See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/245136059

Evaluating sub-contractors performance using EFNIM

Article in Automation in Construction · July 2007

DOI: 10.1016/j.autcon.2006.09.005

CITATIONS READS

62 467

3 authors, including:

Chien-Ho Ko Min-Yuan Cheng

University of Kansas National Taiwan University of Science and Technology
71 PUBLICATIONS 1,209 CITATIONS 276 PUBLICATIONS 7,846 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Min-Yuan Cheng on 19 July 2023.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Automation in Construction 16 (2007) 525 – 530
www.elsevier.com/locate/autcon

Evaluating sub-contractors performance using EFNIM

Chien-Ho Ko ⁎, Min-Yuan Cheng, Tsung-Kuei Wu
Department of Construction Engineering, National Taiwan University of Science and Technology, Taiwan
Accepted 15 September 2006

Abstract

In the construction industry, sub-contractor's performance is a crucial factor in their awards of a new job by a general contractor. The objective
of this study is to improve the current practices for evaluating sub-contractors performance.
Drawbacks of current evaluation process are discussed firstly. The appropriateness for adopting the Evolutionary Fuzzy Neural Inference
Model (EFNIM) for improving the drawbacks is studied. A Sub-contractor Performance Evaluation Model (SPEM) is then developed by
employing the EFNIM. The effectiveness of the proposed SPEM is validated by performing case study of a real general contractor. Validation
results show that the proposed method accurately measures sub-contractor's performance enhancing the current practice of evaluation.
© 2006 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Sub-contractor; Performance Evaluation; Artificial Intelligence (AI); Genetic Algorithms; Fuzzy Logic; Neural Networks

1. Introduction
Construction is an industry completed by numerous sub-
contractors. When a construction firm wins a bid, it usually has
to subdivide the won bid and sub-contract some portions of it
out [1]. In practice, the general contractor cannot provide the
construction site with unlimited resources. To reduce costs,
most jobs required to complete a project are executed by sub-
contractors [2]. Due to the peculiarities of projects, dissimilar
sub-contractors need various labors, materials, machineries/
equipment, techniques, etc. to do a job. There may also be a
tardiness penalty cost if the contracted project cannot be
completed before its due date. As a result, sub-contractors
performances associate with success of construction projects
[3]. A well-performed sub-contractor can achieve jobs within
planed duration with anticipated budget and quality. In the
contrary, a poor-performed sub-contractor results a defective
work and therefore consumes additional costs and completion
time [4–6].
To determine sub-contracting a job to which sub-contractor,
general contractors use sub-contractors performance as a
reference index [7,8]. In general, the evaluation process consists
⁎ Corresponding author. Tel.: +886 4 851 1888x2241; fax: +886 4 851 1270.
E-mail address: fpecount@yahoo.com.tw (C.-H. Ko).
0926-5805/$ - see front matter © 2006 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.autcon.2006.09.005
of two stages: primary score and final score. The primary score
is examined by field superintendents, whereas final score is
evaluated by managers of general contractor after primary
evaluation. The difference between primary and final scores is
evaluating perspective. Due to intrinsic ambiguity and difficult
formalization, evaluations are usually accomplished by evalua-
tor's experience and intuition [9]. An objective evaluation
method is thus urgent for decision makers to make proper
decisions.
Kumaraswamy and Matthews [10] proposed a pro forma to
assess sub-contractors [10]. The pro forma was constructed by
eight items such as partnering experience, response to
construction thoughts, quality awareness, etc. Sub-contractors
were subjectively evaluated and averages were taken for
multiple evaluators. Ekstrom et al. [11] developed a tool to
evaluate bidders in architecture/engineering/construction (AEC)
by calculating a weighted rating based on source credibility
theory [11]. Performance evaluation of sub-contractors that
fluctuates according to the changing environment is inherently
complex, uncertain, and lack of complete data [12]. Artificial
Intelligence (AI) is concerned with building computer systems
that solve problems intelligently by emulating the human
behavior, which provides a promising direction to solve the
problem [13].
Albino and Garavelli [9] applied Neural Networks (NNs) in
rating sub-contractors [14]. NNs originated from modeling the
526 C.-H. Ko et al. / Automation in Construction 16 (2007) 525–530
Fig. 1. Sub-contractor evaluation process.
brain, demonstrate the ability to learn, recall, and generalize
from training patterns [15]. The investigators trained NNs by
examples the managers' logic. To systematically and objec-
tively select sub-contractors, Okoroh and Torrance [16]
developed a knowledge-based expert system using Fuzzy
Logic (FL) [16]. Unlike classical logic, FL simulates the high-
level human decision-making process, which aims at modeling
the imprecise modes of reasoning to make rational decisions in
an environment of uncertainty and imprecision [17]. A Fuzzy
Neural Network (FNN) model used to improve the objective-
ness of contractor prequalification was developed by Lam
et al. in [18]. The research indicated the applicability and
benefits of FNN for contractor prequalification. Although
previous researches that applied NNs and FL in contractor/
Fig. 2. Architecture of Evolutionary Fuzzy Neural Inference Model.
sub-contractor evaluation had improved the subjective evalu-
ation issue, difficulties for identifying network topology,
membership functions, and fuzzy rules remain to be solved
[19].
The objective of this research is to develop a Sub-contractor
Performance Evaluation Model (SPEM) using AI techniques.
An Evolutionary Fuzzy Neural Inference Model (EFNIM), a
synergism of GAs, FL, and NNs, proposed by Ko [20] is
adopted as a learning and inference engine in the research.
This paper firstly introduces the current practice for
evaluating sub-contractor's performance. Then, basic concepts
of the EFNIM are addressed. The development process of sub-
contractor evaluation model, SPEM, is discussed in the Section
4. Finally, the effectiveness of the established model is validated
by a real case. Conclusions and future research are documented
in this paper.
2. Current evaluation practice
Sub-contractors' performance evaluated by general contrac-
tors consists of two stages: primary and final scores. The
primary score is evaluated by field superintendents according to
the type of sub-contract. Sub-contracts can be categorized into
four categories namely: 1) labor, 2) labor and material, 3)
material, and 4) equipment. Since different types have different
characteristics, each sub-contract type has its evaluation factors.
The primary score is derived by summarizing scores measured
by all items during the construction phase. The score serves as
an index to judge that the sub-contractor is qualified or not.
According to the evaluated factors, the managers of general
contractor then provide a final score based on their knowledge
and experience. The final score, for general contractor, is treated
as an index to determine whether sub-contracting the same job
to a sub-contractor for the next project. The evaluation process
is summarized in Fig. 1.
 C.-H. Ko et al. / Automation in Construction 16 (2007) 525–530 527

Table 2
Data collection of sub-contractor performances
Sub Contract Factor number Final
contractor no. score
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
A A_01 6 6 4 6 6 4 6 6 6 4 8 8 72
A_02 6 6 6 8 6 6 4 6 6 6 6 8 76
A_03 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 8 8 76
A_04 8 6 6 6 6 6 6 8 6 6 6 8 80
A_05 8 8 6 6 6 6 6 8 6 6 8 8 86
B B_01 8 6 6 8 6 6 4 6 6 6 8 8 80
B_02 6 6 6 8 6 6 6 6 6 6 8 8 76
B_03 8 6 4 6 6 6 4 8 6 6 8 8 76
B_04 8 6 4 8 6 4 6 8 4 4 8 8 74
B_05 6 6 6 6 4 4 4 8 6 6 8 8 70
C C_01 6 6 6 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 6 6 56
C_02 6 6 6 6 4 4 4 6 6 4 6 6 62
C_03 6 6 6 6 6 4 6 6 4 4 6 6 66
C_04 6 6 6 6 6 4 4 6 6 6 6 8 68
Fig. 3. Procedure of Sub-contractor Performance Evaluation Model. D D_01 6 6 6 6 4 4 4 4 4 4 6 8 60
D_02 6 6 6 6 4 4 4 6 4 4 6 8 66
D_03 8 6 6 6 4 4 4 6 6 6 6 8 68
Drawbacks of current evaluation process are discussed as
D_04 6 8 6 4 6 4 6 6 4 4 6 8 66
follows: E E_01 8 6 6 6 6 4 6 6 4 4 8 8 70
E_02 6 6 6 8 6 4 6 6 4 4 8 8 72
• Repeated evaluation process E_03 6 6 6 8 6 4 4 6 6 4 6 6 68
E_04 6 6 4 6 4 4 4 6 4 6 6 8 66
F F_01 6 6 6 6 4 4 4 4 4 6 6 8 62
Although the evaluation consists of two stages, decisions are
F_02 6 6 6 6 4 4 6 4 4 4 6 8 66
made based on the final score. If the relationships between F_03 6 6 6 6 4 4 4 4 4 4 6 6 60
evaluation factors and final scores can be identified, the primary F_04 6 4 4 4 6 4 4 4 4 6 6 6 58
score can be eliminated. Thus, evaluation efforts can be saved. F_05 6 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 6 6 56
G G_01 8 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 76
G_02 6 6 4 8 6 4 6 6 6 6 8 8 74
• Independent factors
G_03 8 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 8 76
G_04 8 8 8 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 8 8 80
The current evaluation process assumes all factors are G_05 8 8 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 8 8 8 86
independent. As a result, the inter-dependency between factors G_06 8 6 6 6 8 6 8 8 8 6 8 8 88
is ignored. H H_01 8 8 8 8 6 6 6 8 6 8 8 8 86
H_02 8 8 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 8 8 80
H_03 8 8 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 8 8 8 80
• Even weights H_04 8 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 8 8 76
I I_01 6 6 6 6 4 4 6 6 4 4 6 8 66
The current evaluation process assumes an equal influence I_02 8 6 6 6 6 4 4 6 4 6 6 6 68
on all factors, which cannot represent the significance for a I_03 6 6 6 4 6 4 6 6 4 6 6 8 66
I_04 8 6 6 6 4 4 4 6 4 6 8 8 70
higher impacted factor.
I_05 6 6 6 6 4 4 6 6 6 6 8 8 70
I_06 8 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 8 8 76
• Subjective judgment J J_01 8 6 4 6 4 4 4 6 4 4 6 8 66
J_02 6 6 6 6 4 6 4 6 6 4 6 8 70
J_03 8 6 6 8 6 6 6 6 6 4 6 6 76
J_04 8 6 6 8 6 4 6 8 6 4 6 8 74
Table 1 J_05 8 8 6 8 6 6 6 6 6 4 6 8 76
Evaluation factors of labor sub-contract type K K_01 6 6 4 6 6 4 6 8 6 4 8 8 74
Factor number Evaluation factors K_02 6 8 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 8 76
K_03 6 8 6 6 6 6 4 6 6 6 6 8 76
1 Construction technique K_04 8 8 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 8 8 80
2 Duration control ability
L L_01 6 6 4 6 6 4 4 4 6 6 6 6 62
3 Corporative manner L_02 6 6 4 4 6 4 4 4 4 4 6 6 58
4 Material wastage L_03 6 6 4 6 4 4 4 4 4 6 6 6 62
5 Services after work completion L_04 6 6 6 6 6 4 6 6 4 6 6 6 66
6 Collaboration with other sub-contractors
L_05 6 6 6 6 4 4 6 6 6 6 6 6 68
7 Safety and protection M M_01 8 8 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 8 6 76
8 Tool usage habit (tools borrowed from contractor) M_02 6 6 4 8 6 4 6 8 6 6 6 8 74
9 Working space clearance M_03 6 8 6 8 4 6 6 6 6 4 8 8 76
10 Management ability
M_04 8 6 6 8 6 6 4 6 6 6 8 8 76
11 Sub-contractor's personality
12 Economic condition (continued on next page)
528 C.-H. Ko et al. / Automation in Construction 16 (2007) 525–530

Table 2 (continued )
Sub Contract Factor number Final
contractor no. score
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
N N_01 6 8 4 4 4 4 4 4 6 6 6 6 62
N_02 6 6 4 6 4 6 6 4 4 4 8 6 56
N_03 6 6 4 6 4 4 6 4 6 4 6 6 60
N_04 6 6 6 6 6 4 6 6 6 4 8 6 66
N_05 6 6 6 6 6 4 4 6 6 6 6 6 68
N_06 6 8 4 4 4 4 6 6 4 4 6 8 66
N_07 6 6 4 6 4 4 4 6 4 6 8 8 66
N_08 6 6 6 6 4 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 70
N_09 8 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 76
N_10 6 6 4 8 6 4 6 8 6 4 8 8 74
N_11 6 8 6 8 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 8 76
N_12 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 8 76
N_13 8 8 6 6 6 6 6 8 6 6 8 8 80 Fig. 4. Evolutionary process.
N_14 8 8 6 6 8 6 6 8 6 6 8 8 86
N_15 8 8 6 8 8 6 8 8 8 6 8 8 88
evaluation items and final score; and GAs for evolving the
Each evaluation factor is measured by subjective assessment. optimum solution for the problem as opposed to using a trial-
Besides, assessment discrepancy in evaluation is caused by and-error manner to develop a solution. In addition, the model
diverse backgrounds and working experiences. can drive off the subjective judgment in the evaluation process.
AI techniques have characteristics of learning and adapta- Therefore, the EFNIM is an appropriate tool to overcome the
tion, which is appropriate for improving current practice [21]. drawbacks of current evaluation process.
To overcome the drawbacks, this research adopts an Evolu- This research adopts EFNIM as a core engine to develop the
tionary Fuzzy Neural Inference Model (EFNIM), which fuses SPEM whose procedure is shown in Fig. 3. The SPEM is
GAs, FL, and NNs, to develop a Sub-contractor Performance developed base on current evaluation process. In the figure, two
Evaluation Model (SPEM). activities are removed from the current practice. The redundant
activity of “summarize evaluated scores” is removed since
3. Evolutionary Fuzzy Neural Inference Model (EFNIM) decisions are made based on final scores, whereas, “file
evaluation results” is removed as the EFNIM records inference
The EFNIM was developed by Ko in [20] based on FL that results in a database. To identify knowledge required to evaluate
mimics the high level of human inference process. The sub-contractor performance, EFNIM is used to evolve solutions
architecture, a synergism of GAs, FL, and NNs, is shown in from previous cases. The performance is finally evaluated using
Fig. 2. FL and NNs are complementary technologies. The evolved solution to reduce subjective measurement caused by
combination of these two technologies into an integrated system human intervention.
appears a promising path towards the development of intelligent
systems [22,23]. In the figure, fuzzy inference engine and fuzzy 5. Validation
rule base in traditional Fuzzy Logic Systems (FLS) are replaced
by the NN. Although the integration of FL and NN is more 5.1. Case study
reasonable than traditional FL to simulate the process of human
inference, the NN has demonstrated the difficulty in selecting an Effectiveness of the established SPEM is validated by a real
appropriate topology as well as appropriate parameters for a general contractor in Taiwan. The contractor was established in
network [24–26]. GA is frequently used for optimization [27].
Therefore, the EFNIM employs GA to simultaneously search
for the fittest shapes of Membership Functions (MFs), optimum
NN topology, and optimum parameters of NN. Details about
EFNIM can be found in [20].

4. Sub-contractor Performance Evaluation Model (SPEM)

Process of evaluating sub-contractor's performance involves

complex, uncertain, and incomplete information. In addition,
the evaluation requires domain knowledge and experience. AI
provides methods to deal with the difficulties. Since EFNIM
was established based on GAs, FL, and NNs, the model remains
characteristics of those three methods. In the model, FL is used
for representing uncertain and incomplete information during
evaluation; NNs for mapping the complex relationship between Fig. 5. Training results.
 C.-H. Ko et al. / Automation in Construction 16 (2007) 525–530
Fig. 6. Evaluation accuracy.
1956, which focuses on construction engineering. The studied
company has passed ISO 9002 and its capital size is about
11 million US dollars. A labor type sub-contractor is studied.
5.2. Applying Sub-contractor Performance Evaluation Model
5.2.1. Identify evaluation factors
12 items used by general contractor to evaluate performance
of labor type sub-contractor is shown in Table 1. The items were
investigated by Wu [13] through questionnaire survey.
Observing the table, from the perspective of general contractor,
a well-performed sub-contractor should have construction,
management, and collaboration abilities. Material wastage is a
special item for evaluating labor type sub-contractor.
5.2.2. Score sub-contractor performance
Each item listed in Table 1 is measured using five degrees:
excellent (8 points), good (6 points), normal (4 points), poor (2
points), and bad (0 points). Those factors are scored by field
superintendents during the construction phase. Fourteen sub-
contractors worked for the studied general contractors were
collected by Wu [13], as shown in Table 2. The final scores
displayed in the last column were evaluated by managers of the
general contractor. The scores ranging from 56 to 88 cover most
of cases that sub-contractors might perform.
5.2.3. Execute EFNIM adaptation process
Patterns shown in Table 2 are normalized between [0, 1]
before adaptation. Jobs performed by sub-contractors A to M
are entered into EFNIM as training patterns. To validate the
evaluative accuracy, 15 jobs performed by sub-contractor N are
left for test. The adaptation process is terminated after 1000 min
with 3873 iterations, which is demonstrated in Fig. 4.
5.3. Discussion
Inference results for training patterns are displayed in Fig. 5.
The EFNIM captures the mapping between evaluation factors
and sub-contractor performance. The Root Mean Square Error
(RMSE) for 61 training patterns is 0.0082. The evaluation
accuracy for 15 unknown cases is shown in Fig. 6. In the figure,
529
the EFNIM accurately accesses the performances of unknown
projects with 0.0141 RMSE, which is similar with the final
scores measured by managers.
6. Conclusions
This paper has presented a model, SPEM, for evaluating the
performance of sub-contractors. A hybrid AI model, EFNIM, is
adapted as an inference engine to execute the assessment
process. A real general contractor is then used to validate the
effectiveness of the proposed method. Validation results show
that the proposed method can assist examiners to properly
evaluate sub-contractors performance.
The study developed a framework to evaluate sub-contractor
performance using AI techniques. The developed SPEM can
accurately measure final scores assessed by managers of general
contractor. By adapting AI techniques, the SPEM overcomes the
drawbacks of current practices including: 1) eliminating repeated
evaluation process, 2) considering inter-dependency between
factors and final scores, 3) manifesting higher impacted factors in
decision maker's mind, and 4) evaluating performance subjectively.
The study validates the promise of hybridizing GA, FL, and
NNs in evaluating performance of sub-contractors. Previous
researches adopting AI methods i.e. NNs and FL face
challenges to identify model parameters. The primary advan-
tage of the method is that the developed model avoids human
intervention such as the determination of MF distributions,
discovery of NN topology, interviews with experts, etc. This
characteristic enhances the agility for real applications.
Although this research improves the process of evaluating
sub-contractor's performance, their performances for the next
project are unknown. In the future, methods for predicting sub-
contractor's performance should be studied. In addition, due to
the tendency of AI methods searching for solutions through
patterns, quality and accuracy of training data are crucial to
performance evaluation.
References
[1] D. Wang, K.L. Yung, W.H. Ip, A heuristic genetic algorithm for
subcontractor selection in a global manufacturing environment, IEEE
Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics. Part C, Applications and
Reviews 31 (2) (2001) 189–198.
[2] C.F. Huang, A study on vertical integration of general contractor and it
subcontractors, MS thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, National
Central University, Tauyuan, Taiwan, 1995 (in Chinese).
[3] T.Y. Hsieh, Impact of subcontracting on site productivity: lessons learned
in Taiwan, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, ASCE
124 (2) (1998) 91–100.
[4] S. Kale, D. Arditi, General contractors' relationships with subcontractors: a
strategic asset, Journal of Construction Management and Economics 19 (5)
(2001) 541–549.
[5] J.E. Schaufelberger, Causes of subcontractor business failure and strategies
to prevent failure, Proceedings of the Construction Research Congress,
Honolulu, HI, 2003, pp. 593–599.
[6] N.M. Shaikh, How to select the proper subcontractor — Part 1,
Hydrocarbon Processing 78 (6) (1999) 91–97.
[7] J.A. Bent, Scheduling and controlling construction subcontracts,
Transactions of the Annual Technical Conference, Miami Beach, FL,
1978, pp. 51–72.
530 C.-H. Ko et al. / Automation in Construction 16 (2007) 525–530
[8] R.R. Ramirez, L.F.C. Alarcon, P. Knights, Benchmarking system for
evaluating management practices in the construction industry, Journal of
Management in Engineering, ASCE 20 (3) (2004) 110–117.
[9] V. Albino, A.C. Garavelli, A Neural Network application to subcontractor
rating in construction firms, International Journal of Project Management
16 (1) (1998) 9–14.
[10] M.M. Kumaraswamy, J.D. Matthews, Improved subcontractor selection
employing partnering principles, Journal of Management in Engineering,
ASCE 16 (3) (2000) 47–58.
[11] M.A. Ekstrom, H.C. Bjornsson, C.I. Nass, Accounting for rater credibility
when evaluating AEC subcontractors, Construction Management and
Economics 21 (2) (2003) 197–208.
[12] M.A. Ekstrom, H.C. Bjornsson, C.I. Nass, Accounting for rater credibility
when evaluating AEC subcontractors, Journal of Construction Manage-
ment and Economics 21 (2) (2003) 197–208.
[13] T.K. Wu, Performance evaluation and prediction model for construction
subcontractor, MS thesis, National Taiwan University of Science and
Technology, Taipei, Taiwan, 2001 (in Chinese).
[14] V. Albino, A.C. Garavelli, A neural network application to subcontractor
rating in construction firms, International Journal of Project Management
16 (1) (1998) 9–14.
[15] A.I. Wu, P.K.S. Tam, A simplified model of fuzzy inference system
constructed by using RBF neurons, Proceedings of the 1999 International
Conference on Fuzzy Systems, vol. 1, 1999, pp. I-50–I-54.
[16] M.I. Okoroh, V.B. Torrance, A model for subcontractor selection in
refurbishment projects, Construction Management and Economics 17 (3)
(1999) 315–328.
[17] L.A. Zadeh, Fuzzy sets, Information and Control 8 (3) (1965) 338–353.
View publication stats
[18] K.C. Lam, Tiesong Hu, S. Thomas Ng, Martin Skitmore, S.O. Cheung, A
Fuzzy Neural Network approach for contractor prequalification, Con-
struction Management and Economics 19 (2001) 175–188.
[19] L.C. Jain, N.M. Martin, Fusion of Neural Networks, Fuzzy Sets, and Genetic
Algorithms: Industrial Applications, CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida, 1999.
[20] C.H. Ko, Evolutionary Fuzzy Neural Inference Model (EFNIM) for
decision-making in construction management, PhD thesis, National
Taiwan University of Science and Technology, Taipei, Taiwan, 2002.
[21] S. Haykin, Neural Networks: A Comprehensive Foundation, Prentice-Hall,
Upper Saddle River, New Jersey, 1999.
[22] A.M.P. Canuto, W.G.J. Howells, M.C. Fairhurst, Fuzzy multi-layer
perceptron for binary pattern recognition, Proceedings of the 1999 7th
International Conference on Image Processing and its Applications, vol. 1,
IEE, Stevenage, England, 1999, pp. 260–264.
[23] S. Rajasekaran, G.A. Vijayalakshmi Pai, Simplified fuzzy ARTMAP as
pattern recognizer, Journal of Computing in Civil Engineering, ASCE 14
(2) (2000) 92–99.
[24] D.P. Kanungo, M.K. Arora, S. Sarkar, R.P. Gupta, A comparative study of
conventional, ANN black box, fuzzy and combined neural and fuzzy
weighting procedures for landslide susceptibility zonation in Darjeeling
Himalayas, Engineering Geology 85 (2006) 347–366.
[25] G. Leng, M. Thomas Martin, G. Prasad, An approach for on-line extraction
of fuzzy rules using a self-organising fuzzy neural network, Fuzzy Sets and
Systems 150 (2) (2005) 211–243.
[26] H. Iyatomi, M. Hagiwara, Adaptive fuzzy inference neural network,
Pattern Recognition 37 (10) (2004) 2049–2057.
[27] M. Gen, R. Cheng, Genetic Algorithms and Engineering Design, Wiley,
New York, 1997.