Evaluation and ranking of insurance companies by combining TOPSIS and the interval fuzzy rough sets

  • Predrag Mimovic University of Kragujevac, Faculty of Economics
  • Danijela Tadic University of Kragujevac, Faculty of Engineering
  • Ankica Borota-Tisma Belgrade Business Academy for Applied Studies
  • Snezana Nestic University of Kragujevac, Faculty of engineering
  • Jaime Gil Lafuente University of Barcelona
Keywords: group decision making, interval –valued fuzzy-rough numbers, TOPSIS, insurance

Abstract



Corporate and organizational performance assessment is an important activity for both the managers and other stakeholders, as it provides them with an asset to evaluate their own strengths and weaknesses in relation to the competition, as well as guidelines for selecting appropriate measures to address the existing problems. The issue of criteria selection has been overcome through the literature review and the issue of criteria weights is handled by applying group decision making procedure. The procedure itself consists of using predefined linguistic expressions that are modelled by triangular fuzzy numbers and the aggregation of decision makers’ opinion based on the rules of rough sets algebra. The values of the decision matrix are determined by prognosis method and they are described by crisp values. The proposed algorithm is tested on the insurance companies that operate in the Republic of Serbia.

References

Akhisar, I., & Tunay, N. (2015, May). Performance Ranking of Turkish Life Insurance Companies Using AHP and TOPSIS. In Management International Conference, Portoroz, Slovenia, 241-250.

Aruldoss, M., Lakshmi, T.M., & Venkatesan, V.P. (2013). A survey on multi criteria decision making methods and its applications. American Journal of Information Systems, 1 (1), 31-43.

Bello, R., Falcón, R., & Verdegay, J. L. (Eds.). (2019). Uncertainty Management with Fuzzy and Rough Sets: Recent Advances and Applications: Springer, New York, NY, USA.

Buckley, J. J. (1985). Fuzzy hierarchical analysis. Fuzzy sets and systems, 17 (3), 233-247.

Chen, S. Y., & Lu, C. C. (2015). Assessing the competitiveness of insurance corporations using fuzzy correlation analysis and improved fuzzy modified TOPSIS. Expert Systems, 32 (3), 392-404.

Dubois, D., & Prade, H. (1980). Theory and applications, fuzzy sets and systems. New York, USA: Academic.

Ercan, M., & Onder, E. (2016). Ranking Insurance Companies in Turkey Based on Their Financial Performance Indicators Using VIKOR Method. International Journal of Academic Research in Accounting, Finance and Management Sciences, 6 (2), 104-113.

Ertugrul, I., & Özçil, A. (2016). The Performance Analysis of Fuzzy Topsis and Fuzzy Dematel Methods into Insurance Companies. Cankırı Karatekin University journal of the Faculty of Economics et Administrative Sciences, 6 (1), 175 – 200. (In Turkish)

Ghadikolaei, A.S., & Esbouei, S.K. (2014). Integrating Fuzzy AHP and Fuzzy ARAS for evaluating financial performance. Boletim da Sociedade Paranaense de Matemática, 32 (2), 163-174.

Grigaliunas, L., & Li, J. (2017, July). Dagong Europe Criteria for Rating Insurance Companies, Dagong Europe - www.dagongeurope.com

Hu, Q., Yu, D., & Xie, Z. (2006). Information-preserving hybrid data reduction based on fuzzy-rough techniques. Pattern recognition letters, 27 (5), 414-423.

Hwang, C. L., & Yoon, K. (1981). Methods for multiple attribute decision making. In Multiple attribute decision making, Berlin, Heidelberg, DE: Springer.

International Association of Insurance Supervisors, IAIS, Application paper on information gathering and analysis, 2010.

Khan, C., Anwar, S., Bashir, S., Rauf, A., & Amin, A. (2015). Site selection for food distribution using rough set approach and TOPSIS method. Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems, 29 (6), 2413-2419.

Kwon, W.J., & Wolfrom, L. (2017). Analytical tools for the insurance market and macro-prudential surveillance. OECD Journal: Financial Market Trends, 2016 (1), 1-47.

Lu, M., & Zhu, K. (2018). Performance evaluation of the insurance companies based on AHP. In AIP Conference Proceedings (Vol. 1955, No. 1, p. 040002). AIP Publishing.

Mandić, K., Delibašić, B., Knežević, S., & Benković, S. (2017). Analysis of the efficiency of insurance companies in Serbia using the fuzzy AHP and TOPSIS methods. Economic research-Ekonomska istraživanja, 30 (1), 550-565.

Nestic, S., Lampón, J.F., Aleksic, A., Cabanelas, P., & Tadic, D. (2019). Ranking manufacturing processes from the quality management perspective in the automotive industry. Expert Systems, e12451.

Nissim, D. (2010). Analysis and valuation of insurance companies. CE| ASA (Center for Excellence in Accounting and Security Analysis) Industry Study, (2).

Pamučar, D., Petrović, I., & Ćirović, G. (2018). Modification of the Best–Worst and MABAC methods: A novel approach based on interval-valued fuzzy-rough numbers. Expert systems with applications, 91, 89-106.

Pardalos, P.M., Michalopoulos, M., & Zopounidis, C. (1997). On the use of multicriteria methods for the evaluation of insurance companies in Greece. In New operational approaches for financial modelling (pp. 271-283). Physica, Heidelberg

Pawlak, Z. (2012). Rough sets: Theoretical aspects of reasoning about data (Vol. 9). Springer Science & Business Media.

Rejda, G. E. (2011). Principles of risk management and insurance. Pearson Education India, Noida, India.

Saaty, T. L. (1980). The analytic hierarchy process. New York, US: McGraw-Hill.

Saeedpoor, M., Vafadarnikjoo, A., Mobin, M., & Rastegari, A. (2015, October). A servqual model approach integrated with fuzzy AHP and fuzzy topsis methodologies to rank life insurance firms. In Proceedings of the international annual conference of the American society for engineering management (p. 1).

Sharma, H. K., Roy, J., Kar, S., & Prentkovskis, O. (2018). Multi criteria evaluation framework for prioritizing Indian railway stations using modified rough AHP-MABAC method. Transport and telecommunication journal, 19 (2), 113-127.

Song, W., Ming, X., Wu, Z., & Zhu, B. (2014). A rough TOPSIS approach for failure mode and effects analysis in uncertain environments. Quality and Reliability Engineering International, 30 (4), 473-486.

Steuer, R.E., & Na, P. (2003). Multiple criteria decision making combined with finance: A categorized bibliographic study. European Journal of operational research, 150 (3), 496-515.

Toloie-Eshlaghy, A., & Homayonfar, M. (2011). MCDM methodologies and applications: a literature review from 1999 to 2009. Research Journal of International Studies, 21, 86-137.

Tsai, H.Y., Huang, B.H., & Wang, A.S. (2008). Combining ANP and TOPSIS concepts for evaluation the performance of property-liability insurance companies. Journal of Social Sciences, 4, 56–61.

Valahzaghard, M., & Ferdousnejhad, M. (2013). Ranking insurance firms using AHP and Factor Analysis. Management Science Letters, 3 (3), 937-942.

Wang, J.J., Jing, Y.Y., Zhang, C.F., & Zhao, J.H. (2009). Review on multi-criteria decision analysis aid in sustainable energy decision-making. Renewable and sustainable energy reviews, 13 (9), 2263-2278.

Yang, Q., Du, P.A., Wang, Y., & Liang, B. (2017). A rough set approach for determining weights of decision makers in group decision making. PloS one, 12 (2), e0172679.

Zavadskas, E.K., & Turskis, Z. (2011). Multiple criteria decision making (MCDM) methods in economics: an overview. Technological and economic development of economy, 17 (2), 397-427.

Zimmermann, H.J. (2011). Fuzzy set theory—and its applications. Springer Science & Business Media.

Zopounidis, C. (1999). Multicriteria decision aid in financial management. European Journal of Operational Research, 119 (2), 404-415.

Zopounidis, C., & Doumpos, M. (2002). Multi‐criteria decision aid in financial decision making: methodologies and literature review. Journal of Multi‐Criteria Decision Analysis, 11 (4‐5), 167-186.

Published
2021/12/02
Section
Original Scientific Paper