Advertisement

Sādhanā

, 44:52 | Cite as

Notes on procedure for the development of fuzzy rules in SCOP methodology

  • Chidozie C Nwobi-OkoyeEmail author
Article
  • 19 Downloads

Abstract

The lack of statistical foundations among other shortcomings of existing methods of measuring efficiency necessitated the development of a new method called, Systems Coefficient of Performance Methodology (SCOPM). One key feature of SCOP methodology is the use of fuzzy logic to express complex efficiency measurement parameters into linguistic variables understandable by non experts and the general public. In this research note, the procedure for development of membership functions for the fuzzy logic aspect of SCOPM modeling was standardized and presented. A thorough analysis of fuzzy logic modeling which is at the heart of SCOPM was done. Real life examples and case studies are used to highlight the practical applications and utility of the methodology. The study gives a deep insight into the strengths of SCOP as an efficiency measurement method and its superiority over other efficiency measurement methods like, Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA), Stochastic Frontier Analysis (SFA), etc. Finally, a guide to practitioners on implementation of SCOPM as well as future research direction for academics and researchers is presented.

Keywords

Systems coefficient of performance methodology (SCOPM) fuzzy logic membership functions efficiency 

References

  1. 1.
    Vincová K 2005 Using DEA models to measure efficiency. Biatec. 13(8): 24–28 Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Nwobi-Okoye C C and Igboanugo A C 2012 Performance evaluation of hydropower generation system using transfer function modelling. Int. J. Electr. Power Energy Syst. 43(1): 245–254 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Nwobi-Okoye C C and Igboanugo A C 2015 Performance appraisal of gas based electricity power generation system using transfer function modelling. Ain Shams Eng. J. 6 (2015): 541–551CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Jacobs R 2001 Alternative methods to examine hospital efficiency: data envelopment analysis and stochastic frontier analysis. Health Care Manag. Sci. 4(2): 103–115MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Martín J C, Román C and Voltes-Dorta A 2009 A stochastic frontier analysis to estimate the relative efficiency of Spanish airports. J. Prod. Analys. 31(3): 163–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cullinane K and Song D W 2006 Estimating the relative efficiency of European container ports: a stochastic frontier analysis. Res. Trans. Econ. 16: 85–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cooper W W, Seiford L M and Zhu J 2004 Data envelopment analysis. In: Handbook on data envelopment analysis, Boston, MA: Springer, pp. 1–39zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Charnes A, Cooper W W and Rhodes E 1978 Measuring the efficiency of decision making units. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2(6): 429–444MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cook W D and Seiford L M 2009 Data envelopment analysis (DEA)–Thirty years on. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 192(1): 1–17MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Mardani A, Zavadskas E K, Streimikiene D, Jusoh A and Khoshnoudi M 2016 A comprehensive review of data envelopment analysis (DEA) approach in energy efficiency. Renew. Sust. Energy Rev. 70:1298–1322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Sueyoshi T, Yuan Y and Goto M 2016 A Literature study for DEA applied to energy and environment. Energy Econ. 62:104–124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Liu C H, Lin S J and Lewis C 2010 Evaluation of thermal power plant operational performance in Taiwan by data envelopment analysis. Energy Policy 38(2): 1049–1058CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Rezaee M J, Moini A and Makui A 2012 Operational and non-operational performance evaluation of thermal power plants in Iran: a game theory approach. Energy 38(1): 96–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Song C, Li M, Zhang F, He Y L and Tao W Q 2015 A data envelopment analysis for energy efficiency of coal-fired power units in China. Energy Conver. Manag. 102: 121–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Sözen A, Alp İ and Kilinc C 2012 Efficiency assessment of the hydro-power plants in Turkey by using Data Envelopment Analysis. Renew. Energy 46: 192–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Nwobi-Okoye C C 2017 Neuro-fuzzy model for evaluating the performance of processes using transfer function. Sadhana 42(12): 2055–2065.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12046-017-0744-3 MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Nwobi-Okoye C C 2018 Transfer function based performance assessment of power distribution facilities: a case study of distribution transformers. J. Electr. Syst. Inf. Technol. 5(3):977–993. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jesit.2016.12.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Nwobi-Okoye C C, Okiy S and Igboanugo A C 2016 Performance evaluation of multi-input-single-output (MISO) production process using transfer function and fuzzy logic: case study of a brewery. Ain Shams Eng. J. 7: 1001–1010. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.asej.2015.07.008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Nwobi-Okoye C C and Okiy S 2016 Performance assessment of multi-input-single-output (MISO) production process using transfer function and fuzzy logic: case study of soap production. Cog. Eng. 3(1): 1257082. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23311916.2016.1257082 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Gill J and Singh J 2017 Performance analysis of vapor compression refrigeration system using an adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference system. Int. J. Refrig. 82: 436–446CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Gill J and Singh J 2018 An applicability of ANFIS approach for depicting energetic performance of VCRS using mixture of R134a and LPG as refrigerant. Int. J. Refrig. 85: 353–375CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Li W, Liang W, Zhang L and Tang Q 2015 Performance assessment system of health, safety and environment based on experts’ weights and fuzzy comprehensive evaluation. J. Loss Prev. Process Ind. 35: 95–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Beikkhakhian Y, Javanmardi M, Karbasian M and Khayambashi B 2015 The application of ISM model in evaluating agile suppliers selection criteria and ranking suppliers using fuzzy TOPSIS-AHP methods. Expert Syst. Appl. 42(15–16): 6224–6236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Brusakova I A and Kosuhina M A 2015 The fuzzy logic method for innovation performance measurement. In: Soft Computing and Measurements (SCM), 2015 XVIII International Conference on (pp. 291–293). IEEE.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Barkana B D, Saricicek I and Yildirim B 2017 Performance analysis of descriptive statistical features in retinal vessel segmentation via fuzzy logic, ANN, SVM, and classifier fusion. Knowl. Bas. Syst. 118: 165–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Bray S, Caggiani L and Ottomanelli M 2015 Measuring transport systems efficiency under uncertainty by fuzzy sets theory based Data Envelopment Analysis: theoretical and practical comparison with traditional DEA model. Trans. Res. Proc. 5: 186–200Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Kumar P A and Vaidehi V 2017 A transfer learning framework for traffic video using neuro-fuzzy approach. Sādhanā. 42(9):1431–1442CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Balasubramanian R, Sankaran R and Palani S 2017 Simulation and performance evaluation of shunt hybrid power filter using fuzzy logic based non-linear control for power quality improvement. Sādhanā 42(9):1443–1452MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Srinivasan S P and Raajarajan L 2017 Wear rate and surface coating optimization of coconut coir-based polymer using fuzzy logic. Sādhanā 42(3):281–290zbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Indian Academy of Sciences 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of EngineeringAnambra State University (Chukwuemeka Odumegwu Ojukwu University)UliNigeria

Personalised recommendations