Ballast water management: technology choice comparing TODIM and THOR 2
Autor(a) principal: | |
---|---|
Data de Publicação: | 2021 |
Outros Autores: | , , , |
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 |