Combining FUCA, CURLI, and Weighting Methods in the Decision-Making of Selecting Technical Products

被引:4
|
作者
Nguyen, Anh-Tu [1 ]
机构
[1] Hanoi Univ Ind, Fac Mech Engn, Hanoi, Vietnam
关键词
-MCDM; weighting method; FUCA method; CURLI method;
D O I
10.48084/etasr.6015
中图分类号
T [工业技术];
学科分类号
08 ;
摘要
Determining the optimal one from the available alternatives is useful in numerous aspects of life. The process of selecting technical products from an available catalog also follows this pattern. This study was carried out to select the best from two types of technical products, the ones that serve in daily life at home, and products that are used in the agriculture field. Air conditioners and washing machines are considered indispensable items in every household. These two types of products directly affect human lives and also indirectly influence labor productivity. Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) are used in numerous tasks in the agriculture field, such as inspecting irrigation systems, checking for factors that can harm agricultural products, etc. However, making the decision to buy one of those three types of products may become complicated. This research was conducted to select the best alternative for each of those products. The different types of air conditioners, washing machines, and drones considered in this study were 9, 8, and 7, respectively. Two methods, i.e. RS (Rank Sum) and PIPRECIA (PIvot Pairwise RElative Criteria Importance Assessment) were used to determine the weights for the criteria of each product category. The FUCA (Faire Un Choix Adequat) method was used in combination with the two weighting methods mentioned above to rank the alternatives of each product category. The CURLI (Collaborative Unbiased Rank List Integration) method was used to complete this task. So, for each product category, there will be three different ranking results. An interesting thing has been achieved is that for each product category, these different ranking results gave the same best solution.
引用
收藏
页码:11222 / 11229
页数:8
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] The Impact of Weighting Methods and Behavioral Attitudes on the Weighting Process in Decision-Making
    Tzioutziou, Anastasia
    Xenidis, Yiannis
    ASCE-ASME JOURNAL OF RISK AND UNCERTAINTY IN ENGINEERING SYSTEMS PART B-MECHANICAL ENGINEERING, 2020, 6 (01):
  • [2] Selecting Mini Water Pump by Using Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Technique: Comparison of FUCA and PSI Methods
    Do Duc Trung
    Nguyen Chi Bao
    Duong Van Duc
    Asonja, Aleksandar
    Dudic, Branislav
    2024 23RD INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM INFOTEH-JAHORINA, INFOTEH, 2024,
  • [3] METHOD FOR COMBINING SOCIETAL AND TECHNICAL JUDGMENTS IN ENVIRONMENTAL DECISION-MAKING
    BURNHAM, JB
    NEALEY, SM
    MAYNARD, WS
    TRANSACTIONS OF THE AMERICAN NUCLEAR SOCIETY, 1974, 19 : 48 - 49
  • [4] Decision-making methods for selecting the best strategy for Industry 4.0
    Chonsawat N.
    Sopadang A.
    Ouzrout Y.
    International Journal of Manufacturing Technology and Management, 2023, 37 (5-6) : 538 - 562
  • [5] Weighting waiting in collective decision-making
    Robert Planqué
    Anna Dornhaus
    Nigel R. Franks
    Tim Kovacs
    James A. R. Marshall
    Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 2007, 61 : 347 - 356
  • [6] Weighting waiting in collective decision-making
    Planque, Robert
    Dornhaus, Anna
    Franks, Nigel R.
    Kovacs, Tim
    Marshall, James A. R.
    BEHAVIORAL ECOLOGY AND SOCIOBIOLOGY, 2007, 61 (03) : 347 - 356
  • [7] A Comprehensive Review of the Novel Weighting Methods for Multi-Criteria Decision-Making
    Ayan, Buesra
    Abacioglu, Seda
    Basilio, Marcio Pereira
    INFORMATION, 2023, 14 (05)
  • [8] Emergency decision-making combining cumulative prospect theory and group decision-making
    Liu, Wenjing
    Li, Lei
    GRANULAR COMPUTING, 2019, 4 (01) : 39 - 52
  • [9] Emergency decision-making combining cumulative prospect theory and group decision-making
    Wenjing Liu
    Lei Li
    Granular Computing, 2019, 4 : 39 - 52
  • [10] Explicit methods for attribute weighting in multi-attribute decision-making: a review study
    Julio Pena
    Gonzalo Nápoles
    Yamisleydi Salgueiro
    Artificial Intelligence Review, 2020, 53 : 3127 - 3152