Production and Logistics Systems Improvements - Biim Ultrasound AS

A crucial aspect of the supply chain network design process is deciding on optimal locations to situate new facilities. Facility location decisions rely on many factors, some of which might be conflicting with each other. The decision factors can be either quantitative or qualitative, thus a brute-force prioritization of one over another could be detrimental overall. To ensure the efficacy of the selection process, decision makers must consider both the quantitative and qualitative factors in tandem. Some of the common methods employed in the literature by organizations to facilitate their decision-making process include: optimization models and algorithms, decision support systems and computerized analytics tools. To this end, this thesis proposes a hybrid Multi-Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) model to aid the selection of an optimal location that suits the strategic fit of an organization. The proposed model integrates the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) methodology for Multi-Attribute Decision Making (MADM) with Mixed Integer Programming (MIP). The solution is modeled and implemented with the AIMMS modeling language as well as the Gurobi Optimization tool in Python. This thesis work is based on a case study from Biim Ultrasound

Water Policies and Conflict Resolution of Public Participation Decision-Making Processes Using Prioritized Ordered Weighted Averaging (OWA) Operators

[EN] There is a growing interest in environmental policies about how to implement public participation engagement in the context of water resources management. This paper presents a robust methodology, based on ordered weighted averaging (OWA) operators, to conflict resolution decision-making problems under uncertain environments due to both information and stakeholders' preferences. The methodology allows integrating heterogeneous interests of the general public and stakeholders on account of their different degree of acceptance or preference and level of influence or power regarding the measures and policies to be adopted, and also of their level of involvement (i.e., information supply, consultation and active involvement). These considerations lead to different environmental and socio-economic outcomes, and levels of stakeholders' satisfaction. The methodology establishes a prioritization relationship over the stakeholders. The individual stakeholders' preferences are aggregated through their associated weights, which depend on the satisfaction of the higher priority decision maker. The methodology ranks the optimal management strategies to maximize the stakeholders' satisfaction. It has been successfully applied to a real case study, providing greater fairness, transparency, social equity and consensus among actors. Furthermore, it provides support to environmental policies, such as the EU Water Framework Directive (WFD), improving integrated water management while covering a wide range of objectives, management alternatives and stakeholders.Llopis Albert, C.; Merigó-Lindahl, JM.; Liao, H.; Xu, Y.; Grima-Olmedo, J.; Grima-Olmedo, C. (2018). Water Policies and Conflict Resolution of Public Participation Decision-Making Processes Using Prioritized Ordered Weighted Averaging (OWA) Operators. Water Resources Management. 32(2):497-510. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-017-1823-2S497510322Amin GR, Sadeghi H (2010) Application of prioritized aggregation operators in preference voting. Int J Intell Syst 25(10):1027–1034Chen TY (2014) A prioritized aggregation operator-based approach to multiple criteria decision making using interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy sets: A comparative perspective. Inf Sci 281:97–112Chen LH, Xu ZS (2014) A prioritized aggregation operator based on the OWA operator and prioritized measures. J Intell Fuzzy Syst 27:1297–1307Chen LH, Xu ZS, Yu XH (2014a) Prioritized measure-guided aggregation operators. IEEE Trans Fuzzy Syst 22:1127–1138Chen LH, Xu ZS, Yu XH (2014b) Weakly prioritized measure aggregation in prioritized multicriteria decision making. Int J Intell Syst 29:439–461CHJ (2016). Júcar river basin authority http://www.chj.es/CHS (2016). Segura river basin authority http://www.chsegura.es/Dong JY, Wan SP (2016) A new method for prioritized multi-criteria group decision making with triangular intuitionistic fuzzy numbers. J Intell Fuzzy Syst 30:1719–1733EC (2000). Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of October 23 2000 Establishing a Framework for Community Action in the Field of Water Policy. Official Journal of the European Communities, L327/1eL327/72 22.12.2000Jackson S, Tan P-L, Nolan S (2012) Tools to enhance public participation and confidence in the development of the Howard East aquifer water plan, Northern Territory. J Hydrol 474:22–28Jin FF, Ni ZW, Chen HY (2016) Note on “Hesitant fuzzy prioritized operators and their application to multiple attribute decision making”. Knowl-Based Syst 96:115–119Kentel E, Aral MM (2007) Fuzzy Multiobjective Decision-Making Approach for Groundwater Resources Management. J Hydrol Eng 12(2):206–217. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1084-0699(2007)12:2(206).Kirchherr J, Charles KJ, Walton MJ (2016) Multi-causal pathways of public opposition to dam project in Asia: A fuzzy set qualitative comparative analysis (fsQCA). Glob Environ Chang 41:33–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2016.08.001Llopis-Albert C, Pulido-Velazquez D (2015) Using MODFLOW code to approach transient hydraulic head with a sharp-interface solution. Hydrol Process 29(8):2052–2064. https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.10354Llopis-Albert C, Palacios-Marqués D, Soto-Acosta P (2015) Decision-making and stakeholders constructive participation in environmental projects. J Bus Res 68:1641–1644. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.02.010Llopis-Albert C, Merigó JM, Xu Y, Huchang L (2017) Improving regional climate projections by prioritized aggregation via ordered weighted averaging operators. Environ Eng Sci. https://doi.org/10.1089/ees.2016.0546Maia R (2017) The WFD Implementation in the European Member States. Water Resour Manag 31(10):3043–3060. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-017-1723-5Malczewski J, Chapman T, Flegel C, Walters D, Shrubsole D, Healy MA (2003) GIS - multicriteria evaluation with ordered weighted averaging (OWA): case study of developing watershed management strategies. Environ Plan A 35:1769–1784. https://doi.org/10.1068/a35156Merigó JM, Casanovas M (2011) The uncertain generalized owa operator and its application to financial decision making. Int J Inf Technol Decis Mak 10(2):211–230Merigó JM, Yager RR (2013) Generalized moving averages, distance measures and OWA operators. Int J Uncertain, Fuzziness Knowl-Based Syst 21(4):533–559Merigó JM, Palacios-Marqués D, Ribeiro-Navarrete B (2015) Aggregation systems for sales forecasting. J Bus Res 68:2299–2304Mesiar R, Stupnanová A, Yager RR (2015) Generalizations of OWA Operators. IEEE Trans Fuzzy Syst 23(6):2154–2162O’Hagan M (1988) Aggregating Template Rule Antecedents in Real-time Expert Systems with Fuzzy Set Logic. In: Proceedings of 22nd annual IEEE Asilomar Conference on Signals. IEEE and Maple Press, Pacific Grove, Systems and Computers, pp 681–689Rahmani MA, Zarghami M (2013) A new approach to combine climate change projections by ordered weighting averaging operator; applications to northwestern provinces of Iran. Glob Planet Chang 102:41–50Ran LG, Wei GW (2015) Uncertain prioritized operators and their application to multiple attribute group decision making. Technol Econ Dev Econ 21:118–139Ruiz-Villaverde, A., García-Rubio, M.A. (2017). Public Participation in European Water Management: from Theory to Practice. Water Resour Manag 31(8), 2479–2495. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-016-1355-1Sadiq R, Tesfamariam S (2007) Probability density functions based weights for ordered weighted averaging (OWA) operators: An example of water quality indices. Eur J Oper Res 182:1350–1368Sadiq R, Rodríguez MJ, Tesfamariam S (2010) Integrating indicators for performance assessment of small water utilities using ordered weighted averaging (OWA) operators. Expert Syst Appl 37:4881–4891Verma R, Sharma B (2016) Prioritized information fusion method for triangular fuzzy information and its application to multiple attribute decision making. Int J Uncertain, Fuzziness Knowl-Based Syst 24:265–290Wang HM, Xu YJ, Merigó JM (2014) Prioritized aggregation for non-homogeneous group decision making in water resource management. Econ Comput Econ Cybern Stud Res 48(1):247–258Wei GW (2012) Hesitant fuzzy prioritized operators. Knowl-Based Syst 31:176–182Wei CP, Tang XJ (2012) Generalized prioritized aggregation operators. Int J Intell Syst 27:578–589Xu ZS (2005) An Overview of Methods for Determining OWA Weights. Int J Intell Syst 20:843–865Yager RR (1988) On ordered weighted averaging aggregation operators in multi-criteria decision making, IEEE Transactions on Systems. Man Cybern B 18(1988):183–190Yager RR (2008) Prioritized Aggregation Operators. Int J Approx Reason 48:263–274Yan H-B, Huynh V-N, Nakamori Y, Murai T (2011) On prioritized weighted aggregation in multi-criteria decision making. Expert Syst Appl 38(1):812–823Ye J (2014) Prioritized aggregation operators of trapezoidal intuitionistic fuzzy sets and their application to multicriteria decision-making. Neural Comput & Applic 25:1447–1454Yu XH, Xu ZS, Liu SS (2013) Prioritized multi-criteria decision making based on preference relations. Comput Ind Eng 66:104–115Zadeh LA (1983) A Computational Approach to Fuzzy Quantifiers in Natural Languages. Comput Math Appl 9:149–184Zarghami M, Szidarovszky F (2009) Revising the OWA operator for multi criteria decision making problems under uncertainty. Eur J Oper Res 198:259–265Zarghami M, Ardakanian R, Memariani A, Szidarovszky F (2008) Extended OWA Operator for Group Decision Making on Water Resources Projects. J Water Resour Plan Manag 134(3):266–275. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9496(2008)134:3(266)Zarghami M, Szidarovszky F, Ardakanian R (2009) Multi-attribute decision making on inter-basin water transfer projects. Transaction E. Ind Eng 16(1):73–80Zhao XF, Li QX, Wei GW (2014) Some prioritized aggregating operators with linguistic information and their application to multiple attribute group decision making. J Intell Fuzzy Syst 26:1619–1630Zhao N, Xu ZS, Ren ZL (2016) On typical hesitant fuzzy prioritized “or” operator in multi-attribute decision making. Int J Intell Syst 31:73–100Zhou LY, Lin R, Zhao XF, Wei GW (2013) Uncertain linguistic prioritized aggregation operators and their application to multiple attribute group decision making. Int J Uncertain, Fuzziness Knowl-Based Syst 21:603–627Zhou LG, Merigó JM, Chen HY, Liu JP (2016) The optimal group continuous logarithm compatibility measure for interval multiplicative preference relations based on the COWGA operator. Inf Sci 328:250–26

The application of Multi Attribute Decision Methods (MADM) on prioritizing Iranian fisheries research projects

The ultimate goal of an agriculture research system is on-time, correct and clear response to the problems and expectations of agriculture household and stakeholders. In this respect, though, due to variation and frequency of the problems and expectations and as well as many limitations such as financial deficit, short time and shortage in work force and equipments etc, the system cannot be thoroughly responsive. Therefore, the necessity for optimizing the system to response through prioritizing the research projects has been a major challenge before the responsible managers and authorities. In this paper, the Analytical Hierarchical Process (AHP) has been introduced as a well known Multi Attribute Decision Methods (MADM) that combines qualitative and quantitative criteria for prioritizing the research projects of the Iranian Fisheries Research Organization. For implementation of the mentioned principles and methods of prioritizing the research projects have been studied and then by determining the final decision making criteria, the priority of the projects in the Institute have been determined by drawing decision hierarchy tree. Required data was gathered through pair wise comparison questionnaires filled by the experts and researchers. In the next step, Expert Choice software used to analyze and determine the priorities. Based on results criteria of research possibility, scientific development, economic development, and stability development with respective weight .377, .263, .187, and .173 are the most important criteria for the institute in the south area of Caspian Sea. Finally, according to the produced results, the priorities of the six studied research programs determined

Modeli optimizacije izbora lokacije proizvodnih kapaciteta u funkciji lokalnog ekonomskog razvoja

Each day we make decisions, draw conclusions or resolve problems. The environment in which we make decisions is complex and dynamic and yet it influences the whole process as much as one's knowledge, experience, etc. In these situations, the decision making analysis stands out which provides a logic base for defining possible alternatives and the choice of an optimal option from the possible solutions. The decision making analysis helps the decision maker to choose the optimal option in line with his knowledge, reasoning, beliefs and preferences. When there are several criteria the decision making is ambiguous and one needs to find the optimal or the most efficient solution. The multi-criteria decision making can be multi-purposeful. In case the alternatives are explicitly defined and quantified we are dealing with the multi-attribute decision making. The criteria values for the analyzed alternatives can be qualitative and quantitative; therefore, the qualitative ones have to be quantified. Deciding on the location is one of the key elements of logistics and of the importance of the decision making process used by the companies in order to determine where to locate the facility is a decision of crucial importance to all logistic elements and the entire business development of the company. Further on, the contemporary economic, competitive and technological conditions and the business environment comprise a dynamic category, so the currently optimal location may not be optimal in the future. Companies use qualitative and quantitative criteria while deciding on the location of the factory. When deciding on the location of the factory one conducts a detailed analysis due to the dynamic business environment. Constant changes in the environment influence business adjustments. On the contrary, the logistic facilities and their locations are static and are not subject to alteration in a short period of time and in such a way respond to the business environment changes. While making such a decision one needs to use new methodologies and contemporary tools as a decision making support in order to adequately respond to the business environment changes and secure the high quality decision making by taking into account quantitative and qualitative criteria which are important for making a decision on a choice of a location. From the very beginning, local self-governments, worldwide as well as in Serbia, had different roles in the economic development. Local self-governments usually dealt with administrative procedures with no active part in the economic development. By establishing legal grounds local self-governments started improving the business environment and providing support to the business community, but also actively attracting foreign direct investments which have proven to be the key activity of the local economic development. Identification and understanding of the industrial location decision making process within the companies has been identified as a crutial activity which the local self-governments can use in improving the business environment and recruitment of direct investments. On the basis on the prioritization of the quantitative and qualitative decision making criteria in the process of selection a location, local self-governments can improve their business environment if resources are being used optimally and in such a way they support the local economic development by assisting the business community and attracting direct investments. In this paper we established a model which, using the method for decision making in the case of optimization of the industrial location decision making, enables efficient use of the resources of local economic development. The model will enable the identification of criteria / determinant of locations that should be invested in order to promote local economic development, on the basis of a comparison of local governments and types of potential investors. Use of standard methods of multiattribute analysis gives the possibility of a subjective approach to the researcher who must determine in advance the criteria weights, while the application of the model presented in this paper avoids the subjectivity and objectifies the process of preference, a combination of criteria DEA (Data Envelopment Analysis,) and multiattribute analysis methods (AHP, ELECTRE, PROMETHEE, TOPSIS). Within the dissertation, survey conducted, analysed local governments (alternatives) in terms of fulfilling the criteria (location determinants), within which each local government alone determines the criteria weight based on survey of types of potential investors. A comparative analysis of the results of these studies, where other various methods for decision making can be also used, identified the best method, among selected that are the best known and most used, and the result of the dissertation will determine the importance of the location determinants, which will enable to policymakers in field of local economic development, investment promotion and improving business environment at all levels, through the use of the proposed model of efficient planning, the opportunity to efficiently and cost-effectively use the resources at their disposal

A framework for the selection of the right nuclear power plant

Civil nuclear reactors are used for the production of electrical energy. In the nuclear industry vendors propose several nuclear reactor designs with a size from 35–45 MWe up to 1600–1700 MWe. The choice of the right design is a multidimensional problem since a utility has to include not only financial factors as levelised cost of electricity (LCOE) and internal rate of return (IRR), but also the so called “external factors” like the required spinning reserve, the impact on local industry and the social acceptability. Therefore it is necessary to balance advantages and disadvantages of each design during the entire life cycle of the plant, usually 40–60 years. In the scientific literature there are several techniques for solving this multidimensional problem. Unfortunately it does not seem possible to apply these methodologies as they are, since the problem is too complex and it is difficult to provide consistent and trustworthy expert judgments. This paper fills the gap, proposing a two-step framework to choosing the best nuclear reactor at the pre-feasibility study phase. The paper shows in detail how to use the methodology, comparing the choice of a small-medium reactor (SMR) with a large reactor (LR), characterised, according to the International Atomic Energy Agency (2006), by an electrical output respectively lower and higher than 700 MWe

A review of multi-criteria decision making methods for enhanced maintenance delivery

Conventionally there is a strong relation between manufacturing and services in complex engineering industries. For companies which aim to last in the competitive manufacturing market choosing appropriate decision making methods to improve their maintenance delivery has a vital role. The aim of this paper is to review Multi Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) models, evaluate each method and do a critical comparison to assess them from a maintenance management point of view. The first section of this paper reviews MCDM methods in different literature, and then the second part develops a set of criteria to classify different techniques. At the end methods are compared based on developed criteria. This paper assesses different MCDM models, and provides a framework to select approaches for maintenance management

Multi-criteria decision making with linguistic labels: a comparison of two methodologies applied to energy planning

This paper compares two multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) approaches based on linguistic label assessment. The first approach consists of a modified fuzzy TOPSIS methodology introduced by Kaya and Kahraman in 2011. The second approach, introduced by Agell et al. in 2012, is based on qualitative reasoning techniques for ranking multi-attribute alternatives in group decision-making with linguistic labels. Both approaches are applied to a case of assessment and selection of the most suitable types of energy in a geographical area.Peer ReviewedPostprint (published version