A hesitant fuzzy linguistic terms set-based AHP-TOPSIS approach to evaluate ERP software packages

Z. Ayag, Funda Samanlioglu
{"title":"A hesitant fuzzy linguistic terms set-based AHP-TOPSIS approach to evaluate ERP software packages","authors":"Z. Ayag, Funda Samanlioglu","doi":"10.1108/ijicc-07-2020-0079","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"PurposeIn this paper, two popular multiple-criteria decision-making (MCDM) methods with hesitant fuzzy logic approach; hesitant fuzzy analytic hierarchy process (hesitant F-AHP) and hesitant fuzzy the technique for order preference by similarity to ideal solution (HF-TOPSIS) are integrated as HF-AHP-TOPSIS to evaluating a set of enterprise resource planning (ERP) alternatives and rank them by weight to reach to the ultimate one that satisfies the needs and expectations of a company.Design/methodology/approachSelecting the best ERP software package among the rising number of the options in market has been a critical problem for most companies for a long time because of the reason that an improper ERP software package might lead to many issues (i.e. time loss, increased costs and a loss of market share). On the other hand, finding the best ERP alternative is a comprehensive MCDM problem in the presence of a set of alternatives and several potentially competing quantitative and qualitative criteria.FindingsIn this integrated approach, the hesitant F-AHP is used to determine the criteria weights, as the hesitant F-TOPSIS is utilized to rank ERP package alternatives. The proposed approach was also validated in a numerical example that has five ERP package alternatives and 12 criteria by three decision-makers in order to show its applicability to potential readers and practitioners.Research limitations/implicationsIf the number of the alternatives and criteria are dramatically increased beyond reasonable numbers, the reaching to final solution will be so difficult because of the great deal of fuzzy based calculations. Therefore, the number of criteria and alternatives should be at reasonable numbers.Practical implicationsThe proposed approach was also validated in a illustrated example with the five ERP package options and 12 criteria by the three decision-makers in order to show its applicability to potential readers and practitioners.Originality/valueFurthermore, in literature, to the best of our knowledge, the authors did not come cross any work that integrates the HF-AHP with the HF-TOPSIS for ERP software package selection problem.","PeriodicalId":352072,"journal":{"name":"Int. J. Intell. Comput. Cybern.","volume":"67 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-12-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"19","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Int. J. Intell. Comput. Cybern.","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/ijicc-07-2020-0079","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 19

Abstract

PurposeIn this paper, two popular multiple-criteria decision-making (MCDM) methods with hesitant fuzzy logic approach; hesitant fuzzy analytic hierarchy process (hesitant F-AHP) and hesitant fuzzy the technique for order preference by similarity to ideal solution (HF-TOPSIS) are integrated as HF-AHP-TOPSIS to evaluating a set of enterprise resource planning (ERP) alternatives and rank them by weight to reach to the ultimate one that satisfies the needs and expectations of a company.Design/methodology/approachSelecting the best ERP software package among the rising number of the options in market has been a critical problem for most companies for a long time because of the reason that an improper ERP software package might lead to many issues (i.e. time loss, increased costs and a loss of market share). On the other hand, finding the best ERP alternative is a comprehensive MCDM problem in the presence of a set of alternatives and several potentially competing quantitative and qualitative criteria.FindingsIn this integrated approach, the hesitant F-AHP is used to determine the criteria weights, as the hesitant F-TOPSIS is utilized to rank ERP package alternatives. The proposed approach was also validated in a numerical example that has five ERP package alternatives and 12 criteria by three decision-makers in order to show its applicability to potential readers and practitioners.Research limitations/implicationsIf the number of the alternatives and criteria are dramatically increased beyond reasonable numbers, the reaching to final solution will be so difficult because of the great deal of fuzzy based calculations. Therefore, the number of criteria and alternatives should be at reasonable numbers.Practical implicationsThe proposed approach was also validated in a illustrated example with the five ERP package options and 12 criteria by the three decision-makers in order to show its applicability to potential readers and practitioners.Originality/valueFurthermore, in literature, to the best of our knowledge, the authors did not come cross any work that integrates the HF-AHP with the HF-TOPSIS for ERP software package selection problem.
基于犹豫模糊语言术语集的ERP软件包评价AHP-TOPSIS方法
目的研究了两种常用的多准则决策方法,其中犹豫不决模糊逻辑方法;将犹豫不决模糊层次分析法(犹豫不决F-AHP)和犹豫不决模糊理想相似度排序偏好法(HF-TOPSIS)结合为一种HF-AHP-TOPSIS,对一组企业资源规划(ERP)方案进行评价,并对其进行权重排序,以达到满足企业需求和期望的最终方案。设计/方法/途径在市场上越来越多的选择中选择最好的ERP软件包长期以来一直是大多数公司的关键问题,因为一个不合适的ERP软件包可能会导致许多问题(即时间损失,成本增加和市场份额的损失)。另一方面,寻找最佳的ERP替代方案是一个综合的MCDM问题,因为存在一组替代方案和几个潜在的相互竞争的定量和定性标准。在这种综合方法中,犹豫F-AHP被用来确定标准权重,因为犹豫F-TOPSIS被用来对ERP包备选方案进行排名。所提出的方法也在一个数值例子中得到验证,该例子有五个ERP包替代方案和三个决策者的12个标准,以显示其对潜在读者和从业者的适用性。研究局限/影响如果备选方案和标准的数量急剧增加,超出了合理的数量,由于大量的模糊计算,达到最终的解决方案将是非常困难的。因此,标准和备选方案的数量应该是合理的。实际意义建议的方法也被三个决策者用五个ERP包选项和12个标准的例子验证,以显示其对潜在读者和从业者的适用性。此外,在文献中,据我们所知,作者没有遇到任何将HF-AHP与HF-TOPSIS集成在ERP软件包选择问题上的工作。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信