Ballast water management: technology choice comparing TODIM and THOR 2

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Simões Gomes, Carlos Francisco
Data de Publicação: 2021
Outros Autores: Autran Monteiro Gomes, Luiz Flavio, Duncan Rangel, Luís Alberto, Tenório, Fabrício Maione, Santos, Marcos dos
Tipo de documento: Artigo
Idioma: eng
Título da fonte: Independent Journal of Management & Production
Texto Completo: http://www.ijmp.jor.br/index.php/ijmp/article/view/1487
Resumo: 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.
id IJMP_f8c9239f4fb5d7044971d59d4a902e56
oai_identifier_str oai:www.ijmp.jor.br:article/1487
network_acronym_str IJMP
network_name_str Independent Journal of Management & Production
repository_id_str
spelling Ballast water management: technology choice comparing TODIM and THOR 2Maritime transportationWater pollutionTODIMMulticriteria Decision AidTHOR 2This 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.Independent2021-12-01info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionapplication/pdftext/htmlhttp://www.ijmp.jor.br/index.php/ijmp/article/view/148710.14807/ijmp.v12i8.1487Independent Journal of Management & Production; Vol. 12 No. 8 (2021): Independent Journal of Management & Production; 2140-21602236-269X2236-269Xreponame:Independent Journal of Management & Productioninstname:Instituto Federal de Educação, Ciência e Tecnologia de São Paulo (IFSP)instacron:IJM&Penghttp://www.ijmp.jor.br/index.php/ijmp/article/view/1487/1919http://www.ijmp.jor.br/index.php/ijmp/article/view/1487/1920Copyright (c) 2021 Carlos Francisco Simões Gomes, Luiz Flavio Autran Monteiro Gomes, Luís Alberto Duncan Rangelhttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessSimões Gomes, Carlos FranciscoAutran Monteiro Gomes, Luiz FlavioDuncan Rangel, Luís AlbertoTenório, Fabrício MaioneSantos, Marcos dos2021-12-02T01:54:45Zoai:www.ijmp.jor.br:article/1487Revistahttp://www.ijmp.jor.br/PUBhttp://www.ijmp.jor.br/index.php/ijmp/oaiijmp@ijmp.jor.br||paulo@paulorodrigues.pro.br||2236-269X2236-269Xopendoar:2021-12-02T01:54:45Independent Journal of Management & Production - Instituto Federal de Educação, Ciência e Tecnologia de São Paulo (IFSP)false
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Ballast water management: technology choice comparing TODIM and THOR 2
title Ballast water management: technology choice comparing TODIM and THOR 2
spellingShingle Ballast water management: technology choice comparing TODIM and THOR 2
Simões Gomes, Carlos Francisco
Maritime transportation
Water pollution
TODIM
Multicriteria Decision Aid
THOR 2
title_short Ballast water management: technology choice comparing TODIM and THOR 2
title_full Ballast water management: technology choice comparing TODIM and THOR 2
title_fullStr Ballast water management: technology choice comparing TODIM and THOR 2
title_full_unstemmed Ballast water management: technology choice comparing TODIM and THOR 2
title_sort Ballast water management: technology choice comparing TODIM and THOR 2
author Simões Gomes, Carlos Francisco
author_facet Simões Gomes, Carlos Francisco
Autran Monteiro Gomes, Luiz Flavio
Duncan Rangel, Luís Alberto
Tenório, Fabrício Maione
Santos, Marcos dos
author_role author
author2 Autran Monteiro Gomes, Luiz Flavio
Duncan Rangel, Luís Alberto
Tenório, Fabrício Maione
Santos, Marcos dos
author2_role author
author
author
author
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv Simões Gomes, Carlos Francisco
Autran Monteiro Gomes, Luiz Flavio
Duncan Rangel, Luís Alberto
Tenório, Fabrício Maione
Santos, Marcos dos
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv Maritime transportation
Water pollution
TODIM
Multicriteria Decision Aid
THOR 2
topic Maritime transportation
Water pollution
TODIM
Multicriteria Decision Aid
THOR 2
description 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.
publishDate 2021
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2021-12-01
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv http://www.ijmp.jor.br/index.php/ijmp/article/view/1487
10.14807/ijmp.v12i8.1487
url http://www.ijmp.jor.br/index.php/ijmp/article/view/1487
identifier_str_mv 10.14807/ijmp.v12i8.1487
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv http://www.ijmp.jor.br/index.php/ijmp/article/view/1487/1919
http://www.ijmp.jor.br/index.php/ijmp/article/view/1487/1920
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
rights_invalid_str_mv http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv application/pdf
text/html
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Independent
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Independent
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv Independent Journal of Management & Production; Vol. 12 No. 8 (2021): Independent Journal of Management & Production; 2140-2160
2236-269X
2236-269X
reponame:Independent Journal of Management & Production
instname:Instituto Federal de Educação, Ciência e Tecnologia de São Paulo (IFSP)
instacron:IJM&P
instname_str Instituto Federal de Educação, Ciência e Tecnologia de São Paulo (IFSP)
instacron_str IJM&P
institution IJM&P
reponame_str Independent Journal of Management & Production
collection Independent Journal of Management & Production
repository.name.fl_str_mv Independent Journal of Management & Production - Instituto Federal de Educação, Ciência e Tecnologia de São Paulo (IFSP)
repository.mail.fl_str_mv ijmp@ijmp.jor.br||paulo@paulorodrigues.pro.br||
_version_ 1797220493910081536