journal article·2018-10-18Open access

Rank-Based Comparative Research Flow Benchmarking the Effectiveness of AHP–GTMA on Aiding Decisions of Shredder Selection by Reference to AHP–TOPSIS

Zheng-Yun Zhuang, Chang-Ching Lin, Chih-Yung Chen, Chia-Rong Su

Applied Sciences· Volume 8· Issue 10

Abstract

The AHP–GTMA (analytic hierarchy process and graph theory and matrix approach) has been applied to select the best paper shredder before a company was making a bulk purchase order. However, there is a question as to whether one such relatively recent approach is effective to aid the selection decision problems in industrial/commercial practice. In this paper, a novel multi-measure, rank-based comparative research flow is proposed. The real decision problem case mentioned above is solved using the AHP–GTMA and the AHP–TOPSIS methods, respectively, with relevant datasets sourced. Several measures in the proposed flow, i.e., the arithmetical, geometrical, or even statistical ones, are multiplexed and used to validate the similarity between the rank order vectors (ROVs) (and thus between the final preferential orders determined over the alternatives) that are obtained using these two different methods. While AHP–TOPSIS is a confident multi-attribute decision-making (MADM) approach which has been successfully applied to many other fields, the similarity validated between these individual results using the proposed method is used to confirm the efficacy of the AHP–GTMA approach and to determine its applicability in practice. In addition, along with this study, some contributable points are also rendered for implementing the decision models, e.g., the optimized recursive implementation in R to compute the permanent value of a square ASAM (alternative selection attribute matrix, which is the computational basis required by AHP–GTMA) of any dimension. The proposed methodological flow to confirm the similarity based on the ordinal rank information is not only convenient in operational practice with ubiquitous tool supports (e.g., the vector-based R statistical platform), but also generalizable (to verify between another pair of results obtained using any other MADM methods). This gives options for future research.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline

Research context

OpenAlex topics: Multi-Criteria Decision Making · Sustainable Supply Chain Management · Quality Function Deployment in Product Design

SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.

Affiliations

Department of Civil Engineering, College of Engineering, National Kaohsiung University of Science and Technology, Kaohsiung 807, Taiwan (ROC)

Department of Management Sciences, College of Business and Management, Tamkang University, New Taipei City 251, Taiwan (ROC)

Department of Multimedia Design, College of Human Ecology and Design, St John’s University, New Taipei City 251, Taiwan (ROC)

The Graduate Institute of Business and Management, College of Management, Chang Gung University, Taoyuan City 333, Taiwan (ROC)

Funding

Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan · Taipei Medical University

References (67)

Show source-provided references
1. A practical expected-value-approach model to assess the relevant procurement costs10.1057/jors.2014.16 ↗
2. Deciding product mix based on time-driven activity-based costing by mixed integer programming10.1007/s10845-014-1032-2 ↗
3. Zhuang, Z.-Y., Chen, C.-Y., and Su, C.-R. (2017, January 13–17). Modelling/solving a shredder choosing decision problem with analytic hierarchy process (AHP) and graph theory and matrix approach (GTMA). In Proceeding of the 2017 IEEE International Conference on Applied System Innovation (IEEE ICASI 2017), Sapporo, Japan.
4. Modelling the decision of paper shredder selection using analytic hierarchy process and graph theory and matrix approach10.1177/1687814017737668 ↗
5. Hwang, C.-L., and Yoon, K. (1981). Multiple Attribute Decision Making: Methods and Applications, Springer-Verlag.10.1007/978-3-642-48318-9 ↗
6. Tzeng, G.H., and Huang, J.J. (2011). Multiple Attribute Decision Making: Methods and Applications, Chapman and Hall/CRC.10.1201/b11032 ↗
7. Multi-attribute decision making: A simulation comparison of select methods10.1016/S0377-2217(97)00147-1 ↗
8. A scaling method for priorities in hierarchical structures10.1016/0022-2496(77)90033-5 ↗
9. Barriers analysis for green supply chain management implementation in Indian industries using analytic hierarchy process10.1016/j.ijpe.2013.08.018 ↗
10. A group-AHP decision analysis for the selection of applied fire protection to steel structures10.1016/j.firesaf.2016.10.005 ↗
11. Identifying influential nodes in complex networks based on AHP10.1016/j.physa.2017.02.085 ↗
12. Designing an integrated AHP based decision support system for supplier selection in automotive industry10.1016/j.eswa.2016.06.030 ↗
13. An orders-of-magnitude AHP supply chain risk assessment framework10.1016/j.ijpe.2016.08.021 ↗
14. Applying clustering and AHP methods for evaluating suspect healthcare claims10.1016/j.jocs.2017.02.007 ↗
15. Decision making in construction management: AHP and Expert Choice approach10.1016/j.proeng.2017.02.111 ↗
16. Forest plantations in Paraguay: Historical developments and a critical diagnosis in a SWOT-AHP framework10.1016/j.landusepol.2016.11.001 ↗
17. A hybrid approach based on fuzzy AHP and 2-tuple fuzzy linguistic method for evaluation in-flight service quality10.1016/j.jairtraman.2017.01.006 ↗
18. A new approximation for risk assessment using the AHP and Fine Kinney methodologies10.1016/j.ssci.2016.07.015 ↗
19. An integrated decision support system based on ANN and Fuzzy AHP for heart failure risk prediction10.1016/j.eswa.2016.10.020 ↗
20. A review of multi-criteria decision making techniques for supplier evaluation and selection
21. Multi-criteria decision making approaches for supplier evaluation and selection: A literature review10.1016/j.ejor.2009.05.009 ↗
22. Multi criteria decision making approaches for green supplier evaluation and selection: A literature review10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.06.046 ↗
23. A new approach for multiple objective decision making10.1016/0305-0548(93)90109-V ↗
24. Application of TOPSIS and VIKOR improved versions in a multi criteria decision analysis to develop an optimized municipal solid waste management model10.1016/j.jenvman.2015.09.028 ↗
25. An improved TOPSIS with weighted hesitant vague information10.1016/j.chaos.2015.09.018 ↗
26. Determining the value of the port transport waters: Based on improved TOPSIS model by multiple regression weighting10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2015.02.004 ↗
27. Multi-attribute group decision-making with multi-granularity linguistic assessment information: An improved approach based on deviation and TOPSIS10.1016/j.apm.2013.05.051 ↗
28. Integration of fuzzy set theory and TOPSIS into HFMEA to improve outpatient service for elderly patients in Taiwan10.1016/j.jcma.2012.05.001 ↗
29. Improved hierarchical fuzzy TOPSIS for road safety performance evaluation10.1016/j.knosys.2011.08.014 ↗
30. Supplier selection among SMEs on the basis of their green innovation ability using BWM and fuzzy TOPSIS10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.03.125 ↗
31. Project rankings for participatory budget based on the fuzzy TOPSIS method10.1016/j.ejor.2016.12.044 ↗
32. A fuzzy TOPSIS and rough set based approach for mechanism analysis of product infant failure10.1016/j.engappai.2015.06.002 ↗
33. Evaluation of e-commerce websites using fuzzy hierarchical TOPSIS based on ES-QUAL10.1016/j.asoc.2016.01.017 ↗
34. Selecting green suppliers based on GSCM practices: Using fuzzy TOPSIS applied to a Brazilian electronics company10.1016/j.ejor.2013.07.023 ↗
35. Human health and safety risks management in underground coal mines using fuzzy TOPSIS10.1016/j.scitotenv.2014.04.076 ↗
36. Supplier evaluation using AHP and TOPSIS
37. Using AHP and TOPSIS approaches in customer-driven product design process10.1016/j.compind.2007.05.013 ↗
38. Weapon selection using the AHP and TOPSIS methods under fuzzy environment10.1016/j.eswa.2008.10.016 ↗
39. Fuzzy AHP to determine the relative weights of evaluation criteria and Fuzzy TOPSIS to rank the alternatives10.1016/j.asoc.2009.08.021 ↗
40. Project selection for oil-fields development by using the AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS methods10.1016/j.eswa.2010.02.103 ↗
41. Rank B2C e-commerce websites in e-alliance based on AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS10.1016/j.eswa.2010.08.143 ↗
42. A combined fuzzy AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS based strategic analysis of electronic service quality in healthcare industry10.1016/j.eswa.2011.08.061 ↗
43. A fuzzy AHP-TOPSIS framework for ranking the solutions of knowledge management adoption in Supply Chain to overcome its barriers10.1016/j.eswa.2013.07.093 ↗
44. Commentary on ‘Construction projects selection and risk assessment by Fuzzy AHP and Fuzzy TOPSIS methodologies’ [Applied Soft Computing 17 (2014): 105–116]10.1016/j.asoc.2015.05.051 ↗
45. Integration of AHP-TOPSIS method for prioritizing the solutions of reverse logistics adoption to overcome its barriers under fuzzy environment10.1016/j.jmsy.2015.03.001 ↗
46. A Delphi-AHP-TOPSIS based framework for the prioritization of intellectual capital indicators: A SMEs perspective10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.03.223 ↗
47. An intelligent scheduling scheme for real-time traffic management using cooperative Game Theory and AHP-TOPSIS methods for next generation telecommunication networks10.1016/j.eswa.2017.05.071 ↗
48. The application of the AHP-TOPSIS for evaluating ballast water treatment systems by ship operators10.1016/j.trd.2017.03.001 ↗
49. Investigation of feasibility study of solar farms deployment using hybrid AHP-TOPSIS analysis: Case study of India10.1016/j.rser.2017.01.135 ↗
50. About the cover: Euler and Königsberg’s Bridges: A historical view10.1090/S0273-0979-06-01130-X ↗
51. Rao, R.V. (2007). Decision Making in the Manufacturing Environment: Using Graph Theory and Fuzzy Multiple Attribute Decision Making Methods, Springer Science & Business Media.
52. A hybrid multiple attribute decision making method for solving problems of industrial environment
53. Graph Theory Matrix Approach—A Qualitative Decision Making Tool10.1016/j.matpr.2017.07.109 ↗
54. Application of the graph theory and matrix methods to contractor ranking10.1016/j.ijproman.2008.10.004 ↗
55. Graph theory and matrix approach for performance evaluation of TQM in Indian industries10.1108/09544780510627615 ↗
56. Modeling and analysis of FMS performance variables by ISM, SEM and GTMA approach10.1016/j.ijpe.2015.10.024 ↗
57. Assignment of weightage to machining characteristics to improve overall performance of machining using GTMA and utility concept10.1016/j.cirpj.2016.12.001 ↗
58. Risk-based group decision making regarding renewable energy schemes using a stochastic graphical matrix model10.1016/j.autcon.2013.10.010 ↗
59. Integration of graph theory and matrix approach with fuzzy AHP for equipment selection
60. Integration of fuzzy AHP and fuzzy GTMA for location selection of gas pressure reducing stations: A case study
61. Assessment of alternative fuels for transportation using a hybrid graph theory and analytic hierarchy process method10.1016/j.fuel.2015.03.062 ↗
62. Gal, T., Stewart, T., and Hanne, T. (2013). 6.2 Meta decision problems in multiple criteria decision making. Multicriteria Decision Making: Advances in MCDM Models, Algorithms, Theory, and Applications, Springer Science & Business Media.
63. Meta Goal Programming Approach for Solving Multi-Criteria de Novo Programming Problem10.1016/j.ejor.2017.07.035 ↗
64. Zhuang, Z.-Y., Lin, C.-C., and Chen, C.-Y. (2017, January 5–12). Applying AHP+GTMA and AHP+TOPSIS on solving the same paper shredder selection problem and comparing the results. In Proceeding of the 2017 IEEE International Conference on Innovation, Communication and Engineering Innovation, Information and Engineering (IEEE ICICE 2017), Kunming, China.
65. Zhuang, Z.-Y., Lin, C.-C., and Chen, C.-Y. (2018, January 9–14). A systematic flow to compare the rank order vectors from solving the paper shredder selection problem using AHP–GTMA and AHP–TOPSIS. In Proceeding of the 2018 TIKI International Conference on Innovation, Communication and Engineering Innovation, Information and Engineering (TIKI ICICE 2018), Hangzhou, China.
66. Marr, B. (2017). Data Strategy: How to Profit from a World of Big Data, Analytics and the Internet of Things, Kogan Page (Limited).
67. Williams, S. (2016). Business Intelligence Strategy and Big Data Analytics: A General Management Perspective, Morgan Kaufmann.10.1016/B978-0-12-809198-2.00008-7 ↗