Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Management Department, University of Defence, Military Academy, Generala Pavla Jurisica Sturma 33, 11 000,
Belgrade, Serbia.
2
Faculty of Technical Science, University of Novi Sad, Novi Sad, Serbia.
3
Architectural and Civil Engineering Faculty, Banja Luka, Bosnia and Herzegovina.
4
Department of Material Resources, Ministry of Defence, Belgrade, Serbia.
Accepted 20 September, 2011
Analysis of strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats (SWOT) is a method to formulate the
strategy. Although the SWOT analysis successfully provides the key factors of the problem, it has some
drawbacks in selecting appropriate strategy for the evaluation and final decision steps. During recent
years, some multiple criteria decision making (MCDM) remove some of these deficiencies, but the
nature of these decision usually is very complex and using crisp datais not suitable. In this paper,
linguistic variable represented with fuzzy numbers are used to assess the ratings and weights. This
paper presents a new fuzzy mathematical model for evaluating the proposed alternatives. Fuzzy
linguistic descriptors were used for describing the criteria. In this way, fuzzy logic enables the
exploitation of tolerance that exists in imprecision, uncertainty and partial truth of the acquired
research results. The paper presents a model for designing the organisational structure of transport
support authorities in the Serbian Armed Forces. Various organisational structure options are proposed
in application of the given model, taking into account the fact that transport authorities should be
designed and dimensioned so as to achieve the rudimentary goals and tasks for fulfilment of which
they were established. Each task set before the transport authorities requires reliable and top-quality
performance in all environmental conditions. Since most of the acquired data is characterized by a high
degree of imprecision, subjectivity and uncertainty, fuzzy logic was used for displaying these.
Key words: Strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats analysis, organizational structure design, fuzzy
logic, multi-criteria decision making.
INTRODUCTION
Strategic management is the process by which managers
formulate and implement strategies that enable
organisations to achieve strategic objectives. Strategic
management in the broadest sense can be defined as the
conscious direction of the business system consistent
with its relevant environment. In accordance with the
Pamucar et al.
5375
5376
Pamucar et al.
x,
Where
5377
x x X , 0 A x 1 ,
A x
interval and
A x
Figure 2. Defuzzification.
making.
The aforementioned model is shown in the following
section of the paper.
FM'WOT MODEL
In the process of designing the organisational structure,
certain decisions have to be made. Subjective evaluation
of certain parameters differ from one decision-maker to
another, it is worth pointing out. Quite a convenient
approach in quantifying these parameters is fuzzy set
theory.
Fuzzy sets
Fuzzy sets theory defines fuzzy set A as a set of ordered
pairs (Zadeh, 1965):
0,
x a1
,
a2 a1
a3 x
,
a3 a2
0,
x a1
a1 x a2
a2 x a3
x a3
defuzzy A= a3 a1 a2 a1 31 a1
defuzzy A= a3 a2 1 a1 21
(with , 0,1 being an optimism index).
Basic model
It is characteristic for all multi-criteria problems that there
are multiple criteria in decision-making and various
alternatives to select the most appropriate action.
Different organisations evaluate variant solutions and
optimal variants using the FMM model described in the
continuation. SWOT analysis is used for assessing what
5378
A (a1 , a2 , a3 ) .
Step 3
Normalisation of the optimisation criterion: For the
f ki i 1, A, k 1, K to be comparable, it is
Step 1
value
K1 f11 f1n m f n
F K k f k1 f kn m f kn
K K f K 1 f Kn m f Kn
f f ,
f
ki
ki
ki
k K for alternatives
f ki n
Where
f
ki
(1)
f k max
f (k 1,, K ) , for
f
ki
ki
A1 ... An m An
fki 0
fik n 1
Where f k
f f min
ki
k
f k max
min
(2)
f (k 1,, K ) , for
f
ki
ki
f ki 0 .
(k K ) for
f f
ik
ik n
, f
ik
(3)
f ki i 1, A, k 1, K , normalisation is performed as
Step 2
follows:
linguistic
descriptors.
Linguistic
f ki
f ki
K
f
k 1 ki
, f ki 1
k 1
(4)
Pamucar et al.
Step 4
Evaluation criteria: K 1,, k ,, K is a set of
optimality criteria, where K is the overall number of the
considered criteria. Every criterion can be disaggregated
into sub-criteria. If k j is the overall number of sub-criteria
5379
th
wiG e wi (e)
e 1
K kj
(7)
(5)
j 1
the
w
kij
K K
alternative Ai ,
w
kij
1, w
0,1
, w
k
k
w
k
j 1 j
1n
wi j aij
j 1
(6)
attribute i .
The process of designing the organisational structure is
most often in the hands of more than one expert that is
decision-maker. In this case, optimality criteria evaluation
of all the group members should first be obtained to pass
on to the necessary synthesis and then to step 5. In other
cases, step 6 is taken.
w
kij
1n
1n
n
n n
j ij
j ij
K
j 1 j wk j j 1 i1 j 1
j w
k
0,1
1, w
k
(8)
j 1
j 1
j w
k
n th
Where
maker to attribute .
N case of group synthesis with incomplete information,
microaggregation of the i, j position at the given
matrix is done by geometric mean of the assessments of
those group members who expressed preference Ei
compared to the element E j . The requirement in this
case is for at least one decision maker to declare on the
value of aij . Modifying the previous expression:
Step 5
1M
wG i j aij l
lL
w
kij
1, w
0,1
w
k
k
j 1
G
j w
k
G
w
k
j 1 j
1n
1M
n
n n
j aij j aij
j 1
i 1 j 1
(9)
5380
such members.
A (a1 , a2 , a3 )
the total
F cij
F W
cij
f
ki
i1 fki
j
w
kij
(10)
f
Where ki is the value of the criterion function for the
w
k k K
i (i 1, A)
kij
alternative
and criterion
, and
is the value of the weight coefficient for the criterion
k k K
.
Additive synthesis has been assumed here and the
final alternative performance weights with respect to
overall goal are calculated by the summation of elements
in the rows of the performance matrix
F cij
F W
as:
ci cij w
j
(11)
j 1
Vi cj , (k K )
j 1
(12)
is a
aggregated assessments is required. Since each V
i
triangular fuzzy number, it is necessary to apply the
method of ranking triangular fuzzy numbers. There are
several methods that can do this such as the centre of
gravity method, the dominance measure method, the cut with interval synthesis method and the total integral
value method. The last one total integral value method
(13)
A B
; if
IT (A) IT (B)
then
A B ;
and if
IT (A) IT (B) ,
Pamucar et al.
5381
0,
0 x
(14)
x / 0.125,
0 x 0.125
(15)
(16)
(17)
Alternative 2 ( A2 )
(18)
(19)
MH
(0.875 x) / 0.125 0.75 x 0.875
(20)
VH
0.875 x 1
(1 x) / 0.125
(21)
1,
x 1
(22)
Alternative 1 ( A1 )
l
U
VL
FL
l
H
l
P
Threats (T)
Oppurtunities (O)
Weaknesses (W)
Strengths (S)
Alternative 4
Alternative 3
Alternative 2
Alternative 1
5382
Sci. Res. Essays
Pamucar et al.
5383
Linguistic criteria
A1
A2
A3
A4
Benefit-cost criteria
Min
Max
Strengths
Capable and competent personnel
MH
VH
MH
VH
MH
Weaknesses
VH
VH
MH
Coordination
VL
VH
VH
VL
VH
Partial optimisation
VH
VL
FL
Resources exploitation
VH
VH
VH
MH
VH
VH
MH
VH
VH
VH
VL
VH
VH
VL
MH
VH
VH
VH
VH
MH
VH
MH
VH
VH
Opportunities
WSWOT w
wo (0.16, 0.18, 0.21) 0.20
5384
SWOT
Local priority
Strengths
0.33
Weaknesses
Opportunities
Threats
SWOT factors
Capable and competent personnel
Tactical-operational units swift dislocation capability
Strong management team
Global priorities
0.39
0.26
0.35
0.29
0.12
0.13
0.14
0.17
0.10
0.16
0.18
0.20
0.15
0.18
0.09
0.20
0.12
0.12
0.17
0.35
0.07
0.30
0.27
F cij
F W
cij
criterions, matrix
Equation 10.
A1
(0.30,0.32,0.36)
(0.20,0.21,0.23)
F
(0.07,0.08,0.11)
(0.14,0.14,0.17)
A2
A3
A4
V 2
V3 (0.20, 0.22, 0.24)
DISCUSSION
Organisation is not a sum of mechanical parts, rather an
"organic whole" with a purpose and mission. In the
process of designing the organisational structure it is
necessary, having defining the objectives and design
criteria, to analyse the state of the organisation. In
addition to organisations operating in an uncertain
environment, there is a degree of uncertainty and
imprecision of criteria used in the process of
organisational design. Fuzzy multi-criteria approach
developed in this paper allows the quantification of these
criteria and selection of the best alternative out of
proposed organisational models. The presented model
enables the evaluation of the proposed options of
organisational structure, regardless of the number of
optimality criteria and sub-criteria. The model allows for
the choice of best alternative from a set described using
K optimality criteria and sub-criteria. The criteria
described can be of benefit or cost type. The criteria
Pamucar et al.
5385
W1
SWOT factors
Strengths
S1
S2
S3
Alternative 1
Alternative 2
(0.119,0.113,0.109) (0.119,0.113,0.109)
(0.129,0.103,0.092) (0.129,0.103,0.092)
(0.116,0.108,0.102) (0.116,0.108,0.102)
Alternative 3
(0.078,0.084,0.088)
(0.000,0.026,0.037)
(0.077,0.080,0.083)
Alternative 4
W2
(0.078,0.084,0.088) 0.39
(0.000,0.026,0.037) 0.26
(0.040,0.053,0.062) 0.35
0.33
Weaknesses
W1
W2
W3
W4
W5
W6
W7
(0.027,0.028,0.030)
(0.030,0.031,0.032)
(0.024,0.027,0.030)
(0.016,0.022,0.028)
(0.028,0.027,0.027)
(0.040,0.040,0.040)
(0.025,0.029,0.035)
(0.027,0.028,0.030)
(0.045,0.042,0.039)
(0.036,0.036,0.037)
(0.046,0.045,0.046)
(0.028,0.027,0.027)
(0.040,0.040,0.040)
(0.063,0.058,0.052)
(0.018,0.021,0.024)
(0.030,0.031,0.032)
(0.024,0.027,0.030)
(0.030,0.033,0.037)
(0.018,0.020,0.022)
(0.040,0.040,0.040)
(0.025,0.029,0.035)
(0.046,0.042,0.036)
(0.030,0.031,0.032)
(0.060,0.053,0.045)
(0.076,0.067,0.056)
(0.028,0.027,0.027)
(0.040,0.040,0.040)
(0.063,0.058,0.052)
0.12
0.13
0.14
0.17
0.10
0.16
0.18
0.29
Opportunities
O1
O2
O3
O4
O5
O6
(0.017,0.021,0.027)
(0.023,0.028,0.034)
(0.012,0.014,0.017)
(0.023,0.028,0.036)
(0.018,0.021,0.025)
(0.014,0.017,0.022)
(0.043,0.042,0.040)
(0.058,0.055,0.050)
(0.031,0.029,0.026)
(0.058,0.056,0.054)
(0.046,0.042,0.037)
(0.035,0.034,0.032)
(0.043,0.042,0.040)
(0.058,0.055,0.050)
(0.031,0.029,0.026)
(0.058,0.056,0.054)
(0.009,0.014,0.019)
(0.035,0.034,0.032)
(0.043,0.042,0.040)
(0.035,0.037,0.042)
(0.012,0.014,0.017)
(0.058,0.056,0.054)
(0.046,0.042,0.037)
(0.035,0.034,0.032)
0.15
0.18
0.09
0.20
0.12
0.12
0.20
Threats
T1
T2
T3
T4
(0.050,0.059,0.071)
(0.009,0.011,0.013)
(0.076,0.076,0.076)
(0.069,0.069,0.069)
(0.127,0.118,0.106)
(0.022,0.021,0.019)
(0.076,0.076,0.076)
(0.069,0.069,0.069)
(0.050,0.059,0.071)
(0.013,0.014,0.016)
(0.076,0.076,0.076)
(0.069,0.069,0.069)
(0.127,0.118,0.106)
(0.022,0.021,0.019)
(0.076,0.076,0.076)
(0.069,0.069,0.069)
0.35
0.07
0.30
0.27
0.17
Decision alternative
Alternative 1
Alternative 2
Alternative 3
Alternative 4
Index of optimism
= 0.0 (pessimistic) = 0.5 (moderate)
0.205
0.212
0.285
0.295
0.210
0.220
0.245
0.255
= 1.0 (optimistic)
0.220
0.305
0.230
0.265
Final rank
4
1
3
2
5386
REFERENCES
Bender MJ, Simonovic SP (2000). A fuzzy compromise approach to
water resources systems planning under uncertainty. Fuzzy Set.
Syst., 115: 35-44.
Bozanic D, Pamucar D (2010). Evaluating locations for river crossing
using fuzzy logic. Milit. Tech. Cour., 1: 129-145.
Brans JP, Vincke P, Mareschal B (1986). How to select and how to rank
projects by the Promethee method. Eur. J. Oper. Res., 24: 228-238.
Deng H (1999). Multicriteria analysis with fuzzy pairwisecomparison. Int.
J. Approx. Reason., 21: 215-231.
Hwang CL, Yoon KS (1981). Multiple attribute decision making:
methods and applications. Springer, Berlin.
Kujacic M, Bojovic N (2003). Organizational design of post corporation
structure using fuzzy multicriteria decision making. Comput. Math.
Organ. Theory, 9: 5-18.
Liou TS, Wang MJJ (1992). Ranking fuzzy numbers with integral value.
Fuzzy Set. Syst., 50: 247-256.
Pamucar D (2009). Design of the organisational structure using fuzzy
logic approach. Master paper. Serbia: Faculty of Transport and
Traffic Engineering, Belgrade.
Pamucar D (2010). Using fuzzy logic and neural networks during
decision making proces in transport. Milit. Techn. Cour., 3: 125-143.