Vol6No3Paper4 Maadi et al To cite this article: Maadi, M, Javidnia, M. and Khatami, K. (2016) Business intelligence evaluation model in enterprise systems using fuzzy PROMETHEE. Journal of Intelligence Studies in Business. 6 (3) 39-50 Article URL: https://ojs.hh.se/index.php/JISIB/article/view/178 This article is Open Access, in compliance with Strategy 2 of the 2002 Budapest Open Access Initiative, which states: Scholars need the means to launch a new generation of journals committed to open access, and to help existing journals that elect to make the transition to open access. Because journal articles should be disseminated as widely as possible, these new journals will no longer invoke copyright to restrict access to and use of the material they publish. Instead they will use copyright and other tools to ensure permanent open access to all the articles they publish. Because price is a barrier to access, these new journals will not charge subscription or access fees, and will turn to other methods for covering their expenses. There are many alternative sources of funds for this purpose, including the foundations and governments that fund research, the universities and laboratories that employ researchers, endowments set up by discipline or institution, friends of the cause of open access, profits from the sale of add-ons to the basic texts, funds freed up by the demise or cancellation of journals charging traditional subscription or access fees, or even contributions from the researchers themselves. There is no need to favor one of these solutions over the others for all disciplines or nations, and no need to stop looking for other, creative alternatives. Journal of Intelligence Studies in Business Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: https://ojs.hh.se/index.php/JISIB/index Business intelligence evaluation model in enterprise systems using fuzzy PROMETHEE Mansoureh Maadia*, Mohammad Javidniab and Malihe Khatamia aSchool of Engineering, Damghan University, Damghan, Iran, bSchool of Industrial Engineering, Iran University of Science and Technology, Tehran, Iran, *m_moadi@du.ac.ir Journal of Intelligence Studies in Business PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Editor-in-chief: Klaus Solberg Søilen Included in this printed copy: Geospatial analysis of census data for targeting new businesses using geoeconomics Business intelligence through patinformatics: A study of energy efficient data centres using patent data Nishad Deshpande, Shabib Ahmed and pp. 13-26 Alok Khode Cross-cultural strategic intelligence solutions for leveraging open innovation opportunities Journal of Intelligence Studies in Business V ol 6 , N o 3 , 2 0 1 6 J ou rn a l of In telligen ce S tu d ies in B u sin ess ISSN: 2001-015X Vol. 6, No. 3 2016 Alexandru Capatina, Gianita Bleoju pp. 27-38 and Kiyohiro Yamazaki Business intelligence evaluation model in enterprise systems using fuzzy PROMETHEE Mansoureh Maadi, Mohammad Javidnia pp. 39-50 and Malihe Khatami Sushant K. Singh pp. 5-12 Economic and industrial espionage at the start of the 21st century – Status quaestionis Klaus Solberg Søilen pp. 51-64 Business intelligence evaluation model in enterprise systems using fuzzy PROMETHEE Mansoureh Maadia*, Mohammad Javidniab and Malihe Khatamia aSchool of Engineering, Damghan University, Damghan, Iran; bSchool of Industrial Engineering, Iran University of Science and Technology, Tehran, Iran *Corresponding author: m_moadi@du.ac.ir Received 29 September 2016; accepted 25 November 2016 ABSTRACT In this paper, a new model to evaluate business intelligence (BI) for enterprise systems is presented. Evaluation of BI before making decisions about buying and deployment can be an important decision support system for managers in organizations. In this paper, a simple and practical method is presented that evaluates BI for enterprise systems. In this way, after reviewing different papers in the literature, 34 criteria for BI specifications are determined, and then by applying fuzzy PROMETHEE, different enterprise systems are ranked. To continue to assess the proposed model and as a case study, five enterprise systems were selected and ranked using the proposed model. The advantages of PROMETHEE over other multi-criteria decision making methods and the use of fuzzy theory to deal with uncertainty in decision making is assessed and it is found that the proposed model can be a useful and applied method to help managers make decisions in organizations. KEYWORDS Business intelligence, enterprise systems, Fuzzy PROMETHEE, fuzzy theory, PROMETHEE 1. INTRODUCTION Traditional industrial informatics focus on how to provide more efficient and productive operations. But nowadays they cannot stay competitive just by providing more efficient and productive operations. They are facing the challenge of processing huge amounts of data and turning it into smart and timely decisions to deliver better products and services (Lian & Li 2012). In the present competitive world, accurate and up-to-date knowledge and information is considered to be a crucial factor for all organizations. In fact, today organizations need knowledge and information to achieve a competitive advantage when making important decisions. IT development in recent decades has led to the appearance of different enterprise information systems such as enterprise resources planning (ERP), supply chain management (SCM) and customer relationship management (CRM), which are introduced as modern tools in important enterprise decision-makings by storing different data in themselves (Alter 2004; Power 2008). Enterprise information systems or enterprise systems can be defined as follows: software systems for business management, encompassing modules supporting enterprise functional areas such as planning, manufacturing, sales, marketing, distribution, accounting, finance, human resources management, project management, inventory management, service and maintenance, transportation and e-business (Rashid et al. 2002). In order to deliver useful information for decision-making, business intelligence (BI) is a key technology (Moss & Atre 2003). BI software is among the many software products that organizations utilize to ensure their place in the market (Abzaltynova & Williams 2013). Journal of Intelligence Studies in Business Vol. 6, No. 3 (2016) pp. 39-50 Open Access: Freely available at: https://ojs.hh.se/ 40 Most companies today use a set of different BI tools, instead of focusing only on one. The reason for this may be that different users prefer different types of BI tools (Sabanovic & Søilen 2012). The concept of BI was first introduced by the Gartner group and in general it refers to tools and technologies such as data storing, reporting and analyzing information. In the past, researchers dealt with presenting tools for evaluating BI in enterprise systems. But in most studies, BI was examined and analyzed as an independent tool from enterprise systems. Until 2006 and before Lönnqvist & Pirttimäki’s study, the existing studies in the field of BI tried to explain and prove the need for investment and the value of BI. Lönnqvist & Pirttimäki (2006) for the first time introduced a set of criteria for examining the performance of BI. Albashir et al. (2008) investigated the effect of BI systems on business procedures and presented a method to measure the effect. In 2009, Lin et al. established a performance assessment model based on analytic network process (ANP) for an independent system (Lin et al. 2009). Nyblom et al. (2012) proposed a simple model for evaluating the performance of BI software systems based on what companies find to be most important; efficiency, user friendliness, overall satisfaction, price and adaptability. Fourati-Jamoussi & Niamba (2016) proposed an evaluation model for BI tools using cluster analysis. Ghazanfari et al.'s study in 2011 can be regarded as the first study to investigate BI in enterprise systems in which the authors have presented some criteria to evaluate BI in enterprise systems by examining different studies of BI and enterprise systems (Ghazanfari et al. 2011). In 2012, Rouhani et al. presented the fuzzy TOPSIS method for evaluating BI in enterprise systems. Also, in 2015, Rouhani & Zare presented a method for evaluating BI by using a fuzzy analytic network process (F-ANP) (Rouhani & Zare 2015). One of the actions that influences the efficiency of decisions while making them is choosing a suitable method for decision-making among the existing methods. The Preference Ranking Organization Method for Enrichment Evaluation (PROMETHEE) is one of the best known decision-making methods. Compared with other methods, this method is considered to be the best and has more advantages in different factors such as the ease of use, interpretation of parameters, reliability of results, amount of interaction required by the user and ease of understanding (Al-Shemmeri et al. 1997; Gilliams, 2005; Mahmoud & Garcia, 2000). On the other hand, since the existing data on decision-making methods are usually based on opinions and the experiences of decision-makers and are expressed qualitatively, it is more likely to have errors in opinion interpretation. This has led to the suggestion of using fuzzy theory in solving problems with qualitative observations. In this paper, a model for evaluating BI in enterprise systems based on a fuzzy PROMETHEE method is presented. The rest of the paper is organized as follows: the second section of the paper deals with introducing the concept of BI and its definitions. Also in this section, the PROMETHEE method is briefly described. The third section covers the description of the steps for the fuzzy PROMETHEE method for evaluating BI in enterprise systems. Finally, the conclusion section deals with conclusions, results and suggestions. 2. THEORETICAL BASICS 2.1 Business intelligence Business intelligence can bring critical capabilities to an organization, but the implementation of such capabilities is often problematic (Adamala & Cidrin 2011). BI was first defined by Howard Dresner, a researcher of the Gartner group, and incipiently referred to the tools and technologies including data warehouses, reporting query and analysis (Lian & Li 2012). BI helps organizations make on-time decisions to reach their goals through using an advanced tool of analysis and prediction and by covering tasks like gathering, processing and analyzing large amount of data. Ghoshal & Kim (1986) defined BI as a management philosophy in the business environment. Lönnqvist & Pirttimäki (2006) used "business intelligence" for the two following concepts: 1. Related information and knowledge of an organization, which describe the business environment, the organization itself, the conditions of the market, customers and competitors and economic issues; 2. Systemic and systematic processes, by which organizations obtain, analyze and distribute the information for making decisions about business operations. 41 The main purpose of BI is to help organizations to improve their performance and promote their competitive benefits in the market. Through evaluation of whether activities lead to organizations' progress toward their goals or not, BI helps in better decision-making (Mohaghar et al. 2008). By investigating the literature on BI we encounter two attitudes toward it. First, a management attitude which looks at it as a procedure in which data is gathered and organized from inside and outside of the organization to provide information related to decision-making procedures. The second attitude is technical and introduces it as a set of tools which support the aforementioned procedures. In this respect, the focus is on the algorithms and tools which provide capabilities of data storing, recovery, gathering and analyzing, instead of procedures. 2.2 PROMETHEE PROMETHEE is a preferred structural method for evaluation and a multi criteria decision making (MCDM) method which was introduced by Brans et al. in 1986. This method is well adapted to problems where a finite number of alternative actions are to be ranked with respect to several, sometimes conflicting criteria. The first method provides a partial priority relationship for ranking the alternatives while the second method assigns a numerical privilege for each alternative which is used in ranking (Brans et al. 1986). A few years later, several versions of the PROMETHEE method have been developed. The implementation of PROMETHEE requires two additional types of information. The first one is information on the relative importance of the criteria, which is their weights, and the second one is the information on the decision maker's preference function, which the decision maker uses when comparing the contribution of the alternatives in terms of each separate criterion. In PROMETHEE, six basic types of preference functions are used: the usual function, the U-shape function, the V-shape function, the level function, the linear function and the Gaussion function. The choice of preference function depends on decision- makers and analyzers and their understanding of the relationship between the alternatives and criteria. The following parameters are used in these functions: q: Indifference threshold. p: Total preference threshold. σ: It is a parameter which shows the distance between p and q. Considering the data matrix A = (a&,a(,a),…,a+) with n alternatives that should be evaluated by K criteria 𝑐 = (𝑓&,𝑓(,…. ,𝑓0 ) with the weights of 𝑤 = (𝑤&,𝑤(,…. ,𝑤0), the steps of the PROMETHEE method are as follows: Step 1: determination of deviations based on pair-wise comparisons of two alternatives, a and b: (1) d3 a,b = f3 a − f3 b Where d3(a,b) is the difference of the value of "a" and "b" in each criterion. Step 2: application of preference function: (2) p3 a,b = G3[d3 a,b ] Where p3 a,b denotes the preference of alternative "a" with regard to alternative “b” in each criterion, as a function of d3 a,b . The preference function can have a value in the range of 0 to 1 and it is interpreting the difference in terms of a specific criterion between the evaluations of a and b. Step 3: calculation of global preference index: (3) ∀ a,b ϵA π a,b = p3 a,b < 3=& w3 Where π a,b is defined as the weighted sum of p3 a,b for each criterion. Step 4: calculation of outranking flows for all alternatives as follow: (4) Φ@ a = & AB& πCDE (a,x) (5) Φ B a = 1 n − 1 π CDE (x,a) (6) ΦAIJ a = Φ@ a -ΦB a In this step Φ@ a is the measure of how alternative "a" dominates the other alternatives of A and ΦB a gives how alternative "a" is dominated by all the other alternatives of A. ΦAIJ a represents a value function whereby a higher value reflects a higher attractiveness of alternative "a" and is called net flow. 42 PROMETHEE I is based on partial ranking, an alternative "a" is preferred to alternative "b" according to Eq. 7, alternatives "a" and "b" are indifferent according to Eq. 8 and alternatives of "a" and "b" are incomparable according to Eq. 9. (7) Φ@ a > Φ@ b & ΦB a < ΦB b ;𝑜𝑟 Φ@ a > Φ@ b & ΦB a = ΦB b ;𝑜𝑟 Φ@ a = Φ@ b & ΦB a < ΦB b (8) Φ @ a = Φ@ b & ΦB a = ΦB b (9) Φ@ a > Φ@ b & ΦB a > ΦB b ;𝑜𝑟 Φ@ a < Φ@ b & ΦB a < ΦB b ; PROMETHEE II is a complete ranking whereby alternatives are ranked from the best to the worst using net flows. The alternative with the highest net flow is assumed to be superior to the others and the rest of the alternatives are ranked by their net flow values as well. Since in some problems certain figures cannot exactly express a decision maker's opinions and conditions of the alternatives, fuzzy number and fuzzy set theory provides a thorough approach which can help remove data's ambiguity. In this paper, the Menhaj symbolizing method is used for fuzzy calculations in which the fuzzy number A is from LR type. In this way, every fuzzy number is shown by special functions, called reference functions, which determine the right and left sides of the fuzzy membership function. Figure 1 presents fuzzy number 𝐴 = 𝑎,𝑤T,𝑤UT . In this article, the fuzzy PROMETHEE method explained by Goumas and Lygerou (2000) is used. In this method, numbers used in calculations of the PROMETHEE method are fuzzy numbers. Of course, total preference and indifference thresholds (p,q) are expressed as definite numbers. If these numbers were fuzzy, some assessments would become inexact (Goumas and Lygerou, 2000). In addition, the indices' weights can’t be expressed as fuzzy numbers because in PROMETHEE the sum of indices' weights should be exactly equal to 1. The preference function applied in this paper is the V-shape function, which is shown in Figure 2. In Figure 2, d shows the difference between two compared alternatives, q is the indifference threshold and p is the total preference threshold. If d is expressed as a fuzzy number, the V-shape preference function can be written as Eq.10. (10) P d = 0 a − wE < 𝑞 a,wE𝑤′T − q p − q a − wE ≥ q and a + 𝑤′T ≤ p 1 a + 𝑤′T > 𝑝 Fuzzy operations for calculations using fuzzy numbers to apply the above function are briefly explained in Table 1. The overall preference of each alternative compared with other alternatives should be calculated and at the end, input and output flows and net flows should be determined for all alternatives. By finishing the calculations, fuzzy numbers are used to make the comparisons. First, through Eq. 11, fuzzy numbers are changed to definite numbers and then comparisons are made. (11) 𝑋 = 𝑎 + 𝑤UT − 𝑤T 4 In Eq.11, 𝑋 is a definite number equivalent to the fuzzy number 𝑎,𝑤T,𝑤UT . 3. SUGGESTED METHOD To evaluate BI in enterprise systems using the fuzzy PROMETHEE method, first the evaluation criteria should be identified. To do so, after studying and examining the literature on this subject, 34 factors influencing BI were identified and are mentioned in Table 2. After identifying evaluation criteria, five enterprise systems were chosen for evaluation and were named ES1, ES2, ES3, ES4, and ES5, respectively. Figure 2 V-shape preference function. Figure 1 LR triangular fuzzy number. Table 1 Basic fuzzy operations Equation Type 𝑎,𝑤T,𝑤UT `a + b,𝑤b,𝑤Ub `a = a + b,𝑤T + 𝑤b,𝑤UT + 𝑤Ub `a Addition −𝐴 = − 𝑎,𝑤T,𝑤UT `a = 𝑎,𝑤T,𝑤UT a` Opposite 𝑎,𝑤T,𝑤UT `a − b,𝑤b,𝑤U� `a = a − b,𝑤T + 𝑤bU,𝑤TU + 𝑤b `a Subtraction 𝑐.𝐴 = 𝑐. 𝑎,𝑤T,𝑤UT `a = 𝑐𝑎,𝑐𝑤T,𝑐𝑤UT `a Multiplication by Scalar 𝑎,𝑤T,𝑤UT `a. b,𝑤b,𝑤Ub `a = ab,𝑏𝑤� + 𝑎𝑤b,𝑏𝑤UT + 𝑎𝑤Ub `a 𝐴 > 0 ,𝐵 > 0 𝑎,𝑤T,𝑤UT `a. b,𝑤b,𝑤Ub `a ≈ ab,𝑏𝑤T − 𝑎𝑤Ub,−𝑏𝑤UT − 𝑎𝑤b a` 𝐴 < 0 ,𝐵 > 0 𝑎,𝑤T,𝑤UT `a. b,𝑤b,𝑤Ub `a ≈ ab,−𝑏𝑤UT − 𝑎𝑤Ub,−𝑏𝑤T − 𝑎𝑤b a` 𝐴 < 0 ,𝐵 < 0 Multiplication by fuzzy 𝑎,𝑤T,𝑤UT B&`a ≡ 𝑎 B&,𝑤T𝑎B(,𝑤UT𝑎B( a` Inverse 𝑎,𝑤T,𝑤TU `a ÷ b,𝑤b,𝑤bU `a = 𝑎 𝑏 , 𝑏𝑤T + 𝑎𝑤Ub 𝑏( , 𝑏𝑤UT + 𝑎𝑤b 𝑏( 𝐴 > 0 ,𝐵 > 0 Division To evaluate the above systems by a decision- making team, six linguistic values were used. These values and their equivalent fuzzy numbers are shown in Table 3. All fuzzy numbers shown in Table 3 are LR. According to linguistic values of Table 3, five alternatives were examined based on 34 criteria by the decision-making team. The fuzzy decision- making matrix for five enterprise systems of the article based on experts' judgment is shown in Table 4. In the following, the procedure of solving the problem using the fuzzy PROMETHEE method will be explained. Table 2 Business intelligence evaluation criteria (continued on next page). Criteria ID Criteria name Related studies C1 Group wares Shim et al. (2002), Reich & Kapeliuk (2005), Damart et al. (2007), Marinoni et al. (2009) C2 Group decision-making Eom (1999), Evers (2008), Yu et al. (2009) C3 Flexibility of decision- making model Reich & Kapeliuk (2005), Zack (2007), Lin et al. (2009) C4 Problem clustering Reich & Kapeliuk (2005), Loebbecke & Huyskens (2007), Lamptey et al. (2008) C5 Optimization technique Lee & Park (2005), Nie et al. (2008), Shang et al. (2008), Azadivar et al. (2009), Delorme et al. (2009) C6 Learning technique Power & Sharda (2007), Ranjan (2008), Li et al. (2009), Zhan et al. (2009) C7 Import data from other systems Ozbayrak & Bell (2003), Alter (2004), Shang et al. (2008), Quinn (2009) C8 Export reports to other systems Ozbayrak & Bell (2003), Shi et al. (2007), Shang et al. (2008) C9 Simulation models Power & Sharda (2007), Shang et al. (2008), Quinn (2009), Zhan et al. (2009) C10 Risk simulation Evers (2008), Galasso & Thierry (2008) C11 Financial analysis tools Santhanam & Guimaraes (1995), Raggad (1997), Gao & Xu (2009) C12 Visual graphs Noori & Salimi (2005), Kwon et al. (2007), Power & Sharda (2007), Li et al. (2008), Azadivar et al. (2009) C13 Summarization Bolloju et al. (2002), Hemsley-Brown (2005), Power & Sharda (2007), Power (2008) C14 Evolutionary prototyping model Fazlollahi & Vahidov (2001), Bolloju et al. (2002), Gao & Xu (2009), Zhang et al. (2009) C15 Dynamic model prototyping Koutsoukis et al. (2000), Bolloju et al. (2002), Goul & Corral (2007), González et al. (2008), Pitty et al. (2008) C16 Forward and backward reasoning Gottschalk (2006), Evers (2008), Zhang et al. (2009) 44 C17 Knowledge reasoning Ozbayrak & Bell (2003), Plessis & Toit (2006), Evers (2008) C18 Alarming and warning Power (2008), Ross et al. (2009), Zhang et al. (2009) C19 Recommender/ dashboard Nemati et al. (2002), Hedgebeth (2007), Bose (2009) C20 Combination of experiments Courtney (2001), Nemati et al. (2002), Gottschalk (2006), Gonnet et al. (2007), Ross et al. (2009), Hewettet al. (2009) C21 Situation awareness modeling Raggad (1997), Plessis & Toit (2006), Feng et al. (2009) C22 Environmental awareness Phillips-Wren et al. (2004), Koo et al. (2008), GüngörSen et al. (2008) C23 Fuzzy decision Metaxiotis et al. (2003), Zack (2007), Makropoulos et al. (2008), Wadhwa et al. (2009), Yu et al. (2009) C24 OLAP (online analysis processing tool) Tan et al. (2003), Lau et al. (2004), Rivest et al. (2005), Shi et al. (2007), Berzal et al. (2008), Lee et al. (2009) C25 Data mining techniques Bolloju et al. (2002), Shi et al. (2007), Berzal et al. (2008), Cheng et al. (2009) C26 Data warehouses Tan et al. (2003), Tseng & Chou (2006), March & Hevner (2007), Nguyen et al. (2007) C27 Web channel Tan et al. (2003), Oppong et al. (2005), Anderson et al. (2007), Power (2008) C28 Mobile channel Power (2008), Wen et al. (2008), Cheng et al. (2009) C29 E-mail channel Granebring & Re’vay (2007), Baars & Kemper (2008), Wen et al. (2008) C30 Intelligent agent Gao & Xu (2009), Lee et al. (2009), Yu et al. (2009) C31 Multi agent Bui & Lee (1999), Xu & Wang (2002), Granebring & Re’vay (2007) C32 Multi-criteria decision- making tools Hung et al. (2007), Yang (2008), Marinoni et al. (2009), TanselIç & Yurdakul (2009) C33 Stakeholders’ satisfaction Goodhuea et al. (2000), Lönnqvist & Pirttimäki (2006), Evers (2008), González et al. (2008) C34 Accuracy and reliability of analysis Gregg et al. (2002), Lönnqvist & Pirttimäki (2006), Phillips-Wren et al. (2007), Zack (2007),González et al. (2008), Power (2008) Step 1: After determining the fuzzy decision-making matrix, the difference between each of the two alternatives is calculated as d, in the form of a pair. These numbers are calculated by subtraction relation, shown in Table 1. Step 2: In this phase, the amount of P(d) is obtained through Eq. 10 with regard to the preference function used in the article. Step 3: In this phase, the decision-making team is asked to determine the weight of each criterion by using LR fuzzy numbers. Then, by normalizing the weight of each criterion through Eq.12, which is in the form of fuzzy numbers, the definite weight of each criterion is obtained. (12) 𝑊i = 𝑎i 𝑎i j i=& Step 4: After determining the values of P3 and definite weights, the overall preference indexes should be calculated through Eq.13. In this method, j = 1,2,…,m indicates the criteria. (13) 𝜋 𝑎,𝑏 = 𝑝i 𝑎,𝑏 .𝑤i j i=& Table 3 Linguistic values and fuzzy numbers. Linguistic value Fuzzy number Very low (0 , 0, 0.2) Low (0, 0.2, 0.2) Medium (0.4, 0.2, 0.2) High (0.6, 0.2, 0.2) Very high (0.8, 0.2, 0.2) Excellent (1, 0.2, 0) Step 5: In this phase, the leaving flow (∅@) and entering flow (∅B) for each alternative are calculated with regard to the amounts obtained in step 4 and by using Eq.14 and Eq.15. In these, A is a set of alternatives and n is the number of alternatives. (14) ∅@ a = 1 n − 1 × π a,x C∈E (15) ∅B a = 1 n − 1 × π x,a C∈E For example, in the problem under examination, leaving flow and entering flow values for ES1 are calculated as follows: ∅@ = 𝜋 ES1,ES2 + 𝜋 ES1,ES3 + 𝜋 ES1,ES4 + 𝜋 ES1,ES5 4 ∅B = 𝜋 𝐸𝑆2,𝐸𝑆1 + 𝜋 𝐸𝑆3,𝐸𝑆1 + 𝜋 𝐸𝑆4,𝐸𝑆1 + 𝜋 𝐸𝑆5,𝐸𝑆1 4 45 Step 6: The leaving flow and entering flow values cannot rank the alternatives completely. Therefore, another concept named the net flow value is introduced, which is an instrument for ranking all alternatives. This value is obtained through Eq.16. (16) ∅ 𝑎 = ∅@ 𝑎 − ∅B 𝑎 Step 7: In this phase, through Eq.11, we can change net flow values that are fuzzy numbers into definite numbers and rank the enterprise systems with regard to the results. In Table 5, the leaving and entering flow values of all five enterprise systems are shown in columns 1 and 2. The fuzzy net flow values and their definite equivalence values for different alternatives are described in columns 3 and 4. Indifference threshold is considered to be zero for all alternatives and the total preference threshold is set to 0.9. Regarding the net flow values of five alternatives, the final ranking of the enterprise systems is: ES4, ES2, ES5, ES1 and ES3 respectively. The evaluation of the obtained results shows that the suggested method has a good performance in determining the best enterprise system. 4. CONCLUSION A correct evaluation of enterprise systems is important for organizations' managers. BI evaluation tools and models used as a decision support system in enterprise systems can help managers to make the right choice and decisions. Therefore, in the present paper a model is presented to evaluate and rank the enterprise systems using BI and it is tested through a case study. The suggested model uses the fuzzy PROMETHEE method for evaluation and ranking, based on the PROMETHEE method as one of the best methods of multi-criteria decision-making. Table 4 Fuzzy decision matrix. Alternatives Criteria ES5 ES4 ES3 ES2 ES1 ,0.2) ,0.2 (0.6 ,0.2) ,0.2 (0.6 ,0.2) ,0.2 (0.4 ,0.2) ,0.2 (0.2 ,0.2) ,0 (0 C1 ,0.2) ,0.2 (0.6 ,0.2) ,0.2 (0.8 ,0.2) ,0.2 (0.6 ,0.2) ,0.2 (0.4 ,0.2) ,0.2 (0.2 C2 ,0.2) ,0.2 (0.2 ,0.2) ,0.2 (0.4 ,0.2) ,0.2 (0.2 ,0.2) ,0.2 (0.2 ,0.2) ,0.2 (0.4 C3 ,0.2) ,0.2 (0.2 ,0.2) ,0.2 (0.4 ,0.2) ,0.2 (0.2 ,0.2) ,0 (0 ,0.2) ,0.2 (0.2 C4 ,0.2) ,0.2 (0.2 ,0.2) ,0.2 (0.6 ,0.2) ,0.2 (0.4 ,0.2) ,0 (0 ,0.2) ,0.2 (0.6 C5 ,0.2) ,0 (0 ,0.2) ,0.2 (0.8 ,0.2) ,0.2 (0.2 ,0.2) ,0 (0 ,0.2) ,0.2 (0.4 C6 ,0.2) ,0 (0 ,0) ,0.2 (1 ,0.2) ,0.2 (0.6 ,0) ,0.2 (1 ,0.2) ,0.2 (0.8 C7 ,0.2) ,0.2 (0.6 ,0) ,0.2 (1 ,0.2) ,0.2 (0.6 ,0.2) ,0.2 (0.8 ,0.2) ,0.2 (0.6 C8 ,0.2) ,0.2 (0.6 ,0.2) ,0 (0 ,0.2) ,0.2 (0.4 ,0.2) ,0.2 (0.6 ,0) ,0.2 (1 C9 ,0.2) ,0.2 (0.6 ,0.2) ,0.2 (0.4 ,0.2) ,0.2 (0.4 ,0.2) ,0.2 (0.2 ,0.2) ,0.2 (0.4 C10 ,0.2) ,0.2 (0.6 ,0.2) ,0.2 (0.4 ,0.2) ,0.2 (0.2 ,0.2) ,0 (0 ,0.2) ,0.2 (0.4 C11 ,0.2) ,0.2 (0.6 ,0.2) ,0.2 (0.8 ,0.2) ,0.2 (0.6 ,0) ,0.2 (1 ,0) ,0.2 (1 C12 ,0) ,0.2 (1 ,0.2) ,0.2 (0.6 ,0.2) ,0.2 (0.4 ,0.2) ,0.2 (0.6 ,0.2) ,0.2 (0.4 C13 ,0.2) ,0 (0 ,0.2) ,0.2 (0.2 ,0.2) ,0.2 (0.2 ,0.2) ,0 (0 ,0.2) ,0.2 (0.8 C14 ,0.2) ,0 (0 ,0.2) ,0.2 (0.2 ,0.2) ,0.2 (0.2 ,0.2) ,0 (0 ,0.2) ,0.2 (0.2 C15 ,0.2) ,0 (0 ,0.2) ,0.2 (0.4 ,0.2) ,0.2 (0.4 ,0.2) ,0.2 (0.2 ,0.2) ,0.2 (0.2 C16 ,0.2) ,0 (0 ,0.2) ,0.2 (0.6 ,0.2) ,0.2 (0.4 ,0.2) ,0.2 (0.2 ,0.2) ,0.2 (0.4 C17 ,0.2) ,0.2 (0.6 ,0.2) ,0.2 (0.6 ,0.2) ,0.2 (0.6 ,0.2) ,0.2 (0.8 ,0.2) ,0.2 (0.6 C18 ,0.2) ,0.2 (0.6 ,0.2) ,0.2 (0.6 ,0.2) ,0.2 (0.6 ,0) ,0.2 (1 ,0.2) ,0.2 (0.8 C19 ,0.2) ,0.2 (0.2 ,0.2) ,0 (0 ,0.2) ,0.2 (0.4 ,0.2) ,0.2 (0.2 ,0.2) ,0 (0 C20 ,0.2) ,0.2 (0.4 ,0.2) ,0.2 (0.2 ,0.2) ,0.2 (0.4 ,0.2) ,0 (0 ,0.2) ,0.2 (0.2 C21 ,0.2) ,0 (0 ,0.2) ,0.2 (0.2 ,0.2) ,0.2 (0.4 ,0.2) ,0.2 (0.4 ,0.2) ,0 (0 C22 ,0.2) ,0.2 (0.2 ,0.2) ,0.2 (0.6 ,0.2) ,0.2 (0.4 ,0.2) ,0.2 (0.4 ,0.2) ,0 (0 C23 ,0.2) ,0.2 (0.4 ,0) ,0.2 (1 ,0.2) ,0.2 (0.4 ,0.2) ,0.2 (0.4 ,0.2) ,0.2 (0.6 C24 ,0.2) ,0.2 (0.8 ,0.2) ,0.2 (0.8 ,0.2) ,0.2 (0.8 ,0.2) ,0.2 (0.6 ,0) ,0.2 (1 C25 ,0.2) ,0.2 (0.6 ,0) ,0.2 (1 ,0.2) ,0.2 (0.6 ,0.2) ,0.2 (0.8 ,0.2) ,0.2 (0.8 C26 ,0.2) ,0.2 (0.8 ,0) ,0.2 (1 ,0) ,0.2 (1 ,0.2) ,0.2 (0.8 ,0) ,0.2 (1 C27 ,0) ,0.2 (1 ,0.2) ,0.2 (0.4 ,0.2) ,0.2 (0.4 ,0.2) ,0.2 (0.4 ,0.2) ,0.2 (0.4 C28 ,0.2) ,0.2 (0.4 ,0.2) ,0.2 (0.6 ,0.2) ,0.2 (0.4 ,0.2) ,0.2 (0.2 ,0.2) ,0 (0 C29 ,0.2) ,0.2 (0.4 ,0.2) ,0.2 (0.2 ,0.2) ,0.2 (0.2 ,0.2) ,0.2 (0.6 ,0.2) ,0 (0 C30 ,0.2) ,0.2 (0.4 ,0.2) ,0 (0 ,0.2) ,0.2 (0.4 ,0.2) ,0.2 (0.2 ,0.2) ,0 (0 C31 ,0.2) ,0.2 (0.8 ,0.2) ,0.2 (0.4 ,0.2) ,0.2 (0.4 ,0.2) ,0.2 (0.2 ,0.2) ,0.2 (0.6 C32 ,0.2) ,0.2 (0.4 ,0.2) ,0.2 (0.6 ,0.2) ,0.2 (0.2 ,0.2) ,0.2 (0.4 ,0.2) ,0.2 (0.4 C33 ,0.2) ,0.2 (0.6 ,0.2) ,0.2 (0.4 ,0.2) ,0.2 (0.4 ,0.2) ,0.2 (0.2 ,0.2) ,0.2 (0.6 C34 46 Table 5 Ranking with PROMETHEE. Alt. = alternative, D∅ = defuzzied ∅, R = rank R D ∅ ∅+xy ∅B ∅@ Alt. 4 -0.0209 ,0.121) ,0.100 (-0.026 ,0.043) ,0.075 (0.085 ,0.046) ,0.057 (0.596 ES1 2 0.0174 ,0.125) ,0.132 (0.019 ,0.035) ,0.050 (0.054 ,0.075) ,0.097 (0.074 ES2 5 -0.0367 ,0.122) ,0.125 (-0.033 ,0.081) ,0.100 (0.080 ,0.022) ,0.044 (0.046 ES3 1 0.0586 ,0.115) ,0.130 (0.062 ,0.029) ,0.046 (0.050 ,0.069) ,0.100 (0.112 ES4 3 -0.0204 ,0.133) ,0.129 (-0.021 ,0.065) ,0.092 (0.097 ,0.041) ,0.064 (0.076 ES5 In order to remove the problems and ambiguities that result from changing the observations to definite variables; fuzzy numbers are used in the calculations of the PROMETHEE method. Here, 34 criteria were examined to evaluate the enterprise systems identified by reviewing the literature. To improve and develop the present study, the following ideas are suggested for further research; 1. Using other multi-criteria decision- making models to rank enterprise systems; 2. Investigating other multi-criteria decision-making models in fuzzy and definite moods and comparing the results with each other; 3. Finding the most influential and the most influenced factors among the 34 factors. 5. REFERENCES Abzaltynova, Z. & Williams, J. 2013. Developments In Business Intelligence Software, Journal of Intelligence Studies in Business 3(2). pp. 40-54. Adamala, S. & Cidrin, L. 2011, Key Success Factors in Business Intelligence, Journal of Intelligence Studies in Business, 1, pp.107- 127. Alter, S. 2004. Work system view of DSS in its fourth decade. Decision Support Systems, 38, pp.319–327. Al-Shemmeri, T., Al-Kloub & B. Pearman, A. 1997. Model choice in multicriteria decision aid. European Journal of Operational Research, 97, pp. 550–560. Anderson, J. L., Jolly, L. D. & Fairhurst, A. E. 2007. Customer relationship management in retailing: A content analysis of retail trade journals. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 14, pp. 394–399. Azadivar, F., Truong, T. & Jiao, Y. 2009. A decision support system for fisheries management using operations research and systems science approach. Expert Systems with Applications, 36, pp. 2971–2978. Baars, H., & Kemper, H. 2008. Management support with structured and unstructured data-An integrated business intelligence framework. Information Systems Management, 25, pp. 132–148. Berzal, F., Cubero, J. & Jiménez, A. 2008. The design and use of the TMiner component- based data mining framework. Expert Systems with Applications. Bolloju, N., Khalifa, M. & Turban, E. 2002. Integrating knowledge management into enterprise environments for the next generation decision support. Decision Support Systems, 33, pp. 163-176. Bose, R. 2009. Advanced analytics: Opportunities and challenges. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 1092, pp. 155–172. Brans, J. P., Mareschal, B. & Vincke, P. H. 1986. How to select and how to rank projects: The PROMETHEE method. European Journal of Operational Research, 24, pp. 228-238. Bui, T. & Lee, J. 1999. Agent-based framework for building decision support systems. Decision Support Systems, 25, pp. 225–237. Cheng, H., Lu, Y. & Sheu, C. 2009. An ontology- based business intelligence application in a financial knowledge management system. Expert Systems with Applications, 36, pp. 3614–3622. Courtney, J. F. 2001. Decision making and knowledge management in inquiring organizations: Toward a new decision-making paradigm for DSS. Decision Support Systems, 31, pp. 17–38. Damart, S., Dias, L. & Mousseau, V. 2007. Supporting groups in sorting decisions: Methodology and use of a multi-criteria aggregation/disaggregation DSS. Decision Support Systems, 43, pp. 1464–1475. Delorme, X., Gandibleux, X. & Rodrı´guez, J. 2009. Stability evaluation of a railway timetable at station level. European Journal of Operational Research, 195, pp. 780–790. Elbashir, M. Z., Collier, P. A. & Davern, M. J. 2008. Measuring the effects of business intelligence systems: The relationship between business process and organizational performance. International Journal of Accounting Information Systems, 93, pp. 135– 153. Eom, S. 1999. Decision support systems research: current state and trends. Industrial 47 Management & Data Systems, 995, pp. 213– 220. Evers, M. 2008. An analysis of the requirements for DSS on integrated river basin management. Management of Environmental Quality: An International Journal, 191, pp. 37–53. Fazlollahi, B. & Vahidov, R. 2001. Extending the effectiveness of simulation-based DSS through genetic algorithms. Information & Management, 39, pp. 53–65. Feng, Y., Teng, T. & Tan, A. 2009. Modelling situation awareness for context-aware decision support. Expert Systems with Applications, 36, pp. 455–463. Fourati-Jamoussia, F. & Niamba, C. N. 2016. An evaluation of business intelligence tools: a cluster analysis of users’ perceptions, 6(1), pp. 37-47. Galasso, F. & Thierry, C. 2008. Design of cooperative processes in a customer supplier relationship: An approach based on simulation and decision theory. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence. Gao, S. & Xu, D. 2009. Conceptual modeling and development of an intelligent agent-assisted decision support system for anti-money laundering. Expert Systems with Applications, 36, pp. 1493–1504. Ghazanfari, M., Jafari, M. & Rouhani, S. 2011. A tool to evaluate the business intelligence of enterprise systems, ScientiaIranica, 186, pp. 1579–1590. Ghoshal, S. & Kim, S. K. 1986. Building effective intelligence systems for competitive advantage. Sloan Management Review, 281, pp. 49–58. Gilliams, S., Raymaekers, D., Muys, B. & Orshoven, J. V. 2005. Comparing multiple criteria decision methods to extend a geographical information system on afforestation. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, 49, pp. 142–158. Gonnet, S., Henning, G. & Leone, H. 2007. A model for capturing and representing the engineering design process. Expert Systems with Applications, 33, pp. 881–902. González, J. R., Pelta, D. A. & Masegosa, A. D. 2008. A framework for developing optimization-based decision support systems. Expert Systems with Applications. Goodhuea, D. L., Kleinb, B. D. & March, S. T. 2000. User evaluations of IS as surrogates for objective performance. Information & Management, 38, pp. 87–101. Gottschalk, P. 2006. Expert systems at stage IV of the knowledge management technology stage model: The case of police investigations. Expert Systems with Applications, 31, pp. 617–628. Goul, M. & Corral, K. 2007. Enterprise model management and next generation decision support. Decision Support Systems, 43, pp. 915–932. Goumas, M. & Lygerou, V. 2000. An extension of the PROMETHEE method for decision making in fuzzy environment: Ranking of alternative energy exploitation projects. European Journal of Operational Research, 123, pp. 606–613. Granebring, A. & Re’vay, P. 2007. Service- oriented architecture is a driver for daily decision support, Kybernetes, 365/6, pp. 622– 635. GüngörSen, C., Baraçlı, H., Sen, S. & Baslıgil, H. 2008. An integrated decision support system dealing with qualitative and quantitative objectives for enterprise software selection. Expert Systems with Applications. Hedgebeth, D. 2007. Data-driven decision making for the enterprise: An overview of business intelligence applications. The Journal of Information and Knowledge Management Systems, 374, pp. 414–420. Hemsley-Brown, J. 2005. Using research to support management decision making within the field of education. Management Decision, 435, pp. 691–705. Hewett, C., Quinn, P., Heathwaite, A. L., Doyle, A., Burke, S. & Whitehead, P. 2009. A multi- scale framework for strategic management of diffuse pollution. Environmental Modelling& Software, 24, pp. 74–85. Hung, S. Y., Ku, Y. C., Liang, T. P. & Lee, C. J. 2007. Regret avoidance as a measure of DSS success: An exploratory study. Decision Support Systems, 42, pp. 2093–2106. Koo, L. Y., Adhitya, A., Srinivasan, R. & Karimi, I. A. 2008. Decision support for integrated refinery supply chains part 2. Design and operation. Computers and Chemical Engineering, 32, pp. 2787–2800. Koutsoukis, N., Dominguez-Ballesteros, B., Lucas, C. A., & Mitra, G. 2000. A prototype decision support system for strategic planning under uncertainty. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 30(7/8), pp. 640–660. Kwon, O., Kim, K. & Lee, K. C. 2007. MM-DSS: Integrating multimedia and decision-making knowledge in decision support systems. Expert Systems with Applications, 32, pp. 441–457. Lamptey, G., Labi, S. & Li, Z. 2008. Decision support for optimal scheduling of highway pavement preventive maintenance within resurfacing cycle. Decision Support Systems, 46, pp. 376–387. Lau, H. C. W., Ning, A., Ip, W. H. & Choy, K. L. 2004. A decision support system to facilitate 48 resources allocation: An OLAP-based neural network approach. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, 158, pp. 771–778. Lee, C. K. M., Lau, H. C. W., Hob, G. T. S. & Ho, W. 2009. Design and development of agent- based procurement system to enhance business intelligence. Expert Systems with Applications, 36, pp. 877–884. Lee, J. & Park, S. 2005. Intelligent profitable customers segmentation system based on business intelligence tools. Expert Systems with Applications, 29, pp. 145–152. Li, D., Lin, Y. & Huang, Y. 2009. Constructing marketing decision support systems using data diffusion technology: A case study of gas station diversification. Expert Systems with Applications, 36, pp. 2525–2533. Li, S., Shue, L. & Lee, S. 2008. Business intelligence approach to supporting strategy- making of ISP service management, Expert Systems with Applications, 35, 739–754. Lian, D. & Li D.X. 2012, Business Intelligence for Enterprise Systems: A Survey. IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics, 83, pp. 679-687. Lin, Y., Tsai, K., Shiang, W., Kuo, T. & Tsai, C. 2009. Research on using ANP to establish a performance assessment model for business intelligence systems. Expert Systems with Applications, 36, pp. 4135–4146. Loebbecke, C. & Huyskens, C. 2007. Development of a model-based net sourcing decision support system using a five-stage methodology. European Journal of Operational Research. Lönnqvist, A. & Pirttimäki, V. 2006. The measurement of business intelligence. Information Systems Management, 231, pp. 32–40. Mahmoud, M.R. & Garcia, L.A. 2000. Comparison of different multicriteria evaluation methods for the red bluff diversion dam. Environmental Modeling & Software, 15, pp. 471–478. Makropoulos, C. K., Natsis, K., Liu, S., Mittas, K. & Butler, D. 2008. Decision support for sustainable option selection in integrated urban water management. Environmental Modelling& Software, 23, pp. 1448–1460. March, S. T. & Hevner, A. R. 2007. Integrated decision support systems: A data warehousing perspective. Decision Support Systems, 43, pp. 1031–1043. Marinoni, O., Higgins, A., Hajkowicz, S. & Collins, K. 2009. The multiple criteria analysis tool MCAT: A new software tool to support environmental investment decision making. Environmental Modelling& Software, 24, pp. 153–164. Metaxiotis, K., Psarras, J. & Samouilidis, E. 2003. Integrating fuzzy logic into decision support systems: Current research and future prospects. Information Management & Computer Security,11/2, pp.53–59. Mohaghar, A., Lucas,k, Hoseini, F. & Monshi, A. 2008, Use of Business Intelligence as a Strategic Information Technology in Banking: inspection and fraud detection, Information Technology Management, 11, pp. 105-120. Moss, L.T. & Atre, S. 2003. Business Intelligence Roadmap: The Complete Project Lifecycle for Decision-Support Applications. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Nemati, H., Steiger, D., Iyer, L. & Herschel, R. 2002. Knowledge warehouse: An architectural integration of knowledge management, decision support, artificial intelligence and data warehousing. Decision Support Systems, 33, pp. 143–161. Nguyen, T. M., Tjoa, A. M., Nemec, J. & Windisch, M. 2007. An approach towards an event-fed solution for slowly changing dimensions in data warehouses with a detailed case study. Data & Knowledge Engineering, 63, pp. 26–43. Nie, G., Zhang, L., Liu, Y., Zheng, X. & Shi, Y. 2008. Decision analysis of data mining project based on Bayesian risk. Expert Systems with Applications. Nyblom, M., Behrami, J., -Nikkilä, T. & Søilen, K. S. 2012. An evaluation of Business Intelligence Software systems in SMEs – a case study. Journal of Intelligence Studies in Business, 2(2), pp. 51-57. Oppong, S. A., Yen, D. C. & Merhout, J. W. 2005. A new strategy for harnessing knowledge management in e-commerce. Technology in Society, 27, pp. 413–435. Ozbayrak, M. & Bell, R. 2003. A knowledge-based decision support system for the management of parts and tools in FMS. Decision Support Systems, 35, pp. 487–515. Petrini, M. & Pozzebon, M. 2008. What Role is “Business Intelligence” Playing in Developing Countries? Data mining applications for empowering knowledge societies, p. 241. Phillips-Wren, G., Hahn, E. & Forgionne, G. 2004. A multiple-criteria framework for evaluation of decision support systems. Omega, 32, pp. 323–332. Phillips-Wren, G., Mora, M., Forgionne, G. A. & Gupta, J. N. D. 2007. An integrative evaluation framework for intelligent decision support systems. European Journal of Operational Research. Pitty, S., Li, W., Adhitya, A., Srinivasan, R. & Karimi, I. A. 2008. Decision support for integrated refinery supply chains part 1. Dynamic simulation. Computers and Chemical Engineering, 32, pp. 2767–2786. 49 Plessis, T. & Toit, A. S. A. 2006. Knowledge management and legal practice. International Journal of Information Management, 26, pp. 360–371. Power, D. J. 2008. Data-driven decision support systems. Information Systems Management, 252, pp. 149–154. Power, D. & Sharda, R. 2007. Model-driven decision support systems: Concepts and research directions. Decision Support Systems, 43, pp. 1044–1061. Quinn, N. W. T. 2009. Environmental decision support system development for seasonal wetland salt management in a river basin subjected to water quality regulation. Agricultural Water Management, 96, 247– 254. Raggad, B. G. 1997. Decision support system: Use IT or skip IT. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 972, pp. 43–50. Ranjan, J. 2008. Business justification with business intelligence. The Journal of Information and Knowledge Management Systems, 384, pp. 461–475. Rashid, M.A., Hossain, L. & Patrick, J.D., 2002, The Evolution of ERP Systems: A Historical Perspective, Enterprise Resource Planning: Global Opportunities and Challenges, IGI Global. Reich, Y. & Kapeliuk, A. 2005. A framework for organizing the space of decision problems with application to solving subjective, context- dependent problems. Decision Support Systems, 41, pp. 1–19. Rivest, S., Bédard, Y., Proulx, M., Nadeau, M., Hubert, F. & Pastor, J. 2005. SOLAP technology: Merging business intelligence with geospatial technology for interactive spatio-temporal exploration and analysis of data. ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry & Remote Sensing, 60, pp. 17–33. Rouhani, S., Ghazanfari, M. & Jafari, M. 2012. Evaluation model of business intelligence for enterprise systems using fuzzy TOPSIS, Expert Systems with Applications, 393, pp. 3764–3771. Rouhani, S. & ZareRavasan, A. 2015, Multi- objective model for intelligence evaluation and selection of enterprise systems, 204, 394-426. Ross, J. J., Dena, M. A. & Mahfouf, M. 2009. A hybrid hierarchical decision support system for cardiac surgical intensive care patients. Part II. Clinical implementation and evaluation. Artificial Intelligence in Medicine, 451, pp. 53–62. Sabanovic , A. & Søilen, K. S. 2012, Customers’ Expectations and Needs in the Business Intelligence Software Market, Journal of Intelligence Studies in Business, 2(2), pp. 5- 20. Santhanam, R. & Guimaraes, T. 1995. Assessing the quality of institutional DSS. European Journal of Information Systems, 43. Shang, J., Tadikamalla, P., Kirsch, L. & Brown, L. 2008. A decision support system for managing inventory at GlaxoSmithKline. Decision Support Systems. Shi, Z., Huang, Y., He, Q., Xu, L., Liu, S. & Qin, L. 2007. MSMiner—A developing platform for OLAP. Decision Support Systems, 42, pp. 2016–2028. Shim, J., Warkentin, M., Courtney, J., Power, D., Sharda, R. & Carlsson, C. 2002. Past, present and future of decision support technology. Decision Support Systems, 33, pp. 111–126. Tansel _Ic, Y. & Yurdakul, M. 2009. Development of a decision support system for machining center selection. Expert Systems with Applications, 36, pp. 3505–3513. Tan, X., Yen, D. & Fang, X. 2003. Web warehousing: Web technology meets data warehousing. Technology in Society, 25, pp. 131–148. Tseng, F. S. C. & Chou, A. Y. H. 2006. The concept of document warehousing for multi- dimensional modeling of textual-based business intelligence. Decision Support Systems, 42, pp. 727–744. Wadhwa, S., Madaan, J. & Chan, F. T. S. 2009. Flexible decision modeling of reverse logistics system: A value adding MCDM approach for alternative selection. Robotics and Computer- Integrated Manufacturing, 25, pp. 460–469. Wen, W., Chen, Y. H. & Pao, H. H. 2008. A mobile knowledge management decision support system for automatically conducting an electronic business. Knowledge-Based Systems. Xu, D. & Wang, H. 2002. Multi-agent collaboration for B2B workflow monitoring. Knowledge Based Systems, 15 pp. 485–491. Yang, I. T. 2008. decision support system for schedule optimization. Decision Support Systems, 44, pp. 595–605. Yu, L., Wang, S. & Lai, K. 2009. An intelligent- agent-based fuzzy group decision making model for financial multicriteria decision support: The case of credit scoring. European Journal of Operational Research, 195, pp. 942–959. Zack, M. 2007. The role of decision support systems in an indeterminate world. Decision Support Systems, 43, pp. 1664–1674 Zhang, X., Fu, Z., Cai, W., Tian, D. & Zhang, J. 2009. Applying evolutionary prototyping model in developing FIDSS: An intelligent decision support system for fish disease/health management. Expert Systems with Applications, 36, pp. 3901–3913. 50 Zhan, J., Loh, H. T. & Liu, Y. 2009. Gather customer concerns from online productreviews – A text summarization approach. Expert Systems with Applications, 36, pp. 2107–2115.