Int. J. Business and Systems Research, Vol. 5, No.

1, 2011

35

Application of the fuzzy analytic hierarchy process to

the lead-free equipment selection decision
Yu-Cheng Tang*
Department of Accounting,
National Changhua University of Education,
No. 2, Shi-Da Road,
Changhua 500, Taiwan
E-mail: loistang888@gmail.com
*Corresponding author

Thomas W. Lin
Leventhal School of Accounting,
University of Southern California,
3660 Trousdale Parkway, ACC 109,
Los Angeles, CA 90089-0441, USA
E-mail: wtlin@marshall.usc.edu
Abstract: After 1 July 2006, a major challenge that the manufacturing industry
has to confront now is the effect of the lead-free equipment system selection
process on companies capital expenditure decision. With capital investment,
the criteria may be financial (e.g. expected cash flows) and non-financial (e.g.
product quality). We use a systems approach with the fuzzy analytic hierarchy
process (FAHP) method as the decision support system to help decision makers
making better choices both in relation to tangible criteria and intangible criteria.
Fuzzy set theory will be utilised to provide an effective way of dealing with the
uncertainty of human subjective interpretation of tangible and intangible
criteria.
Keywords: multi-criteria decision making; systems; capital investment; leadfree equipment; FAHP; fuzzy analytic hierarchy process; uncertainty;
imprecision; fuzzy synthetic extent; sensitivity analysis.
Reference to this paper should be made as follows: Tang, Y-C. and Lin, T.W.
(2011) Application of the fuzzy analytic hierarchy process to the lead-free
equipment selection decision, Int. J. Business and Systems Research, Vol. 5,
No. 1, pp.3556.
Biographical notes: Yu-Cheng Tang received her PhD in Accounting from the
University of Cardiff (Wales, UK). Currently, she is an Assistant Professor at
National Changhua University of Education (Taiwan). Her research interests
are in the general area of financial management, in particular in the capital
investment, human perceptions on decision making, green accounting, ethic
position and budgetary system, etc. Specific methodologies investigates include
fuzzy set theory, analytical hierarchy process and balanced scorecards. Her
study is at the theoretical development and application-based level, including
business and other topics.

Copyright 2011 Inderscience Enterprises Ltd.

36

Y-C. Tang and T.W. Lin

Thomas W. Lin is a Professor of Accounting in the Marshall School of
Business, University of Southern California, USA. He received his PhD in
Accounting from the Ohio State University, MS in Accounting and Information
Systems from UCLA and BA in Business Administration from National
Taiwan University. His research interests include management accounting,
management control systems and business information systems.

Introduction

Since 1 July 2006, electronics companies have been required to conform to the European
Unions ban on the use of lead and five other hazardous substances in equipment sold
there (Oresjo and Ling, 2006). This new lead-free requirement will have a major impact
on many companies manufacturing strategies. In particular, a decision to invest in new
manufacturing enabling technologies that support the lead-free equipment system must
take into account non-quantifiable, intangible benefits to the organisation in meeting its
strategic goals (Bozda et al., 2003). This study offers a system approach to this unique
equipment system selection problem.
Equipment system selection has been a topic for research for the last three decades.
Some of the research efforts relevant to equipment system selection include integrated
approaches (Wang et al., 2004), the logarithmic goal programming method (Demirtas and
Ustun, 2007) and data envelope analysis (DEA) (Ramanathan, 2005). These approaches
are limited, because they can only provide a set of systematic steps for problem solving
without considering the system approach to show relationships between decision factors
globally (Kahraman et al., 2003; Tofallis, 2008).
This study utilises one of multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) method, fuzzy
analytic hierarchy process (FAHP) first appeared in van Laarhoven and Pedrycz (1983).
Previous studies have evaluated FAHP as applied to the overall issue of selection (e.g.
facility, vendor or building (Bozda et al., 2003; Kahraman et al., 2003, 2007), supplier
selection (Chan and Kumar, 2007) and project selection (Huang et al., 2008), etc.). These
different selection processes have all benefited from FAHP and have a common
characteristic: the degree of fuzziness in human decision making is fixed. They do not
take into account the fact that the degree of fuzziness can vary depending on the criteria
being considered. Hence, the question arises, What happens when the degree of
fuzziness varies?
The proposed FAHP method in this study addresses this question. The methods main
advantage is a more general definition of the degree of fuzziness in the scale values used
to model pairwise comparisons made by DMs. More importantly, its new developments
are general to any FAHP approach. Lastly, it is particularly suited to aid the lead-free
equipment system selection process, as the case study will later illustrate.
The remainder of this paper is organised as follows. Section 2 describes fuzzy
numbers and FAHP. Sections 3 and 4 explore the case study of a Taiwanese
manufacturing company and illustrate the use of sensitivity analysis to determine the
degrees of fuzziness. Section 5 presents our conclusions.

Application of the FAHP

37

Fuzzy numbers and FAHP

2.1 Triangular fuzzy numbers (TFNs)

This study adopts TFNs as they are convenient to use in applications due to their
computational simplicity (Moon and Kang, 2001), and useful in promoting representation
and information processing in a fuzzy environment (Liang and Wang, 1993). The
definitions and algebraic operations are described as follows.
A TFN A can be defined by a triplet (l, m, u) and its membership function P A ( x) can
be defined by Equation (1) (Chang, 1996; Zimmermann, 1996):

P A ( x)

x l
m  l , l d x d m

ux
, md xdu

u  m

otherwise
0,

(1)

where x is the mean value of A and l, m, u are real numbers. Define two TFNs A and B by
the triplets A = (l1, m1, u1) and B = (l2, m2, u2). Then:
1

Addition:
A(+)B = (l1 , m1 , u1 )(+)(l2 ,m2 ,u2 )
(l1 +l2 , m1 +m2 , u1 +u2 )

Multiplication:
A B = (l1 , m1 , u1 ) (l2 ,m2 ,u2 )
= (l1l 2 , m1m2 , u1u2 )

Inverse:

1 1 1
(l1 , m1 , u1 ) 1 | , ,
u1 m1 l1
where | represents approximately equal to.

2.2 Construction of FAHP comparison matrices

This study utilises modified synthetic extent FAHP, which was originally introduced in
Chang (1996) and developed in Zhu et al. (1999). One advantage of the modified
synthetic extent FAHP method is that it allows for incompleteness of the pairwise
judgements made; though it is not the only FAHP approach that allows this feature (see
Interval Probability Theory in Davis and Hall, 2003). This allowance for incompleteness
reflects its suitability in decision problems where uncertainty exists in the decisionmaking process.
The aim of any FAHP method is to priorise ranking of alternatives. Central to this
method is a series of pairwise comparisons, indicating the DMs relative preferences

38

Y-C. Tang and T.W. Lin

between pairs of alternatives in the same hierarchy. The linguistic variables used to make
the pairwise comparisons are those associated with the standard 9-unit scale (Saaty,
1980) (see Table 1).
It is difficult to map qualitative preferences to point estimates, hence a degree of
uncertainty exists with some or all pairwise comparison values in an FAHP problem (Yu,
2002). Using TFNs with pairwise comparisons, the fuzzy comparison matrix X = (xij)nun,
where xij is an element of the comparison matrix and n is the number of rows and
columns. The reciprocal property of the comparison matrix is x ji x1 ; i, j = 1, , n; and
ij

the subscripts i and j refer to the row and column, respectively. The pairwise comparisons
are described by values taken from a pre-defined set of ratio scale values as presented in
Table 1. The ratio comparison between the relative preference of elements indexed i and j
on a criterion can be modelled through a fuzzy scale value associated with a degree of
fuzziness. Then, an element of X, xij is a fuzzy number defined as xij = (lij, mij, uij), where
lij, mij, uij are the lower bound, modal, and upper bound values for xij, respectively.
Table 1

Scale of relative preference based on Saaty (1980)

Numerical value

Definition

Equally preferred

2, 4, 6, 8

Moderately preferred

Strongly preferred

Intermediate values between the two adjacent

judgements

Very strongly preferred

Extremely preferred

2.3 Value of fuzzy synthetic extent

Let C = {C1, C2, , Cn} be a criteria set, where n is the number of criteria and A = {A1,
A2, , Am} be a decision alternative set, where m is the number of decision alternatives.
Let M C1 i , M C2i ,, M Cmi , i = 1, 2, , n where all the M Cj (j = 1, 2, , m) are TFNs. To
i

make use of the algebraic operations described in Section 2.1 on TFNs, the value of fuzzy
synthetic extent Si with respect to the ith criteria is defined:
m

Si

j 1

M Cj
i

n

i 1

j 1

M Cj
i

1

(2)

where represents fuzzy multiplication and the superscript 1 represents the fuzzy
inverse. The concepts of synthetic extent are also found in Cheng (1999) and Bozda
et al. (2003).

2.4 Calculating sets of weighted values of FAHP

To obtain estimates for sets of weight values under each criterion, one must consider a
principle of comparison for fuzzy numbers (Chang, 1996). For example, for two fuzzy

Application of the FAHP

39

numbers, M1 and M2, the degree of possibility that M1 t M2 is defined as:

V  M1 t M 2  sup min P M1 ( x ), P M 2 ( y )

xt y

where sup represents supremum, it follows that V(M1 t M2) = 1. Since M1 and M2 are
convex fuzzy numbers defined by the TFNs (l1, m1, u1) and (l2, m2, u2), respectively, it
follows:

V  M1 t M 2  1 iff m1 t m2
V  M 2 t M1 

hgt  M1 M 2 

P M1  xd 

(3)

where iff represents if and only if, d is the ordinate of the highest intersection point
between the P M and P M TFNs (see Figure 1), and xd is the point in the domain of P M
and P M where the ordinate d is found. The term hgt is the height of fuzzy numbers on
1

the intersection of M1 and M2. For M1 = (l1, m1, u1) and M2 = (l2, m2, u2), the possible
ordinate of their intersection is given by Equation (3). The degree of possibility for a
convex fuzzy number can be obtained from Equation (4):
V  M 2 t M1 

hgt  M1 M 2 

l1  u2
 m2  u2    m1  l1 

(4)

The degree of possibility for a convex fuzzy number M to be greater than the number of k
fuzzy numbers Mi (i = 1, 2, , k) is given by the use of the operations max and min
(Dubois and Prade, 1980) and is defined by:
V  M t M1 , M 2 , , M k  V  M t M1  and  M t M 2  and  and  M t M k 
min V  M t M i  , i 1, 2, , k
Assume that d(Ai) = min V(Si t Sk), where k = 1, 2, , n, k z i, and n is the number of
criteria as described previously. Then, a weight vector is given by:
Wc

 d c  A1  , d c  A2  , , d c  Am  

(5)

where Ai (i = 1, 2, , m) are the m decision alternatives. Hence, each d(Ai) value

represents the relative preference of each decision alternative and the vector W is
normalised and denoted:
Wc
Figure 1

 d  A1  , d  A2  , , d  Am  
The comparison of two fuzzy numbers M1 and M2

(6)

40

Y-C. Tang and T.W. Lin

If two fuzzy numbers, say M1 = (l1, m1, u1) and M2 = (l2, m2, u2), in a fuzzy comparison
matrix satisfy l1 u2 > 0, then V(M2 t M1) = hgt(M1 M2) = P M 2 ( xd ) , where P M 2 ( xd )
is given by (Zhu et al., 1999):

PM 2  xd 

l1  u2

, l1 d u2

(m2  u2 )  (m1  l1 )
0,
otherwise

(7)

2.5 Degree of fuzziness

Referring back to fuzzy numbers, for example, an element xij in a fuzzy comparison
matrix, if DA i is preferred to DA j then mij takes an integer value from two to nine (from
the 19 scale). More formally, given the entry mij in the fuzzy comparison matrix has the
kth scale value vk, then lij and uij have values either side of the vk scale value. It follows
the values lij and uij directly describe the fuzziness of the judgement given in xij. In Zhu
et al. (1999) this fuzziness is influenced by a G (degree of fuzziness) value, where
mij lij = uij mij = G. That is, the value of G is a constant and is considered an absolute
distance from the lower bound value (lij) to the modal value (mij) or the modal value (mij)
to the upper bound value (uij) (see Figure 2).
Given the modal value mij(vk), the fuzzy number representing the fuzzy judgement
made is defined by (mij  G, mij, mij + G), with its associated inverse fuzzy number
subsequently described by ( 1/(mij  G ) , 1/ mij , 1/(mij  G ) ).
In Figure 2, the definition of the fuzzy scale value given in Zhu et al. (1999) is that
the distance from mij(= vk) to vk1 is equal to the distance from mij to vk+1 (G distance). In
the case of mij given a value of one (mij = 1) off the leading diagonal (i z j), the general
form of its associated fuzzy scale value is defined as ( 1 / (1  G ) , 1, 1 + G). For example,
given mij = 1, the fuzzy number will be (0.6667, 1, 1.5) when G = 0.5.
Figure 2

Description of the degree of fuzziness G according to Zhu et al. (1999)

G
0

vk 1
lij

G
vk
mij

vk +1
uij

Application of the FAHP

41

One restriction of the method described by Zhu et al. (1999) is that it assumes equal unit
distances between successive scale values. However, with respect to the traditional AHP
there has been a growing debate on the actual appropriateness of the Saaty 19 scale,
with a number of alternative sets of scales being proposed (see Beynon (2002) and
references contained therein).
Here, G is defined as a proportion (relative) of the distance between successive scale
values. Hence, the associated fuzzy scale value for the case of mij given scale value vk is
defined as:

 vk  G  vk  vk 1  , vk , vk  G  vk 1  vk  

(8)

Therefore, mij = vk, lij = vk  G(vk  vk1) and uij = vk + G(vk+1  vk). When the maximum
scale value v9 is used, consideration has to be given to its associated upper bound values.
That is given mij = vk then it is not possible to use the previously defined expressed,
instead of uij = u9 = v9 + G (v9  v8 )2 / (v8  v7 ) . The reason is that there is no v10(v9+1) value
to use, so instead the new expression takes into account the difference between
successive scale values (for the details of degree of fuzziness, see Tang and Beynon
(2009)).

2.6 Sensitivity analysis of resultant weight values

Sensitivity analysis is a fundamental concept for the effective use and implementation of
quantitative decision models (Dantzig, 1963). The objective of sensitivity analysis here is
to find out when the input data (preference judgements and degrees of fuzziness) are
changed into new values, how the ranking of the DAs will change. This study will utilise
sensitivity analysis to measure degrees of fuzziness and will explain it in Section 4.

Application of FAHP to a lead-free equipment system selection problem

This section presents the case study, electronics company (EL), including the details of
its capital investment problem and the solution proposed by FAHP.

3.1 Description of EL
EL is a listed company in Taiwan. It aims to create a safe, convenient and obstacle-free
environment, provide better life quality, safety and comfort for customers and constantly
devote itself to research and development of high-quality, low-price, competitive
products. To follow all the procedures in ISO 14001 and OHSAS 18001 regulations, to
prevent calamities, and to control air and waste pollution, ELs top management decided
to implement a new lead-free equipment system.
ELs capital investment decisions are normally made by three senior managers: the
finance department manager, the engineering department manager and the manufacturing
department manager (hereafter referred to as DMs). In this particular decision, only three
well-known suppliers, A1, A2 and A3, provide price quotes. The three types of lead-free
equipment system they provide, Equipment A1, Equipment A2 and Equipment A3, are the
decision alternatives in this case study.

42

Y-C. Tang and T.W. Lin

3.2 Details of equipment system selection problem

The lead-free equipment system has the following components: equipment, parts, service
support, education and training support, and pollution control function. First, we
identified which selection criteria should be considered through a semi-structured
interview with the DMs. The DMs decided to restrict the criteria to seven areas based on
ELs requirements. Details of these criteria and their sub-criteria are shown in Table 2.
Table 2

Information table of the lead-free equipment

Equipment

Criteria

Sub-criteria

Equipment A1

C1

C11

1,500,000

1,900,000

1,300,000

C12

Moderate

Expensive

Relatively cheap

C13

Convenient

Inconvenient

Convenient

C21

High compatible

Low compatible

Middle compatible

Already space
reserved

Additional
Additional
augmentation needed augmentation needed

C3

C4
C5

Equipment A2

Equipment A3

C31

Domestic/abroad
Need agents/difficult Company made/easy
have service centres to maintain
to maintain

C32

24 hr/easy

difficult

5 hr/easy

C33

3 hr

68 hr

24 hr

C41

Excellent

Excellent

Excellent

Training days C42

7 days

45 days

5 days

C51

Small

Large

Middle

Air pollution

Low

Low

Low

Noise pollution

Low

Low

Low

Water pollution

No

No

No

C61

Capable

Capable

Capable

C52

C6

C7

Augmentation

Yes

Yes

Yes

Easy to upgrade

Yes

Yes

Yes

Reserved the space Yes

Yes

Yes

C71

Medium

Relatively low

Good

C72

Above 15

Below 10

Between 10 and 15

C73

Good

Medium

Medium

Brief descriptions of the seven criteria and some DMs opinions of how well the
equipment alternatives meet the criteria are listed below:
C1: Acquisition cost of equipment and parts C11: price of the equipment (NT$); C12:
price of parts; C13: convenience to get parts.
The DMs want to minimise the price of the equipment and the price of its parts, and they
want accessibility of replacement parts. Equipment A2 is the most expensive equipment in
both acquisition cost and replacement parts cost.

Application of the FAHP

43

C2: Compatibility C21: The DMs prefer the new equipment to be downwardly
compatible. Equipment A1 is highly compatible with ELs existing equipment.
C3: Response and maintenance time C31: service ability (The numbers of distributor
service centres and the distance of distributor service centres); C32: maintenance
ability (maintenance time by hours); C33: time to arrive.
For example, in Table 2, C32, Equipment A1 needs 24 hr for maintenance, while
Equipment A3 needs 5 hr for maintenance. Equipment A2 is difficult to maintain, and the
supplier has difficulty arriving at EL in a short period of time.
C4: Education and training C41: install; C42: education and training.
The DMs are concerned about how much training is necessary for the installation and
testing of the equipment. They also care about the quantity and quality of education and
training that suppliers are willing to provide.
C5: Equipment size and pollution control C51: space of the equipment; C52:
environmental assessment.
The DMs prefer equipment with less air pollution, noise pollution and water pollution.
C6: Upgrades and expansibility C61: research and development ability.
The DMs want to know the extent of suppliers research and development facilities,
relatively easy to upgrade to high-level products and reserved the space to expand.
C7: Supplier and brand reputation C71: brand; C72: quantity of customers of the supplier
at present; C73: financial situation of the supplier. A1 has a good reputation and
already supplies more than 15 companies.
Using a systems approach with the structured questionnaire, the DMs first indicated their
preferences between pairs of criteria. This study allows DMs to leave blank any
comparison for which they had no opinion or preference. Thus, by allowing for
incomplete responses, the questionnaire avoided pressuring the DMs into an
inappropriate decision.
Tables 3 and 4 illustrate the results of the pairwise comparisons between the seven
criteria and the sub-criteria, respectively. Table 5(a)(o) shows 15 further fuzzy
comparison matrices for pairwise comparisons between equipment alternatives on each of
the criteria and sub-criteria. For example, in Table 3, the three DMs made judgements on
C1 compared to C4, with the pairwise comparisons of (3, 5, and 5). The fuzzy scale values
3 and 5 represent moderately preferred and strongly preferred, respectively, as shown
in Table 1. For the comparisons between the sub-criteria shown in Table 4, the criteria C2
and C6 are left out, since they have only one sub-criterion. Table 6 shows the fuzzy
preference comparison matrix for each pair of the seven criteria from Table 1 with the
degree of fuzziness, the distances between successive scale values are equal, that is,
vk vk1 = vk+1 vk.

44

Y-C. Tang and T.W. Lin

Table 3

Pairwise comparisons between criteria based on three DMs opinions

C1

C2

C1

C2

C3

C4

C5

C6

C7

1/5

1/7

1/3

1/7

1/3

1/3

1/8

1/6

1/6

1/5

1/5

1/7

1/5

1/3

1/6

1/3

1/5

C3

C4

C5

C6

C7

Table 4

1/3

1/7

1/3

1/7

1/7

1/5

1/5

1/5

1/5

1/9

1/3

1/3

1/5

1/5

1/3

1/7

1/5

1/5

1/7

1/3

1/5

1/5

1/5

1/5

1/3

1/6

1/3

1/3

1/8

1/7

1/5

1/5

1/5

1/7

1/3

1/3

1/2

1/8

1/3

1/2

1/5

(a)(e) Comparisons between sub-criteria

a) C1 C11 C12 C13 b) C3 C31 C32 C33 c) C4 C41 C42 d) C5 C51 C52 e) C7 C71 C72 C73
C11

1/3 1/3 C31

2

C12

C13

C41

1/5 1/5
C32 1/5

1/5

C51

3
1

C71

5
C42 1/5

5
9

C52 1/5

C72

1/5

1/5

1/5

1/2

1/3

1/3

1/3

1/5

1/3

1/5

1/5

1/5

1/9

1/5

1/2

C33 1/5
5

5
1

1/3

C73

1/5

1/2

1/5 1/5

A2

A3

A1

1/2

1/2

1/3

1/5

1/9

A3

1/6

1/5

1/3

1
1/9

6
A2

A1

A2

A2

1/3 1/2

1/9 1/9

A1

A2

A1

i)
C4 C42

j)
C5 C51

A3

A3

1/9

A3

A2

1/3

1/9

1/4

1/3

A1

1/3

1/6

A1

b)
C1 C12

1/7

1/9

A2

1/9

A3

1/8

A1

A2

1/3

1/2

1/9

A3

1/5

1/6

1/9

1/3

1/3

1/9

A3

A3

A2

A1

k)
C5 C52

A3

A2

A1

c)
C1 C13

1/9

1/3

1/9

A1

1/3

1/5

1/9

A1

A3

1/3

1/5

1/9

1/2

A3

1/5

1/3

1/5 1/5

A2

A2

A3

A2

A1

l)
C6 C61

A3

A2

A1

d)
C2 C21

1/4

1/3

1/5

1/6

1/5

1/9

A1

1/5

1/2

1/9

1/7

1/3

1/9

A1

A2

A2

1/3

1/3

1/9

A3

1/3

1/2

1/9

A3

A3

A2

A1

m)
C7 C71

A3

A2

A1

e)
C3 C31

A2

A2

1/6 1/4

1/6 1/3

1/9 1/9

1/5

1/5

1/9

A1

1/5

1/7

1/5

1/9

A1

A3

1/3

1/3

1/9

1/2

1/9

A3

1/5

1/3

1/9

1/7

1/7

1/9

A3

A2

A1

1/3

1/2

1/3

A2

A2

1/2 1/3

1/3 1/5

1/3 1/3

A1
n)
C7 C72

A3

A2

A1

f)
A1
C3 C32

A3

1/3

1/5

1/9

A3

1/2

1/6

1/3

1/9

A3

A2

A1

1/5

1/3

1/9

1/5

1/9

A1
o)
C7 C73

A3

A2

A1

g)
A1
C3 C33

1/3

A2

A2

A3

1/3

1/3

1/9

1/5

A3

A3

A2

A1

h)
A1 A2 A3
C4 C41

Table 5

1/7

A1

a)
C1 C11

Application of the FAHP

45

(a)(o) Comparisons between decision alternatives over the different sub-criteria

46

Y-C. Tang and T.W. Lin

Table 6

The fuzzy comparison matrix version of comparisons between criteria

C1

C1
(1, 1, 1)

C2

(1, 1, 1)

(8  G, 8, 8 + G)

C3 (7  G, 7, 7 + G)
(1/(1 + G), 1,
1 + G)
(6  G, 6, 6 + G)

C4

C5

C6

(7  G, 7,
7 + G)

(1/(7 + G), 1/7, (7  G, 7, 7 + G) (3  G, 3, 3 + G) (1/(5 + G), 1/5,

1/(7  G))
1/(5  G))
(5  G, 5, 5 + G) (5  G, 5, 5 + G)
(3  G, 3, 3 + G)
(1/(1 + G), 1,
(9  G, 9, 9 + G) (5  G, 5, 5 + G)
1 + G)
(7  G, 7, 7 + G)
(6  G, 6, 6 + G)
(7  G, 7, 7 + G) (7  G, 7, 7 + G) (5  G, 5, 5 + G)
(1, 1, 1)

(1/(3 + G),
1/3, 1/(3  G))

(5  G, 5, 5 + G) (7  G, 7, 7 + G) (5  G, 5, 5 + G)
(3  G, 3, 3 + G) (1/(3 + G), 1/3, (1/(6 + G), 1/6,
1/(3  G))
1/(6  G))

(1/(7 + G),
1/7, 1/(7  G))
C4

(1/(7 + G),
(1/(7 + G), 1/7,
(1/(3 + G),
1/3, 1/(3  G)) 1/7, 1/(7  G))
1/(7  G))

(1, 1, 1)

(1/(7 + G), 1/7, (3  G, 3, 3 + G)

(1/(3 + G),
1/3, 1/(3  G))
1/(7  G))
(1/(3 + G), 1/3,
1/(3  G))
(1/(5 + G), 1/5,
(1/(5 + G),
(1/(7 + G), 1/7,
1/(5  G))
1/5, 1/(5  G))
1/(7  G))
(3  G, 3, 3 + G)
(6  G, 6, 6 + G) (1/(5 + G), (3  G, 3, 3 + G)
1/5, 1/(5  G))

(1/(3 + G), 1/3, (1/(5 + G), 1/5,

1/(3  G))
1/(5  G))

(1, 1, 1)

(3  G, 3,
3 + G)

(5  G, 5,
5 + G)

C7 (1/(3 + G), 1/3,

(1/(7 + G), 1/7, (1/(5 + G), 1/5,
(1/(8 + G),
1/(3  G))
1/8, 1/(8  G))
1/(7  G))
1/(5  G))
(1/(7 + G),
(1/(3 + G), 1/3, (1/(3 + G), 1/3,
1/7, 1/(7  G))
1/(3  G))
1/(3  G))
(1/(1 + G), 1,
1 + G)

(1/(5 + G), 1/5,

1/(5  G))

(5  G, 5,
5 + G)

(3  G, 3, 3 + G) (1/(1 + G), 1,
1 + G)
(2  G, 2,
2 + G)

(5  G, 5, 5 + G) (1/(5 + G), 1/5, (5  G, 5, 5 + G) (5  G, 5, 5 + G)

1/(5  G))
(1/(1 + G), 1,
(1/(5 + G), 1/5, (1/(3 + G), 1/3,
(3  G, 3, 3 + G)
1 + G)
1/(5  G))
1/(3  G))
(1/(5 + G), 1/5,
1/(5  G))
(5  G, 5, 5 + G) (1/(6 + G), 1/6,
(5  G, 5, 5 + G) (1/(3 + G), 1/3,
1/(6  G)) (6  G, 6, 6 + G)
1/(3  G))

(1/(8 + G),
(1/(3 + G), 1/3,
1/8, 1/(8  G))
1/(3  G))

(7  G, 7,
7 + G)

(3  G, 3, 3 + G)

(7  G, 7,
7 + G)

(5  G, 5, 5 + G)

(8  G, 8,
8 + G)

(3  G, 3,
3 + G)
(1/(3 + G), 1/3, (1/(5 + G), 1/5,
1/(3  G))
1/(5  G))
(1/(1 + G), 1,
1 + G)

(3  G, 3,
3 + G)

(1/(1 + G), 1,
1 + G)

(7  G, 7,
7 + G)

(3  G, 3, 3 + G) (5  G, 5, 5 + G)

(1/(5 + G),
(1/(9 + G),
(1/(3 + G), 1/3,
1/5, 1/(5  G)) 1/9, 1/(9  G))
1/(3  G))

C6

(8  G, 8,
8 + G)

(3  G, 3,
3 + G)

(1/(5 + G),
(1/(5 + G),
(1/(5 + G), 1/5,
1/5, 1/(5  G)) 1/5, 1/(5  G))
1/(5  G))

C5

C7

(1/(5 + G), 1/5, (1/(7 + G), 1/7, (3  G, 3, 3 + G) (1/(3 + G), 1/3, (1/(7 + G), 1/7,
(3  G, 3,
1/(5  G))
1/(7  G))
1/(3  G))
1/(7  G))
3 + G)
(5  G, 5, 5 + G)
(5  G, 5, 5 + G) (1/(3 + G), 1/3, (1/(1 + G), 1,
(1/(3 + G), 1/3, (1/(1 + G), 1,
(5  G, 5, 5 + G)
1/(3  G))
1 + G)
1/(3  G))
1 + G)
(1/(6 + G), 1/6,
(1/(8 + G), 1/8, (1/(6 + G), 1/6,
(1/(5 + G), 1/5, (1/(5 + G), 1/5,
1/(6  G))
1/(8  G))
1/(6  G))
1/(5  G))
1/(5  G))

C2 (5  G, 5, 5 + G)
(3  G, 3, 3 + G)

C3

(1, 1, 1)

(2  G, 2,
2 + G)
(5  G, 5,
5 + G)

(1/(5 + G), 1/5, (1/(5 + G), 1/5,

1/(5  G))
1/(5  G))
(1/(1 + G), 1,
1 + G)

(5  G, 5,
5 + G)

(1/(2 + G), 1/2,

1/(2  G))

(1/(2 + G), 1/2, (1/(5 + G), 1/5,

1/(2  G))
1/(5  G))

(1, 1, 1)

Application of the FAHP

47

Using sensitivity analysis to determine degrees of fuzziness

This section explains how to use sensitivity analysis to measure degrees of fuzziness.
Figure 3 shows the sensitivity of the varying degrees of fuzziness for Table 3 judgement
data of the pairwise comparisons between seven criteria. Variable G represents the degree
of fuzziness. There are seven lines in Figure 3 that represent the weighted values of the
different criteria. The numbers (with criteria) on the G-axis represent the degrees of
fuzziness with respect to each criterion. For example, the degrees of fuzziness G up to
0.46 (in Figure 3, G-axis) shows that C2 has the absolute dominant preference (and hence,
the least amount of fuzziness). This result means that C2 is an important criterion to be
considered when the DMs make decisions, so the weight value is 1. After G reaches 0.46,
the criterion C3 has the next priority weight. The next criterion is C6, which has a priority
weight as G approaches 0.8, etc. The values of G at which the criteria have positive weight
values (non-zero) are hereafter referred to as appearance points.
For judgements between criteria, all seven criteria have positive weights when G is
greater than 2. This means that if G is less than 2, some criteria will have no positive
weights. Zahir (1999) discusses this aspect within traditional AHP, suggesting that DMs
do not favour one criterion and ignore all others, but rather place criteria at various
scales. In addition, when pairwise comparisons are made between criteria, it is expected
that all weights should have positive values. Therefore, it is useful to choose a minimum
workable degree of fuzziness. The expression minimum workable degree of fuzziness is
defined as the largest of the values of G at the various appearance points of criteria on the
G-axis. In this case, the minimum workable degree of fuzziness for decisions between
criteria is 2.
In general, when considering the final results, the domain of workable G is expressed
as G T and is defined by the maximum of the various minimum workable degrees of
fuzziness throughout the problem; that is G T = max( GT , G T , GT , , GT , GT ), where the
C

n -1

subscript T is the maximum of the minimum workable G values in the n + 1(Tc matrix)
fuzzy comparison matrices.
Figure 3

Set of weight values from judgements on seven criteria over 0 d d 5

C2
0.5

C3 C6
0.46 0.8

C1 C4 C
7

C5
1.3 1.7 2
1.46

48

Y-C. Tang and T.W. Lin

In the comparisons between sub-criteria (C1, C3, C4, C5 and C7), their minimum workable
G values are G T = 0.43, GT = 1.07, G T = 2.04, GT = 1.83 and G T = 1.2, respectively (see
1

Figure 4(a)(e)). For the comparisons between equipment alternatives with respect to
individual sub-criteria, the resulting fuzzy comparison matrices (on C11, C12, C13, and
C73) reveal their minimum workable G values are 4.05, 3.56, 2, 3.4, 3.1, 4, 2, 0, 0.65,
3.25, 0.6, 3.1, 3.7, 1.38 and 1.28, respectively (see Figure 5(a)(o)).
For the maximum of the minimum workable G values is G T = max(2, 0.43, 1.07, 2.04,
1.83, 1.2, 4.05, 3.56, 2, 3.4, 3.1, 4, 2, 0, 0.65, 3.25, 0.6, 3.1, 3.7, 1.38, 1.28) = 4.05. The
weights results should possibly be considered only in the workable region of G > 4.05.
The minimum workable degree of fuzziness excludes values of G at which there are no
positive weights for the three equipment alternatives.
When G = 4.05, the weight values for the seven criteria are 0.1265, 0.1941, 0.1757,
0.1129, 0.1387, 0.1621 and 0.0899, respectively (see Table 7). Subsequently, the weight
values for the sub-criteria based on each criterion are derived from Table 4, and the
weight values are listed in Table 7. For example, for C1, the weight values for
the comparisons between C11, C12 and C13 are 0.3580, 0.3077 and 0.3343, respectively.
The last column in Table 7 shows the weight values for equipment alternatives over the
different sub-criteria. For instance, for C11, the weight values for the comparisons by the
three DMs are 0.4319, 0.0016 and 0.5665, respectively.
The final results of this case study reveal two clear decisions made by the DMs of EL,
which are the most preferred decision alternative and the most important criterion.
The most preferred lead-free alternative is Equipment A1; Equipment A3 is the next
preferred alternative, while Equipment A1 is the least preferred alternative (see Table 7).
This preference for Equipment A1 is found in the weight values for not only the criteria,
but also the sub-criteria shown in Table 7. In those 15 sub-criteria, apart from C12, C13,
C42, C52 and C72, Equipment A1 has greater weight values than the other two alternatives.
The most preferred criterion is C2, that is, the compatibility between new and old
equipment (see Table 7). This result means that the DMs care more about the
compatibility between new and old equipment than any other single criterion.
Figure 4

(a)(e) Comparisons between sub-criteria over 0 d d 5

(a)

Application of the FAHP

Figure 4

49

(a)(e) Comparisons between sub-criteria over 0 d d 5 (continued)

(b)

(c)

(d)

(e)

50
Figure 5

Y-C. Tang and T.W. Lin

(a)(o) Graphs of weight values between the decision alternatives on sub-criteria

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

Application of the FAHP

Figure 5

51

(a)(o) Graphs of weight values between the decision alternatives on sub-criteria

(continued)

(e)

(f)

(g)

(h)

52
Figure 5

Y-C. Tang and T.W. Lin

(a)(o) Graphs of weight values between the decision alternatives on sub-criteria
(continued)

(i)

(j)

(k)

(l)

Application of the FAHP

Figure 5

53

(a)(o) Graphs of weight values between the decision alternatives on sub-criteria

(continued)

(m)

(n)

(o)
Table 7

The sets of weight values for all fuzzy comparison matrices and the final results
obtained where G = 4.05 based on the DMs opinions

Weight values for criteria

C1 0.1265

Weight values for subcriteria

Weight values for decision

alternatives

C11

0.3580

[0.4319, 0.0016, 0.5665]

C12

0.3077

[0.4280, 0.4824, 0.5238]

C13

0.3343

[0.4213, 0.1504, 0.4283]

C2 0.1941

C21

[0.5521, 0.0502, 0.3977]

C3 0.1757

C31

0.3477

[0.4654, 0.0966, 0.4380]

C32

0.2813

[0.5776, 0.0558, 0.4168]

C33

0.3709

[0.4412, 0.1265, 0.4323]

C41

0.6995

[0.3333, 0.3333, 0.3333]

C4 0.1129

54

Y-C. Tang and T.W. Lin

Table 7

The sets of weight values for all fuzzy comparison matrices and the final results
obtained where G = 4.05 based on the DMs opinions (continued)

Weight values for criteria

Weight values for subcriteria

Weight values for decision

alternatives

C42

0.3005

[0.2668, 0.3721, 0.3611]

C51

0.6868

[0.5370, 0.0676, 0.3954]

C52

0.3132

[0.3483, 0.2955, 0.3561]

C6 0.1621

C61

[0.5067, 0.0939, 0.3994]

C7 0.0899

C71

0.3051

[0.5534, 0.3995, 0.4719]

C72

0.4075

[0.3647, 0.4372, 0.1981]

C73

0.2874

[0.4271, 0.2922, 0.2807]

C5 0.1387

Final results [0.4709, 0.1324, 0.3967]

Final ranking [A1, A3, A2]

Conclusions

This study has shown that FAHP has the potential to benefit the manufacturing industry
by minimising any negative effects of being forced to invest in the lead-free equipment
system by new regulations. Decisions about capital expenditures required by new laws,
like the lead-free requirement system, can be particularly complex for DMs. Due to the
uncertain and fuzzy nature of such complex problems, FAHP allows for imprecision in
judgement.
This study takes FAHP even further by including more allowances for imprecision in
its model. Most importantly, it allows for variations in degrees of fuzziness. Previous
studies assumed fixed fuzziness. Fuzziness of a decision can change depending on the
criteria being considered by the DM. This study uses sensitivity analysis to find the
degree of fuzziness appropriate to the weight values of decision alternatives and also
allows for imprecision by not forcing DMs to choose between alternatives or criteria
when they have no preference.
In our case study, we used criteria based completely on subjective opinions elicited
directly from the DMs and found that the DMs successfully made judgements regarding
which lead-free equipment system to purchase utilising FAHP.
The results of this case study suggest that a suitable degree of fuzziness, that is, the
maximum of the minimum workable values of , is necessary to obtain the sets of
weights. Moreover, where there are different maximums of the minimum workable
values of for different scales or different models of aggregation, as in the comparisons
in this study, we suggest that the highest of the maximums of the minimum workable
values of should be chosen.
In summary, we provide a real-world example to illustrate a new MCDM method
with the systems approach for selecting lead-free equipment system when company
confronts the different policies from government. This suggested FAHP method
adequately addresses the inherent uncertainty and imprecision of the human decisionmaking process. This studys contribution to FAHP methodology is the demonstration
that fuzziness should not be fixed only at 0.5. DMs from manufacturing companies faced

Application of the FAHP

55

with selecting lead-free equipment system can establish their own evaluation procedure
for their companys capital investments based on their subjective opinions. The lead-free
equipment system selection problem is a typical capital expenditure problem.
Manufacturing companies can also apply FAHP to a variety of other capital expenditure
decisions.

Acknowledgements
We thank helpful comments and suggestions from Ruben Davila, Margaret Palisoc and
Amber Sturdivant. This work was supported in part by the National Science Council
under the Grants NSC 93-2416-H-025-005.

References
Bozda, C.E., Kahraman, C. and Ruan, D. (2003) Fuzzy group decision making for selection
among computer integrated manufacturing systems, Computers in Industry, Vol. 51,
pp.1329.
Beynon, M.J. (2002) An analysis of distributions of priority values from alternative comparison
scales within AHP, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 140, pp.104117.
Chan, F.T.S. and Kumar, N. (2007) Global supplier development considering risk factors using
fuzzy extended AHP-based approach, Omega, Vol. 35, No. 4, pp.417431.
Chang, D.Y. (1996) Applications of the extent analysis method on fuzzy AHP, European Journal
of Operational Research, Vol. 95, No. 3, pp.649655.
Cheng, C.H. (1999) Evaluating weapon systems using ranking fuzzy numbers, Fuzzy Sets and
Systems, Vol. 107, pp.2535.
Dantzig, G.B. (1963) Linear Programming and Extensions. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University
Press.
Davis, J.P. and Hall, J.W. (2003) A software-supported process for assembling evidence and
handling uncertainty in, Decision Support Systems, Vol. 35, pp.415433.
Demirtas, E.A. and Ustun, O. (2007) Analytic network process and multi-period goal
programming integration in purchasing decision, Computers and Industrial Engineering,
Vol. 56, No. 2, pp.677690.
Dubois, D. and Prade, H. (1980) Fuzzy Sets and Systems: Theory and Applications. New York:
Academic Press.
Huang, C.C., Chu, P.Y. and Chiang, Y.H. (2008) A fuzzy AHP application in governmentsponsored R&D project selection, Omega, Vol. 36, No. 6, pp.10381052.
Kahraman, C., Ruan, D. and Doan, I. (2003) Fuzzy group for facility location selection,
Information Sciences, Vol. 157, pp.135153.
Kahraman, C., erik, S., Ates, N.Y. and Glbay, M. (2007) Fuzzy multi-criteria evaluation of
industrial robotic systems, Computers and Industrial Engineering, Vol. 52, pp.414433.
Liang, G.S. and Wang, M.J.J. (1993) A fuzzy multi-criteria approach for robot selection, Robotics
and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing, Vol. 10, No. 4, pp.267274.
Moon, J.H. and Kang, C.S. (2001) Application of fuzzy decision making method to the evaluation
of spent fuel storage options, Progress in Nuclear Energy, Vol. 39, Nos. 3/4, pp.345351.
Oresjo, S. and Ling, R. (2006) The Importance of Test and Inspection when Implementing LeadFree Manufacturing. Available at: http://www.leadfreemagazine.com/pages/pdf/vol003/vol3_
paper_test_inspection.pdf#search=Oresjo%20and%20Ling.

56

Y-C. Tang and T.W. Lin

Ramanathan, R. (2005) Selecting the best statistical distribution a comment and a suggestion on
multi-criteria evaluation, Computers and Industrial Engineering, Vol. 49, pp.625628.
Saaty, T.L. (1980) The Analytical Hierarchy Process. New York: McGraw Hill.
Tang, Y.C. and Beynon, M.J. (2009) Group decision-making within capital investment: a fuzzy
analytic hierarchy process approach with developments, Int. J. Operational Research, Vol. 4,
No. 1, pp.7596.
Tofallis, C. (2008) Selecting the best statistical distribution using multiple criteria, Computers
and Industrial Engineering, Vol. 54, No. 3, pp.690694.
van Laarhoven, P.J.M. and Pedrycz, W. (1983) A fuzzy extension of Saatys priority theory,
Fuzzy Sets and Systems, Vol. 11, pp.229241.
Wang, G., Huang, S.H. and Dismukes, J.P. (2004) Product-driven supply chain selection using
integrated multi-criteria methodology, Int. J. Production Economics, Vol. 91, pp.115.
Yu, C.S. (2002) A GP-AHP method for solving group fuzzy AHP problems, Computers and
Operations Research, Vol. 29, pp.19692001.
Zahir, S. (1999) Geometry of decision making and the vector space formulation of the analytic
hierarchy process, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 112, No. 2, pp.373396.
Zhu, K.J., Jing, Y. and Chang, D.Y. (1999) A discussion on extent analysis method and
applications of fuzzy AHP, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 116, No. 3,
pp.450456.
Zimmermann, H.J. (1996) Fuzzy Set Theory and its Application (3rd ed.). Dordercht: Kluwer
Academic.