Group Decision Making for Hazard Analysis and Consequence Modelling Software Selection with AHP

被引:1
|
作者
Cetinyokus, Saliha [1 ]
Caliskan, Emre [2 ]
Aksakal, Erdem [3 ]
Cetinyokus, Tahsin [2 ]
机构
[1] Gazi Univ, Tech Sci Vocat Sch, Mat & Mat Proc Technol, Ankara, Turkey
[2] Gazi Univ, Fac Engn, Dept Ind Engn, Ankara, Turkey
[3] Ataturk Univ, Fac Engn, Dept Ind Engn, Erzurum, Turkey
关键词
Analytic hierarchy process; Group decision making; Hazard analysis and consequence modelling software; Likert scale; Software selection; SIMULATION SOFTWARE; HIERARCHY PROCESS; SUPPORT-SYSTEM; CRITERIA; ERP; MANAGEMENT; QUALITY; DESIGN; METHODOLOGY; DEPLOYMENT;
D O I
10.30492/IJCCE.2020.34118
中图分类号
O6 [化学];
学科分类号
0703 ;
摘要
Software evaluation and selection have begun to be addressed as a topic title along with the fact that microcomputers and then personal computers have become widespread and have been used in the operations of businesses. In this study, it was focused on the selection of software for identifying the physical effect distances of the explosion, fire and toxic emission, which is an important need for industrial institutions containing, using or storing hazardous chemicals. The evaluation and selection of software for the Hazard Analysis and Consequence Modeling (HACM) of potential accidents was studied at first. In means of methodology, questionnaires consisting of original questions were applied to the experts. The results obtained from questionnaires according to the Likert scale, were converted into Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) suggestion matrices. In this way the inconsistency problem in the pairwise comparison matrices were eliminated. As a result, evaluation and selection were made among the HACM softwares.
引用
收藏
页码:303 / 318
页数:16
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [41] The Role of Cost—Consequence Analysis in Healthcare Decision—Making
    Josephine A. Mauskopf
    John E. Paul
    David M. Grant
    Andy Stergachis
    PharmacoEconomics, 1998, 13 : 277 - 288
  • [42] Evaluation and Selection of 3PL Provider Using Fuzzy AHP and Grey TOPSIS in Group Decision Making
    Garside, Annisa Kesy
    Saputro, Thorny Eko
    3RD INTERNATIONAL MATERIALS, INDUSTRIAL AND MANUFACTURING ENGINEERING CONFERENCE (MIMEC2017), 2017, 1902
  • [43] A Group Decision-Making Approach Based on DST and AHP for New Product Selection under Epistemic Uncertainty
    Wu, Chong
    Zhang, Zijiao
    Zhong, Wei
    MATHEMATICAL PROBLEMS IN ENGINEERING, 2019, 2019
  • [44] Uncertainty expressions in software architecture group decision making
    Shumaiev, Klym
    Bhat, Manoj
    Klymenko, Oleksandra
    Biesdorf, Andreas
    Hohenstein, Uwe
    Matthes, Florian
    ECSA 2018: PROCEEDINGS OF THE 12TH EUROPEAN CONFERENCE ON SOFTWARE ARCHITECTURE: COMPANION PROCEEDINGS, 2018,
  • [45] A GP-AHP method for solving group decision-making fuzzy AHP problems
    Yu, CS
    COMPUTERS & OPERATIONS RESEARCH, 2002, 29 (14) : 1969 - 2001
  • [46] Group decision making for weapon systems selection with VIKOR based on consistency analysis
    Zhang, Xiaoxiong
    Jiang, Jiang
    Ge, Bingfeng
    Yang, Kewei
    2016 ANNUAL IEEE SYSTEMS CONFERENCE (SYSCON), 2016, : 81 - 86
  • [47] Significance of expert competence consideration in group decision making using AHP
    Tsyganok, V. V.
    Kadenko, S. V.
    Andriichuk, O. V.
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PRODUCTION RESEARCH, 2012, 50 (17) : 4785 - 4792
  • [48] Credit degree methods of group decision-making in AHP (II)
    Qin, Xuezhi
    Wang, Xuehua
    Yang, Deli
    Xitong Gongcheng Lilun yu Shijian/System Engineering Theory and Practice, 2000, 20 (05): : 76 - 79
  • [49] Consensus Building in AHP-Group Decision Making: A Bayesian Approach
    Altuzarra, Alfredo
    Maria Moreno-Jimenez, Jose
    Salvador, Manuel
    OPERATIONS RESEARCH, 2010, 58 (06) : 1755 - 1773
  • [50] Reducing incompatibility in a local AHP-group decision making context
    Juan Aguarón
    María Teresa Escobar
    José María Moreno-Jiménez
    Annals of Operations Research, 2023, 326 : 1 - 26