You are on page 1of 25

1

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Serbia, the Serbian Armed Forces are gradually leaving the outdated principles of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