The 1990 progress report and future plans

This document describes the progress and plans of the Artificial Intelligence Research Branch (RIA) at ARC in 1990. Activities span a range from basic scientific research to engineering development and to fielded NASA applications, particularly those applications that are enabled by basic research carried out at RIA. Work is conducted in-house and through collaborative partners in academia and industry. Our major focus is on a limited number of research themes with a dual commitment to technical excellence and proven applicability to NASA short, medium, and long-term problems. RIA acts as the Agency's lead organization for research aspects of artificial intelligence, working closely with a second research laboratory at JPL and AI applications groups at all NASA centers

A methodology for the selection of new technologies in the aviation industry

The purpose of this report is to present a technology selection methodology to quantify both tangible and intangible benefits of certain technology alternatives within a fuzzy environment. Specifically, it describes an application of the theory of fuzzy sets to hierarchical structural analysis and economic evaluations for utilisation in the industry. The report proposes a complete methodology to accurately select new technologies. A computer based prototype model has been developed to handle the more complex fuzzy calculations. Decision-makers are only required to express their opinions on comparative importance of various factors in linguistic terms rather than exact numerical values. These linguistic variable scales, such as ‘very high’, ‘high’, ‘medium’, ‘low’ and ‘very low’, are then converted into fuzzy numbers, since it becomes more meaningful to quantify a subjective measurement into a range rather than in an exact value. By aggregating the hierarchy, the preferential weight of each alternative technology is found, which is called fuzzy appropriate index. The fuzzy appropriate indices of different technologies are then ranked and preferential ranking orders of technologies are found. From the economic evaluation perspective, a fuzzy cash flow analysis is employed. This deals quantitatively with imprecision or uncertainties, as the cash flows are modelled as triangular fuzzy numbers which represent ‘the most likely possible value’, ‘the most pessimistic value’ and ‘the most optimistic value’. By using this methodology, the ambiguities involved in the assessment data can be effectively represented and processed to assure a more convincing and effective decision- making process when selecting new technologies in which to invest. The prototype model was validated with a case study within the aviation industry that ensured it was properly configured to meet the

Development, test and comparison of two Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis(MCDA) models: A case of healthcare infrastructure location

When planning a new development, location decisions have always been a major issue. This paper examines and compares two modelling methods used to inform a healthcare infrastructure location decision. Two Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) models were developed to support the optimisation of this decision-making process, within a National Health Service (NHS) organisation, in the UK. The proposed model structure is based on seven criteria (environment and safety, size, total cost, accessibility, design, risks and population profile) and 28 sub-criteria. First, Evidential Reasoning (ER) was used to solve the model, then, the processes and results were compared with the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP). It was established that using ER or AHP led to the same solutions. However, the scores between the alternatives were significantly different; which impacted the stakeholders‟ decision-making. As the processes differ according to the model selected, ER or AHP, it is relevant to establish the practical and managerial implications for selecting one model or the other and providing evidence of which models best fit this specific environment. To achieve an optimum operational decision it is argued, in this study, that the most transparent and robust framework is achieved by merging ER process with the pair-wise comparison, an element of AHP. This paper makes a defined contribution by developing and examining the use of MCDA models, to rationalise new healthcare infrastructure location, with the proposed model to be used for future decision. Moreover, very few studies comparing different MCDA techniques were found, this study results enable practitioners to consider even further the modelling characteristics to ensure the development of a reliable framework, even if this means applying a hybrid approach

Fuzzy investment decision support for brownfield redevelopment

Tato disertační práce se zaměřuje na problematiku investování a podporu rozhodování pomocí moderních metod. Zejména pokud jde o analýzu, hodnocení a výběr tzv. brownfieldů pro jejich redevelopment (revitalizaci). Cílem této práce je navrhnout univerzální metodu, která usnadní rozhodovací proces. Proces rozhodování je v praxi komplikován též velkým počet relevantních parametrů ovlivňujících konečné rozhodnutí. Navržená metoda je založena na využití fuzzy logiky, modelování, statistické analýzy, shlukové analýzy, teorie grafů a na sofistikovaných metodách sběru a zpracování informací. Nová metoda umožňuje zefektivnit proces analýzy a porovnávání alternativních investic a přesněji zpracovat velký objem informací. Ve výsledku tak bude zmenšen počet prvků množiny nejvhodnějších alternativních investic na základě hierarchie parametrů stanovených investorem.This dissertation focuses on decision making, investing and brownfield redevelopment. Especially on the analysis, evaluation and selection of previously used real estates suitable for commercial use. The objective of this dissertation is to design a method that facilitates the decision making process with many possible alternatives and large number of relevant parameters influencing the decision. The proposed method is based on the use of fuzzy logic, modeling, statistic analysis, cluster analysis, graph theory and sophisticated methods of information collection and processing. New method allows decision makers to process much larger amount of information and evaluate possible investment alternatives efficiently.

Early aspects: aspect-oriented requirements engineering and architecture design

This paper reports on the third Early Aspects: Aspect-Oriented Requirements Engineering and Architecture Design Workshop, which has been held in Lancaster, UK, on March 21, 2004. The workshop included a presentation session and working sessions in which the particular topics on early aspects were discussed. The primary goal of the workshop was to focus on challenges to defining methodical software development processes for aspects from early on in the software life cycle and explore the potential of proposed methods and techniques to scale up to industrial applications

Application of Fuzzy Multi-Criteria Decision Making Methods on Six Sigma Projects Selection

Abstract. Six sigma method widely applied in production and service businesses is known as a project-oriented method. In six sigma method, selection of the prior project among others can be considered as a multi -criteria decision making problem. The conducted literature review has revealed that there is a large number of methods to select six sigma projects. It is more appropriate to use fuzzy multi-criteria decision making methods in project selection since evaluation criteria of six sigma projects include uncertainties. The aim of this study is to select the most appropriate project as a result of evaluating the projects by Fuzzy VIKOR, Fuzzy TOPSIS and Fuzzy COPRAS as methods of fuzzy multicriteria decision-making and integrating the ranking scores obtained from each method by Copeland method. The proposed method has been implemented in a large scale production company, operating in Aydın ASTİM Organized Industrial Zone.Keywords. Six Sigma Projects, Fuzzy VIKOR, Fuzzy TOPSIS, Fuzzy COPRAS, Fuzzy AHP, Copeland Method.JEL. M11, C44, L20, C02, D70, O22