Hindawi Publishing Corporation

Journal of Applied Mathematics

Volume 2012, Article ID 824265, 16 pages
doi:10.1155/2012/824265

Research Article
Evaluating Projects Based on Intuitionistic Fuzzy
Group Decision Making

Babak Daneshvar Rouyendegh1, 2

1
Department of Industrial Engineering, Atilim University, P.O. Box 06836, Incek, Ankara, Turkey
2
Department of Mechanical & Industrial Engineering, University of Toronto, Toronto,
ON, Canada M5S 3G8

Correspondence should be addressed to Babak Daneshvar Rouyendegh, [email protected]

Received 9 November 2011; Revised 30 January 2012; Accepted 27 March 2012

Academic Editor: Luis Javier Herrera

Copyright q 2012 Babak Daneshvar Rouyendegh. This is an open access article distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and
reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

There are various methods regarding project selection in different fields. This paper deals with
an actual application of construction project selection, using two aggregation operators. First,
the opinion of experts is used in a model of group decision making called intuitionistic fuzzy
TOPSIS IFT. Secondly, project evaluation is formulated by dynamic intuitionistic fuzzy weighted
averaging DIFWA. Intuitionistic fuzzy weighted averaging IFWA operator is utilized to
aggregate individual opinions of decision makers DMs for rating the importance of criteria and
alternatives. A numerical example for project selection is given to clarify the main developed result
in this paper.

1. Introduction
Project selection and project evaluation involve decisions that are critical in terms of the
profitability, growth, and survival of project management organizations in the increasingly
competitive global scenario. Such decisions are often complex, because they require
identification, consideration, and analysis of many tangible and intangible factors 1.
There are various methods regarding project selection in different fields. Project
selection problem has attracted great endeavor by practitioners and academicians in recent
years. One of the major fields that have been applied to this problem is mathematical
programming, especially Mix-Integer Programming MIP, since the problems comprise
selection of projects while other aspects are considered using real-value variables 2. For
instance, a MIP model is developed by 3 to conquer Research and Development R&D
portfolio selection.
Multicriteria decision making MCDM is a modeling and methodological tool for
dealing with complex engineering problems 4. Many mathematical programming models
2 Journal of Applied Mathematics

have been developed to address project-selection problems. However, in recent years, MCDM
methods have gained considerable acceptance for judging different proposals. The objective
of Mohanty’s 5 study was to integrate the multidimensional issues in an MCDM framework
that may help decision makers to develop insights and make decisions. They computed
weight of each criterion and then assessed the projects by doing technique for order
preference by similarity to ideal solution algorithm TOPSIS 6. To select R&D project, the
application of the fuzzy analytical network process ANP and fuzzy cost analysis has been
used by some researchers 7. In their studies, triangular fuzzy numbers TFNs are used to
prefer one criterion over another by using a pairwise comparison with the fuzzy set theory,
where the weight of each criterion in the format of triangular fuzzy numbers is calculated
7. The project selection problem was presented through a methodology which is based on
the analytic hierarchy process AHP for quantitative and qualitative aspects of a problem
8. It assists the measuring of the initial viability of industrial projects. The study shows that
industrial investment company should concentrate its efforts in development of prefeasibility
studies for a specific number of industrial projects which have a high likelihood of realization
8.
Multiattribute decision making MADM is the other applied approach in which
criteria are mostly defined in qualitative scale and the decision is made with respect
to assigned weights using some methods, such as PROMETHEE 9, 10. To have more
comprehensive study on MADM methods in this field, readers are referred to 11–15.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows. Section 2 provides materials and
methods, mainly fuzzy set theory FST and intuitionistic fuzzy set IFS. The IFT and
DIFWA are introduced in Section 3. How the proposed model is used in an actual example is
explained in Section 4. Finally, the conclusions are provided in the final section.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. FST
Zadeh 1965 introduced the fuzzy set theory FST to deal with the uncertainty due to
imprecision and vagueness. A major contribution of this theory is capability of representing
vague data; it also allows mathematical operators and programming to be applied to the
fuzzy domain. An FS is a class of objects with a continuum of grades of membership. Such
a set is characterized by a membership function, which assigns to each object a grade of
membership ranging between zero and one 16, 17.
A tilde “∼” will be placed above a symbol if the symbol represents an FST. A TFN M  is
shown in Figure 1. A TFN is denoted simply as l/m, m/u or l, m, u. The parameters l, m
and u l ≤ m ≤ u, respectively, denote the smallest possible value, the most promising value,
and the largest possible value that describe a fuzzy event. The membership function of TFN
is as follows.
Each TFN has linear representations on its left and right side, such that its membership
function can be defined as
⎧
⎪
⎪ 0, x < l,
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ x − l
  ⎪ ⎪
⎨ m − l , l ≤ x ≤ m,
x
µ  2.1

M ⎪
⎪ u−x
⎪
⎪ , m ≤ x ≤ u,
⎪
⎪ u−m
⎪
⎪
⎩
0, x > u.
Journal of Applied Mathematics 3

1
Ml(y) Mr(y)

0 l m u


Figure 1: A TFN M.

A fuzzy number can always be given by its corresponding left and right representation
of each degree of membership as in the following:

  Mly , Mry  l  m − ly, u  m − uy ,

M y ∈ 0, 1, 2.2

where ly and ry denote the left side representation and the right side representation of
a fuzzy number FN, respectively. Many ranking methods for FNs have been developed in
the literature. These methods may provide different ranking results, and most of them are
tedious in graphic manipulation requiring complex mathematical calculation 18.
While there are various operations on TFNs, only the important operations used in
this study are illustrated. If we define two positive TFNs l1, m1, u1 and l2, m2, u2, then

l1, m1, u1  l2, m2, u2  l1  l2, m1  m2, u1  u2,
l1, m1, u1 ∗ l2, m2, u2  l1 ∗ l2, m1  m2, u1 ∗ u2, 2.3
l1, m1, u1  k  l1 ∗ km1 ∗ k, u1 ∗ k, where k > 0.

2.2. Basic Concept of IFS

The application of IFS method within the overall goal to select the best project has been
described. IFSs introduced by Atanassov 19 are an extension of the classical FST, which is a
suitable way to deal with vagueness. IFSs have been applied to many areas such as medical
diagnosis 20–22, decision-making problems 23–46, pattern recognition 47–52, supplier
selection 53, 54, enterprise partners selection 55, personnel selection 56, evaluation of
renewable energy 57, facility location selection 58, web service selection 59, printed
circuit board assembly 60, and management information system 61.
The following briefly introduces some necessary introductory concepts of IFS. IFS A
in a finite set X can be written as 19

  
A x, µA x, vA x | x ∈ X , where µA x, VA x : X −→ 0, 1 2.4

are membership function and nonmembership function, respectively, such that


0 ≤ µA x VA x ≤ 1. 2.5
4 Journal of Applied Mathematics

A third parameter of IFS is πA x, known as the intuitionistic fuzzy index or hesitation degree
of whether x belongs to A or not:

πA x  1 − µA x − VA x. 2.6

It is obviously seen that for every x ∈ X

0 ≤ πA x ≤ 1 if the πA x. 2.7

If it is small, knowledge about x is more certain. If πA x is great, knowledge about x

is more uncertain. Obviously, when

µA x  1 − vA xµA x  1 − vx 2.8

for all elements of the universe, the ordinary FST concept is recovered 60.
Let A and B be IFSs of the set X, then multiplication operator is defined as follows
19:
 
A B  µA x · µB x, vA x  vB x − vA x · vB x | x ∈ X . 2.9

3. Intuitionistic Fuzzy TOPSIS (IFT) and Dynamic Intuitionistic Fuzzy

Weighted Averaging (DIFWA) Methods
3.1. IFT
It should be mentioned here that the presented approach mainly utilizes the IFT method
presented in 53, 56, 57 to handle a project selection problem with six projects and six
criteria. In the current paper we validate the method in an actual context and show this
method applicability with an extensive set of selection criteria. The IFT method is a suitable
way to deal with MCDM problem in intuitionistic fuzzy environment IFE. Let A 
{A1 , A2 , . . . , Am } be a set of alternatives and let X  {X1 , X2 , . . . , Xn } be a set of criteria, the
procedure for IFT method has been conducted in eight steps presented as follows.

Step 1. Determine the weights of importance of DMs.

In the first step, we assume that decision group contains l  {l1 , l2 , . . . , ln } DMs. The
importances of the DMs are considered as linguistic terms. These linguistic terms were
assigned to IFN. Let Dk  µk , vk , πk  be an intuitionistic fuzzy number for rating of kth
DM.Then the weight of kth DM can be calculated as

µk  πk µk / µk  vk 
l
λk  l , where λk ∈ 0, 1, λk  1. 3.1
k1 µk  πk µk / µk  vk k1

Step 2. Determine intuitionistic fuzzy decision matrix IFDM.

Based on the weight of DMs, the aggregated intuitionistic fuzzy decision matrix
AIFDM was calculated by applying intuitionistic fuzzy weighted averaging IFWA
Journal of Applied Mathematics 5

operator Xu 62. In group decision-making process, all the individual decision opinions need
to be fused into a group opinion to construct AIFDM.
k
Let Rk  rij m×n be an IFDM of each DM. λ  {λ1 , λ2 , λ3 , . . . , λl } is the weight of DM.
Consider

R  rij m×n
, 3.2

where

   
rij  IFWAλ rij 1 , rij 2 , . . . , rij l  λ1 rij 1 λ2 rij 2 λ3 rij 3 ··· λl rij l
 
l λ  l λ  l λ  l λ 3.3
k k k k k k k k
 1− 1 − µij , vij , 1 − µij − vij .
k1 k1 k1 k1

Step 3. Determine the weights of the selection criteria.

In this step, all criteria may not be assumed to be of equal importance. W represents
a set of grades of importance. In order to obtain W, all the individual DM opinions for the
importance of each criteria need to be fused. Let wj k  µj k , vj k , πj k  be an IFN assigned
to criterion Xj by the kth DM.
The weights of the criteria can be calculated as follows:

   
wj  IFWAλ wj 1 , wj 2 , . . . , wj l  λ1 wj 1 λ2 wj 2 λ3 wj 3 ··· λl wj l

  3.4

l λk 
l λk 
l λk 
l λk
k k k k
 1− 1 − µj , vj , 1 − µj − vj .
k1 k1 k1 k1

Thus, a vector of criteria weight is obtained: W  w1 , w2 , w3 , . . . , wj , where wj 

µj , vj , πj  j  1, 2, . . . , n.

Step 4. Construct the aggregated weighted IFDM.

In Step 4, the weights of criteria W and the aggregated IFDM are determined to the
aggregated weighted IFDM which is constructed according to the following definition 19:

  
R′  R W  µ′ij , vij′  x, µij · µj , vij  vj − vij · vj ,
3.5
πij′  1 − vij − vj − µij · µj  vij · vj .

R′ is a matrix composed with elements IFNs, rıj′  µ′ij , vij′ , πij′  i  1, 2, . . . , m; j  1, 2, . . . , n.
6 Journal of Applied Mathematics

Step 5. Determine intuitionistic fuzzy positive and negative ideal solution.

In this step, the intuitionistic fuzzy positive ideal solution IFPIS and intuitionistic
fuzzy negative ideal solution IFNIS have to be determined. Let J1 and J2 be benefit criteria
and cost criteria, respectively. A∗ is IFPIS and A− is IFNIS. Then A∗ and A− are equal to

∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗
A∗  r1′ , r2′ , . . . , rn′ , rj′  µ′j , vj′ , πj′ , j  1, 2, . . . , n,
3.6
− − − − − − −
A−  r1′ , r2′ , . . . , rn′ , rj ′  µ′j , vj′ , πj′ , j  1, 2, . . . , n,

where
       
∗
µ′j  max µ′ij j ∈ J1 , min µ′ij j ∈ J2 ,
i i
       
vj∗  min vij′ j ∈ J1 , max vij′ j ∈ J2 ,
i i
           
∗
πj′  1 − max µ′ij − min vij′ j ∈ J1 , 1 − min µ′ij − max vij′ j ∈ J2 ,
i i i i
    3.7
   
−
µ′j  min µ′ij j ∈ J1 , max µ′ij j ∈ J2 ,
i i
       
−
vj′  max vij′ j ∈ J1 , min vij′ j ∈ J2 ,
i i
           
−
πj′  1 − min µ′ij − max vij′ j ∈ J1 , 1 − max µ′ij − min vij′ j ∈ J2 .
i i i i

Step 6. Determine the separation measures between the alternative.

Separation between alternatives on IFS, distance measures proposed by Atanassov
63, Szmidt and Kacprzyk 64, and Grzegorzewski 65 including the generalizations of
Hamming distance, Euclidean distance and their normalized distance measures can be used.
After selecting the distance measure, the separation measures, S∗i and S−i , of each alternative
from IFPIS and IFNIS, are calculated:
n      
1  ′ ∗  ∗  ∗
S∗i  µij − µ′j   vij′ − vj′   πij′ − πj′  ,
2 j1
n       3.8
1  ′ −  −  −
S−i  µij − µ′j   vij′ − vj′   πij′ − πj′  .
2 j1

Step 7. Determine the final ranking.

In the final step, the relative closeness coefficient of an alternative Ai with respect to
the IFPIS A∗ is defined as follows:

S−i
Ci∗  , where 0 ≤ Ci∗ ≤ 1. 3.9
S∗i  S−i

The alternatives were ranked according to descending order of Ci∗ ’s score.

Journal of Applied Mathematics 7

3.2. DIFWA
The DIFWA method, proposed by Xu and Yager 33, is a suitable way to deal with problem
in IFE. The procedure for DIFWA method has been given as follows.

Step 1. Utilize the DIFWA operator

rij  DIFWAλt rij t1 , rij t2 , . . . , rij tp

 
p p
λtk   λt  
p
λtk 
p
 3.10
λt 
 1− 1 − µrij tk  , vrij tkk  , 1 − µrij tk  − vrij tkk  .
k1 k1 k1 k1

to aggregate all the intuitionistic fuzzy matrix Rtk   rij tk m×n k  1, 2, . . . , p into a
complex IFDM:

R  rij m×n
, where rij  µij , vij , πij ,
p
 p

λtk  λt 
µij  1 − 1 − µrij tk  , vij  vrij tkk  ,
k1 k1
3.11
p
 p

λtk  λt 
πij  1 − µrij tk  − vrij tkk  ,
k1 k1

i  1, 2, . . . , n, j  1, 2, . . . , m.

Step 2. Define α  α1 , α2 , . . . , αm T and α−  α−1 , α−2 , . . . , α−m T as the IFPIS and the IFNIS,
respectively, where α  1, 0, 0 i  1, 2, . . . , m are the m largest IFNs and α−  0, 1, 0 i 
1, 2, . . . , m are the m smallest IFNs. Furthermore, for convenience of depiction, we denote the
alternative xi i  1, 2, . . . , n by xi  ri1 , ri2 , . . . , rim T , i  1, 2, . . . , n.

Step 3. Calculate the distance between the alternative xi and the IFIS and the distance
between the largest native xi and the IFNIS, respectively:

m
1 m      
dxi , α   wj d rij , αj  wj µij − 1  vij − 0  πij − 0
j1
2 j1

1 m
1 m
 wj 1 − µij  vij  πij  wj 1 − µij  vij  1 − µij − vij
2 j1 2 j1


m
 wj 1 − µij ,
j1

m
1 m      
d xi , α−  wj d rij , α−j  wj µij − 0  vij − 1  πij − 0
j1
2 j1
8 Journal of Applied Mathematics

1 m
1 m
 wj 1 − µij − vij  πij  wj 1  µij − vij  1 − µij − vij
2 j1 2 j1


m
 wj 1 − vij ,
j1

3.12

where rij  µij , vij , πij , i  1, 2, . . . , n, j  1, 2, . . . , m.

Step 4. Calculate the closeness coefficient of each alternative:

dxi , α− 
cxi   , i  1, 2, . . . , n. 3.13
dxi , α   dxi , α− 

Since


m 
m 
m 
m
dxi , α   d xi , α−  wj 1 − µij  wj 1 − vij  wj 2 − µij − vij  wj 1  πij ,
j1 j1 j1 j1
3.14

then 3.13 can be rewritten as

m
j1 wj 1 − vij
cxi   m , i  1, 2, . . . , n. 3.15
j1 wj 1 − πij

Step 5. Rank all the alternatives xi 1, 2, . . . , n according to the closeness coefficients cxi 1,
2, . . . , n, the greater the value cxi , the better the alternative xi .

4. Case Study
In this section, we will describe how an IFT method was applied via an example of
selection of the most appropriate projects. Criteria to be considered in the selection of
projects are determined by the expert team from a construction group. In our study, we
employ six evaluation criteria. The attributes which are considered here in assessment of
Pi i  1, 2, . . . , 6 are 1 C1 is benefit and 2 C2 , . . . , C6 are cost. The committee evaluates
the performance of projects Pi i  1, 2, . . . , 6 according to the attributes Cj j  1, 2, . . . , 6,
respectively. Criteria are mainly considered as follows
i net present value C1 ,
ii quality C2 ,
iii duration C3 ,
iv contractor’s rank C4 ,
v contractor’s technology C5 ,
vi contractor’s economic status C6 .
Journal of Applied Mathematics 9

Table 1: Linguistic term for rating DMs.

Linguistic terms IFNs

Very important 0.80, 0.10
Important 0.50, 0.20
Medium 0.50, 0.50
Bad 0.3, 0.50
Very Bad 0.20, 0.70

Table 2: The importance of DMs and their weights.

DM1 DM2 DM3 DM4

Linguistic terms Very important Medium Important Important
Weight 0.342 0.274 0.192 0.192

Therefore, one cost criterion, C1 and five benefit criteria, C2 , . . . , C6 are considered.
After preliminary screening, six projects P1 , P2 , P3 , P4 , P5 , and P6 remain for further
evaluation. A team of four DMs such as DM1 , DM2 , DM3 , and DM4 has been formed to select
the most suitable project.
Now utilizing the proposed IFT to prioritize these construction projects, the following
steps were taken.
Degree of the DMs on group decision, shown in Table 1, and linguistic terms used for
the ratings of the DMs and criteria, as Table 2, respectively.
Construct the aggregated IFDM based on the opinions of DMs and the linguistic terms
shown in Table 3.
The ratings given by the DMs to six projects were shown in Table 4.
The aggregated IFDM based on aggregation of DMs’ opinions was constructed as
follows:

C1 C2 C3
⎡ ⎤
A1 0.80, 0.08, 0.12 0.69, 0.20, 0.11 0.76, 0.12, 0.12
A2 ⎢0.68, 0.20, 0.12 0.78, 0.11, 0.11 0.74, 0.13, 0.13⎥
⎢ ⎥
A ⎢0.82, 0.07, 0.11 0.79, 0.10, 0.11 0.79, 0.10, 0.11⎥
⎢ ⎥
R 3 ⎢ ⎥
A4 ⎢ 0.83, 0.16, 0.1 0.75, 0.14, 0.11 0.70, 0.19, 0.11⎥
⎢ ⎥
A5 ⎣0.55, 0.38, 0.07 0.42, 0.52, 0.06 0.64, 0.40, 0.06⎦
A6 0.75, 0.13, 0.12 0.69, 0.19, 0.12 0.75, 0.13, 0.12
4.1
C4 C5 C6
⎡ ⎤
A1 0.80, 0.09, 0.11 0.78, 0.11, 0.11 0.69, 0.20, 0.11
A2 ⎢0.78, 0.11, 0.11 0.69, 0.21, 0.10 0.75, 0.13, 0.12⎥
⎢ ⎥
A ⎢0.84, 0.05, 0.11 0.84, 0.05, 0.11 0.84, 0.05, 0.11⎥
⎢ ⎥
× 3 ⎢ ⎥.
A4 ⎢0.81, 0.08, 0.11 0.82, 0.07, 0.11 0.85, 0.05, 0.10⎥
⎢ ⎥
A5 ⎣0.55, 0.33, 0.12 0.54, 0.33, 0.13 0.40, 0.54, 0.06⎦
A6 0.75, 0.13, 0.12 0.85, 0.05, 0.10 0.78, 0.11, 0.11

The linguistic terms shown in Table 5 were used to rate each criterion. The importance
of the criteria represented as linguistic terms was shown in Table 6.
10 Journal of Applied Mathematics

Table 3: Linguistic terms for rating the alternatives.

Linguistic terms IFNs

Extremely good EG 1.00; 0.00; 0.00
Very good VG 0.85; 0.05; 0.10
Good G 0.70; 0.20; 0.10
Medium bad MB 0.50; 0.50; 0.00
Bad B 0.40; 0.50; 0.10
Very bad VB 0.25; 0.60; 0.15
Extremely bad EB 0.00, 0.90,0.10

The opinions of DMs on criteria were aggregated to determine the weight of each
criterion:

⎡ ⎤T
0, 71, 0.19, 0.10
⎢0, 90, 0.00, 0.10⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢0, 65, 0.27, 0.80⎥
⎢ ⎥ 4.2
W{X1 ,X2 ,X3 ,X4 ,X5 ,X6 } ⎢ ⎥ .
⎢0, 78, 0.11, 0.11⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎣0, 80, 0.10, 0.10⎦
0, 67, 0.24, 0.9

After the weights of the criteria and the rating of the projects were determined, the aggregated
weighted IFDM was constructed as follows:

C1 C2 C3
⎡ ⎤
A1 0.57, 0.26, 0.18 0.62, 0.20, 0.18 0.49, 0.36, 0.19
A2 ⎢0.48, 0.35, 0.17 0.70, 0.11, 0.19 0.48, 0.37, 0.15⎥
⎢ ⎥
A ⎢0.58, 0.25, 0.17 0.70, 0.10, 0.19 0.51, 0.34, 0.14⎥
⎢ ⎥
R  3
′
⎢ ⎥
A4 ⎢0.59, 0.32, 0.09 0.70, 0.14, 0.19 0.45, 0.41, 0.14⎥
⎢ ⎥
A5 ⎣0.39, 0.50, 0.11 0.38, 0.52, 0.10 0.42, 0.56, 0.02⎦
A6 0.53, 0.30, 0.17 0.62, 0.19, 0.19 0.49, 0.36, 0.15
4.3
C4 C5 C6
⎡ ⎤
A1 0.62, 0.19, 0.19 0.62, 0.20, 0.18 0.46, 0.39, 0.15
A2 ⎢0.61, 0.21, 0.18 0.55, 0.29, 0.16 0.50, 0.34, 0.16⎥
⎢ ⎥
A ⎢0.66, 0.16, 0.19 0.67, 0.15, 0.18 0.56, 0.28, 0.16⎥
⎢ ⎥
× 3 ⎢ ⎥.
A4 ⎢0.63, 0.18, 0.19 0.57, 0.16, 0.18 0.57, 0.28, 0.15⎥
⎢ ⎥
A5 ⎣0.43, 0.40, 0.17 0.43, 0.40, 0.17 0.27, 0.65, 0.08⎦
A6 0.59, 0.23, 0.19 0.70, 0.14, 0.18 0.52, 0.33, 0.15

The net present value is cost criteria j1  {X1 }, and quality, duration, contractor’s
rank, contractor’s technology, and contractor’s economic status are benefit criteria j1  {X2 ,
X3 , X4 , X5 }.
Journal of Applied Mathematics 11

Table 4: The ratings of the projects.

Alternative Criteria DM1 DM2 DM3 DM4

C1 VG VG G G
C2 G VG MB MB
P1 C3 VG G B VG
C4 VG VG G G
C5 VG VG MB G
C6 G VG MB MB
C1 G VG MB B
C2 VG VG G MB
P2 C3 VG VG B B
C4 VG VG MB G
C5 G G G G
C6 VG VG MB B
C1 VG VG G VG
C2 VG G G VG
P3 C3 VG G VG G
C4 VG VG VG VG
C5 VG VG VG VG
C6 VG VG VG VG
C1 MB G MB VG
C2 G VG G G
P4 C3 MB VG G G
C4 VG G VG VG
C5 VG VG G VG
C6 VG VG VG VG
C1 G MB MB VB
C2 MB B B VB
P5 C3 B G MB VG
C4 MB B VB VG
C5 B MB VB VG
C6 MB VB VB MB
C1 VG VG MB MB
C2 G VG B MB
P6 C3 VG VG B MB
C4 VG VG B MB
C5 VG VG VB VG
C6 VG VG G MB

Then IFPIS and IFNIS were provided as follows:

A∗  {0.59, 0.25, 0.16, 0.71, 0.10, 0.19, 0.51, 0.34, 0.15, 0.66, 0.15, 0.18,
0.68, 0.14, 0.18, 0.57, 0.28, 0.15},
−
4.4
A  {0.39, 0.5, 0.11, 0.38, 0.5, 0.12, 0.42, 0.56, 0.02, 0.43, 0.4, 0.17,
0.43, 0.4, 0.17, 0.27, 0.65, 0.08}.
12 Journal of Applied Mathematics

Table 5: The linguistic terms for the importance of the criteria.

Linguistic terms IFNs

Very good VG 0.80; 0.10
Good G 0.50; 0.20
Medium good G 0.50; 0.50
Very bad VB 0.30; 0.50
Bad B 0.20; 0.60

Table 6: The importance weight of the criteria.

Criteria DM1 DM2 DM3 DM4

C1 G VG VG MB
C2 VG VG VG VG
C3 MB G VG MB
C4 G G VG G
C5 G VG MB G
C6 MB G MB VG

Negative and positive separation measures based on normalized Euclidean distance for each
project and the relative closeness coefficient were calculated in Table 7.
Six projects were ranked according to descending order of Ci∗ ’s. The result score is
always the bigger the better. As visible in Table 6, project 3 has the largest score, and project
5 has the smallest score of the six projects which is ranked in the last pace. The projects were
ranked as P3 > P4 > P6 > P1 > P2 > P5 . Project 3 was selected as appropriate project among
the alternatives.
In the second part, we utilize the proposed DIFWA to prioritize these construction
projects, and the following steps were taken.
First, utilize the DIFWA to aggregate all the IFDM Rtk  into a complex IFDM R:

C1 C2 C3
⎡ ⎤
A1 0.57, 0.26, 0.18 0.62, 0.20, 0.18 0.49, 0.36, 0.19
A2 ⎢0.48, 0.35, 0.17 0.70, 0.11, 0.19 0.48, 0.37, 0.15⎥
⎢ ⎥
A ⎢0.58, 0.25, 0.17 0.70, 0.10, 0.19 0.51, 0.34, 0.14⎥
⎢ ⎥
R′  3 ⎢ ⎥
A4 ⎢0.59, 0.32, 0.09 0.70, 0.14, 0.19 0.45, 0.41, 0.14⎥
⎢ ⎥
A5 ⎣0.39, 0.50, 0.11 0.38, 0.52, 0.10 0.42, 0.56, 0.02⎦
A6 0.53, 0.30, 0.17 0.62, 0.19, 0.19 0.49, 0.36, 0.15
4.5
C4 C5 C6
⎡ ⎤
A1 0.62, 0.19, 0.19 0.62, 0.20, 0.18 0.46, 0.39, 0.15
A2 ⎢0.61, 0.21, 0.18 0.55, 0.29, 0.16 0.50, 0.34, 0.16⎥
⎢ ⎥
A ⎢0.66, 0.16, 0.19 0.67, 0.15, 0.18 0.56, 0.28, 0.16⎥
⎢ ⎥
× 3 ⎢ ⎥.
A4 ⎢0.63, 0.18, 0.19 0.57, 0.16, 0.18 0.57, 0.28, 0.15⎥
⎢ ⎥
A5 ⎣0.43, 0.40, 0.17 0.43, 0.40, 0.17 0.27, 0.65, 0.08⎦
A6 0.59, 0.23, 0.19 0.70, 0.14, 0.18 0.52, 0.33, 0.15
Journal of Applied Mathematics 13

Table 7: Separation measures and the relative closeness coefficient of each project.

Alternatives S∗ S− Ci ∗
P1 0.36 1.38 0.79
P2 0.42 1.35 0.77
P3 0.04 1.73 0.98
P4 0.23 1.54 0.87
P5 0.18 0.02 0.01
P6 0.3 1.46 0.83

Denote the IFIS, IFNIS, and the alternatives by

α  1, 0, 0, 1, 0, 0, 1, 0, 0T , α−  0, 1, 0, 0, 1, 0, 0, 1, 0T , 4.6

and calculate the closeness coefficient of each alternative:

CP1   0.622, CP2   0.618, CP3   0.671,

4.7
CP4   0.650, CP5   0.447, CP6   0.633.

Rank all the projects according to the closeness coefficients.

The projects were ranked as CP3  > CP4  > CP6  > CP1  > CP2  > CP5 . The
greater value of CXi , the better alternative; thus the best alternative is also project 3.

5. Conclusion
The IFT and DIFWA have been emphasized in this paper which occurs in construction
projects evaluation. In the evaluation process, the ratings of each project, given with
intuitionistic fuzzy information, were represented as IFNs. The IFWA operator was used
to aggregate the rating of DM. In project selection problem the project’s information and
performance are usually uncertain. Therefore, the decision makers are unable to express their
judgment on the project with crisp value, and the evaluations are very often expressed in
linguistic terms. IFT and DIFWA are suitable ways to deal with MCDM because it contains
a vague perception of DMs’ opinions. An actual life example in construction sector was
illustrated, and finally the result is as follows Among 6 construction projects with respect
to 6 criteria, after using these two methods, the best one is project 3 and project 4, project
6, project 1, project 2, project 5 will follow it, respectively. The presented approach not only
validates the methods, as it was originally defined in Boran and Xu in a new application field
that was the evaluation of construction projects, but also considers a more extensive list of
benefit and cost-oriented criteria, suitable for construction project selection. Finally, the IFT
and DIFWA methods have capability to deal with similar types of the same situations with
uncertainty in MCDM problems such as ERP software selection and many other areas.

Acknowledgment
The author is very grateful to the anonymous referees for their constructive comments and
suggestions that led to an improved version of this paper.
14 Journal of Applied Mathematics

References
1 J. Dodangeh, M. Mojahed, and R. B. M. Yusuff, “Best project selection by using of Group TOPSIS
method,” in Proceedings of the International Association of Computer Science and Information Technology
(IACSIT-SC ’09), pp. 50–53, April 2009.
2 J. Wang and W. L. Hwang, “A fuzzy set approach for R&D portfolio selection using a real options
valuation model,” Omega, vol. 35, no. 3, pp. 247–257, 2007.
3 G. J. Beaujon, S. P. Marin, and G. C. McDonald, “Balancing and optimizing a portfolio of R&D
projects,” Naval Research Logistics, vol. 48, no. 1, pp. 18–40, 2001.
4 B. D. Rouyendegh, “The DEA and intuitionistic fuzzy TOPSIS approach to departments’ perfor-
mances: a pilot study,” Journal of Applied Mathematics, vol. 2011, Article ID 712194, 16 pages, 2011.
5 R. Mohanty, “Project selection by a multiple-criteria decision-making method: an example from a
developing country,” International Journal of Project Management, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 31–38, 1992.
6 S. Mahmoodzadeh, J. Shahrabi, M. Pariazar, and M. S. Zaeri, “Project selection by using fuzzy AHP
and TOPSIS technique,” International Journal of Human and Social Sciences, vol. 1, no. 3, pp. 333–338,
2007.
7 R. P. Mohanty, R. Agarval, A. K. Choudhury, and M. K. Tiwari, “Application of fuzzy analytical
network process to R & D project selection,” International Journal of Production Research, vol. 43, no.
24, pp. 5199–5216, 2005.
8 A. S. Alidi, “Use of the analytic hierarchy process to measure the initial viability of industrial
projects,” International Journal of Project Management, vol. 14, no. 4, pp. 205–208, 1996.
9 D. Al-Rashdan, B. Al-Kloub, A. Dean, and T. Al-Shemmeri, “Environmental impact assessment and
ranking the environmental projects in Jordan,” European Journal of Operational Research, vol. 118, no. 1,
pp. 30–45, 1999.
10 N. Halouani, H. Chabchoub, and J. M. Martel, “PROMETHEE-MD-2T method for project selection,”
European Journal of Operational Research, vol. 195, no. 3, pp. 841–849, 2009.
11 M. F. Abu-Taleb and B. Mareschal, “Water resources planning in the Middle East: application of the
PROMETHEE V multicriteria method,” European Journal of Operational Research, vol. 81, no. 3, pp.
500–511, 1995.
12 A. D. Henriksen and A. J. Traynor, “A practical R&D project-selection scoring tool,” IEEE Transactions
on Engineering Management, vol. 46, no. 2, pp. 158–170, 1999.
13 G. Mavrotas, D. Diakoulaki, and P. Capros, “Combined MCDA-IP Approach for Project Selection in
the Electricity Market,” Annals of Operations Research, vol. 120, no. 1–4, pp. 159–170, 2003.
14 G. Mavrotas, D. Diakoulaki, and Y. Caloghirou, “Project prioritization under policy restrictions. A
combination of MCDA with 0-1 programming,” European Journal of Operational Research, vol. 171, no.
1, pp. 296–308, 2006.
15 A. Salo, T. Gustafsson, and P. Mild, “Prospective evaluation of a cluster Program for Finnish forestry
and forest industries,” International Transactions in Operational Research, vol. 11, pp. 139–154, 2004.
16 C. Kahraman, D. Ruan, and I. Doǧan, “Fuzzy group decision-making for facility location selection,”
Information Sciences, vol. 157, no. 1–4, pp. 135–153, 2003.
17 B. D. Rouyendegh and S. Erol, “The DEA–FUZZY ANP department ranking model applied in Iran
Amirkabir University,” Acta Polytechnica Hungarica, vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 103–114, 2010.
18 Ç. Kahraman, D. Ruan, and E. Tolga, “Capital budgeting techniques using discounted fuzzy versus
probabilistic cash flows,” Information Sciences, vol. 142, no. 1–4, pp. 57–76, 2002.
19 K. T. Atanassov, “Intuitionistic fuzzy sets,” Fuzzy Sets and Systems, vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 87–96, 1986.
20 S. K. De, R. Biswas, and A. R. Roy, “An application of intuitionistic fuzzy sets in medical diagnosis,”
Fuzzy Sets and Systems, vol. 117, no. 2, pp. 209–213, 2001.
21 E. Szmidt and J. Kacprzyk, “Intuitionistic fuzzy sets in some medical applications,” in Computational
Intelligence. Theory and Applications, vol. 2206 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pp. 148–151, 2001.
22 E. Szmidt and J. Kacprzyk, “A similarity measure for intuitionistic fuzzy sets and its application in
supporting medical diagnostic reasoning,” in Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Artificial
Intelligence and Soft Computing (ICAISC ’04), vol. 3070 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pp. 388–393,
June 2004.
23 D. H. Hong and C. H. Choi, “Multicriteria fuzzy decision-making problems based on vague set
theory,” Fuzzy Sets and Systems, vol. 114, no. 1, pp. 103–113, 2000.
24 E. Szmidt and J. Kacprzyk, “Using intuitionistic fuzzy sets in group decision making,” Control and
Cybernetics, vol. 31, no. 4, pp. 1037–1053, 2002.
25 E. Szmidt and J. Kacprzyk, “A consensus-reaching process under intuitionistic fuzzy preference
Journal of Applied Mathematics 15

relations,” International Journal of Intelligent Systems, vol. 18, no. 7, pp. 837–852, 2003.
26 K. I. Atanassov, G. Pasi, and R. Yager, “Intuitionistic fuzzy interpretations of multi-criteria multi-
person and multi-measurement tool decision making,” International Journal of Systems Science, vol. 36,
no. 14, pp. 859–868, 2005.
27 D. F. Li, “Multiattribute decision making models and methods using intuitionistic fuzzy sets,” Journal
of Computer and System Sciences, vol. 70, no. 1, pp. 73–85, 2005.
28 H. W. Liu and G. J. Wang, “Multi-criteria decision-making methods based on intuitionistic fuzzy sets,”
European Journal of Operational Research, vol. 179, no. 1, pp. 220–233, 2007.
29 Z. Xu, “Intuitionistic preference relations and their application in group decision making,” Information
Sciences, vol. 177, no. 11, pp. 2363–2379, 2007.
30 Z. Xu, “Some similarity measures of intuitionistic fuzzy sets and their applications to multiple
attribute decision making,” Fuzzy Optimization and Decision Making, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 109–121, 2007.
31 Z. S. Xu, “Models for multiple attribute decision making with intuitionistic fuzzy information,”
International Journal of Uncertainty, Fuzziness and Knowlege-Based Systems, vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 285–297,
2007.
32 L. Lin, X. H. Yuan, and Z. Q. Xia, “Multicriteria fuzzy decision-making methods based on intuitionis-
tic fuzzy sets,” Journal of Computer and System Sciences, vol. 73, no. 1, pp. 84–88, 2007.
33 Z. Xu and R. R. Yager, “Dynamic intuitionistic fuzzy multi-attribute decison making,” International
Journal of Approximate Reasoning, vol. 48, no. 1, pp. 246–262, 2008.
34 D. F. Li, “Extension of the LINMAP for multiattribute decision making under Atanassov’s intuition-
istic fuzzy environment,” Fuzzy Optimization and Decision Making, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 17–34, 2008.
35 G. W. Wei, “Maximizing deviation method for multiple attribute decision making in intuitionistic
fuzzy setting,” Knowledge-Based Systems, vol. 21, no. 8, pp. 833–836, 2008.
36 Z. Xu and X. Cai, “Incomplete interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy preference relations,” International
Journal of General Systems, vol. 38, no. 8, pp. 871–886, 2009.
37 D. F. Li, Y. C. Wang, S. Liu, and F. Shan, “Fractional programming methodology for multi-attribute
group decision-making using IFS,” Applied Soft Computing Journal, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 219–225, 2009.
38 G. W. Wei, “Some geometric aggregation functions and their application to dynamic multiple attribute
decision making in the intuitionistic fuzzy setting,” International Journal of Uncertainty, Fuzziness and
Knowlege-Based Systems, vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 179–196, 2009.
39 M. Xia and Z. Xu, “Some new similarity measures for intuitionistic fuzzy value and their application
in group decision making,” Journal of Systems Science and Systems Engineering, vol. 19, no. 4, pp. 430–
452, 2010.
40 Z. Xu and H. Hu, “Projection models for intuitionistic fuzzy multiple attribute decision making,”
International Journal of Information Technology and Decision Making, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 267–280, 2010.
41 Z. Xu and X. Cai, “Nonlinear optimization models for multiple attribute group decision making with
intuitionistic fuzzy information,” International Journal of Intelligent Systems, vol. 25, no. 6, pp. 489–513,
2010.
42 C. Tan and X. Chen, “Intuitionistic fuzzy Choquet integral operator for multi-criteria decision
making,” Expert Systems with Applications, vol. 37, no. 1, pp. 149–157, 2010.
43 Z. Xu, “A deviation-based approach to intuitionistic fuzzy multiple attribute group decision making,”
Group Decision and Negotiation, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 57–76, 2010.
44 J. H. Park, I. Y. Park, Y. C. Kwun, and X. Tan, “Extension of the TOPSIS method for decision making
problems under interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy environment,” Applied Mathematical Modelling,
vol. 35, no. 5, pp. 2544–2556, 2011.
45 T. Y. Chen, H. P. Wang, and Y. Y. Lu, “A multicriteria group decision-making approach based on
interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy sets: a comparative perspective,” Expert Systems with Applications,
vol. 38, no. 6, pp. 7647–7658, 2011.
46 M. Xia and Z. Xu, “Entropy/cross entropy-based group decision making under intuitionistic fuzzy
environment,” Information Fusion, vol. 13, pp. 31–47, 2011.
47 D. Li and C. Cheng, “New similarity measures of intuitionistic fuzzy sets and application to pattern
recognitions,” Pattern Recognition Letters, vol. 23, no. 1–3, pp. 221–225, 2002.
48 Z. Liang and P. Shi, “Similarity measures on intuitionistic fuzzy sets,” Pattern Recognition Letters, vol.
24, no. 15, pp. 2687–2693, 2003.
49 W. L. Hung and M. S. Yang, “Similarity measures of intuitionistic fuzzy sets based on Hausdorff
distance,” Pattern Recognition Letters, vol. 25, no. 14, pp. 1603–1611, 2004.
50 W. Wang and X. Xin, “Distance measure between intuitionistic fuzzy sets,” Pattern Recognition Letters,
vol. 26, no. 13, pp. 2063–2069, 2005.
16 Journal of Applied Mathematics

51 C. Zhang and H. Fu, “Similarity measures on three kinds of fuzzy sets,” Pattern Recognition Letters,
vol. 27, no. 12, pp. 1307–1317, 2006.
52 I. K. Vlachos and G. D. Sergiadis, “Intuitionistic fuzzy information—applications to pattern
recognition,” Pattern Recognition Letters, vol. 28, no. 2, pp. 197–206, 2007.
53 F. E. Boran, S. Genç, M. Kurt, and D. Akay, “A multi-criteria intuitionistic fuzzy group decision
making for supplier selection with TOPSIS method,” Expert Systems with Applications, vol. 36, no.
8, pp. 11363–11368, 2009.
54 Kavita, S. P. Yadav, and S. Kumar, “A multi-criteria interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy group decision
making for supplier selection with TOPSIS method,” in Rough Sets, Fuzzy Sets, Data Mining and
Granular Computing, vol. 5908, pp. 303–312, 2009.
55 F. Ye, “An extended TOPSIS method with interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy numbers for virtual
enterprise partner selection,” Expert Systems with Applications, vol. 7, no. 10, pp. 7050–7055, 2010.
56 F. E. Boran, S. Genç, and D. Akay, “Personnel selection based on intuitionistic fuzzy sets,” Human
Factors and Ergonomics In Manufacturing, vol. 21, no. 5, pp. 493–503, 2011.
57 F. E. Boran, K. Boran, and T. Menlik, “The evaluation of renewable energy technologies for electricity
generation in Turkey using intuitionistic fuzzy TOPSIS,” Energy Sources, Part B, vol. 7, pp. 81–90, 2012.
58 F. E. Boran, “An integrated intuitionistic fuzzy multi criteria decision making method for facility
location selection,” Mathematical and Computational Applications, vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 487–496, 2011.
59 P. Wang, “QoS-aware web services selection with intuitionistic fuzzy set under consumer’s vague
perception,” Expert Systems with Applications, vol. 36, no. 3, pp. 4460–4466, 2009.
60 M. H. Shu, C. H. Cheng, and J. R. Chang, “Using intuitionistic fuzzy sets for fault-tree analysis on
printed circuit board assembly,” Microelectronics Reliability, vol. 46, no. 12, pp. 2139–2148, 2006.
61 V. C. Gerogiannis, P. Fitsillis, and A. D. Kameas, “Using combined intuitionistic fuzzy set-Topsis
method for evaluating project and portfolio management information system,” IFIP Inernational
Federation for Information Processing, vol. 364, pp. 67–81, 2011.
62 Z. Xu, “Intuitionistic fuzzy aggregation operators,” IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems, vol. 15, no. 6,
pp. 1179–1187, 2007.
63 K. T. Atanassov, Intuitionistic Fuzzy Sets, vol. 35 of Studies in Fuzziness and Soft Computing, Physica-
Verlag, Heidelberg, Germany, 1999.
64 E. Szmidt and J. Kacprzyk, “Distances between intuitionistic fuzzy sets,” Fuzzy Sets and Systems, vol.
114, no. 3, pp. 505–518, 2000.
65 P. Grzegorzewski, “Distances between intuitionistic fuzzy sets and/or interval-valued fuzzy sets
based on the Hausdorff metric,” Fuzzy Sets and Systems, vol. 148, no. 2, pp. 319–328, 2004.