Partnership selection is an important issue in management science. This study proposes a general model based on mixed integer programming and goal-programming analytic hierarchy process (GP-AHP) to solve partnership selection problems involving mixed types of uncertain or inconsistent preferences. The proposed approach is designed to deal with crisp, interval, step, fuzzy, or mixed comparison preferences, derive crisp priorities, and improve multiple solution problems. The degree of fulfillment of a decision maker’s preferences is also taken into account. The results show that the proposed approach keeps more solution ratios within the given preferred intervals and yields less deviation. In addition, the proposed approach can treat incomplete preference matrices with flexibility in reducing the number of pairwise comparisons required and can also be conveniently developed into a decision support system. 1. Introduction Partnership selection is an important issue in management science. The partnership selection problem can be formulated as a multiple criteria decision making problem [1]. Many researchers have adopted the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP; [2]) to solve related problems [3, 4], which uses exact values to express a decision maker’s pairwise comparison judgments in complete preference matrices. However, because the information about future partners is usually incomplete and vague, a decision maker’s judgments are often uncertain, inconsistent, and incomplete. Several methods have been developed to deal with partner selection problems with uncertain preferences. For instance, Mikhailov [1] proposed a new Fuzzy Preference Programming (FPP) method based on interval pairwise comparison judgments and then used the AHP method to derive global priorities for all possible alternatives. His method can be used for deriving crisp priorities from exact or interval comparison matrices regardless of their consistency. However, the FPP method may yield multiple solution problems resulting in various ranking for partner selection. In addition, this method is unable to treat judgments with step preferences in which the degree of fulfillment is constant over the same step. Herrera-Viedma et al. [5] developed the consistent fuzzy preference (CFP) method to construct the decision matrices of pairwise comparisons. Wang and Chen [6] applied the CFP method to partnership selection problems; their method can significantly reduce the number of pairwise comparisons since it can deal with incomplete preference matrices. The basic assumption of the CFP method is that a
References
[1]
L. Mikhailov, “Fuzzy analytical approach to partnership selection in formation of virtual enterprises,” Omega, vol. 30, no. 5, pp. 393–401, 2002.
[2]
T. L. Saaty, “A scaling method for priorities in hierarchical structures,” Journal of Mathematical Psychology, vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 234–281, 1977.
[3]
R. G. Kasilingam and C. P. Lee, “Selection of vendors—a mixed-integer programming approach,” Computers and Industrial Engineering, vol. 31, no. 1-2, pp. 347–350, 1996.
[4]
M. C. Y. Tam and V. M. R. Tummala, “An application of the AHP in vendor selection of a telecommunications system,” Omega, vol. 29, no. 2, pp. 171–182, 2001.
[5]
E. Herrera-Viedma, F. Herrera, F. Chiclana, and M. Luque, “Some issues on consistency of fuzzy preference relations,” European Journal of Operational Research, vol. 154, no. 1, pp. 98–109, 2004.
[6]
T.-C. Wang and Y.-H. Chen, “Applying consistent fuzzy preference relations to partnership selection,” Omega, vol. 35, no. 4, pp. 384–388, 2007.
[7]
T. L. Saaty and L. G. Vargas, “Uncertainty and rank order in the analytic hierarchy process,” European Journal of Operational Research, vol. 32, no. 1, pp. 107–117, 1987.
[8]
F. Torfi, R. Z. Farahani, and S. Rezapour, “Fuzzy AHP to determine the relative weights of evaluation criteria and Fuzzy TOPSIS to rank the alternatives,” Applied Soft Computing Journal, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 520–528, 2010.
[9]
Z. Xu and C. Wei, “A Consistency improving method in the analytic hierarchy process,” European Journal of Operational Research, vol. 116, no. 2, pp. 443–449, 1999.
[10]
H.-L. Li and L.-C. Ma, “Detecting and adjusting ordinal and cardinal inconsistencies through a graphical and optimal approach in AHP models,” Computers and Operations Research, vol. 34, no. 3, pp. 780–798, 2007.
[11]
J. Zeng, M. An, and N. J. Smith, “Application of a fuzzy based decision making methodology to construction project risk assessment,” International Journal of Project Management, vol. 25, no. 6, pp. 589–600, 2007.
[12]
Y.-M. Wang and K.-S. Chin, “A linear goal programming priority method for fuzzy analytic hierarchy process and its applications in new product screening,” International Journal of Approximate Reasoning, vol. 49, no. 2, pp. 451–465, 2008.
[13]
C. Kahraman and I. Kaya, “A fuzzy multicriteria methodology for selection among energy alternatives,” Expert Systems with Applications, vol. 37, no. 9, pp. 6270–6281, 2010.
[14]
H.-F. Lin, “An application of fuzzy AHP for evaluating course website quality,” Computers and Education, vol. 54, no. 4, pp. 877–888, 2010.
[15]
W. D. Cook, B. Golany, M. Kress, M. Penn, and T. Raviv, “Optimal allocation of proposals to reviewers to facilitate effective ranking,” Management Science, vol. 51, no. 4, pp. 655–661, 2005.
[16]
H. J. Zimmermann, “Description and optimization of fuzzy systems,” International Journal of General Systems, vol. 2, no. 4, pp. 209–215, 1976.
[17]
C.-S. Yu, “A GP-AHP method for solving group decision-making fuzzy AHP problems,” Computers and Operations Research, vol. 29, no. 14, pp. 1969–2001, 2002.
[18]
W. W. Cooper, “Origins, uses of, and relationships between multi-objective programming and data envelopment analysis,” Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 3–11, 2005.
[19]
H. A. Taha, Operations Research, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA, 2003.
[20]
L.-C. Ma and H.-L. Li, “A fuzzy ranking method with range reduction techniques,” European Journal of Operational Research, vol. 184, no. 3, pp. 1032–1043, 2008.