Using the Fuzzy Best Worst Method for Evaluating Strategic Planning Models

被引:1
|
作者
Ajripour, Iman [1 ]
Hanne, Thomas [2 ]
机构
[1] Univ Miskolc, Inst Management Sci, Egyetemvar, H-3515 Miskolc, Hungary
[2] Univ Appl Sci & Arts Northwestern Switzerland, Inst Informat Syst, Riggenbachstr 16, CH-4600 Olten, Switzerland
关键词
strategic planning models; multicriteria decision making; fuzzy best worst method; fuzzy sets; small and medium-sized manufacturing companies; SELECTION;
D O I
10.3390/pr11041284
中图分类号
TQ [化学工业];
学科分类号
0817 ;
摘要
During the last few decades, various strategic planning models have been suggested in the literature. It is difficult for a company to decide which of these models is most useful to adopt, as each of them shows different strengths and weaknesses. We consider this problem a multicriteria decision problem and investigate the evaluation of six strategic planning models in the context of smaller and medium-sized manufacturing companies in Iran. We consider a methodology that supports the analysis of the input from several decision-makers based on multiple criteria and assume vagueness in the input data elicited from them. For the purpose considered, the fuzzy best worst method (FBWM) appears appropriate. Based on a literature review, six evaluation criteria for strategic management models are considered: formality, clarity, measurability, objectivity, coverage, and consistency. These criteria are evaluated based on the input provided by thirteen managers using linguistic variables. FBWM is used to provide criteria weights that are used to determine fuzzy scores for the six considered strategic planning models. Finally, a defuzzification of the scores indicates the model by Wright is best suited for the application purpose. A consistency analysis included in FBWM shows that the input provided by the managers is sufficiently consistent.
引用
收藏
页数:17
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [41] Prioritization of sustainable manufacturing barriers using Best Worst Method
    Malek, Javed
    Desai, Tushar N.
    JOURNAL OF CLEANER PRODUCTION, 2019, 226 : 589 - 600
  • [42] Failure prioritization and control using the neutrosophic best and worst method
    Melih Yucesan
    Muhammet Gul
    Granular Computing, 2021, 6 : 435 - 449
  • [43] Optimizing Wind Energy Technology Selection Under Uncertain and Incomplete Information Using Fuzzy Best Worst Method and Fuzzy Information Axiom
    Cebi, Selcuk
    Cem, Ecem
    Unal, Gorkem
    Karakurt, Necip Fazil
    Journal of Multiple-Valued Logic and Soft Computing, 2024, 44 (1-2) : 183 - 207
  • [44] An Integrated Approach of Best-Worst Method (BWM) and Triangular Fuzzy Sets for Evaluating Driver Behavior Factors Related to Road Safety
    Moslem, Sarbast
    Gul, Muhammet
    Farooq, Danish
    Celik, Erkan
    Ghorbanzadeh, Omid
    Blaschke, Thomas
    MATHEMATICS, 2020, 8 (03)
  • [45] Interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy best-worst method with additive consistency
    Dong, Jiu-Ying
    Wan, Shu-Ping
    EXPERT SYSTEMS WITH APPLICATIONS, 2024, 236
  • [46] An approach based on Fuzzy Best-Worst method for sustainable evaluation of mining industries
    Pezeshkan, Mehdi
    Navid, Hosseini
    GOSPODARKA SUROWCAMI MINERALNYMI-MINERAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT, 2020, 36 (02): : 41 - 69
  • [47] Hospital performance evaluation by a hesitant fuzzy linguistic best worst method with inconsistency repairing
    Liao, Huchang
    Mi, Xiaomei
    Yu, Qin
    Luo, Li
    JOURNAL OF CLEANER PRODUCTION, 2019, 232 : 657 - 671
  • [48] A holistic FMEA approach by fuzzy-based Bayesian network and best–worst method
    Melih Yucesan
    Muhammet Gul
    Erkan Celik
    Complex & Intelligent Systems, 2021, 7 : 1547 - 1564
  • [49] A novel fuzzy scenario-based stochastic general best-worst method
    Tavana, Madjid
    Sorooshian, Shahryar
    Rezaei, Homa
    Mina, Hassan
    EXPERT SYSTEMS WITH APPLICATIONS, 2024, 252
  • [50] Fuzzy best-worst method and its application in initial water rights allocation
    Xu, Yejun
    Zhu, Xiaotong
    Wen, Xiaowei
    Herrera-Viedma, Enrique
    APPLIED SOFT COMPUTING, 2021, 101 (101)