Information Technology Reference
In-Depth Information
Table 5 Linguistic assessments for the three suppliers (alternatives)
Criteria Alternatives
A1 A2 A3
D1 D2 D3 D1 D2 D3 D1 D2 D3
C1 H VH VL VH VH M VH H VL
2 L L H L L MHH L
C3 M H L H M M H VL VL
C4 VH L VH M M M L VH L
C5 VL M M H L H M M M
C6 M VH VH M M VL M VL VH
C7 VL H H H VL VL M VH L
C8 H M M H L VH H M L
9 HLHHHL L HL
C10
VL
M
VH
VL
VL
VL
H
VL
M
C11
L
H MVH
VH ML
VH
VH
C12
VL
L
L
VL
VL
M
M
VH
M
C13
VH
L
H
VL
H
M
L
H
VH
C14
H
H
H
L MMMVL M
C15
VL
H
M
VH
VL
L
L
M
H
C16
H
VL
VL
M
L
VL
L
VL
H
C17
VL
VH
M
VH
VH
M
H
VH
H
3 X
3
1
ð
;
;
Þ;
þ
þ
;
w j1 ¼
min
k
5
3
7
w j2 ¼
7
5
9
k¼1
w j1 ¼
max
k
ð
9
;
7
;
9
Þ
¼ ~
w j ¼ ð
3
;
7
;
9
Þ
Likewise, we computed the aggregate weights for the remaining criteria. The
aggregate weights of the 17 criteria are presented in Table 6 .
The aggregate fuzzy weights of the three alternatives (suppliers) are computed
using Eq. ( 2 ). For example, the aggregate rating for supplier A1 for criteria C1
using the rating of the three decision makers is computed as follows:
3 X
3
1
a ij ¼
min
k
ð
5
;
7
;
1
Þ;
b ij ¼
7
þ
9
þ
1
;
k¼1
c ij ¼ ma k ð 9 ; 9 ; 3 Þ
¼ ð
1
;
5
:
667
;
9
Þ
Search WWH ::




Custom Search