A hybrid ranking approach based on fuzzy analytical hierarchy process and data envelopment analysis: Road maintenance and transport organization of Iran
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online April 19, 2018
A hybrid ranking approach based on fuzzy analytical hierarchy process and data envelopment analysis: Road maintenance and transport organization of Iran
The continuous improvement of performance in organizations requires the continuous and purposeful evaluation of organizations. One of the most vital sectors that significantly affects the economic growth of countries is transportation; in this regard, performance assessment plays an important role in this sector. Therefore, a novel hybrid algorithm based on Fuzzy Analytical Hierarchy Process (FAHP) and Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) is proposed here to measure the efficiency of product transportation in road fleets of Iranian provinces. FAHP method is used to define the weights of input and output criteria, and the priority of criteria is implemented as a constraint in a DEA model. The efficiency of each province in this domain will be determined by means of the proposed DEA model. The results obtained from the application of the proposed approach to Iran Road Maintenance & Transportation Organization vindicated the effectiveness and efficiency of the proposed approach.
MinaH., MirabedinS.N. and Pakzad-MoghadamS.H., An integrated fuzzy analytic network process approach for green supplier selection: A case study of petrochemical industry, Management Science and Practice2(2) (2014), 31–47.
2.
RaoC., ZhengJ., WangC. and XiaoX., A hybrid multi-attribute group decision making method based on grey linguistic 2-tuple, Iranian Journal of Fuzzy Systems13(2) (2016), 37–59.
3.
AzadehA., Rezaei-MalekM., EvazabadianF. and SheikhalishahiM., Improved design of CMS by considering operators decision-making styles, International Journal of Production Research53(11) (2015), 3276–3287.
4.
BafrooeiA.A., MinaH. and GhaderiS.F., A supplier selection problem in petrochemical industry using common weight data envelopment analysis with qualitative criteria, International Journal of Industrial and Systems Engineering18(3) (2014), 404–417.
5.
BaranJ. and ŻakJ., Multiple Criteria Evaluation of transportation performance for selected agribusiness companies, Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences111 (2014), 320–329.
6.
BozburaF.T. and BeskeseA., Prioritization of organizational capital measurement indicators using fuzzy AHP, International Journal of Approximate Reasoning44(2) (2007), 124–147.
7.
CaoQ., WuJ. and LiangC., An intuitionsitic fuzzy judgement matrix and TOPSIS integrated multi-criteria decision making method for green supplier selection, Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems28(1) (2015), 117–126.
8.
GumusA.T., Evaluation of hazardous waste transportation firms by using a two step fuzzy-AHP and TOPSIS methodology, Expert Systems with Applications36(2) (2009), 4067–4074.
9.
HaghshenasH., VaziriM. and GholamialamA., Evaluation of sustainable policy in urban transportation using system dynamics and world cities data: A case study in Isfahan, Cities45 (2015), 104–115.
10.
IniestraJ.G. and GutiérrezJ.G., Multicriteria decisions on interdependent infrastructure transportation projects using an evolutionary-based framework, Applied Soft Computing9(2) (2009), 512–526.
11.
LeeD.B., Methods for evaluation of transportation projects in the USA, Transport Policy7(1) (2000), 41–50.
12.
MacharisC. and BernardiniA., Reviewing the use of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis for the evaluation of transport projects: Time for a multi-actor approach, Transport policy37 (2015), 177–186.
13.
MorisugiH., Evaluation methodologies of transportation projects in Japan, Transport Policy7(1) (2000), 35–40.
14.
QuadrosS.G.R. and NassiC.D., An evaluation on the criteria to prioritize transportation infrastructure investments in Brazil, Transport Policy40 (2015), 8–16.
15.
QuinetE., Evaluation methodologies of transportation projects in France, Transport Policy7(1) (2000), 27–34.
16.
LiuY., WuJ. and LiangC., Some Einstein aggregating operators for trapezoidal intuitionistic fuzzy MAGDM and application in investment evolution, Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems32(1) (2017), 63–74.
17.
ShenL., JiaoL., HeB. and LiL., Evaluation on the utility efficiency of metro infrastructure projects in China from sustainable development perspective, International Journal of Project Management33(3) (2015), 528–536.
18.
ShiJ. and ZhouN., A quantitative transportation project investment evaluation approach with both equity and efficiency aspects, Research in Transportation Economics36(1) (2012), 93–100.
19.
TalvitieA., Evaluation of road projects and programs in developing countries, Transport Policy7(1) (2000), 61–72.
20.
WandeltS. and SunX., Evolution of the international air transportation country network from 2002 to 2013, Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review82 (2015), 55–78.
21.
WuD., YinY. and LawphongpanichS., Optimal selection of build–operate-transfer projects on transportation networks, Transportation Research Part B: Methodological45(10) (2011), 1699–1709.
22.
YehC.H., DengH. and ChangY.H., Fuzzy multicriteria analysis for performance evaluation of bus companies, European Journal of Operational Research126(3) (2000), 459–473.
23.
ŻakJ. and KruszyńskiM., Application of AHP and ELECTRE III/IV methods to multiple level, multiple criteria evaluation of urban transportation projects, Transportation Research Procedia10 (2015), 820–830.
24.
WuJ., ChiclanaF. and LiaoH., Isomorphic multiplicative transitivity for intuitionistic and interval-valued fuzzy preference relations and its application in deriving their priority vectors, IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems (2016).
25.
ZhangZ. and GuoC., Deriving priority weights from intuitionistic multiplicative preference relations under group decision-making settings, Journal of the Operational Research Society68(12) (2017), 1582–1599.
26.
DongQ. and CooperO., An orders-of-magnitude AHP supply chain risk assessment framework, International Journal of Production Economics182 (2016), 144–156.
