A group TOPSIS-COPRAS methodology with Pythagorean fuzzy sets considering weights of experts for project critical path problem

Abstract

Uncertainty plays an important role in project decision-making problems that involve incomplete and imperfect information of real-world situations. To completely considering the uncertainty of decision-making methods, Pythagorean fuzzy sets (PFSs) are used. PFSs in comparisons with classic fuzzy sets provide degrees of membership, non-membership and hesitancy, and in comparisons with intuitionistic fuzzy sets (IFSs), they prepare the larger space to explain the agreement, disagreement and hesitancy grades. In this paper, to tackle the uncertainty of real-world projects and determine the critical path of projects by considering efficient criteria, such as time, cost, risk, quality and safety, a new group decision methodology is extended based on concepts of technique for order of preference by similarity to ideal solution (TOPSIS) and complex proportional assessment (COPRAS) methods under PFSs. Furthermore, a new modified version of the proposed methodology is used to specify the weight of each expert. Finally, a case study from the literature, concerning workflow schema of marble processing plants project, is presented to better express the capability of the proposed methodology.

Keywords

Project critical path marble processing plant Pythagorean fuzzy sets (PFSs)group decision-making methodology decision makers’ weights TOPSIS COPRAS

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

H.N.

Ahuja ,

S.P.

Dozzi and

S.M.

Abourizk , Project management: techniques in planning and controlling construction projects (1994), John Wiley & Sons.

Moradi ,

S.M.

Mousavi and

Vahdani , an interval type-2 fuzzy model for project-earned value analysis under uncertainty, Journal of Multiple-Valued Logic and Soft Computing 30 (2018), 79–103.

Hajighasemi and

S.M.

Mousavi , A new approach in failure modes and effects analysis based on compromise solution by considering objective and subjective weights with interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy sets, Iranian Journal of Fuzzy Systems 15(1) (2018), 139–161.

Mohagheghi ,

S.M.

Mousavi and

Vahdani , Analyzing project cash flow by a new interval type-2 fuzzy model with an application to construction industry, Neural Computing and Applications 28 (2017), 3393–3411.

Mohagheghi ,

S.M.

Mousavi ,

Vahdani and

M.R.

Shahriari , R&D project evaluation and project portfolio selection by a new interval type-2 fuzzy optimization approach, Neural Computing and Applications 28 (2017), 3869–3888.

N.R.

Shankar ,

Sireesha and

P.P.B.

Rao , An analytical method for finding critical path in a fuzzy project network, International Journal of contemporary mathematical sciences 5(20) (2010), 953–962.

Elizabeth and

Sujatha , Fuzzy critical path problem for project network, International Journal of Pure and Applied Mathematics 85(2) (2013), 223–240.

Li ,

Liu and

Yang , A new probability model for insuring critical path problem with heuristic algorithm, Neurocomputing 148 (2015), 129–135.

Montazeri , Comparing Critical Chain Project Management with Critical Path Method: A Case Study (2017), MSc Thesis, USA.

10.

Zareei , Project scheduling for constructing biogas plant using critical path method, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 81 (2018), 756–759.

11.

F.A.

Zammori ,

Braglia and

Frosolini , A fuzzy multicriteria approach for critical path definition, International Journal of Project Management 27(3) (2009), 278–291.

12.

Amiri and

Golozari , Application of fuzzy multiattribute decision making in determining the critical path by using time, cost, risk, and quality criteria, International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology 54(1) (2011), 393–401.

13.

J.R.

San

Cristobal , Critical path definition using multicriteria decision making: PROMETHEE method, Journal of 4 Management in Engineering 29(2) (2012), 158–163.

14.

M.K.

Mehlawat and

Gupta , A new fuzzy group multicriteria decision making method with an application to the critical path selection, International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology 83(5-8) (2016), 1281–1296.

15.

L.A.

Zadeh , Information and control, Fuzzy sets 8(3) (1965), 338–353.

16.

Akdag ,

Kalayci ,

Karagöz ,

Zülfikar and

Giz , The evaluation of hospital service quality by fuzzy MCDM, Applied Soft Computing 23 (2014), 239–248.

17.

E.E.

Karsak and

Dursun , An integrated fuzzy MCDM approach for supplier evaluation and selection, Computers & Industrial Engineering 82 (2015), 82–93.

18.

Y.C.

Lee ,

P.H.

Chung and

J.Z.

Shyu , Performance evaluation of medical device manufacturers using a hybrid fuzzy MCDM, Journal of Scientific and Industrial Research 76(2017), 28–31.

19.

Colak and

Kaya , Prioritization of renewable energy alternatives by using an integrated fuzzy MCDM model: A real case application for Turkey, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 80 (2017), 840–853.

20.

S.M.

Mousavi ,

Foroozesh ,

Gitinavard and

Vahdani , Solving group decision-making problems in manufacturing systems by an uncertain compromise ranking method, International Journal of Applied Decision Sciences 11(1) (2018), 55–78.

21.

Mohagheghi ,

S.M.

Mousavi ,

Aghamohagheghi and

Vahdani , A new approach of multi-criteria analysis for the evaluation and selection of sustainable transport investment projects under uncertainty: A case study, International Journal of Computational Intelligence Systems 10 (2017), 605–626.

22.

Gitinavard ,

S.M.

Mousavi and

Vahdani , Soft computing-based new interval-valued hesitant fuzzy multicriteria group assessment method with last aggregation to industrial decision problems, Soft Computing 21 (2017), 3247–3265.

23.

S.M.

Mousavi , Solving new product selection problem by a new hierarchical group decision-making approach with hesitant fuzzy setting, International Journal ofEngineering Transactions B: Applications 30(5) (2017), 729–738.

24.

K.T.

Atanassov , Intuitionistic fuzzy sets. Central Tech Library, Bulgarian Academy Science, Sofia, Bulgaria (1983).

25.

Zhang and

Xu , Extension of TOPSIS to multiple criteria decision making with Pythagorean fuzzy sets, International Journal of Intelligent Systems 29(12) (2014), 1061–1078.

26.

Ren ,

Xu and

Gou , Pythagorean fuzzy TODIM approach to multi-criteria decision making, Applied Soft Computing 42 (2016), 246–259.

27.

R.R.

Yager and

A.M.

Abbasov , Pythagorean membership grades, complex numbers, and decision making, International Journal of Intelligent Systems 28(5) (2013), 436–452.

28.

R.R.

Yager , Pythagorean membership grades in multicriteria decision making, IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems 22(4) (2014), 958–965.

29.

Gou ,

Xu and

Ren , The properties of continuous Pythagorean fuzzy information, International Journal of Intelligent Systems 31(5) (2016), 401–424.

30.

Liu , Multiple attribute group decision making method based on interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy power Heronian aggregation operators, Computers & Industrial Engineering 108 (2017), 199–212.

31.

Liu and

S.M.

Chen , Group decision making based on Heronian aggregation operators of intuitionistic fuzzy numbers, IEEE transactions on cybernetics 47(9) (2017), 2514–2530.

32.

Liu and

Wang , Some q-rung orthopair fuzzy aggregation operators and their applications to multiple-attribute decision making, International Journal of Intelligent Systems 33(2) (2018), 259–280.

33.

Liu and

Liu , Some q-rung Orthopai fuzzy bonferroni mean operators and their application to multi-attribute group decision making, International Journal ofIntelligent Systems 33(2) (2018), 315–347.

34.

C.L.

Hwang and

Yoon , Multiple attribute decision making: methods and applications, (1981) Springer, Berlin.

35.

Kim ,

C.S.

Park and

K.P.

Yoon , Identifying investment opportunities for advanced manufacturing systems with comparative-integrated performance measurement, International Journal of Production Economics 50(1) (1997), 23–33.

36.

Y.M.

Wang and

T.M.

Elhag , Fuzzy TOPSIS method based on alpha level sets with an application to bridge risk assessment, Expert systems with applications 31(2) (2006), 309–319.

37.

M.P.

Amiri , Project selection for oil-fields development by using the AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS methods, Expert Systems with Applications 37(9) (2010), 6218–6224.

38.

F.R.L.

Junior ,

Osiro and

L.C.R.

Carpinetti , A comparison between Fuzzy AHP and Fuzzy TOPSIS methods to supplier selection, Applied Soft Computing 21(2014), 194–209.

39.

Sharma and

Singhal , Implementation of fuzzy TOP-SIS methodology in selection of procedural approach for facility layout planning, International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology 88(5-8) (2017), 1485–1493.

40.

Vahdani ,

S.M.

Mousavi and

Tavakkoli-Moghaddam , Group decision making based on novel fuzzy modified TOPSIS method, Applied Mathematical Modelling 35(9) (2011), 4257–4269.

41.

E.K.

Zavadskas ,

Kaklauskas and

Sarka , The new method of multicriteria complex proportional assessment of projects, Technological and economic development of economy 1(3) (1994), 131–139.

42.

Turanoglu

Bekar, M.

Cakmakci and

Kahraman , Fuzzy COPRAS method for performance measurement in total productive maintenance: a comparative analysis, Journal of Business Economics and Management 17(5) (2016), 663–684.

43.

Büyüközkan ,

Göçer and

Feyzioglu , Cloud computing technology selection based on interval valued intuitionistic fuzzy COPRAS. In Advances in Fuzzy Logic and Technology 2017 (2017), 318–329, Springer, Cham.

44.

Valipour ,

Yahaya ,

Md Noor ,

Antuchevičienė and

Tamošaitienė , Hybrid SWARA-COPRAS method for risk assessment in deep foundation excavation project: An Iranian case study, Journal of Civil Engineering and Management 23(4) (2017), 524–532.

45.

Gitinavard ,

Makui and

Jabbarzadeh , Intervalvalued hesitant fuzzy method based on group decision analysis for estimating weights of decision makers, Journal of Industrial and Systems Engineering 9(3) (2016), 96–110.

46.

Mohagheghi ,

S.M.

Mousavi and

Vahdani , Enhancing decision-making flexibility by introducing a new last aggregation evaluating approach based on multi-criteria group decision making and Pythagorean fuzzy sets, Applied Soft Computing 61 (2017), 527–535.

47.

Yang ,

P.A.

Du ,

Wang and

Liang , Developing a rough set based approach for group decision making based on determining weights of decision makers with interval numbers, Operational Research 18(3) (2017), 757–779.

48.

Geng ,

Qiu and

Gong , An extended 2-tuple linguistic DEA for solving MAGDM problems considering the influence relationships among attributes, Computers & Industrial Engineering 112 (2017), 135–146.

49.

Yue , A method for group decision-making based on determining weights of decision makers using TOPSIS, Applied Mathematical Modelling 35(4) (2011), 1926–1936.

50.

S.M.

Mousavi and

Vahdani , Cross-docking location selection in distribution systems: a new intuitionistic fuzzy hierarchical decision model, International Journal of computational intelligence Systems 9(1) (2016), 91–109.

51.

Vahdani ,

S.M.

Mousavi ,

Tavakkoli-Moghaddam ,

Ghodratnama and

Mohammadi , Robot selection by a multiple criteria complex proportional assessment method under an interval-valued fuzzy environment, International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology 73(5-8), 687–697.

52.

S.H.

Razavi Hajiagha ,

S.S.

Hashemi and

E.K.

Zavadskas , A complex proportional assessment method for group decision making in an interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy environment, Technological and Economic Development of Economy 19(1) (2013), 22–37.

53.

Gitinavard ,

S.M.

Mousavi ,

Vahdani and

Siadat , Project safety evaluation by a new soft computing approach-based last aggregation hesitant fuzzy complex proportional assessment in construction industry, Scientia Iranica, Article in press, doi: 10.24200/sci.2017.4439.

54.

Abdullah and

Najib , A new type-2 fuzzy set of linguistic variables for the fuzzy analytic hierarchy process, Expert Systems with Applications 41(7) (2014), 3297–3305.

55.

Celik ,

Gul ,

Aydin ,

A.T.

Gumus and

A.F.

Guneri , A comprehensive review of multi criteria decision making approaches based on interval type-2 fuzzy sets, Knowledge-Based Systems 85 (2015), 329–341.

56.

Qin ,

Liu and

Pedrycz , An extended TODIM multicriteria group decision making method for green supplier selection in interval type-2 fuzzy environment, European Journal of Operational Research 258(2) (2017), 626–638.

57.

Topaloglu ,

Yarkin and

Kaya , Solid waste collection system selection for smart cities based on a type-2 fuzzy multi-criteria decision technique, Soft Computing 22(15) (2018), 4879–4890.

58.

Abdullah ,

C.W.R.

Adawiyah and

C.W.

Kamal , A decision making method based on interval type-2 fuzzy sets: An approach for ambulance location preference, Applied computing and informatics 14(1) (2018), 65–72.

59.

Peng and

Yang , Some results for Pythagorean fuzzy sets, International Journal of Intelligent Systems 30(11) (2015),

60.

T.Y.

Chen , Remoteness index-based Pythagorean fuzzy VIKOR methods with a generalized distance measure for multiple criteria decision analysis, Information Fusion 41 (2018), 129–150.

61.

Devi , Extension of VIKOR method in intuitionistic fuzzy environment for robot selection, Expert Systems with Applications 38(11) (2011), 14163–14168.

62.

Wei , Pythagorean fuzzy interaction aggregation operators and their application to multiple attribute decision making, Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems 33(4) (2017), 2119–2132.

63.

Karaca and

Onargan , The application of critical path method (CPM) in workflow schema of marble processing plants, Materials and manufacturing processes 22(1) (2007), 37–44.