Abstract
Group decision making takes place in almost all domains. In building construction domain, a team of contractors with disparate specializations collaborate. Little research has been done to propose group decision making technique for this domain. As such, specific teams’ competitiveness enhancements are minimal as it takes more time for individual evaluators to choose the right partners. Qualitative and quantitative methods were used. Themes and categorizations were based on deductive approach. Subsequently, Group Fuzzy Analytical Hierarchy Process (GFAHP), Multi-Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) algorithm, was designed and applied. It uses all evaluation criteria unlike Fuzzy AHP (FAHP) which excludes some criteria that are assigned zero weights. GFAHP reduces the number of pairwise comparisons required when a large number of attributes are to be compared. Validation of the technique carried out by five case studies, show that GFAHP is approximately 98.7% accurate in the selection of partners.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Wu, D., Olson, D.L.: Supply chain risk, simulation, and vendor selection. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 114, 646–655 (2008)
Bai, C., Sarkis, J.: Integrating sustainability into supplier selection with grey system and rough set methodologies. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 124, 252–264 (2010)
Talukhaba, A.A.: An investigation into factors causing construction project delays in Kenya. Case study of high rise building projects in Nairobi. Doctoral dissertation, University of Nairobi (1999)
Chen, Y., Lien, H., Tzeng, G., Yang, L.: Fuzzy MCDM approach for selecting the best environment-watershed plan. Appl. Soft Comput. 11, 265–275 (2009)
Chiou, H.K., Tzeng, G.H., Cheng, D.C.: Evaluating sustainable fishing development strategies using fuzzy MCDM approach. Omega 33(3), 223–234 (2005)
Nyongesa, H.O., Musumba, G.W., Chileshe, N.: Partner selection and performance evaluation framework for a construction- related virtual enterprise: a multi-agent systems approach. Archit. Eng. Des. Manag. 13, 1–21 (2017)
Musumba, G., Kanyi, P., Nyongesa, H., Wario, R.: Techniques for evaluation and selection of partners for construction projects. In: Pan African Conference on Science, Computing and Telecommunication (PACT) (2017)
Karsak, E.E., Dursun, M.: An integrated fuzzy MCDM approach for supplier evaluation and selection. Comput. Ind. Eng. 82, 82–93 (2015)
Chen, C.T., Lin, C.T., Huang, S.F.: A fuzzy approach for supplier evaluation and selection in supply chain management. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 102, 289–301 (2006)
Dickson, G.: An analysis of vendor selection systems and decisions. J. Purch. 2, 5–17 (1966)
Lehmann, D.R., O’Shaughnessy, J.: Difference in attribute importance for different industrial products. J. Mark. 38(2), 36–42 (1974)
Weber, C.A., Current, J.R., Benton, W.C.: Vendor selection criteria and methods. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 50, 2–18 (1991)
Bevilacqua, M., Petroni, A.: From traditional purchasing to supplier management: a fuzzy logic-based approach to supplier selection. Int. J. Logist. Res. Appl. 5(3), 235–255 (2002)
Bottani, E., Rizzi, A.: A fuzzy multi-attribute framework for supplier selection in an e-procurement environment. Int. J. Logist. Res. Appl. 8(3), 249–266 (2005)
Chan, F.T.S., Kumar, N.: Global supplier development considering risk factors using fuzzy extended AHP-based approach. Omega 35, 417–431 (2007)
Chan, F.T.S., Kumar, N., Tiwari, M.K., Lau, H.C.W., Choy, K.L.: Global supplier selection: a fuzzy-AHP approach. Int. J. Prod. Res. 46(14), 3825–3857 (2008)
Wang, S.Y.: Applying 2-tuple multi-granularity linguistic variables to determine the supply performance in dynamic environment based on product-oriented strategy2-tuple. IEEE Trans. Fuzzy Syst. 16(1), 29–39 (2008)
Chen, L.Y., Wang, T.C.: Optimizing partners’ choice in IS/IT outsourcing projects: the strategic decision of fuzzy VIKOR. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 120, 233–242 (2009)
Kavita, Yadav, S.P., Kumar, S.: A multi-criteria interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy group decision making for supplier selection with TOPSIS method. In: Sakai, H., Chakraborty, M.K., Hassanien, A.E., Ślęzak, D., Zhu, W. (eds.) Rough Sets, Fuzzy Sets, Data Mining and Granular Computing. LNCS, vol. 5908, pp. 303–312. Springer, Heidelberg (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-10646-0_37
Wang, W.P.: A fuzzy linguistic computing approach to supplier evaluation. Appl. Math. Model. 34, 3130–3141 (2010)
Vinodh, S., Ramiya, R.A., Gautham, S.G.: Application of fuzzy analytic network process for supplier selection in a manufacturing organization. Expert Syst. Appl. 38, 272–280 (2011)
Baskaran, V., Nachiappan, S., Rahman, S.: Indian textile suppliers’ sustainability evaluation using the grey approach. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 135, 647–658 (2012)
Chu, T.C., Varma, R.: Evaluating suppliers via a multiple levels multiple criteria decision making method under fuzzy environment. Comput. Ind. Eng. 62, 653–660 (2012)
Govindan, K., Khodaverdi, R., Jafarian, A.: A fuzzy multi criteria approach for measuring sustainability performance of a supplier based on triple bottom line approach. J. Clean. Prod. 47, 345–354 (2013)
Roshandel, J., Miri-Nargesi, S.S., Hatami-Shirkouhi, L.: Evaluating and selecting the supplier in detergent production industry using hierarchical fuzzy TOPSIS. Appl. Math. Model. 37, 10170–10181 (2013)
Junior, F.R.L., Osiro, L., Carpinetti, L.C.R.: A comparison between Fuzzy AHP and Fuzzy TOPSIS methods to supplier selection. Appl. Soft Comput. 21, 194–209 (2014)
Haq, A.N., Kannan, G.: Design of an integrated supplier selection and multi-echelon distribution inventory model in a built- to-order supply chain environment. Int. J. Prod. Res. 44(10), 1963–1985 (2006)
Sevkli, M., Koh, S.C.L., Zaim, S., Demirbag, M., Tatoglu, E.: Hybrid analytical hierarchy process model for supplier selection. Ind. Manag. Data Syst. 108(1), 122–142 (2008)
Yang, J.L., Chiu, H.N., Tzeng, G.H., Yeh, R.H.: Vendor selection by integrated fuzzy MCDM techniques with independent and interdependent relationships. Inf. Sci. 178, 4166–4183 (2008)
Tseng, M.L., Chiang, J.H., Lan, L.W.: Selection of optimal supplier in supply chain management strategy with analytic network process and choquet integral. Comput. Ind. Eng. 57, 330–340 (2009)
Razmi, J., Rafiei, H., Hashemi, M.: Designing a decision support system to evaluate and select suppliers using fuzzy analytic network process. Comput. Ind. Eng. 57, 1282–1290 (2009)
Ordoobadi, S.M.: Application of AHP and Taguchi loss functions in supply chain. Ind. Manag. Data Syst. 110(8), 1251–1269 (2010)
Ravindran, A.R., Bilsel, R.U., Wadhwa, V., Yang, T.: Risk adjusted multi-criteria supplier selection models with applications. Int. J. Prod. Res. 48(2), 405–424 (2010)
Guo, L.L., Fang, Z.M.: Modeling study of lot-sizing in virtual enterprise based on multi-objective. In: 2011 IEEE 18th International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management (IE&EM), pp. 933–937 (2011)
Chen, Z., Yang, W.: An MAGDM based on constrained FAHP and FTOPSIS and its application to supplier selection. Math. Comput. Model. 54, 2802–2815 (2011)
Liao, C.N., Kao, H.P.: An integrated fuzzy TOPSIS and MCGP approach to supplier selection in supply chain management. Expert Syst. Appl. 38, 10803–10811 (2011)
Pitchipoo, P., Venkumar, P., Rajakarunakaran, S.: Fuzzy hybrid decision model for supplier evaluation and selection. Int. J. Prod. Res. 51(13), 3903–3919 (2013)
RodrĂguez, A., Ortega, F., ConcepciĂłn, R.: A method for the selection of customized equipment suppliers. Expert Syst. Appl. 40, 1170–1176 (2013)
Shidpour, H., Shahrokhi, M., Bernard, A.: A multi-objective programming approach, integrated into the TOPSIS method, in order to optimize product design; in three-dimensional concurrent engineering. Comput. Ind. Eng. 64, 875–885 (2013)
Singh, A.: Supplier evaluation and demand allocation among suppliers in a supply chain. J. Purch. Supply Manag. 20, 167–176 (2014)
Hashemian, S.M., Behzadian, M., Samizadeh, R., Ignatius, J.: A fuzzy hybrid group decision support system approach for the supplier evaluation process. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 73(5–8), 1105–1117 (2014)
Covella, G.J., Olsina, L.A.: Assessing quality in use in a consistent way. In: Proceedings of the 6th international Conference on Web Engineering, pp. 1–8, Palo Alto, California, USA. ACM Press, New York (2006)
Saaty, T.L.: The Analytic Hierarchy Process: Planning, Priority Setting, Resource Allocation. McGraw-Hill International, New York (1980)
Saaty, T.L.: Decision making with the analytic hierarchy process. Int. J. Serv. Sci. 1(1), 83–98 (2008)
Cheng, C.H., Yang, K.L., Hwang, C.L.: Evaluating attack helicopters by AHP based on linguistic variables weight. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 116(2), 423–435 (1999)
Wang, Y.M., Chin, K.S.: A linear goal programming priority method for fuzzy analytic hierarchy process and its applications in new product screening. Int. J. Approx. Reason. 49(2), 451–465 (2008)
Mikhailov, L.: Deriving priorities from fuzzy pairwise comparison judgments. Fuzzy Sets Syst. 134(3), 365–385 (2003)
Yager, R.R., Zadeh, L.A. (eds.): An Introduction to Fuzzy Logic Applications in Intelligent Systems, vol. 165. Springer, Berlin (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-3640-6
Zadeh, L.A.: Fuzzy sets. Inf. Control 8(3), 338–353 (1965)
Ahmed, F., Kiliç, K.: Modification to fuzzy extent analysis method and its performance analysis. In: Proceedings of the 6th lESM Conference, Seville, Spain (2015)
Wang, Y.M., Elhag, T.M.S., Hua, Z.S.: A modified fuzzy logarithmic least squares method for fuzzy analytic hierarchy process. Fuzzy Sets Syst. 157, 3055–3071 (2006)
Seidel, J.V.: Qualitative data analysis (1998). www.qualisresearch.com. Accessed May 2016
Van Vuuren, D., Maree, A.: Survey methods in market and media research. In: Research in practice: Applied methods for the social sciences, pp. 269–286 (1999)
Bailey, W.J., Masson, R., Raeside, R.: Choosing successful technology development partners: a best-practice model. Int. J. Technol. Manag. 15(1–2), 124–138 (1998)
Culley, S.J., Boston, O.P., McMahon, C.A.: Suppliers in new product development: their information and integration. J. Eng. Des. 10(1), 59–75 (1999)
Musumba, G.W., Wario, R.D.: Partner performance evaluation problem for construction projects. J. Appl. Sci. Eng. Technol. Dev. 2(1), 1–29 (2017)
Merriam, S.B.: Case Study Research in Education. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco (1988)
Creswell, J.W.: Research Design: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. Sage, Thousand Oaks (1994)
Glaser, B.G., Strauss, A.L.: The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. Aldine, Chicago (1967)
Kwong, C.K., Bai, H.: A fuzzy AHP approach to the determination of importance weights of customer requirements in quality function deployment. J. Intell. Manuf. 13(5), 367–377 (2002)
Buckley, J.J.: Fuzzy hierarchical analysis. Fuzzy Sets Syst. 17(3), 233–247 (1985)
Dubois, D., Kerre, E., Mesiar, R., Prade, H.: Fuzzy interval analysis. In: Dubois, D., Prade, H. (eds.) Fundamentals of Fuzzy Sets. FSHS, vol. 7, pp. 483–581. Springer, Boston (2000). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-4429-6_11
Tang, H., Zhang, J.: Study on fuzzy AHP group decision-making method based on set-valued statistics. In: FSKD, vol. 3, pp. 689–693 (2007)
Saaty, T.L., Kearns, K.P.: Analytical Planning: The Organization of System, vol. 7. Elsevier, Amsterdam (2014)
Chang, D.Y.: Applications of the extent analysis method on fuzzy AHP. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 95(3), 649–655 (1996)
Indrani, B.: On the use of information in analytic hierarchy process. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 141, 200–206 (2002)
Srdjevic, B.: Combining different prioritization methods in the analytic hierarchy process synthesis. Comput. Oper. Res. 32(7), 1897–1919 (2005)
Mikhailov, L., Singh, M.G.: Comparison analysis of method for deriving priorities in the analytic hierarchy process. In: IEEE SMC 1999 Conference Proceedings of System, Man, and Cybernetics, vol. 1, pp. 1037–1042 (1999)
Golany, B., Kress, M.: A multi-criteria evaluation of methods for obtaining weights from ratio-scale matrices. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 69(2), 210–220 (1993)
Karlsson, J., Wohlin, C., Regnell, B.: An evaluation of methods for prioritizing software requirements. Inf. Softw. Technol. 39(14–25), 939–947 (1998)
Freeling, A.N.S.: Fuzzy sets and decision analysis. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. 10, 341–354 (1980)
Saaty, T.L., Tran, L.T.: On the invalidity of fuzzifying numerical judgments in the analytic hierarchy process. Math. Comput. Model. 46, 962–975 (2007)
Sanga, C., Venter, I.M.: Is a multi-criteria evaluation tool reserved for experts? Electron. J. Inf. Syst. Eval. (EJISE) 12(2), 165–176 (2009)
Rezaei, J., Ortt, R.: A multi-variable approach to supplier segmentation. Int. J. Prod. Res. 50(16), 4593–4611 (2012)
Rezaei, J., Ortt, R.: Multi-criteria supplier segmentation using a fuzzy preference relations based AHP. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 225, 75–84 (2013)
Akadiri, P.O., Olomolaiye, P.O., Chinyio, E.A.: Multi-criteria evaluation model for the selection of sustainable materials for building projects. Autom. Constr. 30, 113–125 (2013)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Appendix: Partner Evaluation Tool
Appendix: Partner Evaluation Tool
1.1 Collaboration of Construction Projects
Indicate your choice with a tick (✓) on the label provided. For the purpose of this study the term “collaboration” is defined as participation in a project between organizations that operate under a different management.
1.2 Section A-Partners Evaluation and Selection Criteria
1. Indicate how important each of the following criterion is when your company is selecting partners for a task in a building construction project. Use the symbols “A to E” with A being “Extremely important” and E being “Not at all important”. Choose the symbol which best indicates your choice | |||||
Criterion | Extremely important | Very important | Important | Weakly important | Not at all important |
Business Skills | A | B | C | D | E |
Technical Skills | A | B | C | D | E |
Management Skills | A | B | C | D | E |
2. Considering Business Skills Criterion; indicate how important each of the following sub-criteria is when your company is selecting partners for a task in a building construction project. Use the symbols “A to E” with A being “Extremely important” and E being “Not at all important”. Choose the symbol which best indicates your choice | |||||
Sub-Criteria | Extremely important | Very important | Important | Weakly important | Not at all important |
Business Strength (BS) | A | B | C | D | E |
Financial Security (FS) | A | B | C | D | E |
Strategic Position (SP) | A | B | C | D | E |
3. Considering Technical Skills Criterion; indicate how important each of the following sub-criteria is when your company is selecting partners for a task in a building construction project. Use the symbols “A to E” with A being “Extremely important” and E being “Not at all important”. Choose the symbol which best indicates your choice | |||||
Sub-Criteria | Extremely important | Very important | Important | Weakly important | Not at all important |
Technical Capabilities (TC) | A | B | C | D | E |
Development Speed (DS) | A | B | C | D | E |
Cost of Development (CD) | A | B | C | D | E |
Information Technology (IT) | A | B | C | D | E |
4. Considering Management Skills Criterion; indicate how important each of the following sub-criteria is when your company is selecting partners for a task in a building construction project. Use the symbols “A to E” with A being “Extremely important” and E being “Not at all important”. Choose the symbol which best indicates your choice | |||||
Sub-Criteria | Extremely important | Very important | Important | Weakly important | Not at all important |
Collaboration Record (CR) | A | B | C | D | E |
Cultural Compatibility (CC) | A | B | C | D | E |
Management Ability (MA) | A | B | C | D | E |
1.3 Section B-Partner Selection
Use the company profiles of companies P1, P2, …, P5 provided at the end of this questionnaire. Indicate how preferable is each company against each other according to partner selection sub-criterion to perform a task in a building construction project. Use the symbols “A to E” with A being “Extremely preferable” and E being “Not at all preferable”. Choose the symbol which best indicates your choice | |||||
Sub-Criteria | Extremely preferable | Strongly preferable | Preferable | Weakly preferable | Not at all preferable |
 | P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 | P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 | P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 | P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 | P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 |
Technical capabilities (Have relevant types of skills) | A A A A A | B B B B B | C C C C C | D D D D D | E E E E E |
Development speed (Can complete tasks within project timelines) | A A A A A | B B B B B | C C C C C | D D D D D | E E E E E |
Financial security (Amount of money deposited before project commencement) | A A A A A | B B B B B | C C C C C | D D D D D | E E E E E |
Collaborative record (Have been part of large projects) | A A A A A | B B B B B | C C C C C | D D D D D | E E E E E |
Business strength (Have necessary equipment and qualified staff) | A A A A A | B B B B B | C C C C C | D D D D D | E E E E E |
Cost of development (The projected task cost within the project budget) | A A A A A | B B B B B | C C C C C | D D D D D | E E E E E |
Corporate cultural compatibility (Staff management style in the previous projects) | A A A A A | B B B B B | C C C C C | D D D D D | E E E E E |
Strategic position (Partnership with other firms like financiers) | A A A A A | B B B B B | C C C C C | D D D D D | E E E E E |
Management ability (Handles staff issues amicably) | A A A A A | B B B B B | C C C C C | D D D D D | E E E E E |
Use of Information Technology (Use software for designs, finance and staff issues management) | A A A A A | B B B B B | C C C C C | D D D D D | E E E E E |
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 ICST Institute for Computer Sciences, Social Informatics and Telecommunications Engineering
About this paper
Cite this paper
Musumba, G.W., Wario, R.D. (2018). Towards Group Fuzzy Analytical Hierarchy Process. In: Mekuria, F., Nigussie, E., Dargie, W., Edward, M., Tegegne, T. (eds) Information and Communication Technology for Development for Africa. ICT4DA 2017. Lecture Notes of the Institute for Computer Sciences, Social Informatics and Telecommunications Engineering, vol 244. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-95153-9_27
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-95153-9_27
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-95152-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-95153-9
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)