Advertisement

MCDM Based Project Selection by F-AHP & VIKOR

  • Tuli Bakshi
  • Arindam Sinharay
  • Bijan Sarkar
  • Subir kumar Sanyal
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7076)

Abstract

The multiple criteria decision-making method (MCDM) VIKOR is based as the aggregating function representing “closeness to the ideal”, which originate in the compromise programming method. Linear normalization is used in VIKOR to eliminate the units of criterion functions. The VIKOR method preceded by Fuzzy AHP which usually calculates the weights of criteria in continuity, determines a compromise solution, presenting the maximum “group utility” for the “majority” and a minimum of an individual regret for the “opponent”. In this paper the authors have shown single objective optimization model first, then balance it with multiple objectives in management process. As for case study, construction project management has been considered. It involves objectives as duration, cost, quality, resource leveling etc. On the basis of that, the paper has proposed an integrated fuzzy multi-objective optimization model of duration, cost, quality and resource leveling.

Keywords

MCDM VIKOR Compromise Solution Fuzzy AHP 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Duckstein, L., Opricovic, S.: Multiobjective optimization in river basin development. Water Resource Research 16(1), 14–20 (1980)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Yu, P.L.: A class of solutions for group decision problems. Management Science 19(8), 936–946 (1973)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Opricovic, S., Tzeng, G.: Compromise solution by MCDM methods: A comparative analysis of VIKOR and TOPSIS. European Journal of Operational Research 156, 445–455 (2004)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Zeleny, M.: Multiple Criteria Decision Making. McGraw-Hill, New York (1982)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Opricovic, S.: Multicriteria Optimization of Civil Engineering Systems. Faculty of Civil Engineering, Belgrade (1998)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bakshi, T., Sarkar, B.: MCA Based Performance Evaluation of Project Selection. International Journal of Software Engineering & Applications (IJSEA) 2(2), 14–22 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bakshi, T., Sinharay, A., Sarkar, B.: Exploratory Analysis of Project Selection through MCDM. In: ICOQM-10, pp. 128–131 (2011)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Chang, D.-Y.: Theory and Methodology Applications of the extent analysis method on fuzzy AHP. European Journal of Operational Research 95, 649–655 (1996)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Pavlicic, D.: Normalization affects the results of MADM methods. Yugoslav Journal of Operations Research (YU-JOR) 11(2), 251–265 (2001)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Olson, D.L.: Comparison of three multicriteria methods to predict know outcomes. European Journal of Operational Research 130(3), 576–587 (2001)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bakshi, T., Sinharay, A.: An Integrated Novel Approach in MCDM under Fuzziness. International Journal of Computer & Communication Technology 2, 36–43 (2011)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Huang, J., Wang, X., Zhou,Y.: Multi-objective Decision Optimization Schedule Based on Improved TOPSIS, 978-4244-4639-1/09/$25.00@ 2009 IEEE (2009)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tuli Bakshi
    • 1
  • Arindam Sinharay
    • 2
  • Bijan Sarkar
    • 3
  • Subir kumar Sanyal
    • 3
  1. 1.Jadavpur UniversityKolkataIndia
  2. 2.Department of Information TechnologyFuture Institute of Engineering & ManagementKolkataIndia
  3. 3.Department of Production EngineeringJadavpur UniversityKolkataIndia

Personalised recommendations