Development of Decision Support Model for Selecting a Maintenance Plan Using a Fuzzy Mcdm Approach: a Theoretical Framework

dc.contributor.author Abdulgader, Fathia Sghayer
dc.contributor.author Eid, Rajeh
dc.contributor.author Rouyendegh (B Erdebilli), Babak Daneshvar
dc.contributor.other Mathematics
dc.contributor.other Computer Engineering
dc.contributor.other 02. School of Arts and Sciences
dc.contributor.other 06. School Of Engineering
dc.contributor.other 01. Atılım University
dc.date.accessioned 2024-07-05T15:29:56Z
dc.date.available 2024-07-05T15:29:56Z
dc.date.issued 2018
dc.description Erdebilli, Babek/0000-0001-8860-3903 en_US
dc.description.abstract In complex decision making, using multicriteria decision-making (MCDM) methodologies is the most scientific way to ensure an informed and justified decision between several alternatives. MCDMs have been used in different ways and with several applications that proved their efficiency in achieving this goal. In this research, the advantages and disadvantages of the different MCDM methodologies are studied, along with the different techniques implemented to increase their accuracy and precision. The main aim of the study is to develop a hybrid MCDM process that combines the strengths of several MCDM methods and apply it to choose the best fit maintenance policy/strategy for industrial application. Moreover, fuzzy linguistic terms are utilized in all of the used MCDM techniques in order to eliminate the uncertainty and ambiguity of the results. Through an extensive literature review performed on studies that have used MCDM methods in a hybrid context and using fuzzy linguistic terms, a model is developed to use fuzzy DEMATEL-AHP-TOPSIS hybrid technique. The model with its application is the first of its kind, which combines the strengths of fuzzy DEMATEL in establishing interrelationships between several criteria, as well as performing a pairwise comparison between the criteria for prioritization using the fuzzy AHP method. Thereafter, the alternatives are compared using fuzzy TOPSIS method by establishing negative and positive solutions and calculating the relative closeness for each of the alternatives. Furthermore, six main criteria, twenty criteria, and five alternatives are selected from the literature for the model application. en_US
dc.identifier.doi 10.1155/2018/9346945
dc.identifier.issn 1687-9724
dc.identifier.issn 1687-9732
dc.identifier.scopus 2-s2.0-85062798308
dc.identifier.uri https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/9346945
dc.identifier.uri https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14411/2962
dc.language.iso en en_US
dc.publisher Hindawi Ltd en_US
dc.relation.ispartof Applied Computational Intelligence and Soft Computing
dc.rights info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess en_US
dc.subject [No Keyword Available] en_US
dc.title Development of Decision Support Model for Selecting a Maintenance Plan Using a Fuzzy Mcdm Approach: a Theoretical Framework en_US
dc.type Article en_US
dspace.entity.type Publication
gdc.author.id Erdebilli, Babek/0000-0001-8860-3903
gdc.author.institutional Eid, Rajeh
gdc.author.institutional Ekin, Cansu Çiğdem
gdc.author.scopusid 57207729718
gdc.author.scopusid 6701790086
gdc.author.scopusid 44661946600
gdc.author.wosid Erdebilli, Babek/L-5982-2013
gdc.bip.impulseclass C4
gdc.bip.influenceclass C4
gdc.bip.popularityclass C4
gdc.coar.access open access
gdc.coar.type text::journal::journal article
gdc.description.department Atılım University en_US
gdc.description.departmenttemp [Abdulgader, Fathia Sghayer; Eid, Rajeh] Atilim Univ, TR-06836 Ankara, Turkey; [Rouyendegh (B Erdebilli), Babak Daneshvar] Ankara Yildirim Beyazit Univ, Dept Ind Engn, TR-06010 Ankara, Turkey en_US
gdc.description.endpage 14
gdc.description.publicationcategory Makale - Uluslararası Hakemli Dergi - Kurum Öğretim Elemanı en_US
gdc.description.scopusquality Q2
gdc.description.startpage 1
gdc.description.volume 2018 en_US
gdc.identifier.openalex W2898909116
gdc.identifier.wos WOS:000449919800001
gdc.oaire.accesstype GOLD
gdc.oaire.diamondjournal false
gdc.oaire.impulse 12.0
gdc.oaire.influence 3.7675756E-9
gdc.oaire.isgreen true
gdc.oaire.keywords Ambiguity
gdc.oaire.keywords Artificial intelligence
gdc.oaire.keywords Maintenance Optimization
gdc.oaire.keywords Environmental Decision Making
gdc.oaire.keywords Social Sciences
gdc.oaire.keywords Group Decision Making
gdc.oaire.keywords Multi-Criteria Decision Making
gdc.oaire.keywords Management Science and Operations Research
gdc.oaire.keywords Operations research
gdc.oaire.keywords Pairwise comparison
gdc.oaire.keywords Mathematical analysis
gdc.oaire.keywords Decision Sciences
gdc.oaire.keywords Engineering
gdc.oaire.keywords Context (archaeology)
gdc.oaire.keywords FOS: Mathematics
gdc.oaire.keywords Risk analysis (engineering)
gdc.oaire.keywords Safety, Risk, Reliability and Quality
gdc.oaire.keywords Materials Engineering in Industrial Applications
gdc.oaire.keywords TOPSIS
gdc.oaire.keywords Biology
gdc.oaire.keywords MCDM Methods
gdc.oaire.keywords Analytic hierarchy process
gdc.oaire.keywords Paleontology
gdc.oaire.keywords Closeness
gdc.oaire.keywords QA75.5-76.95
gdc.oaire.keywords Multiple-criteria decision analysis
gdc.oaire.keywords Computer science
gdc.oaire.keywords Reliability Engineering and Maintenance Optimization
gdc.oaire.keywords Process (computing)
gdc.oaire.keywords Management science
gdc.oaire.keywords Programming language
gdc.oaire.keywords Fuzzy logic
gdc.oaire.keywords Operating system
gdc.oaire.keywords Mechanics of Materials
gdc.oaire.keywords Electronic computers. Computer science
gdc.oaire.keywords Physical Sciences
gdc.oaire.keywords Medicine
gdc.oaire.keywords Mathematics
gdc.oaire.popularity 2.1321176E-8
gdc.oaire.publicfunded false
gdc.oaire.sciencefields 0211 other engineering and technologies
gdc.oaire.sciencefields 02 engineering and technology
gdc.oaire.sciencefields 0202 electrical engineering, electronic engineering, information engineering
gdc.openalex.fwci 2.509
gdc.openalex.normalizedpercentile 0.91
gdc.openalex.toppercent TOP 10%
gdc.opencitations.count 26
gdc.plumx.mendeley 107
gdc.plumx.scopuscites 29
gdc.scopus.citedcount 29
gdc.wos.citedcount 25
relation.isAuthorOfPublication c0414657-2e46-4a36-b3ba-8934a2e55716
relation.isAuthorOfPublication 6ba797de-1a42-4c28-bbdc-867221fad30c
relation.isAuthorOfPublication.latestForDiscovery c0414657-2e46-4a36-b3ba-8934a2e55716
relation.isOrgUnitOfPublication 31ddeb89-24da-4427-917a-250e710b969c
relation.isOrgUnitOfPublication e0809e2c-77a7-4f04-9cb0-4bccec9395fa
relation.isOrgUnitOfPublication 9fc70983-6166-4c9a-8abd-5b6045f7579d
relation.isOrgUnitOfPublication 4abda634-67fd-417f-bee6-59c29fc99997
relation.isOrgUnitOfPublication 50be38c5-40c4-4d5f-b8e6-463e9514c6dd
relation.isOrgUnitOfPublication.latestForDiscovery 31ddeb89-24da-4427-917a-250e710b969c

Files

Collections