Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Towards Group Fuzzy Analytical Hierarchy Process

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Book cover Information and Communication Technology for Development for Africa (ICT4DA 2017)

Abstract

Group decision making takes place in almost all domains. In building construction domain, a team of contractors with disparate specializations collaborate. Little research has been done to propose group decision making technique for this domain. As such, specific teams’ competitiveness enhancements are minimal as it takes more time for individual evaluators to choose the right partners. Qualitative and quantitative methods were used. Themes and categorizations were based on deductive approach. Subsequently, Group Fuzzy Analytical Hierarchy Process (GFAHP), Multi-Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) algorithm, was designed and applied. It uses all evaluation criteria unlike Fuzzy AHP (FAHP) which excludes some criteria that are assigned zero weights. GFAHP reduces the number of pairwise comparisons required when a large number of attributes are to be compared. Validation of the technique carried out by five case studies, show that GFAHP is approximately 98.7% accurate in the selection of partners.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Wu, D., Olson, D.L.: Supply chain risk, simulation, and vendor selection. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 114, 646–655 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Bai, C., Sarkis, J.: Integrating sustainability into supplier selection with grey system and rough set methodologies. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 124, 252–264 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Talukhaba, A.A.: An investigation into factors causing construction project delays in Kenya. Case study of high rise building projects in Nairobi. Doctoral dissertation, University of Nairobi (1999)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Chen, Y., Lien, H., Tzeng, G., Yang, L.: Fuzzy MCDM approach for selecting the best environment-watershed plan. Appl. Soft Comput. 11, 265–275 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Chiou, H.K., Tzeng, G.H., Cheng, D.C.: Evaluating sustainable fishing development strategies using fuzzy MCDM approach. Omega 33(3), 223–234 (2005)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Nyongesa, H.O., Musumba, G.W., Chileshe, N.: Partner selection and performance evaluation framework for a construction- related virtual enterprise: a multi-agent systems approach. Archit. Eng. Des. Manag. 13, 1–21 (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Musumba, G., Kanyi, P., Nyongesa, H., Wario, R.: Techniques for evaluation and selection of partners for construction projects. In: Pan African Conference on Science, Computing and Telecommunication (PACT) (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Karsak, E.E., Dursun, M.: An integrated fuzzy MCDM approach for supplier evaluation and selection. Comput. Ind. Eng. 82, 82–93 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Chen, C.T., Lin, C.T., Huang, S.F.: A fuzzy approach for supplier evaluation and selection in supply chain management. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 102, 289–301 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Dickson, G.: An analysis of vendor selection systems and decisions. J. Purch. 2, 5–17 (1966)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Lehmann, D.R., O’Shaughnessy, J.: Difference in attribute importance for different industrial products. J. Mark. 38(2), 36–42 (1974)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Weber, C.A., Current, J.R., Benton, W.C.: Vendor selection criteria and methods. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 50, 2–18 (1991)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Bevilacqua, M., Petroni, A.: From traditional purchasing to supplier management: a fuzzy logic-based approach to supplier selection. Int. J. Logist. Res. Appl. 5(3), 235–255 (2002)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Bottani, E., Rizzi, A.: A fuzzy multi-attribute framework for supplier selection in an e-procurement environment. Int. J. Logist. Res. Appl. 8(3), 249–266 (2005)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Chan, F.T.S., Kumar, N.: Global supplier development considering risk factors using fuzzy extended AHP-based approach. Omega 35, 417–431 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Chan, F.T.S., Kumar, N., Tiwari, M.K., Lau, H.C.W., Choy, K.L.: Global supplier selection: a fuzzy-AHP approach. Int. J. Prod. Res. 46(14), 3825–3857 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Wang, S.Y.: Applying 2-tuple multi-granularity linguistic variables to determine the supply performance in dynamic environment based on product-oriented strategy2-tuple. IEEE Trans. Fuzzy Syst. 16(1), 29–39 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Chen, L.Y., Wang, T.C.: Optimizing partners’ choice in IS/IT outsourcing projects: the strategic decision of fuzzy VIKOR. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 120, 233–242 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Kavita, Yadav, S.P., Kumar, S.: A multi-criteria interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy group decision making for supplier selection with TOPSIS method. In: Sakai, H., Chakraborty, M.K., Hassanien, A.E., Ślęzak, D., Zhu, W. (eds.) Rough Sets, Fuzzy Sets, Data Mining and Granular Computing. LNCS, vol. 5908, pp. 303–312. Springer, Heidelberg (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-10646-0_37

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  20. Wang, W.P.: A fuzzy linguistic computing approach to supplier evaluation. Appl. Math. Model. 34, 3130–3141 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Vinodh, S., Ramiya, R.A., Gautham, S.G.: Application of fuzzy analytic network process for supplier selection in a manufacturing organization. Expert Syst. Appl. 38, 272–280 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Baskaran, V., Nachiappan, S., Rahman, S.: Indian textile suppliers’ sustainability evaluation using the grey approach. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 135, 647–658 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Chu, T.C., Varma, R.: Evaluating suppliers via a multiple levels multiple criteria decision making method under fuzzy environment. Comput. Ind. Eng. 62, 653–660 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Govindan, K., Khodaverdi, R., Jafarian, A.: A fuzzy multi criteria approach for measuring sustainability performance of a supplier based on triple bottom line approach. J. Clean. Prod. 47, 345–354 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Roshandel, J., Miri-Nargesi, S.S., Hatami-Shirkouhi, L.: Evaluating and selecting the supplier in detergent production industry using hierarchical fuzzy TOPSIS. Appl. Math. Model. 37, 10170–10181 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Junior, F.R.L., Osiro, L., Carpinetti, L.C.R.: A comparison between Fuzzy AHP and Fuzzy TOPSIS methods to supplier selection. Appl. Soft Comput. 21, 194–209 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Haq, A.N., Kannan, G.: Design of an integrated supplier selection and multi-echelon distribution inventory model in a built- to-order supply chain environment. Int. J. Prod. Res. 44(10), 1963–1985 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Sevkli, M., Koh, S.C.L., Zaim, S., Demirbag, M., Tatoglu, E.: Hybrid analytical hierarchy process model for supplier selection. Ind. Manag. Data Syst. 108(1), 122–142 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Yang, J.L., Chiu, H.N., Tzeng, G.H., Yeh, R.H.: Vendor selection by integrated fuzzy MCDM techniques with independent and interdependent relationships. Inf. Sci. 178, 4166–4183 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Tseng, M.L., Chiang, J.H., Lan, L.W.: Selection of optimal supplier in supply chain management strategy with analytic network process and choquet integral. Comput. Ind. Eng. 57, 330–340 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Razmi, J., Rafiei, H., Hashemi, M.: Designing a decision support system to evaluate and select suppliers using fuzzy analytic network process. Comput. Ind. Eng. 57, 1282–1290 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Ordoobadi, S.M.: Application of AHP and Taguchi loss functions in supply chain. Ind. Manag. Data Syst. 110(8), 1251–1269 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Ravindran, A.R., Bilsel, R.U., Wadhwa, V., Yang, T.: Risk adjusted multi-criteria supplier selection models with applications. Int. J. Prod. Res. 48(2), 405–424 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Guo, L.L., Fang, Z.M.: Modeling study of lot-sizing in virtual enterprise based on multi-objective. In: 2011 IEEE 18th International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management (IE&EM), pp. 933–937 (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  35. Chen, Z., Yang, W.: An MAGDM based on constrained FAHP and FTOPSIS and its application to supplier selection. Math. Comput. Model. 54, 2802–2815 (2011)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  36. Liao, C.N., Kao, H.P.: An integrated fuzzy TOPSIS and MCGP approach to supplier selection in supply chain management. Expert Syst. Appl. 38, 10803–10811 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Pitchipoo, P., Venkumar, P., Rajakarunakaran, S.: Fuzzy hybrid decision model for supplier evaluation and selection. Int. J. Prod. Res. 51(13), 3903–3919 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Rodríguez, A., Ortega, F., Concepción, R.: A method for the selection of customized equipment suppliers. Expert Syst. Appl. 40, 1170–1176 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Shidpour, H., Shahrokhi, M., Bernard, A.: A multi-objective programming approach, integrated into the TOPSIS method, in order to optimize product design; in three-dimensional concurrent engineering. Comput. Ind. Eng. 64, 875–885 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Singh, A.: Supplier evaluation and demand allocation among suppliers in a supply chain. J. Purch. Supply Manag. 20, 167–176 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Hashemian, S.M., Behzadian, M., Samizadeh, R., Ignatius, J.: A fuzzy hybrid group decision support system approach for the supplier evaluation process. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 73(5–8), 1105–1117 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Covella, G.J., Olsina, L.A.: Assessing quality in use in a consistent way. In: Proceedings of the 6th international Conference on Web Engineering, pp. 1–8, Palo Alto, California, USA. ACM Press, New York (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  43. Saaty, T.L.: The Analytic Hierarchy Process: Planning, Priority Setting, Resource Allocation. McGraw-Hill International, New York (1980)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  44. Saaty, T.L.: Decision making with the analytic hierarchy process. Int. J. Serv. Sci. 1(1), 83–98 (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  45. Cheng, C.H., Yang, K.L., Hwang, C.L.: Evaluating attack helicopters by AHP based on linguistic variables weight. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 116(2), 423–435 (1999)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Wang, Y.M., Chin, K.S.: A linear goal programming priority method for fuzzy analytic hierarchy process and its applications in new product screening. Int. J. Approx. Reason. 49(2), 451–465 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Mikhailov, L.: Deriving priorities from fuzzy pairwise comparison judgments. Fuzzy Sets Syst. 134(3), 365–385 (2003)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Yager, R.R., Zadeh, L.A. (eds.): An Introduction to Fuzzy Logic Applications in Intelligent Systems, vol. 165. Springer, Berlin (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-3640-6

    Book  Google Scholar 

  49. Zadeh, L.A.: Fuzzy sets. Inf. Control 8(3), 338–353 (1965)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Ahmed, F., Kiliç, K.: Modification to fuzzy extent analysis method and its performance analysis. In: Proceedings of the 6th lESM Conference, Seville, Spain (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  51. Wang, Y.M., Elhag, T.M.S., Hua, Z.S.: A modified fuzzy logarithmic least squares method for fuzzy analytic hierarchy process. Fuzzy Sets Syst. 157, 3055–3071 (2006)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  52. Seidel, J.V.: Qualitative data analysis (1998). www.qualisresearch.com. Accessed May 2016

  53. Van Vuuren, D., Maree, A.: Survey methods in market and media research. In: Research in practice: Applied methods for the social sciences, pp. 269–286 (1999)

    Google Scholar 

  54. Bailey, W.J., Masson, R., Raeside, R.: Choosing successful technology development partners: a best-practice model. Int. J. Technol. Manag. 15(1–2), 124–138 (1998)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Culley, S.J., Boston, O.P., McMahon, C.A.: Suppliers in new product development: their information and integration. J. Eng. Des. 10(1), 59–75 (1999)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Musumba, G.W., Wario, R.D.: Partner performance evaluation problem for construction projects. J. Appl. Sci. Eng. Technol. Dev. 2(1), 1–29 (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  57. Merriam, S.B.: Case Study Research in Education. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco (1988)

    Google Scholar 

  58. Creswell, J.W.: Research Design: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. Sage, Thousand Oaks (1994)

    Google Scholar 

  59. Glaser, B.G., Strauss, A.L.: The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. Aldine, Chicago (1967)

    Google Scholar 

  60. Kwong, C.K., Bai, H.: A fuzzy AHP approach to the determination of importance weights of customer requirements in quality function deployment. J. Intell. Manuf. 13(5), 367–377 (2002)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Buckley, J.J.: Fuzzy hierarchical analysis. Fuzzy Sets Syst. 17(3), 233–247 (1985)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  62. Dubois, D., Kerre, E., Mesiar, R., Prade, H.: Fuzzy interval analysis. In: Dubois, D., Prade, H. (eds.) Fundamentals of Fuzzy Sets. FSHS, vol. 7, pp. 483–581. Springer, Boston (2000). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-4429-6_11

    Chapter  MATH  Google Scholar 

  63. Tang, H., Zhang, J.: Study on fuzzy AHP group decision-making method based on set-valued statistics. In: FSKD, vol. 3, pp. 689–693 (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  64. Saaty, T.L., Kearns, K.P.: Analytical Planning: The Organization of System, vol. 7. Elsevier, Amsterdam (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  65. Chang, D.Y.: Applications of the extent analysis method on fuzzy AHP. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 95(3), 649–655 (1996)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Indrani, B.: On the use of information in analytic hierarchy process. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 141, 200–206 (2002)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  67. Srdjevic, B.: Combining different prioritization methods in the analytic hierarchy process synthesis. Comput. Oper. Res. 32(7), 1897–1919 (2005)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Mikhailov, L., Singh, M.G.: Comparison analysis of method for deriving priorities in the analytic hierarchy process. In: IEEE SMC 1999 Conference Proceedings of System, Man, and Cybernetics, vol. 1, pp. 1037–1042 (1999)

    Google Scholar 

  69. Golany, B., Kress, M.: A multi-criteria evaluation of methods for obtaining weights from ratio-scale matrices. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 69(2), 210–220 (1993)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Karlsson, J., Wohlin, C., Regnell, B.: An evaluation of methods for prioritizing software requirements. Inf. Softw. Technol. 39(14–25), 939–947 (1998)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Freeling, A.N.S.: Fuzzy sets and decision analysis. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. 10, 341–354 (1980)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Saaty, T.L., Tran, L.T.: On the invalidity of fuzzifying numerical judgments in the analytic hierarchy process. Math. Comput. Model. 46, 962–975 (2007)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  73. Sanga, C., Venter, I.M.: Is a multi-criteria evaluation tool reserved for experts? Electron. J. Inf. Syst. Eval. (EJISE) 12(2), 165–176 (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  74. Rezaei, J., Ortt, R.: A multi-variable approach to supplier segmentation. Int. J. Prod. Res. 50(16), 4593–4611 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. Rezaei, J., Ortt, R.: Multi-criteria supplier segmentation using a fuzzy preference relations based AHP. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 225, 75–84 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. Akadiri, P.O., Olomolaiye, P.O., Chinyio, E.A.: Multi-criteria evaluation model for the selection of sustainable materials for building projects. Autom. Constr. 30, 113–125 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Computer Science, Dedan Kimathi University of Technology, P.O. BOX 657, Nyeri, 10100, Kenya

    George W. Musumba

  2. Department of Computer Science and Informatics, University of Free State, Private Bag X13, Kestell, Bloemfontein, 9866, South Africa

    Ruth D. Wario

Authors
  1. George W. Musumba
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ruth D. Wario
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to George W. Musumba .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Council for Scientific and Industrial Research, Pretoria, South Africa

    Fisseha Mekuria

  2. Information Technology, University of Turku, Turku, Finland

    Ethiopia Enideg Nigussie

  3. Dresden University of Technology, Dresden, Germany

    Waltenegus Dargie

  4. Aalto University, Helsinki, Finland

    Mutafugwa Edward

  5. Bahir Dar Institute of Technology, Bahir Dar, Ethiopia

    Tesfa Tegegne

Appendix: Partner Evaluation Tool

Appendix: Partner Evaluation Tool

1.1 Collaboration of Construction Projects

Indicate your choice with a tick (✓) on the label provided. For the purpose of this study the term “collaboration” is defined as participation in a project between organizations that operate under a different management.

1.2 Section A-Partners Evaluation and Selection Criteria

1. Indicate how important each of the following criterion is when your company is selecting partners for a task in a building construction project. Use the symbols “A to E” with A being “Extremely important” and E being “Not at all important”. Choose the symbol which best indicates your choice

Criterion

Extremely important

Very important

Important

Weakly important

Not at all important

Business Skills

A

B

C

D

E

Technical Skills

A

B

C

D

E

Management Skills

A

B

C

D

E

2. Considering Business Skills Criterion; indicate how important each of the following sub-criteria is when your company is selecting partners for a task in a building construction project. Use the symbols “A to E” with A being “Extremely important” and E being “Not at all important”. Choose the symbol which best indicates your choice

Sub-Criteria

Extremely important

Very important

Important

Weakly important

Not at all important

Business Strength (BS)

A

B

C

D

E

Financial Security (FS)

A

B

C

D

E

Strategic Position (SP)

A

B

C

D

E

3. Considering Technical Skills Criterion; indicate how important each of the following sub-criteria is when your company is selecting partners for a task in a building construction project. Use the symbols “A to E” with A being “Extremely important” and E being “Not at all important”. Choose the symbol which best indicates your choice

Sub-Criteria

Extremely important

Very important

Important

Weakly important

Not at all important

Technical Capabilities (TC)

A

B

C

D

E

Development Speed (DS)

A

B

C

D

E

Cost of Development (CD)

A

B

C

D

E

Information Technology (IT)

A

B

C

D

E

4. Considering Management Skills Criterion; indicate how important each of the following sub-criteria is when your company is selecting partners for a task in a building construction project. Use the symbols “A to E” with A being “Extremely important” and E being “Not at all important”. Choose the symbol which best indicates your choice

Sub-Criteria

Extremely important

Very important

Important

Weakly important

Not at all important

Collaboration Record (CR)

A

B

C

D

E

Cultural Compatibility (CC)

A

B

C

D

E

Management Ability (MA)

A

B

C

D

E

1.3 Section B-Partner Selection

Use the company profiles of companies P1, P2, …, P5 provided at the end of this questionnaire. Indicate how preferable is each company against each other according to partner selection sub-criterion to perform a task in a building construction project. Use the symbols “A to E” with A being “Extremely preferable” and E being “Not at all preferable”. Choose the symbol which best indicates your choice

Sub-Criteria

Extremely preferable

Strongly preferable

Preferable

Weakly preferable

Not at all preferable

 

P1 P2 P3 P4 P5

P1 P2 P3 P4 P5

P1 P2 P3 P4 P5

P1 P2 P3 P4 P5

P1 P2 P3 P4 P5

Technical capabilities (Have relevant types of skills)

A A A A A

B B B B B

C C C C C

D D D D D

E E E E E

Development speed (Can complete tasks within project timelines)

A A A A A

B B B B B

C C C C C

D D D D D

E E E E E

Financial security (Amount of money deposited before project commencement)

A A A A A

B B B B B

C C C C C

D D D D D

E E E E E

Collaborative record (Have been part of large projects)

A A A A A

B B B B B

C C C C C

D D D D D

E E E E E

Business strength (Have necessary equipment and qualified staff)

A A A A A

B B B B B

C C C C C

D D D D D

E E E E E

Cost of development (The projected task cost within the project budget)

A A A A A

B B B B B

C C C C C

D D D D D

E E E E E

Corporate cultural compatibility (Staff management style in the previous projects)

A A A A A

B B B B B

C C C C C

D D D D D

E E E E E

Strategic position (Partnership with other firms like financiers)

A A A A A

B B B B B

C C C C C

D D D D D

E E E E E

Management ability (Handles staff issues amicably)

A A A A A

B B B B B

C C C C C

D D D D D

E E E E E

Use of Information Technology (Use software for designs, finance and staff issues management)

A A A A A

B B B B B

C C C C C

D D D D D

E E E E E

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 ICST Institute for Computer Sciences, Social Informatics and Telecommunications Engineering

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Musumba, G.W., Wario, R.D. (2018). Towards Group Fuzzy Analytical Hierarchy Process. In: Mekuria, F., Nigussie, E., Dargie, W., Edward, M., Tegegne, T. (eds) Information and Communication Technology for Development for Africa. ICT4DA 2017. Lecture Notes of the Institute for Computer Sciences, Social Informatics and Telecommunications Engineering, vol 244. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-95153-9_27

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-95153-9_27

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-95152-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-95153-9

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation