Search for a command to run...
Water is at the core of sustainable development, and its use for human activities, including vehicle washing, should be done in a sustainable way. There are several technical solutions for washing buses offering different performances, making it difficult to choose the one that best meets the requirements of each specific case. The literature on the topic hardly analyzes the choice of the best technical solution for washing buses and does not apply and compare the results of different multicriteria decision‐making (MCDM) methods for the problem. The unique information available is from the different suppliers in the market. Whereby, this work intends to give a technical‐scientific contribution to fulfill this gaps. Therefore, the main objectives of this work are (1) to select the best sustainable technical solutions for washing buses depending on the specific conditions for a case study and (2) to analyze how different multicriteria decision‐making methods behave in the selection process. To achieve these objectives, the problem was approached as a case study in a public transport company in Portugal and the methodology followed the next steps: started with the identification of the different types of commercial technical solutions for washing buses; the company’s experts selected four main criteria: water consumption, operating costs, quality of washing, and time spent; the criteria weights were determined using the fuzzy‐AHP method; then four representative MCDM methods were selected, namely, AHP, ELECTRE, TOPSIS, and SMART; the ranks obtained for the four methods were compared; and a sensitivity analysis was performed. Considering the input data for the criteria and their weights, the results for all the methods showed that the best and the worst solution was the same, mobile portico with a brush and porticoes with three brushes, respectively. Furthermore, the results of the sensitivity analysis performed with disturbances for the weights of each criterion presented that the results are slightly affected and the similarity in rankings for the four MCDM methods was validated by Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient ( r s ) and Kendall’s coefficient of concordance ( W ). Considering these results, the SMART method, the less complex one, showed no difference from the others. For that reason, simple methods, such as SMART, in line with other works in the literature perform well in most cases. As a final remark of this work, it can be said that the methodology employed in this project can also be deemed applicable to other similar companies seeking technical solutions for bus or truck washing. Furthermore, the application of the SMART method, the less complex one and the most understandable for people, showed no difference from the others, being able to be applied in similar situations.