Soft Comput (2010) 14:1141–1150
DOI 10.1007/s00500-009-0507-0
ORIGINAL PAPER
Fuzzy decision maps: a generalization of the DEMATEL methods
Gwo-Hshiung Tzeng • Wen-Hsien Chen
Rachung Yu • Meng-Lin Shih
•
Published online: 29 October 2009
Springer-Verlag 2009
Abstract The Decision making trial and evaluation
laboratory (DEMATEL) method is used to build and analyze a structural model with causal relationships between
different criteria. In this paper, it shows that DEMATEL is
the specific case of fuzzy decision maps (FDM) when the
threshold function is linear. Both FDM and DEMATEL
have the same direct and indirect influence matrix. FDM
incorporates the eigenvalue method, the fuzzy cognitive
maps, and the weighting equation. In addition two
numerical examples are illustrated to demonstrate the
proposed results. On the basis of the mathematical proof
and numerical results, we can conclude that FDM is a
generalization of DEMATEL method.
G.-H. Tzeng
Department of Business Administration,
Kainan University, Taoyuan, Taiwan
G.-H. Tzeng
Institute of Management of Technology,
National Chiao Tung University, Hsinchu, Taiwan
W.-H. Chen
Department of Management Information System,
Takming University of Science and Technology,
Taipei, Taiwan
R. Yu (&)
Department of Information Technology,
Ching Kuo Institute of Management and Health,
Keelung, Taiwan
e-mail: ray@ems.cku.edu.tw
M.-L. Shih
Department of Information Management,
National Chung Cheng University,
Ming-Hsiung, Taiwan
Keywords Structural model Fuzzy decision maps
Fuzzy cognitive maps Decision making trial and
evaluation laboratory Multiple criteria decision making
1 Introduction
Making decisions is the part of our daily lives. The major
consideration is that almost all decision problems involved
multiple, usually conflicting, and interactive criteria. Many
methods in multiple criteria decision making (MCDM) had
developed to solve the problems (Chen and Hwang 1992).
These methods are based on multiple attribute utility theory
(MAUT), have been proposed (e.g., the weighted sum and
the weighted product methods) to deal with the MCDM
problems. The concept of MAUT is to aggregate all criteria
to a specific unique-dimension which is called utility
function to evaluate alternatives. Although many papers
have been proposed to discuss the aggregation operator of
MAUT (Fishburn 1970), the main problem of MAUT is the
assumption of preferential independence (Grabisch 1995;
Hillier 2001).
Utility independence or utility separability is usually the
basic assumption of the multiple attribute decision making
(MADM) methods for employing the additive function to
represent the preferences of decision-makers. However, in
the realistic problems, the assumption of utility independence or utility separability seems to be irrational. Therefore, it is interesting to clarify the structure among criteria,
and then we can determine the appropriate MADM methods based on the results of structural models.
Both Decision Making Trial and Evaluation Laboratory
(DEMATEL) method and fuzzy decision map (FDM)
could clarify the structure among criteria (Chih et al. 2006;
Huang and Tzeng 2007; Liou James et al. 2007; Yu and
123
1142
Tzeng 2006) for solving MCDM problems in preferential
weights by using the AHP (independence) or ANP
(dependence and feedback) or fuzzy integral (inter-dependent/relation). The assumption of the DEMATEL method is
that it’s the direct and indirect influence matrix is generating
by linear transformation. Comparing to the DEMATEL, the
FDM will have better fit in the real world situation due to
the flexible threshold function. In this paper, it uses mathematical proof to show that FDM is a generalization method
of the DEMATAL. Two numerical examples are illustrated
to demonstrate the proposed results.
The rest part of this paper is organized as follows. In
Sect. 2, we describe the contents of the DEMATEL method.
FDMs and mathematical proof are proposed in Sect. 3. Two
numerical examples, which are used here to demonstrate the
proposed results, are in Sect. 4. Discussions are presented in
Sect. 5 and conclusions are in last section.
2 The DEMATEL method
The DEMATEL method, developed by the Science and
Human Affairs Program of the Battelle Memorial Institute
of Geneva between 1972 and 1976, was used for
researching and solving the complicated and intertwined
problem group (Fontela and Gabus 1976; Gabus and
Fontela 1972; Warfield 1976). DEMATEL was developed
in the belief that pioneering and appropriate use of scientific
research methods could improve understanding of the specific problematic, the cluster of intertwined problems, and
contribute to identification of workable solutions by a
hierarchical structure. The methodology, according to the
concrete characteristics of objective affairs, can confirm the
interdependence among the variables/attributes and restrict
the relation that reflects the characteristics with an essential
system and development trend (Hori and Shimizu 1999;
Tzeng et al. 2007). Using the DEMATEL method to size
and process individual subjective perceptions, brief and
impressionistic human insights into problem complexity
can be gained. Following the DEMATEL process the end
product of the analysis is a visual representation, an individual map of the mind, according to which the respondent
organizes his own action in the world, if he is to keep
internally coherent to respect his implicit priorities and to
reach his secret goals.
The steps of the DEMATEL method can be described as
follows:
G.-H. Tzeng et al.
integer scale ranging, for example from 0 to 4 (going from
‘‘No influence (0),’’ to ‘‘Extreme strong influence (4)’’).
The higher score indicates that the respondent has
expressed that the insufficient involvement in problem of
factor i exerts the stronger possible direct influence on the
inability of factor j, or, in positive terms, that greater
improvement i is required to improve j.
From any group of direct matrices of respondents it is
possible to derive an average matrix A. Each element of
this average matrix will be in this case the mean of the
same elements in the different direct matrices of the
respondents.
2.2 Step 2: calculate the initial direct influence matrix
The initial direct influence matrix D can be obtained by
normalizing the average matrix A, in which all principal
diagonal elements are equal to zero. Based on matrix D, the
initial influence which a factor dispatches to and receives
from another is shown.
The elements of matrix D portrays a contextual relation
among the elements of the system and can be converted
into a visible structural model, an impact- digraph-map, of
the system with respect to that relation. For example, as in
Fig. 1, the respondents are asked to indicate only direct
links. In the directed digraph graph represented here, factor
i affects directly only factors j and k; indirectly, it also
affects first l, m and n and, secondly, o and q.
2.3 Step 3: derive the full direct/indirect influence
matrix
A continuous decrease of the indirect effects of problems
along the powers of matrix D, e.g., D2, D3 ,…, D?, and
therefore guarantees convergent solutions to matrix inversion. In a configuration such as Fig. 1, the influence exerted
by factor i on factor p will be smaller than the one that it
exerts on factor m, and again smaller than the one exerted
i
k
j
n
m
l
2.1 Step 1: calculate the average matrix by scores
Respondents are asked to indicate the direct influence
that they believe each factor/element i exerts on each
factor/element j of the others, as indicated by aij, using an
123
q
Fig. 1 An example of direct graph
o
Fuzzy decision maps
1143
on factor j. This being so, the infinite series of direct and
indirect effects can be illustrated. Let the (i, j) element of
matrix A is denoted by aij, the matrix can be gained
following Eqs. 1–4.
D ¼ s A;
ð1Þ
s[0
or
½di j nn ¼ s ½ai j nn ;
s [ 0;
i; j 2 f1; 2; . . .; ng
ð2Þ
where
s ¼ Min
"
1
Pn
max1 i n
j¼1
1
Pn
;
aij max1 i n
i¼1
aij
#
ð3Þ
and
lim Dm ¼ ½0nn ;
m!1
nP
where D ¼ dij n x n ;
Pn
0 dij \1
ð4Þ
o
n
where 0
j¼1 dij or
i¼1 dij \1 and at least one
Pn
Pn
j¼1 dij or
i¼1 dij equal 1, 8i; j 2 f1; 2; . . .; ng; then
lim Dm ¼ ½0nn :
m!1
The full direct/indirect influence matrix F, the infinite
series of direct and indirect effects of each factor, can be
obtained by the matrix operation of D. The matrix F can
show the final structure of factors after the continuous
process (see Eq. 5). Let Wi(f) denote the normalized ith
row sum of matrix F, thus, the Wi(f) value means the sum
of influence dispatching from factor i to the other factors
both directly and indirectly. The Vi(f), the normalized ith
column sum of matrix F, means the sum of influence that
factor i receives from the other factors.
The total-influence matrix T can be obtained by using
Eq. 5 where I is denoted as the identity matrix.
F ¼ D þ D2 þ þ Dm ¼
m
X
Di ¼ DðI DÞ1 ;
i¼1
when m ! 1
ð5Þ
2.4 Step 4: set threshold value and obtain the impactdigraph- map
Setting a threshold value, p, to filter the obvious effects
denoted by the elements of matrix F, is necessary to
explain the structure of factors. Base on the matrix F, each
element, fij, of matrix F provides the information about a
factor i dispatches influence to factor j, or, in another word,
factor j receives influence from factor i. If all the information from matrix F converts to the impact-digraph-map,
it will be too complex to show the necessary information
for decision-making. In order to obtain an appropriate
impact-digraph-map, setting a threshold value of the
influence level is necessary for the decision maker. Only
some elements, whose influence level in matrix F higher
than the threshold value, can be chosen and converted into
the impact-digraph-map.
The threshold value is decided by the decision makers
or, in this paper, experts through discussions. Like matrix
D, contextual relation among the elements of matrix F can
also be converted into a digraph map. If the threshold value
is too low, the map will be too complex to show the
necessary information for decision-making. If the threshold
value is too high, many factors will be presented as independent factors without relations to another factor. Each
time the threshold value increases, some factors or relationship will be removed from the map. An appropriate
threshold value is necessary to obtain a suitable impactdigraph-map and proper information for the further analysis and decision-making.
After threshold value and relative impact-digraph-map
are decided, the final influence result can be shown. For
example, the impact-digraph-map of a factor is the same as
Fig. 1 and eight elements exist in this map. Because of
continuous direct/indirect effects between them, finally, the
effectiveness of these eight elements could be considered to
be represented by two independent final affected elements: o
and q. The other components, not shown in the impactdigraph-map, of a factor can be considered as independent
elements because no obvious interrelation with others exists.
3 Fuzzy decision maps
In order to deal with the problem of dependence and
feedback among criteria, we first depict the FCM as shown
in Fig. 2 to illustrate the situation of decision making. In
Fig. 2, eij denotes the interaction effect from the ith criterion to the jth criterion, and eii indicates the compound
effect of the ith criterion by self-relation. As we know, due
to the problem of compound and interaction effects, it is
hard for decision makers to make a good decision using the
simple weighted method.
One way to overcome the problems above is to obtain
the information of influences among criteria and then to
derive the finial weights by considering the influences
among criteria. However, since these criteria may have
loop or feedback relationships, it is hard to derive the
influences among criteria. Next, we first employ the FCM
to derive the influence among criteria and then obtain the
finial weights by using the weighted formulation.
FCM, which was first proposed by Koska (1988) and
Sekitani and Takahashi (2001), extends the original cognitive maps of political elite (Axelrod 1976) by incorporating fuzzy measures to provide a flexible and realistic
method for extracting the fuzzy relationships among objects
123
1144
G.-H. Tzeng et al.
Criterion 1
e21
Criterion 2
can summarize the proposed method to derive the priorities
of criteria as follows:
e 55
e 14
Step 1
e 52
Criterion 5
e 25
Step 2
e 33
e 31
Step 3
Criterion 3
Criterion 4
Step 4
e 34
Fig. 2 The problem of a decision map
in a complex system. Therefore, recently, FCM have been
widely employed in the applications of political decisionmaking, business management, industrial analysis, and
system control (Andreou et al. 2005; Pagageorgiou and
Groumpos 2005; Stylios and Groumpos 2004), except for
the area of MCDM. The concepts of FCM can be described
as follows.
Given a 4-tuple (N, E, C, f) where N = {N1, N2 ,…, Nn}
denotes the set of n objects, E denotes the connection
matrix (initial direct-influence matrix) which is composed
of the weights between objects, C is the state matrix, where
C(0) is the initial matrix and C(t) is the transition-state
matrix at certain iteration t, and f is a threshold function,
which indicates the weighting relationship between C(t) and
C(t?1). Several formulas have been used as threshold
functions such as
1 if x 1
; ðHard line functionÞ
f ðxÞ ¼
0 if x\1
f ðxÞ ¼ tanhðxÞ ¼ ð1 ex Þ=ð1 þ ex Þ;
ðHyperbolic tangent functionÞ
ðLogistic functionÞ
The different threshold functions will get the
discriminative numerical results and a sensitive analysis
was proposed by Chen et al. (2008).
The influence of the specific criterion to other criteria
can be calculated using the following updating equation:
Cðtþ1Þ ¼ f ðCðtÞ EÞ;
Cð0Þ ¼ I nn
ð6Þ
where In9n denotes the identity matrix.
The vector–matrix multiplication operation to derive
successive FCM transition-states is iterated until it converges to a fixed point situation or a limit steady-state
cycle. The steady-state vector–matrix remains unchanged
for successive iterations is called a fixed point situation and
the sequence of the steady-state vector–matrix keeps
repeating indefinitely is called a limit state cycle. Now, we
123
1
z;
k
ð7Þ
and
Ct ¼
1
C
c
ð8Þ
where k is the largest element of z and c is the largest row
sum of C*. Then, we can obtain the global weight vector by
using the following weighting equation:
w ¼ zt þ Ct zt :
ð9Þ
3.1 Mathematical proof
In this section, we show that DEMATEL is the specific
case of FDM when the threshold function is linear. Both
FDM and DEMATEL have the same direct and indirect
influence matrix.
Consider the following threshold function using in
FDM.
f ðxÞ ¼ x
and
f ðxÞ ¼ 1=ð1 þ ex Þ:
zt ¼
Compare the importance among criteria to derive
the local weight vector using the eigenvalue
approach;
Depict the fuzzy cognitive map (FCM) to build
the influence among criteria by the expert;
Calculate Eq. 6 for obtaining the steady-state
matrix;
Derive the global weight vector. In order to derive
the global weights, we should first normalize the
local weight vector (z) and the steady-state matrix
(C*) as follows:
ðpure linear functionÞ
In FDM, it uses Eq. 6 to obtain the direct and indirect
influence matrix.
C0 ¼ I nn ; C1 ¼ C0 E ¼ E; E is the initial direct-relation matrix.
Ct ¼f ðCt1 EþC0 Þ
¼ðCt1 EþC0 ÞE
¼f ðCt2 ÞE2 þE
¼ððCt2 EþC0 ÞE2 þE¼f ðCt3 ÞE3 þE2 þE
¼ððCt3 EþC0 ÞE3 þE2 þE¼f ðCt4 ÞE4 þE3 þE2 þE
...
¼Et þEt1 þþE
¼EðIþEþE2 þþEt1 ÞðIEÞðIEÞ1
¼E½ðIþEþE2 þþEt1 ÞðIEÞðIEÞ1
¼E½ðIþEþE2 þþEt1 ÞðEþE2 þþEt ÞðIEÞ1
¼EðIEt ÞðIEÞ1
Fuzzy decision maps
1145
and
lim Et ¼ ½0nn ; where E ¼ ½eij nn ;
Quality
t!1
n
X
0 eij \1 and
4
eij 1:
i¼1
4
Therefore, C ¼ lim i¼1 Ei ¼ EðI EÞ1 ; then the
t!1
formula of FDM equals to that of DEMETEL (Eq. 5). So,
DEMATEL is a specific case of FDM.
Next it uses two numerical examples to demonstrate the
proposed results in Sect. 4 and two extra examples in
Appendix 3 to support our research findings.
Pt
t
1
2
3
Matching
Costs
2
1
2
2
Lead-time
4 Numerical examples
In this section, two numerical examples are illustrated to
demonstrate the proposed results and compared the results
between in the FDM and the DEMATEL. The first example
is the multi-criteria decision problem about suppliers-evaluation. Then the second example is the more complicated
decision problem about customers’ evaluation to product
purchasing. Note that in this paper we use the threshold
function that is the pure-linear function in FDM to indicate
the relationships among criteria. In Appendix 3, two extra
examples are proposed to reinforce our research results.
Example 1 Consider a decision maker tries to select the
suppliers according the following criteria including Quality
(Q), Matching (M), Lead-time (L), and Costs (C). For
choosing the best alternative, we should derive the influence scores of each criterion and calculate the influence
scores of each supplier. Figure 3 and scoring matrix show
the relationships between criteria (scale: 0 no influences; 1
low influences; 2 moderate influences; 3 strong influences;
4 extreme strong influences).
And scoring matrix as
Q C L M
3
2
Q 0 4 1 0
P
7
6
S ¼ C 6 2 0 0 3 7 ; max ni¼1 eij ¼ max
7
6
j
j
L 41 2 0 05
M 4 2 2 0
n
P
½7; 8; 3; 3 ¼ 8 and max eij ¼ max ½5; 5; 3; 8
i
3
6
7 1
1
1
6
7
k ¼ min6
;
7¼ :
n
n
P
P
i;j 4
5 8
max
eij max
eij
j
i¼1
i
sum, i.e., E = kS. The grades/degrees of direct influence
matrix as follow:
Q
0
6
E ¼ C 6 0:25
6
L 4 0:125
0:5
M
Q
2
C
L
0:50 0:125
0
0
0:25
0
0:25 0:25
M
3
0
0:375 7
7
7
0 5
0
Next, we can obtain the steady-state matrix by
calculating Eq. 6 in the FDM method and Eq. 5 in the
DEMATEL as follows (see Appendix 1):
DEMATEL
Quality
Costs
Lead-time
Matching
Quality
0.4005
0.8428
0.2541
0.3160
Costs
0.7126
0.5616
0.2355
0.5856
Lead-time
0.3532
0.4957
0.0906
0.1859
Matching
0.9667
0.9357
0.4586
0.3509
Quality
0.4004a
0.8427a
0.2541
0.3160
Costs
0.7126
0.5615a
0.2355
0.5856
FDM (f(x) = x)
a
Lead-time
0.3532
0.4957
0.0906
0.1859
Matching
0.9667
0.9357
0.4585a
0.3509
Means the difference between FDM and DEMATEL is 0.0001
j
j¼1
2
Fig. 3 The evaluation of a supplier
j¼1
From the Fig. 3 and scoring matrix, we can calculate the
grades/degrees of scoring matrix by dividing the max row
Example 2 In this example, consider a customer to purchase a product according to the following five criteria
including Quality (Q), Delivery (D), Price (P), Yield (Y),
and Service (S). Figure 4 and scoring matrix display the
relationships between criteria (Scale: 0 no influences; 1 low
influences; 2 moderate influences; 3 strong influences; 4
extreme strong influences).
123
1146
G.-H. Tzeng et al.
And scoring matrix as
3
Q D P Y S
Q 20 2 4 1 23
7
D6
60 0 1 0 07
7;
6
E¼
P 62 3 0 0 47
7
6
Y 40 0 0 0 25
S 0 0 2 3 0
n
X
max
eij ¼ max ½2; 5; 7; 4; 8 ¼ 8
j
Delivery
2
2
4
j
i¼1
j
i¼1
i
3
2
Service
Yield
2
Fig. 4 The product evaluation of a customer
j¼1
From the Fig. 4 and scoring matrix, we can calculate the
grades/degrees of scoring matrix by dividing the max row
sum, i.e., E = kS. The grades/degrees of direct influence
matrix as follow:
Q
Q2 0
D6
6 0
6
E¼
P 6 0:2222
6
Y 4 0
0
S
4
1
7
6
1
1
7 1
6
¼ :
k ¼ min6
;
n
n
P
P 7
i;j 4
5 9
max
eij max
eij
D
P
0:2222 0:4444
0
0:1111
0:3333
0
0
0
0
0:2222
Y
S
3
0:1111 0:2222
0
0 7
7
7
0
0:4444 7
7
0
0:2222 5
0:3333
0
Next, we can obtain the steady-state matrix by
calculating Eq. 6 in the FDM method and Eq. 5 in the
DEMATEL as follows (see Appendix 2):
Quality
Delivery
Price
Yield
Service
Quality
0.1589
0.4958
0.7150
0.3461
0.6522
Delivery
0.0334
0.0575
0.1504
0.0307
0.0811
Price
0.3007
0.5179
0.3533
0.2766
0.7297
Yield
0.0160
0.0276
0.0722
0.0947
0.2789
Service
0.0722
0.1243
0.3248
0.4263
0.2551
0.3461
0.6521a
DEMATEL
FDM (f(x) = x)
Quality
0.1589
0.4958
0.7150
Delivery
0.0334
0.0575
0.1503a
0.0307
0.0811
Price
0.3007
0.5179
0.3533
0.2766
0.7297
Yield
0.0160
0.0276
0.0722
0.0947
0.2789
Service
0.0722
0.1243
0.3247a
0.4263
0.2551
Means the difference between FDM and DEMATEL is 0.0001
Both calculation processes of the numerical examples
were collected in Appendix 1 and 2. Two extra examples in
123
2
Quality
and
n
P
eij ¼ max ½9; 1; 9; 2; 5 ¼ 9; then
max
i
j
j¼1
3
2
a
Price
1
Appendix 3 are proposed to support our research findings.
Next section, we provide the depth discussions according
to the results of the numerical examples above in Sect. 5.
5 Discussions
Structural MADM problems involve determining the best
options by considering the effects among criteria. In order
to solve the problems above, the major point is to derive
the direct and indirect influence matrix. After getting a
direct and indirect influence matrix, it can obtain the
impact diagraph map. Although the DEMATEL has been
proposed to deal this problem, but it has the limitation that
the problems influence must be interactive linearly.
In this paper, the FDMs, which combine the eigenvalue
method, the FCMs, and the weighting equation, are proposed to deal with the structural MADM problems. The
direct and indirect influence matrix is derived by using the
updating equation. Finally, it reaches the steady-state
matrix. Under the threshold function is linear, both the
DEMATEL and FDM have the direct/indirect influence
matrix.
From the results of two numerical examples and mathematical proof above, it exposes three main shortcomings
of the DEMATEL method. First, the criteria states may not
be interactive linearly in some real world situations. Second, the initial direct matrix of DEMATEL method has the
characteristic that its all principal diagonal elements are
equal to zero. This characteristic means the DEMATEL
method can not handle the criterion which contains selffeedback loop shown in Fig. 2. Third, both the DEMATEL
method and FDM method have the discrete-time process
Fuzzy decision maps
1147
with the Markov property. The DEMATEL processes the
criteria in different states with dynamical linearly.
In contrast, the benefit of the FDM methods can be
summarized as follows. First, the FDM method modifies
the shortcoming of the DEMATEL. We can employ the
different threshold functions to indicate the various kinds
of relationship among criteria. The more flexible threshold
functions may have better fitness when construct the direct
and indirect influence matrix. Second, the FDM method
can treat the problem of compound and interaction effect of
the criterion containing self feedback loop. Third, In the
FDM method, it can process the dynamic criteria status and
exceeds the limitation of the DEMATEL method with
dynamical non-linearly.
6 Conclusions
The MCDM problems with the complicated intertwined
problem group are hard for the decision-maker to make a
good decision. Although the DEMATEL method has been
widely used to deal with this problem, the shortcoming
should be overcome for proving the satisfaction solution.
In this paper, the FDM method is proposed to deal with
the structural MCDM problems. Without limiting by the
problems influence must be interactive linearly, it can
employ the flexible threshold function to get proper
solutions in real world cases. On the basis of the
numerical results and mathematical proof, we can conclude that FDM is a generalization of DEMATEL
method.
Appendix 1
Result of the supplier evaluation in DEMATAL for the
operation processes of Example 1
2
3
1:00 0:00 0:00 0:00
6 0:00 1:00 0:00 0:00 7
7
I¼6
4 0:00 0:00 1:00 0:00 5
0:00 0:00 0:00 1:00
2
3
0:000 0:500 0:125 0:000
6 0:250 0:000 0:000 0:375 7
7
D¼6
4 0:125 0:250 0:000 0:000 5
0:500 0:250 0:250 0:000
2
1:000 0:500 0:125
6 0:250 1:000
0:000
6
ID¼6
4 0:125 0:250 1:000
0:500 0:250 0:250
3
0:000
0:375 7
7
7
0:000 5
1:000
2
3
1:4005 0:8428 0:2541 0:3160
6 0:7126 1:5616 0:2355 0:5856 7
7
ðI DÞ1 ¼ 6
4 0:3532 0:4957 1:0906 0:1859 5
0:9667 0:9357 0:4586 1:3509
2
3
0:4005 0:8428 0:2541 0:3160
6 0:7126 0:5616 0:2355 0:5856 7
7
F ¼ DðI DÞ1 ¼ 6
4 0:3532 0:4957 0:0906 0:1859 5
0:9667 0:9357 0:4586 0:3509
Result of the supplier evaluation in FDM for the
operation processes of Example 1
E¼D
2
0:0000
6 0:2500
E¼6
4 0:1250
0:5000
C0 ¼ I
2
0:5000
0:0000
0:2500
0:2500
3
0 0
0 07
7
1 05
0 1
2
0:0000
6 0:2500
1
0
C ¼C E¼6
4 0:1250
0:5000
1
6
0
C0 ¼ 6
40
0
0:1250
0:0000
0:0000
0:2500
3
0:0000
0:3750 7
7
0:0000 5
0:0000
0:5000
0:0000
0:2500
0:2500
0:1250
0:0000
0:0000
0:2500
0
1
0
0
1
0
C2 ¼ ðC
2 þC ÞE
0:1406 0:5313
6 0:4375 0:2188
¼6
4 0:1875 0:3125
0:5938 0:5625
2
0
C3 ¼ ðC
2 þC ÞE
0:2422 0:6484
6 0:5078 0:3438
¼6
4 0:2520 0:3711
0:7266 0:6484
0:1250
0:1250
0:0156
0:3125
3
0:1875
0:3750 7
7
0:0938 5
0:0938
0:1895
0:1484
0:0469
0:3477
3
0:1992
0:4570 7
7
0:1172 5
0:2109
…
23
0
C24 ¼ ðC
2 þC ÞE
0:4004 0:8427
6 0:7126 0:5615
¼6
4 0:3532 0:4957
0:9666 0:9357
24
0
C25 ¼ ðC
2 þC ÞE
0:4004 0:8427
6 0:7126 0:5615
¼6
4 0:3532 0:4957
0:9667 0:9357
3
0:0000
0:3750 7
7
0:0000 5
0:0000
0:2541
0:2355
0:0906
0:4585
3
0:3160
0:5856 7
7
0:1859 5
0:3509
0:2541
0:2355
0:0906
0:4585
3
0:3160
0:5856 7
7
0:1859 5
0:3509
123
1148
G.-H. Tzeng et al.
Appendix 2
Result of the customer evaluation in DEMATAL for the
operation processes of Example 2
3
2
1:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00
6 0:00 1:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 7
7
6
7
I¼6
6 0:00 0:00 1:00 0:00 0:00 7
4 0:00 0:00 0:00 1:00 0:00 5
0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 1:00
3
2
0:0000 0:2222 0:4444 0:1111 0:2222
6 0:0000 0:0000 0:1111 0:0000 0:0000 7
7
6
7
D¼6
6 0:2222 0:3333 0:0000 0:0000 0:4444 7
4 0:0000 0:0000 0:0000 0:0000 0:2222 5
0:0000 0:0000 0:2222 0:3333 0:0000
3
2
1:0000 0:2222 0:4444 0:1111 0:2222
7
6
6 0:0000 1:0000 0:1111 0:0000 0:0000 7
7
6
7
ID¼6
6 0:2222 0:3333 1:0000 0:0000 0:4444 7
7
6
4 0:0000 0:0000 0:0000 1:0000 0:2222 5
0:0000 0:0000 0:2222 0:3333 1:0000
1:1589
6 0:0334
6
6
1
ðI DÞ ¼ 6
6 0:3007
6
4 0:0160
0:4958 0:7150 0:3461 0:6522
2
1:0575 0:1504 0:0307 0:0811 7
7
7
0:5179 1:3533 0:2766 0:7297 7
7
7
0:0276 0:0722 1:0947 0:2789 5
0:0722 0:1243 0:3248 0:4263 1:2551
1
F ¼ DðI
2 DÞ
0:1589 0:4958
6 0:0334 0:0575
6
6
¼ 6 0:3007 0:5179
6
4 0:0160 0:0276
0:0722 0:1243
0:7150
0:1504
0:3533
0:0722
0:3248
0:3461
0:0307
0:2766
0:0947
0:4263
3
0:6522
0:0811 7
7
7
0:7297 7
7
0:2789 5
0:2551
Result of the customer evaluation in FDM for the
operation processes of Example 2
E¼D
2
0
6 0
6
E¼6
6 0:2222
4 0
0
C0 ¼ I
2
1
60
6
C0 ¼ 6
60
40
0
123
0
1
0
0
0
0:2222
0
0:3333
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
3
0:4444 0:1111
0:1111
0
0
0
0
0
0:2222 0:3333
3
0
07
7
07
7
05
1
3
0:2222
0 7
7
0:4444 7
7
0:2222 5
0
0
C1 ¼ C
2 E
0
6 0
6
¼6
6 0:2222
4 0
0
0:2222
0
0:3333
0
0
0:4444
0:1111
0
0
0:2222
0:1111
0
0
0
0:3333
1
0
C2 ¼ ðC
2 þC ÞE
0:0987 0:3703
6 0:0247 0:0370
6
¼6
6 0:2222 0:3827
4 0
0
0:0494 0:0741
3
0:2222
0 7
7
0:4444 7
7
0:2222 5
0
0:5185
0:1111
0:2345
0:0494
0:2222
0:1852
0
0:1728
0:0741
0:3333
3
0:4444
0:0494 7
7
0:4938 7
7
0:2222 5
0:1728
0:6282
0:1372
0:2510
0:0494
0:2908
0:2702
0:0192
0:1893
0:0741
0:3964
3
0:5157
0:0549 7
7
0:6364 7
7
0:2606 5
0:1838
2
0
C3 ¼ ðC
2 þC ÞE
0:1152 0:4169
6 0:0247 0:0425
6
¼6
6 0:2743 0:4608
4 0:0110 0:0165
0:0494 0:0850
…
C 17 ¼ 2
ðC16 þ C 0 Þ E
0:1589 0:4958
6 0:0334 0:0575
6
¼6
6 0:3007 0:5179
4 0:0160 0:0276
0:0722 0:1243
C 18 ¼ 2
ðC17 þ C 0 Þ E
0:1589 0:4958
6 0:0334 0:0575
6
¼6
6 0:3007 0:5179
4 0:0160 0:0276
0:0722 0:1243
0:7150
0:1503
0:3533
0:0722
0:3247
0:3461
0:0307
0:2766
0:0947
0:4263
3
0:6521
0:0811 7
7
0:7297 7
7
0:2789 5
0:2551
0:7150
0:1503
0:3533
0:0722
0:3247
0:3461
0:0307
0:2766
0:0947
0:4263
3
0:6521
0:0811 7
7
0:7297 7
7
0:2789 5
0:2551
Appendix 3
Two extra examples are proposed to reinforce our research
results. Example 3 shows how to evaluate the human
capital. Example 4 shows how to evaluate the external
structure capital.
Example 3 The human capital includes four indices:
leadership (LS), turnover of professional employees (TPE),
replacement cost of professional employees (RPE), and
team work (TW). The grades/degrees of direct influence
matrix as follow:
LS
0
6 0:1923
TPE
6
E¼
6
RPE 4 0:1538
TW 0:2692
LS
2
TPE
0:3462
0
0:3462
0:3846
RPE
0:1923
0:1538
0
0:1923
TW 3
0:4615
0:1154 7
7
7
0:1538 5
0
Fuzzy decision maps
1149
Next, we can obtain the steady-state matrix by
calculating Eq. 6 in the FDM method and Eq. 5 in the
DEMATEL as follows.
DEMATEL
LS
TPE
RPE
TW
Leadership (LS)
0.5844
1.1515
0.6677
0.9668
Turnover of professional
employees (TPE)
0.4648
0.4714
0.4015
0.4460
Replacement cost of
professional employees
(RPE)
0.5128
0.8462
0.3325
0.5393
Team work (TW)
0.7039
1.0386
0.5904
FDM (f(x) = x)
LS
TPE
RPE
Leadership (LS)
0.5843a
1.1514a
0.6677
0.5355
a
0.9667a
TPE
0.4648
0.4714
0.4014
0.4460
0.5128
0.8462
0.3325
0.5392a
TW
0.7039
1.0386
0.5904
0.5355
Means the difference between FDM and DEMATEL is 0.0001
In above table, the numerical results show the DEMATEL method and the FDM method using linear function
almost the same. This finding supports the FDM is a general methods of the DEMATEL method.
Example 4 The external structure capital includes five
indices: market share (MS), customer satisfaction (CS),
market growth rate (MGR), brand loyalty (BL), and future
prospective of product market (FP). The grades/degrees of
direct influence matrix as follow:
MS
CS
MGR
BL
FP
3
0:2903 0:1935 0:2581 0:1613
CS 6
0
0:2258 0:3226 0:1290 7
7
6 0:3226
7
6
E ¼ MGR 6 0:1613 0:0645
0
0:0645 0:2903 7
7
6
7
6
0
0:0968 5
BL 4 0:3226 0:2903 0:1290
MS
2
0
FP 0:0968 0:0323 0:3548 0:0323
0
Next, we can obtain the steady-state matrix by
calculating Eq. 6 in the FDM method and Eq. 5 in the
DEMATEL as follows.
CS
MGR
FDM (f(x) = x)
MS
CS
MGR
BL
FP
MS
0.7212
0.8059
0.8677
0.7831
0.7093
CS
1.0403
0.6438
0.9494
0.8840
0.7410
MGR
0.5287
0.3725
0.4425
0.3687
0.5878
BL
0.9660
0.8133
0.8048
0.5845
0.6477
Future prospective
of FP
0.4190
0.2895
0.6525
0.2863
0.3221
In above table, the numerical results are the same in both two
methods. The DEMATEL method and the FDM (f(x) = x) have the
same values
TW
RPE
a
continued
DEMATEL
MS
BL
FP
Market share (MS)
0.7212 0.8059 0.8677 0.7831 0.7093
Customer satisfaction (CS) 1.0403 0.6438 0.9494 0.8840 0.7410
Market growth rate (MGR) 0.5287 0.3725 0.4425 0.3687 0.5878
Brand loyalty (BL)
0.9660 0.8133 0.8048 0.5845 0.6477
Future prospective of
product market (FP)
0.4190 0.2895 0.6525 0.2863 0.3221
References
Andreou AS, Mateou NH, Zombanakis GA (2005) Soft computing for
crisis management and political decision making: the use of
genetically evolved fuzzy cognitive maps. Soft Comput 9(3):
194–210
Axelrod R (1976) Structure of decision, the cognitive maps of
political elite. Princeton University Press, London
Chen SJ, Hwang CL (1992) Fuzzy multiple attribute decision making:
methods and applications. Springer, Berlin
Chen WH, Yu R, Tzeng GH (2008) Comparison between the
DEMATEL methods and fuzzy decision maps: a sensitive
analysis approach, International Symposium on Management
Engineering 2008. Waseda University, Kitakyushu
Chih YJ, Chen HC, Syzu Joseph Z, Tzeng GH (2006) Marketing
strategy based on customer behavior for the LCD-TV. Int J
Manag Decis Making 7(2/3):143–165
Fishburn PC (1970) Utility theory for decision-making. Wiley,
New York
Fontela E, Gabus A (1976) The DEMATEL observer. Battelle
Geneva Research Centre, Geneva
Gabus A, Fontela E (1972) World problems, an invitation to further
thought within the framework of DEMATEL. Battelle Geneva
Research Centre, Geneva
Grabisch M (1995) Fuzzy integral in multicriteria decision making.
Fuzzy Sets Syst 69(3):279–298
Hillier FS (2001) Evaluation and decision models: a critical
perspective. Kluwer, Boston
Hori S, Shimizu Y (1999) Designing methods of human interface
for supervisory control systems. Control Eng Pract 7(11):1413–
1419
Huang CY, Tzeng GH (2007) Reconfiguring the innovation policy
portfolios for Taiwan’s SIP mall industry. Technovation
27(12):744–765
Kosko B (1988) Hidden patterns in combined and adaptive knowledge networks. Int J Approx Reason 2(4):377–393
Liou James JH, Tzeng GH, Chang HC (2007) Airline safety
measurement using a novel hybrid model. J Air Transp Manag
13(4):243–249
Pagageorgiou EI, Groumpos PP (2005) A new hybrid method using
evolutionary algorithms to train fuzzy cognitive maps. Appl Soft
Comput 5(4):409–431
Sekitani K, Takahashi I (2001) A unified model and analysis for AHP
and ANP. J Oper Res Soc Jpn 44(1):67–89
Stylios CD, Groumpos PP (2004) Modeling complex systems using
fuzzy cognitive maps. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern A Syst Hum
34(1):155–162
Tzeng GH, Chiang CH, Li CW (2007) Evaluating intertwined effects
in E-learning programs: a novel hybrid MCDM model based on
123
1150
factor analysis and DEMATEL. Expert Syst Appl 32(4):1028–
1044
Warfield JN (1976) Social systems, planning and complexity. Wiley,
New York
123
G.-H. Tzeng et al.
Yu R, Tzeng GH (2006) A soft computing method for multi-criteria
decision making with dependence and feedback. Appl Math
Comput 180(1):63–75