Sie sind auf Seite 1von 17

ARTICLE IN PRESS

International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 33 (2004) 553569

Using the fuzzy analytic hierarchy process on optimum spatial allocation


Fong-Gong Wu*, Ying-Jye Lee, Ming-Chyuan Lin
Department of Industrial Design, National Cheng Kung University, 1, Ta-Hsueh Road, Tainan 70101, Taiwan, ROC Received 7 March 2003; received in revised form 30 December 2003; accepted 5 January 2004

Abstract This study uses the fuzzy analytic hierarchy process (FAHP) approach on a multiple criteria decision-making process made up of rational and emotional choices. The process involves setting evaluation criteria, constructing a fuzzy judgment matrix and weight vector, and then ranking the order of candidate alternatives by a fuzzy number in the fuzzy sequencing vector. This FAHP approach can provide hotel managers with a suitable way to determine the optimum spatial allocation. Also, creation of an articial spatial allocation image by the image compositing technique allows hotel managers to see the future completed work before renovating, and the emotional judgment of the spatial image can take place immediately. Furthermore, the virtual image facilitates the reduction of communication time between hotel managers and designers and increases the level of satisfaction towards the nal spatial allocation. Relevance to industry The FAHP approach addressed in this study can be applied to hotels, motels and related spaces where spatial allocation is needed and helps decision-makers or designers to choose the optimum alternative under the consideration of rational and emotional factors. r 2004 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Fuzzy analytic hierarchy process; Multiple criteria decision-making; Spatial allocation; Image compositing; Virtual image

1. Introduction Different spatial allocations produce different visual effects; hence, proper spatial changes can create a more comfortable and stylish environment. Along with highly developed technology, comes our concern for higher living quality. The traditional physical requirements of living spaces
*Corresponding author. Tel.: +886-6-2826451; fax: +886-62826452. E-mail address: fonggong@mail.ncku.edu.tw (F.-G. Wu).

now need to also consider the spiritual level so that the living environment can closely compliment and match the surrounding space. Therefore, the spatial allocation of living space has gradually become more and more important. Traditional living spaces are usually fashioned by the designers according to experience or to the customers verbal input, but this method does not always create the best spatial allocation. For home decoration companies, hotels, motels or related industries are usually their most loyal customers. To maintain a clean and comfortable

0169-8141/$ - see front matter r 2004 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.ergon.2004.01.002

ARTICLE IN PRESS
554 F.-G. Wu et al. / International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 33 (2004) 553569

interior space, materials such as the curtains, bedcovers, wallpaper and carpets need to be renewed constantly. Also, due to the consideration of rational and emotional factors such as the price, safety of the materials, operation time and aesthetic sensibilities of spatial allocation, designers run into difculties while designing an ideal spatial allocation. Therefore, providing a decision-making model to assist in choosing the ideal spatial allocation that best satises the above factors should be an urgent requirement of hotels and the related industries. In the real world, multiple factors and the effects of these factors are processed, respectively. Therefore, it is necessary to consider and analyze multiple factors during decision-making. This type of decision-making is called multiple criteria decision-making (MCDM) (Cochrane and Zeleny, 1973; Yu, 1985; Zeleny, 1982). This study uses the principle of MCDM on hotel suites to search for the optimum spatial allocation with respect to the restraining factors. The course of this study involves deconstructing the interior space into several spatial allocation units, and then using the image compositing technique to articially allocate the interior space so that hotel managers can see an immediate virtual image of the spatial allocations on a computer screen. This allows them to evaluate the spatial image and indicate their level of satisfaction using the fuzzy measuring scale. Moreover, this study combines the fuzzy set theory and the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) to construct the fuzzy analytic hierarchy process (FAHP) approach. This combines the rational and emotional MCDM process, and the calculations of the FAHP approach in order to decide which of the spatial allocation alternatives is the optimum spatial allocation.

digitally manipulated combination of at least two source images to produce an integrated resulted (Brinkmann, 1999). It can be used in a wide variety of applications such as stereo matching and virtual reality, which requires the scene to be displayed from different viewpoints (Zhang, 1995). Virtual environments may also be produced through the image compositing process. Denitions and descriptions in regards to virtual environments can be found in the research conducted by Bayliss et al. (1994). Jayaram et al. (1997) also developed virtual assembly design environment through the concept of the virtual environment. From above, it can be clearly seen that the concept of virtual environment and the image compositing technique have already been widely adopted in many elds. This study uses the image compositing technique to articially allocate chosen materials and spatial allocation units so that hotel managers can see an immediate virtual image of the spatial allocations on a computer screen. Hence, we proceed with the evaluation of the satisfaction level through the fuzzy measuring scale. 2.2. Analytic hierarchy process The AHP was developed in the 1970s by Saaty of the Wharton School of Business (Saaty, 1977, 1980). It is a systematic and scientic MCDM method and is able to solve complicated and subjective decision-making problems. AHP can be used to solve problems under uncertain circumstances with multiple criteria. In AHP, multiple paired comparisons are based on a standardized evaluation scheme (1=equal importance; 3=weak importance; 5=strong importance; 7=demonstrated importance; 9=absolute importance). The AHP uses pairwise comparisons to compare n elements under given conditions and then converts vague verbal response into a 9-point linguistic scale. The results of the pairwise comparisons can be used to construct a judgment matrix, and then the normalized eigenvector corresponding to the maximum eigenvalue (lmax ) can be calculated. The consistency of the matrix can be determined by checking the consistency ratio (CR). A CR that is less than 0.1 indicates a consistent judgment (Saaty, 1980).

2. Theoretical background 2.1. Image compositing Composited images, also known as transferred images (Mundy and Zisserman, 1992) or predicted images (Faugeras and Robert, 1996), are the

ARTICLE IN PRESS
F.-G. Wu et al. / International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 33 (2004) 553569 555

The AHP is able to combine and order individual professional comments into a hierarchy and then analyze this hierarchy to increase the efciency of the evaluation. The result is given as a numerical value in order to give a clear hierarchy of relative importance between factors and also to construct a weight system to use on resource distribution, investment combinations and predictions. For example, the AHP is used on selecting machines for exible manufacturing systems (Tabucanon et al., 1994), evaluating human sensitivity to chromatic light (Wang and Lee, 1997) and the analysis of information systems (Finnie et al., 1993; Mitta, 1993). Although the AHP already has applications in various elds and has produced ideal results, researchers have found certain deciencies as follows. (1) The AHP is mainly applied to nearly crisp decisions (Hauser and Tadikamalla, 1996). (2) Although the use of a discontinuous 19 measuring scale does create simple efciency, the AHP does not take into account the correspondence of ones judgment to numbers and uncertainties that may arise. Also, decision-makers subjective judgment and personal taste has a large effect on the AHP (Cheng and Mon, 1994). (3) When the number of factors in the hierarchy increases, more comparisons between factors need to be made. This could easily cause confusion due to the excess of questions and hence lower the efciency of the model (Millet and Harker, 1990). 2.3. Fuzzy set theory The fuzzy set theory, introduced by Zadeh (1965) to deal with vague, imprecise and uncertain problems, has been used as a modeling tool for complex systems that can be controlled by humans but are hard to dene precisely. A collection of objects (universe of discourse) U has a fuzzy set A described by a membership function mA with values in the interval (0, 1): mA : U(0, 1). Thus A can be represented as A fmA u=u; where uAU}.

The degree that u belongs to A is the membership function mA u: Studies have been done which give more detailed discussions of the fuzzy set theory (Lee, 1990; Ross, 1995; Zimmermann, 1987). The fuzzy set theory has been applied to many elds of research (Evans et al., 1989; Grobelny, 1987; Nojiri, 1982). In this paper, with the support of the fuzzy set theory, triangular fuzzy numbers, which are parameterized by triplet numbers, are used to represent the importance and alternative performance of evaluation criteria as well as to construct the pairwise comparison matrix. Therefore, the relative contribution of each evaluation criterion in the adjacent upper level can be described as gradual and not abrupt, and this gives a more exact representation of the relationship between candidate alternatives and the evaluation criteria. The basic theory of the triangular fuzzy number is described as follows. Denition 1. Let F R equal the total fuzzy set of R; and suppose MAF R: If (x0 AR; which makes mm x0 1; 8lA0; 1; M l xmM xXl is a convex set; mM is the membership function of M : R-0; 1 and is denoted as 8 > x l=m l; xAl; m; < 1 mM x x u=m u; xAm; u; > : 0; otherwise: Then we designate M as the triangular fuzzy number. In this formula, u and l are the upper and lower values of the support of M; respectively, and m is the median value of M: The triangular fuzzy number is denoted as (l; m; u). Consider two triangular fuzzy numbers M 1 and M 2 ; where M 1 l1 ; m1 ; u1 and M 2 l2 ; m2 ; u2 : The operation laws of addition and multiplication for the fuzzy numbers are as follows (Zimmermann, 1993). fuzzy number addition ": l1 ; m1 ; u1 "l2 ; m2 ; u2 l1 l2 ; m1 m2 ; u1 u2 ; 2

ARTICLE IN PRESS
556 F.-G. Wu et al. / International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 33 (2004) 553569 Table 1 Fuzzy number and relative membership function for the fuzzy judgment matrix and weight vector

fuzzy number multiplication #: l1 ; m1 ; u1 #l2 ; m2 ; u2 l1 l2 ; m1 m2 ; u1 u2 : 3

Fuzzy number * 1 * 3 * 5 * 7 * 9

Membership function (1, (1, (3, (5, (7, 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 3) 5) 7) 9) 9)

3. FAHP approach in this study With the AHP not being able to overcome the deciency of the fuzziness during decision-making, Laarhoven and Pedrycz (1983) have evolved Saatys AHP into the FAHP, bringing the triangular fuzzy number of the fuzzy set theory directly into the pairwise comparison matrix of the AHP. The purpose is to solve vague problems, which occur during the analysis of criteria and the judgment process. For the denition of the triangular fuzzy number please reference Denition 1. In addition, some researchers have already organized the MCDM application of the fuzzy set theory and the AHP in many different elds (Cheng and Mon, 1994; Hauser and Tadikamalla, 1996; Levary and Ke, 1998; Lee et al., 2001). The FAHP approach in this study extends the AHP by combining it with the fuzzy set theory, and its procedure is described as follows. Step 1: Hierarchical structure construction. Put the goal of the desired problem (in this case the optimum spatial allocation) on the top layer of the hierarchical structure, and then put the evaluation criteria on the second layer of the hierarchical structure. The candidate alternatives lay in the bottom layer. Step 2: Constructing the fuzzy judgment matrix A and weight vector W for the hierarchical structure. In this study, the fuzzy judgment matrix A is the matrix of the combination of each candidate alternative and evaluation criteria, and the weight vector W is constructed by the evaluation criteria. The elements of the fuzzy judgment matrix A and weight vector W are represented by triangular * * * * * fuzzy numbers such as 1; 3; 5; 7 and 9; shown in Table 1. Fuzzy numbers reect the hotel managers requirements of the evaluation criteria. The detailed denitions of the relative importance of fuzzy numbers are shown in Table 2.

Table 2 Denitions of the relative importance for fuzzy numbers Relative importance * 1 * 3 * 5 * 7 * 9 Meaning Equal importance Weak importance Strong importance Demonstrated importance Absolute importance

Step 3: Ranking candidate alternatives and determining the optimum alternative. The result of calculating the FAHP is that the nal fuzzy scores of candidate alternatives are represented in terms of fuzzy numbers. In order to ascertain which of the alternatives are optimum, the fuzzy numbers ultimately need to be interpreted. Therefore, a defuzzication process needs to be adopted, which arranges the fuzzy numbers for ranking. The defuzzication process in this study can be described as follows. (1) Calculating the nal fuzzy scores of candidate alternatives: Set the weight vector W made up of evaluation criteria as wj n1 : W T is the * transpose of the weight vector W and it can be shown as wi n1 : The fuzzy judgment matrix A is * made up of candidate alternatives [A1 ; A2 ; y; Am ] and the evaluation criteria is given as aij mn : * Then, using the operation laws of addition and multiplication for fuzzy numbers operation (in reference to Eqs. (2) and (3)), we obtain the fuzzy sequencing vector S; shown as *i m1 : The s elements of the fuzzy sequencing vector are the nal fuzzy scores of the candidate alternatives. The calculation operations of the fuzzy sequencing

ARTICLE IN PRESS
F.-G. Wu et al. / International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 33 (2004) 553569 557

vector S are as follows. 2 a11 a12 * * 6a * 6 * 21 a22 A aij mn 6 * 4 ^ ^ am1 * W wj 1n w1 * * then 2 w1 * 3 am2 * w2 *

? ? ^

a1n * a2n * ^

3 7 7 7; 5

probabilities of fuzzy events, assuming that si is a * uniform distribution. In this study, si is a * triangular fuzzy number (l; m; u). Its mean x*i is * s dened as x*j l m u=3: * s 5 * The fuzzy numbers s1 ; s2 ; y, sm can be ranked * * according to the value of the fuzzy mean x*i to * s determine the optimum candidate alternative.

? amn * y wn ; *

6w 7 6 *2 7 W T 6 7; 4 ^ 5 wn * S A#W 2 a11 a12 * * 6a * 6 * 21 a22 6 4 ^ ^ 2 am1 * am2 *


T

4. Case studythe optimum spatial allocation for hotel suites This study uses a hotel suite as an example of combining the image compositing technique and the FAHP approach to obtain the optimum spatial allocation. The detailed steps are described in the following paragraphs. 4.1. Interior space deconstruction 3 7 7 7 5 The hotel suite space is deconstructed into ve spatial allocation units: curtain, chair, bedcover, wallpaper and carpet, as shown in Fig. 1. For each spatial allocation unit, hotel managers pick the suitable material from samples provided by the professionals of the home decoration industries. This study has chosen a hotel in Taiwan as a case study: after careful consideration of various factors for each spatial allocation unit, hotel managers chose three materials for the curtain, 1 for the chair, 3 for the bedcover, 3 for the wallpaper and 3 for the carpet. These are the alternatives of each allocation unit, shown in Table 3. There are therefore 3 1 3 3 3=81 combinations of the spatial allocation unit materials, and these are the candidate alternatives for this study, shown in Table 4. 4.2. Selecting the evaluation criteria For the home decoration industry, hotels, motels and the related industries are their most valued customers. Hotel managers will consider many factors while deciding on the spatial allocation such as the cost, the appearance of the material and pattern, color arrangement, time

y y ^

a1n * a2n * ^

w1 *

7 6w 7 7 6 *2 7 7#6 7 5 4 ^ 5 wn *

y amn *

a11 #w1 "a12 #w2 "y"a1n #wn * * * * * *

6 a #w "a #w "y"a #w * 2n * n 6 * 21 * 1 * 22 * 2 6 4 ^ am1 #w1 "am2 #w2 "y"amn #wn * * * * * * 3 s1 * 6s 7 *2 7 6 6 7; 4 ^ 5 2 sm *

where wj is the relative importance of the jth * evaluation criterion, aij is the relative importance * of the ith candidate alternative Ai corresponding to the jth evaluation criterion and si is the nal * fuzzy score of candidate alternative Ai : (2) Defuzzication of the nal fuzzy scores and the ranking of the fuzzy numbers: The nal fuzzy scores of candidate alternatives are represented in terms of fuzzy numbers in many fuzzy MCDM problems. It is necessary to dene a method for building a crisp ordering of totals from the fuzzy numbers to choose the optimum candidate alternative. In this study, the fuzzy mean and spread method (Lee and Li, 1988) are adopted to defuzzify and rank the fuzzy numbers. This method ranks fuzzy numbers by means of the

ARTICLE IN PRESS
558 F.-G. Wu et al. / International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 33 (2004) 553569

Fig. 1. Deconstruction of a hotel suite into ve spatial allocation units: curtain, chair, bedcover, wallpaper and carpet. Table 3 Chosen material for spatial allocation units

ARTICLE IN PRESS
F.-G. Wu et al. / International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 33 (2004) 553569 Table 4 81 candidate alternatives made up of individual spatial allocation units Candidate alternatives Alt Alt Alt Alt Alt Alt Alt Alt Alt Alt Alt Alt Alt Alt Alt Alt Alt Alt Alt Alt Alt Alt Alt Alt Alt Alt Alt 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 ABCDE 11111 11112 11113 11121 11122 11123 11131 11132 11133 11211 11212 11213 11221 11222 11223 11231 11232 11233 11311 11312 11313 11321 11322 11323 11331 11332 11333 Candidate alternatives Alt Alt Alt Alt Alt Alt Alt Alt Alt Alt Alt Alt Alt Alt Alt Alt Alt Alt Alt Alt Alt Alt Alt Alt Alt Alt Alt 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 ABCDE 21111 21112 21113 21121 21122 21123 21131 21132 21133 21211 21212 21213 21221 21222 21223 21231 21232 21233 21311 21312 21313 21321 21322 21323 21331 21332 21333 Candidate alternatives Alt Alt Alt Alt Alt Alt Alt Alt Alt Alt Alt Alt Alt Alt Alt Alt Alt Alt Alt Alt Alt Alt Alt Alt Alt Alt Alt 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 ABCDE 31111 31112 31113 31121 31122 31123 31131 31132 31133 31211 31212 31213 31221 31222 31223 31231 31232 31233 31311 31312 31313 31321 31322 31323 31331 31332 31333 559

A, curtain; B, chair; C, bedcover; D, wallpaper; and E, carpet.

Table 5 Denitions of the relative fuzzy numbers of the evaluation criteria Fuzzy number * 1 * 3 * 5 * 7 * 9 Price (NT$) (SP) Above 60,000 53,50160,000 46,50153,500 40,00146,500 Below 40,000 Safety (SS) 1 2 3 4 5 (ammable material for all allocation units) (ammable material for two allocation units) (ammable material for two allocation units) (ammable material for one allocation unit) (non-ammable material for all allocation units) Operation time (ST) (days) More than 11 910 78 56 Less than 4 Spatial image (SI) Below 0.45 0.450.59 0.600.74 0.750.89 Above 0.90

needed for ordering and construction, safety of the material, etc. This study takes into account the attributes of the considered factors. The costs of spatial allocation units are incorporated into the price factor. The neness of the material and pattern and the color arrangements belong to the emotional level, and in this study we group them into the spatial image factor. Also, the ordering

time, construction time and installation time are grouped into the operation time factor. Hence, this study has chosen the price, material safety, operation time and spatial image factors as the evaluation criteria of the optimum spatial allocation. Proper fuzzy numbers have been chosen to represent the denition of evaluation criteria, shown in Table 5.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
560 F.-G. Wu et al. / International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 33 (2004) 553569

Fig. 2. Hierarchy structure of the optimum spatial allocation.

4.3. Constructing the hierarchical structure of the optimum spatial allocation The main goal of the problem in this study is the optimum spatial allocation; hence, this goal is on the top layer of the hierarchical structure. Under the optimum spatial allocation lie the evaluation criteria for the price of the spatial allocation, material safety, operation time and spatial image on the second layer of the hierarchical structure. On the bottom layer of the hierarchical structure are the 81 candidate alternatives to obtain the nal goal. Details are shown in Fig. 2. 4.4. Constructing the fuzzy judgment matrix The hotel suite chosen for this study has a oor size of 540 square feet: the estimated materials needed for each spatial allocation unit are 30 yards of curtain material, 2 yards of chair material, 12 yards of bedcover material, 288 square feet of wallpaper and 540 square feet of carpet. The characteristics of the price, safety and operation time for each spatial allocation unit are described in Table 6. For the suite price (SP), the total material cost for each spatial allocation unit can be expressed as follows: SP
n X i1

where Upi is the material cost chosen by the ith spatial allocation unit, i 1; 2, 3, 4, 5. For the suite safety (SS), the total material safety for each spatial allocation unit can be expressed as SS
n X i1

Usi ;

where Usi is the material safety chosen by the ith spatial allocation unit. When the material is nonammable, Usi 1; otherwise Usi 0; i 1; 2, 3, 4, 5. Presuming that each spatial allocation unit can be operated simultaneously, the operation time (ST) for the suite space is the maximum operation time needed for each spatial allocation unit: ST maxUti ; 8

Upi ;

where Uti is the material operation time chosen by the ith spatial allocation unit, i 1; 2, 3, 4, 5. In addition, due to the consideration for the spatial image factor, the chosen materials can be composited with spatial allocation units by using the image compositing technique to show the virtual image on a computer screen. There are 81 spatial allocation conditions in this study. The hotel employees are invited to evaluate their level of satisfaction towards the virtual images and make ticks on a 100 mm measuring scale (refer to Fig. 3).

ARTICLE IN PRESS
F.-G. Wu et al. / International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 33 (2004) 553569 Table 6 Characteristics of the material chosen by spatial allocation units Allocation unit material Curtain material Code A1 A2 A3 B1 C1 C2 C3 D1 D2 D3 E1 E2 E3 Price (NT$/unit) Up 250 NT$/yard 450 NT$/yard 700 NT$/yard 550 NT$/yard 550 NT$/yard 450 NT$/yard 300 NT$/yard 500 NT$/36 square feet 650 NT$/36 square feet 800 NT$/36 square feet 1500 NT$/36 square feet 1600 NT$/36 square feet 1800 NT$/36 square feet Number 30 30 30 2 12 12 12 8 8 8 15 15 15 Total (NT$) 7500 13,500 21,000 1100 6600 5400 3600 4000 5200 6400 22,500 24,000 27,000 Safety Us Non-ammable material Non-ammable material Non-ammable material Non-ammable material Non-ammable material Non-ammable material Flammable material Non-ammable material Flammable material Non-ammable material Non-ammable material Non-ammable material Non-ammable material Operation time (days) Ut 7 4 12 3 4 7 5 3 5 9 5 7 3 561

Chair material Bedcover

Wallpaper

Carpet

Note: The price includes the cost of components required for installation. The operation time includes the time of ordering and the actual operation and installation time.

Fig. 3. Measuring scale for evaluating the satisfaction level towards specic spatial allocations.

The extreme left side of the measuring scale corresponds to exceedingly unsatisfactory, and the extreme right exceedingly satisfactory. This kind of fuzzy measuring technique was named as the point estimation method and was addressed by Chameau and Santamarina (1987). After the satisfactory evaluation process is completed, the position of the ticks can be transferred into quantied values between 0 and 1 (where 0 represents the left side of the scale and 1 represents the right side of the scale). According to the characteristics of the material chosen by each spatial allocation unit shown in Table 6, we can do further calculations on the evaluation criteria of each candidate alternative. For example, for the candidate alternative A1B1C1D1E1, the combination of materials chosen for the space according to each allocation unit

is shown in Fig. 4. The calculation process and relative fuzzy numbers of the price, safety, operation time and spatial image are described follows. According to Eq. (6) SP1 price
n X i1

Upi

Up1 A1 Up2 B1 Up3 C1 Up4 D1 Up5 E1 7500 1100 6600 4000 22; 500 41; 700: In accordance with the denition of price in Table 5, SP1 can be represented by a fuzzy * number 7:

ARTICLE IN PRESS
562 F.-G. Wu et al. / International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 33 (2004) 553569

According to Eq. (7) SS 1 safety


n X i1

According to Eq. (8) ST 1 operation time maxUti maxfUsA1 ; UsB1 ; UsC1 ; UsD1 ; UsE1 g maxf7; 3; 4; 3; 5g 7: In accordance with the denition of operation time in Table 5, ST1 can be represented by a fuzzy * number 5: SI1 (spatial image)=the evaluated mean value of spatial image of the candidate alternative A1B1C1D1E1. In the study, 15 hotel employees were shown virtual images of the 81 candidate alternatives on a computer screen. They then evaluated their level of satisfaction on the measuring scale. After conversion of the evaluation results into quantied values, we obtained a mean of 0.85. According to the denition of spatial image in Table 5, SI1 can be represented by a fuzzy * number 7: Through the same calculation process, we can calculate the relative fuzzy numbers of the price, safety, operation time and spatial image for all 81 spatial allocation candidate alternatives. The calculated results are shown in Table 7, and the fuzzy judgment matrix A is

Usi

Us1 A1 Us2 B1 Us3 C1 Us4 D1 Us5 E1 1 1 1 1 1 5: In accordance with the denition of safety in Table 5, SS1 can be represented by a fuzzy * number 9:

Fig. 4. Composite image of the chosen material and the relative spatial allocation units for alternative A1B1C1D1E1.

Table 7 Calculation results for candidate alternatives Candidate Curtain Chair Bedcover Wallpaper Carpet Price alternatives A B C D E SP Alt Alt Alt Alt Alt ] Alt Alt Alt Alt Alt 01 02 03 04 05 77 78 79 80 81 1 1 1 1 1 ] 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 ] 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ] 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 2 2 ] 2 2 3 3 3 1 2 3 1 2 ] 2 3 1 2 3 41,700 43,200 46,200 42,900 44,400 ] 54,900 57,900 54,600 56,100 59,100 Safety Operation time Fuzzy number * 5 * 5 * 5 * 5 * 5 ] * 1 * 1 * 1 * 1 * 1 Spatial image SI 0.85 0.68 0.93 0.65 0.46 ] 0.73 0.73 0.75 0.86 0.81 Fuzzy number * 7 * 5 * 9 * 5 * 3 ] * 5 * 5 * 7 * 7 * 7

Fuzzy SS Fuzzy ST number number * 7 * 7 * 7 * 7 * 7 ] * 3 * 3 * 3 * 3 * 3 5 5 5 4 4 ] 3 3 4 4 4 * 9 * 9 * 9 * 7 * 7 ] * 5 * 5 * 7 * 7 * 7 7 7 7 7 7 ] 12 12 12 12 12

ARTICLE IN PRESS
F.-G. Wu et al. / International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 33 (2004) 553569 563

shown below. 2 6 6 Alt 01 6 6 6 Alt 02 6 6 Alt 03 6 6 6 Alt 04 6 6 6 Alt 05 6 6 A6 ^ 6 6 ^ 6 6 6 Alt 77 6 6 6 Alt 78 6 6 Alt 79 6 6 6 Alt 80 4 Alt 81

Price * 7 * 7 * 7 * 7 * 7 ^ ^ * 3 * 3 * 3 * 3 * 3

Safety * 9 * 9 * 9 * 7 * 7 ^ ^ * 5 * 5 * 7 * 7 * 7

Time * 5 * 5 * 5 * 5 * 5 ^ ^ * 1 * 1 * 1 * 1 * 1

Image 7 * 7 7 7 * 7 5 7 7 * 7 9 7 7 * 7 5 7 7 * 3 7 7 7 ^ 7: 7 ^ 7 7 * 7 5 7 7 * 7 5 7 7 * 7 7 7 7 * 7 7 5 * 7 9

relative importance of spatial image has a fuzzy * number of 9: 4.5. Constructing the weight vector for evaluation criteria The larger the weight of the evaluation criteria, the larger its importance is during the process of decision-making. The spatial allocation of the hotel suite studied here needs to consider both rational (i.e., price, safety and operation time factors) and emotional (i.e., the spatial image factor) levels simultaneously. Through the investigation of hotel mangers and the verbal expression of their requirements on spatial allocation, their vague verbal input was converted into relative fuzzy numbers in order to represent the weight vector of each evaluation criteria, shown in Table 8. W represents the fuzzy weight vector of evaluation criteria, and it also can be described as W Wp ; Ws ; Wt ; Wi : note that the weight vector varies according to the hotels individual restrictions and different requirements. In the study, the results from interviews show that hotel managers wish for lower prices, higher levels of safety to meet government standards, reasonable operation times and perfect combinations between spatial allocation units and the chose materials. According to these requirements, with the reference to the

The above fuzzy judgment matrix A gave the relative importance of the evaluation criteria for each candidate alternative. For example, the relative importance of price for the third candidate * alternative Alt 03 has a fuzzy number of 7; the relative importance of the safety has a fuzzy * number of 9; the relative importance of the * operation time has a fuzzy number of 5; and the

Table 8 Fuzzy words from verbal expression transferred into relative fuzzy numbers, representing the weight of the evaluation criteria Fuzzy number * 1 * 3 * 5 * 7 Price Price does not matter, other requirements come rst Willing to accept even if slightly highly priced Will accept as long as the price is reasonable Wish for a lower price Safety Safety is not crucial Operation time Quality is more important than speed Take it slow, minor changes can be made Usual operation time As soon as possible Spatial image Does not matter, just use the chosen materials No special request, but prefer materials to go well together The chosen materials need to go well together Do all possible to adjust the material chosen to meet the spatial image requirement Perfect combinations required

Average

Needs higher level of safety Needs a high level of safety

* 9

Very low price required

High safety level to meet government regulations

Urgent

ARTICLE IN PRESS
564 F.-G. Wu et al. / International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 33 (2004) 553569

fuzzy numbers dened in Table 8, we nd the fuzzy weight vector, shown below: " # Price Safety Time Image W : 10 * * * * 7 9 5 9

4.6. Fuzzy number sequencing According to the operation laws of addition and multiplication for the fuzzy numbers (reference to Eqs. (2)(4)), the fuzzy sequencing vector S could go through fuzzy operation by using the fuzzy judgment matrix and the weight vector. The operation is as follows: S A#W T * 7 6* 67 6 6* 67 6 67 6* 6 67 * 6 6 6^ 6 6^ 6 6 * 63 6 6* 63 6 6* 63 6 63 4* * 3 2 * 9 * 9 * 9 * 7 * 7 ^ ^ * 5 * 5 * 7 * 7 * 7 * 5 * 5 * 5 * 5 * 5 ^ ^ * 1 * 1 * 1 * 1 * 1 2 * 7 5; 7; 9 7 * 6 57 6 5; 7; 9 7 6 *7 97 6 5; 7; 9 6 7 6 *7 57 6 5; 7; 9 7 2 3 6 * 6 5; 7; 9 *7 7 37 6 7 6*7 6 ^7 697 6 ^ 7#6 7 6 ^7 657 6 ^ 7 4*5 6 6 7 * 6 1; 3; 5 * 57 9 6 7 6 1; 3; 5 7 * 6 57 6 7 6 1; 3; 5 *7 77 6 6 1; 3; 5 7 4 *7 75 1; 3; 5 * 7 3 7; 9; 9 7; 9; 9 7; 9; 9 5; 7; 9 5; 7; 9 ^ ^ 3; 5; 7 3; 5; 7 5; 7; 9 5; 7; 9 5; 7; 9

results that the optimum spatial allocation alternative is Alt 30 (A2B1C1D1E3), and the second and third are Alt 03 (A1B1C1D1E3) and Alt 39 (A2B1C2D1E3), respectively. Fig. 5 shows the virtual images of the three optimum spatial allocation alternatives. In Fig. 5, other than the color of the curtain there appears no difference between the rst two pictures (i.e., the rst two optimum alternatives). Notably, the neness of the materials and the arrangement of colors affect the aesthetics of spatial allocation (spatial image). The rst two optimum alternatives have just favorable arrangements of color except for good evaluation in the price, safety and operation time factors. Therefore, the rst two alternatives are evaluated 2 3; 5; 7 3; 5; 7 3; 5; 7 3; 5; 7 3; 5; 7 ^ ^ 1; 1; 3 1; 1; 3 1; 1; 3 1; 1; 3 1; 1; 3 3 6 6 5; 7; 9 6 7 6 3; 5; 7 7 6 7 6 6 7; 9; 9 7 7 6 7 6 3; 5; 7 7 6 7 2 3 6 7 6 5; 7; 9 1; 3; 5 7 6 7 6 7 6 ^ 7 6 7; 9; 9 7 6 7#6 76 ^ 7 4 3; 5; 7 5 6 7 6 7 6 7; 9; 9 3; 5; 7 7 6 7 6 6 3; 5; 7 7 7 6 7 6 7 5; 7; 9 7 6 6 7 6 5; 7; 9 5 6 6 5; 7; 9 4 3

7 104; 200; 274 7 7 132; 236; 310 7 7 7 90; 182; 274 7 7 76; 164; 256 7 7 7 7 ^ 7 7 ^ 7 7: 50; 116; 192 7 7 50; 116; 192 7 7 7 78; 152; 228 7 7 78; 152; 228 7 7 7 78; 152; 228 7 7 7 m m m 5 l m u 11

118; 218; 292

The nal stage of the fuzzy operation is the process of defuzzication. The defuzzication used in this study obtains the mean number of the triangular fuzzy numbers (l; m; u); in reference to Eq. (5): x*i l m u=3: The fuzzy number * s of the fuzzy sequencing vector can be calculated (shown in Table 9). According to the ranking of the fuzzy mean shown in Table 9, the 81 candidate spatial allocation alternatives can be ranked in sequence. Therefore, we can see from the ranking

more highly in terms of the aesthetics of the spatial allocation than the other alternatives, so they have high scores (Table 9) for the spatial image factor, and are thus ranked more highly.

5. Discussion Through the FAHP approach, the MCDM process is organized into rational and emotional

ARTICLE IN PRESS
F.-G. Wu et al. / International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 33 (2004) 553569 Table 9 Fuzzy number calculation results of the fuzzy sequencing vector Rank Candidate Spatial allocation unit alternatives Evaluation criteria Fuzzy number *i s m 242 236 222 218 218 218 218 214 214 208 u 320 310 292 292 292 292 292 292 288 278 232 226 212 209 209 209 209 207 205 199 Fuzzy mean x*i *s 565

Curtain Chair Bedcover Wallpaper Carpet Price Safety Time Image l A B C D E (NT$) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Alt Alt Alt Alt Alt Alt Alt Alt Alt Alt 30 03 39 01 10 12 37 19 28 08 2 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 2 2 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 1 1 3 1 1 1 2 52,200 46,200 51,000 41,700 40,500 45,000 46,500 38,700 47,700 45,600 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 5 5 4 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 5 9 0.91 0.93 0.91 0.85 0.79 0.87 0.78 0.75 0.82 0.82 134 132 122 118 118 118 118 114 114 112

Note: This table lists only the rst 10 candidate alternatives according to the fuzzy mean.

Fig. 5. From left to right are the rst three candidate alternatives chosen by the FAHP approach, they are Alt 30(A2B1C1D1E3), Alt 03(A1B1C1D1E3) and Alt 39(A2B1C2D1E3), respectively.

factors, allowing hotel managers to nd the optimum spatial allocation. Amongst 81 spatial allocation alternatives, this study has found the optimum alternative Alt 30 (A2B1C1D1E3) by the FAHP approach. In Table 9, we can see that the spatial allocation alternative Alt 30 requires a cost of NT$52200, has a high safety level, requires only 4 days to complete the installation, and also highly fullls the spatial image requirement. If short operation time were not a crucial requirement in hotel managers nal decision-making, then the second choice Alt 03 (A1B1C1D1E3) or the third choice Alt 39 (A2B1C2D1E3) would also be ideal solutions. Although these two alternatives have slightly longer operation times than the rst choice Alt 30 (A2B1C1D1E3), the prices are lower. Alt 03 (A1B1C1D1E3) costs NT$46200, Alt 39 (A2B1C2D1E3) costs NT$51000, and both highly fulll the safety and spatial image requirements.

Therefore, although this study can suggests the optimum alternative of the spatial allocations through the FAHP approach, during the nal stage of decision-making, each detailed factor must be considered carefully by looking at the rst few solutions to obtain the most satisfactory solution with regards to the individual situation. Moreover, hotel managers and designers could take the rst few alternatives obtained from the FAHP approach and put them through virtual allocation by the image compositing technique and see the result of the allocation on a computer screen to make a nal conrmation of the spatial allocation. Take the rst case Alt 30 (A2B1C1D1E3) for example; hotel managers can choose the material 2 for the curtain, the material 1 for the chair, the material 1 for the bedcover, material 1 for the wallpaper and material 3 for the carpet, with the result being, as shown in Fig. 6.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
566 F.-G. Wu et al. / International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 33 (2004) 553569

Fig. 6. Using the image compositing technique to present a virtual image of the spatial allocation on a computer screen.

Hence, hotel managers can do a last stage evaluation and decision-making on the rst few choices by seeing the virtual images. Managers can see the future completed work before renovating, and the emotional judgment of the spatial image can take place at once. This helps to shorten the communication time between hotel managers and designers and increase the level of satisfaction towards the spatial allocation. Furthermore, the technique proposed in this study can be applied to other cases. For example, it can be used to select the optimum curtain (Fig. 7). The curtain in Fig. 7 has three main components, including body, valance and cascade. The FAHP approach can be used to determine the

optimum curtain. In another example, the FAHP approach is applied to select the optimum sofa (Fig. 8). The sofa in Fig. 8 has three main components, including the body, the cushions and the pillows. The optimum sofa selection is also made using the FAHP approach. The approach can thus be extended to any eld in which optimum allocation or selection must be made. However, the FAHP approach has some limitations, including the complexity of the scene, material, time and location. These limitations are interpreted as follows. The image compositing technique is employed in this study to assist in transforming the image of

ARTICLE IN PRESS
F.-G. Wu et al. / International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 33 (2004) 553569 567

safety, operation time and spatial image. Therefore, the selection of materials is very important in decision-making. Customers or decision-makers ordinarily select material from a sample catalogue provided by professionals in furnishing-related industries. However, the optimum allocation is probably not identied because the most appropriate materials are typically not suggested by the professionals. Professionals should supply suitable and sufcient material samples to enable decisionmakers to choose the best alternative using the FAHP approach. Moreover, the evaluation criteria vary with time and location, especially in the setting of the weight vector for the evaluation criteria. This varies with the size of the allocation unit, managing specialties, the likes and dislikes of the decision-maker and the requirements. Therefore, the weight vector W must be adjusted to yield the most suitable allocations.

6. Conclusions Through the FAHP approach, we can come up with rational decisions for the complicated MCDM problems. This study deconstructs a hotel suite into ve spatial allocation units and articially allocates the material and spatial allocation units by using the image compositing technique. Hotel managers were then able to efciently nd the optimum alternative, indicating that the FAHP approach on spatial allocation is an effective method. Although the FAHP approach addressed in this study uses a hotel suite as an example, the application can be extended to motels or related spaces where spatial allocation is needed. At the same time, using the virtual image generated by the image compositing technique allows hotel managers to see the future completed work before renovation, so the emotional judgment of the spatial image can take place at once. This helps to shorten the communication time between hotel managers and designers and increases the level of satisfaction towards the nal chosen spatial allocation for both parties.

Fig. 7. Using the image compositing technique to present a virtual image of the curtain selection.

the allocation unit in the scene into a grayscale image and then to display the realistic effects through image warping. Descriptions and procedures with regard to image compositing technique can be found in the research conducted by Wu et al. (2003). If the image of the scene is too complex, the processing of the grayscale image will take too long, and the realism will be reduced. Additionally, the materials are strongly related to all of the evaluation criteria, including price,

ARTICLE IN PRESS
568 F.-G. Wu et al. / International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 33 (2004) 553569

Fig. 8. Using the image compositing technique to present a virtual image of the sofa selection.

References
Bayliss, G.M., Bowyer, A., Taylor, R.I., Willis, P.J., 1994. Virtual manufacturing. Proceedings of the CSG 94: SetTheoretic Solid Modeling Techniques and Applications, Winchester, UK, pp. 353365. Brinkmann, R., 1999. The Art and Science of Digital Compositing. Morgan Kaufman, Los Altos, CA, Academic Press, San Diego, CA. Chameau, J.L., Santamarina, J.C., 1987. Membership functions I: comparing methods of measurement. International Journal of Approximate Reasoning 1, 287301. Cheng, C.H., Mon, D.L., 1994. Evaluating weapon system by AHP based on fuzzy scale. Fuzzy Sets and Systems 63, 110.

Cochrane, J.L., Zeleny, M., 1973. In: Multiple Criteria Decision Making. The University of South Carolina Press, Columbia. Evans, G.W., Karwowski, W., Wilhelm, M.R., 1989. Applications of Fuzzy Set Methodologies in Industrial Engineering. Elsevier, Amsterdam. Faugeras, O., Robert, L., 1996. What can two images tell us about a third one? International Journal of Computer Vision 18, 520. Finnie, G.R., Witting, G.E., Petkov, D.I., 1993. Prioritizing software development productivity factors using the analytic hierarchy process. Journal of Systems and Software 21, 129139. Grobelny, J., 1987. The fuzzy approach to facilities layout problems. Fuzzy Sets and Systems 23, 175190.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
F.-G. Wu et al. / International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 33 (2004) 553569 Hauser, D., Tadikamalla, P., 1996. The analytic hierarchy process in an uncertain environment: a simulation approach. European Journal of Operational Research 91 (1), 2737. Jayaram, S., Connacher, H.I., Lyons, K.W., 1997. Virtual assembly using virtual reality techniques. Computer-Aided Design 29, 575584. Laarhoven, P.J.M., Pedrycz, W., 1983. A fuzzy extension of Saatys priority theory. Fuzzy Sets and Systems 11 (3), 229241. Lee, C.C., 1990. Fuzzy logic in control systems: fuzzy logic controlParts I and II. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics 20, 404435. Lee, E.S., Li, R.L., 1988. Comparison of fuzzy numbers based on the probability measure of fuzzy events. Computational Mathematics and Applications 15, 887896. Lee, W.B., Lau, H., Liu, Z.Z., Tam, S., 2001. A fuzzy analytic hierarchy process approach in modular product design. Expert System 18 (1), 391419. Levary, R.R., Ke, W., 1998. A simulation approach for handling uncertainty in the analytic hierarchy process. European Journal of Operational Research 106 (1), 116122. Millet, I., Harker, P.T., 1990. Globally effective questioning in the analytic hierarchy process. European Journal of Operational Research 48, 8897. Mitta, D.A., 1993. An application of the analytic hierarchy process: a rank-ordering of computer interfaces. Human Factors 35 (1), 141157. Mundy, J.M., Zisserman, A., 1992. Appendix-projective geometry for machine vision. In: Geometric Invariance in Computer Vision. MIT Press, Cambridge. 569

Nojiri, H., 1982. A model of executives decision process in new product development. Fuzzy Sets and Systems 7, 227241. Ross, T.J., 1995. Fuzzy Logic with Engineering Applications. McGraw-Hill, New York. Saaty, T.L., 1977. A scaling method for priorities in hierarchical structures. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 15, 234281. Saaty, T.L., 1980. The Analytic Hierarchy Process. McGrawHill, New York. Tabucanon, M.T., Batanov, D.N., Verma, D.K., 1994. Decision support system for multi-criteria machine selection for exible manufacturing systems. Computers in Industry 25 (2), 131143. Wang, M.J., Lee, Y.J., 1997. Applying the AHP approach to evaluate human sensitivity to chromatic light. Behaviour & Information Technology 16 (6), 348358. Wu, F.G., Lee, Y.J., Chen, C.H., 2003. Evaluation of the realistic effect of image compositing to assist in curtain selecting. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 32 (1), 112. Yu, P.L., 1985. Multiple Criteria Decision Making: Concepts, Techniques, and Extensions. Plenum Press, New York. Zadeh, L.A., 1965. Fuzzy sets. Information and Control 8, 338353. Zeleny, M., 1982. Multiple Criteria Decision Making. McGraw-Hill, New York. Zhang, Z.Y., 1995. A robust technique for matching two uncalibrated images through the recovery of the unknown epipolar geometry. Articial Intelligence Journal 78, 87119. Zimmermann, H.J., 1987. Fuzzy Sets, Decision Making, and Expert Systems. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston, MA. Zimmermann, H.J., 1993. Fuzzy Sets and its Applications 2nd Edition. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston, MA.

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen