83 views

Uploaded by Pranav Mishra

- CAN FUZZY MULTI-CRITERIA DECISION MAKING IMPROVE STRATEGIC PLANNING BY BALANCED SCORECARD?
- v28_man04
- 49 MeissnerDecker ComparisonCBCandAHP ConsumerPreferences REV FIN[1]
- Sigmoidal Model for Belief Function- Based Electre Tri Method
- ga_math_a
- Analytical Study of AHP and Fuzzy AHP Techniques
- 12.pdf
- 1-s2.0-S0167923612002047-main.pdf
- IJCSET Vol 1 Issue 2 August 2010
- PROMET 21
- A Decision Support System for Ground Improvement Projects Using Gypsum
- chapter7-MCDM-RiskChanges-User-Manual.pdf
- Research PPT
- Activity 7.6 Chapter Problems - David Shoemaker
- RESEARCH ON WIND ENERGY INVESTMENT DECISION MAKING: A CASE STUDY IN JILIN
- Design Sheet for Biaxial Bending
- 3 Digital Image Processing Operations Chapter3 DIP
- Pure Mathematics Unit 1 P2 2018
- Quiz 1 Marking Scheme
- Advance 1

You are on page 1of 57

Lets consider

Luna wants to go on a vacation. She has 3 options

How to decide..???

Let us consider

Each option can be evaluated against certain criteria. Criteria for vacation destinations can be:

Similarly

Selecting a source of information (library, internet, etc) involves various criteria such as: Reliability of information Time to gather information Cost of acquiring information

These

MCDM

Multiple Criteria Decision Making

Selection of the best, from a set of alternatives, each of which is evaluated against multiple criteria. Some problem solving techniques are : SAW (Simple Additive Weighting) TOPSIS (Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to the Ideal Solution) ELECTRE (Elimination et Choice Translating Reality) AHP (The Analytical Hierarchy Process) SMART (The Simple Multi Attribute Rating Technique ) ANP (Analytic network process)

Important terms

to be evaluated for selection of the best.

Example: (for vacation problem)Hogwarts, Hogsmeade, Azkaban

selection of alternatives.

Example: (for vacation problem) entertainment, facilities, travel cost, accommodation cost

criteria are included.

relatively unimportant or to be duplicates should be removed at a very early stage.

against each criterion.

Important terms

of criteria.

Each attribute is given certain points on 0-10 or 0-100 rating scale by a team of experts or decision makers. Example:

criteria scale

weight

4 2 6 8

rating

10 very good -1 none 10 very good -1 none 10 low-1 very high 10 low-1 very high

Important terms

assigned with the task of weighting each attribute.

criteria

rating scale

Ron

2 3

Harry

10 very good -1 none 10 very good -1 none 10 low-1 very high 10 low-1 very high

Attributes weights

= = =4 =2

Criteria

entertainmen t Facilities

6 1 4 2

Important terms

Decision maker rates each attribute of each alternative Example: for alternate 1 ( hogwarts)

Criteria Decision makers Attributes weights = = = =

Harry

entertainmen t Facilities Travel cost Acc. Cost 10 7 5 9

Ron

8 8 6 5

Hermoine

9 6 7 7

=9 =7 =6 =7

Similarly

Criteria Decision makers Harry Ron 6 9 Hermoine 9 4 = = =8 =7 9 8 Attributes weights

entertainmen t Facilities

Travel cost

Acc. Cost

7

5

10

7

10

6

=

=

=9

=6

Criteria entertainmen t Decision makers Harry 9 Ron 4 Hermoine 8 = =7 Attributes weights

Facilities

Travel cost Acc. Cost

7

6 7

9

5 6

8

7 5

=

= =

=8

=6 =6

Decision matrix

Criteria entertainmen t Facilities Travel cost Acc. Cost Hogwarts 9 7 6 7 hogsmeade Azkaban 8 7 9 6 7 8 6 6

Hogwarts (Table 1)

Hogsmeade (Table 2)

Azkaban (Table 3)

TOPSIS

Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution

In this method two artificial alternatives are hypothesized:

Ideal alternative: One which has the best attributes values (i.e. max. benefit attributes and min. cost attributes) Negative ideal alternative: One which has the worst attribute values. (i.e. min. benefit attributes and max. cost attributes)

TOPSIS selects the alternative that is the closest to the ideal solution and farthest from negative ideal solution.

This step transforms various attribute dimensions into non-dimensional attributes, which allows comparisons across criteria. For standardizing, each column of decision matrix, is divided by root of sum of square of respective Criteria Hogwarts Hogsmeade Azkaban columns.

entertainmen t Facilities Travel cost Acc. Cost 9 7 6 7 8 7 9 6 7= 8= 6= 6= = 13.93 =12.73 =12.37 = 11.00

DECISION MATRIX

This step transforms various attribute dimensions into non-dimensional attributes, which allows comparisons across criteria. For standardizing, each column of decision matrix, is divided by root of sum of square of respective Criteria Hogwarts Hogsmeade Azkaban columns.

entertainmen t Facilities Travel cost Acc. Cost 9 7 6 7 8 7 9 6 7= 8= 6= 6= = 13.93 =12.73 =12.37 = 11.00

This step transforms various attribute dimensions into non-dimensional attributes, which allows comparisons across criteria. For standardizing, each column of decision matrix, is divided by root of sum of square of respective Criteria Hogwarts Hogsmeade Azkaban columns.

entertainmen t Facilities Travel cost Acc. Cost 9 7 6 7 8 7 9 6 7= 8= 6= 6= = 13.93 =12.73 =12.37 = 11.00

Criteria

Hogwarts

Hogsmead e

Azkaban

Entertainmen t

Facilities Travel cost Acc. Cost Criteria Entertainmen t Facilities Travel cost

9 / 13.93

Hogwarts 0.65

Hogsmead e

Azkaban

Criteria

Hogwarts

Hogsmead e

Azkaban

Entertainmen t

Facilities Travel cost Acc. Cost Criteria Entertainmen t Facilities Travel cost

9 / 13.93

8 / 13.93

Hogwarts 0.65

Hogsmead e 0.57

Azkaban

Criteria

Hogwarts

Hogsmead e

Azkaban

Entertainmen t

Facilities Travel cost Acc. Cost Criteria Entertainmen t Facilities Travel cost

9 / 13.93

8 / 13.93

7 / 13.93

Hogwarts 0.65

Hogsmead e 0.57

Azkaban 0.50

Similarly.

Criteria Entertainment Facilities Travel cost Acc. Cost Hogwarts 0.65 0.55 0.49 0.64 Hogsmeade 0.57 0.55 0.73 0.55 Azkaban 0.50 0.63 0.49 0.55

Step 2 rating.

Criteria Entertainment X Facilities Travel cost Acc. Cost Hogwarts 0.65 0.55 0.49 0.64 Hogsmeade 0.57 0.55 0.73 0.55 Azkaban 0.50 0.63 0.49 0.55

2.6

Travel cost

Step 2 rating.

Criteria Entertainment X Facilities Travel cost Acc. Cost Hogwarts 0.65 0.55 0.49 0.64 Hogsmeade 0.57 0.55 0.73 0.55 Azkaban 0.50 0.63 0.49 0.55

2.6

2.28

Travel cost

Step 2 matrix rating. construct weighted standardized decision by multiplying attributes weight to each

Criteria Entertainment Facilities X Travel cost Acc. Cost Hogwarts 0.65 0.55 0.49 0.64 Hogsmeade 0.57 0.55 0.73 0.55 Azkaban 0.50 0.63 0.49 0.55

2.6 1.1

2.28

Travel cost

Step 2 matrix rating. construct weighted standardized decision by multiplying attributes weight to each

Similarly.

Criteria Hogwarts Hogsmead e Azkaban

Entertainmen t

Facilities Travel cost

2.6

1.1 2.94

2.28

1.1 4.38

2

1.26 2.94

Acc. Cost

5.12

4.4

4.4

Step 3 Determine ideal solution and negative ideal

solution.

A set of maximum values for each criteria is Ideal solution. Criteria Hogwarts Max. Entertainmen 2.6 t Facilities Travel cost Acc. Cost 1.1 Max. 2.94 5.12 Hogsmead e 2.28 Max. 1.1 4.4 Azkaban

Max. 2

1.26 2.94 4.4

4.38

Step 3 Determine ideal solution and negative ideal

solution.

A set of minimum values for each criteria is Negative Ideal solution. Criteria Hogwarts Hogsmead Azkaban e Min. Entertainmen 2.6 2.28 2 Min. t Min. Facilities 1.1 1.1 1.26 Min. Travel cost 2.94 4.38 2.94

Acc. Cost

5.12

4.4

4.4

Step 4 Determine separation from ideal solution.

Criteria

Entertainment Facilities Travel cost Acc. Cost Criteria Entertainment Facilities Travel cost Acc. Cost

Si*

Hogwarts

(2.6-2.6)2 (1.1-1.26) 2 (2.94-2.94) 2 (5.12-4.4) 2 Hogwarts 0.0 0.02 0.0 0.51

Hogsmeade

(2.28-2.6) 2 (1.1-1.26) 2 (4.38-2.94) 2 (4.4-4.4) 2 Hogsmeade 0.10 0.02 2.07 0.0

Azkaban

(2.0-2.6) 2 (1.26-1.26) 2 (2.94-2.94) 2 (4.4-4.4) 2 Azkaban 0.36 0.0 0.0 0.0

S* =

Step 5 Determine separation from

solution.

Criteria Hogwarts (2.6-2.0)2 (1.1-1.1) 2 (2.94-4.38) 2 (5.12-5.12) 2 Hogwarts 0.36 0.0 Entertainment Facilities Travel cost Acc. Cost Criteria Entertainment Facilities

negative ideal

Azkaban (2.0-2.0) 2 (1.26-1.1) 2 (2.94-4.38) 2 (4.4-5.12) 2 Azkaban 0.0 0.02

Travel cost

Acc. Cost

2.07

0.0

0.0

0.51

2.07

0.51 =

Si

1.56

0.773

1.618

Step 6 Determine relative closeness to ideal solution.

Criteria Si* Si Si*+Si Hogwarts 0.74 1.56 2.3 1.56/2.3 0.68 Hogsmeade Azkaban 1.48 0.773 2.253 0.77/2.25 0.343 0.6 1.618 2.218 1.62/2.21 Max. 0.729

Si /(Si*+Si )

BEST

Consider 3 suppliers S1 S2 S3 3 suppliers are evaluated against 4 COST ATTRIBUTE attributes Special factor (Q1) BENEFIT On time delivery (Q2) ATTRIBUTES Performance history (Q3) Technical capability (Q4)

There are 4 decision makers D1 D2 D3 D4 to express their preferences and ratings to select the best supplier.

Step 1 finding ATTRIBUTE WEIGHTS.

Attributes AVERAGE 1 Q AVERAGE Q AVERAGE 2 AVERAGE Q3 Q4

D1 D2 D3 D4 W H(.375) VH(.425 ) L(.175) VH(.425 ) M(.275) VL(.125 ) VL(.125 ) L(.175) ML(.225 ) VVL(.05 ) VVL(.05 ) M(.275) VL(.125) ML(.225) MH(.325 ) ML(.225) .25 .21 .17 .28

Normalized W

Total

ATTRIBUTE SCALE VVL WEIGHT .05 VL .125 L .175 ML .225 M .275 MH .325

0.9 1 H

.375

1.00

VH .425 VVH .475

Step 1 finding ATTRIBUTE WEIGHTS.

Attributes Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4

D1 D2 D3 D4 W H(.375) VH(.425 ) L(.175) VH(.425 ) M(.275) VL(.125 ) VL(.125 ) L(.175) ML(.225 ) VVL(.05 ) VVL(.05 ) M(.275) VL(.125) ML(.225) MH(.325 ) ML(.225) .25 .21 .17 .28

Normalized W

Total

ATTRIBUTE SCALE VVL WEIGHT .05 VL .125 L .175 ML .225 M .275 MH .325

0.9 1 H

.375

1.00

VH .425 VVH .475

Rating given to each supplier by each decision maker for attribute Q1 .

D1 D2 D3 D4 G1 .03 .05 .03 .05 .03 .05 .03 .05 .03 .05

S AVERAGE 3

.01

.01

.01

.01

.01

Suppliers

AVERAGE 1 S S AVERAGE 2 S AVERAGE 3

D1 D2 D3 D4 G2

.95 .98 .85 .95 .98 .85 .95 .98 .85 .95 .98 .85 .95 .98 .85

G(9) MP(3) F(5) P(1) MP(3) MP(3) MP&F(4) F(5) 4 3.75 4.75

rating given to each supplier by each decision maker for attribute Q3 . Suppliers D1 D2 D3 D4 G3

AVERAGE 1 S S AVERAGE 2 AVERAGE S3 AVERAGE 1 S S AVERAGE 2 MP&F(4 MP&F(4 ) ) F(5) MP&F(4

rating given to each supplier by each decision maker for attribute ) Suppliers D1 D2 D3 D4 G3 Q4 .

G(9) MP(3) G(9) MP(3) MP&F(4 ) G(9) P(1) F(5) MP&G(6 ) P RATINGS 1 MP(3) F(5) 4 4.25

AVERAGE S3

Attributes Suppliers S1 S2 S3 Q1 .03 .05 .01 Q2 .95 .98 .85 Q3 4 3.75 4.75 Q4 4 4.25 8.5

Q1

Q3

Q2

Q4

DECISION TABLE

TABLE.

Attributes Q1 .03 .05 .01 Q2 .95 .98 .85 Q3 4 3.75 4.75 Q4 4 4.25 8.5

Supplier s S1 S2 S3

= 0.059 = 1.608 = 7.254 = 10.31

DECISION TABLE

TABLE.

Attributes Q1 .03 .05 .01 Q2 .95 .98 .85 Q3 4 3.75 4.75 Q4 4 4.25 8.5

Supplier s S1 S2 S3

= 0.059 Supplier s S1 S2 S3 STANDARD DECISION TABLE Q1 .03/.059 = .508 = 1.608 Attributes= 7.254 Q2 Q3 = 10.31 Q4

DECISION TABLE

TABLE.

Attributes Q1 .03 .05 .01 Q2 .95 .98 .85 Q3 4 3.75 4.75 Q4 4 4.25 8.5

Supplier s S1 S2 S3

= 0.059 Supplier s S1 S2 S3 Q1 .03/.059 = .508 .05/.059 = .845 STANDARD DECISION TABLE = 1.608 Attributes= 7.254 Q2 Q3 = 10.31 Q4

DECISION TABLE

TABLE.

Attributes Q1 .03 .05 .01 Q2 .95 .98 .85 Q3 4 3.75 4.75 Q4 4 4.25 8.5

Supplier s S1 S2 S3

= 0.059 Supplier s S1 S2 S3 Q1 .03/.059 = .508 .05/.059 = .845 STANDARD DECISION TABLE = 1.608 Attributes= 7.254 Q2 .95/1.608= .591 Q3 = 10.31 Q4

DECISION TABLE

TABLE.

Attributes Q1 .03 .05 .01 Q2 .95 .98 .85 Q3 4 3.75 4.75 Q4 4 4.25 8.5

Supplier s S1 S2 S3

= 0.059 Supplier s S1 S2 S3 Q1 .03/.059 = .508 .05/.059 = .845 = 1.608 Attributes= 7.254 Q2 .95/1.608= .591 .98/1.608= .609 STANDARD DECISION TABLE Q3 = 10.31 Q4

DECISION TABLE

TABLE.

Attributes Q1 .03 .05 .01 Q2 .95 .98 .85 Q3 4 3.75 4.75 Q4 4 4.25 8.5

Supplier s S1 S2 S3

= 0.059 Supplier s S1 S2 Q1 .03/.059 = .508 .05/.059 = .845 = 1.608 Attributes= 7.254 Q2 .95/1.608= .591 Q3 4/7.254= .551 = 10.31 Q4 4/10.31= .388 4.25/10.31= .412

Attributes

Supplier s S1 S2 S3 Q1 .508 .845 .169 Q2 .591 .609 .529 Q3 .551 .517 .655

Q4 .388 .412 .824

Multiplying attribute weights as obtained in step-1, with respective attribute values in standard decision matrix. Attributes Supplier s S1 S2 S3 ATTRIBUTES Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 WEIGHT S 0.275 0.230 0.187 0.308 Q1 .508X.275 Q2 Q3 Q4

Multiplying attribute weights as obtained in step-1, with respective attribute values in standard decision matrix. Attributes Supplier s S1 S2 S3 ATTRIBUTES Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 WEIGHT S 0.275 0.230 0.187 0.308 Q1 .508X.275 .845X.275 Q2 Q3 Q4

Multiplying attribute weights as obtained in step-1, with respective attribute values in standard decision matrix. Attributes Supplier s S1 S2 S3 ATTRIBUTES Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 WEIGHT S 0.275 0.230 0.187 0.308 Q1 .508X.275 .845X.275 Q2 .591X.230 Q3 Q4

Multiplying attribute weights as obtained in step-1, with respective attribute values in standard decision matrix. Attributes Supplier s S1 S2 S3 ATTRIBUTES Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 WEIGHT S 0.275 0.230 0.187 0.308 Q1 .508X.275 .845X.275 Q2 .591X.230 Q3 .551X.187 Q4

Multiplying attribute weights as obtained in step-1, with respective attribute values in standard decision matrix. Attributes Supplier s S1 S2 S3 Q1 .508X.275 .845X.275 .169X.275 Q2 .591X.230 .609X.230 .529X.230 Q3 .551X.187 .517X.187 .655X.187 Q4 .388X.308 .412X.308 .824X.308 ATTRIBUTES Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 WEIGHT S 0.275 0.230 0.187 0.308

Attributes

Supplier s S1 S2 S3 Q1 0.14 0.232 0.046 Q2 0.135 0.14 0.121 Q3 0.103 0.097 0.122

Step 6

SOLUTION. Construct the IDEAL SOLUTION & NEGATIVE IDEAL

IDEAL SOLTION

Minimum value of Cost Attributes are Ideal. Maximum value of Benefit Attributes are Ideal. Cost attribute Supplier s S1 S2 S3 Q1 0.14 0.232 (min.) 0.046 Q2 0.135 (Max) 0.14 0.121 Benefit attributes Q3 0.103 0.097 (Max) 0.122 Q4 0.119 0.126 (Max) 0.253

Step 6

SOLUTION. Construct the IDEAL SOLUTION & NEGATIVE IDEAL

Maximum value of Cost Attributes are Negative Ideal. Minimum value of Benefit Attributes are Negative Ideal. Cost attribute Supplier s S1 S2 S3 Q1 0.14 (max.) 0.232 0.046 Q2 0.135 0.14 (min.) 0.121 Benefit attributes Q3 0.103 (min.) 0.097 0.122 Q4 (min.) 0.119 0.126 0.253

Step 7

Construct the SEPARATION from Ideal solution & negative ideal solution.

Ideal solution = {0.046, 0.14, 0.122, 0.253}

Cost attribute Supplier s S1 Q1 (0.14 - .046)2 = 0.009 0.232 0.046 Q2 (0.135 0.14)2 = 0.000 0.14 0.121 Benefit attributes Q3 (0.103 0.122)2 = 0.0004 0.097 0.122 Q4 (0.119 0.253)2 = 0.018 0.126 0.253

S2 S3

Step 7

Construct the SEPARATION from Ideal solution & negative ideal solution.

Ideal solution = {0.046, 0.14, 0.122, 0.253}

Cost attribute Supplier s S1 Q1 (0.14 - .046)2 = 0.009 (0.232 - .046)2 = 0.035 Q2 (0.135 0.14)2 = 0.000 (0.14 - 0.14)2 = 0.000 Benefit attributes Q3 (0.103 0.122)2 = 0.0004 (0.097 0.122)2 = 0.0006 Q4 (0.119 0.253)2 = 0.018 (0.126 0.253)2 = 0.016 0.253

S2

Step 7

Construct the SEPARATION from Ideal solution & negative ideal solution.

Ideal solution = {0.046, 0.14, 0.122, 0.253}

Cost attribute Supplier s S1 Q1 (0.14 - .046)2 = 0.009 (0.232 - .046)2 = 0.035

2

2

S2

S (0.046 - .046) (0.121- 0.14) (0.122 S1*3 = (0.009+0.00+0.0004+0.018)1/2 = 0.166 2 = 0.000 = 0.0004 0.122) = S2* = (0.035+0.00+0.0006_0.016)1/2 = 0.227 0.000 S3* = (0.00+0.0004+0.00+0.0000)1/2 = 0.02

Step 7

Construct the SEPARATION from Ideal solution & negative ideal solution.

SEPARATION from Negative ideal solution Si Negative Ideal solution = {0.232, 0.121, 0.097

0.119}

Supplier s S1 S2 S3 Cost attribute Q1 (0.14 - .232)2 = 0.008 (0.232 - .232)2 = 0.000 (0.046 - .232)2 = 0.035 Q2 (0.135 - .121)2 = 0.0002 (0.14 - .121)2 = 0.0004 (0.121 - .121)2 = 0.000 Benefit attributes Q3 (0.103 - .097)2 = 0.0000 (0.097 - .097)2 = 0.0000 (0.122 - .097)2 = 0.0006 Q4 (0.119 - .119)2 = 0.000 (0.126 - .119)2 = 0.0001 (0.253 - .119)2 = 0.0179

Step 8

solution. Calculate the RELATIVE CLOSENESS to Ideal

Criteria Si* Si Si*+Si S1 0.166 0.09 0.256 0.09/0.256 0.351 S2 0.227 0.022 0.249 0.022/0.249 0.088 S3 0.02 0.231 0.251 0.231/0.251 0.920

Si /(Si*+Si )

C 3* > C 1* > C 2*

- CAN FUZZY MULTI-CRITERIA DECISION MAKING IMPROVE STRATEGIC PLANNING BY BALANCED SCORECARD?Uploaded byJay Daniel
- v28_man04Uploaded byYosua Alvin
- 49 MeissnerDecker ComparisonCBCandAHP ConsumerPreferences REV FIN[1]Uploaded bygene_940770613
- Sigmoidal Model for Belief Function- Based Electre Tri MethodUploaded byDon Hass
- ga_math_aUploaded byjose kadyr choque orellana
- Analytical Study of AHP and Fuzzy AHP TechniquesUploaded byJournal of Computing
- 12.pdfUploaded byRanvir Rana
- 1-s2.0-S0167923612002047-main.pdfUploaded byAitBenAliBrahim
- IJCSET Vol 1 Issue 2 August 2010Uploaded byijcset
- PROMET 21Uploaded byRodger Salazar
- A Decision Support System for Ground Improvement Projects Using GypsumUploaded byAlexander Decker
- chapter7-MCDM-RiskChanges-User-Manual.pdfUploaded bycru1se738427
- Research PPTUploaded byRimaRizkyA
- Activity 7.6 Chapter Problems - David ShoemakerUploaded byAthena Christine Pore Alfabete
- RESEARCH ON WIND ENERGY INVESTMENT DECISION MAKING: A CASE STUDY IN JILINUploaded byijflsjournal
- Design Sheet for Biaxial BendingUploaded byfaumijk
- 3 Digital Image Processing Operations Chapter3 DIPUploaded byRupesh Patra
- Pure Mathematics Unit 1 P2 2018Uploaded bylal
- Quiz 1 Marking SchemeUploaded byShubham Khoker
- Advance 1Uploaded bySandeep Chowdhury
- Continui DadUploaded byFrancoLeandro
- ch09Uploaded bykannappanrajendran
- PosseDoc_96264559.pdfUploaded byHarry Hoon
- Laplace transform of saw tooth functionUploaded byAndrew D'Amico
- Artikel Pola Asuh Orang TuaUploaded byahmmad rifai
- Decision TreeUploaded bySymon Stefen
- 12 (1).pdfUploaded byPrashant Choudhary
- i2ml3e-chap2Uploaded byvarun3dec1
- Lampiran Fix 2003Uploaded byTilas Notapiri
- 16 quadratic functions wedUploaded byapi-309350695

- TRAVEL DEMAND MANAGEMENT - MEASURES, BEHAVIOURAL IMPACT AND USER RESPONSEUploaded byPranav Mishra
- REGULATORY ISSUES for setting up a Nuclear Power Plant FinalUploaded byPranav Mishra
- Travel Demand ManagementUploaded byPranav Mishra
- Introduction to Queueing TheoryUploaded byPranav Mishra
- REGULATORY ISSUES for setting up a Wind Power PlantUploaded byPranav Mishra
- ADMINISTRATIVE BLOCK FOR N.I.T. RAIPUR (NEW CAMPUS) TOWARDS A GREEN BUILDINGUploaded byPranav Mishra
- Green Building - Thesis Report (Administrative Block of NIT Raipur, New Campus)Uploaded byPranav Mishra
- Gol bazaar Raipur - CirculationUploaded byPranav Mishra
- Green Infrastructure Retrofit as an alternative to Conventional Stormwater ManagementUploaded byPranav Mishra
- Green Infrastructure Retrofit as an alternative to Conventional Stormwater ManagementUploaded byPranav Mishra
- “RECREATION ClUB” THESIS REPORTUploaded byPranav Mishra
- frank-owen-gehry-1226946900155975-9Uploaded byPranav Mishra
- PROBABILITY DISTRIBUTIONSUploaded byPranav Mishra
- Traffic Information SystemUploaded byPranav Mishra

- SUB157580.pdfUploaded byKelve Aragão
- sun pptUploaded byMaryHazelClaveBeniga
- Is the Elimination of Global Poverty a Realistic Aim?Uploaded bysnorkellingkitty
- Delta Women January Issue Me Against the WorldUploaded bydeltawomen
- Guidance on Undertakings St Johns.pdfUploaded byfelixmuyove
- Changes Author Jonathan Adams Brand Cerda Edition English London,Australia,USAUploaded byWatson Frederik Brand
- Chapt03PP_110626Uploaded byAkmal L Khairi
- Disparities in Mortgage Lending and ForeclosuresUploaded byCaesar Nguyen
- The Bible on the Question of HomosexualityUploaded byAlexander Mart
- Objectivism (Ayn Rand)Uploaded bypkrakesh
- MouzourisUploaded byNicanor Mariotti
- Chapter 3BUploaded bySum Khor
- A Night With Mr. Arrogant-TonguetiedbabeUploaded byJesahMacadiz
- [David Konstan] Friendship in the Classical WorldUploaded byScripta Scriptorium
- MM_2011_2bUploaded bySiddhant Billa
- CORDIS Project 69324 EnUploaded byJose Deniz
- E Supply Chain ManagementUploaded bySubrata Halder
- IJCGAUploaded byijcga
- Markowitz 2005Uploaded byMd Delowar Hossain Mithu
- Three-Dimensional Finite Element Analyses of Reinforced Concrete ColumnsUploaded bydinal031
- Knowledge of English Grammar for EFL TeacherUploaded byAzra Ilyas
- How to Read MCB Nameplate RatingUploaded byfauz
- D-RUploaded byJ-queline Ng
- BOW - 21ST CENTURY.docxUploaded byFlorina Nadorra Ramos
- Influence of Parents’ Divorce on Separation Anxiety in ChildrenUploaded byinventionjournals
- Mongols CalendarUploaded byBridgit DeCarlo
- NASA RP-1364: Metrology - Measurement Assurance Program GuidelinesUploaded byPaul
- SAVE YOUR CHILD FROM UNICEFUploaded bySuranya Aiyar
- Lois Hamblet, CEO of Ziptip, a Mobile Payments Solution for Tips and Gratuities, and One of Boston's Hottest Startups, Interviewed by Pymnts.comUploaded byPR.com 2
- Harry F Barnes Financial Disclosure Report for 2009Uploaded byJudicial Watch, Inc.