Uncertainty Handling in Ship Assessment: A Case Study of Bangladesh
Journal of Investment and Management
Volume 4, Issue 5, October 2015, Pages: 152-161
Received: Jul. 19, 2015; Accepted: Jul. 30, 2015; Published: Aug. 11, 2015
Views 3624      Downloads 91
Authors
Muhammed Jamshed Alam Patwary, Department of Computer Science and Engineering, International Islamic University Chittagong, Chittagong, Bangladesh
Mohammad Osiur Rahman, Department of Computer Science and Engineering, University of Chittagong, Chittagong, Bangladesh
Mohammad Shahadat Hossain, Department of Computer Science and Engineering, University of Chittagong, Chittagong, Bangladesh
Article Tools
Follow on us
Abstract
Shipping is the oldest and internationally recognized industry. It helps many national and international businesses by transporting vast amount of goods from one place to another. Most of the businesses in Bangladesh are depended on sea ports. For this reason, shipping services are very important in Bangladesh. To maximize the profit from a ship oriented business, it is essential to select the right ship for intended purpose. However, ship selection is a very critical process, because it requires handling of both qualitative and quantitative information under uncertainty. While evaluating the quality of a ship in Bangladesh, particularly in Chittagong and Mongla sea port, only quantitative parameters are considered. Qualitative and uncertain data are ignored. Sometimes it causes not to select the right ship, as a result, serious losses in businesses. The goal of this study is to overcome the existing limitations of ship selection through handling of both qualitative and quantitative data under uncertainty. In this article, evidential reasoning (ER) approach is used for aggregating both qualitative and quantitative data under uncertainly for ranking among the alternatives and finally selecting the best ship out of many alternatives. The proposed method is applied on five alternative ships of Western Fishers Shipyard Ltd (WFSL). Using the method it has been possible to rank among alternatives successfully and both qualitative and quantitative data have been collated to handle uncertainty in ship selection. It is recommended to use the ER method in ship selection, because it can handle uncertainty and helps businessmen to get maximum benefit from their businesses through selecting the best ship.
Keywords
Evidential Reasoning (ER), Uncertainty, Ship Assessment, Qualitative and Quantitative Data
To cite this article
Muhammed Jamshed Alam Patwary, Mohammad Osiur Rahman, Mohammad Shahadat Hossain, Uncertainty Handling in Ship Assessment: A Case Study of Bangladesh, Journal of Investment and Management. Vol. 4, No. 5, 2015, pp. 152-161. doi: 10.11648/j.jim.20150405.13
References
[1]
I. L. Buxton, Engineering Economics and Ship Design, 2nd edition, pp 57, 58.
[2]
Hans Liwang, “Risk-based ship security analysis – an approach based on civilian and military methods,” ISSN 1652-9189 Report No 12:141, 2012.
[3]
Jian-Bo Yang and Dong-Ling Xu, “Nonlinear Information Aggregation via Evidential Reasoning in Multi-attribute Decision Analysis Under Uncertainty,” IEEE Transactions on systems, Man, Cybernetics- Part A: system and humans, vol. 32, no. 3, May 2002.,
[4]
Xinlian Xie, Dong-Ling Xu, Jian-Bo Yang, Jin Wang, Jun Ren, Shijun Yu, “ Ship selection using a multiple-criteria synthesis approach,” J Mar Sci Technol (2008) 13:50-62.
[5]
I. Bogardi and A. Baedossy, “Application of MADM to geological exploration,” in Essays and Surveys on Multiple Criteria Decision Making, P. Hansen, Ed. New York: Springer-Verlag, 1983.
[6]
J. B. Yang and M. G. Singh, “An evidential reasoning approach for multiple attribute decision making with uncertainty,” IEEE Trans, Syst.,Man, Cypern., vol. 24, no. 1, pp, 1-18, 1994.
[7]
G. Balestra and A. Tsoukias, “Multicriteria analysis represented by artificial intelligence techniques,” J. Oper. Res. Soc., vol. 41, no. 5, pp.419–430, 1990.
[8]
B. G. Buchanan and E. H. Shortliffe, Rule-Based Expert Systems. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley, 1984.
[9]
A. Bufardi, “On the construction of fuzzy preference structures,” J. Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 57–88, 1998
[10]
C. H. Cheng and D. L. Mon, “Evaluating weapon systems by analytical hierarchy process based on fuzzy scales,” Fuzzy Sets Syst., vol. 63, no.1, pp. 1–10, 1994.
[11]
R. L. Keeney and H. Raiffa, Decisions With Multiple Objectives, 2nded. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1993
[12]
C. C. White, “A survey on the integration of decision analysis and expert systems for decision support,” IEEE Trans. Syst., Man, Cybern., vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 358–364, 1990.
[13]
R. R. Yager, “On the Dempster–Shafer framework and new combination rules,” Inf. Sci., vol. 41, no. 2, pp. 93–137, 1987.
[14]
R. R. Yager, “Decision-making under various types of uncertainties,” J. Intell. Fuzzy Syst., vol. 3, no. 4, pp. 317–323, 1995.
[15]
J. Yen, “Generalizing the Dempster–Shafer theory to fuzzy Sets,” IEEE Trans. Syst., Man, Cybern., vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 559–570, 1990.
[16]
H. J. Zimmermann, “Problems and tools to model uncertainty in expert and decision support systems,” Math. Comput. Model., vol. 14, pp. 8–20,1990.
[17]
J. B. Yang and D. L. Xu, “On the evidential reasoning algorithm for multiattribute decision analysis with uncertainty,” IEEE Trans. Syst., Man, Cybern. A, vol. 32, pp. 289–304, May 2002.
[18]
J. B. Yang and P. Sen, “A general multilevel evaluation process for hybrid MADM with uncertainty,” IEEE Trans. Syst., Man, Cybern., vol.24, pp. 1458–1473, 1994.
[19]
J. B. Yang, “Rule and utility-based evidential reasoning approach for complex decision analysis,” Eur. J. Oper. Res., vol. 131, no. 1, pp. 31–61, 2001.
[20]
Lotfi A. Zadeh, A Simple View of the Dempster-Shafer Theory of Evidence and its Implication for the Rule of Combination, AI Magazine Volume 7 Number 2 (1986) (© AAAI).
[21]
R. Lopez de Mantaras, Approximate Reasoning Models. Chichester, U.K.: Ellis Horwood Ltd., 1990.
[22]
J. L. Corner and C. W. Kirkwood, “The magnitude of errors in proximal multiattribute decision analysis with probabilistically dependent attributes,” Manage. Sci., vol. 42, no. 7, pp. 1033–1042, 1996.
[23]
C. W. Kirkwood, “Estimating the impact of uncertainty on a deterministic multiattribute evaluation,” Manage. Sci., vol. 38, no. 6, p. 819, 1992.
[24]
“An algebraic approach to formulating and solving large models for sequential decisions under uncertainty,” Manage. Sci., vol. 39, no. 7, p. 900, 1993.
[25]
T. L. Saaty, The Analytic Hierarchy Process. Pittsburgh, PA: Univ. Pittsburgh, 1988.
[26]
J. Barzilai, “Deriving weights from pairwise comparison matrices,” J. Oper. Res. Soc., vol. 48, pp. 1226–1232, 1997.
[27]
G. Islei and A. G. Lockett, “Judgmental modeling based on geometric least square,” Eur. J. Oper. Res., vol. 36, pp. 27–35, 1988.
[28]
N. C. Proudlove, “The support of group decision making using judgmental modeling: An exploration of the contribution of behavioral factors,” Ph.D. dissertation, Manchester Business School, Manchester, U.K., 1999.
[29]
E. Jacquet-Lagreze and J. Siskos, “Assessing a set of additive utility functions for multicriteria decision making, the UTA method,” Eur, J. Oper, Res., vol. 10, pp. 151-164, 1982.
[30]
J. B. Yang and P. Sen, “Preference modeling by estimating local utility functions for multiobjective optimization,” Eur. J. Oper. Res., vol. 95, pp. 115–138, 1996.
[31]
Roger S. Pressman.(2005) Software engineering: a practitioners approach.— 6th ed. p. cm.— (McGraw-Hill series in computer science) Includes index. ISBN 0 -07-365578-3, p373- 374.
ADDRESS
Science Publishing Group
1 Rockefeller Plaza,
10th and 11th Floors,
New York, NY 10020
U.S.A.
Tel: (001)347-983-5186