Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Skip to main content

An Approach Based on MCDA and Fuzzy Logic to Select Joint Actions

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Scalable Uncertainty Management (SUM 2018)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNAI,volume 11142))

Included in the following conference series:

  • 398 Accesses

Abstract

To satisfy a fluctuating demand and achieve a high level of quality and service, companies must take into account several features when designing new products in order to become or remain market leaders. When a single company is unable to meet this objective alone, it is appropriate for it to join its actions with other companies. The product design consists of the complex task to select from various potential actions that allowing the fulfilment of several requirements: functional, technical, environmental, economic, security, etc. Furthermore, the task is even more difficult when actions are related to distinct services or companies that do not necessarily know the capacities of each others which makes complex the coordination of joint actions. Interactions between services may be affected by antagonist personal interests.

Based on a multiple criteria decision analysis (MCDA) framework and a fuzzy model that links actions to the satisfaction of objectives, this paper proposes to treat two extreme views related to the collective selection of the necessary actions to design a product: (1) The first point of view corresponds to an ideal situation where each service reveals its capacities and the unique objective is to succeed in the realization of the common goal; (2) the second point of view corresponds to a more realistic situation where only necessary information for the progress of collective action are shared and where collective and personal goals coexist and are to be taken into account. The first situation corresponds to a classical case where a single decision maker (DM) has to express his preferences then a classical optimization problem under constraints has to be solved in order to efficiently select actions. In the second situation the services do not share the same preferences and each service wants to maximize its gain, in this case we propose to build a negotiated solution between services.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Dyer, J.S.: Multiattribute utility theory (MAUT). In: Greco, S., Ehrgott, M., Figueira, J. (eds.) Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis. ISOR, vol. 233, pp. 285–314. Springer, New York (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-3094-4_8

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  2. Grabisch, M., Greco, S., Pirlot, M.: Bipolar and bivariate models in multicriteria decision analysis: descriptive and constructive approaches. Int. J. Intell. Syst. 23(9), 930–969 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Greco, S., Figueira, J., Ehrgott, M.: Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis. Springer, Heidelberg (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/b100605

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  4. Imoussaten, A., Montmain, J., Trousset, F., Labreuche, C.: Multi-criteria improvement of options. In: European Society for Fuzzy Logic and Technology, p. 1 (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Imoussaten, A., Trousset, F., Montmain, J.: Improving performances in a company when collective strategy comes up against individual interests. In: EUSFLAT Conference, pp. 904–911 (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Keeney, R.L., Raiffa, H.: Decision analysis with multiple conflicting objectives. In: Decision with Multiple Objectives. Wiley, New York (1976)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Krantz, D.H., Luce, R.D., Suppes, P., Tversky, A.: Foundations of Measurement (Additive And Polynomial Representations), vol. 1. Academic Press, New York (1971)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Montmain, J., Labreuche, C., Imoussaten, A., Trousset, F.: Multi-criteria improvement of complex systems. Inf. Sci. 291, 61–84 (2015)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  9. Pignon, J.P., Labreuche, Ch.: A methodological approach for operational and technical experimentation based evaluation of systems of systems architectures. In: International Conference on Software & Systems Engineering and their Applications (ICSSEA), Paris, France, 4–6 December 2007 (2007)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Abdelhak Imoussaten .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Imoussaten, A. (2018). An Approach Based on MCDA and Fuzzy Logic to Select Joint Actions. In: Ciucci, D., Pasi, G., Vantaggi, B. (eds) Scalable Uncertainty Management. SUM 2018. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 11142. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-00461-3_10

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-00461-3_10

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-00460-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-00461-3

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics