82 views

Uploaded by Dragan Pamučar

Analysis of strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats (SWOT) is a method to formulate the strategy. Although the SWOT analysis successfully provides the key factors of the problem, it has some drawbacks in selecting appropriate strategy for the evaluation and final decision steps. During recent years, some multiple criteria decision making (MCDM) remove some of these deficiencies, but the nature of these decision usually is very complex and using crisp datais not suitable. In this paper, linguistic variable represented with fuzzy numbers are used to assess the ratings and weights. This paper presents a new fuzzy mathematical model for evaluating the proposed alternatives. Fuzzy linguistic descriptors were used for describing the criteria. In this way, fuzzy logic enables the exploitation of tolerance that exists in imprecision, uncertainty and partial truth of the acquired research results.
The paper presents a model for designing the organisational structure of transport support authorities in the Serbian Armed Forces. Various organisational structure options are proposed in application of the given model, taking into account the fact that transport authorities should be designed and dimensioned so as to achieve the rudimentary goals and tasks for fulfilment of which they were established. Each task set before the transport authorities requires reliable and top-quality performance in all environmental conditions. Since most of the acquired data is characterized by a high degree of imprecision, subjectivity and uncertainty, fuzzy logic was used for displaying these.

save

You are on page 1of 25

**A NEW FUZZY MATHEMATICAL MODEL FOR MULTI CRITERIA DECISION
**

MAKING: AN APPLICATION OF FUZZY MATHEMATICAL MODEL IN AN SWOT

ANALYSIS

Abstract:

Analysis of strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats (SWOT) is a method to

formulate the strategy. Although the SWOT analysis successfully provides the key

factors of the problem, it has some drawbacks in selecting appropriate strategy for

the evaluation and final decision steps. During recent years, some multiple criteria

decision making (MCDM) remove some of these deficiencies, but the nature of these

decision usually is very complex and using crisp datais not suitable. In this paper,

linguistic variable represented with fuzzy numbers are used to assess the ratings

and weights. This paper presents a new fuzzy mathematical model for evaluating the

proposed alternatives. Fuzzy linguistic descriptors were used for describing the

criteria. In this way, fuzzy logic enables the exploitation of tolerance that exists in

imprecision, uncertainty and partial truth of the acquired research results.

The paper presents a model for designing the organisational structure of transport

support authorities in the Serbian Armed Forces. Various organisational structure

options are proposed in application of the given model, taking into account the fact

that transport authorities should be designed and dimensioned so as to achieve the

rudimentary goals and tasks for fulfilment of which they were established. Each task

set before the transport authorities requires reliable and top-quality performance in

all environmental conditions. Since most of the acquired data is characterized by a

high degree of imprecision, subjectivity and uncertainty, fuzzy logic was used for

displaying these.

Key words: SWOT analysis, organisational structure design, fuzzy logic, multi-criteria

decision making

1. INTRODUCTION

Strategic management is the process by which managers formulate and implement

strategies that enable organisations to achieve strategic objectives. Strategic

management in the broadest sense can be defined as the conscious direction of the

business system consistent with its relevant environment.

In accordance with the current reforms of the defence system of the Republic of

Serbia, the Serbian Armed Forces are gradually leaving the outdated principles of

organisation and operation of logistical support and embracing a modern logistic

2

concept. In this sense, properly structured system of organisational management

solutions to a large extent contribute to the functional efficiency of these systems,

providing corresponding cost savings.

In the process of reorganisation of the Serbian Armed Forces, there are still some

organisational forms proven inefficient in the past and in particular unsuited for the

future. Inefficient and uneconomic operation demands adequate solutions. The

process of transport authorities administrative support reorganisation requires a

design team, time and financial resources.

This paper presents a model of designing organisational scheme of administrative

structure of the Serbian Armed Forces. In complex organisational systems operating

in a changing environment, such as the armed forces, a large number of issues

whose solutions are accompanied with different types of imprecision and uncertainty

exist at all levels of management. They can be described using linguistic

expressions and modelled by uncertain numbers. In the classical approach,

uncertainty modelling is based on the application of probability theory, where

uncertainty is modelled in random sizes with different distribution. This manner of

uncertainty treatment has certain limitations. One is that the probability calculation of

any random size requires a large quantity of the data recorded, and also the fact that

the combination of different uncertainties leads to a complex probability distribution,

which requires complex mathematical expressions and increases the complexity and

volume of calculations. Development of new mathematical areas facilitated

describing imprecision and uncertainty in a more realistic way. In other words, soft

computing methods are alternatives to the classical approach in uncertainty

treatment. One of the methods of soft computing is the fuzzy theory.

Designing organisations, in particular the stage of organisational model development

is a highly complex process in which optimal solutions should be offered. SWOT

analysis is a useful "tool" for planning design strategies in which organisational

internal strengths and weaknesses are weighed against the external opportunities

and threats. The organisation should mobilise its forces, overcome weaknesses,

exploit opportunities and resist threats. Associating opportunities and risks on one

hand and strengths and weaknesses on the other, the organisation aims at providing

a conceptual framework for the selection of strategic options of the organisational

model.

3

However, the result of SWOT analysis is often merely a listing or an incomplete

qualitative examination of the internal and external factors. For this reason, SWOT

analysis cannot comprehensively appraise the strategic-making process. Applying

fuzzy multi-criteria decision making (FMDM) in the SWOT analysis eliminates the

weakness in the measurement and evaluation steps of the SWOT analysis.

2. MULTICRITERIA MATHEMATICAL METHODS

Multiple criteria decision making refers to decision making in a situation with a

number of possibly conflicting criteria. This is the greatest advantage of multiple

criteria decision making, since in practice there are a few problems influenced by

one factor only, or in other words, whose optimization includes just one criterion.

The main goal of multiple criteria methods is determination of the priorities among

specific variants or criteria in situations where a number of decision makers are

taking part, and where there are a number of decision making criteria and multiple

time periods.

There are many ways to classify the methods of multiple criteria decision making.

However, the classification of these methods in accordance with those ways is often

avoided because the models in accordance to which these methods operate are

quite similar. Their enlisting is favoured instead.

The most frequently used methods are:

- Points method,

- ELECTRE method,

- PROMETHEE method,

- TOPSIS method,

- AHP method (analytic of hierarchical processes),

- Fuzzy multicriteria decision making,

- ANFIS models,

- Models based on neuron networks

- Models based on fuzzification of the already existing multiple criteria decision

making methods.

The choice of evaluation methods depends on:

- Character, i.e. importance of the decision to be made on the basis of evaluation

- The place where the decision is to be made,

4

- Kind of the decision because of which evaluation is being made

- The ways of financing implementation of a new solution (finance construction)

In case of a responsible decision making, special methods for multiple criteria

analysis and indirect optimization are commonly used. The methods of soft

optimization are used in the first place to describe multiple objectives, with some of

them being maximized and others minimized. Then, conflicts of priorities between

the different participants in decision making process are modelled, and at the end, a

solution that is the closest to the ideal point, the best compromise, etc. is searched

for.

Most often, decision making means evaluation of sets of possible solutions or

alternatives. When evaluation is made in accordance with one criterion, the solution

(alternative) which brings the target function to an extreme is determined and the

procedure is denoted as single criterion optimization, or simply optimization.

The situation is getting more complex with two or more criteria, when instead of the

optimal solution the best possible solution needs to be provided. Any grouping of the

criteria into one criterion (total scalarisation) and reducing the task to a single

criterion generates deficiencies limiting the range of the analysis and the accuracy of

the results. Instead of total scalarisation, a multiple criteria problem is usually dealt

with in its original form, while the level of target function scalarisation is controlled by

the decision maker or the analyst. In other words, the decision maker often

evaluates criteria against each other, or attaches the ranks of importance directly,

thus shaping the target function in accordance with his own preferences.

Regardless whether it is done directly or indirectly, in the given phase of the decision

making process a matrix of alternatives and criteria is created. This matrix is

analysed and processed so that weighing grades for the alternatives, based on

which they can be ranked, may be established.

The weighing grades and ranks may be used individually or integrally, depending on

the kind of a problem. If only the best alternative is searched for, only ranking will

mostly suffice. With respect to allocation problems, grades can signify the

proportions of allocation resources in accordance with the ranks of the alternatives.

The third possibility is that identification of several best alternatives and the degree

to which they participate in the total resource allocation are searched for.

5

Multiple criteria and hierarchical structures are part of a complex environment facing

analysts when they deal with problems of decision making and creation of quality

methods for their resolution in practice. The presence of different criteria, some of

which have to be maximised and some minimized, means that decisions are made in

the conflicting conditions and that instruments more flexible than a rigid

mathematical technique related to genuine optimization have to be applied.

Special analysis and solution techniques have been developed for such tasks.

Among the most important are PROMETHEE (Brans et al, 1986), ELECTRE (Roy,

1968), AHP (Saaty, 1980), TOPSIS (Hwang and Yoon, 1981) and CP (Zeleny,

1982). These techniques fall into the category of soft optimization, since they use

heuristic parameters, distance measurements, value scales, etc. in addition to

mathematical structures and instruments. Kujaci and Bojovi (2003) proposed the

model for selecting the organisational structure using the fuzzy multi-criteria

analysis. The developed fuzzy multi-criteria methodology takes into consideration

the uncertainty and imprecision of the input data.

Each above mentioned method has several versions (for example, Promethee 1 and

2). They all have advantages and disadvantages and their application in different

areas indicates that those methods are getting increasingly indispensible in backing

responsible decision making. Recently, standard and fuzzy versions of methods are

used in parallel so that the complex of human subjectivity, expert knowledge and

inclination to use verbal instead of numerical grades may be included (Triantaphyllou

and Lin, 1996; Bender and Simonovic, 2000; Deng, 1999; Srevic et al, 2002;

Pamuar, 2009).

The methods used for modelling subjectivism, approximate reasoning and expert

knowledge of decision makers, as well as various forms of heuristics, are part of

relatively recent decision making climate in the Armed Forces of Serbia. This climate

has brought new terminology and in a certain way a new application of mathematics

and optimization theory in the realistic conditions of planning and decision making.

In the Armed Forces of Serbia today standard and fuzzy versions of multiple criteria

methods are used in parallel, but new models of multiple criteria decision making

based on fuzzy logic modelling and neuro-fuzzy modelling are being developed

(Pamuar and Božani, 2010; Pamuar, 2009; Pamuar, 2010; Pamuar et al,

2011). By modelling of fuzzy logic systems and training of the neuro-fuzzy model,

very powerful tools for decision making, based on experiential knowledge of the

6

officers of the Armed Forces of Serbia, are created. Officers experiential knowledge

is transformed to automatic management (decision making) strategy through

modelling of such systems. Fuzzy sets enable quantification of linguistic, i.e.

qualitative and inaccurate information. Therefore, fuzzy reasoning is increasingly

used in the Armed Forces of Serbia as a technique by which heuristic rules are

translated into automatic management, i.e. decision making, strategy.

Application of the fuzzy theory and fuzzy sets in multi-criteria decision making has

come into use since decision makers often act in the conditions of uncertainty or so

called partial truths. Fuzzification of standard multiple criteria methods was done in

such a way that triangular fuzzy numbers were used for determination of fuzzy

weighing values for criteria and alternatives, due to their simplicity in comparison to

trapezoid ones, while altogether, fuzzy arithmetic was, of course, used (Pamuar,

2010).

A new fuzzy mathematical method presented in this papaer has been developed for

research in the Armed Forces of Serbia. The developed method is based on

evaluation of alternatives by application of fuzzy linguistic descriptors. It makes the

procedure of alternatives ranking much easier in situations where a great number of

characteristics and parameters for decision making are present. If there are more

levels of criterion importance in the problem of alternative ranking, the described

procedure is conducted at each observed level. At each level, the coefficients of

criterion- sub criterion importance having an impact on the course of ranking is

defined, with the level of ranking being not necessarily the same for all the criteria.

The final ranking of the alternatives is made at ranking zero level.

Characteristics of some multiple criteria methods has been presented in the first part

of the paper. In the continuation, a new model for the selection of optimal variants of

organisation based on fuzzy logic has been developed starting from the relevant

theory approach. Fuzzy mathematical model (FMM) is applied in the SWOT analysis

(FM'WOT model) to optimize the existing organisational structure of the governing

bodies of transport support. The choice of organisational models is made using

Fuzzy multi-criterion and standard techniques of multi-criterion decision making. The

aforementioned model is shown in the following section of the paper.

3. FM'WOT MODEL

7

In the process of designing the organisational structure, certain decisions have to be

made. Subjective evaluation of certain parameters differ from one decision-maker to

another, it is worth pointing out. Quite a convenient approach in quantifying these

parameters is fuzzy set theory.

3.1. Fuzzy sets

Fuzzy sets theory defines fuzzy set A as a set of ordered pairs (Zadeh, 1965):

( ) ( ) ( ) , ,

, , 0 1 ,

A A

A x x x X x µ µ = e s s

where ( )

A

x µ is a membership function which shows to what extent x X e meets the

criterions for membership in a set A. For the membership function ( ) 0 1

A

x µ s s ,

for every x A e , i.e. ¸ [

: 0,1

A

X µ ÷ .

According to the fuzzy theory the choice of membership functions i.e. the form of the

function and confidence intervals width are usually made based on subjective

estimates or experience. The most commonly used are trapezoidal and triangular

fuzzy numbers. Triangular fuzzy numbers with membership functions shown in

Figure 1 are used in this paper.

Figure 1. Triangular fuzzy number

Triangular fuzzy numbers are usually given in the form

1 2 3

( , , ) A a a a = , where

2

a is

the value where the membership function of the fuzzy number is 1.0,

1

a is the left

distribution of the confidence interval and

3

a the right distribution of the confidence

interval of the fuzzy number A.

Fuzzy number Amembership function is defined as:

8

( )

1

1

1 2

2 1

3

2 3

3 2

3

0,

,

,

0,

A

x a

x a

a x a

a a

x

a x

a x a

a a

x a

µ

< ¦

÷ ¦

s s

¦

¦ ÷

=

´

÷

¦ s s

÷

¦

> ¦

¹

For defuzzification and mapping of the fuzzy number

1 2 3

( , , ) A a a a = value into a real

numbers, numerous methods are used, Figure 2.

Figure 2. Defuzzification

Two methods have been used in this paper:

- The centre of gravity: ( ) ( )

1

3 1 2 1 1

A= 3 defuzzy a a a a a

÷

( ÷ + ÷ +

¸ ¸

**- The total integral value: ( )
**

1

3 2 1

A= 1 2 defuzzy a a a ì ì

÷

( + + ÷

¸ ¸

(with

¸ [

, 0,1 ì ì e

being an optimism index)

3.2. Basic model

It is characteristic for all multi-criteria problems that there are multiple criteria in

decision-making and various alternatives to select the most appropriate action.

Different organisations evaluate variant solutions and optimal variants using the

FMM model described in the continuation.

SWOT analysis is used for assessing what to eliminate, partially keep or keep to

define design strategies for designing organisational structure. Using analysis of

strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats for the given organisation,

optimisation model of functioning is proposed.

Fuzzy mathematical model includes the following steps:

Step 1. Identify SWOT sub-factors and determinate the alternative strategies

according to the SWOT sub-factors. Determine the importance degrees of the

SWOT factors.

9

If the model used for evaluation of alternatives of the already proposed

organisational structure alternatives, this step is omitted. The following steps will

represent a general case where K is considered from the point of different optimality

criteria in terms of which the best alternative for a finite set of alternatives is

determined , , ( )

1 2

, , , , 2

n

A a a a n = . > . Optimum criterions are formally given as

, , 1, , , , K k K = . . , where K is the overall number of the criteria considered.

Multiple-attribute problem in the decision-making is represented by the matrix F

dimension K A × .

1

11 1 1

1

1

...

n m n

n m n

k kn m kn k

K Kn m Kn K

A A A

f f f K

F f f f K

f f f K

÷

÷

÷

÷

(

(

(

( =

(

(

(

¸ ¸

where

( )

1, , 1,

ki

f i A k K = = is the linguistic or numerical value of the optimum criterion

k K e for alternatives ( ) a a A e . If at least one criterion is described by linguistic

expression in the description of the optimum criterion, step 2 is taken.

Step 2. Defining the set of linguistic descriptors. Criterion values are described by a

set of linguistic descriptors , , , ,

1 2

, , , , 0, ,

i

S l l l i H T = . e = . , where T is the overall

number of linguistic descriptors. Linguistic variables are represented by triangular

fuzzy numbers

1 2 3

( , , ) A a a a = .

Step 3. Normalisation of the optimisation criterion. For the value

( )

1, , 1,

ki

f i A k K = = to

be comparable, it is necessary to normalise them. If the optimisation criteria are

given as linguistic values

( )

1, , 1,

ki

f i A k K = = ,

, ,

,

ki

ki ki

f

f f µ = normalisation is

performed as follows:

- for the benefit criterion ( ) k k K e normalisation is performed as follows:

( )

max

k

k

n

k

i

i

f

f

f

= (1)

where

max

k

f is max value of the fuzzy number

( 1, , )

ki

f k K = . , for

( ) 0

ki

ki

f

f µ =

- for the cost criterion ( ) k k K e normalisation is performed as follows:

10

( )

min

max

1

ki k

ik

n

k

f f

f

f

÷

= ÷ (2)

where

min

k

f is minimum value of the fuzzy number

( 1, , )

ki

f k K = . , for

( ) 0

ki

ki

f

f µ = .

The normalised value of the criterion ( ) k k K e for ( ) a a A e alternative is described

by fuzzy number:

( )

( )

, ,

,

ik

ik ik

f n

n

f f µ = (3)

If the optimality criteria are described in numerical values

( )

1, , 1,

ki

f i A k K = = ,

normalisation is performed as follows:

1

1

, 1

k

ki

K

ki

ki ki

k

K

f

f

f f

=

=

= =

¿

¿

(4)

Step 4. Evaluation criteria. , , 1, , , , K k K = . . is a set of optimality criteria, where K

is the overall number of the considered criteria. Every criterion can be disaggregated

into sub-criteria. If

j

k is the overall number of sub-criteria in j

th

criterion the overall

number of criterions can be given as:

1

n

j

j

K k

=

=

¿

(5)

Every criterion has to be divided into sub-criteria. In that case

j

k of the criterion

equals 1. This is important for understanding the aggregation process of judgments

made at two consecutive hierarchical levels, where criteria and sub-criteria are

located. Here criteria and sub-criteria are aggregated by shifting criteria at the sub-

criteria level. After that shift, the whole criteria level does not exist anymore.

Relative importance of the optimality criterion ( ) ( ) , 1, ,

k

k k K W k K e = . is different.

The value representing the importance of the optimality criteria is determined by

forming a matrix

K K

kij

w W

×

(

=

¸ ¸

. Elements of the matrix are linguistic descriptors and

numerical values used to describe the importance of the criterion ( ) k k K e to

criterion ( ) k k K ' ' e . Having established W matrix, normalisation of the weight

coefficients is performed:

11

¸ [

1

1

, 1, 0,1

j

j

K

j k

j

kij k k K

j

k j

w w w

w

w

ì

ì =

=

= =

¿

¿

(6)

where

j

ì represents the preference of decision maker to attribute i .

The process of designing the organisational structure is most often in the hands of

more than one expert i.e. decision-maker. In this case, optimality criteria evaluation

of all the group members should first be obtained to pass on to the necessary

synthesis and then to step 5. In other cases, step 6 is taken.

Step 5. Evaluating the criteria in case of group evaluation. In group decision-making,

there is group synthesis with complete and incomplete information.

In case of group synthesis with complete information, provided that all the members

( 1, 2,..., ) e n = of the group G are considered equal in the decision making and that all

the evaluation of the optimality criterion for the given hierarchy have been

performed, there are two ways for prioritising the alternatives relative to the goal.

One is to aggregate all the obtained priority criterion vectors for every decision-

maker using the following equation:

1

( )

n

G

i e i

e

w w e o

=

=

¿

(7)

where ( )

i

w e is the weight value which is the n th member of the group G ,

( 1, 2,..., ) e n = for the alternative

i

A ,

e

o is the weight value (significance) of the n th

member of the group, and

G

i

w is the ultimate priority of the alternative

i

A . Individual

weights of the

e

o group members have first been additively normalised. The

drawback of the presented procedure is that it is not applicable in case of group

synthesis with incomplete information, as there are no composite vectors for certain

members of the group.

Another way is to immediately aggregate all the individual preference assessments

on all hierarchical levels.

1

1 1 1

1 1 1 1

1

j

j

n n n

n n n n

j k

i j ij j ij j ij

i j j j

j

k

k

j

ij K

w

w a a w

w

a

ì

ì ì ì

ì

÷

= = = =

=

¦ ¹ (

'

( ( (

¦ ¦

( ' = ÷÷÷

´ ` ( ( (

(

¸ ¸ ¸ ¸ ¸ ¸ ¦ ¦

¸ ¸

= =

'

¹ )

¿

¿ [ [ [

¸ [

1

1, 0,1

k

j

K

k

w w

=

=

¿

(8)

where

j

ì represents the preference of the decision-maker to attribute i .

12

N case of group synthesis with incomplete information, microaggregation of the

( ) , i j position at the given matrix is done by geometric mean of the assessments of

those group members who expressed preference

i

E compared to the element

j

E .

The requirement in this case is for at least one decision maker to declare on the

value of

ij

a . Modifying the previous expression:

( )

1

1 1

1

1 1 1

1 j

j

n M

G M

n n n n

j k

G

i j ij j ij j ij kij

i l L j j

j

j

K

G

k

w

w a l a a w

w

ì

ì ì ì

ì

÷

= e = =

=

¦ ¹ (

( (

( ¦ ¦

( = ÷÷÷

´ ` ( (

(

(

¸ ¸

¸ ¸ ¸ ¸ ¦ ¦

¸ ¸ ¹

=

)

=

¿ [ [ [

¿

¸ [

1

1, 0,1

k

j

K

k

w w

=

=

¿

(9)

where l is a set of group members who have evaluated the pair of elements

( )

,

i j

E E ,

and M is the number of such members.

Step 6. Evaluating alternatives. Having determined the values of the weight

coefficients for all the assessed criterions, a matrix

F W

ij

c F

×

(

=

¸ ¸

is formed where the

matrix elements

ij

c are obtained using the following expression:

1

ij

ij k j

ki

ki

i

f

f

c w

=

=

¿

(10)

where

ki

f

is the value of the criterion function for the alternative

( 1, ) i i A =

and

criterion

( ) k k K e

, and

ij

k

w

is the value of the weight coefficient for the criterion

( ) k k K e

.

Additive synthesis has been assumed here and the final alternative performance

weights with respect to overall goal are calculated by the summation of elements in

the rows of the performance matrix

F W

ij

c F

×

(

=

¸ ¸

as:

1

K

i ij j

j

c c w

=

=

¿

(11)

Value of the criterion functions

i

V for every assessed alternative is obtained from the

F matrix using the expression:

1

, ( )

j

K

i j

V c k K

=

= e

¿

(12)

To finally rank the alternatives, the prioritisation of aggregated assessments is

required. Since each

i

V is a triangular fuzzy number, it is necessary to apply the

13

method of ranking triangular fuzzy numbers. There are several methods that can do

this such as the centre of gravity method, the dominance measure method, the o -

cut with interval synthesis method and the total integral value method. The last one –

total integral value method (Liou and Wang, 1992), is considered to be a good

choice for performing the task efficiently and, therefore, has been proposed within

this methodology. For the given triangular fuzzy number

1 2 3

( , , ) A a a a = the total

integral value is defined as:

( ) ¸ [

1

3 2 1

I (A)= 1 2 , 0,1

T

a a a

ì

ì ì ì

÷

( + + ÷ e

¸ ¸

(13)

In Eq. 13, ì represents an optimism index which expresses the decision maker’s

attitude towards risk. A larger value of ì indicates a higher degree of optimism. In

practical applications, values 0, 0.5 and 1 are used respectively to represent the

pessimistic, moderate and optimistic views of the decision maker.

For given fuzzy numbers A and B it is said that if I (A)<I (B)

T T

ì ì

, then A B < ; if

I (A) I (B)

T T

ì ì

= then A B = ; and if I (A) I (B)

T T

ì ì

> , then A B > .

The final ranking of alternatives means to adopt certain level of optimism of the

decision-maker, then to apply Eq. 13 on fuzzy numbers Eq. 12, and finally to rank

alternatives regarding obtained values for I ( ), 1, ...,

T i

F i N

ì

= . The best alternative from

the set is represented as

( )

max , 1,..,

i i

V V

f f i A = = .

The presented method significantly simplifies the procedure of ranking the

alternatives in situations where there are a number of characteristics and parameters

of decision making. On the basis of the proposed algorithm, a system for decision

support in the programming language C

#

was developed.

4. DESIGNING THE MANAGEMENT ORGANISATIONAL STRUCTURE OF THE

TRAFFIC SUPPORT USING FM'WOT MODEL

Designing a military management system has a large influence on the creation,

adaptation, existence and quality of the system operation. No organisational system

within the military can operate independently of its management subsystem

responsible for issuing commands for the desired “behaviour” of the system, while

the actual behaviour can deviate from the desired.

To meet the requirements of a large number of traffic and transport services users

and at the same time efficiently and primarily servicing the requirements of the

14

military, an organisational structure that will successfully implement all these must

exist.

As part of the General Staff and the Logistics department, traffic management is the

highest professional traffic authority of the Serbian Armed Forces. Traffic

management is responsible and accountable for the conditions, development,

management, organisation, monitoring, training, normative regulation and traffic

control support and other tasks within its competence.

Events from the 90's, called for a review of the organisational structure of the

transport support governing bodies. This situation highlights the need for further

study of the organisational structure of traffic management.

4.1. An illustrative application of SWOT analysis

This section presents an illustration of the proposed approach summarized in the

previous section.

In order to define the governing bodies for traffic support design strategy, a SWOT

analysis of influence i.e. opportunities and threats from the environment on the

management of the traffic support has been done, Figure 3. SWOT analysis is used

to manage the total organisation, the overall pattern of structural components and

arrangement.

15

Figure 3. FMM model for SWOT

Having applied the SWOT analysis, four varieties of the traffic support governing

bodies organisational structure are defined:

16

Alternative 1 (

1

A ). The current organisation of the governing bodies of the traffic

support, defined on the basis of normative regulation for determining the

organisational solutions in the military formations and experience of those

participating in making decisions. The current organisation consists of two

organisational units: Department of Traffic Operations and Department of Transport.

Alternative 2 (

2

A ). Organisational structure of the governing bodies of the traffic

support after the NATO standard.

Alternative 3 (

3

A ). Organisational structure established according to the processes

where organisational units are defined for each of those processes. Specialists

indispensable for implementing these processes are present in each group. If traffic

management is viewed as the governing body or management of the transport

support, then it is the holder of the implementation of certain processes.

Alternative 4 (

2

A ).The structure of the traffic support governing bodies using the

logistic approach and functional principle of organisation of the prescribed authority,

as a specific manifestation of the internal division of labour, differentiation and

specialisation, organisational units and holders of command and control.

4.2. Assessment, Synthesis and Ranking

First steps in the application of the fuzzy mathematical model would be defining the

set of linguistic descriptors. Linguistic variables are represented by a set of linguistic

descriptors

1 2

{ , ,..., }, {0,1,..., },

i

S l l l i H T = e = where T is the overall number of

linguistic descriptors. In this case the number of linguistic descriptors is 9 T = :

Unessential – U, Very low – VL, Fairly low – FL, Low – L, Medium – M, High – H,

Medium high – MH, Very high – VH and Perfect – P. Linguistic descriptors have the

following values, Figure 4.

17

Figure 4. Linguistic descriptors

0, 0

(0.125 ) / 0.125 0 0.125

U

l

x

x x

µ

< ¦ ¹

=

´ `

÷ s s

¹ )

(14)

/ 0.125, 0 0.125

(0.250 ) / 0.125, 0.125 0.25

VL

l

x x

x x

µ

s s ¦ ¹

=

´ `

÷ s s

¹ )

(15.)

**( 0.125) / 0.125, 0.125 0.250
**

(0.375 ) / 0.125 0.250 0.375

FL

l

x x

x x

µ

÷ s s ¦ ¹

=

´ `

÷ s s

¹ )

(16)

( 0.25) / 0.125, 0.25 0.375

(0.50 ) / 0.125 0.375 0.50

L

l

x x

x x

µ

÷ s s ¦ ¹

=

´ `

÷ s s

¹ )

(17)

**( 0.375) / 0.125, 0.375 0.50
**

(0.625 ) / 0.125 0.50 0.625

M

l

x x

x x

µ

÷ s s ¦ ¹

=

´ `

÷ s s

¹ )

(18)

( 0.50) / 0.125, 0.50 0.625

(0.75 ) / 0.125 0.625 0.75

H

l

x x

x x

µ

÷ s s ¦ ¹

=

´ `

÷ s s

¹ )

(19)

**( 0.625) / 0.125, 0.625 0.75
**

(0.875 ) / 0.125 0.75 0.875

MH

l

x x

x x

µ

÷ s s ¦ ¹

=

´ `

÷ s s

¹ )

(20)

( 0.75) / 0.125, 0.75 0.875

(1 ) / 0.125 0.875 1

VH

l

x x

x x

µ

÷ s s ¦ ¹

=

´ `

÷ s s

¹ )

(21)

**( 0.875) / 0.125, 0.875 1
**

1, 1

P

l

x x

x

µ

÷ s < ¦ ¹

=

´ `

>

¹ )

(22)

To determine the relative importance of the evaluation criteria SWOT, they were

pair-wise compared with respect to the goal by using the fuzzyfied. In Table 1 the

evaluation of linguistic criterions for each of the presented alternatives according to

observed optimality criterions are given.

18

Table 1. Optimality criterion level of influence on the observed alternatives.

Criteria and sub-criteria

Linguistic criteria Benefit-cost criteria

A

1

A

2

A

3

A

4

Min Max

Strengths

1. Capable and competent

personnel

M MH H H -

2. Tactical-operational units swift

dislocation capability

M VH H MH -

3. Strong management team M VH H MH -

Weaknesses

1. Number of hierarchical levels H M M M -

2. Personnel motivation

possibilities

L VH H H -

3. Organisational structure

efficiency

L VH M MH -

4. Coordination VL VH M VH -

5. Sharing experience with

foreign armed forces

VL VH M P -

6. Partial optimisation VH VL L FL -

7. Resources exploitation M VH H VH -

Opportunities

1. Cooperation with foreign

armed forces

L VH MH VH -

2. Liberalisation of personnel

education abroad

M VH MH VH -

3. Modern informational

technologies introduction in the

area of business organisation

L VH M VH -

4. Establishing of logistic support

organisation capable of

satisfying command demands

VL VH M H -

5. Grouping of organisational

units according to NATO

standards

L H M VH -

6. Participation in logistic support

of the NATO forces

VL MH M VH -

Threats

1. Political and economic

instability in Serbia

VH M VH H -

2. Qualified personnel outflow VH MH VH MH -

3. Changes in logistic support

doctrine

VH M H H -

4. Changes in the country’s

defence doctrine

VH M H H -

19

Linguistically expressed preferences among criteria have been used to create a

judgment matrix W as given in step 4.

Following the decision-maker’s criterion assessment, normalisation of optimality

criteria using Eqs. 1 and 2 is performed. The weighting vector

kij

w

of criteria matrix

W was determined by applying Eq. 6.

Each entry of this vector is the sum of elements in the related row of matrix W ,

divided by the sum of all its elements.

(0.32, 0.30, 0.27) 0.33

(0.40, 0.36, 0.32) 0.29

(0.16, 0.18, 0.21) 0.20

(0.12, 0.15, 0.20) 0.17

s

w

SWOT

o

t

w

w

W

w

w

( ( (

( ( (

( ( (

= = =

( ( (

( ( (

¸ ¸ ¸ ¸ ¸ ¸

In the next step the judgment matrices for sub-criteria related to respective criteria

were obtained. Related sub-criteria weighting vectors were calculated as defined by

Eqs. 6 (Table 2).

20

Table 2. The priorities of the SWOT factors and groups

SWOT

Local

priority

SWOT factors

Global

priorities

Strengths 0.33

Capable and competent personnel 0.39

Tactical-operational units swift dislocation

capability

0.26

Strong management team 0.35

Weaknesses 0.29

Number of hierarchical levels 0.12

Personnel motivation possibilities 0.13

Organisational structure efficiency 0.14

Coordination 0.17

Sharing experience with foreign armed forces 0.10

Partial optimisation 0.16

Resources exploitation 0.18

Opportunities 0.20

Cooperation with foreign armed forces 0.15

Liberalisation of personnel education abroad 0.18

Modern informational technologies

introduction in the area of business

organisation

0.09

Establishing of logistic support organisation

capable of satisfying command demands

0.20

Grouping of organisational units according to

NATO standards

0.12

Participation in logistic support of the NATO

forces

0.12

Threats 0.17

Political and economic instability in Serbia 0.35

Qualified personnel outflow 0.07

Changes in logistic support doctrine 0.30

Changes in the country’s defence doctrine 0.27

Having determined the value of the weighing coefficients for each of the observed

criterions, matrix

F W

ij

c F

×

(

=

¸ ¸

is formed (Table 3).

21

able 3. Additive synthesis

SWOT factors Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 W

2

W

1

S

t

r

e

n

g

t

h

s S

1

(0.119,0.113,0.109) (0.119,0.113,0.109) (0.078,0.084,0.088) (0.078,0.084,0.088) 0.39

0,33

S

2

(0.129,0.103,0.092) (0.129,0.103,0.092) (0.000,0.026,0.037) (0.000,0.026,0.037) 0.26

S

3

(0.116,0.108,0.102) (0.116,0.108,0.102) (0.077,0.080,0.083) (0.040,0.053,0.062) 0.35

W

e

a

k

n

e

s

s

e

s

W

1

(0.027,0.028,0.030) (0.027,0.028,0.030) (0.018,0.021,0.024) (0.046,0.042,0.036) 0,12

0,29

W

2

(0.030,0.031,0.032) (0.045,0.042,0.039) (0.030,0.031,0.032) (0.030,0.031,0.032) 0,13

W

3

(0.024,0.027,0.030) (0.036,0.036,0.037) (0.024,0.027,0.030) (0.060,0.053,0.045) 0,14

W

4

(0.016,0.022,0.028) (0.046,0.045,0.046) (0.030,0.033,0.037) (0.076,0.067,0.056) 0,17

W

5

(0.028,0.027,0.027) (0.028,0.027,0.027) (0.018,0.020,0.022) (0.028,0.027,0.027) 0,10

W

6

(0.040,0.040,0.040) (0.040,0.040,0.040) (0.040,0.040,0.040) (0.040,0.040,0.040) 0,16

W

7

(0.025,0.029,0.035) (0.063,0.058,0.052) (0.025,0.029,0.035) (0.063,0.058,0.052) 0,18

O

p

p

o

r

t

u

n

i

t

i

e

s

O

1

(0.017,0.021,0.027) (0.043,0.042,0.040) (0.043,0.042,0.040) (0.043,0.042,0.040) 0,15

0,20

O

2

(0.023,0.028,0.034) (0.058,0.055,0.050) (0.058,0.055,0.050) (0.035,0.037,0.042) 0,18

O

3

(0.012,0.014,0.017) (0.031,0.029,0.026) (0.031,0.029,0.026) (0.012,0.014,0.017) 0,09

O

4

(0.023,0.028,0.036) (0.058,0.056,0.054) (0.058,0.056,0.054) (0.058,0.056,0.054) 0,20

O

5

(0.018,0.021,0.025) (0.046,0.042,0.037) (0.009,0.014,0.019) (0.046,0.042,0.037) 0,12

O

6

(0.014,0.017,0.022) (0.035,0.034,0.032) (0.035,0.034,0.032) (0.035,0.034,0.032) 0,12

T

h

r

e

a

t

s

T

1

(0.050,0.059,0.071) (0.127,0.118,0.106) (0.050,0.059,0.071) (0.127,0.118,0.106) 0,35

0,17

T

2

(0.009,0.011,0.013) (0.022,0.021,0.019) (0.013,0.014,0.016) (0.022,0.021,0.019) 0,07

T

3

(0.076,0.076,0.076) (0.076,0.076,0.076) (0.076,0.076,0.076) (0.076,0.076,0.076) 0,30

T

4

(0.069,0.069,0.069) (0.069,0.069,0.069) (0.069,0.069,0.069) (0.069,0.069,0.069) 0,27

22

where the matrix elements

ij

c

are calculated using Eq. 10.

1 2 3 4

(0.30, 0.32, 0.36) (0.36, 0.32, 0.30) (0.16, 0.19, 0.21) (0.12, 0.16, 0.19)

(0.20, 0.21, 0.23) (0.24, 0.26, 0.23) (0.19, 0.21, 0.23) (0.30, 0.33, 0.35)

(0.07, 0.08, 0.11) (0.29, 0.31, 0.32) (0.26, 0.27, 0.29) (0.26, 0.27, 0.2

A A A A

F =

0.33

0.29

9) 0.20

(0.14, 0.14, 0.17) (0.30, 0.31, 0.32) (0.21, 0.23, 0.25) (0.29, 0.31, 0.34) 0.17

( (

( (

×

( (

( (

( (

¸ ¸ ¸ ¸

Table 4. Final ranking of alternatives

Decision

alternative

Index of optimism

Final rank

=0.0

(pessimistic)

=0.5

(moderate)

=1.0

(optimistic)

Alternative 1 0.205 0.212 0.220 4

Alternative 2 0.285 0.295 0.305 1

Alternative 3 0.210 0.220 0.230 3

Alternative 4 0.245 0.255 0.265 2

The assessment of alternatives has been performed using relations 10 and 12. The

final alternative performance weights, with respect to the overall goal, have been

calculated by Eq. 32 as:

1

2

3

4

(0.20, 0.21, 0.23)

(0.28, 0.29, 0.32)

(0.20, 0.22, 0.24)

(0.22, 0.26, 0.27)

V

V

V

V

V

( (

( (

( (

= =

( (

( (

¸ ¸ ¸ ¸

For the typical values of ì that express the decision-maker’s attitude toward risk, the

final ranking of alternatives is obtained by applying Eq. 13. The normalised values

presented in Table 4 show that Alternative 2 is the best. It is followed by Alternative

4, Alternative 3 and Alternative 1 respectively, regardless of the decision-maker’s

level of optimism.

By using the centre of gravity method to defuzzify the V values given above, the

final weights of alternatives obtained after normalization were: 0.213 (Alternative 1),

0.297 (Alternative 2), 0.220 (Alternative 3) and 0.253 (Alternative 4). Obviously, the

final ranking is equal to the previous one.

5. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

Organisation is not a sum of mechanical parts, rather an "organic whole" with a

purpose and mission. In the process of designing the organisational structure it is

23

necessary, having defining the objectives and design criteria, to analyse the state of

the organisation.

In addition to organisations operating in an uncertain environment, there is a degree

of uncertainty and imprecision of criteria used in the process of organisational

design. Fuzzy multi-criteria approach developed in this paper allows the

quantification of these criteria and selection of the best alternative out of proposed

organisational models. The presented model enables the evaluation of the proposed

options of organisational structure, regardless of the number of optimality criteria and

sub-criteria. The model allows for the choice of best alternative from a set described

using K optimality criteria and sub-criteria. The criteria described can be of benefit

or cost type. The criteria relevant to the design of organisations as well as their

influence on the choice of alternatives have their values displayed as numerical

values or fuzzy linguistic descriptors. Since the process of organisational design

often involved a number of experts, the model allows for a possibility of optimality

criteria values synthesis in case of group decision-making. Decision-making in a

group differs from individual decision-making on methodological and mathematical

levels. Group syntheses with complete and incomplete information are discussed in

the model. In addition, the model enables comparison of the criterion functions

output values using two methods dephasification of the centre of gravity and the total

integral value method.

Application of the given model is shown on the example of designing the

organisational structure of the governing bodies of transport support. The complex

environment, in which these governing bodies act, does not tolerate organisational

improvisation, rather requires a planned and methodological organisational project

and its constant modification and adaptation. Selection of the appropriate

organisational structure is one of the most significant decisions, as the capabilities of

the governing system will be significantly slowed down if an organisational structure

is inadequate for the circumstances in which the organisation is.

Although the model application was shown on the example of designing governing

bodies within the armed forces, it possesses great flexibility and can be adapted to

any particular problem. Very easily, with minor modifications, it can be applied for the

selection of organisational structure of any business system.

6. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

24

This paper is a part of the project funded by the Ministry of defence of the Republic

of Serbia and University of defence of the Republic of Serbia, Project number:

T3/11013.

REFERENCES

Bender MJ, Simonovic SP (2000). A fuzzy compromise approach to water resources

systems planning under uncertainty. Fuzzy Set. Syst.,115: 35-44.

Bozanic D, Pamucar D (2010). Evaluating locations for river crossing using fuzzy

logic. Milit. Techn. Cour., 1: 129-145.

Brans JP, Vincke P, Mareschal B (1986). How to select and how to rank projects by

the Promethee method. Eur. J. Oper. Res., 24: 228-238.

Deng H (1999). Multicriteria analysis with fuzzy pairwisecomparison. Int. J. Approx.

Reason., 21: 215-231.

Hwang CL, Yoon KS (1981). Multiple attribute decision making: methods and

applications. Springer, Berlin.

Kujacic M, Bojovic N (2003). Organizational design of post corporation structure

using fuzzy multicriteria decision making. Comput. Mathematical Organ. Theory, 9:

5-18.

Liou TS, Wang MJJ (1992). Ranking fuzzy numbers with integral value. Fuzzy Set.

Syst., 50: 247-256.

Pamucar D (2009). Design of the organisational structure using fuzzy logic

approach. Master paper. Serbia: Faculty of Transport and Traffic Engineering,

Belgrade.

Pamucar D (2010). Using fuzzy logic and neural networks during decision making

proces in transport. Milit. Techn. Cour., 3: 125-143.

Pamucar D, Bozanic D, Dorovic B, Milic A (2011a). Modelling of the fuzzy logical

system for offering support in making decisions within the engineering units of the

Serbian army. Int. J. Phys. Sci, 3: 592-609.

Roy B (1968). Ranking and selection in the presence of multiple viewpoints. Comput.

Oper. Res., 8: 57-75.

Saaty TL (1980). The analytic hierarchy process. McGraw-Hill, New York.

Srdevic B, Medeiros Y, Srdevic Z, Schaer M (2002). Evaluating management

strategies in Paraguacu river basin by analytic hierarchy process. First Biennial

25

Meeting of the International Environmental Modeling and Software Society, 1: 42-

47.

Triantaphyllou E, Lin CT (1996). Development and evaluation of five multiattribute

decision making methods. Int. J. Approx. Reason., 14: 281-310.

Zadeh LA (1965). Fuzzy sets. Inf. Control. 8: 338-353.

Zeleny M (1982). Multiple citeria decision making. McGraw-Hill Book Company, New

York.

- Principles of Management.pptUploaded bybiotech_savvy
- How to Research Your Business Idea - EntrepreneurUploaded byAshik
- Toward trustworthy cloud service selection: A time-aware approach using interval neutrosophic setUploaded byMia Amalia
- A New Approach to Fuzzy Distance Measure and Similarity Measure Between Two Generalized Fuzzy NumbersUploaded byctwan
- fonsecaUploaded byBhagavathi Shankar
- Extensions to Linguistic Summaries Indicators based on Neutrosophic TheoryUploaded byAnonymous 0U9j6BLllB
- Internship ReprtUploaded byMuhammad Kashif
- DraftUploaded byMichael Odiembo
- AccorUploaded byM Nasir Arif
- TOPSIS APPROACH TO CHANCE CONSTRAINED MULTI - OBJECTIVE MULTI- LEVEL QUADRATIC PROGRAMMING PROBLEMUploaded byMia Amalia
- Developing of Decision Support System for Budget Allocation of an r&d OrganizationUploaded byInternational Journal of Research in Engineering and Technology
- Fuzzy Sets in HR ManagementUploaded byDian Abiyoga
- business plan template for websiteUploaded byapi-250597330
- iuicUploaded byIqra Khalid
- Case a Study Report Format GuidelineUploaded byvicente
- A Sample SWOT Analysis ExampleUploaded bymeghna15094589
- Fuzzy-Logic Based Trend Classification for Fault Diagnosis of Chemical ProcessesUploaded byRony
- 377-2060-1-PBUploaded byDewi Rahmawati
- Use of Case Studies to Learn in ACCT7107(1)Uploaded bySara Feng
- ch03_FLSUploaded byHaimặtcủa MộtĐồng Tiền
- Degree of Dependence and Independence of the (Sub)Components of Fuzzy Set and Neutrosophic SetUploaded byAnonymous 0U9j6BLllB
- EEE513 Soft Computing.docUploaded bysunil8080
- Report Anshuman 08bs0000451Uploaded byAnkita Gupta
- INTELLIGENT MULTI-AGENT FUZZY CONTROL SYSTEM UNDER UNCERTAINTYUploaded byCS & IT

- Linearno Programiranje - SimplexUploaded byDragan Pamučar
- Sistemi Za Obrazovanje Smješe Kod OTO Motora Seminarski RadUploaded byDragan Pamučar
- 2-Deskriptivne Velicine 2013 TekstUploaded byDragan Pamučar
- Masina Za Pranje - UputstvoUploaded byDragan Pamučar
- ANFIS - SAUploaded byDragan Pamučar
- SWARAUploaded byDragan Pamučar
- Type Reduction of Fls-t2Uploaded byDragan Pamučar
- SELECTION OF RAILWAY LEVEL CROSSINGS FOR INVESTING IN SECURITY EQUIPMENT USING HYBRID DEMATEL-MARICA MODELUploaded byDragan Pamučar
- Fuzzy visekriterijumsko odlucivanjeUploaded byDragan Pamučar
- ApAPPLICATION OF ADAPTIVE NEURO FUZZY INFERENCE SYSTEM IN THE PROCESS OF TRANSPORTATION SUPPORTjor Article AnfisUploaded byDragan Pamučar
- ANFIS obucavanje primenom simuliranog kaljenjaUploaded byDragan Pamučar
- Decision support model for prioritizing railway level crossings for safety improvements in Serbia: Application of adaptive neuro-fuzzy systemUploaded byDragan Pamučar
- ViljuskariUploaded byDragan Pamučar
- Organisational design of the management of the traffic support using fuzzy multi criteria decision making in strategic planningUploaded byDragan Pamučar