Zapata, Arango & Adarme (2012) AHP-FUZZY
Zapata, Arango & Adarme (2012) AHP-FUZZY
RESUMEN
Este artículo presenta la aplicación del proceso de análisis jerárquico – Método AHP extendido con lógica difusa en la selección
de una herramienta de software para logítica tipo WMS (Warehouse Management System) en un astillero Colombiano. El méto-
do AHP ha sido utilizado ampliamente para resolver problemas de análisis de decisión en donde es necesario involucrar un alto
número de factores y variables tanto cualitativas como cuantitativas, sin embargo, la mayor critica a este método es que el mis-
mo no permite la inclusión de juicios de valor en una escala continua, sino discreta, lo cual se puede corregir al integrar la
lógica difusa. Este problema encuentra solución con la extensión del método AHP con lógica difusa, desarrollado por Chang en
1996. Adaptado para un contexto especifico como el de un Astillero en Colombia.
Palabras clave: Software, toma de decisiones, método AHP, Lógica difusa.
ABSTRACT
This paper shows fuzzy extended analytical hierarchy (FEAHP) applied to a warehouse management system (WMS) in a Colom-
bian shipyard regarding selecting pertinent logistics software. The FEAHP method has been widely used for resolving decision-
making problems where many quantitative and qualitative factors and variables are required. However the most important criti-
cism of this method concerns the impossibility of including value judgments not on a continuous scale but rather on a discrete
one which can be solved by fuzzy logic. This problem was resolved by using the fuzzy logic extension of the AHP method pro-
posed by Chang in 1996 which was adapted for a specific context regarding a Colombian shipyard.
Keywords: Software, decision-making, AHP method, fuzzy logic.
Selecting information technology and communication software This research focused on the applying fuzzy extended analytic
becomes an analysis of multi-criteria decisions where decision- hierarchy process (FEAHP) for selecting a warehouse management
making group priorities and judgments must be identified, de- system (WMS) information system in a shipyard for which no past
pending on their experience, knowledge and preferences and thus work in Colombia was found, making this study innovative in such
improving decision-making (Maggie et al., 2001). People become industry.
linked to biological and psychological aspects in decision-making,
such as perception and prejudice; these, in turn, become affected
and influenced by team members.
Analytical hierarchy process (AHP) method
Using analytical tools leads to reducing such effects; based on
mathematical programming, these tools seek to reduce the diver- Analytic hierarchy process (AHP) was designed to support deci-
gence of alternatives created by the human mind. However, avoid- sion-making when both qualitative and quantitative variables must
ing human perception can also be negative since factors such as be considered (Hurtado and Bruno, 2005 and Saaty, 2005). The
experience and knowledge are the key to decision-making success method was first introduced by Saaty in 1976 and it has gradually
or failure (Lin and Hsu, 2007). The challenge of analytical tools in evolved until the present day, finding diverse applications in fields
decision-making is to combine the benefits of reducing the human such as energy investment, marketing, project evaluation and
condition of making mistakes when making assumptions about technology selection (Saaty, 2005). This method is theoretical
concerning relative measurement on absolute scales of tangible
and intangible criteria judgments based on experts’ knowledge and
1
MSc in Management Engineering. Full time professor, Institución Universitaria experience and on the measurements and statistics needed for
ESUMER. E-mail: [email protected] decision-making (Hurtado and Bruno, 2005).
2
PhD in Industrial Engineering. Full time professor Universidad Nacional de
Colombia – Medellín. E-mail: [email protected]
3
PhD in Engineering. Full time professor. Universidad Nacional de Colombia –
Bogotá. E-mail: [email protected]
94
ZAPATA, ARANGO, ADARME
The FAHP method is thus used in evaluating software and can be (7)
applied to analysis and decision-making. Huang and Wu have also
stated (2005) that, “with the help of the theory of fuzzy sets, some
defects found in the traditional AHP method are solved, such as
the application of limited scales for the explanation of the experts where d is the ordinate of the highest intersection point D located
considerations, the correlation between attributes for decision- between and (Figure 1). and
making, inaccuracy, ambiguity and uncertainty of experts to find must be known to compare M1 and M2.
the values of the comparisons.”
(1) Step 3. The degree of possibility that a convex fuzzy number will
be higher than k convex numbers is defined as:
where all are triangular fuzzy numbers.
Büyüközkan et al., (2004) has summarized the key steps in the
extended model proposed by Chang (1996) as:
(8)
Step 1. The value of i-th object of the extended analysis is defined
as:
(10)
where are n elements. sidered when selecting information systems, grouped into two
major categories: administrative and product aspects.
Step 4. The normalised weight vector is:
Administrative aspects. These include all the matters related to the
(11) characteristics relevant to managers regarding finance, operations
where W is not a fuzzy number but the set of weights for each and their relationships with their service providers. Lien and Chang
matrix. The next section describes how to get all the elements to (2007) and Liang and Lien (2007) have stated that the relevant
implement the EFAHP for selecting software. criteria for selecting software would include vendor, set-up time
and cost. Each aspect was thus associated with several attributes
which were decisive for the proper selection of a software tool.
As mentioned above,
Planning and preparation
human nature creates
Set-up time
BPR and System Adjustment uncertainty and insecurity
Time for tests and System Launch when assigning values for
co mparison, this being the
WMS Selection Correctness Alternative 2 main problem associated
Maintainability
with the AHP method.
Design However, this can be
Verifiability
solved by incorporating
Efficiency
fuzzy logic (Arango et al.,
2010 a; Arango et al.,
Integrity 2010 b; Büyüközkan et
Reliability al., 2004, Huang and Wu,
Product Aspects
2005; Chang, 1996). A
Performance
Usability Alternative 3
language allowing fuzzy
Testability logic to be used when
obtaining information for
Expandability
the people involved in
Adaptability
Flexibility decision-making analysis
Portability
must be used and thus
develop their judgments.
Reusability
This language was pre-
sented by Büyüközkan et
Figure 2. Selected hierarchical structure regarding WMS selection al., (2004), consisting of a
9-level scale which can
clarify experts’ thoughts. This scale is represented by the set W= the preference matrices for each aspect, criterion and factor.
{ALI, VSLI, SLI, WLI, EI, WMI, SMI, VSMI, AMI}, where: Hierarchical weighting was obtained for the selected structure with
these matrices and applying Chang’s EFAHP method ( 995) (Table
ALI: absolutely less important. VSLI: very strongly less important. 3).
SLI: strongly less important. WLI: weakly less important. EI:
equally important. WMI: weakly more important. SMI: strongly Table 3. Priorities regarding aspects, factors and criteria
more important. VSMI: very strongly more important. AMI: abso- Administrative aspect
lutely more important.
Factor Weighting Criterion Weight
These opinions must be converted into the fuzzy numbers that Reputation and participation 0.06
represent them, allowing vagueness in the answers regarding the Experience with industries 0.35
AHP model to be considered. Table 1 shows the conversion to Vendor 0
Service and support 0.39
fuzzy numbers used in the EFAHP (Büyüközkan et al., 2004,
Chang and Cheng, 1994, Perez-Leon, 2007). Training solutions 0.2
Table 1. Triangular scale for fuzzy number conversion (Büyüközkan Software cost 0.24
et al., 2004) Hardware cost 0.2
Fuzzy triangular Reciprocal fuzzy Costs 0.73
Linguistic scale Maintenance Annual costs 0.32
scale triangular scale
Just equal (1, 1, 1) (1, 1, 1)
Training cost 0.24
Equal important (1/2, 1, 3/2) (2/3, 1, 2)
Weakly more important (1, 3/2, 2) (1/2, 2/3, 1) Planning and preparation 0
Strongly more important (3/2, 2, 5/2) (2/5, 1/2, 2/3)
Very strongly more important (2, 5/2, 3) (1/3, 2/5, 1/2) Set-up time 0.27 BPR and System Adjustment 0.27
Absolutely more important (5/2, 3, 7/2) (2/7, 1/3, 2/5)
Time for test and system launch 0.73
Table 4. The alternatives’ weighting and the pertinent calculations for fixing them best alternative for the company’s
Summary of criteria matrix for administrative matters requirements; the WMS logistics
Vendor Costs Set-up time software should thus have been
Alternatives’ weighting regarding adminis-
Factor weighting 0.00 0.73 0.27 selected.
trative matters
The alternative’s weighting regarding all factors
WMS 1 0.51 0.19 0.32 WMS 1 0.22 Conclusions
WMS 2 0.25 0.28 0.31 WMS 2 0.29
WMS 3 0.23 0.53 0.37 WMS 3 2/59 A tool has been presented that in-
Criteria matrices for administrative matters volved people’s subjectivity and
Vendor uncertainty in decision-making;
The alternative’s many comparisons are made and
0.06 0.35 0.39 0.20
weighting there are many alternatives and
The alternative’s weighting
Reputation and Experience with Service and Training criteria to be considered in such
participation industries support solutions situations.
WMS 1 0.73 0.46 0.61 0.33 0.52
WMS 2 0.27 0.32 0.16 0.33 0.25 The EFAHP method allowed han-
WMS 3 0.00 0.22 0.23 0.33 0.23 dling the uncertainty associated with
Costs the judgement of experts involved in
The alternative’s decision analysis and was able to
0.24 0.20 0.32 0.24
weighting
Annual mainte- Training
The alternative’s weighting include a large number of criteria,
Software cost Hardware cost factors, attributes and evaluators
nance costs cost
WMS 1 0.10 0.16 0.16 0.33 0.19 because it was based on the AHP
WMS 2 0.34 0.23 0.23 0.33 0.28 method. This is a tool for multi-
WMS 3 0.56 0.61 0.61 0.33 0.53 objective and multi-criteria analysis;
Set-up time these two features mean that the
The alternative’s
weighting
0.00 0.27 0.73 EFAHP method can be used in se-
The alternative’s weighting lecting information tools associated
Planning and BPR and system Time for test and
preparation adjustment system launch with logistics, involving a large num-
WMS 1 0.33 0.45 0.27 0.32 ber of considerations and a group of
WMS 2 0.33 0.34 0.30 0.31 experts, as shown in the present
WMS 3 0.33 0.21 0.43 0.37 work.
Summary of criteria matrix for product aspects
Design Performance Adaptability The EFAHP method's ability to ana-
The alternative’s weighting regarding
Factor weighting 0.00 0.53 0.47 lyse complex decision problems
product aspects
The alternative’s weighting regarding all factors involves a high degree of mathemati-
WMS 1 0.39 0.44 0.32 WMS 1 0.38 cal processing to compute the pref-
WMS 2 0.29 0.39 0.30 WMS 2 0.35 erences and deal with fuzzy mathe-
WMS 3 0.32 0.17 0.38 WMS 3 0.27
matical numbers. Evaluators are
Criteria matrices for product matters encouraged to acquire or develop
Design
software tools enabling them to do
The alternative’s
weighting
0.46 0.45 0.09
The alternative’s weighting such operations automatically, but
Correctness Maintainability Verifiability without forgetting the importance of
WMS 1 0.50 0.33 0.16 0.39 knowing the basics of the EFAHP
WMS 2 0,25 0,33 0,23 0,29 method which ensures the correct
WMS 3 0,25 0,33 0,61 0,32 use of such software tools.
Performance
The alternative’s
weighting
0,22 0,11 0,27 0,29 0,11 The
alternative’s
References
Efficiency Integrity Reliability Usability Testability weighting
Arango, M.D; Serna, C.A. and Pérez,
WMS 1 0,56 0,46 0,46 0,38 0,27 0,44 G. Fuzzy mathematical programming
WMS 2 0.34 0.45 0.45 0.38 0.30 0.39 applied to the material requirements
WMS 3 0.10 0.09 0.09 0.24 0.43 0.17 planning (MRP). Rev. Téc. Fac. Ing.
Adaptability Univ. Zulia. Vol:33, 2010a, fasc: 1.
The alternative’s
0.34 0.34 0.23 0.10 pp. 1 – 10
weighting The alternative’s weighting
Expandability Flexibility Portability Reusability Arango, M.D; Gaviria, H. and Ver-
WMS 1 0.33 0.34 0.33 0.21 0.33 gara, C. Fuzzy modelling for aggre-
WMS 2 0.33 0.21 0.33 0.43 0.30 gated production planning in uncer-
WMS 3 0.33 0.45 0.33 0.36 0.38 tain environments. Revista DYNA,
Año 77, Nro 162. 2010b, pp 397-
Table 5. Final evaluation matrix
411.
Final evaluation matrix
Buckley, J.J. Fuzzy hierarchical analy-
Aspect Administrative Product
Aspect weighting 0.5 0.5 Final alternative´s weighting
sis. Fuzzy sets and systems, 17,
The alternative’s weighting 1985. 223-247.
WMS 1 0.22 0.38 0.30 Büyüközkan, G.; Kabraman, C. and
WMS 2 0.29 0.35 0.32 Ruan, D. A fuzzy multi-criteria deci-
WMS 3 0.49 0.27 0.38
sion approach for software development strategy selection. Intern. ware by combining the ISO 9126 standard and fuzzy AHP ap-
Journal of General Systems, 33: 2, 2004. pp 259-280. proach. Contemporary Management Research, Vol.3, No.1.
Chang, Da-Yong. Extend analysis and synthetic Decision, optimiza- 2007, pp 23-44.
tion techniques and Applications, World Scientific, Volume 1, Lin, Hua-Yan and Hsu, Ping-Yu. Application of the Analytic Hierar-
Singapore. 1992. P. 352. chy Process on Data Warehouse System Selection Decisions for
Chang, Da-Yong. Applications of the extent analysis method on Small and Large Enterprise in Taiwan. International Journal of
fuzzy AHP. Eur. Journal of Oper. Research. 96, 1996. pp. 649- Computer, the Internet and Management. Vol 15. No. 3 (Sep.
655. Dec., 2007) pp 73-93
Chang, P.-L. and Chen Y.-C. A fuzzy multi-criteria decision making Lien, C-T and Chan, H-L. (2007). A Selection Model for ERP Sys-
method for technology transfer strategy selection in biotechnol- tem by Applying Fuzzy AHP Approach. International Journal of
ogy, Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 63, 1994. 131-139. The Computer, the Internet and Management Vol. 15.No.3 (Sep
- Dec 2007) pp 58-72
Huang, L-C and Wu, R. Y-H. Applying fuzzy analytic hierarchy
process in the managerial talent assessment model – an empirical Maggie C.Y. Tama, V.M. and Tummalab, R. An application of the
study in Taiwan’s semiconductor industry. Intern. Journal of AHP in vendor selection of a telecommunications system. Ome-
Technology Management, Vol 30, No. ½. 2005. pp 105-130. ga, 29. 2001. pp.171-182
Hurtado, T. and Bruno, G. El Proceso de análisis jerárquico (AHP) Pérez, I. and León, B. Lógica difusa para principiantes. Publ.
como herramienta para la toma de decisiones en la selección de UCAB. Caracas. 2007.
proveedores: aplicación en la selección del proveedor para la Saaty, T. L. The analytic hierarchy and analytic network processes
Empresa Gráfica Comercial MyE S.R.L. Thesis. Universidad Na- for the measurement of intangible criteria and for decision-
cional Mayor de San Marcos. Facultad de Ciencias Matemáticas. making. Multicriteria decision analysis. State of the art surveys.
EAP. Investigación Operativa. Lima, Perú. 2005 Springer International Series. Springer Science + Business Media.
International Standard Organization. Iso 9126. available in Inc. 2005.
http://www.iso.org/iso/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=22891 TEC- Technology evaluation Centers. The TEC Approach. Available
Last visit: Jun. 2010. in: http://www.technologyevaluation.com/tec-approach/ Last
Liang, Shing-Ko and Lien, Chi-Tai. Selecting the optimal ERP soft visit: Ago. 2010.-481.