International Journal of Economy, Management and Social Sciences, 3(1) January 2014, Pages: 143-153

TI Journals

International Journal of Economy, Management and Social Sciences

ISSN
2306-7276

www.tijournals.com

Prioritizing Agility Enablers Based on Agility Attributes Using

Fuzzy Prioritization Method and Similarity-Based Approach
Reza Avazpour 1, Elham Ebrahimi* 2, Mohammad Reza Fathi 3
1
2
3

M.S of Management, Faculty of Human Sciences, Shahed University, Tehran, Iran

PhD Candidate of Human Resource Management, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran
PhD Candidate of Industrial Management, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran

AR TIC LE INF O

AB STR AC T

Keywords:

In today's business environment, agility is considered as a fundamental factor for

competitiveness. However, little research exists which provides an integrated
framework in order to help companies increasing their agility. The purpose of this paper
is developing a framework based on the fuzzy multiple criteria decision making
approach to identify the most appropriate agility enablers to be implemented by
companies. According to this goal, first the agility attributes and enablers are recognized
through the comprehensive survey of the relevant literature. Using fuzzy logic to
address the ambiguity in agility evaluation, the fuzzy Prioritization Method is applied to
determine weights of the agility attributes as our criteria. Finally Similarity-Based
Approach is used in order to rank the agility enablers as our alternatives. This
framework is implemented in a real case involving a subsidiary company of the
National Iranian Gas Company. The proposed framework helps the company to
concentrate on the most effective enablers and develop strategies to implement them
based on their priority.

Agility Enablers
Agility Attributes
Fuzzy logic
Similarity Method
Fuzzy Prioritization Method

2014 Int. j. econ. manag. soc. sci. All rights reserved for TI Journals.

1.

Introduction

Globalization, technology and facing with uncertainty and unpredictability in all sectors, make the ability of an organization to adapt to
unexpected changes critical in order to achieve and maintain a competitive advantage. The idea of adapting to unpredictable changes has
led to evolution of the concept of agility (Ganguly, Nilchiani, & Farr, 2009). The concept of agility was first introduced by researchers of
the Iacocca Institute (1991), and after the first introduction, it has been receiving an increasing attention by both researchers and industrial
communities (Bottani, 2009). They defined agility as a system that shifts quickly among product lines, ideally in real time in order to
respond to customer needs (Ganguly et al. 2009).Since 1990s; many publications on the subject have attempted to provide a definition of
agility. Some of the widely accepted definitions of agility are as below. Cho, Jung and Kim (1996) defined agility as the capability of
surviving and prospering in competitive environment continuous and unpredictable changes by reacting quickly and effectively to changing
markets. Menor, Roth and Mason (2001) implied that agility is the ability of a firm to excel simultaneously on operations capabilities of
quality, delivery, flexibility and cost in a coordinated fashion. Mathiyakalan, et al. (2005) defined agility as the ability of an organization to
detect changes (which can be opportunities or threats or a combination of them) in its business environment and hence providing focused
and rapid responses to its customers and stakeholders by reconfiguring its resources, processes and strategies. A survey of the related
literature shows that agile enterprises are characterized by proper attributes (or capabilities) which allow them to quickly respond to
changes of business environment. These attributes include time, cost, responsiveness, quality, customer needs and etc. (see e.g., Yusuf,
Sarhadi, & Gunasekaran, 1999). However these attributes are all significant as the capabilities of the agile organizations, relative
importance of them in achieving competitive advantage depends upon the specific market field (Bottani, 2009).Therefore, firms should
determine the relative importance of these attributes depending on the competitive bases that are willing to excel in. Since specifying the
weights of agility attributes is a qualitative decision making problem, it involves the vagueness of human judgments. Thus we apply fuzzy
set theory as a mathematical way which can handle the vagueness in decision-making to determine the weights of agility attributes. In
addition according to several conceptual models of agile enterprises explained in the related literature, companies can exploit several
enablers (or leverages) to achieve the agile capabilities. These enablers include collaborative relationships, customer/marketing sensitivity,
process integration and etc. (see e.g., Lin, Chiu, & Chu, 2006). It is important to prioritize these enablers so that organizations could
develop appropriate strategies to implement these enablers in a stepwise manner. Like determining the weights of agility attributes, ranking
enablers faces the vagueness of human judgments. Thus, we use a fuzzy method for this part too. The paper is organized as follows. Section
2 reviews the literature on agility, especially with a focus on agility attributes and agility enablers. In Section 3 the proposed framework for
prioritizing the agility enablers based on agility attributes and the methods require to this framework are presented. The empirical case
study is described in Section 4 and finally conclusion is presented in Section 5.
* Corresponding author.
Email address: reza.fathi@ut.ac.ir

Reza Avazpour et al.

144

Int ernational Journal of Economy, Mana ge ment and Soci al Sci ences , 3(1) January 2014

2.

Literature Review

2.1. Agility Attributes

Since agile enterprises are concerned with change, uncertainty and unpredictability within their business environment, they require a
number of distinguishing agility attributes or capabilities to make appropriate responses (Lin, Chiu, & Tseng, 2006). Accordingly, agile
attributes are the elements which constitute the underlying structure of an agile organization (Ren, Yusuf, & Burns, 2003). Agility attributes
have been widely investigated in the related literature. Table 1 summarizes the agility attributes which are used as criteria in this study.
Table 1. Agility attributes
Agility attributes

References

Responsiveness (C1)

Yusuf, et al. (1999); Mathiyakalan, et al. (2005); cho, et al. (1996); Sharp, Irani and
Desai (1999); Tseng and Lin (2011); Sherehiy, Karwowski and Layer (2007); Lin, et al.
(2006a); Lin, et al. (2006b); Bottani (2009)

Competency (C2)

Yusuf, et al. (1999); Mathiyakalan, et al. (2005); cho, et al. (1996); Sharp, et al. (1999);
Tseng and Lin (2011); Sherehiy et al. (2007); Lin, et al. (2006a); Lin, et al. (2006b);
Bottani (2009)

Flexibility (C3)

Yusuf, et al. (1999); Mathiyakalan, et al. (2005); cho, et al. (1996); Sharp, et al. (1999);
Tseng and Lin (2011); Sherehiy et al. (2007); Lin, et al. (2006a); Lin, et al. (2006b);
Bottani (2009)

Quickness (C4)

Yusuf, et al. (1999); Mathiyakalan, et al. (2005); cho, et al. (1996); Sharp, et al. (1999);
Tseng and Lin (2011); Sherehiy et al. (2007); Lin, et al. (2006a); Lin, et al. (2006b);
Bottani (2009)

Cost effectiveness (C5)

Menor, et al. (2001); Tseng and Lin (2011)

Integration (C6)

Yusuf, et al. (1999); Bottani (2009); Sherehiy et al. (2007)

Technology (C7)

Yusuf, et al. (1999); Bottani (2009); Sherehiy et al. (2007)

The agility attributes are described as below.

Responsiveness is considered as the ability to identify changes and respond quickly to them (Sherehiy, et al., 2007).
Competency is defined as an extensive set of abilities that provide a basis for productivity, efficiency and effectiveness of a
companys activities (Sherehiy, et al., 2007). It includes abilities to efficiently and effectively reach enterprises aims and goals
(Lin, et al., 2006b).
Flexibility is an ability to process different products and achieve different objectives with the same facilities (Sherehiy, et al.,
2007). It can include both organization/personnel and product volume/model flexibility (Tseng & Lin, 2011). However, recent
research findings showed that manufacturing flexibility depends much more on people than on technologies. It was concluded
that achievement of manufacturing flexibility, requires developing and maintaining a highly skilled, technologically competent
and adaptable workforce that can deal with non-routine and exceptional circumstances (Sherehiy, et al., 2007).
Quickness is the ability to carry out tasks and operations in shortest possible time (Sherehiy, et al., 2007).
Cost effectiveness as a financial attribute proves to be the single most important catalytic agent in guiding the drivers of agility
(Ganguly et al., 2009).
Integration dimension is defined as close and simple relations between the individual system components, easy and effortless
flow of the materials, information and communication between the system components, organizational structures, people, and
technology (Sherehiy, et al., 2007). This attribute include sub-criteria such as concurrent execution of activities, enterprise
integration and information accessible to employees (Bottani, 2009).
The technology attribute includes factors such as technology awareness, leadership in the use of current technology, skill and
knowledge enhancing technologies and flexible production technology (Bottani, 2009).

2.2. Agility Enablers

According to one of the first attempts to provide a definition for agile enablers by Gunasekaran (1999), these leverages are enabling
technologies which are critical to successfully accomplish agile manufacturing. In other words, they are considered as practical tools the
company can implement to achieve agility (Bottani, 2009). Gunasekaran (1999) discusses seven agility enablers, namely virtual enterprise,

Prioritizing Agility Enablers Based on Agility Attributes Using Fuzzy Prioritization Method and Similarity-Based Approach

145

Internat ional Jour nal of Economy, Mana ge ment and Social Sciences , 3(1) January 2014

physically distributed teams, rapid partnership, concurrent engineering, integrated product/production/business information system, rapid
prototyping and electronic commerce. After that Gunasekaran and Yusuf (2002) added about 60 viable leverages to the original ones and
categorized them into four main sets, namely strategic planning, product design, virtual enterprise, and information technology. Bottani
(2009) also implied seven agility enablers namely supply chain management, concurrent engineering, project management, hardware,
information technology, team building and knowledge management. Therefore, agility enablers could be defined based on a specific case
study and also they are available in the related literature. In this article we based the agility enablers suggested by Gunasekaran (1999) and
(Bottani, 2009) as our alternatives. The final alternatives were selected by the expert team of the case study (the Iranian gas company)
among the suggested enablers. Table 2 shows the agility enablers which are used in this study and a brief explanation of them.
Table 2. Agility enablers
Agility enablers

Description

Supply chain management (A1)

The supply chain management system focuses on resolving business process problems
that are important to the customers. In agile supply chain environments, relationship with
suppliers and interaction between them should be flexible.

Concurrent engineering (A2)

Managing change in a manufacturing environment requires a more systematic method of

concurrently designing both the product and the downstream processes for production and
support. This systematic approach is fundamentally known as Concurrent Engineering
(CE).

Hardware, tools and equipment (A3)

Agile manufacturing requires rapid changeover from the

assembly of one product to another different product. This in turn needs a rapid hardware
changeover and equipments.

Information technologies (A4)

3.

Information Technologies such as Internet, CAD/CAM, MRP, ERP, EDI, EC can be

employed for an effective integration of firms.

System integration and database

management (A5)

In addition to satisfying the traditional requirements,

an agile enterprise information system must be able to be reconfigured in a very short
time and should be able to include parts of information systems from other companies.
The Systems Integration Architecture (SIA) is based on a new, transformation model of
integration and provides sets of high level services which allow information system
modules, to be rapidly reconfigured.

Knowledge management (A6)

Knowledge management is a crucial issue in an agile enterprise and therefore, a

framework should be developed for the effective management of knowledge workers .

Team building (A7)

Agile organizations require empowered individuals working in teams, cross functional

teams and teams across company borders to decentralised decision making.

Electronic Commerce (A8)

Electronic Data Interchange (EDI) is the electronically or on-line exchange of standard

business documents such as purchase orders, invoices, and bills of lading, among
organisations.
EDI can produce strategic benefits throgh locking in companies' customers, reducing
transaction processing costs, cutting inventory costs and etc.

Research Methodology

3.1. Research Framework

The purpose of this paper is developing a framework based on the fuzzy multiple criteria decision making approach to identify the most
appropriate agility enablers to be implemented by companies. According to this goal, first by studying the related literature, agility
attributes (as the criteria) were recognized. Agility enablers (as the alternatives) were chosen according to the solutions suggested in the
literature and were verified by the experts of the case study company. After that, the weights of agility attributes were calculated by the
FPM. Finally, according to these weights, the Similarity method was applied for the purpose of ranking agility enablers. The overall fourstep framework of the study is shown in Figure 1.

Reza Avazpour et al.

146

Internati onal Journal of Economy, Mana ge me nt and Soci al Sciences , 3( 1) January 2014

Litreture riview

step 1: Identifying agility attributes which

constitute the underlying structure of an agile
organization

Litreture reveiw and Semistructural interviews

step 2: Identifying agility enablers to achieve the

required attributes

Fuzzy Prioritization Method

step 3: Calculating the weights of agility

attributes as criteria

Similarity Method

step 4: Ranking agility enablers as alternatives

Figure 1. Research framework

Figure 2 shows the hierarchy of ranking agility enablers based on agility attributes as the main purpose of the paper.

Goal

Criteria

Alternatives

Responsiveness (C1)

Supply chain
management (A1)

Competency (C2)

Concurrent
engineering (A2)

Flexibility (C3)
Prioritizing the agility
enablers based on
agility attributes

Hardware, tools and

equipment (A3)
Information
technologies (A4)

Quickness (C4)

Cost effectiveness (C5)

Integration (C6)

Technology (C7)

Figure 2. Hierarchy of prioritizing agility enablers

System integration and

database management
(A5)
Knowledge
management (A6)
Team building (A7)
Electronic Commerce
(A8)

Prioritizing Agility Enablers Based on Agility Attributes Using Fuzzy Prioritization Method and Similarity-Based Approach

147

Internat ional Jour nal of Economy, Mana ge ment and Social Sciences , 3(1) January 2014

3.2. Fuzzy Sets and Fuzzy Numbers

Fuzzy set theory, which was introduced by Zadeh (1965) to deal with problems in which a source of vagueness is involved, has been
utilized for incorporating imprecise data into the decision framework. A fuzzy set A can be defined mathematically by a membership
function (X), which assigns each element x in the universe of discourse X a real number in the interval [0,1]. A triangular fuzzy number
Acan be defined by a triplet (a, b, c) as illustrated in Figure 3.

Figure 3. A triangular fuzzy number A

The membership function (X) is defined as

l x m
(x)=

(1)

m x u
0 oterwise

Where l, m, and u are also considered as the lower bound, the mean bound, and the upper bound, respectively. The triangular fuzzy number
N is often represented as (l,m,u). According to Table 3, criteria compare with each other. After pairwise comparisons, are finished at a
level, a fuzzy reciprocal judgment matrix A can be established as

A= a

a
a

a
a

a
a

(2)

Table 3. Linguistic variables for important of each criteria

linguistic variables

triangular fuzzy numbers

very low

(0.00,0.00,0.00)

low

(0.10,0.20,0.30)

medium low

(0.20,0.35,0.50)

medium

(0.40,0.50,0.60)

medium high

(0.50,0.65,0.80)

high

(0.70,0.80,0.90)

very high

(0.80,1.00,1.00)

Where n is the number of the related elements at this level, and a ij =1/ aij. Basic arithmetic operations on triangular fuzzy numbers A1 =
(l1 ,m1,u1), where l1 m1 u1 , and A2 = (l2,m2,u2), where l2 m2 u2, can be shown as follows:
Addition:
A1 A2 = (l1 + l2 ,m1 + m2,u1 + u2)
Subtraction:
A1 A2 = (l1 - u2 ,m1 - m2,u1 l2)
Multiplication: if K is a scalar
(kl , km , ku ), k > 0
K A1 =
(ku , km , kl ) , k < 0

(3)
(4)

Reza Avazpour et al.

148

Int ernational Journal of Economy, Mana ge ment and Soci al Sci ences , 3(1) January 2014

A1 A2 (l1l2 ,m1m2,u1u2) , if l1 0 , l2 0
Division: A1 A2 ( ,

(5)

, ) ,

if l1 0 , l2 0

(6)

Although multiplication and division operations on triangular fuzzy numbers do not necessarily yield a triangular fuzzy number, triangular
fuzzy number approximations can be used for many practical applications (Kaufmann and Gupta, 1988). Triangular fuzzy numbers are
appropriate for quantifying the vague information about most decision problems including Facility location selection. The primary reason
for using triangular fuzzy numbers can be stated as their intuitive and computational-efficient representation (Karsak, 2002). A linguistic
variable is defined as a variable whose values are not numbers, but words or sentences in natural or artificial language. The concept of a
linguistic variable appears as a useful means for providing approximate characterization of phenomena that are too complex or ill-defined
to be described in conventional quantitative terms (Zadeh, 1975).
3.3. Fuzzy Prioritization Method
Fuzzy prioritization method is described by Wang et al (2006) as follow: suppose that a fuzzy judgment matrix is constructed as Eq. (2) in a
prioritization problem, where n elements are taken into account. Among this judgment matrix A, the triangular fuzzy number aij is
expressed as (lij,mij,uij), i and j=1,2,,n, where lij, mij, and uij are the lower bound, the mean bound, and the upper bound of this fuzzy
triangular set, respectively. Furthermore, we assume that lij<mij<uij when ij. If i=j, then a ij= aji = (1, 1, 1). Therefore, an exact priority
vector w = (w1, w2,,wn)T derived from A must satisfy the fuzzy inequalities:
lij

mij

(7)

Where wi> 0, wj> 0, ij, and the symbol means fuzzy less or equal to.To measure the degree of satisfaction for different crisp ratios w i/
wj with regard to the double side inequality (7), a function can be defined as:

ij

0 <

>m

(8)

Where ij. Being different from the membership function (1) of triangular fuzzy numbers, the function value of ij (wi/ wj) may be larger
than one, and is linearly decreasing over the interval (0,mij] and linearly increasing over the interval [mij,), as shown in Figure 4. The less
value of ij (wi/ w j) indicates that the exact ratio wi/ wj is more acceptable.

1
li

uij

Figure 4. Function for measuring the satisfaction degree of w i/ wj

To find the solution of the priority vector (w 1,w 2,,wn)T, the idea is that all exact ratios wi/ wj should satisfy n(n-1) fuzzy comparison
judgments (lij,mij,uij) as possible as they can, i and j=1,2,,n, ij. Therefore, in this study, the crisp priorities assessment is formulated as a
constrained optimization problem:
Min J (w1 ,w2 ,,wn )
= min

Prioritizing Agility Enablers Based on Agility Attributes Using Fuzzy Prioritization Method and Similarity-Based Approach

149

Internat ional Jour nal of Economy, Mana ge ment and Social Sciences , 3(1) January 2014

= min

+
m

Subject to

w = 1,wk > 0 , k=1,2,,n.

Where ij ,P N , and
0 , x < 0
(x) =

(9)
1 , x 0

The power index P is fixed, and chosen by decision makers in a specific MCDM problem. A larger p is suggested, e.g. 10, as illustrated
briefly in the next section. The function J (w1,w2,,wn) is non-differentiable. In some cases, decision-makers are unable or unwilling to
give all pairwise comparison judgments of n elements. However, provided that the known fuzzy set of pairwise comparisons involves n
elements, such as F={a ij} ={a12 ,a13 ,,an1} or {a21 ,a31 ,,an1 }, the solution of priority vector (w1,w2,,wn )T will be still able to be derived
based on the optimization problem above. In order to measure the consistency degree of the fuzzy comparison judgment matrix A as Eq.
(2), an index can be defined after the optimal crisp priority vector (w , w , , w ) is obtained:
= exp max

i , j = 1,2, , n, i j

(10)

Where ij(w w ) is the function of (8). The value of satisfies 0 < 1 always. If it is larger than e-1= 0.3679, all exact ratios satisfy the
crisp inequalities iij w w mij, i and j=1,2,,n, ij, and the corresponding fuzzy judgment matrix has good consistency. =1 indicates
that the fuzzy judgment matrix is completely consistent. In conclusion, the fuzzy judgment matrix with a larger value is more consistent.
For solving this optimization problem that has non-linear constraints, we used the genetic algorithm.

3.4. A Similarity-Based Approach

Deng (2007) introduced similarity base approach that in this paper we used this method for ranking process. Deng (2007) described this
method as follow:
Real-world decision making problems are very often large, multi-dimensional, conflicting and non-commensurable. There is no exception
for multicriteria analysis problems (Deng et al, 2000, Diakoulaki et al, 1995, Olson, 1996, Roy et al, 1981, Shipley et al, 1991). Conflict is
a fundamental nature of multicriteria analysis problems which constitutes the core of each decision situation. A multicriteria analysis
problem in which the performances of the alternatives in all evaluation criteria are in complete concordance, does not present any interest,
as the choice is evident (Carlsson et al, 1995, Chen et al, 1992). There are various ways to represent the conflict between two alternatives in
multicriteria analysis problems (Carlsson et al, 1995, Chen et al, 1992, Diakoulaki et al, 1995, Zeleny, 1998). Among them, the concept of
alternative gradient to represent the conflict of decision alternatives in multicriteria analysis problems is the mostly common one (Cohon et
al, 1978). Using this method, a conflict index between two alternatives is calculated to show the degree of conflict between the
alternatives. Assuming that Ai and Aj are the two alternatives concerned in a given multi criteria analysis problem, these two alternatives
can be considered as two vectors in the m-dimensional real space. The angle between Ai and Aj in the m-dimensional real space is a good
measure of conflict between them. As shown in Figure 5, Ai and A j is in no-conflict if ij = 0, the conflict is possible if ij 0, i.e. ij (0,
/2). This is so because when ij = 0 the gradients of both the alternatives Ai and Aj are simultaneously in the same increasing direction and
there is no conflict between them. The situation of conflict occurs when ij 0, i.e. when the gradients of Ai and Aj are not coincident. The
degree of conflict between alternatives Ai and Aj is determined by

cos ij =
(

)(

(11)

where ij is the angle between the gradients of the two alternatives, and (x i1, xi2, ..., xin) and (xj1, xj2 , ..., xjn) are the gradients of two
alternatives Ai and Aj respectively.
The conflict index equals to one characterized by ij = 0 as the corresponding gradient vectors lie in the same direction of improvement.
Similarly, the conflict index is zero characterized by ij = /2 which indicates that their gradient vectors have the perpendicular relationship
between each other. Based on the degree of the conflict between the alternatives, the degree of similarity between the two alternatives can
be calculated. The degree of similarity between alternative Ai and Ai, denoted as Sij, measures the relative similarity (closeness) alternative
Aj to Ai, given as (12).

Reza Avazpour et al.

150

Int ernational Journal of Economy, Mana ge ment and Soci al Sci ences , 3(1) January 2014

Aj (Xj1,Xj2,

A
Aj (Xi1,X i2,
ij
X
X

Figure 5. Degree of conflict between alternatives by gradients

Sij =

(12)

where ij is the angle between alternative Ai and alternative Aj. Represented the degree of conflict as discussed above. The larger the Sij is,
the higher the degree of similarity between alternative Ai and to Aj. The concept of the ideal solution is used in such a way that the most
preferred alternative should have the highest degree of similarity to the positive ideal solution and the lowest degree of similarity to the
negative-ideal solution. The ranking approach starts by normalizing the decision matrix to ensure all the criteria involved are benefit ones
based on (13), described as

(13)

As a result, a normalized decision matrix can be determined as

..
.

...
..
..

..
.

(14)

The weighted performance matrix which reflects the performance of each alternative with respect to each criterion is determined by
multiplying the normalized decision matrix in (14) by the weight vector, given as

Y=

...
..
..

..
.

..
.

..
.

..
.

..
.

(15)

The positive (or negative) ideal solution consists of the best (or worst) criteria values attainable from all the alternatives if each criterion
takes monotonically increasing or decreasing values (Deng et al, 2000, Hwang, 1981). This concept has been widely used in various
multicriteria analysis models for solving practical decision problems (Deng, 1999, Deng et al, 1998, Shipley et al, 1991). This is due to (a)
its simplicity and comprehensibility in concept, (b) its computational efficiency, and (c) its ability to measure the relative performance of
the decision alternatives in a simple mathematical form. Based on this concept, the positive ideal solution and the negative ideal solution
can be determined from the performance matrix in (15), given as
A+ =( ,
A- =( ,

,,
, ,

)
)

(16)

Where

= max
= min

, ,,
, ,,

(17)

Prioritizing Agility Enablers Based on Agility Attributes Using Fuzzy Prioritization Method and Similarity-Based Approach

151

Internat ional Jour nal of Economy, Mana ge ment and Social Sciences , 3(1) January 2014

The degree of conflict between each alternative Ai and the positive ideal solution (the negative ideal solution) can be determined based on
(11), given as
cos

cos

(18)

As a consequence, the degree of similarity between each alternative Ai and the positive ideal solution and the negative ideal solution can be
determined. Based on the degree of the conflict between the alternatives and the PIS and the NIS, the degree of similarity between the
alternatives and y (y ) can be calculated. The degree of similarity denoted as S , measures the relative similarity of the alternative Ai to
y , and the degree of similarity denoted as S measures the relative similarity of the alternative Ai to y .

|
|

(19)
|

(20)

So we will have a number between 0 and 1 for just as .Then we calculate the overall performance index for each alternative across
all criteria. This index can be calculated based on the concept of the degree of similarity of alternative Ai relative to the ideal solutions.

Pi =

, = 1,2, ,

(21)

In contrast to the similarity technique presented by Deng (2007), in the modified similarity S technique and Pi are always between zero
and one. To the extent Ai become more Similar to S and less similar to S , the overall performance index (Pi) become near to 1.After that
we rank alternatives in the descending order of the performance index value.
4. Empirical Analysis
The case of this study is a subsidiary company of the National Iranian Gas Company (NIGC). NIGC is one of the four major subsidiaries of
Iran's Petroleum Ministry and is responsible for providing over 61 percent of the country- required fuel. The case study is one of the
provincial gas companies which are responsible for gas delivery to the city, villages, power plants, industries and commercial centers in its
region. In this paper, the weights of criteria are calculated using FPM, and these calculated weight values are used as Similarity inputs.
Then, after Similarity calculations, evaluation of the alternatives and selection of best Enabler is realized.

Fuzzy Prioritization Method:

In FPM, firstly, we should determine the weights of each criterion by utilizing pair-wise comparison matrices. We compare each criterion
with respect to other criteria. You can see the pair-wise comparison matrix for selection best agility enabler criteria in Table 4.
Table 4. Inter-criteria comparison matrix
C1

C2

...

C5

C6

C7

C1

1.00

1.00

1.00

0.25

0.33

0.50

1.00

2.00

3.00

0.25

0.33

0.50

1.00

2.00

3.00

C2

2.00

3.00

4.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

C3

4.00

5.00

6.00

0.20

0.25

0.33

2.00

3.00

4.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

C4

0.25

0.33

0.50

0.33

0.50

1.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

0.25

0.33

0.50

1.00

2.00

3.00

C5

0.33333

0.5

0.25

0.33

0.50

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

2.00

0.33

0.50

1.00

C6

2.00

3.00

4.00

0.33

0.50

1.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

C7

0.33

0.50

1.00

0.17

0.20

0.25

1.00

2.00

3.00

0.25

0.33

0.50

1.00

1.00

1.00

After forming the model (9) for the comparison matrix and solving this model using Genetic algorithms, the weight vector is obtained as
follow:
w = (0.1309, 0.2176, 0.2521, 0.1047, 0.0855, 0.1195, 0.0894) T

Reza Avazpour et al.

152

Int ernational Journal of Economy, Mana ge ment and Soci al Sci ences , 3(1) January 2014

Similarity:
The weights of criteria are calculated by FPM up to now, and then these values can be used in Similarity. According to Similarity
methodology, we obtained weighted normalized decision matrix that can be seen in Table 5.

Table 5. Weighted normalized decision matrix

Criteria

C1

C2

C3

C4

C5

C6

C7

0.039
0.046
0.058
0.051
0.025
0.037
0.067
0.029

0.083
0.075
0.090
0.067
0.056
0.058
0.114
0.052

0.103
0.088
0.100
0.081
0.065
0.077
0.118
0.068

0.046
0.040
0.039
0.035
0.030
0.034
0.041
0.030

0.033
0.024
0.044
0.025
0.021
0.023
0.042
0.017

0.028
0.039
0.049
0.040
0.032
0.037
0.060
0.045

0.035
0.025
0.043
0.026
0.025
0.027
0.043
0.020

Alternatives
A1
A2
A3
A4
A5
A6
A7
A8

The positive ideal solution and the negative-ideal solution are determined by (16) and (17) as
A+ = [0.067, 0.114, 0.118, 0.046, 0.044, 0.060, 0.043]
A- = [0.025, 0.052, 0.065, 0.030, 0.017, 0.028, 0.020]
Therefore, the degree of conflict between each alternative and the positive ideal solution and the negative ideal solution is calculated by
(18) and the degree of similarity between each alternative and the positive ideal solution and the negative ideal solution are determined by
(19 & 20).after that the overall performance index for each alternative across all criteria can be determined by (21). The results of this
calculation are shown in Table 6.
Table 6. Alternatives ranking matrix
Criteria

Cos i+

S+

Ranking

0.915647
0.981043
0.98472
0.934463
0.670445
0.929639
0.998735
0.475712

0.503865
0.395542
0.696922
0.334825
0.056141
0.198185
0.987997
0.083809

3
4
2
5
8
6
1
7

Alternatives
A1
A2
A3
A4
A5
A6
A7
A8

According to the result of Table 6, Agility Enablers are ranked as follow:

1. Team building
2. Hardware, tools and equipment
3. Supply chain management
4. Concurrent engineering
5. Information technologies
6. Knowledge management
7. Electronic Commerce
8. System integration and database management

4.

Conclusions

Nowadays agility is considered as a fundamental factor for competitiveness. However, little research exists which provides an integrated
framework in order to help companies increasing their agility. The purpose of this paper is developing a framework based on the fuzzy
multiple criteria decision making approach to identify the most appropriate agility enablers to be implemented by companies. First the
agility attributes and enablers are recognized. Second the fuzzy Prioritization Method is applied to determine weights of the agility
attributes. Finally Similarity-Based Approach is used in order to rank the agility enablers. According to result, A 7 (Team building) is the
best agility enablers among other enablers.

Prioritizing Agility Enablers Based on Agility Attributes Using Fuzzy Prioritization Method and Similarity-Based Approach

153

Internat ional Jour nal of Economy, Mana ge ment and Social Sciences , 3(1) January 2014

Acknowledgement
The authors wish to thank an anonymous referee for the valuable suggestions which considerably improve the quality of the paper.

References
Bottani, E. (2009). A fuzzy QFD approach toachieve agility. International Journal of Production Economics, 119, 380391.
Carlsson, C., Fuller, R. (1995) Multiple Criteria Decision Making: The Case for Interdependence. Computers and Operations Research, 22 (3) 251-260
Chen, S. J., Hwang, C.L. (1992) Fuzzy Multiple Attribute Decision Making: Methods and Applications. Springer-Verlag, New York.
Cho, H., Jung, M., & Kim, M. (1996). Enabling technologies of agile manufacturing and its related activities in Korea. Computers and Industrial
Engineering, 30(3), 323334.
Cohon, J.L.(1978) Multi-objective Programming and Planning. Academic Press, New York.
Deng, H.(2007) A Similarity-Based Approach to Ranking Multicriteria Alternatives. Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence. pp. 253262.
Deng, H., Yeh, C.H., Willis, R.J.(2000) Inter-company Comparison using Modified TOPSIS with Objective Weights. Computers and Operations Research,
27 , 963-973
Deng, H., Yeh, C.H. (1998) Ranking Multi-criteria Alternatives under Uncertainty. Proceedings of the International Conference on Computational
Intelligence and Multimedia Applications, World Scientific, Singapore , 504-509
Deng, H.(1999) Multicriteria Analysis with Fuzzy Pairwise Comparison. International Journal of Approximate Reasoning, 21 (3), 215-231
Diakoulaki, D., Mavrotas, G., Papayannakis, L.(1995). Determining Objective Weights in Multiple Criteria Problems: the CRITIC Method. Computers and
Operations Research. 22 (7), 763-770
Ganguly, A., Nilchiani, R., & Farr, J. (2009). Evaluating agility incorporate enterprises. International Journal of Production Economics, 118, 410423.
Gunasekaran, A. (1999). Agile manufacturing: a framework for research and development. International Journal of Production Economics, 62, 87105.
Gunasekaran, A., & Yusuf, Y. (2002). Agile manufacturing: a taxonomy of strategic and technological imperatives. International Journal of Production
Research, 40(6), 13571385.
Hwang, C.L., Yoon, K.S. (1981) Multiple Attribute Decision Making: Theory and Applications. Springer-Verlag, New York
Kaufmann, A., and Gupta, M. M. (1988). Fuzzy mathematical models in engineering and management science. Amsterdam: North-Holland.
Karsak, E. E. (2002). Distance-based fuzzy MCDM approach for evaluating flexible manufacturing system alternatives. International Journal of Production
Research 40(13), 31673181.
Lin, C., Chiu, H., & Chu, P. (2006a). Agility index in the supply chain. International Journal of Production Economics, 100, 285299.
Lin, C., Chiu, H., & Tseng, Y. (2006b). Agility evaluation using fuzzy logic. International Journal of Production Economics, 101, 353368.
Mathiyakalan, S., Ashrafi, N., Zhang, W., Waage, F., Kuilboer, J., & Heimann, D. (2005). Defining business agility: an exploratory study. In: Proceedings of
the 16th Information Resources Management Confrance, (pp. 1518). CA.
Menor, L., Roth, A., & Mason, C. (2001). Agility in retail banking: a numerical taxonomy of strategic service groups. Manufacturing and Service Operations
Management, 3(4), 272292.
Olson, D.L. (1996) Decision Aids for Selection Problems. Springer-Verlag, New York
Ren, J., Yusuf, Y., & Burns, D. (2003). The effects of agile attributes on competitive priorities: a neural network approach. Integrated Manufacturing
Systems, 14(3), 489497.
Roy, B., Vincke, P.(1981). Multicriteria Analysis: Survey and Promising Directions. European Journal of Operational Research. 8 , 207-218
Sharp, J., Irani, Z., & Desai, S. (1999). Working towards agile manufacturing in the UK industry. International Journal of Production Economics, 62, 155
169.
Sherehiy, B., Karwowski, W., & Layer, J. (2007). A review of enterprise agility: Concepts, frameworks, and attributes. International Journal of Industrial
Ergonomics, 37, 445460.
Shipley, M.F., de Korvin, A., Obid, R.(1991) A Decision Making Model for Multi-Attribute Problems Incorporating Uncertainty and Bias Measures.
Computers and Operations Research. 18 , 335-342
Tseng, Y., & Lin, C. (2011). Enhancing enterprise agility by deploying agile drivers, capabilities and providers. Information Sciences, 181, 36933708.
Wang, L., Chu, J., Wu, J. (2006). Selection of optimum maintenance strategies based on a fuzzy analytic hierarchy process, Int. J. Production Economics,
107, 151163.
Yusuf, Y., Sarhadi, M., & Gunasekaran, A. (1999). Agile manufacturing: the drivers,concepts and attributes. International Journal of Production Economics,
62(1), 3343.
Zadeh, L. A. (1965). Fuzzy sets. Information and Control, 8(3), 338353.
Zadeh, L. A. (1975). The concept of a linguistic variable and its application to approximate reasoning-I. Information Sciences, 8(3), 199249.
Zeleny, M. (1998) Multiple Criteria Decision Making: Eight Concepts of Optimality. Human Systems Management. 17 (2) , 97-107