Aplicação de metodologia híbrida AHP &amp; lógica fuzzy para tomada de decisão na gestão de projetos em uma indústria florestal

Caggy, Almir Lima; Almeida, Ely Sena de

Almir Lima Caggy

Universidade Federal do Amazonas – UFAM, Manaus, AM, Brasil. E-mails: almir_kggy@hotmail.com;

Ely Sena de Almeida

Universidade Federal do Amazonas – UFAM, Manaus, AM, Brasil. E-mails: almir_kggy@hotmail.com;

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4531-8680

Thumbnail

Figure 1
Productivity and average rotation of trees in Brazil versus worldwide players. Source: IBÁ (2016)Indústria Brasileira de Árvores – IBÁ. (2016). Relatório IBÁ 2016: relativo a 2015. São Paulo: IBÁ. Retrieved in 2017, May 21, from http://iba.org/images/shared/Biblioteca/IBA_RelatorioAnual2016_.pdf
http://iba.org/images/shared/Biblioteca/... .

Thumbnail

Figure 2
Real productivity, attainable and potential of eucalyptus. Source: Stape et al. (2004)Stape, J. L., Binkley, D., & Ryan, M. G. (2004). Eucalyptus production and the supply, use and efficiency of use of water, light and nitrogen across a geographic gradient in Brazil. Forest Ecology and Management, 193(1-2), 17-31. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2004.01.020.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2004.... .

Thumbnail

Figure 3
Example of a hierarchy of criteria/objectives. Source: Vargas (2010)Vargas, R. (2010). Utilizando a programação multicritério (Analytic Hierarchy Process – AHP) para selecionar e priorizar projetos na gestão de portfólio. São Paulo. Retrieved in 2017, January 23, from http://www.ricardo-vargas.com/pt/articles/analytic-hierarchy-process/
http://www.ricardo-vargas.com/pt/article... .

Thumbnail

Figure 4
Fuzzy logic illustration for temperature setting. Source: Gomide & Gudwin (1994)Gomide, F. A. C., & Gudwin, R. R. (1994). Modelagem, controle, sistemas e lógica fuzzy. São Paulo: Unicamp. Retrieved in 2017, February 13, from ftp://ftp.dca.fee.unicamp.br/pub/docs/gudwin/publications/RevSBA94.pdf.

Thumbnail

Table 1
Random Index.

Thumbnail

Table 2
Dimensions and criteria for decision making.

Thumbnail

Table 3
Application of AHP.

Thumbnail

Table 4
Levels per indicator evaluated.

Thumbnail

Table 5
Evaluation of projects.

Thumbnail

Table 6
Project evaluation matrix.

Thumbnail

Table 7
Project evaluation matrix (%) versus AHP.

Thumbnail

Table 8
Competitiveness of projects by AHPF methodology.

Thumbnail

Table 9
Competitiveness of projects by arithmetic mean.

Thumbnail

Table 10
Impact of aspects on company productivity.

Thumbnail

(1)

Thumbnail

(2)

1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15
0.00	0.00	0.58	0.90	1.12	1.24	1.32	1.41	1.45	1.49	1.51	1.48	1.56	1.57	1.59

ID	Criteria
1	Time to reach the market
2	Technology maturity
3	Access to the use of technology
4	Patentable technology
5	Regulatory affairs
6	Effectiveness of the existing solutions
7	Technology coverage
8	Time for cash generation

	TIME TO REACH THE MARKET	TECHNOLOGY MATURITY	ACCESS TO THE USE OF TECHNOLOGY	PATENTABLE TECHNOLOGY	REGULATOTY AFFAIRS	EFFECTIVENESS OF THE EXISTING SOLUTIONS	TECHNOLOGY COVERAGE	TIME FOR CASH GENERATION
TIME TO REACH THE MARKET		equal	ext. less Imp.	less imp.	ext. less Imp.	less imp.	equal	ext. less Imp.	0.043
TECHNOLOGY MATURITY			less imp.	equal	ext. less Imp.	less imp.	less imp.	less imp.	0.045
ACCESS TO THE USE OF TECHNOLOGY				more imp.	equal	less imp.	less imp.	less imp.	0.120
PATENTABLE TECHNOLOGY					ext. less Imp.	less imp.	ext. less Imp.	ext. less Imp.	0.050
REGULATOTY AFFAIRS						ext. more imp.	more imp.	equal	0.249
EFFECTIVENESS OF THE EXISTING SOLUTIONS							more imp.	less imp.	0.143
TECHNOLOGY COVERAGE								less imp.	0.118
TIME FOR CASH GENERATION									.0234
	24.000	20.000	11.867	23.333	4.133	10.667	11.867	3.733	1.000

CRITERIA	OPTIONS	RANKING
TIME TO REACH THE MARKET	MORE THAN 10 YEARS	LOW
	FROM 7 TO 10 YEARS	MEDIUM
	FROM 3 O 7 YEARS	HIGH
	LESS THAN 3 YEARS	GREAT
TECHNOLOGY MATURITY	UNKNOWN/ NOT PROVEN	LOW
	TESTED AND PROVEN IN CERTAIN CROPS (BUT TREES)	MEDIUM
	TESTED AND PROVEN IN TREES CROPS	HIGH
	TESTED AND PROVEN ON EUCALYPTUS SPECIES	GREAT
ACCESS TO THE USE OF TECHNOLOGY	TECHNOLOGY OWNED BY A LARGE COMPANY	LOW
	TECHNOLOGY OWNED BY A SMALL-MIDDLE COMPANY	MEDIUM
	TECHNOLOGY OWNED BY A INNOVATION OR RESEARCH CENTER	HIGH
	TECHNOLOGY IS PUBLIC FOR USE	GREAT
PATENTABLE TECHNOLOGY	NOT PATENTABLE	LOW
	POSSIBLY PATENTABLE	MEDIUM
	KNOWN TECHNOLOGY, BUT IS PATENTABLE	HIGH
	UNPRECEDENTED AND PATENTABLE TECHNOLOGY	GREAT
REGULATOTY AFFAIRS	POSSIBILY WILL BE REJECTED	LOW
	LIKELY TO RESTRICTIONS WITH IMPACT ON BUDGET	MEDIUM
	LIKELY TO RESTRICTIONS WITHOUT IMPACT ON BUDGET	HIGH
	POSSIBILY WILL BE APPROVED	GREAT
EFFECTIVENESS OF THE EXISTING SOLUTIONS	CURRENT SOLUTIONS IS EFFECTIVE (>80%)	LOW
	CURRENT SOLUTIONS IS PARTIALLY EFFECTIVE (50% - 80%)	MEDIUM
	SOLUTIONS IS NON EFFECTIVE (<=50%)	HIGH
	THERE IS NO SOLUTIONS FOR CURRENT ISSUE	GREAT
TECHNOLOGY COVERAGE	CAN BE APPLYED ON <= 25% ON PLANED AREA	LOW
	CAN BE APPLYED ON 30% TO 70% ON PLANED AREA	MEDIUM
	CAN BE APPLYED ON 70% TO 90% ON PLANED AREA	HIGH
	CAN BE APPLYED ON 90% TO 100% ON PLANED AREA	GREAT
TIME FOR CASH GENERATION	IT WILL NOT GENERATE CASH RETURN	LOW
	AFTER HARVESTING	MEDIUM
	BEFORE HARVESTING	HIGH
	IMMEDIATE	GREAT

PROJECT	TIME TO REACH THE MARKET	TECHNOLOGY MATURITY	ACCESS TO THE USE OF TECHNOLOGY	PATENTABLE TECHNOLOGY	REGULATOTY AFFAIRS	EFFECTIVENESS OF THE EXISTING SOLUTIONS	TECHNOLOGY COVERAGE	TIME FOR CASH GENERATION
PROJETC 1	MORE THAN 10 YEARS	UNKNOWN/ NOT PROVEN	TECHNOLOGY IS PUBLIC FOR USE	UNPRECEDENTED AND PATENTABLE TECHNOLOGY	LIKELY TO RESTRICTIONS WITH IMPACT ON BUDGET	THERE IS NO SOLUTIONS FOR CURRENT ISSUE	CAN BE APPLYED ON 90% TO 100% ON PLANED AREA	AFTER HARVESTING
PROJETC 2	FROM 3 TO 7 YEARS	TESTED AND PROVEN IN CERTAIN CROPS (BUT TREES)	TECHNOLOGY OWNED BY A INNOVATION OR RESEARCH CENTER	KNOWN TECHNOLOGY, BUT IS PATENTABLE	LIKELY TO RESTRICTIONS WITH IMPACT ON BUDGET	CURRENT SOLUTIONS IS PARTIALLY EFFECTIVE (50-80%)	CAN BE APPLYED ON 70% TO 90% ON PLANED AREA	BEFORE HARVESTING
PROJETC 3	FROM 3 TO 7 YEARS	TESTED AND PROVEN IN CERTAIN CROPS (BUT TREES)	TECHNOLOGY OWNED BY A LARGE COMPANY	NOT PATENTABLE	POSSIBILY WILL BE APPROVED	SOLUTIONS IS NON EFFECTIVE (<=50%)	CAN BE APPLYED ON <= 25% ON PLANED AREA	IT WILL NOT GENERATE CASH RETURN
PROJETC 4	MORE THAN 10 YEARS	TESTED AND PROVEN IN TREES CROPS	TECHNOLOGY OWNED BY A INNOVATION OR RESEARCH CENTER	POSSIBLY PATENTABLE	POSSIBILY WILL BE REJECTED	CURRENT SOLUTIONS IS PARTIALLY EFFECTIVE (50-80%)	CAN BE APPLYED ON 70% TO 90% ON PLANED AREA	AFTER HARVESTING
PROJETC 5	MORE THAN 10 YEARS	TESTED AND PROVEN IN TREES CROPS	TECHNOLOGY IS PUBLIC FOR USE	KNOWN TECHNOLOGY, BUT IS PATENTABLE	LIKELY TO RESTRICTIONS WITH IMPACT ON BUDGET	THERE IS NO SOLUTIONS FOR CURRENT ISSUE	CAN BE APPLYED ON <= 25% ON PLANED AREA	IMMEDIATE
PROJETC 6	MORE THAN 10 YEARS	TESTED AND PROVEN ON EUCALYPTUS SPECIES	TECHNOLOGY OWNED BY A INNOVATION OR RESEARCH CENTER	KNOWN TECHNOLOGY, BUT IS PATENTABLE	POSSIBILY WILL BE APPROVED	THERE IS NO SOLUTIONS FOR CURRENT ISSUE	CAN BE APPLYED ON 70% TO 90% ON PLANED AREA	AFTER HARVESTING
PROJETC 7	FROM 7 TO 10 YEARS	TESTED AND PROVEN ON EUCALYPTUS SPECIES	TECHNOLOGY OWNED BY A LARGE COMPANY	NOT PATENTABLE	POSSIBILY WILL BE APPROVED	SOLUTIONS IS NON EFFECTIVE (<=50%)	CAN BE APPLYED ON 90% TO 100% ON PLANED AREA	AFTER HARVESTING
PROJETC 8	FROM 7 TO 10 YEARS	TESTED AND PROVEN IN TREES CROPS	TECHNOLOGY OWNED BY A SMALL-MIDDLE COMPANY	NOT PATENTABLE	POSSIBILY WILL BE APPROVED	CURRENT SOLUTIONS IS PARTIALLY EFFECTIVE (50-80%)	CAN BE APPLYED ON 30% TO 70% ON PLANED AREA	BEFORE HARVESTING
PROJETC 9	LESS THAN 3 YEARS	TESTED AND PROVEN IN CERTAIN CROPS (BUT TREES)	TECHNOLOGY OWNED BY A LARGE COMPANY	POSSIBLY PATENTABLE	LIKELY TO RESTRICTIONS WITH IMPACT ON BUDGET	CURRENT SOLUTIONS IS EFFECTIVE (>80%)	CAN BE APPLYED ON 70% TO 90% ON PLANED AREA	AFTER HARVESTING
PROJETC 10	FROM 3 TO 7 YEARS	UNKNOWN/ NOT PROVEN	TECHNOLOGY IS PUBLIC FOR USE	UNPRECEDENTED AND PATENTABLE TECHNOLOGY	POSSIBILY WILL BE REJECTED	CURRENT SOLUTIONS IS PARTIALLY EFFECTIVE (50-80%)	CAN BE APPLYED ON 30% TO 70% ON PLANED AREA	BEFORE HARVESTING

Criteria	Great	High	Average	Low
Time to reach the market	1	2	3	4
Technology maturity	2	3	3	2
Access to the use of technology	3	3	1	3
Patentable technology	2	3	2	3
Regulatory affairs	4	2	2	2
Effectiveness of the existing solutions	3	2	4	1
Technology coverage	2	4	2	2
Time for cash generation	1	3	5	1

Criteria	Great	High	Average	Low	AHP
Time to reach the market	0.10	0.20	0.30	0.40	0.043
Technology maturity	0.20	0.30	0.30	0.20	0.045
Access to the use of technology	0.30	0.30	0.10	0.30	0.120
Patentable technology	0.20	0.30	0.20	0.30	0.050
Regulatory affairs	0.40	0.20	0.20	0.20	0.249
Effectiveness of the existing solutions	0.30	0.20	0.40	0.10	0.143
Technology coverage	0.20	0.40	0.20	0.20	0.118
Time for cash generation	0.10	0.30	0.50	0.10	0.234

	Great	High	Average	Low
Competitiveness	0.248	0.268	0.295	0.188

	Great	High	Average	Low
Competitiveness	0.225	0.275	0.275	0.225

RANKING (AHP)	Criteria	Impact	RANKING (COMPET.)
1	Regulatory affairs	0.250	5
2	Time for cash generation	0.272	1
3	Effectiveness of the existing solutions	0.265	2
4	Access to the use of technology	0.241	8
5	Technology coverage	0.254	4
6	Patentable technology	0.246	6
7	Technology maturity (R&D)	0.256	3
8	Time to reach the market (R&D)	0.242	7

[1] Source: Saaty (2005).Saaty, T. L. (2005). Theory and applications of the analytic network process: decision making with benefits, opportunities, costs, and risks. Pittsburgh: RWS Publications.

Brasil

Brasil

Aplicação de metodologia híbrida AHP & lógica fuzzy para tomada de decisão na gestão de projetos em uma indústria florestal

Resumo: