Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t
Keywords: This paper investigates the dynamic intuitionistic fuzzy multi-attribute group decision making (DIF-
Dynamic intuitionistic fuzzy multi-attribute MAGDM) problems, in which all the attribute values provided by multiple decision makers (DMs) at dif-
group decision making (DIF-MAGDM) ferent periods take the form of intuitionistic fuzzy numbers (IFNs), and develops an interactive method to
Intuitionistic fuzzy numbers (IFNs) solve the DIF-MAGDM problems. The developed method first aggregates the individual intuitionistic
Aggregation operators
fuzzy decision matrices at different periods into an individual collective intuitionistic fuzzy decision
Intuitionistic fuzzy TOPSIS method
Consensus
matrix for each decision maker by using the dynamic intuitionistic fuzzy weighted averaging (DIFWA)
operator, and then employs intuitionistic fuzzy TOPSIS method to calculate the individual relative close-
ness coefficient of each alternative for each decision maker and obtain the individual ranking of alterna-
tives. After doing so, the method utilizes the hybrid weighted averaging (HWA) operator to aggregate all
the individual relative closeness coefficients into the collective relative closeness coefficient of each alter-
native and obtain the aggregate ranking of alternatives, by which the optimal alternative can be selected.
In addition, the spearman correlation coefficient for both the aggregate ranking and individual ranking of
alternatives is calculated to measure the consensus level of the group preferences. Finally, a numerical
example is used to illustrate the developed method.
Ó 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction ratings of alternatives are expressed with IFS, and a MADM method
based on generalized ordered weighted averaging operators was
Atanassov (1986, 1999) introduced the concept of intuitionistic proposed. Li (2005) and Lin, Yuan, and Xia (2007) proposed some
fuzzy sets (IFS) characterized by a membership function and a non- methods to solve the single-person multiple attribute decision
membership function, which is more suitable for dealing with making problems with IFS and partial weight information. Wei
fuzziness and uncertainty than the ordinary fuzzy set developed (2008) investigated the intuitionistic fuzzy MADM with the infor-
by Zadeh (1965) whose basic component is only a membership mation about attribute weights is incompletely known or com-
function. Gau and Buehrer (1993) gave the notion of vague set, pletely unknown, and a maximizing deviation method-based
but Bustine and Burillo (1996) showed that it is an equivalent of approach was proposed. Xu (2007a) investigated the intuitionistic
the IFS. Recently, some researchers have shown great interest in fuzzy MADM with the information about attribute weights is
the IFS theory and applied it to the field of decision making. incompletely known or completely unknown, a method based on
On single-person multi-attribute decision making (MADM, for the ideal solution was proposed. Xu and Hu (2009) studied the
short) problems, Li and Wang (2008) extended TOPSIS method to class of multiple attribute decision making problems where the
develop a new methodology for solving multi-attribute decision attribute values are intuitionistic fuzzy numbers and the informa-
making problems using IFS. Li (2008) further extended the linear tion about attribute weights is completely unknown, and proposed
programming techniques for multidimensional analysis of prefer- an entropy-based procedure to solve the problems. Ye (2010)
ence (LINMAP) to develop a new methodology for solving multi- proposed a multi-criteria fuzzy decision-making method based
attribute decision making problems under intuitionistic fuzzy on weighted correlation coefficients using entropy weights under
environments. Wang, Li, and Wu (2009) investigated multi- intuitionistic fuzzy environment for some situations where the
attribute decision making problems, in which the weights and information about criteria weights for alternatives is completely
unknown. Xu (2007b) developed the intuitionistic fuzzy weighted
⇑ Corresponding author at: School of Economics and Management, Beihang
averaging (IFWA) operator, the intuitionistic fuzzy ordered
University, No. 37 Xueyuan Road, Haidian District, Beijing 100191, PR China. Tel.: +1
weighted averaging (IFOWA) operator, and the intuitionistic fuzzy
514 653 8306; fax: +1 514 848 3175. hybrid averaging (IFHA) operator. Xu (2010a) used the choquet
E-mail address: szx820115@yahoo.cn (Z.-x. Su). integral to propose some intuitionistic fuzzy aggregation
0957-4174/$ - see front matter Ó 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2011.06.022
Z.-x. Su et al. / Expert Systems with Applications 38 (2011) 15286–15295 15287
operators, such as intuitionistic fuzzy correlated averaging (IFCA) attribute decision making, or called dynamic multi-attribute deci-
operator, intuitionistic fuzzy correlated geometric (IFCG) operator, sion making (DMADM, for short) problems, Xu and Yager (2008)
etc. These operators not only consider the importance of the ele- introduced the dynamic intuitionistic fuzzy weighted averaging
ments or their ordered positions, but also can reflect the correla- (DIFWA) operator to aggregate dynamic intuitionistic fuzzy infor-
tions among the elements or their ordered positions. Tan and mation. On the basis of the DIFWA operator and the TOPSIS meth-
Chen (2010) developed an intuitionistic fuzzy choquet integral od, a dynamic intuitionistic fuzzy procedure was established for
operator for multiple criteria decision making, where interactions solving dynamic intuitionistic fuzzy multi-attribute decision mak-
phenomena among the decision making criteria are considered. ing (DIF-MADM) problems. Wei (2009) proposed the dynamic
Zhao, Xu, Ni, and Liu (2010) developed some new generalized intuitionistic fuzzy weighted geometric (DIFWG) operator, and
aggregation operators, such as generalized intuitionistic fuzzy then a procedure based on the DIFWG and IFWG operators was
weighted averaging (GIFWA) operator, generalized intuitionistic developed to solve the dynamic intuitionistic fuzzy multi-attribute
fuzzy ordered weighted averaging (GIFOWA) operator, generalized decision making (DIF-MADM) problems.
intuitionistic fuzzy hybrid averaging (GIFHA) operator, which ex- However, with the development of modern society, the socio-
tend the GOWA operators to accommodate the environment in economic environment has been becoming more complex and
which the given arguments are IFS, and applied them to multiple uncertain, such as many multi-attribute decision making processes
attribute decision making with intuitionistic fuzzy information. (multi-stage investment decision making, personnel dynamic
On multi-person multi-attribute decision making, or called multi- examination and military system efficiency dynamic evaluation,
attribute group decision making (MAGDM, for short) problems, etc.) in real world, take place in group settings and in different peri-
Atanassov, Pasi, and Yager (2005) provided a tool to solve the ods. These problems can be called as dynamic multi-attribute group
MAGDM problems, in which the attribute weights are given as ex- decision making (DMAGDM, for short) problems (Xu, 2009a). As
act numerical values and the attribute values are expressed in shown in the literature, research on the dynamic multiple attribute
intuitionistic fuzzy numbers. Boran, Genc, Kurt, and Akay (2009) group decision making problems under intuitionistic fuzzy envi-
combined TOPSIS method with IFS to select appropriate supplier ronment has not been studied yet. In order to meet this gap, this pa-
in group decision making environment. Li, Wang, Liu, and Shan per investigates the dynamic intuitionistic fuzzy multiple attribute
(2009) developed a new methodology for solving multi-attribute group decision making (DIF-MAGDM, for short) problems, in which
group decision-making problems using IFS. In this methodology, the attribute values provided by multiple decision makers/experts
for each decision maker in the group two auxiliary fractional pro- at different periods take the form of intuitionistic fuzzy numbers
gramming models were derived from the TOPSIS to determine the (IFNs). In general, the decision makers (DMs) involved in each per-
relative closeness coefficient intervals of alternatives, which are iod’s decision making process may be same or different. We con-
aggregated for the group to generate the ranking order of all alter- sider the former in our study, and then develop an interactive
natives by computing their optimal degrees of membership based approach based on the dynamic intuitionistic fuzzy weighted aver-
on the ranking method of interval numbers. Yue, Jia, and Ye (2009) aging (DIFWA) operator (Xu & Yager, 2008), the dynamic weighted
investigated the issue on how to transform tested attribute values averaging (DWA) operator (Xu, 2008), intuitionistic fuzzy TOPSIS
of alternative into an intuitionistic fuzzy number, and then com- method and the hybrid weighted averaging (HWA) operator (Xu
plete decision making by intuitionistic fuzzy information. Xu & Da, 2003) to solve the DIF-MAGDM problems.
(2007c) investigated the group decision making problems in which The rest of this paper is structured as follows. In the next sec-
all the information provided by the decision makers is expressed as tion, we present a brief introduction of intuitionistic fuzzy sets
intuitionistic fuzzy decision matrices where each of the elements is (IFS). Section 3, an interactive method for dynamic intuitionisitc
characterized by intuitionistic fuzzy number, and the information fuzzy multi-attribute group decision making is developed. A
about attribute weights is partially known, which may be con- numerical example given to illustrate the proposed method is
structed by various forms. Xu (2010b) investigated the multiple shown in Section 4. Conclusions and future research topics are pre-
attribute group decision making with intuitionistic fuzzy informa- sented in Section 5.
tion and information about attribute weights is completely known
of completely unknown, and proposed a deviation-based approach
to solve the problems. Li, Chen, and Huang (2010) developed a lin- 2. Intuitionistic fuzzy sets (IFS)
ear programming methodology for solving multi-attribute group
decision making problems using intuitionistic fuzzy sets. Mitchell Atanassov (1986, 1999) introduced the concept of intuitionistic
(2004) defined an intuitionistic OWA operator which aggregates fuzzy set (IFS) characterized by a membership function and a non-
a set of intuitionistic fuzzy sets and described a simple application membership function.
of the new intuitionistic OWA operator in multiple-expert multi-
ple-criteria decision-making. Based on the arithmetic aggregation Definition 1. Let a set Z be fixed, an intuitionisitc fuzzy set (IFS) A
operators, Xu (2007d) developed the intuitionistic fuzzy arithmetic in Z is given as an object having the following form:
averaging (IFAA) operator and the intuitionistic fuzzy weighted A ¼ < z; lA ðzÞ; mA ðzÞ > jz 2 Z ; ð1Þ
averaging (IFWA) operator and applied them in group decision
making. Xu and Yager (2006) developed some geometric aggrega- where the functions:
tion operators, such as the intuitionistic fuzzy weighted geometric lA : Z ! ½0; 1; z 2 Z ! lA ðzÞ 2 ½0; 1; mA : Z ! ½0; 1;
(IFWG) operator, the intuitionistic fuzzy ordered weighted geo-
z 2 Z ! mA ðzÞ 2 ½0; 1; ð2Þ
metric (IFOWG) operator, and the intuitionistic fuzzy hybrid geo-
metric (IFHG) operator and gave an application of the IFHG with the condition:
operator to multiple attribute group decision making with intui-
0 6 lA ðzÞ þ mA ðzÞ 6 1; 8 z 2 Z; ð3Þ
tionistic fuzzy information. Wei (2010) developed the induced
intuitionistic fuzzy ordered weighted geometric (I-IFOWG) opera- lA(z) and mA(z) denote the degree of the membership and the degree
tor, and gave application to multiple attribute group decision mak- of non-membership of the element z 2 Z to the set A, respectively.
ing problems in which both the attribute weights and the expert In addition, for each IFS A in Z, if:
weights take the form of real numbers, and attribute values take
the form of intuitionistic fuzzy numbers. On multi-period multi- pA ðzÞ ¼ 1 lA ðzÞ mA ðzÞ; ð4Þ
15288 Z.-x. Su et al. / Expert Systems with Applications 38 (2011) 15286–15295
then pA(z) is called the degree of indeterminacy of z to A, or called w(tk) = (w1(tk), w2(tk), . . . , wn(tk)) is the weight vector of the
the degree of hesitancy of z to A. attributes uj(j = 1, 2, . . . , n) at the period tk, where wj ðt k Þ >
P
For convenience of computation, let a = (la, ma, pa) be an 0; j ¼ 1; 2; . . . ; n; nj¼1 wj ðt k Þ ¼ 1 (the weight vector of attri-
intuitionistic fuzzy number (IFN) (Xu, 2007b), where: butes can be determined by some methods such as judg-
ment matrix based method (Saaty, 1980), information
la 2 ½0; 1; ma 2 ½0; 1; la þ ma 6 1; pa ¼ 1 la ma : ð5Þ entropy based method (Herrera, Herrera-Viedma, & Chicl-
ana, 2001), point estimation based method (Zeeny, 1982),
Definition 2. Let a ¼ ðla ; ma ; pa Þ; a1 ¼ ðla1 ; ma1 ; pa1 Þ; a2 ¼ ðla2 ; ma2 ; etc.).
ðlÞ
pa2 Þ and a3 ¼ ðla3 ; ma3 ; pa3 Þ be any four intuitionistic fuzzy num- (5) The DMs el(l = 1, 2, . . . , q) provide the attribute values r ij tk
bers (IFNs), k, k1, k2 > 0 then the following operational laws are of the alternative xi 2 X(i = 1, 2, . . . , m) with respect to the
valid (Xu & Yager, 2006; Xu, 2007b): attribute uj 2 U(j = 1, 2, . . . , n) at the period tk(k = 1, 2, . . . , p),
and construct the intuitionistic fuzzy decision matrices
(1) a1 a2 ¼ ðla1 þ la2 la1 la2 ; ma1 ma2 ; 1 la1 la2 þ la1 la2 ðlÞ ðlÞ ðlÞ
R tk ¼ ðr ij tk Þmn , respectively, where r ij tk ¼ lr ðtðlÞ Þ ;
ma1 ma2 Þ.
ij k
(2) a1 a2 ¼ ðla1 la2 ; ma1 þ ma2 ma1 ma2 ; 1 la1 la2 ma1 ma2 þ mr ðtðlÞ Þ ; pr ðtðlÞ Þ is an intuitionistic fuzzy number (IFN).
ma1 ma2 Þ. ij k ij k
(3) ka = (1 (1 la)k, (ma)k). lrij ðtðlÞ Þ indicates the degree that the alternative xi should sat-
k
(4) ak = ((la)k, 1 (1 ma)k). isfy the attribute uj at the period tk ; mr ðtðlÞ Þ indicates the
(5) k1a k2a = (k1 + k2)a. ij k
In this section, we consider the dynamic intuitionistic fuzzy pr tðlÞ ¼ 1 lr tðlÞ mr tðlÞ : ð6Þ
ij k ij k ij k
multi-attribute group decision making (DIF-MAGDM) problem, in
which all the attribute values provided by the same decision mak-
ers (DMs) at different periods take the form of intuitionistic fuzzy Based on the above decision information, in the following we
numbers (IFNs). We first give a detailed description of a considered employ the dynamic intuitionistic fuzzy weighted averaging (DIF-
DIF-MAGDM problem: WA) operator, the dynamic weighted averaging (DWA) operator,
intuitionistic fuzzy TOPSIS method and the hybrid weighted aver-
(1) X = {x1, x2, . . . , xm}: a discrete set of m feasible alternatives. aging (HWA) operator to give an interactive method to rank and
(2) U = {u1, u2, . . . , un}: a finite set of n predefined attributes. select the most desirable alternative(s), which includes the follow-
(3) E = {e1, e2, . . . , eq}: a same set of q decision makers (DMs) at ing calculated steps:
each period, whose weight vector is k = (k1, k2, . . . , kq), where
Pq Step 1. Utilize the DIFWA operator (Xu & Yager, 2008):
kl > 0, l = 1, 2, . . . , q, l¼1 kl ¼ 1 (at present, many methods
have been proposed to determine the weights of DMs, for ðlÞ
example, Keeney & Kirkwood (1975) and Keeney (1976) sug- r ij ¼ lrðlÞ ; mrðlÞ ; prðlÞ
ij ij ij
gested the use of interpersonal comparisons to obtain the
ðlÞ ðlÞ
values of scaling constants in the weighted additive social ¼ DIFWAxðtÞ r ij t1 ; r ij t 2 ; . . . ; r ij t ðlÞ
p
choice function. Bodily (1979) derived the member weight ðlÞ ðlÞ
¼ xðt1 Þrij t 1 xðt 2 Þr ij t2 x t p r ij tðlÞ
p
as a result of designation of voting weights from a member
p
Y xðtk Þ Yp xðtk Þ
to a delegation subcommittee made up of other members
of the group. Brock (1980) used a Nash bargaining based ¼ 1 1 lrij ðtl Þ ; mrij ðtl Þ ;
k k
k¼1 k¼1
approach to estimating the weights of group members !
p
Y xðtk Þ Yp xðtk Þ
intrinsically. Ramanahan & Ganesh (1994) proposed a sim- 1 lrij ðtl Þ mrij ðtl Þ ; ð7Þ
ple and intuitively appealing eigenvector based method to k¼1
k
k¼1
k
and obtain the individual ranking of alternatives for each to aggregate all the individual relative closeness coefficients
DM el (l = 1, 2, . . . , q). c(l)(xi)(l = 1, 2, . . . , q) into the collective relative closeness coefficient
Step 3-1. Define x(l+) and x(l) as the intuitionistic fuzzy positive c(xi) of the alternative xi(i = 1, 2, . . . , m), where ċ(r(l))(xi) (l = 1, 2, . . . ,
ideal solution (IFPIS) and the intutionistic fuzzy nega- q), is the lth largest of the weighted individual relative closeness
tive ideal solution (IFNIS). coefficient c_ ðlÞ ðxi Þðc_ ðlÞ ðxi Þ ¼ qkl cðlÞ ðxi Þ; l ¼ 1; 2; . . . ; qÞ. - = (-1, -2, . . . ,
Let J1 and J2 be benefit attribute and cost attribute, -q) is the associated P
vector of the HWA operator, where
respectively. Then x(l+) and x(l) can be defined as: -l > 0; l ¼ 1; 2; . . . ; q; ql¼1 -l ¼ 1, which can be derived by the
normal distribution based method (Xu, 2005, 2008; Xu & Da, 2003).
ðlþÞ ðlþÞ
xðlþÞ ¼ r 1 ; r2 ; . . . ; r ðlþÞ
n ; Step 5. Rank all the alternatives xi(i = 1, 2, . . . , m) according to the
collective relative closeness coefficients c(xi)(i = 1, 2, . . . , m)
ðlþÞ
rj ¼ lrðlþÞ ; mrðlþÞ ; prðlþÞ ðj ¼ 1; 2; . . . ; nÞ; ð9Þ and obtain the aggregate ranking of alternatives. The
j j j
greater the value c(xi), the better the alternative xi.
where
Step 6. Specify the consensus level.
j 2 J 1 ; min lrðlÞ
j 2 J 1 ; max mrðlÞ
j 2 J 2 ; ð11Þ
j i ij i ij intuitionistic fuzzy multi-attribute group decision making
prðlþÞ ¼ 1 lrðlþÞ mrðlþÞ ; ð12Þ problem. In the group decision-making process, consensus
j j j is an important indication of group agreement or reliabil-
and ity. Therefore, in our study, the consensus level, calculated
by the variance of the individual ranking and the aggregate
ðlÞ ðlÞ ðlÞ
xðlÞ ¼ r 1 ; r 2 ; . . . ; r ðlÞ
n ; rj ranking of alternatives, is specified by spearman’s rank
correlation coefficient (Kahraman, Engin, Kabak, & Kayaet,
¼ lrðlÞ ; mrðlÞ ; prðÞ ðj ¼ 1; 2; . . . ; nÞ; ð13Þ 2009; Lehmann & D’Abrera, 1998).
j j j
When the previous steps are applied, the aggregate rank-
where ing of the alternatives according to the complex decision
matrix, r Ai and the individual rankings of the alternatives
lrðlÞ ¼ min lrðlÞ
j 2 J 1 ; max lrðlÞ
j 2 J 2 ; ð14Þ
j i ij i ij according to the individual collective decision matrixes,
ðlÞ
ri ðl ¼ 1; 2; . . . ; qÞ, are obtained. The spearman’s rank cor-
vr ðlÞ ¼ max mrðlÞ
j 2 J 1 ; min mrðlÞ
j 2 J 2 ; ð15Þ
j i ij i ij relation coefficient can be calculated as follows for our
prðlÞ ¼ 1 lrðlÞ mrðlÞ : ð16Þ particular problem:
2
j j j
m
X ðlÞ
Step 3-2. Calculate the distance between the alternative xi and qAl ¼ 1 6 r Ai r i m m2 1 8 l: ð21Þ
the IFPIS x(l+) and the distance between the alternative i¼1
Level of consensus is calculated using the Is consensus level Yes End the procedure and
aggregate ranking and individual ranking acceptable? present the results
respectively, the performance of the potential 3PRLPs xi (i = Step 1. Utilize the DIFWA operator (Eq. (7)) to aggregateall the
ðlÞ
1, 2, . . . , 5) by intuitionistic fuzzy numbers (IFNs) in the years individual intuitionistic fuzzy decision matrices R tk at
2007–2009 with respect to the attributes uj(j = 1, 2, . . . , 7), and con- years tk(k = 1, 2, 3) into an individual collective intuitionis-
struct the intuitionistic fuzzy decision matrices R tk ¼
ðlÞ tic fuzzy decision matrix R(l) for each DM el(l = 1, 2, 3), as
listed in Tables 10–12.
ðlÞ
r ij tk (k, l = 1, 2, 3, here t1 denotes the year ‘‘2007’’, t2 de- Step 2. Utilize the DWA operator (Eq. (8)) to aggregate the
57
notes the year ‘‘2008’’, t3 denotes the year ‘‘2009’’, respectively), weights of attributes wj(tk) of p different years tk into the
as listed in Tables 1–9. overall weights of attributes w = {wj}, j = 1, 2, . . . , 7:
Suppose that the weight vector of the years tk(k = 1, 2, 3) are w ¼ ðw1 ; w2 ; w3 ; w4 ; w5 ; w6 ; w7 Þ
x(t) = (0.230, 0.321, 0.449) and the weight vectors of attributes of
uj(j = 1, 2, . . . , 7) at the years tk(k = 1, 2, 3) are: w(t1) = (0.12, 0.18, ¼ ð0:1463; 0:1460; 0:1328; 0:1659; 0:1113; 0:1494; 0:1484Þ:
0.17, 0.13, 0.11, 0.15, 0.14), w(t2) = (0.16, 0.13, 0.11, 0.20, 0.10, 0.12, Step 3. Utilize intuitionistic fuzzy TOPSIS method (Eqs. (9)–(19))
0.18) and w(t3) = (0.15, 0.14, 0.13, 0.16, 0.12, 0.17, 0.13), respectively. to calculate the individual relative closeness coefficient
Now we utilize the proposed method to prioritize these 3PRLPs: corresponding to each alternative for each DM:
Z.-x. Su et al. / Expert Systems with Applications 38 (2011) 15286–15295 15291
Table 1
ð1Þ
Individual intuitionistic fuzzy decision matrix Rðt1 Þ.
u1 u2 u3 u4 u5 u6 u7
x1 (0.5, 0.4, 0.1) (0.5, 0.3, 0.2) (0.4, 0.4, 0.2) (0.4, 0.4, 0.2) (0.6, 0.3, 0.1) (0.5, 0.5, 0.0) (0.8, 0.1, 0.1)
x2 (0.6, 0.3, 0.1) (0.7, 0.3, 0.0) (0.6, 0.2, 0.2) (0.6, 0.2, 0.2) (0.5, 0.4, 0.1) (0.6, 0.2, 0.2) (0.4, 0.4, 0.2)
x3 (0.5, 0.4, 0.1) (0.4, 0.5, 0.1) (0.5, 0.3, 0.2) (0.3, 0.4, 0.3) (0.7, 0.2, 0.1) (0.6, 0.3, 0.1) (0.8, 0.1, 0.1)
x4 (0.6, 0.2, 0.2) (0.7, 0.2, 0.1) (0.4, 0.2, 0.4) (0.5, 0.2, 0.3) (0.6, 0.4, 0.0) (0.5, 0.4, 0.1) (0.7, 0.1, 0.2)
x5 (0.5, 0.3, 0.2) (0.6, 0.2, 0.2) (0.5, 0.1, 0.3) (0.6, 0.4, 0.0) (0.5, 0.5, 0.0) (0.5, 0.3, 0.2) (0.6, 0.2, 0.2)
Table 2
ð2Þ
Individual intuitionistic fuzzy decision matrix Rðt1 Þ.
u1 u2 u3 u4 u5 u6 u7
x1 (0.5, 0.5, 0.0) (0.6, 0.2, 0.2) (0.5, 0.4, 0.1) (0.5, 0.3, 0.2) (0.7, 0.2, 0.1) (0.6, 0.3, 0.1) (0.7, 0.3, 0.0)
x2 (0.5, 0.4, 0.1) (0.6, 0.2, 0.2) (0.6, 0.3, 0.1) (0.7, 0.3, 0.0) (0.6, 0.4, 0.0) (0.5, 0.4, 0.1) (0.5, 0.4, 0.1)
x3 (0.5, 0.5, 0.0) (0.3, 0.5, 0.1) (0.4, 0.4, 0.2) (0.2, 0.5, 0.3) (0.6, 0.3, 0.1) (0.8, 0.1, 0.1) (0.6, 0.3, 0.1)
x4 (0.5, 0.4, 0.1) (0.6, 0.2, 0.2) (0.4, 0.4, 0.2) (0.6, 0.2, 0.2) (0.6, 0.3, 0.1) (0.6, 0.4, 0.0) (0.8, 0.2, 0.0)
x5 (0.6, 0.3, 0.1) (0.7, 0.2, 0.1) (0.4, 0.2, 0.4) (0.7, 0.2, 0.1) (0.7, 0.2, 0.1) (0.4, 0.4, 0.2) (0.7, 0.3, 0.0)
Table 3
ð3Þ
Individual intuitionistic fuzzy decision matrix Rðt1 Þ.
u1 u2 u3 u4 u5 u6 u7
x1 (0.6, 0.3, 0.1) (0.5, 0.2, 0.3) (0.5, 0.3, 0.2) (0.5, 0.2, 0.3) (0.6, 0.4, 0.0) (0.5, 0.3, 0.2) (0.8, 0.2, 0.0)
x2 (0.5, 0.3, 0.2) (0.5, 0.3, 0.2) (0.6, 0.2, 0.2) (0.7, 0.2, 0.1) (0.5, 0.5, 0.0) (0.6, 0.3, 0.1) (0.6, 0.2, 0.2)
x3 (0.4, 0.4, 0.2) (0.3, 0.4, 0.3) (0.4, 0.3, 0.3) (0.3, 0.3, 0.4) (0.5, 0.5, 0.0) (0.7, 0.2, 0.1) (0.6, 0.3, 0.1)
x4 (0.5, 0.3, 0.2) (0.5, 0.3, 0.2) (0.3, 0.5, 0.2) (0.5, 0.2, 0.3) (0.7, 0.2, 0.1) (0.7, 0.2, 0.1) (0.7, 0.2, 0.1)
x5 (0.6, 0.2, 0.2) (0.6, 0.4, 0.0) (0.4, 0.4, 0.2) (0.6, 0.3, 0.1) (0.6, 0.4, 0.0) (0.5, 0.3, 0.2) (0.8, 0.1, 0.1)
Table 4
ð1Þ
Individual intuitionistic fuzzy decision matrix Rðt2 Þ.
u1 u2 u3 u4 u5 u6 u7
x1 (0.5, 0.5, 0.0) (0.6, 0.3, 0.1) (0.4, 0.4, 0.2) (0.5, 0.4, 0.1) (0.6, 0.3, 0.1) (0.6, 0.3, 0.1) (0.3, 0.6, 0.1)
x2 (0.6, 0.3, 0.1) (0.7, 0.2, 0.1) (0.6, 0.3, 0.1) (0.5, 0.2, 0.3) (0.5, 0.4, 0.1) (0.5, 0.4, 0.1) (0.6, 0.2, 0.2)
x3 (0.4, 0.4, 0.2) (0.5, 0.4, 0.1) (0.5, 0.3, 0.2) (0.3, 0.5, 0.2) (0.7, 0.2, 0.1) (0.8, 0.2, 0.0) (0.4, 0.5, 0.1)
x4 (0.7, 0.2, 0.1) (0.8, 0.2, 0.0) (0.4, 0.3, 0.3) (0.5, 0.4, 0.1) (0.6, 0.4, 0.0) (0.5, 0.5, 0.0) (0.7, 0.3, 0.0)
x5 (0.5, 0.3, 0.2) (0.5, 0.4, 0.1) (0.5, 0.4, 0.1) (0.6, 0.4, 0.0) (0.6, 0.4, 0.0) (0.7, 0.1, 0.2) (0.4, 0.5, 0.1)
Table 5
ð2Þ
Individual intuitionistic fuzzy decision matrix Rðt2 Þ.
u1 u2 u3 u4 u5 u6 u7
x1 (0.6, 0.2, 0.2) (0.5, 0.2, 0.3) (0.5, 0.3, 0.2) (0.5, 0.2, 0.3) (0.5, 0.4, 0.1) (0.7, 0.3, 0.0) (0.4, 0.5, 0.1)
x2 (0.5, 0.3, 0.2) (0.5, 0.3, 0.2) (0.6, 0.3, 0.1) (0.7, 0.2, 0.1) (0.8, 0.2, 0.0) (0.5, 0.5, 0.0) (0.5, 0.3, 0.2)
x3 (0.4, 0.4, 0.2) (0.4, 0.4, 0.2) (0.4, 0.3, 0.3) (0.3, 0.3, 0.4) (0.5, 0.5, 0.0) (0.6, 0.3, 0.1) (0.4, 0.4, 0.2)
x4 (0.5, 0.3, 0.2) (0.5, 0.3, 0.2) (0.4, 0.4, 0.2) (0.5, 0.2, 0.3) (0.6, 0.3, 0.1) (0.6, 0.2, 0.2) (0.8, 0.1, 0.1)
x5 (0.6, 0.3, 0.1) (0.6, 0.4, 0.0) (0.4, 0.4, 0.2) (0.6, 0.3, 0.1) (0.7, 0.2, 0.1) (0.5, 0.5, 0.0) (0.3, 0.5, 0.2)
Table 6
ð3Þ
Individual intuitionistic fuzzy decision matrix Rðt2 Þ.
u1 u2 u3 u4 u5 u6 u7
x1 (0.6, 0.4, 0.0) (0.6, 0.2, 0.2) (0.5, 0.4, 0.1) (0.5, 0.3, 0.2) (0.5, 0.3, 0.2) (0.8, 0.1, 0.1) (0.2, 0.7, 0.1)
x2 (0.5, 0.4, 0.1) (0.6, 0.2, 0.2) (0.7, 0.3, 0.0) (0.7, 0.3, 0.0) (0.6, 0.4, 0.0) (0.5, 0.4, 0.1) (0.7, 0.3, 0.0)
x3 (0.4, 0.5, 0.1) (0.5, 0.5, 0.0) (0.4, 0.4, 0.2) (0.2, 0.6, 0.2) (0.7, 0.3, 0.0) (0.7, 0.2, 0.1) (0.3, 0.5, 0.2)
x4 (0.5, 0.4, 0.1) (0.7, 0.2, 0.1) (0.5, 0.4, 0.1) (0.6, 0.2, 0.2) (0.8, 0.1, 0.1) (0.5, 0.4, 0.1) (0.6, 0.3, 0.1)
x5 (0.6, 0.3, 0.1) (0.7, 0.2, 0.1) (0.4, 0.3, 0.3) (0.7, 0.3, 0.0) (0.6, 0.3, 0.1) (0.6, 0.3, 0.1) (0.3, 0.6, 0.1)
cð1Þ ðx1 Þ ¼ 0:5533; cð1Þ ðx2 Þ ¼ 0:4931; cð1Þ ðx3 Þ ¼ 0:5069; cð3Þ ðx1 Þ ¼ 0:6676; cð3Þ ðx2 Þ ¼ 0:4300; cð3Þ ðx3 Þ ¼ 0:5322;
cð1Þ ðx4 Þ ¼ 0:4756; cð1Þ ðx5 Þ ¼ 0:5676; cð3Þ ðx4 Þ ¼ 0:5392; cð3Þ ðx5 Þ ¼ 0:5819:
Table 7
ð1Þ
Individual intuitionistic fuzzy decision matrix Rðt3 Þ.
u1 u2 u3 u4 u5 u6 u7
x1 (0.5, 0.4, 0.1) (0.5, 0.3, 0.2) (0.3, 0.4, 0.3) (0.4, 0.4, 0.2) (0.6, 0.3, 0.1) (0.3, 0.7, 0.0) (0.5, 0.4, 0.1)
x2 (0.6, 0.3, 0.1) (0.7, 0.3, 0.0) (0.6, 0.2, 0.2) (0.6, 0.2, 0.2) (0.5, 0.4, 0.1) (0.7, 0.2, 0.1) (0.6, 0.3, 0.1)
x3 (0.5, 0.4, 0.1) (0.5, 0.4, 0.1) (0.6, 0.2, 0.2) (0.5, 0.3, 0.2) (0.4, 0.5, 0.1) (0.4, 0.5, 0.1) (0.8, 0.2, 0.0)
x4 (0.8, 0.2, 0.0) (0.7, 0.2, 0.1) (0.4, 0.2, 0.4) (0.6, 0.2, 0.2) (0.5, 0.4, 0.1) (0.4, 0.5, 0.1) (0.7, 0.3, 0.0)
x5 (0.4, 0.3, 0.3) (0.5, 0.2, 0.3) (0.4, 0.5, 0.1) (0.5, 0.4, 0.1) (0.6, 0.3, 0.1) (0.3, 0.5, 0.2) (0.6, 0.3, 0.1)
Table 8
ð2Þ
Individual intuitionistic fuzzy decision matrix Rðt3 Þ.
u1 u2 u3 u4 u5 u6 u7
x1 (0.6, 0.4, 0.0) (0.6, 0.3, 0.1) (0.4, 0.4, 0.2) (0.5, 0.3, 0.2) (0.7, 0.2, 0.1) (0.2, 0.6, 0.2) (0.6, 0.3, 0.1)
x2 (0.5, 0.4, 0.1) (0.6, 0.2, 0.2) (0.7, 0.2, 0.1) (0.7, 0.3, 0.0) (0.4, 0.5, 0.1) (0.5, 0.4, 0.1) (0.8, 0.1, 0.1)
x3 (0.5, 0.5, 0.0) (0.6, 0.4, 0.0) (0.8, 0.1, 0.1) (0.6, 0.3, 0.1) (0.6, 0.3, 0.1) (0.3, 0.7, 0.0) (0.6, 0.2, 0.2)
x4 (0.7, 0.2, 0.1) (0.8, 0.2, 0.0) (0.5, 0.4, 0.1) (0.5, 0.2, 0.3) (0.6, 0.2, 0.2) (0.2, 0.6, 0.2) (0.8, 0.1, 0.1)
x5 (0.5, 0.2, 0.3) (0.7, 0.2, 0.1) (0.4, 0.3, 0.3) (0.6, 0.2, 0.2) (0.8, 0.1, 0.1) (0.4, 0.5, 0.1) (0.7, 0.2, 0.1)
Table 9
ð3Þ
Individual intuitionistic fuzzy decision matrix Rðt3 Þ.
u1 u2 u3 u4 u5 u6 u7
x1 (0.5, 0.3, 0.2) (0.6, 0.3, 0.1) (0.2, 0.6, 0.2) (0.4, 0.4, 0.2) (0.8, 0.1, 0.1) (0.4, 0.5, 0.1) (0.6, 0.3, 0.1)
x2 (0.7, 0.3, 0.0) (0.7, 0.3, 0.0) (0.7, 0.2, 0.1) (0.6, 0.3, 0.1) (0.5, 0.4, 0.1) (0.6, 0.3, 0.1) (0.7, 0.2, 0.1)
x3 (0.6, 0.4, 0.0) (0.5, 0.4, 0.1) (0.6, 0.2, 0.2) (0.5, 0.3, 0.2) (0.5, 0.5, 0.0) (0.5, 0.3, 0.2) (0.7, 0.2, 0.1)
x4 (0.8, 0.2, 0.0) (0.8, 0.2, 0.0) (0.5, 0.2, 0.3) (0.5, 0.2, 0.3) (0.6, 0.2, 0.2) (0.3, 0.6, 0.1) (0.7, 0.2, 0.1)
x5 (0.4, 0.3, 0.3) (0.6, 0.2, 0.2) (0.5, 0.5, 0.0) (0.4, 0.3, 0.3) (0.7, 0.1, 0.2) (0.5, 0.3, 0.2) (0.5, 0.4, 0.1)
Step 4. Utilize the HWA operator (Eq. (20)) (whose associated environment, or called the dynamic intuitionistic fuzzy multi-attri-
weight vector is - = (0.243, 0.514, 0.243)) to aggregate all bute group decision making (DIF-MAGDM, for short) problems, in
the individual relative closeness coefficients into the col- which the attribute values provided by multiple decision makers
lective relative closeness coefficient of each alternative: at different periods take the form of intuitionistic fuzzy numbers
(IFNs). In general, the decision makers/experts involved in each
cðx1 Þ ¼ 0:5816; cðx2 Þ ¼ 0:4673; cðx3 Þ ¼ 0:5113;
period’s decision making process may be same or different. We
cðx4 Þ ¼ 0:5503; cðx5 Þ ¼ 0:5709: study on the former and consider that a DIF-MAGDM problem
can be divided into multiple dynamic intuitionistic fuzzy multi-
Step 5. Rank the alternatives and obtain the aggregate ranking of
attribute decision making (DIF-MADM, for short) problems accord-
the alternatives xi(i = 1, 2, . . . , m) according to the collective
ing to the number of the decision makers/experts, in which each
relative closeness coefficients c(xi)(i = 1, 2, . . . , m), as shown
decision maker/expert can obtain the evaluation results indepen-
in Table 13.
dently. Therefore, it is feasible and reasonable that fusing the dy-
Step 6. Specify the consensus level.
namic decision information firstly in order to transform the DIF-
The aggregate ranking and the individual ranking of alter-
MAGDM problem into intuitionsitic fuzzy multi-attribute group
natives are given and the spearman correlation coefficients
decision making (IF-MAGDM, for short). Furthermore, in the group
for both the aggregate ranking and individual rankings are
decision-making process, consensus is an important indication of
calculated according to Eq. (21), as shown in Table 13.
group agreement or reliability. For the above reasons, we have
developed an interactive method to solve the DIF-MAGDM prob-
Assume that the threshold of acceptable consensus a = 0.5. It
lems in this paper. In the interactive method, we have employed
can be seen from Table 13 that all the spearman correlation coeffi-
the dynamic intuitionistic fuzzy weighted averaging (DIFWA)
cients are more than 0.5, so the group consensus level is accept-
operator and the dynamic weighted averaging (DWA) operator to
able. According to the aggregate ranking of alternatives shown in
fuse dynamic decision information, and obtained the individual
Table 13:
collective intuitionistic fuzzy matrices and the collective weights
x1 x5 x4 x3 x2 ; of attributes. And then, we have extended the technique for order
performance by similarity to ideal solution (TOPSIS) to intuitionis-
and thus the best suitable 3PRLP is x1.
tic fuzzy environment, and used the intuitionistic fuzzy TOPSIS
method to calculate the individual relative closeness coefficients
5. Discussion and conclusions of alternatives and obtain the individual ranking of alternatives
for each decision maker. After doing so, the hybrid weighted aver-
With the development of modern society, many multi-attribute aging (HWA) operator has been utilized to aggregate the individual
decision making processes has been becoming more complex and relative closeness coefficients into the collective relative closeness
uncertain in real world, especially taking place in group settings coefficients of alternatives and obtain the aggregate ranking of
and in different periods. These problems can be called as dynamic alternatives. Moreover, the spearman’s rank correlation coefficient
multi-attribute group decision making (DMAGDM, for short) prob- for both the individual ranking and aggregate ranking has been cal-
lems. In this paper, we have focused on the dynamic multi-attri- culated to measure the consensus level of the group preferences. If
bute group decision making problems under intuitionistic fuzzy
Table 10
Individual collective intuitionistic fuzzy decision matrix R(1).
u1 u2 u3 u4 u5 u6 u7
x1 (0.5000, 0.4297, 0.0703) (0.5346, 0.3000, 0.1654) (0.3570, 0.4000, 0.2430) (0.4341, 0.4000, 0.1659) (0.5444, 0.3535, 0.1021) (0.4587, 0.4936, 0.0477) (0.5488, 0.3312, 0.1200)
x2 (0.6000, 0.3000, 0.1000) (0.7000, 0.2634, 0.0366) (0.6000, 0.2278, 0.1722) (0.5703, 0.2000, 0.2297) (0.5756, 0.3647, 0.0597) (0.6224, 0.2498, 0.1278) (0.5609, 0.2814, 0.1577)
x3 (0.4699, 0.4000, 0.1301) (0.4786, 0.4523, 0.0691) (0.6161, 0.2946, 0.0893) (0.4598, 0.3205, 0.2197) (0.5509, 0.3770, 0.0721) (0.6159, 0.3313, 0.0529) (0.7154, 0.2288, 0.0558)
x4 (0.7328, 0.2000, 0.0672) (0.7366, 0.2000, 0.0634) (0.4000, 0.2278, 0.3722) (0.5477, 0.2498, 0.2025) (0.5250, 0.4000, 0.0750) (0.4246, 0.4750, 0.1004) (0.7000, 0.2330, 0.0670)
x5 (0.4573, 0.3000, 0.2427) (0.5250, 0.2498, 0.2252) (0.4573, 0.3214, 0.2213) (0.5578, 0.4000, 0.0422) (0.5789, 0.3700, 0.0510) (0.5064, 0.2652, 0.2284) (0.5444, 0.3220, 0.1336)
u1 u2 u3 u4 u5 u6 u7
x1 (0.5789, 0.3371, 0.0840) (0.5703, 0.2399, 0.1898) (0.4573, 0.3647, 0.1780) (0.5000, 0.2634, 0.2366) (0.6465, 0.2498, 0.1036) (0.5021, 0.4095, 0.0884) (0.5736, 0.3535, 0.0729)
x2 (0.5000, 0.3647, 0.1353) (0.5703, 0.2278, 0.2019) (0.6485, 0.2501, 0.1014) (0.7000, 0.2634, 0.0366) (0.6159, 0.3540, 0.0301) (0.5000, 0.4297, 0.0703) (0.6686, 0.1957, 0.1357)
x3 (0.4699, 0.4654, 0.0647) (0.4818, 0.4211, 0.0971) (0.6150, 0.1957, 0.1892) (0.4960, 0.3374, 0.1666) (0.5703, 0.3535, 0.0762) (0.5615, 0.3409, 0.0976) (0.5444, 0.2743, 0.1813)
x4 (0.6025, 0.2672, 0.1303) (0.6852, 0.2278, 0.0870) (0.4472, 0.4000, 0.1528) (0.5250, 0.2000, 0.2750) (0.6000, 0.2501, 0.1499) (0.4134, 0.3841, 0.2024) (0.8000, 0.1173, 0.0827)
x5 (0.5578, 0.2501, 0.1921) (0.6252, 0.2498, 0.1250) (0.4000, 0.2997, 0.3003) (0.6256, 0.2278, 0.1466) (0.7499, 0.1465, 0.1036) (0.4341, 0.4750, 0.0909) (0.6062, 0.2946, 0.0991)
15293
15294 Z.-x. Su et al. / Expert Systems with Applications 38 (2011) 15286–15295
Table 13
The aggregate and individual rankings of alternatives and their spearman correlation
(0.5793, 0.2946, 0.1261)
(0.6795, 0.2278, 0.0927)
x3 4 3 1 4
x4 3 2 2 3
x5 2 4 3 2
(0.5956, 0.2652, 0.1392)
point out that the procedures proposed in this paper can be further
extended by some geometric aggregation operators, such as the
dynamic intuitionitic weighted geometric (DIFWG) operator
(Wei, 2009), the dynamic weighted geometric (DWG) operator
(Xu, 2009a), the hybrid weighted geometric (HWG) operator (Xu,
2009a), etc.
u5
may be left for our future study. In the future, we also shall con-
tinue working in the extension and application of the developed
approach to other domains.
Acknowledgements
u4
References
(0.5789, 0.2399, 0.1812)
Atanassov, K. T. (1986). Intuitionistic fuzzy sets. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 20(1),
87–96.
Atanassov, K. T. (1999). Intuitionistic fuzzy sets: Theory and applications. Heidelberg:
Individual collective intuitionistic fuzzy decision matrix R(3).
Physica-Verlag.
Atanassov, K. T., Pasi, G., & Yager, R. R. (2005). Intuitionistic fuzzy interpretations of
multi-criteria multi-person and multi-measurement tool decision making.
International Journal of Systems Science, 36(14), 859–868.
Bodily, S. E. (1979). A delegation process for combining individual utility functions.
Management Science, 25(10), 1035–1041.
u2
Boran, F. E., Genc, S., Kurt, M., & Akay, D. (2009). A multi-criteria intuitionistic fuzzy
group decision making for supplier selection with TOPSIS method. Expert
Systems with Applications, 36(8), 11363–11368.
(0.5578, 0.3290, 0.1132)
Herrera, F., Herrera-Viedma, E., & Chiclana, F. (2001). Multiperson decision making
based on multiplicative preference relations. European Journal of Operational
Research, 129(2), 372–385.
Table 12
Kahraman, C., Engin, O., Kabak, O., & Kayaet, I. (2009). Information systems
x1
x2
x3
x4
x5
Kannana, G., Pokharel, S., & Kumar, P. S. (2009). A hybrid approach using ISM and Xu, Z. S. (2007a). Models for multiple attribute decision-making with intuitionistic
fuzzy TOPSIS for the selection of reverse logistics provider. Resources, fuzzy information. International Journal of Uncertainty, Fuzziness and Knowledge-
Conservation and Recycling, 54(1), 28–36. Based Systems, 15(3), 285–297.
Keeney, R. L. (1976). A group preference axiomatization with cardinal utility. Xu, Z. S. (2007b). Intuitionistic fuzzy aggregation operators. IEEE Transactions on
Management Science, 23(2), 140–145. Fuzzy Systems, 15(6), 1179–1187.
Keeney, R. L., & Kirkwood, C. W. (1975). Group decision making using cardinal social Xu, Z. S. (2007c). Multi-person multi-attribute decision making models under
welfare functions. Management Science, 22(4), 430–437. intuitionistic fuzzy environment. Fuzzy Optimization and Decision Making, 6(3),
Lehmann, E. L., & D’Abrera, H. J. M. (1998). Nonparametrics: Statistical methods based 221–236.
on ranks (revised ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Xu, Z. S. (2007d). Intuitionistic preference relations and their application in group
Li, D. F. (2005). Multiattribute decision making models and methods using decision making. Information Science, 177(11), 2363–2379.
intuitionistic fuzzy sets. Journal of Computer System Science, 70(1), 73–85. Xu, Z. S. (2007e). Some similarity measures of intuitionistic fuzzy sets and their
Li, D. F. (2008). Extension of the LINMAP for multiattribute decision making under applications to multiple attribute decision making. Fuzzy Optimization and
Atanassov’s intuitionistic fuzzy environment. Fuzzy Optimization and Decision Decision Making, 6(2), 109–121.
Making, 7(1), 17–34. Xu, Z. S. (2008). On multi-period multi-attribute decision making. Knowledge-Based
Li, D. F., Chen, G. H., & Huang, Z. G. (2010). Linear programming method for Systems, 21(2), 164–171.
multiattribute group decision making using IF sets. Information Sciences, 180(9), Xu, Z. S. (2009a). A method based on the dynamic weighted geometric aggregation
1591–1609. operator for dynamic hybrid multi-attribute group decision making.
Lin, L., Yuan, X. H., & Xia, Z. Q. (2007). Multicriteria fuzzy decision-making methods International Journal of Uncertainty, Fuzziness and Knowledge-Based Systems,
based on intuitionistic fuzzy sets. Journal of Computer System Science, 73(1), 17(1), 15–33.
84–88. Xu, Z. S. (2009b). Multi-period multi-attribute group decision-making under
Li, D. F., & Wang, Y. C. (2008). Mathematical programming approach to linguistic assessments. International Journal of General Systems, 38(8), 823–850.
multiattribute decision making under intuitionistic fuzzy enviroments. Xu, Z. S. (2010a). Choquet integrals of weighted intuitionistic fuzzy information.
International Journal of Uncertainty, Fuzziness and Knowledge-Based Systems, Information Sciences, 180(5), 726–736.
16(4), 557–577. Xu, Z. S. (2010b). A deviation-based approach to intuitionistic fuzzy multiple
Li, D. F., Wang, Y. C., Liu, S., & Shan, F. (2009). Fractional programming methodology attribute group decision making. Group Decision and Negotiation, 19(1), 57–76.
for multi-attribute group decision-making using IFS. Applied Soft Computing, Xu, Z. S., & Chen, J. (2007). An interactive method for fuzzy multiple attribute group
9(1), 219–225. decision making. Information Sciences, 177(1), 248–263.
Mitchell, H. B. (2004). An intuitionistic OWA operator. International Journal of Xu, Z. S., & Da, Q. L. (2003). An overview of operators for aggregating information.
Uncertainty, Fuzziness and Knowledge-Based Systems, 12(6), 843–860. International Journal of Intelligent Systems, 18(9), 953–969.
Ramanahan, R., & Ganesh, L. S. (1994). Group preference aggregation methods Xu, Z. S., & Hu, H. (2009). Entropy-based procedures for intuitionistic fuzzy multiple
employed in AHP: An evaluation and an intrinsic process for deriving members’ attribute decision making. Journal of Systems Engineering and Electronics, 20(5),
weightages. European Journal of Operational Research, 79(2), 249–265. 1001–1011.
Saaty, T. L. (1980). The analytic hierarchy process. New York: McGraw-Hill. Xu, Z. S., & Yager, R. R. (2006). Some geometric aggregation operators based on
Sadiq, R., & Tesfamariam, S. (2007). Probability density functions based weights for intuitionistic fuzzy sets. International Journal of General System, 35(4), 417–433.
ordered weighted averaging (OWA) operators: An example of water quality Xu, Z. S., & Yager, R. R. (2008). Dynamic intuitionistic fuzzy multiple attribute
indices. European Journal of Operational Research, 182(3), 1350–1368. decision making. International Journal of Approximate Reasoning, 48(1), 246–262.
Tan, C. Q., & Chen, X. H. (2010). Intuitionistic fuzzy Choquet integral operator for Yager, R. R. (1996). Quantifier guided aggregation using OWA operators.
multi-criteria decision making. Expert Systems with Applications, 37(1), 149–157. International Journal of Intelligent Systems, 11(1), 49–73.
Wang, S. Q., Li, D. F., & Wu, Z. Q. (2009). Generalized ordered weighted averaging Yager, R. R. (2004). OWA aggregation over a continuous interval argument with
operators based methods for MADM in intuitionistic fuzzy set setting. Journal of applications to decision making. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and
Systems Engineering and Electronics, 20(6), 1247–1254. Cybernetics. Part B-Cybernetics, 34(5), 1952–1963.
Wei, G. W. (2008). Maximizing deviation method for multiple attribute decision Yager, R. R. (2007). Time series smoothing and OWA aggregation. Technical report
making in intuitionistic fuzzy setting. Knowledge-Based Systems, 21(8), #MII-2701. New Rochelle, NY: Machine Intelligence Institute, Iona College.
833–836. Ye, J. (2010). Fuzzy decision-making method based on the weighted correlation
Wei, G. W. (2009). Some geometric aggregation functions and their application to coefficient under intuitionistic fuzzy environment. European Journal of
dynamic multiple attribute decision making in the intuitionistic fuzzy setting. Operational Research, 205(1), 202–204.
International Journal of Uncertainty, Fuzziness and Knowledge-Based Systems, Yue, Z. L., Jia, Y. Y., & Ye, G. D. (2009). An approach for multiple attribute group
17(2), 179–196. decision making based on intuitionistic fuzzy information. International Journal
Wei, G. W. (2010). Some induced geometric aggregation operators with of Uncertainty, Fuzziness and Knowledge-Based Systems, 17(3), 317–332.
intuitionistic fuzzy information and their application to group decision Zadeh, L. A. (1965). Fuzzy sets. Information and Control, 8(3), 338–353.
making. Applied Soft Computing, 10(2), 423–431. Zeeny, M. (1982). Multiple criteria decision making. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Xu, Z. S. (2005). An overview of methods for determining OWA weights. Zhao, H., Xu, Z. S., Ni, M. F., & Liu, S. S. (2010). Generalized aggregation operators for
International Journal of Intelligent Systems, 20(8), 843–865. intuitionistic fuzzy sets. International Journal of Intelligent Systems, 25(1), 1–30.