An orders-of-magnitude AHP supply chain risk assessment framework

Dong, Qingxing; Cooper, Orrin

doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2016.08.021

Cited by 140 publications

(69 citation statements)

References 52 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…It is still the primary method of MADM in recent studies. For this point, the following articles, which involve a variety of applications in the past three years, are cited [47][48][49][50][51][52]. The effectiveness of AHP in solving practical decision problems encouraged the proposal of hybrid models [53][54][55].…”

Section: The Ahp Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Post-Training Study on the Budgeting Criteria Set and Priority for MALE UAS Design

Chi

Chyng³

et al. 2019

Sustainability

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A recent study proposed a systematic “(budgeting) knowledge discovery educational framework” (BKDEF). This BKDEF is focused on guiding staff training courses for enhancing the ability to allocate the “large but limited” budget for single, high-cost product design. However, except for its initial application to support the budget planning for the next generation fighter design, the framework’s effectiveness is still awaiting further scrutiny. This study fills the gap by providing the “second application” of BKDEF, which is to support another similar decision for designing the medium-altitude long-endurance unmanned aerial system (MALE UAS). This paper verified the effectiveness of the framework through an empirical application and obtained the knowledge required to allocate a budget for MALE UAS design following the group-opinion basis. In addition, the original analytical style for the last “decision analysis” phase of BKDEF, which included pure quantitative analytical items in order to understand the similarities and diversities in the individual opinions, was replaced by a comparative study to discover the homogeneity and heterogeneity between the two budgeting decisions in a larger scope. As a consequence, the two criteria sets did not overlap despite both decisions being related to military aircraft design. The absolute weights for the MALE UAS design criteria were more balanced than those for the air-superior fighter design, even if the size of the criteria set was larger. The results pave a way for future studies on how other military aircrafts are designed, as more confidence about the use of a BKDEF can be gained from increasing applications, thus more insightful aerospace knowledge can be exploited in comparisons with these works.

show abstract

Section: The Ahp Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Post-Training Study on the Budgeting Criteria Set and Priority for MALE UAS Design

Chi

Chyng³

et al. 2019

Sustainability

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The literature is abundant with its applications, and this is still true in this decade. For space reason, the following recent articles which involve a variety of applications (but not limited to these) are cited [59][60][61][62][63][64][65][66][67]. As can be seen, the popularity of AHP is mainly based on its effectiveness in solving real decision problems; so many hybrid models also involve the use of AHP [68][69][70][71].…”

Section: The Ahp Methods Suggested For Phase Iii's Main Knowledge Discmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Knowledge Discovery Education Framework Targeting the Effective Budget Use and Opinion Explorations in Designing Specific High Cost Product

Chi

Zhuang

Fu³

et al. 2018

Sustainability

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:For an R&D institution to design a specific high investment cost product, the budget is usually 'large but limited'. To allocate such budget on the directions with key potential benefits (e.g., core technologies) requires, at first and at least, a priority over the involved design criteria, as to discover the relevant decision knowledge for a suitable budgeting plan. Such a problem becomes crucial when the designed product is relevant to the security and military sustainability of a nation, e.g., a next generation fighter. This study presents a science education framework that helps to obtain such knowledge and close the opinion gaps. It involves several main tutorial phases to construct and confirm the set of design criteria, to establish a decision hierarchy, to assess the preferential structures of the decision makers (DMs) (individually or on a group basis), and to perform some decision analyses that are designed to identify the homogeneity and heterogeneity of the opinions in the decision group. The entire framework has been applied in a training course hold in a large R&D institution, while after learning the staff successfully applied these knowledge discovery processes (for planning the budget for the fighter design works and for closing the opinion gaps present). With the staffs' practical exercises, several empirical findings except for the budgeting priority (e.g., the discrimination between 'more important criteria' against the less important ones) are also interesting. For some examples (but not limited to these), it is found that the results from using two measures (statistical correlation vs. geometrical cosine similarity) to identify the opinion gaps are almost identical. It is found that DMs' considerations under various constructs are sometimes consistent, but often hard to be consistent. It is also found that the two methods (degree of divergence (DoD) vs. number of observed subgroups (NSgs)) that are used to understand the opinions' diversity under the constructs are different. The proposed education framework meets the recent trend of data-driven decision-making, and the teaching materials are also some updates to science education.

show abstract

“…AHP is a widely used MADM approach that was proposed in 1977 [8]. It has been used in many recent application studies (e.g., [9][10][11][12][13][14][15]). AHP uses the concept of pairwise comparisons during investigation to prioritize or rank the criteria and/or the alternatives during calculation.…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Acknowledgments: Note that the original idea of this study was presented orally at the 2017 IEEE International Conference on Innovation, Communication and Engineering Innovation, Information and Engineering (IEEE ICICE 2017), 5-11 November 2017, Kunming, China [64], as well as at the 2018 IEEE/TIKI ICICE 2018, [9][10][11][12][13][14] November 2018, Hangzhou, China [65]. The body of this research has been continuously irrigated across…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Rank-Based Comparative Research Flow Benchmarking the Effectiveness of AHP–GTMA on Aiding Decisions of Shredder Selection by Reference to AHP–TOPSIS

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The AHP–GTMA (analytic hierarchy process and graph theory and matrix approach) has been applied to select the best paper shredder before a company was making a bulk purchase order. However, there is a question as to whether one such relatively recent approach is effective to aid the selection decision problems in industrial/commercial practice. In this paper, a novel multi-measure, rank-based comparative research flow is proposed. The real decision problem case mentioned above is solved using the AHP–GTMA and the AHP–TOPSIS methods, respectively, with relevant datasets sourced. Several measures in the proposed flow, i.e., the arithmetical, geometrical, or even statistical ones, are multiplexed and used to validate the similarity between the rank order vectors (ROVs) (and thus between the final preferential orders determined over the alternatives) that are obtained using these two different methods. While AHP–TOPSIS is a confident multi-attribute decision-making (MADM) approach which has been successfully applied to many other fields, the similarity validated between these individual results using the proposed method is used to confirm the efficacy of the AHP–GTMA approach and to determine its applicability in practice. In addition, along with this study, some contributable points are also rendered for implementing the decision models, e.g., the optimized recursive implementation in R to compute the permanent value of a square ASAM (alternative selection attribute matrix, which is the computational basis required by AHP–GTMA) of any dimension. The proposed methodological flow to confirm the similarity based on the ordinal rank information is not only convenient in operational practice with ubiquitous tool supports (e.g., the vector-based R statistical platform), but also generalizable (to verify between another pair of results obtained using any other MADM methods). This gives options for future research.

show abstract

An orders-of-magnitude AHP supply chain risk assessment framework

Cited by 140 publications

References 52 publications

A Post-Training Study on the Budgeting Criteria Set and Priority for MALE UAS Design

A Post-Training Study on the Budgeting Criteria Set and Priority for MALE UAS Design

A Knowledge Discovery Education Framework Targeting the Effective Budget Use and Opinion Explorations in Designing Specific High Cost Product

Rank-Based Comparative Research Flow Benchmarking the Effectiveness of AHP–GTMA on Aiding Decisions of Shredder Selection by Reference to AHP–TOPSIS

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About