4.3 Review

DEMATEL Technique: A Systematic Review of the State-of-the-Art Literature on Methodologies and Applications

期刊

MATHEMATICAL PROBLEMS IN ENGINEERING
卷 2018, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

HINDAWI LTD
DOI: 10.1155/2018/3696457

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [61773250, 71402090]
  2. Shanghai Pujiang Talents Program [15PJC050]
  3. Program for Professor of Special Appointment (Young Eastern Scholar) at Shanghai Institutions of Higher Learning [QD2015019]
  4. National Natural Science Foundation of China [61773250, 71402090]
  5. Shanghai Pujiang Talents Program [15PJC050]
  6. Program for Professor of Special Appointment (Young Eastern Scholar) at Shanghai Institutions of Higher Learning [QD2015019]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Decision making trial and evaluation laboratory (DEMATEL) is considered as an effective method for the identification of cause-effect chain components of a complex system. It deals with evaluating interdependent relationships among factors and finding the critical ones through a visual structural model. Over the recent decade, a large number of studies have been done on the application of DEMATEL and many different variants have been put forward in the literature. The objective of this study is to review systematically the methodologies and applications of the DEMATEL technique. We reviewed a total of 346 papers published from 2006 to 2016 in the international journals. According to the approaches used, these publications are grouped into five categories: classical DEMATEL, fuzzy DEMATEL, grey DEMATEL, analytical network process-(ANP-) DEMATEL, and other DEMATEL. All papers with respect to each category are summarized and analyzed, pointing out their implementing procedures, real applications, and crucial findings. This systematic and comprehensive review holds valuable insights for researchers and practitioners into using the DEMATEL in terms of indicating current research trends and potential directions for further research.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据