Processing, Please wait...

  • Home
  • About Us
  • Search:
  • Advanced Search

Growing Science » Journal of Project Management » Prioritizing risk events of a large hydroelectric project using fuzzy analytic hierarchy process

Journals

  • IJIEC (747)
  • MSL (2643)
  • DSL (668)
  • CCL (508)
  • USCM (1092)
  • ESM (413)
  • AC (562)
  • JPM (271)
  • IJDS (912)
  • JFS (91)
  • HE (32)
  • SCI (26)

JPM Volumes

    • Volume 1 (8)
      • Issue 1 (5)
      • Issue 2 (3)
    • Volume 2 (13)
      • Issue 1 (4)
      • Issue 2 (3)
      • Issue 3 (3)
      • Issue 4 (3)
    • Volume 3 (17)
      • Issue 1 (4)
      • Issue 2 (5)
      • Issue 3 (4)
      • Issue 4 (4)
    • Volume 4 (24)
      • Issue 1 (4)
      • Issue 2 (8)
      • Issue 3 (8)
      • Issue 4 (4)
    • Volume 5 (20)
      • Issue 1 (5)
      • Issue 2 (5)
      • Issue 3 (5)
      • Issue 4 (5)
    • Volume 6 (20)
      • Issue 1 (5)
      • Issue 2 (5)
      • Issue 3 (5)
      • Issue 4 (5)
    • Volume 7 (21)
      • Issue 1 (5)
      • Issue 2 (5)
      • Issue 3 (5)
      • Issue 4 (6)
    • Volume 8 (21)
      • Issue 1 (6)
      • Issue 2 (5)
      • Issue 3 (5)
      • Issue 4 (5)
    • Volume 9 (35)
      • Issue 1 (6)
      • Issue 2 (5)
      • Issue 3 (9)
      • Issue 4 (15)
    • Volume 10 (68)
      • Issue 1 (15)
      • Issue 2 (21)
      • Issue 3 (13)
      • Issue 4 (19)
    • Volume 11 (24)
      • Issue 1 (24)

Keywords

Supply chain management(166)
Jordan(161)
Vietnam(149)
Customer satisfaction(120)
Performance(113)
Supply chain(110)
Service quality(98)
Competitive advantage(95)
Tehran Stock Exchange(94)
SMEs(87)
optimization(86)
Financial performance(83)
Trust(83)
TOPSIS(83)
Sustainability(81)
Job satisfaction(80)
Factor analysis(78)
Social media(78)
Knowledge Management(77)
Artificial intelligence(77)


» Show all keywords

Authors

Naser Azad(82)
Mohammad Reza Iravani(64)
Zeplin Jiwa Husada Tarigan(63)
Endri Endri(45)
Muhammad Alshurideh(42)
Hotlan Siagian(39)
Jumadil Saputra(36)
Dmaithan Almajali(36)
Muhammad Turki Alshurideh(35)
Barween Al Kurdi(32)
Ahmad Makui(32)
Basrowi Basrowi(31)
Hassan Ghodrati(31)
Mohammad Khodaei Valahzaghard(30)
Sautma Ronni Basana(29)
Shankar Chakraborty(29)
Ni Nyoman Kerti Yasa(29)
Sulieman Ibraheem Shelash Al-Hawary(28)
Prasadja Ricardianto(28)
Haitham M. Alzoubi(27)


» Show all authors

Countries

Iran(2183)
Indonesia(1290)
India(787)
Jordan(786)
Vietnam(504)
Saudi Arabia(453)
Malaysia(441)
United Arab Emirates(220)
China(206)
Thailand(153)
United States(111)
Turkey(106)
Ukraine(104)
Egypt(98)
Canada(92)
Peru(88)
Pakistan(85)
United Kingdom(80)
Morocco(79)
Nigeria(78)


» Show all countries

Journal of Project Management

ISSN 2371-8374 (Online) - ISSN 2371-8366 (Print)
Quarterly Publication
Volume 6 Issue 3 pp. 107-120 , 2021

Prioritizing risk events of a large hydroelectric project using fuzzy analytic hierarchy process Pages 107-120 Right click to download the paper Download PDF

Authors: Nehal Elshaboury

DOI: 10.5267/j.jpm.2021.4.002

Keywords: Prioritization, Risk events, Service packs, Hydroelectric project, Fuzzy analytic hierarchy process, Aggregation methods

Abstract: The existence of hydroelectric plants along Amazon River tributaries is a solution to satisfy the energy demand in Brazil. However, these plants are subjected to multiple risk events because of the geographic and socioeconomic characteristics of this region. In helping to address these escalating challenges, this paper presents a framework that assesses the risk events of service packs relevant to the plant. This framework presents a transparent approach for prioritizing risk events in large projects. The weights of importance of risk events are estimated using the fuzzy analytic hierarchy process. Chang’s extent analysis method takes into consideration the vagueness and imprecision of subjective human judgments. The convergence of decisions is evaluated using two aggregation approaches, namely the maximum-minimum method based on an arithmetic mean and a geometric mean. The performances of the original and modified extent analysis methods are compared using group Euclidean distance and distance between weights metrics. The degree of similarity between the evaluation metrics is examined using Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient and average overlap approaches. Due to the inconsistency of the reported results, the final rankings of the aggregation approaches are determined using a new aggregated multiple criteria decision making method. The results indicate that the original extent analysis method using the maximum-minimum method (arithmetic mean) is the best aggregation method. A Santo Antonio hydroelectric plant in Brazil is used to demonstrate the application of the proposed framework.

How to cite this paper
Elshaboury, N. (2021). Prioritizing risk events of a large hydroelectric project using fuzzy analytic hierarchy process.Journal of Project Management, 6(3), 107-120.

Refrences
Abdel-malak, F. F., Issa, U. H., Miky, Y. H., & Osman, E. A. (2017). Applying decision-making techniques to Civil Engi-neering Projects. Beni-Suef University Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences, 6(4), 326-331.‏
Agarwal, S. S., & Kansal, M. L. (2020). Risk based initial cost assessment while planning a hydropower project. Energy Strategy Reviews, 31, 100517.‏
Arce, M. E., Saavedra, Á., Míguez, J. L., & Granada, E. (2015). The use of grey-based methods in multi-criteria decision analysis for the evaluation of sustainable energy systems: A review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 47, 924-932.‏
Aven, T. (2016). Risk assessment and risk management: Review of recent advances on their foundation. European Journal of Operational Research, 253(1), 1-13.‏
Awasthi, A., Govindan, K., & Gold, S. (2018). Multi-tier sustainable global supplier selection using a fuzzy AHP-VIKOR based approach. International Journal of Production Economics, 195, 106-117.‏
Belton, V., & Stewart, T.J. (2002). Multiple criteria decision analysis: An integrated approach. London: Kluwer Academ-ic Publishers.
Beltrão, L. M., & Carvalho, M. T. (2019). Prioritizing construction risks using fuzzy AHP in Brazilian public enterpris-es. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 145(2), 05018018.‏
Braga, B.P.F., & Molion, L.C.B. (1999). Impacts of climate change on hydrology of South America. In: Van Dam JC (ed) Impacts of climate change and climate variability on hydrological regimes. Cambridge: Cambridge Press.
Chang, D. Y. (1996). Applications of the extent analysis method on fuzzy AHP. European Journal of Operational Re-search, 95(3), 649-655.‏
Davoudabadi, R., Mousavi, S. M., & Mohagheghi, V. (2019). A new last aggregation method of multi-attributes group de-cision making based on concepts of TODIM, WASPAS and TOPSIS under interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy uncer-tainty. Knowledge and Information Systems, 1-21.‏
Elshaboury, N., Attia, T., & Marzouk, M. (2020a). Application of evolutionary optimization algorithms for rehabilitation of water distribution networks. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 146(7), 04020069.‏
Elshaboury, N., Attia, T., & Marzouk, M. (2020b). Comparison of several aggregation techniques for deriving analytic network process weights. Water Resources Management, 34(15), 4901-4919.‏
Elshaboury, N., & Marzouk, M. (2020). Optimizing construction and demolition waste transportation for sustainable con-struction projects. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management.‏
Forman, E. H., & Gass, S. I. (2001). The analytic hierarchy process—an exposition. Operations Research, 49(4), 469-486.‏
Govindan, K., Rajendran, S., Sarkis, J., & Murugesan, P. (2015). Multi criteria decision making approaches for green sup-plier evaluation and selection: a literature review. Journal of Cleaner Production, 98, 66-83.‏
Grošelj, P., Stirn, L. Z., Ayrilmis, N., & Kuzman, M. K. (2015). Comparison of some aggregation techniques using group analytic hierarchy process. Expert Systems with Applications, 42(4), 2198-2204.‏
Gul, M. (2018). A review of occupational health and safety risk assessment approaches based on multi-criteria decision-making methods and their fuzzy versions. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment: An International Journal, 24(7), 1723-1760.‏
Hwang, C.L., & Yoon, K. (1981). Multiple attribute decision making: methods and applications, a state-of-the-art survey. Berlin: Springer.
Kahraman, C., Onar, S. C., & Oztaysi, B. (2015). Fuzzy multicriteria decision-making: a literature review. International Journal of Computational Intelligence Systems, 8(4), 637-666.‏
Kalinina, A., Spada, M., Marelli, S., Burgherr, P., & Sudret, B. (2016). Uncertainties in the risk assessment of hydropower dams: State-of the-art and outlook. [Research Report] Zurich: Paul Scherrer Institute.
Liu, Y., Eckert, C. M., & Earl, C. (2020). A review of fuzzy AHP methods for decision-making with subjective judg-ments. Expert Systems with Applications, 113738.‏
Maharani, I.S., Astanti, R.D., & Ai, T.J. (2019). Fuzzy analytical hierarchy process with unsymmetrical triangular fuzzy number for supplier selection process. In: 4th International Manufacturing Engineering Conference and 5th Asia Pacif-ic Conference on Manufacturing Systems (iMEC-APCOMS 2019). Putrajaya, Malaysia, pp. 54-59.
Malczewski, J., & Rinner, C. (2015). Dealing with uncertainties. In: Multi-criteria decision analysis in geographic infor-mation science. Berlin: Springer-Verlag, pp. 191-221.
Peddada, K. (2013). Risk assessment and control [Conference issue]. Journal of Governance and Regulation, 2(2), 51-59.
Pedrycz, W., Ekel, P., & Parreiras, R. (2011). Fuzzy multi-criteria decision-making: models, methods and applications. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
PMI (2013). A guide to the project management body of knowledge. Pennsylvania: PMI.
Ribas, J. R., Arce, M. E., Sohler, F. A., & Suárez-García, A. (2019a). Data and calculation approach of the fuzzy AHP risk assessment of a large hydroelectric project. Data in Brief, 25, 104294.‏
Ribas, J. R., Arce, M. E., Sohler, F. A., & Suárez-García, A. (2019b). Multi-criteria risk assessment: case study of a large hydroelectric project. Journal of Cleaner Production, 227, 237-247.‏
Saaty, T.L. (1980). The analytic hierarchy process: planning, priority setting, resource allocation. New York: McGraw-Hill.
San Cristóbal, J.R., Carral, L., Diaz, E., Fraguela, J.A., & Iglesias, G. (2018). Complexity and project management: A gen-eral overview. Complexity, 1-10.
Sarraf, R., & McGuire, M. P. (2020). Integration and comparison of multi-criteria decision making methods in safe route planner. Expert Systems with Applications, 154, 113399.‏
Sen, P., & Yang, J.B. (1998). Multiple criteria decision support in engineering design. London: Springer.
Serrano-Gomez, L., & Munoz-Hernandez, J. I. (2019). Monte Carlo approach to fuzzy AHP risk analysis in renewable en-ergy construction projects. PloS one, 14(6), e0215943.‏
Shannon, C. E. (1948). A mathematical theory of communication. The Bell System Technical Journal, 27(3), 379-423.‏
Sharma, S., & Kar, S. (2018). Risk management and analysis in hydro-electric projects in India. International Journal of Civil Engineering, 5(3), 1-7.‏
Sobreiro Filho, J., Fernandes, B.M., & Cunha, T.B. (2016). Water, land, socio-territorial movements, labor, and capital: Territorial disputes and conflictuality in Brazil. In: Ioris A (ed) Agriculture, environment and development - interna-tional perspectives on water, land and politics. Basel: Springer.
Tang, W., Li, Z., & Tu, Y. (2018). Sustainability risk evaluation for large-scale hydropower projects with hybrid uncer-tainty. Sustainability, 10(1), 138.‏
Tavana, M., Shaabani, A., Mansouri Mohammadabadi, S., & Varzgani, N. (2020). An integrated fuzzy AHP-fuzzy MUL-TIMOORA model for supply chain risk-benefit assessment and supplier selection. International Journal of Systems Science: Operations & Logistics, 1-24.‏
Van Laarhoven, P. J., & Pedrycz, W. (1983). A fuzzy extension of Saaty's priority theory. Fuzzy sets and Systems, 11(1-3), 229-241.‏
Verdecho, M. J., Alarcón-Valero, F., Pérez-Perales, D., Alfaro-Saiz, J. J., & Rodríguez-Rodríguez, R. (2020). A methodol-ogy to select suppliers to increase sustainability within supply chains. Central European Journal of Operations Re-search, 1-21.‏
Wallenius, J., Dyer, J. S., Fishburn, P. C., Steuer, R. E., Zionts, S., & Deb, K. (2008). Multiple criteria decision making, multiattribute utility theory: Recent accomplishments and what lies ahead. Management Science, 54(7), 1336-1349.‏
Wang, Y. M., Elhag, T. M., & Hua, Z. (2006). A modified fuzzy logarithmic least squares method for fuzzy analytic hier-archy process. Fuzzy sets and Systems, 157(23), 3055-3071.‏
Wang, Y. M., Luo, Y., & Hua, Z. (2008). On the extent analysis method for fuzzy AHP and its applications. European Journal of Operational Research, 186(2), 735-747.‏
Webber, W., Moffat, A., & Zobel, J. (2010). A similarity measure for indefinite rankings. ACM Transactions on Infor-mation Systems (TOIS), 28(4), 1-38.‏
Yang, T., Yang, D., & Chao, X. (2018). A preference aggregation model and application in AHP group decision making. In: American Institute of Physics (AIP) conference proceedings, Xi'an City, China.
Zadeh, L.A. (1965). Fuzzy sets. Information and Control, 8(3), 338-353.
Zanakis, S.H., Solomon, A., Wishart, N., & Dublish, S. (1998). Multi-attribute decision making: A simulation comparison of selection methods. European Journal of Operation Research 107(3), 507-529.
  • 17
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Journal: Journal of Project Management | Year: 2021 | Volume: 6 | Issue: 3 | Views: 1221 | Reviews: 0

Related Articles:
  • A hybrid lexicographic and VIKOR approach for prioritizing construction pro ...
  • Application of the AHP and TOPSIS in project management
  • An IF-DEMATEL-AHP based on Triangular Intuitionistic Fuzzy Numbers (TIFNs)
  • An extension of compromise ranking method with interval numbers for the eva ...
  • A multiple criteria decision making for raking alternatives using preferenc ...

Add Reviews

Name:*
E-Mail:
Review:
Bold Italic Underline Strike | Align left Center Align right | Insert smilies Insert link URLInsert protected URL Select color | Add Hidden Text Insert Quote Convert selected text from selection to Cyrillic (Russian) alphabet Insert spoiler
winkwinkedsmileam
belayfeelfellowlaughing
lollovenorecourse
requestsadtonguewassat
cryingwhatbullyangry
Security Code: *
Include security image CAPCHA.
Refresh Code

® 2010-2026 GrowingScience.Com