Skip to main content
Log in

Ship selection using a multiple-criteria synthesis approach

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Journal of Marine Science and Technology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

A method is presented for selecting a preferred ship from a group of candidates as a reference ship for a new design. The method is based on a recently developed approach for multiple-criteria decision analysis under uncertainty, the evidential reasoning approach. Using this method, both quantitative and qualitative attributes of a complicated nature can be considered in the selection process. The method consists of three phases: identifying suitable candidate ships, evaluating them in terms of both conventional techno-economical and qualitative attributes, and aggregating all the attributes using the evidential reasoning approach. This three-phase procedure is illustrated by means of an oil tanker selection example. The results of this study show that the evidential reasoning approach can support multiple-criteria ship selection processes when both qualitative and quantitative information with or without uncertainties have to be taken into account. The outcomes generated by the method include the ranking of the candidate ships and indications of their strengths and weaknesses in the format of performance distributions over different assessment grades. Such information is vital in helping decision makers to make an informed selection and be aware of any risk implication associated with the selection.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Tupper E (1996) Introduction to naval architecture, 3rd edn. Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  2. Ji Z (1994) General design of oil tankers. The Publishing Company of Dalian University of Technology, Dalian, China

    Google Scholar 

  3. Kakamoukas CV (1979) A model for the realistic evaluation of ship investment and operation. In: Kuo C, MacCallum KJ, Williams TJ (eds) Proceedings of the conference on computer applications in the automation of shipyard operation and ship design III. North-Holland, Amsterdam, pp37–44

    Google Scholar 

  4. Yang Y, Qin S, Hu Y (1981) Calculations of principal dimensions of dry cargo ships by two optimization algorithms. Shipbuilding of China 1:1–8

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  5. Sönmez M, Yang J, Holt GD (2001) Addressing the contractor selection problem using an evidential reasoning approach. Eng Construct Archit Manag 8(3):198–210

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Yang Y, Zhang R (1982) The determination of principal dimensions and economic evaluation of multi-purpose dry cargo ships. J Shanghai Jiao Tong Univ 3:87–101

    Google Scholar 

  7. Li S (1990) Feasibility analysis of merchant ships. The Publishing Company of Dalian University of Technology, Dalian, China

    Google Scholar 

  8. Lin J (1981) Elements of ship design. National Defence Industry Press, Beijing

    Google Scholar 

  9. Xie X, Teng Y, Gao F, et al (2001) Ship type evaluation for transportation of importing crude oil into China. Navigation of China 48:77–83

    Google Scholar 

  10. Zhang R (2001) Economics of ship engineering. Printing House of Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai

    Google Scholar 

  11. Benford H (1991) A naval architect’s guide to practical economics. Department of Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering, University of Michigan, No. 319, Ann Arbor

    Google Scholar 

  12. Dykstra DL (2005) Commercial management in shipping. The Nautical Institute, London

    Google Scholar 

  13. Munro-Smith R (1975) Elements of ship design. Marine Management (Holdings), London

    Google Scholar 

  14. Shafer GA (1976) Mathematical theory of evidence. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  15. Yang J, Liu J, Wang J, et al (2006) A belief rule-base inference methodology using the evidential reasoning approach—RIMER. IEEE Trans Systems Man Cybernetics—Part A 36(2):266–285

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Yang J, Xu D (2002) On the evidential reasoning algorithm for multiple attribute decision analysis under uncertainty. IEEE Trans Systems Man Cybernetics—Part A 32(3): 289–304

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Yang J (2001) Rule-and utility-based evidential reasoning approach for multi-attribute decision analysis under uncertainties. Eur J Op Res 131(1):31–61

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  18. Yang J, Singh MG (1994) An evidential reasoning approach for multiple attribute decision making with uncertainty. IEEE Trans Systems Man Cybernetics 24(1):1–18

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Yang J, Xu D (2005) The IDS multi-criteria assessor software. Intelligent Decision System, Cheshire, UK

    Google Scholar 

  20. Keeney RL, Raiffa H (1976) Decisions with multiple objectives: preferences and value trade-offs. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  21. French S (1986) Decision theory: an introduction to the mathematics of rationality. Ellis Horwood, New York

    MATH  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Xinlian Xie.

About this article

Cite this article

Xie, X., Xu, DL., Yang, JB. et al. Ship selection using a multiple-criteria synthesis approach. J Mar Sci Technol 13, 50–62 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00773-007-0259-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00773-007-0259-4

Key words

Navigation