压载水管理:TODIM与THOR2的技术选择比较

Carlos Francisco Simões Gomes, Luiz Flavio Autran Monteiro Gomes, Luis Alberto Duncan Rangel, Fabricio Maione Tenório, M. Santos
{"title":"压载水管理:TODIM与THOR2的技术选择比较","authors":"Carlos Francisco Simões Gomes, Luiz Flavio Autran Monteiro Gomes, Luis Alberto Duncan Rangel, Fabricio Maione Tenório, M. Santos","doi":"10.14807/ijmp.v12i8.1487","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This paper approaches the problem of ballast water treatment in ships. This has been identified as one of the four greatest threats to the world’s oceans. Solutions that have been considered for solving the problem are alternative water treatment technologies. In the case study reported in this paper three major water treatment technologies have been evaluated with the help of twenty-six criteria, quantitative as well as qualitative by using two discrete multicriteria methods, TODIM and THOR 2. The THOR 2 consists of the axiomatic evolution of the THOR method and both THOR 2 and THOR are made available through the THOR Web platform. Five groups of evaluation criteria are then considered: practicality; biological effectiveness; cost/benefit ratio; time frame for the implementation of standards; and environmental impact of the process' sub-products. In this paper a case study on choosing a ballast water treatment technology is presented. Three alternative ballast water management technologies are proposed by experts in the field and are evaluated with the help of twenty-six criteria, quantitative as well as qualitative. Each ballast water management method is described by a list of twenty-six attributes or criteria. After setting the problem in a clear way and consulting different experts, the two separate applications of both TODIM and THOR 2 are performed. What is denoted as Management Method #1 is indeed chosen as the best alternative according to both methods. The conclusion is that those two methods, although conceptually and analytically quite different, lead essentially to the same main results.  Two other applications of both TODIM and THOR have indeed confirmed the convergence of results in spite of the conceptual and technical differences between the two methods. This suggests that formulating a decision problem in a correct, clear-cut way can be at least as important as the technical characteristics of the method per se.","PeriodicalId":54124,"journal":{"name":"Independent Journal of Management & Production","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2021-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Ballast water management: technology choice comparing TODIM and THOR 2\",\"authors\":\"Carlos Francisco Simões Gomes, Luiz Flavio Autran Monteiro Gomes, Luis Alberto Duncan Rangel, Fabricio Maione Tenório, M. Santos\",\"doi\":\"10.14807/ijmp.v12i8.1487\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This paper approaches the problem of ballast water treatment in ships. This has been identified as one of the four greatest threats to the world’s oceans. Solutions that have been considered for solving the problem are alternative water treatment technologies. In the case study reported in this paper three major water treatment technologies have been evaluated with the help of twenty-six criteria, quantitative as well as qualitative by using two discrete multicriteria methods, TODIM and THOR 2. The THOR 2 consists of the axiomatic evolution of the THOR method and both THOR 2 and THOR are made available through the THOR Web platform. Five groups of evaluation criteria are then considered: practicality; biological effectiveness; cost/benefit ratio; time frame for the implementation of standards; and environmental impact of the process' sub-products. In this paper a case study on choosing a ballast water treatment technology is presented. Three alternative ballast water management technologies are proposed by experts in the field and are evaluated with the help of twenty-six criteria, quantitative as well as qualitative. Each ballast water management method is described by a list of twenty-six attributes or criteria. After setting the problem in a clear way and consulting different experts, the two separate applications of both TODIM and THOR 2 are performed. What is denoted as Management Method #1 is indeed chosen as the best alternative according to both methods. The conclusion is that those two methods, although conceptually and analytically quite different, lead essentially to the same main results.  Two other applications of both TODIM and THOR have indeed confirmed the convergence of results in spite of the conceptual and technical differences between the two methods. This suggests that formulating a decision problem in a correct, clear-cut way can be at least as important as the technical characteristics of the method per se.\",\"PeriodicalId\":54124,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Independent Journal of Management & Production\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"4\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Independent Journal of Management & Production\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.14807/ijmp.v12i8.1487\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"MANAGEMENT\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Independent Journal of Management & Production","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.14807/ijmp.v12i8.1487","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"MANAGEMENT","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

摘要

本文探讨了船舶压载水的处理问题。这已被确定为世界海洋面临的四大威胁之一。为解决该问题而考虑的解决方案是替代水处理技术。在本文报告的案例研究中,使用两种离散的多标准方法,即TODIM和THOR2,在26个标准的帮助下,对三种主要的水处理技术进行了定量和定性评估。THOR2由THOR方法的公理化进化组成,THOR2和THOR都可以通过THORWeb平台获得。然后考虑了五组评价标准:实用性;生物有效性;成本效益比;实施标准的时间框架;以及工艺子产品的环境影响。本文以压载水处理技术的选择为例进行了研究。该领域的专家提出了三种替代压载水管理技术,并在二十六项定量和定性标准的帮助下进行了评估。每种压载水管理方法都由二十六个属性或标准列表描述。在以明确的方式设置问题并咨询不同的专家之后,执行TODIM和THOR2的两个单独的应用程序。根据这两种方法,被表示为管理方法#1的方法确实被选择为最佳替代方案。结论是,这两种方法虽然在概念和分析上截然不同,但基本上得出了相同的主要结果。TODIM和THOR的另外两个应用确实证实了结果的收敛性,尽管这两种方法在概念和技术上存在差异。这表明,以正确、明确的方式制定决策问题至少与方法本身的技术特征一样重要。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Ballast water management: technology choice comparing TODIM and THOR 2
This paper approaches the problem of ballast water treatment in ships. This has been identified as one of the four greatest threats to the world’s oceans. Solutions that have been considered for solving the problem are alternative water treatment technologies. In the case study reported in this paper three major water treatment technologies have been evaluated with the help of twenty-six criteria, quantitative as well as qualitative by using two discrete multicriteria methods, TODIM and THOR 2. The THOR 2 consists of the axiomatic evolution of the THOR method and both THOR 2 and THOR are made available through the THOR Web platform. Five groups of evaluation criteria are then considered: practicality; biological effectiveness; cost/benefit ratio; time frame for the implementation of standards; and environmental impact of the process' sub-products. In this paper a case study on choosing a ballast water treatment technology is presented. Three alternative ballast water management technologies are proposed by experts in the field and are evaluated with the help of twenty-six criteria, quantitative as well as qualitative. Each ballast water management method is described by a list of twenty-six attributes or criteria. After setting the problem in a clear way and consulting different experts, the two separate applications of both TODIM and THOR 2 are performed. What is denoted as Management Method #1 is indeed chosen as the best alternative according to both methods. The conclusion is that those two methods, although conceptually and analytically quite different, lead essentially to the same main results.  Two other applications of both TODIM and THOR have indeed confirmed the convergence of results in spite of the conceptual and technical differences between the two methods. This suggests that formulating a decision problem in a correct, clear-cut way can be at least as important as the technical characteristics of the method per se.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
20.00%
发文量
105
期刊最新文献
Inverse modeling of the stewart foot A simulation-based approach to identify bottlenecks in the bearing manufacturing process Discrete event simulation applied to single queue management: a case study at a bank agency Impact of seasonality on the inbound and outbound freight of a global fertilizer company Logistics as a competitive advantage in retail organizations
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1