## 4 Case Study
### Performance Evaluation Using Fuzzy MCDM Model in the Construction Project
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Criteria**} & \multicolumn{6}{c}{**Triangular Fuzzy Numbers Obtained from Each Respondent (R\({}_{i}\))**} \\ \cline{2-9}  & **R1** & **R2** & **R3** & **R4** & **R5** & **R6** & **R7** & **R8** \\ \hline Equipment appropriateness & \((1,3,5)\) & \((3,5,7)\) & \((1,3,5)\) & \((0,1,3)\) & \((1,3,5)\) & \((3,5,7)\) & \((1,3,5)\) & \((0,1,3)\) \\ End-user stability & \((5,7,9)\) & \((7,9,10)\) & \((5,7,9)\) & \((3,5,7)\) & \((5,7,9)\) & \((7,9,10)\) & \((5,7,9)\) & \((3,5,7)\) \\ Protection to user & \((5,7,9)\) & \((7,9,10)\) & \((5,7,9)\) & \((5,7,9)\) & \((5,7,9)\) & \((3,5,7)\) & \((3,5,7)\) & \((3,5,7)\) \\ Passivity & \((1,3,5)\) & \((3,5,7)\) & \((1,3,5)\) & \((0,1,3)\) & \((1,3,5)\) & \((3,5,7)\) & \((1,3,5)\) & \((3,5,7)\) \\ Simplicity & \((1,3,5)\) & \((3,5,7)\) & \((0,1,3)\) & \((1,3,5)\) & \((3,5,7)\) & \((1,3,5)\) & \((1,3,5)\) & \((3,5,7)\) \\ Aesthetics & \((1,3,5)\) & \((0,1,3)\) & \((1,3,5)\) & \((1,3,5)\) & \((1,3,5)\) & \((0,1,3)\) & \((1,3,5)\) & \((3,5,7)\) \\ Effort needed before installation & \((3,5,7)\) & \((5,7,9)\) & \((7,9,10)\) & \((5,7,9)\) & \((7,9,10)\) & \((5,7,9)\) & \((5,7,9)\) & \((5,7,9)\) \\ Flexibility & \((1,3,5)\) & \((0,1,3)\) & \((1,3,5)\) & \((3,5,7)\) & \((1,3,5)\) & \((3,5,7)\) & \((1,3,5)\) \\ Labor productivity & \((3,5,7)\) & \((5,7,9)\) & \((7,9,10)\) & \((5,7,9)\) & \((5,7,9)\) & \((3,5,7)\) & \((1,3,5)\) \\ Ergonomic comfort of workers & \((3,5,7)\) & \((5,7,9)\) & \((5,7,9)\) & \((5,7,9)\) & \((7,9,10)\) & \((5,7,9)\) & \((3,5,7)\) & \((5,7,9)\) \\ Efficiency of installation & \((0,1,3)\) & \((1,3,5)\) & \((1,3,5)\) & \((3,5,7)\) & \((1,3,5)\) & \((1,3,5)\) & \((0,1,3)\) & \((0,1,3)\) \\ Cost of protection system & \((5,7,9)\) & \((7,9,10)\) & \((5,7,9)\) & \((3,5,7)\) & \((5,7,9)\) & \((5,7,9)\) & \((7,9,10)\) & \((5,7,9)\) \\ Cost of installation and removal & \((5,7,9)\) & \((3,5,7)\) & \((5,7,9)\) & \((5,7,9)\) & \((5,7,9)\) & \((3,5,7)\) & \((5,7,9)\) & \((5,7,9)\) \\ Maintenance and repair cost & \((5,7,9)\) & \((3,5,7)\) & \((5,7,9)\) & \((5,7,9)\) & \((7,9,10)\) & \((5,7,9)\) & \((5,7,9)\) & \((3,5,7)\) \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 7: Matrix of fuzzy evaluation data for Alternative 1. Based on Equation (15), the closeness of each fall protection plan alternative to the ideal solution is calculated. As given in Table 10, the performances of all indices are computed to rank the fall protection alternatives. The obtained results show that the fall protection plan A3 achieves the best overall performance with the highest closeness coefficient of 0.734 in the case study. Therefore, Alternative 3 can be selected as the optimal fall protection plan for this construction project, which indicates that the personal fall arrest system (option c shown in Table 3) will be applied to work area 1, 3, 7 and 8, travel restraint system (option d) will be applied to work area 2, 4, 5 and 9, guardrail system (option a) will be applied to work area 6, 7 and 9, and hole covering (option e) will be applied to work area 6.