Expert Systems With Applications 169 (2021) 114471

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Expert Systems With Applications

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/eswa

Ordered fuzzy WASPAS method for selection of improvement projects

Katarzyna Rudnik a, *, Grzegorz Bocewicz b, Aneta Kucińska-Landwójtowicz a, Izabela D. Czabak-
Górska a
a
Faculty of Production Engineering and Logistics, Opole University of Technology, Sosnkowskiego 31, Opole, Poland
b
Faculty of Electronics and Computer Science, Koszalin University of Technology, Śniadeckich 2, Koszalin, Poland

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: This paper proposes a new approach to selecting improvement projects (IPs). It allows the evaluation and pri­
Projects selection oritization of projects taking into account a proposed set of criteria as a key criteria for processes continuous
Improvement project (IP) improvement. The novelty of the research is the proposition of a OFN-WASPAS method (the WASPAS method,
MCDM
which uses the Ordered Fuzzy Numbers (OFNs)), in the selection of improvement projects. The advantage of the
Ordered Fuzzy Number (OFN)
proposed method is its ability to provide project assessments in the form of fuzzy numbers or qualitative as­
WASPAS method
sessments together with the description of likely direction of assessment change in the nearest future. This is
possible due to the use of orientation in OFNs. The approach verification is presented on the basis of the case
study considered five projects constituting the portfolio of IPs selected, using the 19 most important subcriteria
proposed within the 9 main criteria. The group AHP method is used to calculate the criteria weights. The
conducted research demonstrated that the proposed approach to IPs selection is, to a large extent, applicable in
an enterprise that operates per the CI concept. The resulting process improvement requires the implementation of
many improvement projects.
This approach handles the key aspects of decision making in a consistent and rational way and can be
especially useful for portfolio analysis with projects using the latest technologies and implemented in frequently
changing environmental conditions.

1. Introduction
The concept of Continuous Improvement (CI) is a set of ubiquitous
and continuous activities that contribute to achieving the goals of the
organization and its processes. An organization operating in line with
the CI concept often implement several improvement projects (IPs),
which are strongly focused on process advancement, simultaneously.
Martinsuo and Lehtonen (2007) noticed that the performance of a single
project influences the final outcome of several related projects within a
company. The study indicated that the most common errors during
project improvement plans related to poor selection of projects, project
resources, too broad a scope (McLean, Antony, & Dahlgaard, 2017), and
weak connection between the project goal and the organization’s
strategy (Kornfeld & Kara, 2013). Therefore, in this paper special
attention is required during the project selection stage.
Project selection is the process of evaluating individual or groups of
projects, and then choosing to implement those that will help achieve
the organisation’s objectives (Meredith, Shafer, & Mantel, 2017). Proj­
ect prioritisation helps an organisation remain focused on its most
important strategic objectives, as it more effectively allocates scarce its
resources. Research in project selection has shifted towards Project
Portfolio Management (PPM) owing to its many benefits (Padhy, 2017).
Since it is generally impossible to implement all initiatives simulta­
neously, organisation must select a subset of the portfolio and then
manage these projects (Kornfeld & Kara, 2011). The proposed method
also includes a developed list of criteria and sub-criteria enabling project
evaluation taking into account various aspects, including those that are
particularly important for modern organizations: impacts on the envi­
ronment, impacts on quality, and importance of the goal or problem.
This is a new element in the field of research on portfolio management of
improvement projects.
Zhang, Hill, Schroeder, and Linderman (2008) suggested that stra­
tegic portfolio selection and project management can positively impact
organizational performance, and decision-making during this part of the

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: k.rudnik@po.edu.pl (K. Rudnik), bocewicz@weii.tu.koszalin.pl (G. Bocewicz), a.kucinska-landwojtowicz@po.edu.pl (A. Kucińska-
Landwójtowicz), i.czabak-gorska@po.edu.pl (I.D. Czabak-Górska).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2020.114471
Received 24 July 2020; Received in revised form 14 November 2020; Accepted 6 December 2020
Available online 13 December 2020
0957-4174/© 2020 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
K. Rudnik et al.
process can have a substantial impact on whether strategic outcomes are
successfully realised. The appropriate selection and staging of tactical
actions – in this case improvement projects – are critical factors in
successful strategy execution. According to Kornfeld and Kara (2011),
adding structure to decision making can assist the organisation in
achieving more objective (though not necessarily rational) decisions.
Therefore, the purpose of the paper is to elaborated an approach of
selecting processes improvement projects that will allow for project
prioritization by accounting for uncertainty and the dynamics of as­
sessments regarding several key criteria for continuous improvement. In
particular, the present study selected the method of multi-criteria de­
cision making – a Weighted Aggregated Sum Product Assessment
(WASPAS) method – which uses the Ordered Fuzzy Numbers (OFNs), as
an expansion of the fuzzy sets approach proposed by Zadeh. The notion
of OFNs was introduced and developed by Kosiński, Prokopowicz, and
Ślȩzak (2002); Kosiński, Prokopowicz, and Ślęzak (2003). In contrast to
fuzzy numbers, arithmetic operations in this model are similar to the
operations on real numbers, which are a special case of OFNs. The
WASPAS method was presented by Zavadskas, Turskis, Antucheviciene,
and Zakarevicius (2012), and combined Weighted Sum and Weighted
Product Models (WSM and WPM). Zavadskas et al. (2012) suggested
that WASPAS method’s accuracy was more advantageous than using
only the weighted sum model or weighted product model. The current
literature though, fails to consider OFNs in the fuzzy WASPAS method
and lacks research unifying the methods mentioned above into one
concept.
The proposed method has the advantage of providing project as­
sessments in the form of fuzzy numbers or qualitative assessments (in
linguistic description) together with directional assessment change in
the nearest future. This is possible due to the use of orientation in OFNs.
The proposed method is especially useful in the cases of evaluation of
processes improvement projects using the latest technologies and
implemented in rapidly changing realities, which keeps companies
ahead of the competition.
The remainder of the paper is organized into the following sections.
Section 2 details the idea of IPs, the essence of the IP selection problem
and literature review about using the fuzzy MCDM methods in project
selection. Section 2 also outlines the notions of OFNs and WASPAS
method. The problem statement and research methodology is described
in Section 3. The proposed approach to IPs selection is presented in
Section 4. Section 4 also determines the proposed set of criteria to
evaluate IPs, describes data preparation and discusses the OFN-WASPAS
method. Section 5 includes a case study of the application of this
approach in a company, and Section 6 concludes the paper.
2. Related work
2.1. Improvement project and its selection
A project is defined as a temporary endeavour undertaken to create a
unique product, service or result (Annex A1 the Standard for Project
Management of A Pr., 2013). In the broadest sense, a project is a specific,
finite task to be accomplished. Whether large- or small-scale or whether
long- or short-run is not particularly relevant. What is relevant is that the
project be seen as a unit (Meredith, Mantel, & Shafer, 2017). According
to Gonzalez Aleu and Van Aken (2016), common examples of Contin­
uous Improvement Projects (CIPs) include Kaizen Events, Six Sigma
projects, and Lean Six Sigma projects. However, CIPs are also related to
other CI techniques, especially Quality Improvement Project (QIP),
Quality Circles, and projects associated with the operation of suggestion
systems. Padhy (2017) whereas specified Process Improvement Project
which are defined as a systematic approach for improving organiza­
tional performance that consists of specific practices, tools, techniques
and technologies and implemented as a set of improvement projects.
In the examples mentioned, the area to which the projects relate or
concepts in which they are implemented appears. They are focused on
2
Expert Systems With Applications 169 (2021) 114471
improving the results of quality, efficiency, productivity or other process
indicators. Regardless of the specific area of their objectives, these are
projects aimed at broadly understood improvement achieved by intro­
ducing gradual changes.
Our research focused on improvement projects. We distinguish them
from innovative and innovation projects which are defined in research
of e.g. Kerzner (2020) or Yordanova (2018).
In order to specify the area of our research, the term of Improvement
Project was defined. It was assumed that an IP is a unique undertaking,
aimed at achieving the goal of improving the organisation and its processes; it
is a sequence of completed and related activities (Kucińska-Landwójtowicz,
Czabak-Górska, & Lorenc, 2019). It is planned in time and has allocated
resources necessary for its implementation (Kucińska-Landwójtowicz
et al., 2019).
Project or portfolio selection is a complex and multi-faceted decision-
making activity that becomes increasingly complicated as organisa­
tional size and the number of potential projects increases (Kornfeld &
Kara, 2011). Project selection is part of any strategic management
framework, and there are various mathematical methods of decision-
making available and applied for this purpose. Mittal, Tewari, and
Khanduja (2017) compared three techniques, cost of poor quality,
conditional probability, and fuzzy TOPSIS for selecting the right project,
but they only focused on QIP. Otay and Kahraman (2018) employed an
interval neutrosophic TOPSIS method for evaluation Six Sigma projects.
Evaluating the performance of Six Sigma projects in organisations using
DEA (data envelopment analysis) was proposed by Yüksel (2012). Wen,
An, Xu, and Chen (2018) analyzed the advantages and disadvantages of
the methods proposed in the literature to develop a modified model
considering interval or imprecise data based on a common weight data
envelopment analysis (DEA) approach to solve problem on Six Sigma
project selection. Kalashnikov, Benita, López-Ramos, and Hernández-
Luna (2017) developed a novel integrated methodology to formulate
and solve the Lean Six Sigma project portfolio as a 0–1 Bi-objective
Quadratic Programming Problem. The fuzzy-TOPSIS approach was
used to decide the selection of suitable Kaizen events that optimize the
performance level of the organization (Kumar, Dhingra, & Singh, 2018).
The literature analysis showed that there are various method avail­
able and applied for improvement project selection. Scientists’ work
focuses on developing new solutions that will allow unbiased assessment
and prioritization of projects. An in-depth analysis (Kucińska-Land­
wójtowicz, Czabak-Górska, Rudnik, & Lorenc, 2020) has allowed the
selection of the following types of Improvement Project Selection
Methods (IPSM) (Fig. 1):
1) scoring and ranking (Kelly, 2002; Pande, Neuman, & Cavanagh,
2000; Pyzdek, 2003; Tague, 2005),
2) multiple criteria decision-making (MCDM) methods (Dinesh Kumar,
Saranga, Ramírez-Márquez, & Nowicki, 2007; Hu, Wang, Fetch, &
Bidanda, 2008; Padhy & Sahu, 2011; Kalashnikov et al., 2017;
Kendrick & Saaty, 2007; Mawby, 2007; Chen, Chen, Peng, & Wang,
2005; Kumar, Antony, & Rae Cho, 2009; Wang, Hsu, & Tzeng, 2014;
Yüksel, 2012),
3) hybrid multiple criteria decision-making (MCDM) methods
(Büyüközkan & Öztürkcan, 2010; Anand & Kodali, 2008; Kumar
et al., 2009; Kumar et al., 2018; Evans & Alexander, 2007; Su &
Chou, 2008; Chuang, 2001; Saghaei & Didehkhani, 2011; Bilgen &
Şen, 2012; Huang, Yeh, Lin, & Lee, 2009; Kahraman & Büyüközkan,
2008; Yang & Hsieh, 2009; Otay & Kahraman, 2018; Tkáç & Lyócsa,
2010; Altintas, Erginel, & Kucuk, 2016; Mittal et al., 2017),
4) other methods (Abdulmalek & Rajgopal, 2007; Jung & Lim, 2007;
Hira & Parfitt, 2004; Larson, 2003; Pyzdek, 2003; Kovach & Ingle,
2018).
The literature research has shown that the universal approach to IPs
is used only in a few studies, while not using sufficient methods to
conduct a thorough evaluation and selection of projects. Moreover, to
K. Rudnik et al. Expert Systems With Applications 169 (2021) 114471

Fig. 1. Classification of improvement project selection methods (Kucińska-Landwójtowicz, Czabak-Górska, Rudnik, & Lorenc, 2020). Description: AHP – Analytic
Hierarchy Process; QFD – Quality Function Deployment; TOPSIS – Technique for Order of Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution; ANP – Analytic Network Process;
DEA – Data Envelopment Analysis; FMEA – Failure Mode and Effect Analysis; PROMETHEE – Preference Ranking Organization METHod for Enrichment Evaluations;
DEMATEL – Decision Making Trial and Evaluation Laboratory; ANFIS – Adaptive Neuro Fuzzy Inference System; PFMEA – Process FMEA; PDM – Precedence Diagram
Method; PICK – Possible Implement Challenge Kill; VSM – Value Stream Mapping.

our knowledge, there are no studies that would generalize the problem
of evaluation and selection of the above-mentioned projects, and thus
make it possible to compare different types of projects in one portfolio.
In the paper, Improvement Project Selection Methods are defined by
authors as a set of tools, the use of which enables project evaluation and
prioritization based on adopted evaluation criteria and a dedicated
calculation algorithm.
In accordance with a review of the literature the single analytical
method which is WASPAS method has not been used for improvement
project evaluation in companies. The methods identified in the literature
do not take into account the uncertainty of assessments, and trends of
these assessments until the launch of projects.
2.2. Fuzzy MCDM method in project assessment
Multiple criteria decision making (MCDM) is the most well-known
branch of decision making (Yapici Pehlivan, Şahin, Zavadskas, & Tur­
skis, 2018). When the judgments and decision makers’ preferences are
uncertain, the using of crisp numbers or intervals in evaluations of al­
ternatives is not appropriate. Then it is proposed to combine MCDM
methods with the fuzzy set theory in so-called fuzzy MCDM (FMCDM)
methods. In FMCDM methods the assessments and preferences are
determined using linguistic expressions identified mostly with the fuzzy
sets. For example, the fuzzy AHP method was first proposed by van
Laarhoven and Pedrycz (1983) as an extension of classical AHP method,
then the fuzzy TOPSIS method (Chen, 2000), fuzzy MULTIMOORA
method (Brauers, Baležentis, & Baležentis, 2011), fuzzy WASPAS
method (Turskis, Zavadskas, Antucheviciene, & Kosareva, 2015) etc.
were introduced.
In the literature, we can find the using of fuzzy MCDM methods for
assessment, prioritization and selection of the various kind of projects as
part of projects and projects portfolio management (Abbasianjahromi &

3
K. Rudnik et al.
Rajaie, 2012), (Ma, Harstvedt, Jaradat, & Smith, 2020). The above ap­
proaches were used in relation to projects for research, development and
creation of innovations in the enterprise (Dimova, Sevastianov, & Sev­
astianov, 2006; Chen & Hung, 2008; Tsai & Chen, 2013; Thipparat &
Thaseepetch, 2013; Hashemi, Hajiagha, Zavadskas, & Mahdiraji, 2016;
Yalcin, Kilic, & Guler, 2020; Ma et al., 2020). In Dimova et al. (2006),
the problem of investment project assessment is considerated as a more
theoretical problem of FMCDM with hierarchical tree of criteria and
fuzzy aggregation method. The fuzzy SAW (Simple Additive Weighting)
method and zero-one linear goal programming as a multi-objective de­
cision-making approach were considerated to selection of projects in
portfolio (Abbasianjahromi & Rajaie, 2012). The integrated VIKOR and
fuzzy AHP method for assessing a sustainable research project was
presented in Thipparat and Thaseepetch (2013). A theoretic methodol­
ogy of combining soft sets as a generalization of fuzzy sets and AHP
model for project management was considerated in Bakshi, Som, and
Sarkar (2015). The other approach is presented by Chen and Hung
(2008). These authors used 2-tuple linguistic variables together with the
ELECTRE method to evaluate and select R&D projects. The linguistic
information is expressed by means of 2-tuples, which are composed of a
linguistic term and a numeric value representing the difference between
calculated linguistic term and the closest index label in the initial lin­
guistic term set. This representation of information can represent any
joining information obtained in a aggregation process without any loss
of information (Herrera & Martínez, 2000). The 2-tuple linguistic vari­
ables were also used to evaluation of new product development (NPD)
projects (Tsai & Chen, 2013). Hashemi et al. (2016) proposed the using
of interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy sets together with ELECTRE III
method. This approach was illustrated by the solution of an investment
project selection problem. The intuitionist fuzzy sets (IFSs) were also
used together with DEMATEL (Decision Making Trial and Evaluation
Laboratory) and TOPSIS methods to R&D project selection (Yalcin et al.,
2020). The IFS is an extension of Lotfi Zadeh’s notion of fuzzy set, as a
set of elements and their degrees of membership and non-membership
and it capable of overcoming ambiguity in decision-making process
are handled (Yalcin et al., 2020). The using of neutrosophic sets to Six
Sigma projects selection was proposed in Otay and Kahraman (2018).
The neutrosophic sets was treated as elements with together truth-
membership, indeterminacy-membership and falsity-membership.
The fuzzy MCDM method are also used in relation to assessment and
Fig. 2. Classification of fuzzy mcdm methods to project selection. Description: FSAW – Fuzzy Simple Additive Weighting; VIKOR – from Serbian Multicriteria
Optimization and Compromise Solution; FAHP – Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process; FANP – Fuzzy Analytic Network Process; FMEA – Failure Mode and Effect
Analysis; TOPSIS – Technique for Order of Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution; ELECTRE – ELimination Et Choix Traduisant la REalité; MOORA – Multi-
Objective Optimization on the basis of Ratio Analysis; DEMATEL – Decision Making Trial and Evaluation Laboratory.
4
Expert Systems With Applications 169 (2021) 114471
selection of more technical and engineering projects. Based on a neuro-
fuzzy network and TOPSIS method, the gas well-drilling projects were
evaluated (Ahari & Niaki, 2014). The fuzzy inference system with the
multiple inputs as assessment criteria was used to evaluation of in­
vestments in the metallurgical industry (Rębiasz & Macioł, 2015). The
probabilistic fuzzy inference system with technical risk factors as inputs
was used to assessment of innovative projects (Rudnik & Deptuła, 2015).
The evaluation of risks in construction project with the using of fuzzy
analytic network process (FANP) and failure mode and effect analysis
(FMEA) was proposed in Yazdani, Abdi, Kumar, Keshavarz-Ghorabaee,
and Chan (2019). Based on Pythagorean fuzzy sets (PFSs) and multi­
ple criteria selection method, the construction projects were also
selected (Mohagheghi, Mousavi, Mojtahedi, & Newton, 2020). In Yu and
Liu (2012) the fuzzy multi-criteria model with AHP method for priori­
tizing highway safety improvement projects was considerated. There are
also many solutions related to the selection of IT and high-technology
projects (e.g. (Mohagheghi & Mousavi, 2019)).
As you can see (Fig. 2), many concepts have arisen to combine one or
many multi-criteria methods with fuzzy set theory and its extensions in
the form of e.g. soft sets, intuitionistic fuzzy sets, interval-valed intui­
tionistic fuzzy sets, Pythagorean fuzzy sets, neutrosophic sets and 2-
tuple linguistic representation models. The concepts are designed to
deal with the assessment of projects in quantitative and qualitative form
in conditions where there is uncertainty or indecision decision-makers
or when the situation does not allow for certain and specific determi­
nation of the assessment. According to our review of the literature and to
the best of our knowledge, the combination of OFNs with the MCDM
method has not been proposed for any improvement project evaluation
in companies.
2.3. Ordered fuzzy numbers – Definition, operations and using in MCDM
methods
Fuzzy sets and numbers are useful in decision-making involving
situations with un-probabilistic and imprecise information. The fuzzy
sets and number can be used in many areas, for example, when there is
not a well-known area of knowledge, in experts’ systems for making
decisions about considered issues, as well as dealing with inaccuracies in
the obtained data. In addition, in many practical multi-criteria prob­
lems, decision making is based on the assessments of experts who are not
K. Rudnik et al. Expert Systems With Applications 169 (2021) 114471

able to exactly define their assessment of the situation. Therefore, represent OFNs. Then, according to Kacprzak, Kosiński, and Prokopo­
creating a need to explain an experts’ decision via a linguistic term. wicz (2012) and Prokopowicz (2019) arithmetic operations, denoted
However, the classic fuzzy numbers, defined by Zadeh (1965), and their C=A⊛B, are defined by the formula:
subsequent modification proposed by Dubois and Prade (1978) (so-
C = (aC , bC , cC , dC ) = (aA ⊛aB , bA ⊛bB , cA ⊛cB , dA ⊛dB ), (2)
called LR type numbers) have some imperfections that significantly limit
their applicability in certain areas. According to Prokopowicz (2016), where ⊛ ∈ {+, − , ∙, /}. Moreover, A / B is determined only if B does not
arithmetic operations (addition, subtraction, division, or multiplication)
contain zero values. The scalar multiplication is realized as C = r⋅A if ∀x,
performed on classic fuzzy numbers impacts rapidly growing impreci­ aC = r⋅aA ∧ bC = r⋅bA ∧ cC = r⋅cA ∧ dC = r⋅dA . We can say that C is the
sion, which in turn limits the usefulness of fuzzy numbers.
result of exponentiation of A raised to the power of r ∈ R, denoted C =
The concept of OFN and its properties is an area of growing interest Ar , if ∀x, aC = arA ∧ bC = brA ∧ cC = crA ∧ dC = drA . When the exponent is
for scientists. Therefore, the literature reflects a growing presence of
not an integer, the base of trOFNs cannot contain negative values.
studies in which the authors propose a modification of the OFN defini­
Particularly in arithmetic operations, improper OFNs can appear.
tion given by Kosiński et al. (2003). Kosiński et al. (2003) defined an
However, despite their unusual shapes, improper OFNs can still contain
OFN A (Fig. 3a) as a pair of continuous functions (fA , gA ) such that: fA ,
important information needed for calculations (Prokopowicz & Ślȩzak,
gA : [0, 1]→R, where fA , gA functions are called the up-branch (UPA ) and
2017).
the down-branch (DOWNA ) of fuzzy numbers, respectively. Further, the
In recent years, the concept of OFNs has continuously been devel­
authors assume that independent variable of both functionsf and g is
oped and used in various practical applications (Bocewicz et al., 2020),
denoted by y, and their values by x.
inter alia, OFNs have also been used for multi-criteria analysis in deci­
Kosiński (2006) highlighted that the continuity of both functions
sion making. So far, few approaches of this type have been developed.
implies that their images are bounded intervals called UPA and DOWNA ,
Roszkowska and Kacprzak (2016) proposed SAW and TOPSIS methods
as shown in Fig. 3b. The boundaries of these ranges are marked as fol­
using OFNs to assess variants against selected criteria. In this approach,
lows: UPA = (a, b) = fA ([0, 1]) = fA− 1 and DOWNA = (c,d) = gA ([0,1]) =
OFNs were employed to handle imprecise intermediate quantities and
gA− 1 . Using the normality condition from the definition of fuzzy numbers
orientation of OFNs indicated the type of criterion (benefit or cost). The
it is possible to include a constant function CONSTANT on the interval [b, TOPSIS with OFNs method was used in practice to control flow on the
c] which is equal to 1 (Fig. 3b). Then interval UPA ∪ [b, c] ∪ DOWNA forms production line (Rudnik & Kacprzak, 2017). Kacprzak also developed
the so-called support of the number A. this method for group decision making (Kacprzak, 2019, 2020) as well
Furthermore, in the present paper, the authors used the trapezoidal as extended the notion of Shannon entropy to fuzzy data represented by
membership relations of ordered fuzzy number (noted as trOFN). Ac­ OFNs (Kacprzak, 2017). The model combination of Shannon’s Entropy,
cording to Piasecki (2018) and Piasecki, Roszkowska, and Łyczkowska- Decision-Making Trial and Evaluation Laboratory (DEMATEL) and the
Hanćkowiak (2019) trOFN A = (a, b, c, d) can be defined for any COmplex PRroportional AS-sessment of alternatives with Gray relations
sequence {a, b, c, d}⊂R by its membership relation μA (x|a, b, c, d)⊂R × (COPRAS-G) methods and fuzzy data represented by OFNs was proposed
[0, 1] given by the equation: by Ehsanifar and Hemesy (2019) to prioritize risks in the construction
⎧
⎪ 0, x∕∈ 〈min{a, d}, max{a, d}〉 process. The above examples showed not only the possibility of using
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ OFNs in MCDM methods but mainly their advantages. This approach
⎪
⎪
⎪ x− a
⎪ effectively and adequate handles the lack of precision, vagueness and
⎨ b − a, x ∈ 〈min{a, b}, max{a, b})
⎪
uncertainty in the available information. Furthermore, the process of
μA (x|a, b, c, d) = , (1)
⎪
⎪ 1, x ∈ 〈min{b, c}, max{b, c}) decision making with using OFNs is rational and understandable and
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ becomes similar to that of human thinking (Roszkowska & Kacprzak,
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎩
d− x
, x ∈ 〈min{c, d}, max{c, d}〉 2016).
d− c

where b < c or (b = c and a < d), the trOFN A has a positive orientation.
2.4. WASPAS method
If condition b > c or (b = c and a > d) is fulfilled, then the trOFN A has a
negative orientation. Otherwise, if a = b = c = d, then the trOFN A
In case of a finite number of variants (alternatives), such in related
describes a crisp number a ∈ R without orientation. The positively and
with project assessment, Multi-Attribute Decision-Making (MADM)
negatively oriented trOFNs are illustrated in Fig. 4.
methods as a branch of MCDM can be used. The assessments (values) of
Let A = (aA , bA , cA , dA ), B = (aB , bB , cB , dB ), and C = (aC , bC , cC , dC )
each variant in relations to criteria are most often presented in the form

Fig. 3. Ordered fuzzy number (OFN) presented as a) in classical meaning, b) a fuzzy number in classic meaning.

5
K. Rudnik et al. Expert Systems With Applications 169 (2021) 114471

Fig. 4. The membership function μA (x|a, b, c, d) of trOFN A with: a) positive orientation, b) negative orientation.

of decision matrix X = (xmn )MxN (Table 1). In the Table 1, xmn is the according to the value Qm . The variant for which the value Qm is the
evaluation of m-th (m = 1,⋯,M) variant in relations to n-th (n = 1,⋯,N) largest is the best variant.
criterion and wn is the weight of n-th criterion. Criteria weights follow The WASPAS method is still developed so that it is possible to apply
∑
the requirement Nn=1 wn = 1. this approach to solving various decision-making problems. For example
The WASPAS method was presented by Zavadskas et al. (2012). It is an extension of the WASPAS method using fuzzy sets can be found in
an approach which combines Weighted Sum and Weighted Product Turskis et al. (2015) or Turskis, Goranin, Nurusheva, and Boranbayev
Models (WSM and WPM). The stages of WASPAS method are presented (2019). In turn Zavadskas, Turskis, and Antucheviciene (2015) proposed
below. It can be used to solve dynamically changing problems. to using the WASPAS approach with grey values (WASPAS-G) to deal
with imprecise information. According to the authors, the combination
1. Calculate the weighted sum model as an aggregate of the total of these two methods in this case gives the opportunity to maintain the
relative variant importance in the form: ranking of the development strategy, selecting the most effective in­
vestment or management decisions. Ghorabaee, Amiri, Zavadskas, and
∑ Antuchevičienė (2017) proposed integration of CRiteria Importance
N
Q(1)
m = wn ∙ymn , (3)
n=1 Trough Inter-criteria Correlation (CRITIC) with WASPAS methods. The
authors proved that determining objective weights using CRITIC in­
where wn is the weight of n-th criterion and ymn is an element of the creases the accuracy of the assessment of alternative solutions in the
normalized decision matrix calculated as: decision-making process. Stojić, Stević, Antuchevičiene, Pamučar, and
⎧ x Vasiljević (2018) undertook to solve the problem of improving the
⎪ mn
⎪
⎪
⎪
if n ∈ Cben methodology of treating imprecision in the field of group decision-
⎨ max xmn
ymn =
n
(4) making according to multiple criteria. For realize this purpose they
⎪
⎪
⎪
minxmn based on rough numbers in WASPAS approach. In Morkunaite, Bausys,
⎪
⎩ n
xmn
if n ∈ Ccost and Zavadskas (2019), the authors applied the expansion of the WASPAS
method, namely, WASPAS-SVNS, which is based on the Single-Valued
Symbol Cben is the set of benefit criteria (the highest value of variant Neutrosophic Set (SVNS). The broadly review of the WASPAS method
evaluation is preferred) and Ccost is the set of cost criteria (the lowest was presented by Mardani et al. (2017).
value is preferred).
3. Problem statement and research methodology
2. Determine the weighted product model (WPM) as a product of the
total relative importance of variant as follows: Together with the growing interest in continuous improvement, the
∏
N role of project portfolio management is growing, where proper selection
Q(2)
m = (ymn )wn . (5) is a very important stage. Project or portfolio selection is a complex and
n=1 multi-faceted decision-making activity that becomes increasingly
complicated as organisational size and the number of potential projects
increases (Kornfeld & Kara, 2011).
In-depth analysis of the proposed project selection methods has
3. Determine the total importance of m-th variant in the following form
shown that project evaluation should take into account both qualitative
(Zavadskas et al., 2012; Turskis et al., 2015):
and quantitative criteria. Inadequate selection of projects leads to the
Qm = λ∙Q(1) (2)
(6) missed opportunity to improve the organization (Carazo et al., 2010).
m + (1 − λ)∙Qm , λ ∈ [0, 1],
However, it is not enough to take account of their current status. Given
where λ is calculated as: the dynamic changes taking place in the organization and its environ­
∑M ment, it is also worth considering perspective thinking of experts about
future implementation and changes related to the assessment of projects
(2)
m=1 Qm
λ = ∑M ∑M . (7)
in terms of the indicated criteria. They should be given the opportunity
(1) (2)
m=1 Qm + m=1 Qm
to consider trends of these assessments until the launch of projects. A
The last stage of the WASPAS method is the ranking of the variants
deep analysis of the methods proposed in the literature indicates a lack
of such an approach.
Table 1 Identification of the research gap prompted the authors to pose the
Example of decision matrix. following research questions:
Criterion 1 Criterion 2 … Criterion N
• RQ1. How can selection of improvement projects be made to take
Weights
into account qualitative and quantitative criteria?
w1 w2 … wN
Variant 1 x11 x12 x1N
• RQ2. What approach should be used to include in the project eval­
…
Variant 2 x21 x22 x2N
uation knowledge about their future implementation which is often
…
xmn
incomplete or imprecise?
… … … …
Variant M xM1 xM2 … xMN

6
K. Rudnik et al.
Fig. 5. Diagram of the conducted research.
Fig. 6. Algorithm of proposed approach to IPs selection.
The research was carried out according to defined stages (Fig. 5):
1. Literature review literature regarding: Improvement Projects Selec­
tion Methods, fuzzy MCDM methods for assessment, prioritization
and selection of the projects, Ordered Fuzzy Number (OFN) and
WASPAS method.
2. Selection of tools suitable for evaluation of improvement projects,
which allow to take into account knowledge about their future
implementation (selection of a model class).
3. Development of an algorithm of a proposed approach to IPs selec­
tion, together with OFN-WASPAS method.
4. Verification of the developed approach in a production company.
5. Comparison of the proposed OFN-WASPAS method results with
WASPAS, F-WASPAS methods results.
6. Analysis of the results obtained, sensitive analysis, conducting dis­
cussions and indicating the direction of future research.
4. The proposed approach to improvement projects selection
In the paper, the novel approach to IP evaluation is proposed. The
approach constitutes methodology based on the MCDM method.
7
Expert Systems With Applications 169 (2021) 114471
Because the implementation of IP is often associated with risk, and
knowledge about their future implementation is often incomplete or
imprecise, the use of OFNs as assessments of projects concerning a
proposed set of subcriteria is suggested. The orientation of OFNs is
interpreted in the proposed approach as the dynamics of changing the
project evaluation regarding the selected criterion. For example, the
evaluator may state that external customer satisfaction of a given project
is average, but in the future, the supposition may increase; therefore, the
orientation of the OFN labeled “average” is positive (we can say that as
OFN with positive trends). In the event that the evaluator is convinced of
a decreasing trend for this assessment or at least the status quo, the
orientation of OFN labeled “average” is negative (we can say that as OFN
without positive trends). This approach is novel from other MCDM
methods described thus far when assessing projects. In particular, an
expanded version of the WASPAS method, named OFN-WASPAS
method, is proposed, and the algorithm of proposed approach to
improvement projects selections are described in Fig. 6.
4.1. Determine the important criteria to improvement project evaluation
The criteria for evaluating IPs have been developed based on the
K. Rudnik et al. Expert Systems With Applications 169 (2021) 114471

Table 2 weight values for assessing their improvement projects.

Proposed of criteria structure to improvement project evaluation.
Criteria Subcriteria Types of 4.2. Data preparation
subcriteria

C1: Project feasibility C11: Technical feasibility Quality, Benefit In cases of a finite number of variants (alternatives), such in related
C12: Availability of appropriate Quality, Benefit with IP assessment, Multi-Attribute Decision-Making (MADM) methods
resources Quality, Benefit which is a branch of MCDM can be used. Let A = {A1 , ⋯, Am , ⋯, AM }
C13: Project risk (M ≥ 2) be a set of IPs (alternatives). Let C = {C1 , ⋯, Cn , ⋯, CN } be a set
C2: Financial impacts C21: Cost reduction (PLN per Quantity, Benefit
month) Quantity, Benefit
of IPs assessment criteria, which has been proposed in the paper and
C22: Revenue generation (PLN chosen by experts as the most important. The important of the criteria is
per month) determined by the following vector w = {w1 ,⋯,wn ,⋯,wN }, such that 0 ≤
C3: Impacts on employees C31: Improved skills and Quality, Benefit ∑
wn ≤ 1 and Nn=1 wn = 1. The problem consists in ranking improvement
knowledge Quality, Benefit
C32: Improved work safety Quality, Benefit projects and choice the best improvement project, with is best assessed
C33: Improved ergonomics at the Quality, Benefit against the proposed set of criteria and can be implemented with the
workplace lowest risk in an enterprise.
C34: Attract/retain Since the implementation of improvement projects is often associ­
C4: Impact on operational C41: Reduction in cycle time (%) Quantity, Benefit
ated with risk, and knowledge about their future implementation is
goals C42: Stock reduction in progress Quality, Benefit
C43: Compliance with operational Quality, Benefit often incomplete or imprecise, the use of trOFNs in project evaluation is
objectives proposed. In such cases, the fuzzy decision matrix in the following form
C5: Impact on customers C51: Internal customer Quality, Benefit is considered:
satisfaction Quality, Benefit
C52: External customer C … CN
satisfaction
⎡ 1→
← ← ⎤
→
→
← ←
→ A x11 ⋯ x1N
C6: Impact on suppliers C61: Mutual benefits Quality, Benefit X = [ xmn ]M×N = 1 ⎣ ⋮ ⋱ ⋮ ⎦, (8)
⋮
respectively C62: Improved capability Quality, Benefit ←
→ ←
→
C7: Impact on the C71: Waste reduction Quality, Benefit
AM xM1 ⋯ xMN
environment C72: Saving energy/water Quality, Benefit
consumption ←
→
where xmn = (amn , bmn , cmn , dmn ) is a trOFN with positive or negative
C8: Impact on quality C81: Reduction the number of Quantity, Benefit
product defects (%) Quantity, Benefit orientation and represents the assessment of m-th IP according to n-th
C82: Reduction of failures in the criterion.
process (%) For the quality criteria, we proposed using a linguistic scale (Table 3
C9: Importance of the C91: Duration of the problem Quantity, Cost
and Fig. 7), which is identified via trOFNs. The assessment also considers
goal/ problem (number of days) Quality, Cost
C92: The extent of the problem Quality, Benefit
assumptions about the trends of the assessment. If the evaluator assumes
C93: Compliance with strategy that the indicated assessment may change in a decreasing direction, then
trOFN with positive orientation x̅→ mn is used, and trOFN xmn is used for the
←̅
opposite case.
results of Adebanjo, Samaranayake, Mafakheri, and Laosirihongthong Due to the precise quantity assessments of IP, certain criteria pa­
(2016) study. In their study, six main criteria are identified: project rameters (such as revenue generation, reduction in cycle time etc.) are
feasibility, financial impacts, impacts on employees, impact on opera­ difficult to obtained. To address this, authors proposed use the trOFNs
tional goals, impact on customers, and impact on suppliers, respectively, and recommend constructing them in the following way:
along with twelve subcriteria. Nevertheless, they do not consider criteria
related to the environmental impact, which is becoming an increasingly • for assessment, which may shift in the decreasing direction or remain
analyzed factor. unchanged: ←̅
xmn = (xmn +2ε,xmn + ε,max(xmn − ε,0),max(xmn − 2ε,0)),
Final analysis, in this research, was carried out by experts dealing • for assessment, which may change in the increasing direction: x̅→mn =
with continuous improvement. Additional main criteria related to goals (max(xmn − 2ε,0), max(xmn − ε,0),xmn + ε,xmn + 2ε ),
important for many organizations were introduced: impacts on the
environment, impacts on quality, and importance of the goal or prob­ where xmn is a probable (presumed) assessment value of n-th project
lem. New subcriteria have been developed regarding the expanded with regard to m-th criterion, and ε is an approximate error value
criteria, which are listed in Table 2. In summary, nine main criteria and (ε > 0).
23 subcriteria were defined (Table 2). Next, to ensure comparability of project assessments against
To determine the weights w (i.e., significance, importance) for the different criteria, the fuzzy decision matrix is normalized as follows:
hierarchical structure of criteria, the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP),
as suggested by Saaty (1980), has been proposed. In the method, the
experts compare all the evaluation criteria in pairs, which is straight­
forward to understand and easy to perform. It allows the qualitative
estimates received from experts to be converted into quantitative data as Table 3
Linguistic scale for project assessment according to quality criteria.
criteria weights. It is recommended that the AHP method be performed
by several experts dealing with continuous improvement in the enter­ Linguistic variables Without positive trend With positive trend
prise. Then, due to a uniform group of experts (experts in one field), Very low ←̅
VL =(3,2,1,1)
̅→
VL =(1,1,2,3)
based on the results of the AHP method for each expert (criteria Low ← →
L =(5,4,3,2) L =(2,3,4,5)
weights), the average weights are calculated that will assess the
Average ←
A =(7,6,5,4)
→
A =(4,5,6,7)
importance of criteria (and subcriteria) in the enterprise.
In the case study (Section 5), the weights of the proposed project High ←
H =(9,8,7,6)
→
H =(6,7,8,9)
evaluation criteria were analyzed using the group AHP method via a Very high ←̅
VH =(10,10,9,8)
̅→
VH =(8,9,10,10)
survey tool among employees of several companies. Hence, the results
obtained can also be a hint for enterprises wishing to use universal

8
K. Rudnik et al. Expert Systems With Applications 169 (2021) 114471

Fig. 7. Graphical interpretation of proposed linguistic scale identified via trOFNs.

C … CN
⎡ 1→
← ← ⎤
→ → (1) ( (1) (1) (1) (1) ) ∑
← N
← ∑→
→
N
←
→
← ←
→ A
Y = [ymn ]M×N = 1
y11 ⋯ y1N
(9) Q m = amn , bmn , cmn , dmn = wn ⋅ymn = zmn , (12)
⋮ ⎣ ⋮ ⋱ ⋮ ⎦ n=1 n=1
AM ←
→ ←
→
yM1 ⋯ yMN
←
→ ( ′ )
where wn is the weight of n-th criterion and ymn = amn , bmn , cmn , dmn is
′ ′ ′

←
→
where ymn is calculated following the mathematical relationship and the an element of the normalized fuzzy decision matrix with OFNs and zmn =
←
→
assessments of cost criteria are directly proportional to the inverse of ( ) ←
→
wn ⋅a’mn , wn ⋅b’mn , wn ⋅c’mn , wn ⋅d’mn . The sum of zmn is realized with the
assessments of benefits criteria:
formula (2).
• for benefit criteria Cn (means that if more than better), n ∈ Cben :
( ) 2. Determine the weighted product model (WPM) as a product of the
← ( ′
→ ′ ′ ′ )
ymn = amn , bmn , cmn , dmn =
amn bmn cmn dmn
, , , , (10) total relative importance of project as follows:
en en en en
→ (2) ( (2) (2) (2) (2) ) ∏
← N
←
→ ∏
N →
←
{ } Q m = amn , bmn , cmn , dmn = ( ymn )wn = lmn , (13)
n=1 n=1
en = max max dmn , max amn
m m
←
→ ( ) →
←
where lmn = a’mnwn , b’mnwn , c’mnwn , d’mnwn . The product of lmn is also real­
• for cost criteria Cn (means that if less than better), n ∈ Ccost : ized with the formula (2).
( )
← (
→ ) en en en en
ymn = a’mn , b’mn , c’mn , dmn
’
= , , , , (11) ← (1) →
→ ← (2)
amn bmn cmn dmn 3. Determine the crisp values from Q m , Q m using defuzzification
methods. In paper, we use the gravity center (GC) functional ϕ:

⎧( )2 ( (1) )2 ( (1) )2 ( (1) )2

⎪
⎪ a(1)
mn + a(1) (1)
mn ⋅bmn + bmn − cmn − c(1) (1)
mn ⋅dmn − dmn
( (1) ) ⎪
⎨ ( ) if a(1)
mn ∕
(1)
= dmn
←
→
(14)
(1) (1) (1) (1)
ϕ Qm (1)
= Qm = 3 a mn + bmn − cmn − d mn
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎩ (1) (1) (1)
amn if amn = dmn

{ }
en = min min amn , min dmn
m m
( (2) )
←
→
Similarly, the value of ϕ Q m = Qm is calculated.
(2)

4.3. OFN-WASPAS method

4. Determine the total importance of m-th project in the following form
Authors proposed using an approach, which combines Weighted Sum (Zavadskas et al., 2012; Turskis et al., 2015):
and Weighted Product Models (WSM and WPM) for trOFNs (Zavadskas
et al., 2012; Turskis et al., 2015). The stages of OFN-WASPAS method Qm = λ∙Q(1) (2)
m + (1 − λ)∙Qm , λ ∈ [0, 1], (15)
are presented below.
where λ is calculated as:
1. Calculate the weighted sum model as an aggregate of the total
relative project importance in the form:

9
K. Rudnik et al. Expert Systems With Applications 169 (2021) 114471

Fig. 8. Results of weight calculation for a) main criteria, b) subcriteria (global weights).

10
K. Rudnik et al. Expert Systems With Applications 169 (2021) 114471

∑M (2) 5.2. Determine the important criteria to improvement projects evaluation

m=1 Qm
λ = ∑M (1) ∑M (2)
. (16)
m=1 Qm + m=1 Qm
The last stage of the WASPAS method is the ranking of the projects
according to the value Qm . The IP for which the value Qm is the largest is
the best project. Expert judgment includes, which projects with the
highest values of total importance will be implemented in the enterprise.
5. Case study
The developed approach to IP selection was applied in a large en­
terprise that produces electronic devices. The participating company is
an experienced supplier of components for organisations producing
household appliances, which operate in the electrical and electronic
industries. This case was chosen because the company’s management
recognizes the principles of CI as a major element of the organisation’s
strategy. The management implements and applies all key practices of
the CI concept including management of IPs in a thoughtful and orderly
manner. Therefore, there is documentation confirming the IP practices,
which enables the use of documentation analysis.
5.1. Improvement projects portfolio
In the surveyed enterprise, process improvement through IPs is a
permanent practice. IPs are characterized by their diversity and
uniqueness. In many cases, they arise interactively through consulta­
tions and arrangements between top management and operational level
managers, result from continuous improvement actions by teams and
systems of suggestions, as well as the application of Lean Manufacturing
principles and quality management. All combined, they all form a
portfolio of IPs, of which five projects were selected to verify the pro­
posed method. The IPs projects were related to, respectively:
The AHP survey questionnaire was used to assess the global weights
of individual subcriteria. The surveys were completed independently by
a group of five experts in the field of CI. The final results were calculated,
accounting for the arithmetic mean of the weights for each expert, which
were obtained by AHP procedure (Saaty, 1980). The study identified the
most important primary criterion, which included C8 impact on quality
(0,19), C5 impact on customers (0,16). The values of others criteria are
presented on Fig. 8a.
In the subcriteria group, the criteria of the highest importance based
on global weights were: C52 external customer satisfaction (0.116), C81
reduced number of product defects (0.107), C82 reduction of failures in
the process (0.085), and C21 cost reduction (0.08). Those subcriteria
were then followed in priority by C91 the duration of the problem
(0.059), C11 technical feasibility (0.057), and C43 compliance with
operational objectives (0.055). Further subcriteria ranked according to
their importance are presented in Fig. 8b. The least important criteria
included C33 improvement ergonomics at the workplace (0.007), C32
improvement work safety (0.009), C13 project risk (0.01), and C31
improved skills and knowledge (0.014). These criteria were eliminated
from the assessment due to their low weight, and the results were
normalized again. Experts pointed out that among these low weight
criteria was project risk, which was attributed to the fact that IPs have a
much lower risk than investment projects. Expert experience showed
that the availability of resources and technical feasibility criteria were
related to technical and organizational risk.
In Fig. 8b four bars are marked in red. These marked bars are rep­
resenting subcriteria that weren’t taken to further analysis because of
their little importance (with the smallest calculated weight).
5.3. Data preparation and OFN-WASPAS method

• A – reduction in the amount of material waste on the P3 production
line,
• B – reduction in the change-over time of the M8 production machine,
• C – reducing the size of quality shortcomings in the blanks produced
by the M12 machine,
• D – implementation of control cards monitoring the process on the P7
production line,
• E – reduction of stock in progress on the P1 production line.
Based on the decision-making methodology outlined in Section 4.2,
an expert in the field of CI in consultation with a knowledge engineer,
prepared the decision matrix for projects A-E, relative to the 19 most
important criteria selected in the group AHP method (Fig. 8b, criteria in
blue). Qualitative and quantitative assessments are given in Table 4. The
assessments have been approximated using trOFNs based on Table 3 for
qualitative criteria and estimated using values together with a possible
̅̅̅→
estimation error for quantitative criteria. For example, where 5000 in
C21 means that estimated cost reduction is approximately equal 5000
per month with the approximate error ε = 500 and likely to increase, so

Table 4
Rated IPs based on linguistic values and estimated quantity values.
Subcrit. C11 C12 C21 C22 C34 C41 C42 C43 C51 C52 C61

Project xmn ε xmn ε xmn ε

A →
A
←
H
̅̅̅→
5000 500 ̅̅̅→
3000 300 ←
L
→
2 1 →
L
̅→
VH
→
A
→
H
→
A
B →
H
←
H
̅̅̅→
2500 200 ̅̅̅→
1000 100 →
A
→
5 1 →
L
̅→
VH
←
L
̅→
VH
̅→
VL
C ←
A
←
H
̅̅̅→
2000 300 ̅̅̅→
1000 200 →
A
→
3 1 →
A
→
H
̅→
VH
̅→
VH
̅→
VL
D →
L
→
L
̅̅̅→
3500 1000 ̅̅̅→
2500 500 →
H
→
6 1 →
A
→
H
→
H
→
H
̅→
VL
E →
L
→
L
̅̅̅→
3000 500 ̅̅̅→
2000 300 →
A
→
3 1 ̅→
VH
→
H
→
H
→
L
←
L

Subcrit. C62 C71 C72 C81 C82 C91 C92 C93

Project xmn ε xmn ε xmn ε

A →
H
̅→
VL
←
L
→
1 1 →
1 1 ̅→
30 2 →
H
→
H
B ̅→
VL
→
L
→
A
→
1 1 →
1 1 ̅→
20 1 →
L
→
H
C →
L
→
H
←
A
→
5 1 →
3 3 ̅→
25 3 →
A
→
H
D ̅→
VL
→
H
→
L
→
4 2 →
8 2 ̅→
40 2 →
H
→
H
E →
A
→
H
→
L
→
1 1 →
1 1 ̅→
14 1 →
A
→
H

11
K. Rudnik et al. Expert Systems With Applications 169 (2021) 114471

trOFN = (4000, 4500, 5500, 6000) is used (Table 5).

10

2
7
4
5
5

9
9
9
9
9
d

d
Table 6 shows a normalized fuzzy decision matrix. The benefit and

5
5
7
7
d
cost criteria are normalized based on Eqs. (10) and (11), respectively.
For example, the values in C11 (first criterion, benefit criterion) was

3
6
5
4
4
c
10
4
4
6
6
c

8
8
8
8
8
calculated as follows: the largest value of amn and dmn for all n projects

c
was selected (max am1 = 7 and max am1 = 9). Then, again the larger

4
5
6
3
3
b
3
3
5
5
9
b

m m
from these two values was selected and it was e1 = 9. Further, for each
C42

C72

7
7
7
7
7
b
project, according to equation (10), division was performed:
2
2
4
4
8
a

5
4
7
2
2
a
( )
am1 bm1 cm1 dm1
e1 e1 e1 e1 . Hence, the following results were finally obtained for
, , ,
4
7
5
8
5

C93
d

3
5
9
9
9
d

6
6
6
6
6
a
C11 and:
3
6
4
7
4
c

2
4
8
8
8
c

←
→
• project A: y 11 = (0.444, 0.556, 0.667, 0.778),

9
5
7
9
7
d
1
4
2
5
2
b

1
3
7
7
7
b

←
→
• project B: y 21 = (0.667, 0.778, 0.889, 1.000),
C41

0
3
1
4
1
a

←
→
C71

• project C: y 31 = (0.778, 0.667, 0.556, 0.444),

1
2
6
6
6

8
4
6
8
6
a

c ←
→
• project D: y 41 = (0.222, 0.333, 0.444, 0.556),
2
7
7
9
7
d

←
→
• project E: y 51 = (0.222, 0.333, 0.444, 0.556).
9
3
5
3
7
d
3
6
6
8
6
c

7
3
5
7
5
b

On the other hand, the values in C91 (17-th criterion, cost criterion)
8
2
4
2
6
c
4
5
5
7
5
b

were determined as follows: the smaller of am17 and dm17 for all projects
C92
C34

6
2
4
6
4
a

(n = 1, ⋯, 5) was selected (min am17 = 12 andmin dm17 = 16). Then,

7
1
3
1
5
b
5
4
4
6
4
a

m m
again the smaller from these two values was selected and it was e17 =
C62
3600
1200
1400
3500
2600

12. Further, for each project, according to equation (11), division was
6
1
2
1
4
a

34
22
31
44
16

( )
d
d

performed: aem17
17
, bem17
17
, cem17
17
, dem17
17
. Hence, the following results were finally
7
3
3
3
2
d
3300
1100
1200
3000
2300

obtained for C91 and:

32
21
28
42
15
c

c
6
2
2
2
3
c

←
→
• project A: y 11 = (0.462, 0.429, 0.375, 0.353),
2700

2000
1700
900
800

5
1
1
1
4
b

←
→
• project B: y 21 = (0.667, 0.632, 0.571, 0.545),
b

28
19
22
38
13
b

←
→
C61

• project C: y 31 = (0.632, 0.545, 0.429, 0.387),

4
1
1
1
5
a
2400

1500
1400
C22

800
600

←
→
• project D: y 41 = (0.333, 0.316, 0.286, 0.273),
a

C91

26
18
19
36
12

←
→
• project E: y 51 = (1.00, 0.923, 0.800, 0.750).
10
10

a
9

9
5
d
6000
2900
2600
5500
4000
d

Based on the OFN-WASPAS method outlined in Section 4.3, the

10
10
8

8
4
c

12

← (1)
→
3
3
5

3
d

weighted sum model Q m and weighted product model

5500
2700
2300
4500
3500
c

7
9
9
7
3
b

← (2)
→ ← (1)
→
Q m (m = 1, …, 5) were calculated and the crisp values from Q m ,
C52

10

← (2)
4500
2300
1700
2500
2500

→
2
2
4

2
c

Q m using the gravity center (GC) functional (14) were determined

6
8
8
6
2
a
b

(Table 7). The last stage of the WASPAS method calculated the total
importance of analyzed IPs Qm (formula (15)) and ranked according to
10
7
2

9
9
d
4000
2100
1400
1500
2000

0
0
2
6
0
b
C21

the values Qm (m = 1, ..., 5). Table 7 shows the results of above

a

mentioned calculations.
10

C82
6
3

8
8
c
6
6
6
5
5
d

0
0
1
4
0
a

5.4. Results and comparison

Fuzzy decision matrix X (rated projects with trOFNs).

5
4
9
7
7
b
7
7
7
4
4
c

The study considered five projects constituting the portfolio of IPs

C51

3
3
7
8
3
d
4
5
8
6
6
8
8
8
3
3

a
b

selected, using the 19 most important subcriteria proposed within the

C12

following main criteria: project feasibility, financial impacts, impacts on

9
9
9
2
2
a

10
10

employees, impact on operational goals, impact on customers, impact on

2
2
6
6
2
c
9
9
9
d

suppliers respectively, impact on the environment, impact on quality,

7
9
4
5
5
d

and importance of the goal or problem. It was assumed that the projects
10
10
8
8
8
c

would be implemented shortly after the decision on projects selection,

0
0
4
2
0
b
6
8
5
4
4
c

which meant that the experts had the opportunity to determine the
←
→

9
9
7
7
7
b

tendencies to change the assessment of projects relative to given criteria

5
7
6
3
3
b

C81

before the start of projects. Orientations of trOFNs determined these

0
0
3
0
0
a
C43
C11

trends and fuzzy evaluations of IPs, together with trends, influenced the
8
8
6
6
6
a
4
6
7
2
2
a

results of the evaluation. The final results (Table 7) indicated that in the
researched enterprise, the most important project is C (reducing the
Subcrit.

Subcrit.

Subcrit.
Project

Project

Project
Table 5

number of defects in the blanks produced by the M12 machine).

D

D
A

A
B

B
C

C
E

As such, Project C should be implemented first in the enterprise. This

12
 K. Rudnik et al.
Table 6
←
→
Normalized fuzzy decision matrix y with trOFNs.
C11 C12 C21 C22 C34

a b c d a b c d a b c d a b c d a b c d

A 0.444 0.556 0.667 0.778 1.000 0.889 0.778 0.667 0.667 0.750 0.917 1.000 0.667 0.750 0.917 1.000 0.556 0.444 0.333 0.222
B 0.667 0.778 0.889 1.000 1.000 0.889 0.778 0.667 0.350 0.383 0.450 0.483 0.222 0.250 0.306 0.333 0.444 0.556 0.667 0.778
C 0.778 0.667 0.556 0.444 1.000 0.889 0.778 0.667 0.233 0.283 0.383 0.433 0.167 0.222 0.333 0.389 0.444 0.556 0.667 0.778
D 0.222 0.333 0.444 0.556 0.222 0.333 0.444 0.556 0.250 0.417 0.750 0.917 0.417 0.556 0.833 0.972 0.667 0.778 0.889 1.000
E 0.222 0.333 0.444 0.556 0.222 0.333 0.444 0.556 0.333 0.417 0.583 0.667 0.389 0.472 0.639 0.722 0.444 0.556 0.667 0.778
norm. wn 0.059 0.017 0.084 0.038 0.023

C41 C42 C43 C51 C52

a b c d a b c d a b c d a b c d a b c d

A 0.000 0.125 0.375 0.500 0.200 0.300 0.400 0.500 0.800 0.900 1.000 1.000 0.400 0.500 0.600 0.700 0.600 0.700 0.800 0.900
B 0.375 0.500 0.750 0.875 0.200 0.300 0.400 0.500 0.800 0.900 1.000 1.000 0.500 0.400 0.300 0.200 0.800 0.900 1.000 1.000
C 0.125 0.250 0.500 0.625 0.400 0.500 0.600 0.700 0.600 0.700 0.800 0.900 0.800 0.900 1.000 1.000 0.800 0.900 1.000 1.000
D 0.500 0.625 0.875 1.000 0.400 0.500 0.600 0.700 0.600 0.700 0.800 0.900 0.600 0.700 0.800 0.900 0.600 0.700 0.800 0.900
E 0.125 0.250 0.500 0.625 0.800 0.900 1.000 1.000 0.600 0.700 0.800 0.900 0.600 0.700 0.800 0.900 0.200 0.300 0.400 0.500
13

norm.wn 0.052 0.050 0.057 0.042 0.121

C61 C62 C71 C72 C81

a b c d a b c d a b c d a b c d a b c d

A 0.571 0.714 0.857 1.000 0.667 0.778 0.889 1.000 0.111 0.111 0.222 0.333 0.714 0.571 0.429 0.286 0.000 0.000 0.250 0.375
B 0.143 0.143 0.286 0.429 0.111 0.111 0.222 0.333 0.222 0.333 0.444 0.556 0.571 0.714 0.857 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.250 0.375
C 0.143 0.143 0.286 0.429 0.222 0.333 0.444 0.556 0.667 0.778 0.889 1.000 1.000 0.857 0.714 0.571 0.375 0.500 0.750 0.875
D 0.143 0.143 0.286 0.429 0.111 0.111 0.222 0.333 0.667 0.778 0.889 1.000 0.286 0.429 0.571 0.714 0.000 0.250 0.750 1.000
E 0.714 0.571 0.429 0.286 0.444 0.556 0.667 0.778 0.667 0.778 0.889 1.000 0.286 0.429 0.571 0.714 0.000 0.000 0.250 0.375
norm.wn 0.032 0.031 0.033 0.019 0.112

C82 C91 C92 C93

a b c d a b c d a b c d a b c d

Expert Systems With Applications 169 (2021) 114471

A 0.000 0.000 0.167 0.250 0.462 0.429 0.375 0.353 0.333 0.286 0.250 0.222 0.667 0.778 0.889 1.000
B 0.000 0.000 0.167 0.250 0.667 0.632 0.571 0.545 1.000 0.667 0.500 0.400 0.667 0.778 0.889 1.000
C 0.083 0.167 0.333 0.417 0.632 0.545 0.429 0.387 0.500 0.400 0.333 0.286 0.667 0.778 0.889 1.000
D 0.333 0.500 0.833 1.000 0.333 0.316 0.286 0.273 0.333 0.286 0.250 0.222 0.667 0.778 0.889 1.000
E 0.000 0.000 0.167 0.250 1.000 0.923 0.800 0.750 0.500 0.400 0.333 0.286 0.667 0.778 0.889 1.000
norm.wn 0.089 0.062 0.047 0.031
K. Rudnik et al. Expert Systems With Applications 169 (2021) 114471

Table 7
Results of OFN-WASPAS method calculations.
→ (1)
← Qm
(1) → (2)
← Qm
(2) λ Qm Rank
Q m Q m

a b c d a b c d

A 0.404 0.454 0.567 0.638 0.516 0.000 0.000 0.483 0.558 0.261 0.393 0.360 3
B 0.433 0.461 0.557 0.608 0.516 0.000 0.000 0.474 0.538 0.253 0.356 4
C 0.476 0.529 0.621 0.668 0.573 0.379 0.458 0.572 0.618 0.506 0.532 1
D 0.370 0.483 0.672 0.795 0.580 0.000 0.435 0.623 0.731 0.431 0.489 2
E 0.371 0.425 0.537 0.612 0.487 0.000 0.000 0.477 0.560 0.260 0.348 5

Fig. 9. Results of IPs assessments with using WASPAS, F-WASPAS and OFN-WASPAS methods.

project stood out because it focused on the reduction of defects, which

Table 8
will positively affect the level of satisfaction for internal and external
Sensitive analysis related to OFN orientation change.
customers and the reduction of waste. The project goal is highly
consistent with the operational goals of the process and the company’s Criterion rating change [%] Project

strategy. Project D’s final ranking was similar to that of C’s, while A B C D E
project E received the lowest scores, and holds the least importance for Criterion C11 0.0107 0.0077 0.0030 0.0163 0.0178
C12 0.0022 0.0022 0.0006 0.0046 0.0051
the company. The project rankings are as follows: C > D > A > B > E.
C21 0.0121 0.0095 0.0043 0.0340 0.0210
Fig. 9 shows the comparison of IPs scores obtained with the proposed C22 0.0056 0.0055 0.0028 0.0104 0.0087
method and the original WASPAS and fuzzy WASPAS (F-WASPAS) C34 0.0068 0.0041 0.0011 0.0028 0.0043
methods, using the same set of criteria weights (Fig. 8b). In the case of C41 0.1995 0.0154 0.0062 0.0117 0.0293
the F-WASPAS and OFN-WASPAS methods, the linear ordering of C42 0.0146 0.0143 0.0022 0.0085 0.0041
C43 0.0045 0.0045 0.0019 0.0071 0.0078
assessment results were similar. This is because, in the project portfolio
C51 0.0077 0.0125 0.0009 0.0053 0.0058
being analyzed, very few ratings were issued by experts with a negative C52 0.0159 0.0094 0.0023 0.0149 0.0356
(or stable) change tendency (with a negative OFNs orientation), which C61 0.0059 0.0133 0.0032 0.0119 0.0099
would yield a low weight criteria value. The results could vary if the C62 0.0042 0.0131 0.0023 0.0117 0.0059
C71 0.0142 0.0097 0.0011 0.0042 0.0046
method did not use the defuzzification function. It should be noted,
C72 0.0058 0.0035 0.0009 0.0054 0.0059
however, that the use of OFNs resulted in a reduction of all ratings in C81 0.4959 0.4884 0.0071 0.1780 0.5082
relation to the F-WASPAS method. In turn, failure to include un­ C82 0.4959 0.4885 0.0089 0.0307 0.5083
certainties in the WASPAS method assessments resulted in slightly C91 0.0060 0.0044 0.0030 0.0041 0.0067
different results. In WASPAS method, project D is the best project, and C92 0.0064 0.0141 0.0024 0.0059 0.0090
C93 0.0042 0.0041 0.0010 0.0039 0.0043
projects A and B are assessed as similar projects.
The influence of the OFN orientation on result is apparent e.g. when
we compare the evaluations of the same IPs given by the two experts. We

14
K. Rudnik et al.
found that differences in the type of orientation (for the same fuzzy sets)
in the assessment relative to only one criterion differed in the final
assessment of the projects. For example, when project C was almost
identically assessed by two experts, with the exception of criterion C11,
← →
where project C was rated “ A ” by first expert and “ A ” by second expert,
then the final project evaluations differ by 0.0030 in favor of project
rated by second expert (rating of C11: 0.5322 and 0.5338 respectively).
Similarly, the impact of changes in orientation of OFN assessment for
all criteria was analyzed. The project assessments presented in Table 4
were the basic fuzzy decision matrix. The evaluation of the m-th project
was read each time when the m-th project was assessed against the n-th
criterion using positive orientation as well as negative orientation. The
absolute difference in assessment was determined as a percentage
change in value of the total importance of m-th project Qm . Although,
only the OFN direction of the evaluation was changed with respect to
one selected criterion, the final evaluation of the analyzed project was
changed each time (on average from 0.3% to 33.6%). Table 8 shows the
results for all criteria and projects. Thus, Table 8 presents a sensitivity
analysis of the project evaluation in relation to the change in the
orientation of a single OFN assessment relative to the selected criterion.
It can be concluded that for most criteria a change in the future trend of
the assessment results in changing assessment value but it does not
significantly affect (on average up to 1.6% change in the value of Qm ).
However, in some cases (C41 project A; C81 projects A B D E and C82
projects A B D), the change of OFN orientation causes a significant
change in the assessment of a given project (from nearly 18% to over
50% of the total importance project Qm ). These are the cases for quan­
titative assessments, where the project is rated very low (close to 0 for
the benefit criteria and vice versa for the cost criterion). In this case, the
dispersion of ratings for all projects according to the m-th criterion is
also important - the larger dispersion the smaller the impact of the
change in OFN orientation, and the smaller dispersion the greater the
impact.
The Fig. 10 presents average ranting change for each criterion. In the
Fig. 10. Average absolute change in criterion rating as a result of OFN orientation change.
15
Expert Systems With Applications 169 (2021) 114471
case of cost criteria, changing the orientation from positive to negative
results in a decrease in the score for a total important of given project
(this is the case for C91 and C92, the red background in Fig. 10).
Therefore, the use of OFNs in the improvement projects selection
method means that we can include additional information in the
assessment, which is the directional assessment change in the nearest
future. This orientation has an impact on project evaluation, and for
similar projects, the differentiation of orientation can have a significant
impact on final IP evaluation and selection.
6. Conclusion
The conducted research demonstrated that the proposed approach to
IPs selection is, to a large extent, applicable in an enterprise that oper­
ates per the CI concept. The resulting process improvement requires the
implementation of many improvement projects.
Several IPs require support at the stage of evaluation and selection,
which is possible through the application of the proposed approach. It
has been shown that the inclusion of the MCDM method is justified for
projects that are similarly consistent with the operational objectives of
the organization. The present study’s proposed a novel OFN-WASPAS
method, together with a set of criteria, enabled a more objective,
meticulous, and substantive assessment of projects, which is a compli­
cated process during the subjective assessment of individual experts.
The developed approach accounted for the weights of individual
criteria as well as individual expert assessments expressed numerically,
took into account the uncertainty of assessments, and trends of these
assessments until the launch of projects. Uncertainty was determined
using trapezoidal fuzzy sets that contained orientations. A positive
orientation allowed the expert to express his supposition regarding the
upward direction of changes in project evaluation to a given criterion.
Similarly, a negative orientation allowed the expert to express his sup­
position regarding a non-growth direction of change. Therefore, the use
of orientations accounted for the anticipated tendency of changes in
K. Rudnik et al.
assessments resulting from changes in the environment. The method can
be especially useful for portfolio analysis with projects using the latest
technologies and implemented in frequently changing environmental
conditions.
The sensitivity analysis of the IPs evaluation in relation to the change
of the OFN orientation has shown that taking trends into account has a
big impact in the case of projects rated not highly but promising. As a
result, the proposed IP selection method allows for bolder strategic ac­
tions in the aspect of continuous improvement. This approach handles
the key aspects of decision making in a consistent and rational way.
The limitation of the approach is that the operations on OFNs
sometimes result in an improper OFN, therefore in the future, it is
pertinent to develop an approach based on the revision theory of the
Kosiński’s OFN, proposed by Piasecki (2018). Unfortunately, it demands
an analysis of summands ordering.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Katarzyna Rudnik: Conceptualization, Methodology, Validation,
Formal analysis, Writing - original draft, Writing - review & editing.
Grzegorz Bocewicz: Supervision, Validation, Writing - review & edit­
ing. Aneta Kucińska-Landwójtowicz: Conceptualization, Resources,
Data curation, Validation, Writing - original draft, Writing - review &
editing. Izabela D. Czabak-Górska: Validation, Visualization, Formal
analysis, Writing - original draft, Writing - review & editing.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
References
Abbasianjahromi, H., & Rajaie, H. (2012). Developing a project portfolio selection model
for contractor firms considering the risk factor. Journal of Civil Engineering and
Management, 18(6), 879–889. https://doi.org/10.3846/13923730.2012.734856
Abdulmalek, F. A., & Rajgopal, J. (2007). Analyzing the benefits of lean manufacturing
and value stream mapping via simulation: A process sector case study. International
Journal of Production Economics, 107(1), 223–236. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijpe.2006.09.009
Adebanjo, D., Samaranayake, P., Mafakheri, F., & Laosirihongthong, T. (2016).
Prioritization of Six-Sigma project selection: A resource-based view and institutional
norms perspective. Benchmarking, 23(7), 1983–2003. https://doi.org/10.1108/BIJ-
09-2015-0086
Ahari, R. M., & Niaki, S. T. A. (2014). A hybrid approach based on locally linear neuro-
fuzzy modeling and TOPSIS to determine the quality grade of gas well-drilling
projects. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, 114, 99–106. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.petrol.2014.01.010
Gonzalez Aleu, F., & Van Aken, E. M. (2016). Systematic literature review of critical
success factors for continuous improvement projects. Lean Six Sigma Journal, 7(3),
214–232. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJLSS-06-2015-0025
Altintas, M., Erginel, N., & Kucuk, G. (2016). Determining the criteria and evaluating six
sigma projects via fuzzy ANP method in group decision. IFAC-PapersOnLine, 49(12),
1850–1855. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ifacol.2016.07.852
Anand, G., & Kodali, R. (2008). Selection of lean manufacturing systems using the
PROMETHEE. Journal of Modelling in Management, 3(1), 40–70. https://doi.org/
10.1108/17465660810860372
Annex A1 The Standard For Project Management Of A Pr. (2013). In A guide to the
Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK guide) (5th ed., pp. 417–462).
Project Management Institute.
Bakshi, T., Som, T., & Sarkar, B. (2015). A novel soft theoretic AHP model for project
management in multi-criteria decision making problem. Springer Proceedings in
Mathematics and Statistics, 125, 201–213. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-81-322-
2301-6_15
Bilgen, B., & Şen, M. (2012). Project selection through fuzzy analytic hierarchy process
and a case study on Six Sigma implementation in an automotive industry. Production
Planning & Control, 23(1), 2–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537287.2010.537286
Bocewicz, G., Banaszak, Z., Rudnik, K., Witczak, M., Smutnicki, C., & Wikarek, J. (2020).
Milk-run routing and scheduling subject to fuzzy pickup and delivery time
constraints: An ordered fuzzy numbers approach. In 2020 IEEE International
Conference on Fuzzy Systems (FUZZ-IEEE), Glasgow, United Kingdom, pp. 1–10, doi:
10.1109/FUZZ48607.2020.9177733.
Brauers, W. K. M., Baležentis, A., & Baležentis, T. (2011). Multimoora for the EU member
States updated with fuzzy number theory. Technological and Economic Development of
Economy, 17(2), 259–290. https://doi.org/10.3846/20294913.2011.580566
16
Expert Systems With Applications 169 (2021) 114471
Büyüközkan, G., & Öztürkcan, D. (2010). An integrated analytic approach for Six Sigma
project selection. Expert Systems with Applications, 37(8), 5835–5847. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.eswa.2010.02.022
Carazo, A. F., Gómez, T., Molina, J., Hernández-Díaz, A. G., Guerrero, F. M., &
Caballero, R. (2010). Solving a comprehensive model for multiobjective project
portfolio selection. Computers & Operations Research, 37(4), 630–639. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.cor.2009.06.012
Chen, C. T., & Hung, W. Z. (2008). Applying fuzzy linguistic variable and ELECTRE
method in R&D project evaluation and selection. In 2008 IEEE international
conference on industrial engineering and engineering management. https://doi.org/
10.1109/IEEM.2008.4738020
Chen, C.-T. (2000). Extensions of the TOPSIS for group decision-making under fuzzy
environment. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 114(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0165-
0114(97)00377-1
Chen, Y., Chen, W. D., Peng, J., & Wang, J. Y. (2005). TOPSIS approach to project
selection in Six-Sigma management. Industrial Engineering Journal-Guangzou, 8(4),
90–92.
Chuang, P.-T. (2001). Combining the analytic hierarchy process and quality function
deployment for a location decision from a requirement perspective. The International
Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 18(11), 842–849. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s001700170010
Dimova, L., Sevastianov, P., & Sevastianov, D. (2006). MCDM in a fuzzy setting:
Investment projects assessment application. International Journal of Production
Economics, 100(1), 10–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2004.09.014
Dubois, Didier, & Prade, Henri (1978). Operations on fuzzy numbers. International
Journal of Systems Science, 9(6), 613–626. https://doi.org/10.1080/
00207727808941724
Ehsanifar, M., & Hemesy, M. (2019). A new hybrid multi-criteria decision-making model
to prioritize risks in the construction process under fuzzy environment (case study:
the Valiasr Street underpass project). International Journal of Construction
Management, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/15623599.2019.1569816.
Evans, G. W., & Alexander, S. M. (2007). Using multi-criteria modeling and simulation to
achieve lean goals. Proceedings - Winter Simulation Conference, 1615–1623. https://
doi.org/10.1109/WSC.2007.4419781
Ghorabaee, K. M., Amiri, M., Zavadskas, E. K., & Antuchevičienė, J. (2017). Assessment
of third-party logistics providers using a CRITIC–WASPAS approach with interval
type-2 fuzzy sets. Transport, 32(1), 66–78. https://doi.org/10.3846/
16484142.2017.1282381
Hashemi, S. S., Hajiagha, S. H. R., Zavadskas, E. K., & Mahdiraji, H. A. (2016).
Multicriteria group decision making with ELECTRE III method based on interval-
valued intuitionistic fuzzy information. Applied Mathematical Modelling, 40(2),
1554–1564. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apm.2015.08.011
Herrera, F., & Martínez, L. (2000). A 2-tuple fuzzy linguistic representation model for
computing with words. IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems, 8(6), 746–752. https://
doi.org/10.1109/91.890332
Hira, A., & Parfitt, T. W. (2004). Development Projects for a New Millennium. In
Perspectives on politics. Greenwood Publishing Group. https://doi.org/10.1017/
s1537592705510144.
Hu, G., Wang, L., Fetch, S., & Bidanda, B. (2008). A multi-objective model for project
portfolio selection to implement lean and Six Sigma concepts. International Journal of
Production Research, 46(23), 6611–6625. https://doi.org/10.1080/
00207540802230363
Huang, C.-T., Yeh, T.-M., Lin, W.-T., & Lee, B.-T. (2009). A fuzzy AHP-based performance
evaluation model for implementing SPC in the Taiwanese LCD industry. International
Journal of Production Research, 47(18), 5163–5183. https://doi.org/10.1080/
00207540801935608
Jung, J. Y., & Lim, S.-G. (2007). Project categorization, prioritization, and execution
based on six sigma concept: A case study of operational improvement project. Project
Management Journal, 38(1), 55–60. https://doi.org/10.1177/875697280703800106
Kacprzak, D. (2017). Objective weights based on ordered fuzzy numbers for fuzzy
multiple criteria decision-making methods. Entropy, 19(7), 373. https://doi.org/
10.3390/e19070373
Kacprzak, D. (2019). A doubly extended TOPSIS method for group decision making
based on ordered fuzzy numbers. Expert Systems with Applications, 116, 243–254.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2018.09.023
Kacprzak, D. (2020). An extended TOPSIS method based on ordered fuzzy numbers for
group decision making. Artificial Intelligence Review, 53(3), 2099–2129. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s10462-019-09728-1
Kacprzak, M., Kosiński, W., & Prokopowicz, P. (2012). Implications on ordered fuzzy
numbers and fuzzy sets of type two. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (Including
Subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics).
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-29347-4_29
Kahraman, C., & Büyüközkan, G. (2008). A combined fuzzy AHP and fuzzy goal
programming approach for effective six-sigma project selection. Journal of Multiple-
Valued Logic and Soft Computing, 14(6), 599–615.
Kalashnikov, V., Benita, F., López-Ramos, F., & Hernández-Luna, A. (2017). Bi-objective
project portfolio selection in Lean Six Sigma. International Journal of Production
Economics, 186, 81–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2017.01.015
Kelly, M. (2002). Three steps to project selection. Six Sigma Forum Magazine, 2(1), 29–33.
Kendrick, J. D., & Saaty, D. (2007). Use analytic hierarchy process for project selection.
ASQ Six Sigma Forum Magazine, 22–29. http://dschoenherr.fatcow.com/sitebuilderc
ontent/sitebuilderfiles/analytic_hierarchy_process.pdf.
Kerzner, H. (2020). Innovation project management: Methods, case studies, and tools for
managing innovation projects. In John Wiley & Sons Inc.
K. Rudnik et al.
Kornfeld, B. J., & Kara, S. (2011). Project portfolio selection in continuous improvement.
International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 31(10), 1071–1088.
https://doi.org/10.1108/01443571111172435
Kornfeld, B., & Kara, S. (2013). Selection of Lean and Six Sigma projects in industry. Lean
Six Sigma Journal, 4(1), 4–16. https://doi.org/10.1108/20401461311310472
Kosiński, W., Prokopowicz, P., & Ślęzak, D. (2003). Ordered fuzzy numbers. Bulletin of
the Polish Academy of Sciences. Mathematics, 51(3).
Kosiński, W. (2006). On fuzzy number calculus. International Journal of Applied
Mathematics and Computer Science.
Kosiński, Witold, Prokopowicz, P., & Ślȩzak, D. (2002). Fuzzy reals with algebraic
operations: Algorithmic approach. In Intelligent information systems 2002 (pp.
311–320). Physica-Verlag HD. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-7908-1777-5_33.
Kovach, J. V., & Ingle, D. (2018). An approach for identifying and selecting improvement
projects. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 31(1-2), 149–160. https://
doi.org/10.1080/14783363.2017.1419055
Kucińska-Landwójtowicz, A., Czabak-Górska, I. D., & Lorenc, M. (2019). Project
management as an element of continuous improvement in production companies. In
K. S. Soliman (Ed.), Vision 2025: Education excellence and management of
innovations through sustainable economic competitive advantage. proceedings of
the 34th international business information management association conference
(IBIMA) (pp. 7730–7742). International Business Information Management
Association.
Kucińska-Landwójtowicz, A., Czabak-Górska, I., Rudnik, K., & Lorenc, M. (2020) .
Classification of Improvement Project Selection Methods. In: Proceedings book of the
4th International Conference on Quality Engineering and Management/Sampaio
Paulo [et.al.] (red.), Proceedings of the International Conference on Quality
Engineering and Management, 2020, International Conference on Quality
Engineering and Management, ISBN 978-989-54911-0-0, pp. 532-549.
Kumar, M., Antony, J., & Rae Cho, B. (2009). Project selection and its impact on the
successful deployment of Six Sigma. Business Process Management Journal, 15(5),
669–686. https://doi.org/10.1108/14637150910987900
Kumar, S., Dhingra, A. K., & Singh, B. (2018). Kaizen selection for continuous
improvement through VSM-Fuzzy-TOPSIS in small-scale enterprises: An Indian case
study. Advances in Fuzzy Systems, 2018, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/
2723768
Dinesh Kumar, U., Saranga, H., Ramírez-Márquez, J. E., & Nowicki, D. (2007). Six sigma
project selection using data envelopment analysis. The TQM Magazine, 19(5),
419–441. https://doi.org/10.1108/09544780710817856
Larson, A. (2003). Demystifying Six Sigma: a company-wide approach to continuous
improvement. AMACOM Div American Mgmt Assn.
Ma, J., Harstvedt, J. D., Jaradat, R., & Smith, B. (2020). Sustainability driven multi-
criteria project portfolio selection under uncertain decision-making environment.
Computers & Industrial Engineering, 140, 106236. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
cie.2019.106236
Mardani, A., Nilashi, M., Zakuan, N., Loganathan, N., Soheilirad, S., Saman, M. Z. M., &
Ibrahim, O. (2017). A systematic review and meta-Analysis of SWARA and WASPAS
methods: Theory and applications with recent fuzzy developments. Applied Soft
Computing, 57, 265–292. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2017.03.045
Martinsuo, M., & Lehtonen, P. (2007). Role of single-project management in achieving
portfolio management efficiency. International Journal of Project Management, 25(1),
56–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2006.04.002
Mawby, W. D. (2007). Project Portfolio Selection for Six Sigma. ASQ Quality Press.
McLean, R. S., Antony, J., & Dahlgaard, J. J. (2017). Failure of Continuous Improvement
initiatives in manufacturing environments: A systematic review of the evidence.
Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 28(3-4), 219–237. https://doi.org/
10.1080/14783363.2015.1063414
Meredith, J. R., Mantel, S. J., Jr, & Shafer, S. M. (2017). Project management: A managerial
approach. John Wiley & Sons.
Meredith, J. R., Shafer, S. M., & Mantel, S. J., Jr (2017). Project management: A strategic
managerial approach (10th ed.). John Wiley & Sons.
Mittal, K., Tewari, P. C., & Khanduja, D. (2017). On the right approach to selecting a
quality improvement project in manufacturing industries. Operations Research and
Decisions, 27(1), 105–124. https://doi.org/10.5277/ord170106
Mohagheghi, V., & Mousavi, S. M. (2019). A new framework for high-technology project
evaluation and project portfolio selection based on pythagorean fuzzy WASPAS,s
MOORA and mathematical modeling. Iranian Journal of Fuzzy Systems, 16(6),
89–106. https://doi.org/10.22111/ijfs.2019.5022
Mohagheghi, Vahid, Mousavi, S. M., Mojtahedi, M., & Newton, S. (2020). Introducing a
multi-criteria evaluation method using Pythagorean fuzzy sets: A case study focusing
on resilient construction project selection. Kybernetes. https://doi.org/10.1108/K-
04-2019-0225.
Morkunaite, Z., Bausys, R., & Zavadskas, E. K. (2019). Contractor selection for Sgraffito
decoration of cultural heritage buildings using the WASPAS-SVNS method.
Sustainability (Switzerland), 11(22). https://doi.org/10.3390/su11226444
Otay, İ., & Kahraman, C. (2018). Six sigma project selection using interval neutrosophic
TOPSIS. Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing, 643, 83–93. https://doi.org/
10.1007/978-3-319-66827-7_8
Padhy, R. (2017). Six Sigma project selections: A critical review. International Journal of
Lean Six Sigma, 8(2), 244–258. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJLSS-06-2016-0025
Padhy, R. K., & Sahu, S. (2011). A real option based Six Sigma project evaluation and
selection model. International Journal of Project Management, 29(8), 1091–1102.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2011.01.011
Pande, P. S., Neuman, R. P., & Cavanagh, R. R. (2000). The Six Sigma way: How GE,
Motorola, and other top companies are honing their performance. Quality Progress,
34. https://doi.org/10.1036/0071376674
17
Expert Systems With Applications 169 (2021) 114471
Piasecki, K. (2018). Revision of the Kosinski’s theory of ordered fuzzy numbers. Axioms,
7(1), 16. https://doi.org/10.3390/axioms7010016
Piasecki, K., Roszkowska, E., & Łyczkowska-Hanćkowiak, A. (2019). Simple additive
weighting method equipped with fuzzy ranking of evaluated alternatives. Symmetry,
11(4). https://doi.org/10.3390/sym11040482.
Prokopowicz, P. (2016). Analysis of the changes in processes using the Kosinski’s fuzzy
numbers. Proceedings of the 2016 Federated Conference on Computer Science and
Information Systems.
Prokopowicz, P. (2019). The use of Ordered Fuzzy Numbers for modelling changes in
dynamic processes. Information Sciences, 470, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ins.2018.08.045
Prokopowicz, P., & Ślȩzak, D. (2017). Ordered fuzzy numbers: Definitions and
operations. In Studies in Fuzziness and Soft Computing (Vol. 356, pp. 57–79). Cham:
Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-59614-3_4.
Pyzdek, T. (2003). The Six Sigma handbook: The complete guide for greenbelts, blackbelts,
and managers at all levels (Revised and Expanded Edition). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Rębiasz, B., & Macioł, A. (2015). Comparison of classical multi-criteria decision making
methods with fuzzy rule-based methods on the example of investment projects
evaluation. Smart Innovation, Systems and Technologies, 39, 549–561. https://doi.org/
10.1007/978-3-319-19857-6_47
Roszkowska, E., & Kacprzak, D. (2016). The fuzzy saw and fuzzy TOPSIS procedures
based on ordered fuzzy numbers. Information Sciences, 369, 564–584. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.ins.2016.07.044
Rudnik, K., & Deptuła, A. M. (2015). System with probabilistic fuzzy knowledge base and
parametric inference operators in risk assessment of innovative projects. Expert
Systems with Applications, 42(17-18), 6365–6379. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
eswa.2015.04.025
Rudnik, K., & Kacprzak, D. (2017). Fuzzy TOPSIS method with ordered fuzzy numbers
for flow control in a manufacturing system. Applied Soft Computing, 52, 1020–1041.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2016.09.027
Saaty, T. L. (1980). The analytic hierarchy process. McGraw-Hill.
Saghaei, A., & Didehkhani, H. (2011). Developing an integrated model for the evaluation
and selection of six sigma projects based on ANFIS and fuzzy goal programming.
Expert Systems with Applications, 38(1), 721–728. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
eswa.2010.07.024
Stojić, G., Stević, Ž., Antuchevičiene, J., Pamučar, D., & Vasiljević, M. (2018). A novel
rough WASPAS approach for supplier selection in a company manufacturing PVC
carpentry products. Information (Switzerland), 9(5). https://doi.org/10.3390/
info9050121.
Su, C., & Chou, C. (2008). A systematic methodology for the creation of Six Sigma
projects: A case study of semiconductor foundry. Expert Systems with Applications, 34
(4), 2693–2703. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2007.05.014
Tague, N. R. (2005). The quality toolbox. ASQ Quality Press.
Thipparat, T., & Thaseepetch, T. (2013). An integrated VIKOR and fuzzy AHP method for
assessing a sustainable research project. World Applied Sciences Journal, 22(12),
1729–1738. https://doi.org/10.5829/idosi.wasj.2013.22.12.2787
Tkáč, M., & Lyócsa, Š. (2010). On the evaluation of Six Sigma projects. Quality and
Reliability Engineering International, 26(1), 115–124. https://doi.org/10.1002/
qre.1062
Tsai, C. F., & Chen, Z. Y. (2013). Crossing the fuzzy front end chasm: Effective product
project concept selection using a 2-tuple fuzzy linguistic approach. Journal of
Intelligent and Fuzzy Systems, 25(3), 755–770. https://doi.org/10.3233/IFS-120682
Turskis, Z., Goranin, N., Nurusheva, A., & Boranbayev, S. (2019). A fuzzy WASPAS-based
approach to determine critical information infrastructures of EU sustainable
development. Sustainability (Switzerland), 11(2), 424. https://doi.org/10.3390/
su11020424
Turskis, Z., Zavadskas, E. K., Antucheviciene, J., & Kosareva, N. (2015). A hybrid model
based on fuzzy AHP and fuzzy WASPAS for construction site selection. International
Journal of Computers, Communications and Control, 10(6), 873–888. https://doi.
org/10.15837/ijccc.2015.6.2078.
van Laarhoven, P. J. M., & Pedrycz, W. (1983). A fuzzy extension of Saaty’s priority
theory. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 11(1-3), 229–241. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0165-
0114(83)80082-7
Wang, F. K., Hsu, C. H., & Tzeng, G. H. (2014). Applying a hybrid MCDM model for six
sigma project selection. Mathematical Problems in Engineering, 1, 1–13.
Wen, Y., An, Q., Xu, X., & Chen, Y.a. (2018). Selection of Six Sigma project with interval
data: Common weight DEA model. Kybernetes, 47(7), 1307–1324. https://doi.org/
10.1108/K-07-2017-0250
Yalcin, A. S., Kilic, H. S., & Guler, E. (2020). Research and development project selection
via IF-DEMATEL and IF-TOPSIS. Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing, 1029,
625–633. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-23756-1_76
Yang, T., & Hsieh, C.-H. (2009). Six-Sigma project selection using national quality award
criteria and Delphi fuzzy multiple criteria decision-making method. Expert Systems
with Applications, 36(4), 7594–7603. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2008.09.045
Yapici Pehlivan, N., Şahin, A., Zavadskas, E. K., & Turskis, Z. (2018). A comparative
study of integrated FMCDM methods for evaluation of organizational strategy
development. Journal of Business Economics and Management, 19(2), 360–381.
https://doi.org/10.3846/jbem.2018.5683
Yazdani, M., Abdi, M. R., Kumar, N., Keshavarz-Ghorabaee, M., & Chan, F. T. S. (2019).
Improved decision model for evaluating risks in construction projects. Journal of
Construction Engineering and Management, 145(5), 04019024. https://doi.org/
10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0001640
Yordanova, Z. B. (2018). Innovation project tool for outlining innovation projects.
International Journal of Business Innovation and Research, 16(1), 63–78. https://doi.
org/10.1504/IJBIR.2018.091084
K. Rudnik et al.
Yu, J., & Liu, Y. (2012). Prioritizing highway safety improvement projects: A multi-
criteria model and case study with SafetyAnalyst. Safety Science, 50(4), 1085–1092.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2011.11.018
Yüksel, H. (2012). Evaluation of the success of Six Sigma projects by data envelopment
analysis. International Journal of Business and Management, 7(13). https://doi.org/
10.5539/ijbm.v7n13p75
Zadeh, L. A. (1965). Fuzzy sets. Information and Control, 8(3), 338–353. https://doi.org/
10.1016/S0019-9958(65)90241-X
18
Expert Systems With Applications 169 (2021) 114471
Zavadskas, E. K., Turskis, Z., Antucheviciene, J., & Zakarevicius, A. (2012). Optimization
of weighted aggregated sum product assessment. Elektronika Ir Elektrotechnika, 122
(6), 3–6. https://doi.org/10.5755/j01.eee.122.6.1810
Zavadskas, E. K., Turskis, Z., & Antucheviciene, J. (2015). Selecting a contractor by using
a novel method for multiple attribute analysis: Weighted aggregated sum product
assessment with grey values (WASPAS-G). Studies in Informatics and Control, 24(2).
https://doi.org/10.24846/v24i2y201502
Zhang, W., Hill, A. V., Schroeder, R. G., & Linderman, K. W. (2008). Project management
infrastructure: The key to operational performance improvement. Operations
Management Research, 1(1), 40–52. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12063-008-0008-9