Novel methodologies and a comparative study for manufacturing systems performance evaluations

Weapon selection using the AHP and TOPSIS methods under fuzzy environment

“…The advantage of these methods is that they can account for both financial and non-financial impacts. Among these methods, the most popular ones are scoring models (Nelson, 1986), analytic hierarchy process (AHP) (Göleç & Tas ßkın, 2007), analytic network process (ANP) (Yuksel & Dagdeviren, 2007), axiomatic design (AD) , utility models (Munoz & Sheng, 1995), TOPSIS (Kahraman, Büyüközkan, & Ates ß, 2007), ELECTRE (Wang & Triantaphyllou, (Dagdeviren, 2008). It is essential to develop all elements related to the situation in detail before selecting an appropriate MCDM method to solve the problem under consideration (Bufardi, Gheorghe, Kiritsis, & Hirouchakis, 2004;Mergias et al, 2007).…”

A Fuzzy Methodology for Local Entrepreneurial Culture Evaluation: Evidence From Post-Soviet Kyrgyzstan

“…The higher the score, the more reliable the generated scale is. George and Mallery provided the following rules of thumb: _ > .9 -Excellent, _ > .8 -Good, _ > .7 -Acceptable, _ > .6 -Questionable, _ > .5 -Poor, and _ < .5 -Unacceptable [35]. In this study, diversity and change, business promotion, business discouragement, and focus on local factors were rated on Cronbach's alpha as 0.722 (acceptable), 0.567 (poor), 0.552 (poor), and 0.663 (questionable) respectively.…”

A hybrid methodology for restructuring decision of a manufacturing system: A case study

“…Göleç and Taş kın [18] have suggested a complex fuzzy methodology to evaluate a manufacturing system's performance. They have developed two fuzzy modelling designs as fuzzy analytic hierarchy process and approximate reasoning.…”