of universal design process. In: International conference on universal access in human–computer interaction. Springer, Berlin, pp 64–73Google Scholar
  52. Luthra S, Govindan K, Kharb RK, Mangla SK (2016) Evaluating the enablers in solar power developments in the current scenario using fuzzy DEMATEL: an Indian perspective. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 63:379–397CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Mackelprang RW, Clute MA (2009) Access for all: universal design and the employment of people with disabilities. J Soc Work Disabil Rehabil 8(3–4):205–221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Mardani A, Jusoh A, Nor MD, Khalifah Z, Zakwan N, Valipour A (2015a) Multiple criteria decision-making techniques and their applications-a review of the literature from 2000 to 2014. Econ Res-Ekon Istraž 28(1):516–571Google Scholar
  55. Mardani A, Jusoh A, Zavadskas EK (2015b) Fuzzy multiple criteria decision-making techniques and applications: two decades review from 1994 to 2014. Expert Syst Appl 42(8):4126–4148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Marsha A (2015) The impact of Plaza Indonesia Shopping Mall’s attributes toward customers’ satisfaction. iBuss Mgmt 3(2):49–57Google Scholar
  57. McGoldrick PJ, Ho SS (1992) International positioning: Japanese department stores in Hong Kong. Eur J Mark 26(8/9):61–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Meyer A, Fourie I (2016) Make the makers’ voices count: combining universal design and participatory ergonomics to create accessible makerspaces for individuals with (physical) disabilities. 15th Eahil Conference, SpainGoogle Scholar
  59. Mustaquim MM, Nyström T (2017) Some aspects of using universal design as a redesign strategy for sustainability. In: Advances and new trends in environmental informatics. Springer, Berlin, pp 49–60Google Scholar
  60. Nikjoo AV, Saeedpoor M (2014) An intuitionistic fuzzy DEMATEL methodology for prioritising the components of SWOT matrix in the Iranian insurance industry. Int J Oper Res 20(4):439–452MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Nilashi M, Ibrahim O, Mirabi VR, Ebrahimi L, Zare M (2015) The role of security, design and content factors on customer trust in mobile commerce. J Retail Consum Serv 26:57–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Nguyen HT, Dawal SZM, Nukman Y, Aoyama H (2014) A hybrid approach for fuzzy multi-attribute decision making in machine tool selection with consideration of the interactions of attributes. Expert Syst Appl 41(6):3078–3090CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Ohlan A (2016) Intuitionistic fuzzy exponential divergence: application in multi-attribute decision making. J Intell Fuzzy Syst 30(3):1519–1530zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Patil SK, Kant R (2014) A hybrid approach based on fuzzy DEMATEL and FMCDM to predict success of knowledge management adoption in supply chain. Appl Soft Comput 18:126–135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Preiser WF (2001) The evolution of post-occupancy evaluation: Toward building performance and universal design evaluation. In: Learning from our buildings a state-of-the practice summary of post-occupancy evaluation, pp 9–22Google Scholar
  66. Palevičius V, Burinskienė M, Podvezko V, Paliulis GM, Šarkienė E, Šaparauskas J (2016) Research on the demand for parking lots of shopping centres. E&M: Econ a Manag 19(3):173–194Google Scholar
  67. Pittman CN, Heiselt AK (2014) Increasing accessibility: using universal design principles to address disability impairments in the online learning environment. Online J Distance Learn Adm 17(3):n3Google Scholar
  68. Poovalingam K, Docrat S (2011) Consumer decision-making in the selection of shopping centres around Durban. Manag Inform Res Des pp 215–251Google Scholar
  69. Raajpoot NA, Sharma A, Chebat JC (2008) The role of gender and work status in shopping center patronage. J Bus Res 61(8):825–833CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Rabbani A, Zamani M, Yazdani-Chamzini A, Zavadskas EK (2014) Proposing a new integrated model based on sustainability balanced scorecard (SBSC) and MCDM approaches by using linguistic variables for the performance evaluation of oil producing companies. Expert Syst Appl 41(16):7316–7327CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Rieh SY, Lee MW (2016) A study on the universal design in elementary school facilities-focused on analysis of design guidelines. J Korean Inst Educ Facil 23(2):19–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Rochette A, Swaine B, Kehayia E, Roche L, Guérard C, Bourque LÈM (2017) Can training offered to shopping mall employees improve their knowledge about disability and perceived self-confidence in interacting with persons presenting various limitations? Cogent Soc Sci 3(1):1274226Google Scholar
  73. Rousseau GG, Venter DJL (2014) Mall shopping preferences and patronage of mature shoppers. SA J Ind Psychol/SA Tydskrif vir Bedryfsielkunde 40(1):1–12Google Scholar
  74. Safari H, Faraji Z, Majidian S (2016) Identifying and evaluating enterprise architecture risks using FMEA and fuzzy VIKOR. J Intell Manuf 27(2):475–486CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Sangaiah AK, Gopal J, Basu A, Subramaniam PR (2017) An integrated fuzzy DEMATEL, TOPSIS, and ELECTRE approach for evaluating knowledge transfer effectiveness with reference to GSD project outcome. Neural Comput Appl 28(1):111–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Severin V, Louviere JJ, Finn A (2001) The stability of retail shopping choices over time and across countries. J Retail 77(2):185–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Siddiqui Z, Tyagi K (2016) Application of fuzzy-MOORA method: ranking of components for reliability estimation of component-based software systems. Decis Sci Lett 5(1):169–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Stanujkic D (2016) An extension of the ratio system approach of MOORA method for group decision-making based on interval-valued triangular fuzzy numbers. Technol Econ Dev Econ 22(1):122–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Steinfeld E, Mullick A, (1990) Universal design: the case of the hand. Innovation Fall, pp 27–30Google Scholar
  80. Stephanidis C, Savidis A (2001) Universal access in the information society: methods, tools, and interaction technologies. Univ Access Inf Soc 1(1):40–55Google Scholar
  81. Stanujkic D, Zavadskas EK, Smarandache F, Brauers WKM, Karabasevic D (2017) A neutrosophic extension of the MULTIMOORA method. Informatica 28(1):181–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Steen-Hansen L, Lundh MVG, Chen W (2014) How universal design principles can enhance the interface of 3D printing programs. In: DS 78: proceedings of the 16th international conference on engineering and product design education (E&PDE14), design education and human technology relations, University of Twente, The Netherlands, 04-05.09. 2014Google Scholar
  83. Stoltman JJ, Gentry JW, Anglin KA (1991) Shopping choices: the case of mall choice. NA-Adv Consum Res 18:434–440Google Scholar
  84. Story MF (1998) Maximizing usability: the principles of universal design. Assist Technol 10(1):4–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Suo WL, Feng B, Fan ZP (2012) Extension of the DEMATEL method in an uncertain linguistic environment. Soft Comput 16(3):471–483CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Swaine B, Labbé D, Poldma T, Barile M, Fichten C, Havel A, Rochette A (2014) Exploring the facilitators and barriers to shopping mall use by persons with disabilities and strategies for improvements: perspectives from persons with disabilities, rehabilitation professionals and shopkeepers. ALTER-Eur J Disabil Res/Revue Européenne de Recherche sur le Handicap 8(3):217–229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Tavana M, Momeni E, Rezaeiniya N, Mirhedayatian SM, Rezaeiniya H (2013) A novel hybrid social media platform selection model using fuzzy ANP and COPRAS-G. Expert Syst Appl 40(13):5694–5702CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Terblanche NS (1999) The perceived benefits derived from visits to a super-regional shopping centre: an exploratory study. S Afr J Bus Manag 30(4):141–147Google Scholar
  89. Tomberg V, Kelle S (2017) Universal design based evaluation framework for design of wearables. In: International conference on applied human factors and ergonomics. Springer, Cham, pp 105–116Google Scholar
  90. Turanoglu Bekar E, Cakmakci M, Kahraman C (2016) Fuzzy COPRAS method for performance measurement in total productive maintenance: a comparative analysis. J Bus Econ Manag 17(5):663–684CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Turskis Z, Zavadskas EK, Antucheviciene J, Kosareva N (2015) A hybrid model based on fuzzy AHP and fuzzy WASPAS for construction site selection. Int J Comput Commun Control 10(6):113–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Tzeng GH, Chen WH, Yu RC, Shih ML (2010) Fuzzy decision maps: a generalization of the DEMATEL methods. Soft Comput 14(11):1141–1150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Vahdani B, Mousavi SM, Tavakkoli-Moghaddam R, Ghodratnama A, Mohammadi M (2014) Robot selection by a multiple criteria complex proportional assessment method under an interval-valued fuzzy environment. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 73(5–8):687–697CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Vanderheiden G, Tobias J (2000) Universal design of consumer products: current industry practice and perceptions. In: Proceedings of the human factors and ergonomics society annual meeting vol 44, no 28, pp 6–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Vatansever K, Uluköy M (2013) Kurumsal kaynak planlaması sistemlerinin bulanık AHP ve bulanık MOORA yöntemleriyle seçimi:üretim sektöründe bir uygulama. CBÜ Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi 11(2):274–293Google Scholar
  96. Vink P, Overbeeke CJ, Desmet PMA (2005) Comfort experience. In: Vink P (ed) Comfort and design: principles and good practice, pp 1–12Google Scholar
  97. Wee CH (1986) Shopping area image: its factor analytic structure and relationships with shopping trips and expenditure behavior. Adv Consum Res 13(13):48–52Google Scholar
  98. Xu Z, Da QL (2003) An overview of operators for aggregating information. Int J Intell Syst 18(9):953–969zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Yazdani M, Alidoosti A, Zavadskas EK (2011) Risk analysis of critical infrastructures using fuzzy COPRAS. Econ Res-Ekonomska Istraživanja 24(4):27–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Yeh TM, Huang YL (2014) Factors in determining wind farm location: integrating GQM, fuzzy DEMATEL, and ANP. Renew Energy 66:159–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Yılmaz Kaya B, Dağdeviren M (2016) Selecting occupational safety equipment by MCDM approach considering universal design principles. Hum Factors Ergon Manuf Serv Ind 26(2):224–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. Yu H, Tullio-Pow S, Akhtar A (2015) Retail design and the visually impaired: a needs assessment. J Retail Consum Serv 24:121–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. Zadeh LA (1965) Fuzzy sets. Inf Control 8(3):338–353zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. Zajicek M, Brewster S (2004) Design principles to support older adults. Univ Access Inf Soc 3(2):111–113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. Zavadskas EK, Kaklauskas A (1996) Systemotechnical evaluation of buildings (Pastatųsistemotechninis įvertinimas). Vilnius: Technika, 280 p. (in Lithuanian) Google Scholar
  106. Zavadskas EK, Turskis Z, Kildienė S (2014) State of art surveys of overviews on MCDM/MADM methods. Technol Econ Dev Econ 20(1):165–179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. Zavadskas EK, Antucheviciene J, Razavi Hajiagha SH, Hashemi SS (2015) The interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy MULTIMOORA method for group decision making in engineering. In: Mathematical problems in engineering, 2015, Article Number 560690CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. Zolfani SH, Aghdaie MH, Derakhti A, Zavadskas EK, Varzandeh MHM (2013) Decision making on business issues with foresight perspective; an application of new hybrid MCDM model in shopping mall locating. Expert Syst Appl 40(17):7111–7121CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Engineering Faculty, Industrial Engineering DepartmentBaskent UniversityAnkaraTurkey
  2. 2.Engineering Faculty, Industrial Engineering DepartmentAtatürk UniversityErzurumTurkey

Personalised recommendations