Expert Systems with Applications 38 (2011) 15286–15295

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Expert Systems with Applications

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/eswa

An interactive method for dynamic intuitionistic fuzzy multi-attribute group

decision making
Zhi-xin Su a,b,⇑, Ming-yuan Chen b, Guo-ping Xia a, Li Wang a
a
School of Economics and Management, Beihang University, No. 37 Xueyuan Road, Haidian District, Beijing 100191, PR China
b
Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering, Concordia University, 1455 de Maisonneuve W., Montreal, Quebec, Canada H3G 1M8

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Keywords:
Dynamic intuitionistic fuzzy multi-attribute
group decision making (DIF-MAGDM)
Intuitionistic fuzzy numbers (IFNs)
Aggregation operators
Intuitionistic fuzzy TOPSIS method
Consensus
This paper investigates the dynamic intuitionistic fuzzy multi-attribute group decision making (DIF-
MAGDM) problems, in which all the attribute values provided by multiple decision makers (DMs) at dif-
ferent periods take the form of intuitionistic fuzzy numbers (IFNs), and develops an interactive method to
solve the DIF-MAGDM problems. The developed method first aggregates the individual intuitionistic
fuzzy decision matrices at different periods into an individual collective intuitionistic fuzzy decision
matrix for each decision maker by using the dynamic intuitionistic fuzzy weighted averaging (DIFWA)
operator, and then employs intuitionistic fuzzy TOPSIS method to calculate the individual relative close-
ness coefficient of each alternative for each decision maker and obtain the individual ranking of alterna-
tives. After doing so, the method utilizes the hybrid weighted averaging (HWA) operator to aggregate all
the individual relative closeness coefficients into the collective relative closeness coefficient of each alter-
native and obtain the aggregate ranking of alternatives, by which the optimal alternative can be selected.
In addition, the spearman correlation coefficient for both the aggregate ranking and individual ranking of
alternatives is calculated to measure the consensus level of the group preferences. Finally, a numerical
example is used to illustrate the developed method.
Ó 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Atanassov (1986, 1999) introduced the concept of intuitionistic
fuzzy sets (IFS) characterized by a membership function and a non-
membership function, which is more suitable for dealing with
fuzziness and uncertainty than the ordinary fuzzy set developed
by Zadeh (1965) whose basic component is only a membership
function. Gau and Buehrer (1993) gave the notion of vague set,
but Bustine and Burillo (1996) showed that it is an equivalent of
the IFS. Recently, some researchers have shown great interest in
the IFS theory and applied it to the field of decision making.
On single-person multi-attribute decision making (MADM, for
short) problems, Li and Wang (2008) extended TOPSIS method to
develop a new methodology for solving multi-attribute decision
making problems using IFS. Li (2008) further extended the linear
programming techniques for multidimensional analysis of prefer-
ence (LINMAP) to develop a new methodology for solving multi-
attribute decision making problems under intuitionistic fuzzy
environments. Wang, Li, and Wu (2009) investigated multi-
attribute decision making problems, in which the weights and
⇑ Corresponding author at: School of Economics and Management, Beihang
University, No. 37 Xueyuan Road, Haidian District, Beijing 100191, PR China. Tel.: +1
514 653 8306; fax: +1 514 848 3175.
E-mail address: szx820115@yahoo.cn (Z.-x. Su).
ratings of alternatives are expressed with IFS, and a MADM method
based on generalized ordered weighted averaging operators was
proposed. Li (2005) and Lin, Yuan, and Xia (2007) proposed some
methods to solve the single-person multiple attribute decision
making problems with IFS and partial weight information. Wei
(2008) investigated the intuitionistic fuzzy MADM with the infor-
mation about attribute weights is incompletely known or com-
pletely unknown, and a maximizing deviation method-based
approach was proposed. Xu (2007a) investigated the intuitionistic
fuzzy MADM with the information about attribute weights is
incompletely known or completely unknown, a method based on
the ideal solution was proposed. Xu and Hu (2009) studied the
class of multiple attribute decision making problems where the
attribute values are intuitionistic fuzzy numbers and the informa-
tion about attribute weights is completely unknown, and proposed
an entropy-based procedure to solve the problems. Ye (2010)
proposed a multi-criteria fuzzy decision-making method based
on weighted correlation coefficients using entropy weights under
intuitionistic fuzzy environment for some situations where the
information about criteria weights for alternatives is completely
unknown. Xu (2007b) developed the intuitionistic fuzzy weighted
averaging (IFWA) operator, the intuitionistic fuzzy ordered
weighted averaging (IFOWA) operator, and the intuitionistic fuzzy
hybrid averaging (IFHA) operator. Xu (2010a) used the choquet
integral to propose some intuitionistic fuzzy aggregation

0957-4174/$ - see front matter Ó 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2011.06.022
 Z.-x. Su et al. / Expert Systems with Applications 38 (2011) 15286–15295
operators, such as intuitionistic fuzzy correlated averaging (IFCA)
operator, intuitionistic fuzzy correlated geometric (IFCG) operator,
etc. These operators not only consider the importance of the ele-
ments or their ordered positions, but also can reflect the correla-
tions among the elements or their ordered positions. Tan and
Chen (2010) developed an intuitionistic fuzzy choquet integral
operator for multiple criteria decision making, where interactions
phenomena among the decision making criteria are considered.
Zhao, Xu, Ni, and Liu (2010) developed some new generalized
aggregation operators, such as generalized intuitionistic fuzzy
weighted averaging (GIFWA) operator, generalized intuitionistic
fuzzy ordered weighted averaging (GIFOWA) operator, generalized
intuitionistic fuzzy hybrid averaging (GIFHA) operator, which ex-
tend the GOWA operators to accommodate the environment in
which the given arguments are IFS, and applied them to multiple
attribute decision making with intuitionistic fuzzy information.
On multi-person multi-attribute decision making, or called multi-
attribute group decision making (MAGDM, for short) problems,
Atanassov, Pasi, and Yager (2005) provided a tool to solve the
MAGDM problems, in which the attribute weights are given as ex-
act numerical values and the attribute values are expressed in
intuitionistic fuzzy numbers. Boran, Genc, Kurt, and Akay (2009)
combined TOPSIS method with IFS to select appropriate supplier
in group decision making environment. Li, Wang, Liu, and Shan
(2009) developed a new methodology for solving multi-attribute
group decision-making problems using IFS. In this methodology,
for each decision maker in the group two auxiliary fractional pro-
gramming models were derived from the TOPSIS to determine the
relative closeness coefficient intervals of alternatives, which are
aggregated for the group to generate the ranking order of all alter-
natives by computing their optimal degrees of membership based
on the ranking method of interval numbers. Yue, Jia, and Ye (2009)
investigated the issue on how to transform tested attribute values
of alternative into an intuitionistic fuzzy number, and then com-
plete decision making by intuitionistic fuzzy information. Xu
(2007c) investigated the group decision making problems in which
all the information provided by the decision makers is expressed as
intuitionistic fuzzy decision matrices where each of the elements is
characterized by intuitionistic fuzzy number, and the information
about attribute weights is partially known, which may be con-
structed by various forms. Xu (2010b) investigated the multiple
attribute group decision making with intuitionistic fuzzy informa-
tion and information about attribute weights is completely known
of completely unknown, and proposed a deviation-based approach
to solve the problems. Li, Chen, and Huang (2010) developed a lin-
ear programming methodology for solving multi-attribute group
decision making problems using intuitionistic fuzzy sets. Mitchell
(2004) defined an intuitionistic OWA operator which aggregates
a set of intuitionistic fuzzy sets and described a simple application
of the new intuitionistic OWA operator in multiple-expert multi-
ple-criteria decision-making. Based on the arithmetic aggregation
operators, Xu (2007d) developed the intuitionistic fuzzy arithmetic
averaging (IFAA) operator and the intuitionistic fuzzy weighted
averaging (IFWA) operator and applied them in group decision
making. Xu and Yager (2006) developed some geometric aggrega-
tion operators, such as the intuitionistic fuzzy weighted geometric
(IFWG) operator, the intuitionistic fuzzy ordered weighted geo-
metric (IFOWG) operator, and the intuitionistic fuzzy hybrid geo-
metric (IFHG) operator and gave an application of the IFHG
operator to multiple attribute group decision making with intui-
tionistic fuzzy information. Wei (2010) developed the induced
intuitionistic fuzzy ordered weighted geometric (I-IFOWG) opera-
tor, and gave application to multiple attribute group decision mak-
ing problems in which both the attribute weights and the expert
weights take the form of real numbers, and attribute values take
the form of intuitionistic fuzzy numbers. On multi-period multi-
15287
attribute decision making, or called dynamic multi-attribute deci-
sion making (DMADM, for short) problems, Xu and Yager (2008)
introduced the dynamic intuitionistic fuzzy weighted averaging
(DIFWA) operator to aggregate dynamic intuitionistic fuzzy infor-
mation. On the basis of the DIFWA operator and the TOPSIS meth-
od, a dynamic intuitionistic fuzzy procedure was established for
solving dynamic intuitionistic fuzzy multi-attribute decision mak-
ing (DIF-MADM) problems. Wei (2009) proposed the dynamic
intuitionistic fuzzy weighted geometric (DIFWG) operator, and
then a procedure based on the DIFWG and IFWG operators was
developed to solve the dynamic intuitionistic fuzzy multi-attribute
decision making (DIF-MADM) problems.
However, with the development of modern society, the socio-
economic environment has been becoming more complex and
uncertain, such as many multi-attribute decision making processes
(multi-stage investment decision making, personnel dynamic
examination and military system efficiency dynamic evaluation,
etc.) in real world, take place in group settings and in different peri-
ods. These problems can be called as dynamic multi-attribute group
decision making (DMAGDM, for short) problems (Xu, 2009a). As
shown in the literature, research on the dynamic multiple attribute
group decision making problems under intuitionistic fuzzy envi-
ronment has not been studied yet. In order to meet this gap, this pa-
per investigates the dynamic intuitionistic fuzzy multiple attribute
group decision making (DIF-MAGDM, for short) problems, in which
the attribute values provided by multiple decision makers/experts
at different periods take the form of intuitionistic fuzzy numbers
(IFNs). In general, the decision makers (DMs) involved in each per-
iod’s decision making process may be same or different. We con-
sider the former in our study, and then develop an interactive
approach based on the dynamic intuitionistic fuzzy weighted aver-
aging (DIFWA) operator (Xu & Yager, 2008), the dynamic weighted
averaging (DWA) operator (Xu, 2008), intuitionistic fuzzy TOPSIS
method and the hybrid weighted averaging (HWA) operator (Xu
& Da, 2003) to solve the DIF-MAGDM problems.
The rest of this paper is structured as follows. In the next sec-
tion, we present a brief introduction of intuitionistic fuzzy sets
(IFS). Section 3, an interactive method for dynamic intuitionisitc
fuzzy multi-attribute group decision making is developed. A
numerical example given to illustrate the proposed method is
shown in Section 4. Conclusions and future research topics are pre-
sented in Section 5.
2. Intuitionistic fuzzy sets (IFS)
Atanassov (1986, 1999) introduced the concept of intuitionistic
fuzzy set (IFS) characterized by a membership function and a non-
membership function.
Definition 1. Let a set Z be fixed, an intuitionisitc fuzzy set (IFS) A
in Z is given as an object having the following form:
 
A ¼ < z; lA ðzÞ; mA ðzÞ > jz 2 Z ; ð1Þ
where the functions:
lA : Z ! ½0; 1; z 2 Z ! lA ðzÞ 2 ½0; 1; mA : Z ! ½0; 1;
z 2 Z ! mA ðzÞ 2 ½0; 1; ð2Þ
with the condition:
0 6 lA ðzÞ þ mA ðzÞ 6 1; 8 z 2 Z; ð3Þ
lA(z) and mA(z) denote the degree of the membership and the degree
of non-membership of the element z 2 Z to the set A, respectively.
In addition, for each IFS A in Z, if:
pA ðzÞ ¼ 1  lA ðzÞ  mA ðzÞ; ð4Þ
15288 Z.-x. Su et al. / Expert Systems with Applications 38 (2011) 15286–15295

then pA(z) is called the degree of indeterminacy of z to A, or called w(tk) = (w1(tk), w2(tk), . . . , wn(tk)) is the weight vector of the
the degree of hesitancy of z to A. attributes uj(j = 1, 2, . . . , n) at the period tk, where wj ðt k Þ >
P
For convenience of computation, let a = (la, ma, pa) be an 0; j ¼ 1; 2; . . . ; n; nj¼1 wj ðt k Þ ¼ 1 (the weight vector of attri-
intuitionistic fuzzy number (IFN) (Xu, 2007b), where: butes can be determined by some methods such as judg-
ment matrix based method (Saaty, 1980), information
la 2 ½0; 1; ma 2 ½0; 1; la þ ma 6 1; pa ¼ 1  la  ma : ð5Þ entropy based method (Herrera, Herrera-Viedma, & Chicl-
ana, 2001), point estimation based method (Zeeny, 1982),
Definition 2. Let a ¼ ðla ; ma ; pa Þ; a1 ¼ ðla1 ; ma1 ; pa1 Þ; a2 ¼ ðla2 ; ma2 ; etc.).  
ðlÞ
pa2 Þ and a3 ¼ ðla3 ; ma3 ; pa3 Þ be any four intuitionistic fuzzy num- (5) The DMs el(l = 1, 2, . . . , q) provide the attribute values r ij tk
bers (IFNs), k, k1, k2 > 0 then the following operational laws are of the alternative xi 2 X(i = 1, 2, . . . , m) with respect to the
valid (Xu & Yager, 2006; Xu, 2007b): attribute uj 2 U(j = 1, 2, . . . , n) at the period tk(k = 1, 2, . . . , p),
and construct the intuitionistic fuzzy decision matrices
      
(1) a1  a2 ¼ ðla1 þ la2  la1 la2 ; ma1 ma2 ; 1  la1  la2 þ la1 la2  ðlÞ ðlÞ ðlÞ
R tk ¼ ðr ij tk Þmn , respectively, where r ij tk ¼ lr ðtðlÞ Þ ;
ma1 ma2 Þ. 
ij k

(2) a1  a2 ¼ ðla1 la2 ; ma1 þ ma2  ma1 ma2 ; 1  la1 la2  ma1  ma2 þ mr ðtðlÞ Þ ; pr ðtðlÞ Þ is an intuitionistic fuzzy number (IFN).
ma1 ma2 Þ. ij k ij k

(3) ka = (1  (1  la)k, (ma)k). lrij ðtðlÞ Þ indicates the degree that the alternative xi should sat-
k
(4) ak = ((la)k, 1  (1  ma)k). isfy the attribute uj at the period tk ; mr ðtðlÞ Þ indicates the
(5) k1a  k2a = (k1 + k2)a. ij k

degree that the alternative xi should not satisfy the attribute

(6) (a1  a2)  a3 = a1  (a2  a3).
uj at the period tk and pr ðtðlÞ Þ indicates the degree of indeter-
(7) ðak1 Þk2 ¼ ðaÞk1 k2 . ij k

minacy of the alternative xi to the attribute uj at the period

tk, such that:
3. An interactive method for dynamic intuitionistic multi-
attribute group decision making lr tðlÞ 2 ½0; 1; mr tðlÞ 2 ½0; 1; lr tðlÞ þ mr tðlÞ 6 1;
ij k ij k ij k ij k

In this section, we consider the dynamic intuitionistic fuzzy pr tðlÞ ¼ 1  lr tðlÞ  mr tðlÞ : ð6Þ
ij k ij k ij k
multi-attribute group decision making (DIF-MAGDM) problem, in
which all the attribute values provided by the same decision mak-
ers (DMs) at different periods take the form of intuitionistic fuzzy Based on the above decision information, in the following we
numbers (IFNs). We first give a detailed description of a considered employ the dynamic intuitionistic fuzzy weighted averaging (DIF-
DIF-MAGDM problem: WA) operator, the dynamic weighted averaging (DWA) operator,
intuitionistic fuzzy TOPSIS method and the hybrid weighted aver-
(1) X = {x1, x2, . . . , xm}: a discrete set of m feasible alternatives. aging (HWA) operator to give an interactive method to rank and
(2) U = {u1, u2, . . . , un}: a finite set of n predefined attributes. select the most desirable alternative(s), which includes the follow-
(3) E = {e1, e2, . . . , eq}: a same set of q decision makers (DMs) at ing calculated steps:
each period, whose weight vector is k = (k1, k2, . . . , kq), where
Pq Step 1. Utilize the DIFWA operator (Xu & Yager, 2008):
kl > 0, l = 1, 2, . . . , q, l¼1 kl ¼ 1 (at present, many methods
 
have been proposed to determine the weights of DMs, for ðlÞ
example, Keeney & Kirkwood (1975) and Keeney (1976) sug- r ij ¼ lrðlÞ ; mrðlÞ ; prðlÞ
ij ij ij
gested the use of interpersonal comparisons to obtain the       
ðlÞ ðlÞ
values of scaling constants in the weighted additive social ¼ DIFWAxðtÞ r ij t1 ; r ij t 2 ; . . . ; r ij t ðlÞ
p
      
choice function. Bodily (1979) derived the member weight ðlÞ ðlÞ
¼ xðt1 Þrij t 1  xðt 2 Þr ij t2      x t p r ij tðlÞ
p
as a result of designation of voting weights from a member
p 
Y xðtk Þ Yp  xðtk Þ
to a delegation subcommittee made up of other members
of the group. Brock (1980) used a Nash bargaining based ¼ 1 1  lrij ðtl Þ ; mrij ðtl Þ ;
k k
k¼1 k¼1
approach to estimating the weights of group members !
p 
Y xðtk Þ Yp  xðtk Þ
intrinsically. Ramanahan & Ganesh (1994) proposed a sim- 1  lrij ðtl Þ  mrij ðtl Þ ; ð7Þ
ple and intuitively appealing eigenvector based method to k¼1
k
k¼1
k

intrinsically determine the weights of group members using

their own subjective opinions. Xu & Chen (2007) presented to aggregate all the individual intuitionistic fuzzy decision matrices
 
ðlÞ
an approach to determining the DMs’ weights by utilizing R t k at periods tk(k = 1, 2, . . . , p) into an individual collective intui-
the departure degrees of the individual opinions from the  
ðlÞ
tionistic fuzzy decision matrix RðlÞ ¼ r ij for each DM el (l =
group’s opinion). mn
(4) There are p periods tk(k = 1, 2, . . . , p), whose weight vector is 1, 2, . . . , q).
x(t) = (x(t1), x(t2), . . . , x (tp)), where xðt k Þ > 0; k ¼ 1; 2; . . . ; Step 2. Utilize DWA operator (Xu, 2008):
P  
p; pk¼1 xðtk Þ ¼ 1 (in general, the weight vector of the periods
wj ¼ DWAxðtÞ wj ðt1 Þ; wj ðt2 Þ; . . . ; wj t p
can be obtained by using one of the following methods, such
as arithmetic series based method (Xu, 2008), geometric ser- X
p
¼ xðtk Þwj ðtk Þ; ð8Þ
ies based method (Xu, 2008), normal distribution based k¼1
method (Xu, 2005, 2008; Xu & Da, 2003), BUM function
based method (Xu, 2009a, 2009b; Xu & Yager, 2008; Yager, to aggregate the weights of attributes wj(tk) of p different periods
1996, 2004), exponential distribution based method (Sadiq tk(k = 1, 2, . . . , p) into the collective weights of attributes wj(j = 1,
& Tesfamariam, 2007; Xu & Yager, 2008), average age 2, . . . , n).
method (Xu & Yager, 2008; Yager, 2007), the minimum var- Step 3. Calculate the individual relative closeness coefficient of
iability model (Fuller & Majlender, 2003; Xu, 2009b)). each alternative by intuitionistic fuzzy TOPSIS method
 Z.-x. Su et al. / Expert Systems with Applications 38 (2011) 15286–15295 15289

and obtain the individual ranking of alternatives for each to aggregate all the individual relative closeness coefficients
DM el (l = 1, 2, . . . , q). c(l)(xi)(l = 1, 2, . . . , q) into the collective relative closeness coefficient
Step 3-1. Define x(l+) and x(l) as the intuitionistic fuzzy positive c(xi) of the alternative xi(i = 1, 2, . . . , m), where ċ(r(l))(xi) (l = 1, 2, . . . ,
ideal solution (IFPIS) and the intutionistic fuzzy nega- q), is the lth largest of the weighted individual relative closeness
tive ideal solution (IFNIS). coefficient c_ ðlÞ ðxi Þðc_ ðlÞ ðxi Þ ¼ qkl cðlÞ ðxi Þ; l ¼ 1; 2; . . . ; qÞ. - = (-1, -2, . . . ,
Let J1 and J2 be benefit attribute and cost attribute, -q) is the associated P
vector of the HWA operator, where
respectively. Then x(l+) and x(l) can be defined as: -l > 0; l ¼ 1; 2; . . . ; q; ql¼1 -l ¼ 1, which can be derived by the
  normal distribution based method (Xu, 2005, 2008; Xu & Da, 2003).
ðlþÞ ðlþÞ
xðlþÞ ¼ r 1 ; r2 ; . . . ; r ðlþÞ
n ; Step 5. Rank all the alternatives xi(i = 1, 2, . . . , m) according to the
  collective relative closeness coefficients c(xi)(i = 1, 2, . . . , m)
ðlþÞ
rj ¼ lrðlþÞ ; mrðlþÞ ; prðlþÞ ðj ¼ 1; 2; . . . ; nÞ; ð9Þ and obtain the aggregate ranking of alternatives. The
j j j
greater the value c(xi), the better the alternative xi.
where
  
   
 Step 6. Specify the consensus level.

lrðlþÞ ¼ max lrðlÞ

j 2 J 1 ; min lrðlÞ

j 2 J 2 ; ð10Þ After the first two calculating steps of the developed

j i ij i ij approach, the dynamic intuitionistic fuzzy multi-attribute
  
   



group decision making problem is transformed into the
vr ðlþÞ ¼ min mrðlÞ

j 2 J 1 ; max mrðlÞ

j 2 J 2 ; ð11Þ
j i ij i ij intuitionistic fuzzy multi-attribute group decision making
prðlþÞ ¼ 1  lrðlþÞ  mrðlþÞ ; ð12Þ problem. In the group decision-making process, consensus
j j j is an important indication of group agreement or reliabil-
and ity. Therefore, in our study, the consensus level, calculated
  by the variance of the individual ranking and the aggregate
ðlÞ ðlÞ ðlÞ
xðlÞ ¼ r 1 ; r 2 ; . . . ; r ðlÞ
n ; rj ranking of alternatives, is specified by spearman’s rank
  correlation coefficient (Kahraman, Engin, Kabak, & Kayaet,
¼ lrðlÞ ; mrðlÞ ; prðÞ ðj ¼ 1; 2; . . . ; nÞ; ð13Þ 2009; Lehmann & D’Abrera, 1998).
j j j
When the previous steps are applied, the aggregate rank-
where ing of the alternatives according to the complex decision
  
   



matrix, r Ai and the individual rankings of the alternatives
lrðlÞ ¼ min lrðlÞ

j 2 J 1 ; max lrðlÞ

j 2 J 2 ; ð14Þ
j i ij i ij according to the individual collective decision matrixes,
  
   
 ðlÞ


ri ðl ¼ 1; 2; . . . ; qÞ, are obtained. The spearman’s rank cor-
vr ðlÞ ¼ max mrðlÞ

j 2 J 1 ; min mrðlÞ

j 2 J 2 ; ð15Þ
j i ij i ij relation coefficient can be calculated as follows for our
prðlÞ ¼ 1  lrðlÞ  mrðlÞ : ð16Þ particular problem:
2 
j j j
m 
X ðlÞ
Step 3-2. Calculate the distance between the alternative xi and qAl ¼ 1  6 r Ai  r i m m2  1 8 l: ð21Þ
the IFPIS x(l+) and the distance between the alternative i¼1

xi and the IFNIS x(l). ðlÞ

Furthermore, if qAl P a, then rAi and r i are called of acceptable con-
In this paper, we use the weighted normalized Euclid- sensus, where a is the threshold of acceptable consensus, which can
ean distance function (Xu, 2007e) as follows: be determined by the decision makers/experts in advance in practi-

d xi ;xðlþÞ cal application. In general, we take a P 0.5. Otherwise, if qAl < a,
vffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
ffi then the decision makers el may be asked to revise their evalua-
u n  2  2  2 !
u1 X tions. We repeat this procedure until the spearman’s rank correla-
¼t wj lrðlÞ  lrðlþÞ þ mrðlÞ  mrðlþÞ þ prðlÞ  prðlþÞ ;
2 j¼1 ij j ij j ij j tion coefficient of both aggregate ranking and individual ranking
is accepted or the number of rounds is equal to the maximum which
 is predefined by the group so as to avoid stagnation.
d xi ;xðlÞ
vffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
ffi Step 7. End.
u n  2  2  2 !
u1 X
¼ t wj lrðlÞ  lrðlÞ þ mrðlÞ  mrðlÞ þ prðlÞ  prðlÞ :
2 j¼1 ij j ij j ij j Fig. 1 shows the steps of the developed interactive method for
DIF-MAGDM.
Step 3-3. Calculate the individual relative closeness coefficient of
each alternative to IFPIS for each DM el(l = 1, 2, . . . , q).
4. Illustrative example
The individual relative closeness coefficient of an alter-
native xi with respect to the IFPIS x+ is defined as
In this section, we discuss a problem concerning with a battery
follows:
industry involved in the recycling process, desiring to select a suit-
   
cðlÞ ðxi Þ ¼ d xi ; xðlÞ d xi ; xðlþÞ þ d xi ; xðlÞ ;
(l)
where 0 6 c (xi) 6 1, l = 1, 2, . . . , q.
Step 3-4. Rank all the alternatives xi(i = 1, 2, . . . , m) according to
the individual relative closeness coefficients c(l)(xi)
(i = 1, 2, . . . , m) and obtain the individual ranking of
alternatives for each DM el(l = 1, 2, . . . , q). The greater
the value c(l)(xi), the better the alternative xi.
Step 4. Utilize the HWA operator (Xu & Da, 2003):
 Xq
cðxi Þ ¼ HWA-;k cð1Þ ðxi Þ; cð2Þ ðxi Þ; . . . ; cðqÞ ðxi Þ ¼
ð19Þ able third-party reverse logistics provider (3PRLP) to perform the
reverse logistics activities (adapted from Kannana, Pokharel, & Ku-
mar (2009)). Usually, this company will examine the current and
past performance of each 3PRLP to conduct selection. The attri-
butes which are considered here in selection of five potential
3PRLPs xi (i = 1, 2, . . . , 5) are: (1) u1: quality; (2) u2: delivery; (3)
u3: reverse logistics cost; (4) u4: rejection rate; (5) u5: technical/
engineering capability; (6) u6: inability to meet the future require-
ment; (7) u7: willingness and attitude. Where the attributes u2, u5,
u6 and u7 are benefit attributes, and the attributes u1, u3 and u4 are
-l c_ ðrðlÞÞ ðxi Þ; cost attributes.
l¼1
Three decision makers el (l = 1, 2, 3) (whose weight vector is
ð20Þ
k = (0.25, 0.40, 0.35)T) from each strategic decision area represent,
15290 Z.-x. Su et al. / Expert Systems with Applications 38 (2011) 15286–15295

Decision makers (DMs) evaluate the alternatives

with respect to the predefined attributes at
different periods in intuitionistic fuzzy numbers
and construct the individual intuitionistic fuzzy
decision matrices, respectively

Utilize the DIFWA operator to aggregate all the

individual intuitionistic fuzzy decision matrices DMs modify their
at different periods into an individual collective evaluation
intuitionistic fuzzy decision matrix for each DM

Utilize the DWA operator to aggregate

the weights of attributes at different Yes
periods into the collective weights of
attributes

Calculate the individual relative closeness

coefficient of each alternative for each Do DMs want to modify No
DM by intuitionsitic fuzzy TOPSIS their evaluations?
method and obtain the individual ranking

Utilize the HWA operator to aggregate all

the individual relative closeness
coefficients into the collective relative
closeness coefficient of each alternative No
and obtain the aggregate ranking

Level of consensus is calculated using the Is consensus level Yes End the procedure and
aggregate ranking and individual ranking acceptable? present the results

Fig. 1. Flowchart of the interactive method for DIF-MAGDM.

respectively, the performance of the potential 3PRLPs xi (i =
1, 2, . . . , 5) by intuitionistic fuzzy numbers (IFNs) in the years
2007–2009 with respect to the attributes uj(j = 1, 2, . . . , 7), and con-
 
struct the intuitionistic fuzzy decision matrices R tk ¼
ðlÞ
  
ðlÞ
r ij tk (k, l = 1, 2, 3, here t1 denotes the year ‘‘2007’’, t2 de-
57
notes the year ‘‘2008’’, t3 denotes the year ‘‘2009’’, respectively),
as listed in Tables 1–9.
Suppose that the weight vector of the years tk(k = 1, 2, 3) are
x(t) = (0.230, 0.321, 0.449) and the weight vectors of attributes of
uj(j = 1, 2, . . . , 7) at the years tk(k = 1, 2, 3) are: w(t1) = (0.12, 0.18,
0.17, 0.13, 0.11, 0.15, 0.14), w(t2) = (0.16, 0.13, 0.11, 0.20, 0.10, 0.12,
0.18) and w(t3) = (0.15, 0.14, 0.13, 0.16, 0.12, 0.17, 0.13), respectively.
Now we utilize the proposed method to prioritize these 3PRLPs:
Step 1. Utilize the DIFWA operator (Eq. (7)) to aggregateall the
ðlÞ
individual intuitionistic fuzzy decision matrices R tk at
years tk(k = 1, 2, 3) into an individual collective intuitionis-
tic fuzzy decision matrix R(l) for each DM el(l = 1, 2, 3), as
listed in Tables 10–12.
Step 2. Utilize the DWA operator (Eq. (8)) to aggregate the
weights of attributes wj(tk) of p different years tk into the
overall weights of attributes w = {wj}, j = 1, 2, . . . , 7:
w ¼ ðw1 ; w2 ; w3 ; w4 ; w5 ; w6 ; w7 Þ
¼ ð0:1463; 0:1460; 0:1328; 0:1659; 0:1113; 0:1494; 0:1484Þ:
Step 3. Utilize intuitionistic fuzzy TOPSIS method (Eqs. (9)–(19))
to calculate the individual relative closeness coefficient
corresponding to each alternative for each DM:
 Z.-x. Su et al. / Expert Systems with Applications 38 (2011) 15286–15295 15291

Table 1
ð1Þ
Individual intuitionistic fuzzy decision matrix Rðt1 Þ.

u1 u2 u3 u4 u5 u6 u7
x1 (0.5, 0.4, 0.1) (0.5, 0.3, 0.2) (0.4, 0.4, 0.2) (0.4, 0.4, 0.2) (0.6, 0.3, 0.1) (0.5, 0.5, 0.0) (0.8, 0.1, 0.1)
x2 (0.6, 0.3, 0.1) (0.7, 0.3, 0.0) (0.6, 0.2, 0.2) (0.6, 0.2, 0.2) (0.5, 0.4, 0.1) (0.6, 0.2, 0.2) (0.4, 0.4, 0.2)
x3 (0.5, 0.4, 0.1) (0.4, 0.5, 0.1) (0.5, 0.3, 0.2) (0.3, 0.4, 0.3) (0.7, 0.2, 0.1) (0.6, 0.3, 0.1) (0.8, 0.1, 0.1)
x4 (0.6, 0.2, 0.2) (0.7, 0.2, 0.1) (0.4, 0.2, 0.4) (0.5, 0.2, 0.3) (0.6, 0.4, 0.0) (0.5, 0.4, 0.1) (0.7, 0.1, 0.2)
x5 (0.5, 0.3, 0.2) (0.6, 0.2, 0.2) (0.5, 0.1, 0.3) (0.6, 0.4, 0.0) (0.5, 0.5, 0.0) (0.5, 0.3, 0.2) (0.6, 0.2, 0.2)

Table 2
ð2Þ
Individual intuitionistic fuzzy decision matrix Rðt1 Þ.

u1 u2 u3 u4 u5 u6 u7
x1 (0.5, 0.5, 0.0) (0.6, 0.2, 0.2) (0.5, 0.4, 0.1) (0.5, 0.3, 0.2) (0.7, 0.2, 0.1) (0.6, 0.3, 0.1) (0.7, 0.3, 0.0)
x2 (0.5, 0.4, 0.1) (0.6, 0.2, 0.2) (0.6, 0.3, 0.1) (0.7, 0.3, 0.0) (0.6, 0.4, 0.0) (0.5, 0.4, 0.1) (0.5, 0.4, 0.1)
x3 (0.5, 0.5, 0.0) (0.3, 0.5, 0.1) (0.4, 0.4, 0.2) (0.2, 0.5, 0.3) (0.6, 0.3, 0.1) (0.8, 0.1, 0.1) (0.6, 0.3, 0.1)
x4 (0.5, 0.4, 0.1) (0.6, 0.2, 0.2) (0.4, 0.4, 0.2) (0.6, 0.2, 0.2) (0.6, 0.3, 0.1) (0.6, 0.4, 0.0) (0.8, 0.2, 0.0)
x5 (0.6, 0.3, 0.1) (0.7, 0.2, 0.1) (0.4, 0.2, 0.4) (0.7, 0.2, 0.1) (0.7, 0.2, 0.1) (0.4, 0.4, 0.2) (0.7, 0.3, 0.0)

Table 3
ð3Þ
Individual intuitionistic fuzzy decision matrix Rðt1 Þ.

u1 u2 u3 u4 u5 u6 u7
x1 (0.6, 0.3, 0.1) (0.5, 0.2, 0.3) (0.5, 0.3, 0.2) (0.5, 0.2, 0.3) (0.6, 0.4, 0.0) (0.5, 0.3, 0.2) (0.8, 0.2, 0.0)
x2 (0.5, 0.3, 0.2) (0.5, 0.3, 0.2) (0.6, 0.2, 0.2) (0.7, 0.2, 0.1) (0.5, 0.5, 0.0) (0.6, 0.3, 0.1) (0.6, 0.2, 0.2)
x3 (0.4, 0.4, 0.2) (0.3, 0.4, 0.3) (0.4, 0.3, 0.3) (0.3, 0.3, 0.4) (0.5, 0.5, 0.0) (0.7, 0.2, 0.1) (0.6, 0.3, 0.1)
x4 (0.5, 0.3, 0.2) (0.5, 0.3, 0.2) (0.3, 0.5, 0.2) (0.5, 0.2, 0.3) (0.7, 0.2, 0.1) (0.7, 0.2, 0.1) (0.7, 0.2, 0.1)
x5 (0.6, 0.2, 0.2) (0.6, 0.4, 0.0) (0.4, 0.4, 0.2) (0.6, 0.3, 0.1) (0.6, 0.4, 0.0) (0.5, 0.3, 0.2) (0.8, 0.1, 0.1)

Table 4
ð1Þ
Individual intuitionistic fuzzy decision matrix Rðt2 Þ.

u1 u2 u3 u4 u5 u6 u7
x1 (0.5, 0.5, 0.0) (0.6, 0.3, 0.1) (0.4, 0.4, 0.2) (0.5, 0.4, 0.1) (0.6, 0.3, 0.1) (0.6, 0.3, 0.1) (0.3, 0.6, 0.1)
x2 (0.6, 0.3, 0.1) (0.7, 0.2, 0.1) (0.6, 0.3, 0.1) (0.5, 0.2, 0.3) (0.5, 0.4, 0.1) (0.5, 0.4, 0.1) (0.6, 0.2, 0.2)
x3 (0.4, 0.4, 0.2) (0.5, 0.4, 0.1) (0.5, 0.3, 0.2) (0.3, 0.5, 0.2) (0.7, 0.2, 0.1) (0.8, 0.2, 0.0) (0.4, 0.5, 0.1)
x4 (0.7, 0.2, 0.1) (0.8, 0.2, 0.0) (0.4, 0.3, 0.3) (0.5, 0.4, 0.1) (0.6, 0.4, 0.0) (0.5, 0.5, 0.0) (0.7, 0.3, 0.0)
x5 (0.5, 0.3, 0.2) (0.5, 0.4, 0.1) (0.5, 0.4, 0.1) (0.6, 0.4, 0.0) (0.6, 0.4, 0.0) (0.7, 0.1, 0.2) (0.4, 0.5, 0.1)

Table 5
ð2Þ
Individual intuitionistic fuzzy decision matrix Rðt2 Þ.

u1 u2 u3 u4 u5 u6 u7
x1 (0.6, 0.2, 0.2) (0.5, 0.2, 0.3) (0.5, 0.3, 0.2) (0.5, 0.2, 0.3) (0.5, 0.4, 0.1) (0.7, 0.3, 0.0) (0.4, 0.5, 0.1)
x2 (0.5, 0.3, 0.2) (0.5, 0.3, 0.2) (0.6, 0.3, 0.1) (0.7, 0.2, 0.1) (0.8, 0.2, 0.0) (0.5, 0.5, 0.0) (0.5, 0.3, 0.2)
x3 (0.4, 0.4, 0.2) (0.4, 0.4, 0.2) (0.4, 0.3, 0.3) (0.3, 0.3, 0.4) (0.5, 0.5, 0.0) (0.6, 0.3, 0.1) (0.4, 0.4, 0.2)
x4 (0.5, 0.3, 0.2) (0.5, 0.3, 0.2) (0.4, 0.4, 0.2) (0.5, 0.2, 0.3) (0.6, 0.3, 0.1) (0.6, 0.2, 0.2) (0.8, 0.1, 0.1)
x5 (0.6, 0.3, 0.1) (0.6, 0.4, 0.0) (0.4, 0.4, 0.2) (0.6, 0.3, 0.1) (0.7, 0.2, 0.1) (0.5, 0.5, 0.0) (0.3, 0.5, 0.2)

Table 6
ð3Þ
Individual intuitionistic fuzzy decision matrix Rðt2 Þ.

u1 u2 u3 u4 u5 u6 u7
x1 (0.6, 0.4, 0.0) (0.6, 0.2, 0.2) (0.5, 0.4, 0.1) (0.5, 0.3, 0.2) (0.5, 0.3, 0.2) (0.8, 0.1, 0.1) (0.2, 0.7, 0.1)
x2 (0.5, 0.4, 0.1) (0.6, 0.2, 0.2) (0.7, 0.3, 0.0) (0.7, 0.3, 0.0) (0.6, 0.4, 0.0) (0.5, 0.4, 0.1) (0.7, 0.3, 0.0)
x3 (0.4, 0.5, 0.1) (0.5, 0.5, 0.0) (0.4, 0.4, 0.2) (0.2, 0.6, 0.2) (0.7, 0.3, 0.0) (0.7, 0.2, 0.1) (0.3, 0.5, 0.2)
x4 (0.5, 0.4, 0.1) (0.7, 0.2, 0.1) (0.5, 0.4, 0.1) (0.6, 0.2, 0.2) (0.8, 0.1, 0.1) (0.5, 0.4, 0.1) (0.6, 0.3, 0.1)
x5 (0.6, 0.3, 0.1) (0.7, 0.2, 0.1) (0.4, 0.3, 0.3) (0.7, 0.3, 0.0) (0.6, 0.3, 0.1) (0.6, 0.3, 0.1) (0.3, 0.6, 0.1)

cð1Þ ðx1 Þ ¼ 0:5533; cð1Þ ðx2 Þ ¼ 0:4931; cð1Þ ðx3 Þ ¼ 0:5069; cð3Þ ðx1 Þ ¼ 0:6676; cð3Þ ðx2 Þ ¼ 0:4300; cð3Þ ðx3 Þ ¼ 0:5322;
cð1Þ ðx4 Þ ¼ 0:4756; cð1Þ ðx5 Þ ¼ 0:5676; cð3Þ ðx4 Þ ¼ 0:5392; cð3Þ ðx5 Þ ¼ 0:5819:

cð2Þ ðx1 Þ ¼ 0:5032; cð2Þ ðx2 Þ ¼ 0:4984; cð2Þ ðx3 Þ ¼ 0:4590;

And then, we obtain the individual ranking of alternatives for each
cð2Þ ðx4 Þ ¼ 0:5918; cð2Þ ðx5 Þ ¼ 0:5262;
DM, as shown in Table 13.
15292 Z.-x. Su et al. / Expert Systems with Applications 38 (2011) 15286–15295

Table 7
ð1Þ
Individual intuitionistic fuzzy decision matrix Rðt3 Þ.

u1 u2 u3 u4 u5 u6 u7
x1 (0.5, 0.4, 0.1) (0.5, 0.3, 0.2) (0.3, 0.4, 0.3) (0.4, 0.4, 0.2) (0.6, 0.3, 0.1) (0.3, 0.7, 0.0) (0.5, 0.4, 0.1)
x2 (0.6, 0.3, 0.1) (0.7, 0.3, 0.0) (0.6, 0.2, 0.2) (0.6, 0.2, 0.2) (0.5, 0.4, 0.1) (0.7, 0.2, 0.1) (0.6, 0.3, 0.1)
x3 (0.5, 0.4, 0.1) (0.5, 0.4, 0.1) (0.6, 0.2, 0.2) (0.5, 0.3, 0.2) (0.4, 0.5, 0.1) (0.4, 0.5, 0.1) (0.8, 0.2, 0.0)
x4 (0.8, 0.2, 0.0) (0.7, 0.2, 0.1) (0.4, 0.2, 0.4) (0.6, 0.2, 0.2) (0.5, 0.4, 0.1) (0.4, 0.5, 0.1) (0.7, 0.3, 0.0)
x5 (0.4, 0.3, 0.3) (0.5, 0.2, 0.3) (0.4, 0.5, 0.1) (0.5, 0.4, 0.1) (0.6, 0.3, 0.1) (0.3, 0.5, 0.2) (0.6, 0.3, 0.1)

Table 8
ð2Þ
Individual intuitionistic fuzzy decision matrix Rðt3 Þ.

u1 u2 u3 u4 u5 u6 u7
x1 (0.6, 0.4, 0.0) (0.6, 0.3, 0.1) (0.4, 0.4, 0.2) (0.5, 0.3, 0.2) (0.7, 0.2, 0.1) (0.2, 0.6, 0.2) (0.6, 0.3, 0.1)
x2 (0.5, 0.4, 0.1) (0.6, 0.2, 0.2) (0.7, 0.2, 0.1) (0.7, 0.3, 0.0) (0.4, 0.5, 0.1) (0.5, 0.4, 0.1) (0.8, 0.1, 0.1)
x3 (0.5, 0.5, 0.0) (0.6, 0.4, 0.0) (0.8, 0.1, 0.1) (0.6, 0.3, 0.1) (0.6, 0.3, 0.1) (0.3, 0.7, 0.0) (0.6, 0.2, 0.2)
x4 (0.7, 0.2, 0.1) (0.8, 0.2, 0.0) (0.5, 0.4, 0.1) (0.5, 0.2, 0.3) (0.6, 0.2, 0.2) (0.2, 0.6, 0.2) (0.8, 0.1, 0.1)
x5 (0.5, 0.2, 0.3) (0.7, 0.2, 0.1) (0.4, 0.3, 0.3) (0.6, 0.2, 0.2) (0.8, 0.1, 0.1) (0.4, 0.5, 0.1) (0.7, 0.2, 0.1)

Table 9
ð3Þ
Individual intuitionistic fuzzy decision matrix Rðt3 Þ.

u1 u2 u3 u4 u5 u6 u7
x1 (0.5, 0.3, 0.2) (0.6, 0.3, 0.1) (0.2, 0.6, 0.2) (0.4, 0.4, 0.2) (0.8, 0.1, 0.1) (0.4, 0.5, 0.1) (0.6, 0.3, 0.1)
x2 (0.7, 0.3, 0.0) (0.7, 0.3, 0.0) (0.7, 0.2, 0.1) (0.6, 0.3, 0.1) (0.5, 0.4, 0.1) (0.6, 0.3, 0.1) (0.7, 0.2, 0.1)
x3 (0.6, 0.4, 0.0) (0.5, 0.4, 0.1) (0.6, 0.2, 0.2) (0.5, 0.3, 0.2) (0.5, 0.5, 0.0) (0.5, 0.3, 0.2) (0.7, 0.2, 0.1)
x4 (0.8, 0.2, 0.0) (0.8, 0.2, 0.0) (0.5, 0.2, 0.3) (0.5, 0.2, 0.3) (0.6, 0.2, 0.2) (0.3, 0.6, 0.1) (0.7, 0.2, 0.1)
x5 (0.4, 0.3, 0.3) (0.6, 0.2, 0.2) (0.5, 0.5, 0.0) (0.4, 0.3, 0.3) (0.7, 0.1, 0.2) (0.5, 0.3, 0.2) (0.5, 0.4, 0.1)

Step 4. Utilize the HWA operator (Eq. (20)) (whose associated
weight vector is - = (0.243, 0.514, 0.243)) to aggregate all
the individual relative closeness coefficients into the col-
lective relative closeness coefficient of each alternative:
cðx1 Þ ¼ 0:5816; cðx2 Þ ¼ 0:4673; cðx3 Þ ¼ 0:5113;
cðx4 Þ ¼ 0:5503; cðx5 Þ ¼ 0:5709:
Step 5. Rank the alternatives and obtain the aggregate ranking of
the alternatives xi(i = 1, 2, . . . , m) according to the collective
relative closeness coefficients c(xi)(i = 1, 2, . . . , m), as shown
in Table 13.
Step 6. Specify the consensus level.
The aggregate ranking and the individual ranking of alter-
natives are given and the spearman correlation coefficients
for both the aggregate ranking and individual rankings are
calculated according to Eq. (21), as shown in Table 13.
Assume that the threshold of acceptable consensus a = 0.5. It
can be seen from Table 13 that all the spearman correlation coeffi-
cients are more than 0.5, so the group consensus level is accept-
able. According to the aggregate ranking of alternatives shown in
Table 13:
x1  x5  x4  x3  x2 ;
and thus the best suitable 3PRLP is x1.
5. Discussion and conclusions
With the development of modern society, many multi-attribute
decision making processes has been becoming more complex and
uncertain in real world, especially taking place in group settings
and in different periods. These problems can be called as dynamic
multi-attribute group decision making (DMAGDM, for short) prob-
lems. In this paper, we have focused on the dynamic multi-attri-
bute group decision making problems under intuitionistic fuzzy
environment, or called the dynamic intuitionistic fuzzy multi-attri-
bute group decision making (DIF-MAGDM, for short) problems, in
which the attribute values provided by multiple decision makers
at different periods take the form of intuitionistic fuzzy numbers
(IFNs). In general, the decision makers/experts involved in each
period’s decision making process may be same or different. We
study on the former and consider that a DIF-MAGDM problem
can be divided into multiple dynamic intuitionistic fuzzy multi-
attribute decision making (DIF-MADM, for short) problems accord-
ing to the number of the decision makers/experts, in which each
decision maker/expert can obtain the evaluation results indepen-
dently. Therefore, it is feasible and reasonable that fusing the dy-
namic decision information firstly in order to transform the DIF-
MAGDM problem into intuitionsitic fuzzy multi-attribute group
decision making (IF-MAGDM, for short). Furthermore, in the group
decision-making process, consensus is an important indication of
group agreement or reliability. For the above reasons, we have
developed an interactive method to solve the DIF-MAGDM prob-
lems in this paper. In the interactive method, we have employed
the dynamic intuitionistic fuzzy weighted averaging (DIFWA)
operator and the dynamic weighted averaging (DWA) operator to
fuse dynamic decision information, and obtained the individual
collective intuitionistic fuzzy matrices and the collective weights
of attributes. And then, we have extended the technique for order
performance by similarity to ideal solution (TOPSIS) to intuitionis-
tic fuzzy environment, and used the intuitionistic fuzzy TOPSIS
method to calculate the individual relative closeness coefficients
of alternatives and obtain the individual ranking of alternatives
for each decision maker. After doing so, the hybrid weighted aver-
aging (HWA) operator has been utilized to aggregate the individual
relative closeness coefficients into the collective relative closeness
coefficients of alternatives and obtain the aggregate ranking of
alternatives. Moreover, the spearman’s rank correlation coefficient
for both the individual ranking and aggregate ranking has been cal-
culated to measure the consensus level of the group preferences. If
Table 10
Individual collective intuitionistic fuzzy decision matrix R(1).

u1 u2 u3 u4 u5 u6 u7
x1 (0.5000, 0.4297, 0.0703) (0.5346, 0.3000, 0.1654) (0.3570, 0.4000, 0.2430) (0.4341, 0.4000, 0.1659) (0.5444, 0.3535, 0.1021) (0.4587, 0.4936, 0.0477) (0.5488, 0.3312, 0.1200)
x2 (0.6000, 0.3000, 0.1000) (0.7000, 0.2634, 0.0366) (0.6000, 0.2278, 0.1722) (0.5703, 0.2000, 0.2297) (0.5756, 0.3647, 0.0597) (0.6224, 0.2498, 0.1278) (0.5609, 0.2814, 0.1577)
x3 (0.4699, 0.4000, 0.1301) (0.4786, 0.4523, 0.0691) (0.6161, 0.2946, 0.0893) (0.4598, 0.3205, 0.2197) (0.5509, 0.3770, 0.0721) (0.6159, 0.3313, 0.0529) (0.7154, 0.2288, 0.0558)
x4 (0.7328, 0.2000, 0.0672) (0.7366, 0.2000, 0.0634) (0.4000, 0.2278, 0.3722) (0.5477, 0.2498, 0.2025) (0.5250, 0.4000, 0.0750) (0.4246, 0.4750, 0.1004) (0.7000, 0.2330, 0.0670)
x5 (0.4573, 0.3000, 0.2427) (0.5250, 0.2498, 0.2252) (0.4573, 0.3214, 0.2213) (0.5578, 0.4000, 0.0422) (0.5789, 0.3700, 0.0510) (0.5064, 0.2652, 0.2284) (0.5444, 0.3220, 0.1336)

Z.-x. Su et al. / Expert Systems with Applications 38 (2011) 15286–15295

Table 11
Individual collective intuitionistic fuzzy decision matrix R(2).

u1 u2 u3 u4 u5 u6 u7
x1 (0.5789, 0.3371, 0.0840) (0.5703, 0.2399, 0.1898) (0.4573, 0.3647, 0.1780) (0.5000, 0.2634, 0.2366) (0.6465, 0.2498, 0.1036) (0.5021, 0.4095, 0.0884) (0.5736, 0.3535, 0.0729)
x2 (0.5000, 0.3647, 0.1353) (0.5703, 0.2278, 0.2019) (0.6485, 0.2501, 0.1014) (0.7000, 0.2634, 0.0366) (0.6159, 0.3540, 0.0301) (0.5000, 0.4297, 0.0703) (0.6686, 0.1957, 0.1357)
x3 (0.4699, 0.4654, 0.0647) (0.4818, 0.4211, 0.0971) (0.6150, 0.1957, 0.1892) (0.4960, 0.3374, 0.1666) (0.5703, 0.3535, 0.0762) (0.5615, 0.3409, 0.0976) (0.5444, 0.2743, 0.1813)
x4 (0.6025, 0.2672, 0.1303) (0.6852, 0.2278, 0.0870) (0.4472, 0.4000, 0.1528) (0.5250, 0.2000, 0.2750) (0.6000, 0.2501, 0.1499) (0.4134, 0.3841, 0.2024) (0.8000, 0.1173, 0.0827)
x5 (0.5578, 0.2501, 0.1921) (0.6252, 0.2498, 0.1250) (0.4000, 0.2997, 0.3003) (0.6256, 0.2278, 0.1466) (0.7499, 0.1465, 0.1036) (0.4341, 0.4750, 0.0909) (0.6062, 0.2946, 0.0991)

15293
 15294 Z.-x. Su et al. / Expert Systems with Applications 38 (2011) 15286–15295

Table 13
The aggregate and individual rankings of alternatives and their spearman correlation
(0.5793, 0.2946, 0.1261)
(0.6795, 0.2278, 0.0927)

(0.5488, 0.3312, 0.1200)

(0.5740, 0.3587, 0.0673)

(0.6710, 0.2278, 0.1072)

coefficients.

Alternatives Aggregate Individual rankings

ranking
DM1 DM2 DM3
x1 1 5 4 1
x2 5 1 5 5
u7

x3 4 3 1 4
x4 3 2 2 3
x5 2 4 3 2
(0.5956, 0.2652, 0.1392)

(0.6227, 0.2399, 0.1374)

Spearman correlation 0.6 0.5 1

(0.4829, 0.4092, 0.1079)
(0.5346, 0.3000, 0.1654)
(0.5703, 0.3290, 0.1007)

coefficient vs. aggregate ranking

the consensus level is acceptable, then the optimal alternative can

be selected according to the aggregate ranking of alternatives. To
u6

verify the effectiveness and practicality of the developed method,

we have applied it to prioritize a set of third-party reverse logistic
providers (3PRLPs) for a battery recycling industry. It needs to
(0.6852, 0.1957, 0.1191)

(0.6485, 0.1957, 0.1558)

(0.5346, 0.4211, 0.0443)

(0.7003, 0.1601, 0.1396)

(0.5756, 0.4244, 0.0000)

point out that the procedures proposed in this paper can be further
extended by some geometric aggregation operators, such as the
dynamic intuitionitic weighted geometric (DIFWG) operator
(Wei, 2009), the dynamic weighted geometric (DWG) operator
(Xu, 2009a), the hybrid weighted geometric (HWG) operator (Xu,
2009a), etc.
u5

However, as mentioned before, we only consider the same deci-

sion makers/experts involved in the multiple-period decision pro-
cess, so the situation of different decision makers/experts involved
(0.3718, 0.3748, 0.2534)
(0.4573, 0.3110, 0.2317)
(0.6586, 0.2733, 0.0681)

(0.5346, 0.2000, 0.2654)

(0.5625, 0.3000, 0.1375)

may be left for our future study. In the future, we also shall con-
tinue working in the extension and application of the developed
approach to other domains.

Acknowledgements
u4

The research is supported by the National Natural Science Foun-

dation of China under Grant Nos. 70971005 and 90924020, and
(0.3825, 0.4491, 0.1684)

(0.4999, 0.2743, 0.2258)

(0.4598, 0.3085, 0.2317)
(0.4472, 0.4032, 0.1496)
(0.6795, 0.2278, 0.0927)

Key Projects in the National Science and Technology Specific Pro-

gram of China under Grant No. 2006BAK04A23. Part of the research
was conducted at Concordia University thanks to the State Scholar-
ship Fund for the Visiting Research Student Program from Septem-
ber 2009 to September 2010.
u3

References
(0.5789, 0.2399, 0.1812)

(0.4598, 0.4297, 0.1105)

(0.7188, 0.2195, 0.0617)
(0.6353, 0.2346, 0.1301)
(0.6300, 0.2634, 0.1066)

Atanassov, K. T. (1986). Intuitionistic fuzzy sets. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 20(1),
87–96.
Atanassov, K. T. (1999). Intuitionistic fuzzy sets: Theory and applications. Heidelberg:
Individual collective intuitionistic fuzzy decision matrix R(3).

Physica-Verlag.
Atanassov, K. T., Pasi, G., & Yager, R. R. (2005). Intuitionistic fuzzy interpretations of
multi-criteria multi-person and multi-measurement tool decision making.
International Journal of Systems Science, 36(14), 859–868.
Bodily, S. E. (1979). A delegation process for combining individual utility functions.
Management Science, 25(10), 1035–1041.
u2

Boran, F. E., Genc, S., Kurt, M., & Akay, D. (2009). A multi-criteria intuitionistic fuzzy
group decision making for supplier selection with TOPSIS method. Expert
Systems with Applications, 36(8), 11363–11368.
(0.5578, 0.3290, 0.1132)

(0.6686, 0.2743, 0.0571)

(0.5201, 0.2733, 0.2066)
(0.4999, 0.4297, 0.0704)
(0.6025, 0.3290, 0.0685)

Brock, H. W. (1980). The problem of ‘utility weights’ in group preference

aggregation. Operations Research, 28(1), 176–187.
Bustine, H., & Burillo, P. (1996). Vague sets are intuitionistic fuzzy sets. Fuzzy Sets
and Systems, 79(3), 403–405.
Fuller, R., & Majlender, P. (2003). On obtaining minimal variability OWA operator
weights. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 136(2), 203–215.
Gau, W. L., & Buehrer, D. J. (1993). Vague sets. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and
Cybernetics, 23(2), 610–614.
u1

Herrera, F., Herrera-Viedma, E., & Chiclana, F. (2001). Multiperson decision making
based on multiplicative preference relations. European Journal of Operational
Research, 129(2), 372–385.
Table 12

Kahraman, C., Engin, O., Kabak, O., & Kayaet, I. (2009). Information systems
x1
x2
x3
x4
x5

outsourcing decisions using a group decision-making approach. Engineering

Applications of Artificial Intelligence, 22(6), 832–841.
 Z.-x. Su et al. / Expert Systems with Applications 38 (2011) 15286–15295
Kannana, G., Pokharel, S., & Kumar, P. S. (2009). A hybrid approach using ISM and
fuzzy TOPSIS for the selection of reverse logistics provider. Resources,
Conservation and Recycling, 54(1), 28–36.
Keeney, R. L. (1976). A group preference axiomatization with cardinal utility.
Management Science, 23(2), 140–145.
Keeney, R. L., & Kirkwood, C. W. (1975). Group decision making using cardinal social
welfare functions. Management Science, 22(4), 430–437.
Lehmann, E. L., & D’Abrera, H. J. M. (1998). Nonparametrics: Statistical methods based
on ranks (revised ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Li, D. F. (2005). Multiattribute decision making models and methods using
intuitionistic fuzzy sets. Journal of Computer System Science, 70(1), 73–85.
Li, D. F. (2008). Extension of the LINMAP for multiattribute decision making under
Atanassov’s intuitionistic fuzzy environment. Fuzzy Optimization and Decision
Making, 7(1), 17–34.
Li, D. F., Chen, G. H., & Huang, Z. G. (2010). Linear programming method for
multiattribute group decision making using IF sets. Information Sciences, 180(9),
1591–1609.
Lin, L., Yuan, X. H., & Xia, Z. Q. (2007). Multicriteria fuzzy decision-making methods
based on intuitionistic fuzzy sets. Journal of Computer System Science, 73(1),
84–88.
Li, D. F., & Wang, Y. C. (2008). Mathematical programming approach to
multiattribute decision making under intuitionistic fuzzy enviroments.
International Journal of Uncertainty, Fuzziness and Knowledge-Based Systems,
16(4), 557–577.
Li, D. F., Wang, Y. C., Liu, S., & Shan, F. (2009). Fractional programming methodology
for multi-attribute group decision-making using IFS. Applied Soft Computing,
9(1), 219–225.
Mitchell, H. B. (2004). An intuitionistic OWA operator. International Journal of
Uncertainty, Fuzziness and Knowledge-Based Systems, 12(6), 843–860.
Ramanahan, R., & Ganesh, L. S. (1994). Group preference aggregation methods
employed in AHP: An evaluation and an intrinsic process for deriving members’
weightages. European Journal of Operational Research, 79(2), 249–265.
Saaty, T. L. (1980). The analytic hierarchy process. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Sadiq, R., & Tesfamariam, S. (2007). Probability density functions based weights for
ordered weighted averaging (OWA) operators: An example of water quality
indices. European Journal of Operational Research, 182(3), 1350–1368.
Tan, C. Q., & Chen, X. H. (2010). Intuitionistic fuzzy Choquet integral operator for
multi-criteria decision making. Expert Systems with Applications, 37(1), 149–157.
Wang, S. Q., Li, D. F., & Wu, Z. Q. (2009). Generalized ordered weighted averaging
operators based methods for MADM in intuitionistic fuzzy set setting. Journal of
Systems Engineering and Electronics, 20(6), 1247–1254.
Wei, G. W. (2008). Maximizing deviation method for multiple attribute decision
making in intuitionistic fuzzy setting. Knowledge-Based Systems, 21(8),
833–836.
Wei, G. W. (2009). Some geometric aggregation functions and their application to
dynamic multiple attribute decision making in the intuitionistic fuzzy setting.
International Journal of Uncertainty, Fuzziness and Knowledge-Based Systems,
17(2), 179–196.
Wei, G. W. (2010). Some induced geometric aggregation operators with
intuitionistic fuzzy information and their application to group decision
making. Applied Soft Computing, 10(2), 423–431.
Xu, Z. S. (2005). An overview of methods for determining OWA weights.
International Journal of Intelligent Systems, 20(8), 843–865.
15295
Xu, Z. S. (2007a). Models for multiple attribute decision-making with intuitionistic
fuzzy information. International Journal of Uncertainty, Fuzziness and Knowledge-
Based Systems, 15(3), 285–297.
Xu, Z. S. (2007b). Intuitionistic fuzzy aggregation operators. IEEE Transactions on
Fuzzy Systems, 15(6), 1179–1187.
Xu, Z. S. (2007c). Multi-person multi-attribute decision making models under
intuitionistic fuzzy environment. Fuzzy Optimization and Decision Making, 6(3),
221–236.
Xu, Z. S. (2007d). Intuitionistic preference relations and their application in group
decision making. Information Science, 177(11), 2363–2379.
Xu, Z. S. (2007e). Some similarity measures of intuitionistic fuzzy sets and their
applications to multiple attribute decision making. Fuzzy Optimization and
Decision Making, 6(2), 109–121.
Xu, Z. S. (2008). On multi-period multi-attribute decision making. Knowledge-Based
Systems, 21(2), 164–171.
Xu, Z. S. (2009a). A method based on the dynamic weighted geometric aggregation
operator for dynamic hybrid multi-attribute group decision making.
International Journal of Uncertainty, Fuzziness and Knowledge-Based Systems,
17(1), 15–33.
Xu, Z. S. (2009b). Multi-period multi-attribute group decision-making under
linguistic assessments. International Journal of General Systems, 38(8), 823–850.
Xu, Z. S. (2010a). Choquet integrals of weighted intuitionistic fuzzy information.
Information Sciences, 180(5), 726–736.
Xu, Z. S. (2010b). A deviation-based approach to intuitionistic fuzzy multiple
attribute group decision making. Group Decision and Negotiation, 19(1), 57–76.
Xu, Z. S., & Chen, J. (2007). An interactive method for fuzzy multiple attribute group
decision making. Information Sciences, 177(1), 248–263.
Xu, Z. S., & Da, Q. L. (2003). An overview of operators for aggregating information.
International Journal of Intelligent Systems, 18(9), 953–969.
Xu, Z. S., & Hu, H. (2009). Entropy-based procedures for intuitionistic fuzzy multiple
attribute decision making. Journal of Systems Engineering and Electronics, 20(5),
1001–1011.
Xu, Z. S., & Yager, R. R. (2006). Some geometric aggregation operators based on
intuitionistic fuzzy sets. International Journal of General System, 35(4), 417–433.
Xu, Z. S., & Yager, R. R. (2008). Dynamic intuitionistic fuzzy multiple attribute
decision making. International Journal of Approximate Reasoning, 48(1), 246–262.
Yager, R. R. (1996). Quantifier guided aggregation using OWA operators.
International Journal of Intelligent Systems, 11(1), 49–73.
Yager, R. R. (2004). OWA aggregation over a continuous interval argument with
applications to decision making. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and
Cybernetics. Part B-Cybernetics, 34(5), 1952–1963.
Yager, R. R. (2007). Time series smoothing and OWA aggregation. Technical report
#MII-2701. New Rochelle, NY: Machine Intelligence Institute, Iona College.
Ye, J. (2010). Fuzzy decision-making method based on the weighted correlation
coefficient under intuitionistic fuzzy environment. European Journal of
Operational Research, 205(1), 202–204.
Yue, Z. L., Jia, Y. Y., & Ye, G. D. (2009). An approach for multiple attribute group
decision making based on intuitionistic fuzzy information. International Journal
of Uncertainty, Fuzziness and Knowledge-Based Systems, 17(3), 317–332.
Zadeh, L. A. (1965). Fuzzy sets. Information and Control, 8(3), 338–353.
Zeeny, M. (1982). Multiple criteria decision making. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Zhao, H., Xu, Z. S., Ni, M. F., & Liu, S. S. (2010). Generalized aggregation operators for
intuitionistic fuzzy sets. International Journal of Intelligent Systems, 25(1), 1–30.