101107
ISSN: 22222510
2013 WAP journal. www.waprogramming.com
Alireza Faghih
Associated Professor,
Faculty of management,
University of Tehran
hsafari@ut.ac.ir
Abstract: One of the important problems in operation research is ranking of some alternatives basis on some
criteria. This case categorized in the Multi Criteria Decision Making methods. This paper investigated on the
ranking of Iran's Informatics companies. Imprecise Information and uncertainty in this industry lead us to avoid
from traditional techniques. Then we developed a methodology consist of three components: design a metric for
measuring performance of a company, developing fuzzy rulebased system, and finally evaluating and ranking of
Informatics companies. For design of metric, EFQM and system model have been used. According to proposed
metric, two factors consider for evaluating of companies: current efficiency and potential growth. Then outputs of
fuzzy system are the final score of every company that is the basis of company ranking, and situation of companies
in the above factors.
I. INTRODUCTION
A common problem in operations research involves comparing a set of alternatives to determine which is best that
is named decision making. Decision making often takes place in a fuzzy environment where the information available is
imprecise or uncertain. For fuzzy decision problems of prioritizing or evaluating a finite set of alternatives involving
multiple criteria, the application of fuzzy set theory to multicriteria analysis models under the framework of utility theory
has proven to be an effective approach (Carlsson et al., 1996; Chen et al., 1992; Dubois et al., 1994; Murakami et al., 1983;
Zimmermann, 1987; Zimmermann, 1996; Zimmermann, 2000; Baldwin et al., 1979; Bortolan et al., 1985; Cheng, 1998;
Grzegorzewski, 1998; Kim et al. 1990; Lee et al. 1988; Liou et al., 1992; Modarres et al., 2001; Pomares, 2000).Fuzzy
ranking is a topic that has been used in this case and studied by many researchers (Bortolan et al. 1985; Chang et al. 1994;
Chen et al., 1992; Fortemps et al. 1996; Lee et al., 1988; Zhu et al., 1992). But It seems to have been proposed first by Jain
(Jain, 1976). More researches are belong to Wang and Kerre (Wang et al., 2001), Dubois and Prade (1999, 1982), Li and
Lee (1987), Nakamura (2000), and Tseng et al. (1988), give an extensive investigation of fuzzy ranking methods based on
various classification schemes. Although most fuzzy ranking methods in the literature produce satisfactory results for clearcut problems, they may generate counterintuitive outcomes or are not discriminatory enough under certain circumstances
(Berkan et al., 1997; Setnes et al., 1998; Geraedts et al., 2001). In addition, most of them require considerable
computational effort, which is obviously not desirable for handling largescale fuzzy multicriteria analysis problems. It is
evident that a fuzzy ranking method that can produce rational ranking results using sound logic and simple computations is
desirable for practical fuzzy decision problems.
In this paper, we propose a practical methodology to rank different Iran's Informatics companies. According to
proposed methodology, fuzzy rule based system was used. Finally, two kinds of ranking presented through it to point out
situation of a company in detail.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows: the research methodology is explained in Section 2. This section has
an associated example. The results are shown in Section 3. Some concluding remarks are made in Section 4.
101
Hossein Safari et al. World Applied Programming, Vol (3), No (3), March 2013.
II. METHODOLOGY
Basically, methodology of this paper is consisted of three stages: design a metric for examining of companies,
design a fuzzy system, and data analysis.
People
10%
Leadership
10%
Strategy
10%
Resources and
Partnerships
10%
10%
Processes,
Products
and
Services
10%
Customer
Results
15%
Key
Results
15%
Society
Results
10%
Enablers 50%
Results 50%
Figure 1. EFQM model
In this paper, for the ranking of Informatics companies, two factors were considered: current efficiency and
potential growth. If a company has a good situation in the both factors, it will have high rank. Current efficiency defines as
performance of a company, based on different aspects of organization, in the 2010 and potential growth is the growth rate of
performance for five years (2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, and 2010).
According to the different ranking throughout the world e.g. Furtune, Business week, Financial Post, Information
Week, Industry Week, Forbes, Financial Times, Asia week, and Canadian Business, the best criteria of companies ranking
are financial criteria. Some of them are Return on Investment, Return on Assets, Sale and Income per person, and so on. But
102
Hossein Safari et al. World Applied Programming, Vol (3), No (3), March 2013.
here we used soft organizational variable. For identification of these variables, EFQM model was used. But its classification
of components was changed. In this paper, we mixed EFQM and System model. EFQM has nine components (Figure 1) and
System model has three components of input, process and output. Figure 2 shows mapping of system model on the EFQM.
People
Results
People
Strategy
Leadership
Processes,
Products and
Services
Resources
and
Partnerships
Input
Customer
Results
Key
Results
Society
Results
Process
Output
Then through three questionnaires, data will collect from three components of input, process and output based on
current efficiency and potential growth.
Hossein Safari et al. World Applied Programming, Vol (3), No (3), March 2013.
became important research items in the literature (Setnes et al., 1998; Setnes et al., 2000; Valente, 1999; Pomares et al.,
2000; Jin , 2000).
There are three common classes of fuzzy logic models: information processing models which describe
probabilistic relationships between sets of inputs and outputs; control models which control the operations of systems
governed by many fuzzy parameters; and decision models which model human behavior by incorporating subjective
knowledge and needs, using decision variables (Binh et al., 2005). Here, we have used the first kind of model for ranking of
Iran's Informatics companies. The architecture of fuzzy system is as figure 2.
Level 1
Level 2
Level 3
Input
Process
Current Efficiency
Output
Fuzzy Rule Based
System3
Final Score
Input
Process
Potential Growth
Output
Rank 2
Rank 1
This system has three subsystems that distributed throughout three levels. Rules of the third subsystem are pointed
out in the figure 3. This system has been run in the Fuzzy Tech software.
According to above system, we can show performance of a company in two forms. The first form is related to the
Rank 1 that is output of fuzzy system as a crisp number. This number is basis of companies ranking. But we can present
more detailed information about companies through Rank 2. In the Rank 2, performance of a company will be show
through two characters. According to figure 3, value of CF and PG is divided to five parts that every part related to a
104
Hossein Safari et al. World Applied Programming, Vol (3), No (3), March 2013.
symbol. For example, if performance of a company be A*, it means that CE of this company is very high and PG is
medium.
Very Low
CE
PG
E

Low
Medium
D

High
C
*
B
+
Very High
A
++
II.3 Example
One of the studied companies is Dadehpardazi. Its collected data is as the following table.
Input
0.0091
Potential Growth
Process
Output
13.5
0.0249
According to the outputs of FuzzyTech software, CF is 0.25, PG is 0.0121 and Final Score is 0.0576. So
performance of this company is D. Figure 4 shows value of CF, PG, and Final Score of Dadehpardazi in three dimension
plot.
105
Hossein Safari et al. World Applied Programming, Vol (3), No (3), March 2013.
Comp
any
Co 1
Co 2
Co 3
Co 4
Co 5
Co 6
Co 7
Co 8
Co 9
Co 10
Current Efficiency
Input Process Output
658
26.5
59462
6815
26
14089
1129
31
5800
590
20.5
6701
607.25
26
6526
122.25
15
4861
170
21.5
2410
333.5
20.5
1875
105
30
1400
312.75
35.5
1707
Potential Growth
Input
Process Output
0.9119
8
0
0.0091
13.5
0.025
0.114
12
0.06
0.1216
5
0.76
0.65
11
0
0.2519
2
0.03
0.5365
5
1
0.3214
5.5
0.16
0.2335
6
0.25
4.7916
8
0
CF
PG
0.11
0.25
0.0484
0.0473
0.0389
0.0279
0.0143
0.0126
0.0136
0.0103
0.1333
0.0121
0.0808
0.0748
0.1028
0.0956
0.25
0.1380
0.0661
0.0639
Final
Score
0.1333
0.0576
0.0484
0.0473
0.0389
0.0283
0.0177
0.0159
0.0136
0.0103
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
DDEEEEEEEE
IV. CONCLUSION
In this paper, we interested in using a new methodology based on fuzzy system to rank Irans Informatics
companies. According to the suggested conceptual model, two factors of current efficiency and potential growth are used to
evaluate and rank companies. But for both factors, with system approach, three fields are defined: input, process, and
output. Then designed fuzzy system has three levels and three subsystems. Two kinds of ranking were developed to
evaluate every company. The first ranking is the basis of companies ranking and the second one present detail information
about companies and their rank. According to results of this research, the best three Irans Informatics companies are: ASR
e Danesh, DPI, and Iran Data System.
REFERENCES
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15]
[16]
[17]
[18]
[19]
Baldwin J.F., Guild N.C.F., 1979. Comparison of fuzzy sets on the same decision space, Fuzzy Sets and Systems 2, pp. 213231.
Berkan R.C., S.L. Trubatch, 1997. Fuzzy System Design Principles, IEEE Press, NY.
Binh Pham, Ross Brown, 2005. Visualisation of fuzzy systems: requirements, techniques and framework, Future Generation
Computer Systems 21, pp. 11991212.
Bortolan G. and Degani R., 1985. A review of some methods for ranking fuzzy subsets, Fuzzy Sets and Systems 15, pp. 119.
Carlsson C., Fuller R., 1996. Fuzzy multiple criteria decision making: recent developments, Fuzzy Sets and Systems 78, pp.
139153.
Chang P.T., Lee E.S., 1994. Ranking fuzzy sets based on the concept of existence, Computers Mathematics. Applications
27, pp. 121.
Chen S.J., Hwang C.L., 1992. Fuzzy Multiple Attribute Decision Making: Methods and Applications, SpringerVerlag, New
York.
Cheng C.H., 1998. A new approach for ranking fuzzy numbers by distance method, Fuzzy Sets and Systems 95, pp. 307317.
Driankov D., Hellendoorn H., Reinfrank M., 1996. An Introduction to Fuzzy Control, Springer, Berlin.
Dubois D., Prade H., 1994. Fuzzy sets a convenient fiction for modeling vagueness and possibility, IEEE Transactions on
Fuzzy Systems 2, pp. 1621.
Dubois D., Prade H., 1982. A unifying views of comparison indices in a fuzzy settheoretic framework, in: R.R. Yager (Ed.),
Fuzzy Set and Possibility TheoryRecent Development, Pergamon Press, New York, pp. 313.
Dubois D., Prade H., 1999. A unifying view of ranking techniques for fuzzy numbers, IEEE International Fuzzy Systems
Conference Proceedings, Seoul, Korea, pp. 13281333.
Fortemps P., Roubens M., 1996. Ranking and defuzzification methods based on area compensation, Fuzzy Sets and Systems
82, pp. 319330.
Frank M. Go, Robert, 2000. Integrated quality management for tourist destinations: a European perspective on achieving
competitiveness, Govers Tourism Management 21, pp. 7988.
Geraedts H.P.A., R. Montenarie, P.P. van Rijk, 2001. The benefits of total quality management, Computerized Medical
Imaging and Graphics 25, pp. 217220
Grzegorzewski P., 1998. Metrics and orders in space of fuzzy numbers, Fuzzy Sets and Systems 97, pp. 8394.
Hellendoorn H., Driankov D., 1997. Fuzzy Model Identification: Selected Approaches, Springer, Berlin.
Jain R., 1976. Decisionmaking in the presence of fuzzy variables, IEEE 7kansactions on Systems Man and Cynernetics 6,
pp. 698703.
Jin Y., 2000. Fuzzy modeling of highdimensional systems: complexity reduction and interpretability improvement, IEEE
Trans. Fuzzy Systems 8, pp. 212222.
106
Hossein Safari et al. World Applied Programming, Vol (3), No (3), March 2013.
[20] Kim K. and Park K.S., 1990. Ranking fuzzy numbers with index of optimism, Wzzy Sets and Systems 35, pp. 143150.
[21] Lee E.S. and Li R.J., 1988. Comparison of fuzzy numbers based on the probability measure of fuzzy events, Computers
436.
[26] Mohamed N. Nounou , Hazem N. Nounou, 2005. Multiscale fuzzy system identification, Journal of Process Control 15, pp.
763770
[27] Murakami S., Maeda S., Imamura S., 1983. Fuzzy decision analysis on the development of centralized regional energy control
[28]
[29]
[30]
[31]
[32]
[33]
[34]
[35]
[36]
[37]
[38]
[39]
[40]
[41]
[42]
system, Proceedings of IFAC Symposium on Fuzzy Information, Knowledge Representation and Decision Analysis, pp. 363
368.
Pomares H., Rojas I., Ortega J., Gonzalez J., Prieto A., 2000. A systematic approach to a selfgenerating fuzzy ruletable for
function approximation, IEEE Trans. Systems Man Cybernet. Part B:Cybernet. 30 (3), pp. 431447.
Raj P.A. and Kumar D.N., 1999. Ranking alternatives with fuzzy weights using maximizing set and minimizing set, Fuzzy
Sets and Systems 105, pp. 365375.
Setnes M., Babuska R., Verbruggen H.B., 1998. Rulebased modeling: precision and transparency, IEEE Trans. Systems Man
Cybernet.Part C: Applications and Reviews 28 (1), pp. 165169.
Setnes M., Roubos J.A., 2000. Gafuzzy modeling and classification: complexity and performance, IEEE Trans. Fuzzy
Systems 8 (5), pp. 509522.
Tseng T.Y., Klein C.M., Leonard M.S., 1988. A formalism for comparing ranking procedures, Proceedings of 7th Annual
Meeting of the North American Fuzzy Information Processing Society, pp. 231235.
Valente de Oliveira, 1999. Semantic constraints for membership function optimization, IEEE Trans. Fuzzy Systems 19 (1),
pp. 128138.
Wang X., Kerre E.E., 2001. Reasonable properties for the ordering of fuzzy quantities (I), Fuzzy Sets and Systems 118, pp.
375385.
Wang X., Kerre E.E., 2001. Reasonable properties for the ordering of fuzzy quantities (II), Fuzzy Sets and Systems 118, pp.
387405.
Westerveld E., 2003. The Project Excellence Model1: linking success criteria and critical success factors, International Journal
of Project Management 21, pp. 411418.
Zadeh L.A., 1973. Outline of a new approach to the analysis of complex systems and decision processes, IEEE Trans.
Systems Man Cybernet. 1, pp. 2844.
Zenik L., B. Pham, 2001. Fuzzy models in evaluation of information uncertainty in engineering and technology applications,
Proceedings of the 10th IEEE International Conference on Fuzzy, Australia, pp. 972975.
Zhu Q., Lee E.S., 1992. Comparison and ranking of fuzzy numbers, Fuzzy Regression Analysis, Omnitech Press, Warsaw
and PhysicaVerlag, Heidelberg, pp. 2144.
Zimmermann H.J., 2000. An applicationoriented view of modeling uncertainty, European Journal of Operational Research
122, pp. 190198.
Zimmermann H.J., 1996, Fuzzy Set Theory and Its Applications, Kluwer, Boston.
Zimmermann H.J., 1987. Fuzzy Sets, Decisionmaking and Expert Systems, Kluwer, Boston.
107
Viel mehr als nur Dokumente.
Entdecken, was Scribd alles zu bieten hat, inklusive Bücher und Hörbücher von großen Verlagen.
Jederzeit kündbar.