Advertisement

A Hesitant Fuzzy Based TOPSIS Approach for Smart Glass Evaluation

  • Gülçin BüyüközkanEmail author
  • Merve Güler
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 641)

Abstract

Hesitant fuzzy linguistic term sets (HFLTS) are applied to better represent decision maker’s (DMs’) preferences in complex situations such as uncertainty in DMs’ opinions and the difficulty about expressing thoughts by numbers. As an important tool, HFLTS presents a novel and strong approach for processing qualitative judgments of DMs. Therefore, this paper develops an approach based on HFLTS, ordered weighted averaging (OWA) operator and hesitant fuzzy technique for order performance by similarity to ideal solution (TOPSIS). A case study about smart glass (SG) evaluation is given to demonstrate the potential of the approach. The originality of the work comes from its evaluation methodology and its use on a case study for a logistics company. The study contributes the smart glass (SG) evaluation literature by introducing the integrated OWA Operator-Hesitant TOPSIS methodology. Since technology selection is an important subject for managers, the proposed methodology can be guided managers for an effective SG evaluation process.

Keywords

Hesitant fuzzy linguistic term sets Multi criteria decision making Smart glasses TOPSIS OWA 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors kindly express their appreciation for the support of industrial experts. This research has received financial support of Galatasaray University Research Fund (Project No: 17.402.004).

References

  1. 1.
    Demirbaş, A., Durmuş, K., Taylan, O.: An integrated multi attribute decision model for energy efficiency processes in petrochemical industry applying fuzzy set theory. Energy Convers. Manag. 117, 501–512 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kim, S., Nussbaum, M.A., Gabbard, J.L.: Augmented reality “smart glasses” in the workplace: industry perspectives and challenges for worker safety and health. IIE Trans. Occup. Ergon. Hum. Fact. 4, 253–258 (2016) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kao, C.H., Yang, C.M., Hsieh, C.H., Hung, Y.S.: Decision making in the design process of wearable IT products. In: 5th International Congress of International Association of Societies of Design Research (IASDR), Tokyo, vol. 8, 26–35 (2013) Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Patent landscape analysis, Wearable Technology, LexinnovaGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
  6. 6.
    Yiwen, G.: An empirical study of wearable technology acceptance in healthcare. Ind. Manag. Data Syst. 115(9), 1704–1723 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Threat intelligence report: one in five doctors’ mobile device may be at high risk (2016). http://searchhealthit.techtarget.com/blog/Health-IT-Pulse/Threat-intelligence-report-One-in-five-doctors-mobile-device-may-be-at-high-risk
  8. 8.
  9. 9.
    Boltürk, E., Otay, İ., Senvar, O.: Hospital site selection via hesitant fuzzy TOPSIS. IFAC 49(12), 1140–1145 (2016)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Beg, I., Rashid, R.: TOPSIS for hesitant fuzzy linguistic term sets. Int. J. Intell. Syst. 28, 1162–1171 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Liao, H., Xu, Z.: Hesitant fuzzy linguistic VIKOR method and its application in qualitative multiple criteria decision making. IEEE Trans. Fuzzy Syst. 23, 1343–1355 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Zhang, Y., Xie, A., Wu, Y.: A hesitant fuzzy multiple attribute decision making method based on linear programming and TOPSIS. IFAC 48–28, 427–431 (2015)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Büyüközkan, G., Kahraman, C., Onar, S.Ç., Öztayşi, B.: A new hesitant fuzzy QFD approach: an application to computer workstation selection. Appl. Soft Comput. 46, 1–16 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kahraman, C., Onar, S.Ç., Öztayşi, B.: Strategic decision selection using hesitant fuzzy TOPSIS and interval type-2 fuzzy AHP: a case study. Int. J. Comput. Intell. Syst. 7, 1002–1021 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Zhou, H., Jian-Qiang, W., Hong-Yu, Z., Xiao-Hong, C.: Linguistic hesitant fuzzy multi-criteria decision-making method based on evidential reasoning. Int. J. Syst. Sci. 47, 314–327 (2015)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Zhang, N., Guiwu, W.: Extension of VIKOR method for decision making problem based on hesitant fuzzy set. Appl. Math. Model. 37, 4938–4947 (2013)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Xu, Z., Zhang, X.: Hesitant fuzzy multi-attribute decision making based on TOPSIS with incomplete weight information. Knowl. Based Syst. 52, 53–64 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Rodriguez, R., Liu, H.: A fuzzy envelope for hesitant fuzzy linguistic term set and its application to multi-criteria decision making. Inf. Sci. 258, 220–238 (2014)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Liao, H., Xu, Z., Zeng, X.J.: Distance and similarity measures for hesitant fuzzy linguistic term sets and their application in multi-criteria decision making. Inf. Sci. 271, 125–142 (2014)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Joshi, D., Kumar, S.: Interval-valued intuitionistic hesitant fuzzy Choquet integral based TOPSIS method for multi-criteria group decision making. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 248, 183–191 (2016)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Büyüközkan, G., Işıklar, G.: Using a multi-criteria decision making approach to evaluate mobile phone alternatives. Comput. Stand. Interfaces 29, 265–274 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Torra, V., Narukawa, Y.: On hesitant fuzzy sets and decision. In: Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Fuzzy Systems, pp. 1378–1382 (2009)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Torra, V.: Hesitant fuzzy sets. Int. J. Intell. Syst. 25, 529–539 (2010)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Rodriguez, R.M., Martinez, L., Herrera, F.: Hesitant fuzzy linguistic term sets for decision making. IEEE Trans. Fuzzy Syst. 20(1), 109–119 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Szidarovszky, F., Zarghami, M.: Fuzzy quantifiers in sensitivity analysis of OWA operator. Comput. Ind. Eng. 54(4), 1006–1018 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Yager, R.R.: On ordered weighted averaging aggregation operators in multi-criteria decision making. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. 18(1), 183–190 (1988)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Herrera, F., Herrera-Viedma, E., Martinez, L.: A fusion approach for managing multi-granularity linguistic term sets in decision making. Fuzzy Sets Syst. 114, 43–58 (2000)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Dursun, M., Karsak, E.E.: A fuzzy MCDM approach for personnel selection. Expert Syst. Appl. 37, 4324–4330 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Industrial Engineering DepartmentGalatasaray UniversityOrtaköy, IstanbulTurkey

Personalised recommendations