Market segment evaluation and selection (MSE/MSS) become one of the most essential elements in marketing practices of enterprises, since they assist enterprises in developing homogeneous market segments. In this paper, a hybrid single-valued neutrosophic multi-criteria group decision-making (MCGDM) approach with quality function deployment (QFD) is used to support the MSE/MSS process. Firstly, single-valued neutrosophic numbers are used to represent the decision-makers’ qualitative assessments. Secondly, an extended QFD is used to translate the customer requirements (CRs) into relevant design requirements (DRs), and a single-valued neutrosophic DEMATEL (DEcision-MAking Trial and Evaluation Laboratory) is used to determine the importance weights of CRs and DRs. Thirdly, a single-valued neutrosophic TODIM (An acronym in Portuguese of interactive and multi-criteria decision-making) is employed to rank all the alternatives. Subsequently, a case study of MSE/MSS of a smart bike-sharing company is presented. Finally, some valuable managerial suggestions are provided through the results of sensitivity analysis and comparative analysis.
CalvetL., FerrerA., GomesM.I., JuanA.A. and MasipD., Combining statistical learning with metaheuristics for the Multi-Depot Vehicle Routing Problem with market segmentation, Computers & Industrial Engineering94 (2016), 93–104.
2.
RezaeiJ. and OrttR., A multi-variable approach to supplier segmentation, International Journal of Production Research50(16) (2012), 4593–4611.
3.
RezaeiJ., WangJ. and TavasszyL., Linking supplier development to supplier segmentation using Best Worst Method, Expert Systems with Applications42(23) (2015), 9152–9164.
4.
SantosL.F.D.O., OsiroL. and LimaR.H.P., A model based on 2-tuple fuzzy linguistic representation and Analytic Hierarchy Process for supplier segmentation using qualitative and quantitative criteria, Expert Systems with Applications79 (2017), 53–64.
5.
SeguraM. and MarotoC., A multiple criteria supplier segmentation using outranking and value function methods, Expert Systems with Applications69 (2017), 87–100.
6.
RezaeiJ., KadzińskiM., VanaC. and TavasszyL., Embedding carbon impact assessment in multi-criteria supplier segmentation using ELECTRE TRI-rC, Annals of Operations Research (2017). doi: 10.1007/s10479-017-2454-y
7.
MurrayP.W., AgardB. and BarajasM.A., Market segmentation through data mining: A method to extract behaviors from a noisy data set, Computers & Industrial Engineering109 (2017), 233–252.
8.
Huerta-MuñozD.L., Ríos-MercadoR.Z. and RuizR., An iterated greedy heuristic for a market segmentation problem with multiple attributes, European Journal of Operational Research261(1) (2017), 75–87.
9.
ChanK.Y., KwongC.K. and HuB.Q., Market segmentation and ideal point identification for new product design using fuzzy data compression and fuzzy clustering methods, Applied Soft Computing12(4) (2012), 1371–1378.
10.
CasabayóM., AgellN. and Sánchez-HernándezG., Improved market segmentation by fuzzifying crisp clusters: A case study of the energy market in Spain, Expert Systems with Applications42(3) (2015), 1637–1643.
11.
WangB., MiaoY., ZhaoH., JinJ. and ChenY., A biclustering-based method for market segmentation using customer pain points, Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence47 (2016), 101–109.
12.
AghdaieM.H. and AlimardaniM., Target market selection based on market segment evaluation: A multiple attribute decision making approach, International Journal of Operational Research24(3) (2015), 262–278.
13.
GhorabaeeM.K., AmiriM., ZavadskasE.K., HooshmandR. and AntuchevičienėJ., Fuzzy extension of the CODAS method for multi-criteria market segment evaluation, Journal of Business Economics and Management18(1) (2017), 1–19.
14.
DatL.Q., PhuongT.T., KaoH., ChouS. and NghiaP.V., A new integrated fuzzy QFD approach for market segments evaluation and selection, Applied Mathematical Modelling39(13) (2015), 3653–3665.
15.
AkaoY., New product development and quality assurance-quality deployment system, Standardization and Quality Control25(4) (1972), 7–14.
16.
ZadehL.A., Fuzzy sets, Information and Control8(3) (1965), 338–353.
17.
JinJ., JiP., LiuY. and Johnson LimS.C., Translating online customer opinions into engineering characteristics in QFD: A probabilistic language analysis approach, Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence41 (2015), 115–127.
18.
WangC.H., Incorporating the concept of systematic innovation into quality function deployment for developing multi-functional smart phones, Computers & Industrial Engineering107 (2017), 367–375.
19.
WuS., LiuH. and WangL., Hesitant fuzzy integrated MCDM approach for quality function deployment: A case study in electric vehicle, International Journal of Production Research55(15) (2017), 4436–4449.
20.
WangZ.L., YouJ.X. and LiuH.C., Uncertain quality function deployment using a hybrid group decision making model, Symmetry8(11) (2016), 119–136.
21.
KahnemanD. and TverskyA., Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk, Econometrica42(2) (1979), 263–292.
22.
WangH.B., SmarandacheF., ZhangY.Q. and SunderramanR., Single valued neutrosophic sets, The Scientific Informative Review16(1) (2010), 10–14.
23.
PengJ.J., WangJ.Q., WangJ., ZhangH.Y. and ChenX.H., Simplified neutrosophic sets and their applications in multi-criteria group decision-making problems, International Journal of Systems Science47(10) (2016), 2342–2358.
24.
JiP., WangJ. and ZhangH.Y., Frank prioritized Bonferroni mean operator with single-valued neutrosophic sets and its application in selecting third-party logistics providers, Neural Computing and Applications (2016). doi: 10.1007/s00521-016-2660-6
25.
PengJ.J., WangJ., YangL.J. and QianJ., A novel multi-criteria group decision-making approach using simplified neutrosophic information, International Journal for Uncertainty Quantification7(4) (2017), 355–376.
26.
SmarandacheF., A unifying field in logics: Neutrosophic logic. Neutrosophy, neutrosophic set, neutrosophic probability and statistics, American Research Press, Rehoboth, Massachusetts, USA, 2005.
27.
WangJ., WangJ.Q., TianZ.P. and ZhaoD.Y., A multi-hesitant fuzzy linguistic multi-criteria decision-making approach for logistics outsourcing with incomplete weight information, International Transactions in Operational Research (2017). doi: 10.1111/itor.12448
28.
ZhouH., WangJ.Q. and ZhangH.Y., Stochastic multicriteria decision-making approach based on SMAA-ELECTRE with extended gray numbers, International Transactions in Operational Research (2017). doi: 10.1111/itor.12380
29.
NieR., WangJ. and LiL., A shareholder voting method for proxy advisory firm selection based on 2-tuple linguistic picture preference relation, Applied Soft Computing60 (2017), 520–539.
30.
NieR., WangJ. and ZhangH., Solving solar-wind power station location problem using an extended Weighted Aggregated Sum Product Assessment (WASPAS) technique with interval neutrosophic sets, Symmetry9(7) (2017), 106–125.
31.
WangL., ZhangH. and WangJ., Frank Choquet Bonferroni mean operators of bipolar neutrosophic sets and their application to multi-criteria decision-making problems, International Journal of Fuzzy Systems (2017). doi: 10.1007/s40815-017-0373-3
32.
LiangR., WangJ. and LiL., Multi-criteria group decision-making method based on interdependent inputs of single-valued trapezoidal neutrosophic information, Neural Computing and Applications (2016). doi: 10.1007/s00521-016-2672-2
33.
JiP., ZhangH. and WangJ., Fuzzy decision-making framework for treatment selection based on the combined QUALIFLEX-TODIM method, International Journal of Systems Science48(14) (2017), 3072–3086.
34.
PengH., ZhangH. and WangJ., Probability multi-valued neutrosophic sets and its application in multi-criteria group decision-making problems, Neural Computing and Applications (2016). doi: 10.1007/s00521-016-2702-0
35.
TianZ.P., WangJ., WangJ.Q. and ZhangH.Y., Simplified neutrosophic linguistic multi-criteria group decision-making approach to green product development, Group Decision and Negotiation26(3) (2017), 597–627.
36.
TianZ.P., WangJ., WangJ.Q. and ZhangH.Y., An improved MULTIMOORA approach for multi-criteria decision-making based on interdependent inputs of simplified neutrosophic linguistic information, Neural Computing and Applications28(Suppl 1) (2017), 585–597.
37.
WangJ., YangY. and LiL., Multi-criteria decision-making method based on single-valued neutrosophic linguistic Maclaurin symmetric mean operators, Neural Computing and Applications (2016). doi: 10.1007/s00521-016-2747-0
38.
TianZ.P., WangJ., ZhangH.Y. and WangJ.Q., Multi-criteria decision-making based on generalized prioritized aggregation operators under simplified neutrosophic uncertain linguistic environment, International Journal of Machine Learning and Cybernetics (2016). doi: 10.1007/s13042-016-0552-9
39.
LuoS.Z., ChengP.F., WangJ. and HuangY.J., Selecting project delivery systems based on simplified neutrosophic linguistic preference relations, Symmetry9(8) (2017), 151–171.
40.
XuZ., An overview of methods for determining OWA weights, International Journal of Intelligent Systems20(8) (2005), 843–865.
41.
BiswasP., PramanikS. and GiriB.C., TOPSIS method for multi-attribute group decision-making under single-valued neutrosophic environment, Neural Computing and Applications27(3) (2016), 727–737.
42.
GabusA. and FontelaE., Perceptions of the world problematique: Communication procedure, communicating with those bearing collective responsibility, Battelle Geneva Research Centre, Geneva, Switzerland, 1973.
43.
LiuY., ChenY. and TzengG., Identification of key factors in consumers’ adoption behavior of intelligent medical terminals based on a hybrid modified MADM model for product improvement, International Journal of Medical Informatics105 (2017), 68–82.
44.
GitinavardH., MousaviS.M. and VahdaniB., Soft computing based on hierarchical evaluation approach and criteria interdependencies for energy decision-making problems: A case study, Energy118 (2017), 556–577.
45.
BaykasoğluA., KaplanoğLuV.,
DurmuşOğLuZ.D. and ŞAhinC., Integrating fuzzy DEMATEL and fuzzy hierarchical TOPSIS methods for truck selection, Expert Systems with Applications40(3) (2013), 899–907.
46.
GomesL. and LimaM., From modeling individual preferences to multicriteria ranking of discrete alternatives: A look at prospect theory and the additive difference model, Foundations of Computing and Decision Sciences17(3) (1992), 171–184.
47.
YuS.M., WangJ. and WangJ.Q., An extended TODIM approach with intuitionistic linguistic numbers, International Transactions in Operational Research (2016). doi: 10.1111/itor.12363
