
Using fuzzy set theory has become attractive to many people. However, the many references cited here and in other works, little thought is given to why numbers should be made fuzzy before plunging into the necessary simulations to crank out numbers without giving reason or proof that it works to one’s advantage. In fact it does not often do that, certainly not in decision making. Regrettably, many published papers that use fuzzy set theory presumably to get better answers were not judged thoroughly by reviewers knowledgeable in both fuzzy theory and decision making. Buede and Maxwell (1995), who had done experiments on different ways of making decisions, found that fuzzy does the poorest job of obtaining the right decision as compared with other ways. “These experiments demonstrated that the MAVT (Multiattribute Value Theory) and AHP (Analytic Hierarchy Process) techniques, when provided with the same decision outcome data, very often identify the same alternatives as ‘best’. The other techniques are noticeably less consistent with the Fuzzy algorithm being the least consistent.”
| selected citations These citations are derived from selected sources. This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 28 | |
| popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Top 10% | |
| influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Top 10% | |
| impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Top 10% |
