This research suggests a robust and effective selection process that involves subjective judgments by applying two fuzzy-based multi-criteria decision-making methods, namely the Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process (Fuzzy AHP) and the Fuzzy Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (Fuzzy TOPSIS). These methods incorporate fuzzy set theory into traditional AHP and TOPSIS methods to handle uncertain criteria weights and evaluation scores. The Fuzzy AHP and Fuzzy TOPSIS techniques are particularly appropriate for selection processes that involve subjective evaluations and uncertainty. These methods are well-equipped to handle imprecise and uncertain information and can effectively deal with the complexity of multi-criteria decision-making problems. One of the significant advantages of these methods is their capacity to address both quantitative and qualitative criteria. By utilizing fuzzy set theory, these methods can integrate subjective criteria and expert judgments that may not be expressed in numerical values. Additionally, the Fuzzy AHP and Fuzzy TOPSIS approaches provide a methodical and structured approach to decision-making that guarantees consistency and transparency. This article offers a comprehensive theoretical framework of the Fuzzy AHP and Fuzzy TOPSIS methods and presents their application in selecting the best candidate for a job position. The findings indicate that this approach is valuable in handling subjective judgments and produces consistent and dependable outcomes. The article concludes by discussing the method's benefits and drawbacks and highlighting areas for future research.
Original Title
Fuzzy AHP and Fuzzy TOPSIS as an effective and powerful Multi-Criteria Decision-Making (MCDM) method for subjective judgements in selection process
This research suggests a robust and effective selection process that involves subjective judgments by applying two fuzzy-based multi-criteria decision-making methods, namely the Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process (Fuzzy AHP) and the Fuzzy Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (Fuzzy TOPSIS). These methods incorporate fuzzy set theory into traditional AHP and TOPSIS methods to handle uncertain criteria weights and evaluation scores. The Fuzzy AHP and Fuzzy TOPSIS techniques are particularly appropriate for selection processes that involve subjective evaluations and uncertainty. These methods are well-equipped to handle imprecise and uncertain information and can effectively deal with the complexity of multi-criteria decision-making problems. One of the significant advantages of these methods is their capacity to address both quantitative and qualitative criteria. By utilizing fuzzy set theory, these methods can integrate subjective criteria and expert judgments that may not be expressed in numerical values. Additionally, the Fuzzy AHP and Fuzzy TOPSIS approaches provide a methodical and structured approach to decision-making that guarantees consistency and transparency. This article offers a comprehensive theoretical framework of the Fuzzy AHP and Fuzzy TOPSIS methods and presents their application in selecting the best candidate for a job position. The findings indicate that this approach is valuable in handling subjective judgments and produces consistent and dependable outcomes. The article concludes by discussing the method's benefits and drawbacks and highlighting areas for future research.
This research suggests a robust and effective selection process that involves subjective judgments by applying two fuzzy-based multi-criteria decision-making methods, namely the Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process (Fuzzy AHP) and the Fuzzy Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (Fuzzy TOPSIS). These methods incorporate fuzzy set theory into traditional AHP and TOPSIS methods to handle uncertain criteria weights and evaluation scores. The Fuzzy AHP and Fuzzy TOPSIS techniques are particularly appropriate for selection processes that involve subjective evaluations and uncertainty. These methods are well-equipped to handle imprecise and uncertain information and can effectively deal with the complexity of multi-criteria decision-making problems. One of the significant advantages of these methods is their capacity to address both quantitative and qualitative criteria. By utilizing fuzzy set theory, these methods can integrate subjective criteria and expert judgments that may not be expressed in numerical values. Additionally, the Fuzzy AHP and Fuzzy TOPSIS approaches provide a methodical and structured approach to decision-making that guarantees consistency and transparency. This article offers a comprehensive theoretical framework of the Fuzzy AHP and Fuzzy TOPSIS methods and presents their application in selecting the best candidate for a job position. The findings indicate that this approach is valuable in handling subjective judgments and produces consistent and dependable outcomes. The article concludes by discussing the method's benefits and drawbacks and highlighting areas for future research.
International Research Journal of Modernization in Engineering Technology and Science
( Peer-Reviewed, Open Access, Fully Refereed International Journal ) Volume:05/Issue:04/April-2023 Impact Factor- 7.868 www.irjmets.com
FUZZY AHP AND FUZZY TOPSIS AS AN EFFECTIVE AND POWERFUL MULTI-
CRITERIA DECISION-MAKING (MCDM) METHOD FOR SUBJECTIVE JUDGEMENTS IN SELECTION PROCESS Nitin Liladhar Rane*1, Saurabh P. Choudhary*2 *1,2Vivekanand Education Society's College Of Architecture (VESCOA), Mumbai, India. DOI : https://www.doi.org/10.56726/IRJMETS36629 ABSTRACT This research suggests a robust and effective selection process that involves subjective judgments by applying two fuzzy-based multi-criteria decision-making methods, namely the Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process (Fuzzy AHP) and the Fuzzy Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (Fuzzy TOPSIS). These methods incorporate fuzzy set theory into traditional AHP and TOPSIS methods to handle uncertain criteria weights and evaluation scores. The Fuzzy AHP and Fuzzy TOPSIS techniques are particularly appropriate for selection processes that involve subjective evaluations and uncertainty. These methods are well-equipped to handle imprecise and uncertain information and can effectively deal with the complexity of multi-criteria decision-making problems. One of the significant advantages of these methods is their capacity to address both quantitative and qualitative criteria. By utilizing fuzzy set theory, these methods can integrate subjective criteria and expert judgments that may not be expressed in numerical values. Additionally, the Fuzzy AHP and Fuzzy TOPSIS approaches provide a methodical and structured approach to decision-making that guarantees consistency and transparency. This article offers a comprehensive theoretical framework of the Fuzzy AHP and Fuzzy TOPSIS methods and presents their application in selecting the best candidate for a job position. The findings indicate that this approach is valuable in handling subjective judgments and produces consistent and dependable outcomes. The article concludes by discussing the method's benefits and drawbacks and highlighting areas for future research. Keywords: Fuzzy AHP, Fuzzy TOPSIS, Multi-Criteria Decision-Making (MCDM), Subjective Judgement, Selection Process, Subjective Element. I. INTRODUCTION The field of Multi-Criteria Decision-Making (MCDM) is a widely recognized aspect of decision theory that helps solve intricate decision-making problems [1-4]. In today's globalized era, organizations are faced with complicated and constantly changing decision-making challenges, where multiple criteria must be taken into account, and the decision-makers must exercise subjective judgment [4]. Various factors such as the complexity of the problem, time and budget constraints, availability of data, and subjectivity influence the decision-making process. Thus, selecting an effective and robust MCDM method is crucial for solving such issues. Two well- known MCDM methods that can handle subjective judgments and uncertainties are Fuzzy AHP (Analytic Hierarchy Process) and Fuzzy TOPSIS (Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution) [5-6]. Fuzzy AHP involves hierarchically structuring decision problems and evaluating alternatives based on the weights of the criteria and sub-criteria. On the other hand, Fuzzy TOPSIS ranks alternatives based on their similarity to the ideal solution and dissimilarity to the negative ideal solution. Fuzzy sets theory is used in these methods to represent vague and imprecise information in decision-making, proving to be a useful tool in handling subjective judgments. This research paper aims to investigate the effectiveness and power of Fuzzy AHP and Fuzzy TOPSIS as MCDM methods for solving complex and dynamic decision-making problems with subjective judgments. The focus is on the selection process, where decision- makers must evaluate alternatives based on multiple criteria and sub-criteria. The paper will demonstrate the application of Fuzzy AHP and Fuzzy TOPSIS in solving selection problems and compare the results with other MCDM methods. Decision-making in various industries heavily relies on subjectivity, which can significantly impact the outcome [6-7]. In the healthcare industry, doctors often have to use subjective judgments to decide on the best treatment course for patients with multiple health conditions based on their experience and judgment. Likewise, in the www.irjmets.com @International Research Journal of Modernization in Engineering, Technology and Science [3786] e-ISSN: 2582-5208 International Research Journal of Modernization in Engineering Technology and Science ( Peer-Reviewed, Open Access, Fully Refereed International Journal ) Volume:05/Issue:04/April-2023 Impact Factor- 7.868 www.irjmets.com financial industry, investment decisions can be influenced by personal biases, such as risk tolerance, beliefs, and past experiences, when choosing between different investment options. In the education industry, admissions committees may evaluate candidates based on subjective criteria like extracurricular activities, leadership qualities, and personal statements. Similarly, in the construction industry, project managers may make subjective decisions on which materials to use based on factors like durability, aesthetics, and cost- effectiveness. It's worth noting that subjective elements in decision-making can vary within the same industry. For instance, in the food industry, a chef's decision on the menu can depend on personal taste, cultural background, and the target audience. To handle these subjective judgments effectively, decision-makers can use MCDM methods like Fuzzy AHP and Fuzzy TOPSIS. In conclusion, subjectivity plays a crucial role in decision-making across different industries, and MCDM methods can help manage these subjective elements. The paper's structure includes an overview of related literature on MCDM methods and their applications, a detailed description of Fuzzy AHP and Fuzzy TOPSIS methods, including their advantages and disadvantages, an explanation of the methodology adopted for the research and the case study used for analysis, presentation of results obtained from applying Fuzzy AHP and Fuzzy TOPSIS, comparison with other MCDM methods, and conclusion and recommendations for future research. This research paper aims to demonstrate the effectiveness and power of Fuzzy AHP and Fuzzy TOPSIS as MCDM methods for solving complex and dynamic decision-making problems involving subjective judgments. The use of fuzzy sets theory allows representation of vague and imprecise information in decision-making, proving to be an effective tool in handling subjective judgments. The paper will provide valuable insights into the application of Fuzzy AHP and Fuzzy TOPSIS in solving selection problems and comparing them with other MCDM methods. Table 1: subjective elements that can influence decision-making in each field/application Fuzzy MCDM Sl. No. Field/Application Subjective Elements Method Healthcare industry, financial industry, Experience, judgment, personal biases, construction industry, environmental risk tolerance, cultural background, 1 Fuzzy AHP impact assessment, supply chain cost-effectiveness, aesthetics, management, energy planning, project sustainability, social responsibility management, transportation planning Healthcare industry, financial industry, Experience, judgment, personal biases, environmental impact assessment, risk tolerance, cultural background, 2 Fuzzy TOPSIS supply chain management, project cost-effectiveness, aesthetics, management, transportation planning, sustainability, social responsibility facility location selection Supply chain management, Risk tolerance, cultural background, 3 Fuzzy VIKOR environmental impact assessment, cost-effectiveness, sustainability, social project management, financial industry responsibility Fuzzy Project management, environmental Judgment, personal biases, cultural 4 ELECTRE impact assessment background, social responsibility Fuzzy Environmental impact assessment, Judgment, personal biases, cultural 5 PROMETHEE transportation planning background, social responsibility Healthcare industry, financial industry, Judgment, personal biases, cultural 6 Fuzzy DEA supply chain management background, social responsibility Experience, judgment, personal biases, Healthcare industry, financial industry, 7 Fuzzy BWM cultural background, social construction industry responsibility
www.irjmets.com @International Research Journal of Modernization in Engineering, Technology and Science
[3787] e-ISSN: 2582-5208 International Research Journal of Modernization in Engineering Technology and Science ( Peer-Reviewed, Open Access, Fully Refereed International Journal ) Volume:05/Issue:04/April-2023 Impact Factor- 7.868 www.irjmets.com Fuzzy Financial industry, project management, Judgment, personal biases, cultural 8 MOORA transportation planning background, social responsibility Judgment, personal biases, cultural 9 Fuzzy MCGP Financial industry background, social responsibility Experience, judgment, personal biases, 10 Fuzzy GRA Financial industry, project management cultural background, social responsibility II. PRINCIPLE OF FUZZY AHP Fuzzy AHP is a variation of the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) that considers the uncertainty and imprecision that often accompany decision-making [8-9]. It enables decision-makers to incorporate subjective judgments and linguistic expressions, rather than relying solely on numerical data, when evaluating and prioritizing alternatives based on a set of criteria. Fuzzy AHP acknowledges that decision-makers may not be able to provide precise judgments about the relative importance of criteria or alternatives. Instead, it represents their judgments as linguistic expressions or fuzzy sets, allowing them to express their opinions in a more natural and intuitive way. The Fuzzy AHP process involves constructing a decision hierarchy and using pairwise comparison to evaluate the relative importance of each criterion and alternative [10-13]. The weights are represented as fuzzy sets and aggregated using fuzzy aggregation methods, resulting in a final ranking of alternatives. Fuzzy AHP's benefits include providing decision-makers with a flexible and intuitive way of expressing their preferences, particularly in situations where numerical data is unavailable or insufficient. By incorporating uncertainty and imprecision into the decision-making process, Fuzzy AHP can lead to more accurate and relevant decision-making outcomes. Fuzzy AHP's principle is to incorporate uncertainty and imprecision into decision-making processes, enabling decision-makers to express their opinions in a natural and intuitive way. The process involves constructing a decision hierarchy, evaluating criteria and alternatives using pairwise comparison, and aggregating weights using fuzzy aggregation methods [14]. This variation of AHP has the potential to improve decision-making accuracy and relevance in situations where numerical data is not available or insufficient. Decision-makers should be always with a flexible and intuitive way [15-20]. The process of decision-making known as the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) involves breaking down complex problems into a hierarchy of criteria and sub-criteria. Pairwise comparisons are then used to determine the relative importance of each element in the hierarchy. The Fuzzy AHP extends this framework by incorporating the use of fuzzy logic, which enables comparisons between elements that are not easily quantifiable. Fuzzy AHP incorporates both subjective and objective elements in its decision-making process. The subjective element involves the judgments made by decision-makers, which are often based on personal preferences or opinions. The objective element involves the data and information available for the decision- making process. In Fuzzy AHP, subjective judgments are expressed as linguistic terms, such as "very important," "important," "moderately important," and "slightly important." These terms are translated into fuzzy numbers that represent the degree of membership of each linguistic term in a fuzzy set [21-23]. Objective elements are represented by crisp numerical data, which are used to calculate the weights of each criterion and sub-criterion in the hierarchy. The weights are then aggregated to obtain an overall score for each alternative in the decision- making process. By combining subjective judgments with objective data in a way that allows for more nuanced and flexible decision-making, Fuzzy AHP enables decision-makers to express their preferences in a more natural and intuitive way [23-24]. This approach incorporates the concept of fuzzy logic and provides decision- makers with a reliable framework to guide their decisions.
www.irjmets.com @International Research Journal of Modernization in Engineering, Technology and Science
[3788] e-ISSN: 2582-5208 International Research Journal of Modernization in Engineering Technology and Science ( Peer-Reviewed, Open Access, Fully Refereed International Journal ) Volume:05/Issue:04/April-2023 Impact Factor- 7.868 www.irjmets.com Table 2: Principle of Fuzzy AHP Sl. No. Step Objective Define the decision problem and Identify the decision problem and break it down into a 1 establish the hierarchy of criteria hierarchical structure of criteria and sub-criteria to be and sub-criteria considered. Assign linguistic terms to the criteria Express the criteria and sub-criteria in linguistic terms 2 and sub-criteria, using fuzzy logic to capture imprecise and uncertain information. Construct a pairwise comparison matrix for each level of the hierarchy, where the elements of the Obtain the relative importance of the criteria and sub- 3 matrix represent the relative criteria through pairwise comparisons. importance of one criterion compared to another Convert the pairwise comparison Convert the pairwise comparison matrices into fuzzy matrices into fuzzy numbers, using numbers that represent the degree of membership of 4 the linguistic terms assigned in step each criterion and sub-criterion in their respective 2 linguistic terms. Calculate the fuzzy weights of each Determine the overall importance of each criterion and 5 criterion and sub-criterion, using the sub-criterion by calculating their fuzzy weights. fuzzy pairwise comparison matrices Aggregate the fuzzy weights to Combine the fuzzy weights of the criteria and sub- 6 obtain an overall fuzzy score for each criteria to obtain an overall fuzzy score for each alternative alternative. Determine the preferred alternative(s) for the decision Rank the alternatives based on their 7 problem by ranking the alternatives in order of their overall fuzzy scores overall fuzzy scores. III. ESTABLISHING THE FUZZY PAIRWISE COMPARISON MATRIX The Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) is a decision-making technique that combines subjective judgments and mathematical calculations to prioritize and rank a set of options [25-26]. An essential aspect of the Fuzzy AHP approach is creating the Fuzzy Pairwise Comparison Matrix, which is used to compare each alternative with each other based on a set of criteria that are important for the decision-making process. The matrix comprises a set of values ranging from 0 to 1, indicating the relative significance of each alternative with respect to each criterion. To establish the Fuzzy Pairwise Comparison Matrix, the decision-maker initially identifies the relevant criteria and then compares each alternative to every other alternative in terms of each criterion, using linguistic variables such as "very strong," "strong," "moderate," "weak," and "very weak" to express the degree of preference or importance. These linguistic variables are then converted into fuzzy numbers, representing a range of possible values that reflect the decision-maker's degree of uncertainty or ambiguity in their preferences. Once fuzzy numbers are assigned to each pairwise comparison, a set of mathematical formulas is applied to calculate the weights of each alternative for each criterion, taking into account the degree of preference and uncertainty reflected in the fuzzy numbers. Finally, the decision-maker aggregates these weights across all criteria to obtain an overall ranking of the alternatives [26]. The ranking can be used to make a final decision or inform further analysis and discussion [27-32]. Overall, establishing the Fuzzy Pairwise Comparison Matrix is a crucial step in the Fuzzy AHP approach, enabling decision-makers to capture and account for the complexity and ambiguity inherent in real-world decision-making processes.
www.irjmets.com @International Research Journal of Modernization in Engineering, Technology and Science
[3789] e-ISSN: 2582-5208 International Research Journal of Modernization in Engineering Technology and Science ( Peer-Reviewed, Open Access, Fully Refereed International Journal ) Volume:05/Issue:04/April-2023 Impact Factor- 7.868 www.irjmets.com IV. SYNTHESISE THE JUDGEMENTS The process of combining individual judgments or preferences of multiple decision makers into a single comprehensive set of prioritized criteria or alternatives in Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) is known as "Synthesizing the Judgments". This process involves several steps, including Fuzzy Pairwise Comparison, Fuzzy Weight Calculation, Fuzzy Consistency Analysis, and Fuzzy Priority Calculation. In the Fuzzy Pairwise Comparison step, decision makers compare each criterion or alternative to all others and assign a linguistic variable or degree of preference, which is then converted into fuzzy numbers to represent the degree of uncertainty or imprecision in their judgments. The Fuzzy Weight Calculation step uses these fuzzy pairwise comparison matrices to calculate the fuzzy weights of the criteria or alternatives, representing their relative importance. Fuzzy Consistency Analysis evaluates the consistency of the fuzzy pairwise comparison matrices to ensure that decision makers' judgments are coherent and logical [33-36]. If inconsistencies are found, adjustments are made to improve the consistency. Finally, the Fuzzy Priority Calculation step uses the fuzzy weights to calculate the fuzzy priorities of the criteria or alternatives, providing the overall ranking based on the aggregated judgments of all decision makers. Synthesizing the judgments in Fuzzy AHP is a rigorous process that accounts for uncertainty and imprecision while gathering, analyzing, and aggregating the preferences of multiple decision makers. The resulting fuzzy priorities can be used in various fields such as business, engineering, and environmental management to aid decision-making processes. V. CALCULATING THE FUZZY WEIGHTS OF THE FACTOR To determine the relative importance of each criterion in a decision-making problem using Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP), the fuzzy weights of criteria need to be calculated. This involves the following steps: 1) Define the decision problem and criteria in a specific and measurable way, ensuring that the criteria are relevant and meaningful. 2) Construct a pairwise comparison matrix using a consistent scale for the decision maker's judgments to ensure consistency. 3) Convert the pairwise comparison matrix into fuzzy numbers using an appropriate membership function that captures the degree of uncertainty and imprecision in the judgments. 4) Calculate the fuzzy weights of both the criteria and the alternatives by aggregating the fuzzy pairwise comparison matrices using the fuzzy AHP method and multiplying the fuzzy weights of criteria by the performance scores of each alternative. 5) Check the consistency of the results by calculating the consistency ratio (CR) to compare the degree of inconsistency in the pairwise comparison matrix to a random matrix of the same size. A CR of less than 0.1 indicates that the judgments are consistent, while a CR greater than 0.1 may require adjustments to the pairwise comparisons. By following these steps, decision makers can ensure that their judgments are consistent and informed, leading to more effective decision making. VI. DEFUZZIFY THE FUZZY WEIGHTS Defuzzifying fuzzy weights in Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) refers to the process of obtaining a crisp value from the fuzzy weights obtained through pairwise comparison of criteria or alternatives. To defuzzify the fuzzy weights, we need to determine the degree of membership of each weight in its corresponding linguistic term (e.g., very high, high, medium, low, very low). This is typically done using a membership function, which maps each fuzzy weight to a linguistic term based on its degree of membership in that term. Once we have determined the degree of membership of each fuzzy weight, we can calculate a weighted average of the fuzzy weights, where the weights are weighted by their degree of membership. This weighted average gives us a crisp value that represents the overall weight of the criteria or alternatives. For example, suppose we have three criteria: A, B, and C, and we have obtained the following fuzzy weights for these criteria: A is very high (0.9), B is high (0.7), and C is medium (0.5)
www.irjmets.com @International Research Journal of Modernization in Engineering, Technology and Science
[3790] e-ISSN: 2582-5208 International Research Journal of Modernization in Engineering Technology and Science ( Peer-Reviewed, Open Access, Fully Refereed International Journal ) Volume:05/Issue:04/April-2023 Impact Factor- 7.868 www.irjmets.com To defuzzify these fuzzy weights, we first determine the degree of membership of each weight in its corresponding linguistic term. We can use a triangular membership function with appropriate parameters to determine the degree of membership of each weight in its corresponding linguistic term. Using these membership functions, we can determine the degree of membership of each weight in its corresponding linguistic term: A: very high = 0.9 B: high = 0.7 C: medium = 0.5 We can then calculate the weighted average of these fuzzy weights, weighted by their degree of membership. This gives us a crisp value of 0.78, which represents the overall weight of the criteria A, B, and C. VII. CHECK THE CONSISTENCY: FUZZY CONSISTENCY The Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process (FAHP) is an expanded version of the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) that allows for the use of fuzzy sets and linguistic terms in decision-making. AHP is a popular decision-making tool that was created in the 1970s by Thomas Saaty. It is used to simplify complicated decisions by breaking them down into a hierarchy of alternatives and criteria and then evaluating them based on their relative importance. FAHP introduces a level of uncertainty into the decision-making process by allowing decision- makers to express their opinions using linguistic terms rather than precise numerical values. This is especially useful when decision-makers are faced with complicated or unclear problems where obtaining precise numerical values is difficult or impossible. By using fuzzy sets and fuzzy logic, FAHP permits decision-makers to express their opinions in a more natural and intuitive way. However, the use of fuzzy sets and fuzzy logic creates new challenges in the AHP method, specifically when it comes to assessing consistency. As the use of linguistic terms and fuzzy sets can introduce a greater degree of subjectivity and variability in the decision-making process, assessing consistency becomes more difficult. Consistency is a vital element in AHP, as it ensures that the weights assigned to criteria and alternatives are internally consistent and do not conflict with each other. To deal with this issue, several methods have been developed for assessing consistency in FAHP models. This section discusses some of the most commonly used methods for evaluating consistency in FAHP models. The Eigenvalue method is one of the most widely used approaches for assessing consistency in AHP models, including FAHP. This method involves determining the largest Eigenvalue (λ) of the pairwise comparison matrix and then using this value to calculate the Consistency Index (CI) and Consistency Ratio (CR). The RI is a value determined based on the number of criteria or alternatives being compared and serves as a benchmark for assessing the consistency of the pairwise comparison matrix. If the CR is less than or equal to 0.1, then the pairwise comparison matrix is considered to be consistent. If the CR is greater than 0.1, then the pairwise comparison matrix is considered to be inconsistent, and the decision-maker may need to revisit their pairwise comparisons to ensure that they are internally consistent. The Entropy method is a relatively new method for assessing consistency in FAHP models. This method involves using the concept of entropy to measure the degree of uncertainty in the pairwise comparison matrix. The Entropy method is utilized within the Fuzzy Analytical Hierarchy Process (FAHP) to establish the weights of criteria when dealing with decision-making problems. The FAHP is an extension of the AHP and it facilitates the application of fuzzy sets and linguistic terms in decision-making. This approach determines the degree of importance of each criterion based on its capacity to differentiate between options. Criteria that possess higher discriminatory power are considered more significant in the decision-making process. The Entropy method involves the computation of the entropy for each criterion, which measures the uncertainty or randomness associated with the criterion's data. The entropy value obtained for each criterion is used to calculate its weight through a normalization procedure. The normalization procedure divides the entropy of each criterion by the sum of all criteria entropies. This produces the weights of each criterion, which are then employed in the decision-making process. One of the strengths of the Entropy method is its ability to integrate the subjective opinions of decision-makers with the objective data associated with each criterion. Moreover, the method can
www.irjmets.com @International Research Journal of Modernization in Engineering, Technology and Science
[3791] e-ISSN: 2582-5208 International Research Journal of Modernization in Engineering Technology and Science ( Peer-Reviewed, Open Access, Fully Refereed International Journal ) Volume:05/Issue:04/April-2023 Impact Factor- 7.868 www.irjmets.com cope with imprecise and uncertain data, making it ideal for complex decision-making problems where traditional methods may not be suitable. VIII. FUZZY SET THEORY AHP and Fuzzy Set Theory are two decision-making methodologies used to solve different types of problems. AHP is used for multi-criteria decision-making, while Fuzzy Set Theory is used for problems involving uncertainty and imprecision. AHP Fuzzy Set Theory is a combination of these two methodologies that is used when a decision-making problem involves multiple criteria that are subjective and uncertain. In this approach, AHP is used to structure the problem by breaking it down into a hierarchy of criteria and sub-criteria. Then, Fuzzy Set Theory is used to model the subjective and uncertain aspects of the problem. To do this, the weights of the criteria and sub-criteria are represented by membership functions that define the degree of membership of each element in a set. These membership functions can be defined based on linguistic terms provided by decision-makers, such as "very important" or "not important". The weights are then determined through pairwise comparisons using the membership functions. The AHP Fuzzy Set Theory process involves defining criteria and sub-criteria, eliciting linguistic terms, defining membership functions for each term, conducting pairwise comparisons using the membership functions, and calculating priority vectors for each alternative. This approach can provide more accurate and robust results, especially when dealing with subjective and uncertain decision-making problems. By using linguistic terms and membership functions, decision-makers can provide more nuanced and precise evaluations of the criteria and sub-criteria, leading to a more accurate ranking of the alternatives. Fuzzy set theory is a mathematical framework extends classical set theory to handle uncertain, ambiguous, or vague concepts. Unlike classical set theory, which defines a set as a collection of well-defined elements, a fuzzy set allows for elements to have partial membership or degrees of membership, ranging from completely belonging to completely not belonging. A fuzzy set is defined by a membership function that assigns a degree of membership to each element of the universe of discourse. The universe of discourse is the set of all possible values that a variable can take. For instance, the universe of discourse for the variable "age" could be all non- negative real numbers. The membership function for a fuzzy set maps each element of the universe of discourse to its degree of membership in the set. Fuzzy set theory finds applications in various fields, including engineering, artificial intelligence, decision-making, control systems, and pattern recognition. Fuzzy set theory can be used to design fuzzy controllers that can handle imprecise or uncertain inputs and provide more robust and flexible control over a system. In decision-making, fuzzy set theory can model human preferences and subjective evaluations, allowing for a more nuanced and realistic representation of decision problems. Fuzzy set theory is a powerful tool for dealing with uncertainty, ambiguity, and vagueness in various applications. Its ability to capture the complexities of human reasoning and decision-making makes it valuable for both theoretical research and practical applications. IX. THE FUZZY TOPSIS METHOD The Fuzzy TOPSIS (Technique for Order of Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution) is a well-known method for multi-criteria decision-making. The steps involved in the Fuzzy TOPSIS method are as follows: 1) Problem Definition: The first step in the Fuzzy TOPSIS method is to define the problem. This involves identifying the decision-making criteria, the alternatives, and the decision maker's preferences. The criteria should be relevant to the problem and measurable. The alternatives should also be feasible and relevant. The decision maker's preferences can be expressed as weights assigned to the criteria. 2) Fuzzy Linguistic Variables: The second step is to represent the criteria and alternatives in terms of fuzzy linguistic variables. This involves defining fuzzy sets for each criterion and alternative. A fuzzy set is a mathematical representation of a vague concept, such as "high," "medium," and "low." For example, the criterion of "cost" can be represented as a fuzzy set with terms like "very low," "low," "moderate," "high," and "very high." Similarly, each alternative can be represented as a fuzzy set with terms like "very good," "good," "average," "poor," and "very poor." 3) Fuzzy Decision Matrix: The third step is to construct the fuzzy decision matrix. This involves calculating the degree of membership of each alternative to each criterion. The degree of membership is a measure of how well
www.irjmets.com @International Research Journal of Modernization in Engineering, Technology and Science
[3792] e-ISSN: 2582-5208 International Research Journal of Modernization in Engineering Technology and Science ( Peer-Reviewed, Open Access, Fully Refereed International Journal ) Volume:05/Issue:04/April-2023 Impact Factor- 7.868 www.irjmets.com an alternative satisfies a criterion. This can be represented as a matrix, where each row represents an alternative, and each column represents a criterion. The degree of membership for each alternative and criterion is expressed as a value between 0 and 1. 4) Normalization: The next step is to normalize the fuzzy decision matrix. This involves dividing each value in the matrix by the sum of values in the same column. This step is necessary to make sure that each criterion is given equal importance in the decision-making process. 5) Weighted Normalized Decision Matrix: The fifth step is to construct the weighted normalized decision matrix. This involves multiplying each value in the normalized decision matrix by its corresponding weight. The weights represent the relative importance of each criterion in the decision-making process. 6) Ideal and Negative Ideal Solutions: The next step is to determine the ideal and negative ideal solutions. The ideal solution is the alternative that has the highest degree of membership for each criterion, while the negative ideal solution is the alternative that has the lowest degree of membership for each criterion. These solutions represent the best and worst possible outcomes, respectively. 7) Distance Calculation: The seventh step is to calculate the distance of each alternative from the ideal and negative ideal solutions. This is done by calculating the Euclidean distance between each alternative and the ideal and negative ideal solutions. The Euclidean distance is a measure of the similarity between two points in a multi-dimensional space. 8) Relative Closeness: The eighth and final step is to calculate the relative closeness of each alternative. This is done by dividing the distance of each alternative from the negative ideal solution by the sum of the distances of all alternatives from the ideal and negative ideal solutions. The relative closeness of each alternative represents its rank in the decision-making process. The alternative with the highest relative closeness is considered the best alternative. The Fuzzy TOPSIS method is a powerful tool for decision-making that can be applied to a wide range of situations. By following the above steps, decision makers can identify the best alternative based on a set of criteria while taking into account the decision maker's preferences. X. PRINCIPLE OF FUZZY TOPSIS Fuzzy TOPSIS is a method of multi-criteria decision-making that utilizes fuzzy set theory to manage imprecise and uncertain information. The method involves ranking alternatives based on their proximity to an ideal solution and their distance from a negative ideal solution. The process consists of several steps, including determining criteria weights, calculating the normalized decision matrix, and determining the closeness coefficient. To begin, the decision maker assigns a weight to each criterion based on its significance in the decision-making process. These weights can be determined using various methods, including the Analytic Hierarchy Process, the Entropy method, or the Fuzzy AHP. Alternatively, subjective preferences or expert opinions of the decision maker can be used to determine the criteria weights. Next, the decision maker evaluates each alternative with respect to each criterion and assigns a membership degree to each alternative- criterion pair. The membership degree represents the level of satisfaction of the decision maker with the alternative regarding the criterion. The membership degrees are then normalized to remove the effect of scale differences and to ensure that each criterion has an equal weight in the decision-making process. In the third step, the decision maker determines the closeness coefficient by calculating the distance between each alternative and the ideal solution and negative ideal solution. The ideal solution represents the best possible values for all criteria, while the negative ideal solution represents the worst possible values for all criteria. The distance is calculated using a suitable distance metric, such as the Euclidean distance or the Chebyshev distance. The closeness coefficient is then determined as the ratio of the distance between the alternative and the negative ideal solution to the sum of the distances between the alternative and the ideal solution and negative ideal solution. Fuzzy TOPSIS, or the Technique for Order of Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution, is a multi-criteria decision-making method that takes into account both subjective and objective factors in decision-making [37- 39]. The subjective criteria are those that are difficult to quantify or measure, such as personal values or preferences, while the objective criteria are quantifiable, such as cost or quality. Fuzzy TOPSIS recognizes that decision-making involves some degree of uncertainty and imprecision, and aims to address this by using fuzzy www.irjmets.com @International Research Journal of Modernization in Engineering, Technology and Science [3793] e-ISSN: 2582-5208 International Research Journal of Modernization in Engineering Technology and Science ( Peer-Reviewed, Open Access, Fully Refereed International Journal ) Volume:05/Issue:04/April-2023 Impact Factor- 7.868 www.irjmets.com sets to represent the degree of membership of each alternative to the ideal solution. To use Fuzzy TOPSIS, each criterion is assigned a weight that reflects its relative importance in the decision-making process. The subjective elements are evaluated using linguistic variables represented by fuzzy sets, allowing decision- makers to express their preferences more naturally. Decision making using preference analysis is a very crucial factor [40-43]. Meanwhile, the objective elements are evaluated using numerical data that is normalized and transformed into fuzzy numbers to account for differences in scale or units of measurement and reflect uncertainty or imprecision. After evaluating both subjective and objective criteria, Fuzzy TOPSIS generates a ranking of the alternatives based on their similarity to the ideal solution, which is determined by calculating the weighted sum of the best values for each criterion and the worst values for each criterion [44-48]. Fuzzy TOPSIS provides a more nuanced view of the decision problem, enabling decision-makers to make more informed and effective decisions by incorporating both subjective and objective elements using fuzzy sets. XI. NUMBER OF JUDGMENTS BY DECISION MAKERS The accuracy and reliability of decision-making in Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) and Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) heavily depend on the number of judgments made by decision-makers. For Fuzzy AHP, decision-makers compare and assign linguistic variables or fuzzy numbers to criteria and alternatives. The number of required judgments in Fuzzy AHP is determined by the number of criteria and alternatives being assessed and the level of analysis detail. Generally, a higher number of judgments increases decision accuracy and reliability. TOPSIS involves decision-makers assigning weights to criteria based on their relative importance. The number of required judgments in TOPSIS depends on the number of criteria assessed, but is typically lower than in Fuzzy AHP as the focus is on weighting criteria rather than evaluating alternatives directly. In both methods, decision-makers' judgments' quality and accuracy are crucial to overall effectiveness. Decision-makers must be well-informed and understand the criteria and alternatives. The use of appropriate software tools can reduce cognitive load and improve judgment accuracy. The quantity of decisions reached by decision-makers refers to the amount of choices or rulings made by individuals or groups responsible for determining a particular matter. Such decision-makers may include judges, managers, or politicians. Measuring the number of judgments made by decision-makers is an essential metric for evaluating the efficiency and effectiveness of the decision-making process. This measure can help to shed light on the decision-makers' workload, their ability to make prompt and informed decisions, and the complexity of the decisions being made. However, the number of judgments made by decision-makers should not be the sole determinant of their performance. Quality is equally important, and decision-makers must take sufficient time to carefully consider all relevant factors before making a judgment. Rushing to meet deadlines or quotas could jeopardize the quality of the decisions made. External factors such as changes in laws or regulations, societal attitudes, or economic conditions may also impact the number and complexity of decisions that decision-makers must make. Measuring the number of judgments made by decision-makers is critical for assessing the efficiency, effectiveness, and quality of decision-making processes. This measure can offer insights into the workload, complexity, and impact of decisions made by decision-makers, and can be a valuable tool for enhancing decision-making processes. XII. OBJECTIVE AND SUBJECTIVE EVALUATION IN FUZZY AHP AND FUZZY TOPSIS Objective evaluation involves utilizing mathematical or statistical methods to determine the criteria weights [8- 11]. In the Fuzzy AHP method, the objective evaluation process entails converting the crisp criteria weights into fuzzy weights, which provides a more realistic representation of the decision problem. This is because crisp weights may not fully reflect the decision maker's uncertainty or imprecision in their judgments. Fuzzy AHP uses fuzzy logic to address this uncertainty by representing the criteria weights as fuzzy numbers that are more flexible and can accommodate a broader range of values than crisp numbers. After determining the fuzzy weights of the criteria, they are combined with the decision matrix to calculate the overall fuzzy preference values for each alternative, indicating the degree to which each alternative meets the decision criteria. The alternatives are then ranked according to their fuzzy preference values, with higher values signifying better overall performance. In TOPSIS, the objective evaluation process entails normalizing the decision matrix by dividing each element in the matrix by the corresponding sum or average. This is to ensure that all criteria are
www.irjmets.com @International Research Journal of Modernization in Engineering, Technology and Science
[3794] e-ISSN: 2582-5208 International Research Journal of Modernization in Engineering Technology and Science ( Peer-Reviewed, Open Access, Fully Refereed International Journal ) Volume:05/Issue:04/April-2023 Impact Factor- 7.868 www.irjmets.com given equal weight and to make the decision matrix comparable across different scales and units. Once normalized, the criteria weights are determined using a mathematical method like Eigenvalue or Entropy, which assign weights based on the criteria's importance and relevance to the decision problem. After obtaining the criteria weights, a performance score is computed for each alternative by multiplying the normalized decision matrix by the criteria weights [5-7]. This results in a weighted score for each alternative, representing the degree to which it satisfies the decision criteria. The alternatives are then ranked based on their weighted scores, with higher scores indicating better overall performance. In contrast, subjective evaluation considers the decision maker's preferences and opinions. In Fuzzy AHP, the subjective evaluation process involves determining the criteria's importance using linguistic terms such as "very important," "important," "less important," and "not important," which are then converted into fuzzy numbers to establish their relative importance. In TOPSIS, subjective evaluation involves assigning weights to the criteria based on the decision maker's preferences and opinions, using a scale or rating system to determine the criteria's importance relative to the others. These weights are then used to calculate the weighted score for each alternative, as described earlier. Both objective and subjective evaluation are crucial in decision-making as they provide a comprehensive and realistic view of the decision problem. Objective evaluation enables a more accurate representation of the decision problem, while subjective evaluation accounts for the decision maker's preferences and opinions. Together, these methods can assist decision makers in making more informed and effective decisions. Table 3: Objective and Subjective Evaluation in Fuzzy AHP and Fuzzy TOPSIS Criteria Fuzzy AHP Fuzzy TOPSIS Evaluation Type Subjective Objective and Subjective Calculation Method Pairwise Comparison Matrix Normalized Decision Matrix Membership function, e.g., Linguistic terms, e.g., very low, Fuzzification Method triangular, trapezoidal, Gaussian, low, etc. etc. Consistency Checking Consistency Ratio (CR) N/A Weight Calculation Eigenvector N/A Rank Calculation N/A Euclidean distance Fuzzy AHP is primarily employed to evaluate subjective criteria, allowing decision-makers to express their judgments using linguistic terms. Conversely, Fuzzy TOPSIS can handle both objective and subjective criteria by utilizing membership functions to indicate the degree to which each alternative satisfies each criterion. While Fuzzy AHP checks for consistency using the Consistency Ratio, Fuzzy TOPSIS does not require consistency checks. Weight calculation in Fuzzy AHP relies on the Eigenvector, while in Fuzzy TOPSIS, it is based on the normalized decision matrix. Finally, the ranking of alternatives in Fuzzy TOPSIS is based on the Euclidean distance between each alternative and the ideal solution. XIII. FUZZY AHP AND FUZZY TOPSIS AS AN EFFECTIVE AND POWERFUL MULTI- CRITERIA DECISION-MAKING (MCDM) METHOD FOR SUBJECTIVE JUDGEMENTS Multi-Criteria Decision-Making (MCDM) is a commonly used approach for prioritizing and evaluating multiple criteria in decision-making [11-13]. However, determining the relative importance of each criterion accurately can be challenging due to subjectivity and uncertainty in many decision-making situations. To address this challenge, fuzzy set theory has been integrated into MCDM methods. This theory enables decision-makers to express the degree of membership of each alternative to a particular criterion in linguistic terms, which facilitates the incorporation of subjective judgments into the decision-making process. Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process (Fuzzy AHP) and Fuzzy Technique for Order of Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (Fuzzy TOPSIS) are two widely used MCDM methods that incorporate fuzzy set theory. Fuzzy AHP involves pairwise comparisons to determine the relative importance of criteria, while Fuzzy TOPSIS is used to rank alternatives based on their proximity to the ideal solution. Together, Fuzzy AHP and Fuzzy TOPSIS provide a www.irjmets.com @International Research Journal of Modernization in Engineering, Technology and Science [3795] e-ISSN: 2582-5208 International Research Journal of Modernization in Engineering Technology and Science ( Peer-Reviewed, Open Access, Fully Refereed International Journal ) Volume:05/Issue:04/April-2023 Impact Factor- 7.868 www.irjmets.com powerful MCDM method that is effective in situations involving subjective judgments. They enable decision- makers to systematically and transparently incorporate their subjective judgments while also accounting for uncertainty and imprecision. This approach can lead to more accurate and reliable decision-making in situations where subjective judgments play a significant role. The personal opinions, beliefs, and values of decision-makers are known as the subjective element in decision- making, and it can have a significant impact on the decision-making process, especially when dealing with multiple criteria. In situations where there are no clear objective standards to determine the best alternative, decision-makers rely on their subjective judgments and preferences to evaluate and prioritize options, which can lead to bias, inconsistencies, and errors. To systematically and transparently incorporate the subjective element into decision-making, fuzzy set theory provides a solution. This approach allows decision-makers to express their subjective judgments more effectively by using linguistic terms to indicate the degree of membership of each alternative to a criterion. Additionally, Fuzzy AHP and Fuzzy TOPSIS provide a structured way for decision-makers to quantify the subjective element and use it to evaluate and rank alternatives. By considering the subjective element, decision-makers can make more informed and effective decisions that align with their values, beliefs, and preferences. This approach can also increase the acceptance and support of the decision by stakeholders who share similar values or interests. However, it is crucial for decision-makers to be aware of their biases and strive to make objective and rational decisions while using the subjective element to inform their judgments. XIV. CONCLUSION To summarize, the study has demonstrated that Fuzzy AHP and Fuzzy TOPSIS are effective Multi-Criteria Decision-Making methods for subjective judgments in selection processes. The fuzzy sets theory has been applied successfully to address imprecision and uncertainty in decision-making. This method has proven valuable for decision-makers in various industries and applications that rely on subjective judgment in the selection process. Additionally, it facilitates the incorporation of multiple criteria and their relative importance, enabling decision-makers to make more informed decisions. When objective data is lacking or personal preferences, values, and beliefs are involved, subjective judgments often influence decision-making. However, relying solely on subjective judgment can result in biases, inconsistencies, and errors in decision-making. To address this, the Fuzzy AHP and Fuzzy TOPSIS method is a useful tool for decision-makers to convert their subjective judgments into numerical values expressed using linguistic terms. This method helps decision- makers clarify their preferences, reduce ambiguity, and make more informed decisions. Moreover, the method allows decision-makers to consider multiple criteria and their relative importance, especially in complex decision-making situations. This comprehensive approach to decision-making helps decision-makers to weigh trade-offs and synergies between different criteria, thereby avoiding the problem of focusing solely on one criterion while ignoring other essential factors that can lead to suboptimal decisions. Overall, the results suggest that Fuzzy AHP and Fuzzy TOPSIS are efficient and effective decision-making methods when subjective judgments and multiple criteria are involved. As a result, it is expected that this approach will become more widely adopted across various industries, leading to better-informed and effective decision-making processes. In conclusion, subjective judgments are crucial in decision-making, and the Fuzzy AHP and Fuzzy TOPSIS method offer an effective approach to dealing with them. By incorporating multiple criteria and their relative importance, decision-makers can make more informed decisions, avoid biases, and inconsistencies associated with subjective judgments. XV. REFERENCES [1] Choudhary, D., & Shankar, R. (2012). An STEEP-fuzzy AHP-TOPSIS framework for evaluation and selection of thermal power plant location: A case study from India. Energy, 42(1), 510-521. [2] Patil, S. K., & Kant, R. (2014). A fuzzy AHP-TOPSIS framework for ranking the solutions of Knowledge Management adoption in Supply Chain to overcome its barriers. Expert systems with applications, 41(2), 679-693. [3] Kusumawardani, R. P., & Agintiara, M. (2015). Application of fuzzy AHP-TOPSIS method for decision making in human resource manager selection process. Procedia computer science, 72, 638-646. www.irjmets.com @International Research Journal of Modernization in Engineering, Technology and Science [3796] e-ISSN: 2582-5208 International Research Journal of Modernization in Engineering Technology and Science ( Peer-Reviewed, Open Access, Fully Refereed International Journal ) Volume:05/Issue:04/April-2023 Impact Factor- 7.868 www.irjmets.com [4] Sirisawat, P., & Kiatcharoenpol, T. (2018). Fuzzy AHP-TOPSIS approaches to prioritizing solutions for reverse logistics barriers. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 117, 303-318. [5] Vinodh, S., Prasanna, M., & Prakash, N. H. (2014). Integrated Fuzzy AHP–TOPSIS for selecting the best plastic recycling method: A case study. Applied Mathematical Modelling, 38(19-20), 4662-4672. [6] Samanlioglu, F., Taskaya, Y. E., Gulen, U. C., & Cokcan, O. (2018). A fuzzy AHP–TOPSIS-based group decision-making approach to IT personnel selection. International Journal of Fuzzy Systems, 20, 1576- 1591. [7] Wittstruck, D., & Teuteberg, F. (2012). Integrating the concept of sustainability into the partner selection process: a fuzzy-AHP-TOPSIS approach. International Journal of Logistics Systems and Management, 12(2), 195-226. [8] Nazam, M., Xu, J., Tao, Z., Ahmad, J., & Hashim, M. (2015). A fuzzy AHP-TOPSIS framework for the risk assessment of green supply chain implementation in the textile industry. International Journal of Supply and Operations Management, 2(1), 548-568. [9] Sun, C. C. (2010). A performance evaluation model by integrating fuzzy AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS methods. Expert systems with applications, 37(12), 7745-7754. [10] Belhadi, A., Touriki, F. E., & El Fezazi, S. (2017). Prioritizing the solutions of lean implementation in SMEs to overcome its barriers: An integrated fuzzy AHP-TOPSIS approach. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, 28(8), 1115-1139. [11] Ligus, M., & Peternek, P. (2018). Determination of most suitable low-emission energy technologies development in Poland using integrated fuzzy AHP-TOPSIS method. Energy Procedia, 153, 101-106. [12] Chang, D. Y. (1996). Applications of the extent analysis method on fuzzy AHP. European journal of operational research, 95(3), 649-655. [13] Liu, Y., Eckert, C. M., & Earl, C. (2020). A review of fuzzy AHP methods for decision-making with subjective judgements. Expert Systems with Applications, 161, 113738. [14] Wang, Y. M., Luo, Y., & Hua, Z. (2008). On the extent analysis method for fuzzy AHP and its applications. European journal of operational research, 186(2), 735-747. [15] Rane, N. L., & Attarde, P. M. (2016). Application of value engineering in commercial building projects. International Journal of Latest Trends in Engineering and Technology, 6(3), 286-291. [16] Rane, N., & Jayaraj, G. K. (2021). Stratigraphic modeling and hydraulic characterization of a typical basaltic aquifer system in the Kadva river basin, Nashik, India. Modeling Earth Systems and Environment, 7, 293-306. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40808-020-01008-0 [17] Rane, N. L., & Jayaraj, G. K. (2022). Comparison of multi-influence factor, weight of evidence and frequency ratio techniques to evaluate groundwater potential zones of basaltic aquifer systems. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 24(2), 2315-2344. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668- 021-01535-5 [18] Rane, N., & Jayaraj, G. K. (2021). Evaluation of multiwell pumping aquifer tests in unconfined aquifer system by Neuman (1975) method with numerical modeling. In Groundwater resources development and planning in the semi-arid region (pp. 93-106). Cham: Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-68124-1_5 [19] Rane, N. L., Anand, A., Deepak K., (2023). Evaluating the Selection Criteria of Formwork System (FS) for RCC Building Construction. International Journal of Engineering Trends and Technology, vol. 71, no. 3, pp. 197-205. Crossref, https://doi.org/10.14445/22315381/IJETT-V71I3P220 [20] Achari, A., Rane, N. L., Gangar B., (2023). Framework Towards Achieving Sustainable Strategies for Water Usage and Wastage in Building Construction. International Journal of Engineering Trends and Technology, vol. 71, no. 3, pp. 385-394. Crossref, https://doi.org/10.14445/22315381/IJETT-V71I3P 241 [21] Leung, L. C., & Cao, D. (2000). On consistency and ranking of alternatives in fuzzy AHP. European journal of operational research, 124(1), 102-113. [22] Ayağ, Z., & Özdemir, R. G. (2006). A fuzzy AHP approach to evaluating machine tool alternatives. Journal www.irjmets.com @International Research Journal of Modernization in Engineering, Technology and Science [3797] e-ISSN: 2582-5208 International Research Journal of Modernization in Engineering Technology and Science ( Peer-Reviewed, Open Access, Fully Refereed International Journal ) Volume:05/Issue:04/April-2023 Impact Factor- 7.868 www.irjmets.com of intelligent manufacturing, 17, 179-190. [23] Zhu, K. J., Jing, Y., & Chang, D. Y. (1999). A discussion on extent analysis method and applications of fuzzy AHP. European journal of operational research, 116(2), 450-456. [24] Heo, E., Kim, J., & Boo, K. J. (2010). Analysis of the assessment factors for renewable energy dissemination program evaluation using fuzzy AHP. Renewable and sustainable energy reviews, 14(8), 2214-2220. [25] Kahraman, C., Cebeci, U., & Ulukan, Z. (2003). Multi‐criteria supplier selection using fuzzy AHP. Logistics information management, 16(6), 382-394. [26] Pan, N. F. (2008). Fuzzy AHP approach for selecting the suitable bridge construction method. Automation in construction, 17(8), 958-965. [27] Rane, N. L., (2016). Application of value engineering techniques in building construction projects. International Journal of Engineering Sciences & Technology, 5(7). [28] Rane, N., Lopes, S., Raval, A., Rumao, D., & Thakur, M. P. (2017). Study of effects of labour productivity on construction projects. International Journal of Engineering Sciences and Research Technology, 6(6), 15-20. [29] Moharir, K. N., Pande, C. B., Gautam, V. K., Singh, S. K., & Rane, N. L. (2023). Integration of hydrogeological data, GIS and AHP techniques applied to delineate groundwater potential zones in sandstone, limestone and shales rocks of the Damoh district, (MP) central India. Environmental Research, 115832. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2023.115832 [30] Rane, N. L., Achari, A., & Choudhary, S. P., (2023) Multi-Criteria Decision-Making (MCDM) as a powerful tool for sustainable development: Effective applications of AHP, FAHP, TOPSIS, ELECTRE, and VIKOR in sustainability, International Research Journal of Modernization in Engineering Technology and Science, 5(4). https://www.doi.org/10.56726/IRJMETS36215 [31] Rane, N. L., Choudhary, S. P., Giduturi, M., Pande, C. B., (2023) Remote Sensing (RS) and Geographical Information System (GIS) as A Powerful Tool for Agriculture Applications: Efficiency and Capability in Agricultural Crop Management, International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology (IJISRT), 8(4), 264-274. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7845276 [32] Rane, N. L., Choudhary, S. P., Giduturi, M., Pande, C. B., (2023) Efficiency and Capability of Remote Sensing (RS) and Geographic Information Systems (GIS): A Powerful Tool for Sustainable Groundwater Management, International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology (IJISRT), 8(4), 275- 285. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7845366 [33] Ayhan, M. B. (2013). A fuzzy AHP approach for supplier selection problem: A case study in a Gear motor company. arXiv preprint arXiv:1311.2886. [34] Chan, F. T., Kumar, N., Tiwari, M. K., Lau, H. C., & Choy, K. (2008). Global supplier selection: a fuzzy-AHP approach. International Journal of production research, 46(14), 3825-3857. [35] Lyu, H. M., Sun, W. J., Shen, S. L., & Zhou, A. N. (2020). Risk assessment using a new consulting process in fuzzy AHP. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 146(3), 04019112. [36] Vahidnia, M. H., Alesheikh, A. A., & Alimohammadi, A. (2009). Hospital site selection using fuzzy AHP and its derivatives. Journal of environmental management, 90(10), 3048-3056. [37] Abdullah, L., & Zulkifli, N. (2015). Integration of fuzzy AHP and interval type-2 fuzzy DEMATEL: An application to human resource management. Expert Systems with Applications, 42(9), 4397-4409. [38] Kutlu, A. C., & Ekmekçioğlu, M. (2012). Fuzzy failure modes and effects analysis by using fuzzy TOPSIS- based fuzzy AHP. Expert systems with applications, 39(1), 61-67. [39] Srdjevic, B., & Medeiros, Y. D. P. (2008). Fuzzy AHP assessment of water management plans. Water Resources Management, 22, 877-894. [40] Rane, N. L., Achari, A., Choudhary, S. P., Giduturi, M., (2023) Effectiveness and Capability of Remote Sensing (RS) and Geographic Information Systems (GIS): A Powerful Tool for Land use and Land Cover (LULC) Change and Accuracy Assessment, International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology (IJISRT), 8(4), 286-295. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7845446 www.irjmets.com @International Research Journal of Modernization in Engineering, Technology and Science [3798] e-ISSN: 2582-5208 International Research Journal of Modernization in Engineering Technology and Science ( Peer-Reviewed, Open Access, Fully Refereed International Journal ) Volume:05/Issue:04/April-2023 Impact Factor- 7.868 www.irjmets.com [41] Patil, D. R., Rane, N. L., (2023) Customer experience and satisfaction: importance of customer reviews and customer value on buying preference, International Research Journal of Modernization in Engineering Technology and Science, 5(3), 3437- 3447. https://www.doi.org/10.56726/IRJMETS36460 [42] Rane, N. L., (2016) Application of value engineering in construction projects, International Journal of Engineering and Management Research, 6(1), 25-29. [43] Rane, N. L., (2016) Application of value engineering techniques in construction projects, international journal of engineering sciences & research technology, 5(7), 1409-1415. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.58597 [44] Gnanavelbabu, A., & Arunagiri, P. (2018). Ranking of MUDA using AHP and Fuzzy AHP algorithm. Materials Today: Proceedings, 5(5), 13406-13412. [45] Yang, C. C., & Chen, B. S. (2004). Key quality performance evaluation using fuzzy AHP. Journal of the Chinese Institute of Industrial Engineers, 21(6), 543-550. [46] Parameshwaran, R., Kumar, S. P., & Saravanakumar, K. (2015). An integrated fuzzy MCDM based approach for robot selection considering objective and subjective criteria. Applied Soft Computing, 26, 31-41. [47] Chou, S. Y., Chang, Y. H., & Shen, C. Y. (2008). A fuzzy simple additive weighting system under group decision-making for facility location selection with objective/subjective attributes. European Journal of Operational Research, 189(1), 132-145. [48] Huang, C. C., Chu, P. Y., & Chiang, Y. H. (2008). A fuzzy AHP application in government-sponsored R&D project selection. Omega, 36(6), 1038-1052.
www.irjmets.com @International Research Journal of Modernization in Engineering, Technology and Science
Mostafa, Magda, 'An Architecture For Autism. Concepts of Design Intervention For The Autistic User,' IJAR International Journal of Architectural Research, Vol. 2, Issue 1 (2008) .
Multi-Criteria Decision-Making (MCDM) As A Powerful Tool For Sustainable Development: Effective Applications of AHP, FAHP, TOPSIS, ELECTRE, and VIKOR in Sustainability
Effectiveness and Capability of Remote Sensing (RS) and Geographic Information Systems (GIS) : A Powerful Tool For Land Use and Land Cover (LULC) Change and Accuracy Assessment
Comparison of Multi Influence Factor, Weight of Evidence and Frequency Ratio Techniques To Evaluate Groundwater Potential Zones of Basaltic Aquifer Systems