nach oben

Progress in Artificial Intelligence

Erschienen in:

18.02.2021 | Regular Paper

Comparison among multi-criteria decision analysis techniques: a novel method

verfasst von: Susmita Bandyopadhyay

Erschienen in: Progress in Artificial Intelligence | Ausgabe 2/2021

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

This paper proposes a novel method of comparison among the various multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) techniques. The motivation behind proposing novel method of comparison comes from the fact that in spite of the presence of significant number of MCDA techniques, decision makers face difficulty in selecting appropriate MCDA technique for a particular problem under study. The reason behind this is that the applications of different MCDA techniques may result in different sets of rankings for the same problem. Such dilemma makes it difficult for the decision makers to identify the most appropriate ranking and thus the most appropriate MCDA technique for their problem. In order to solve this problem, this paper proposes to emphasize on the performance of the obtained rankings so as to identify the most appropriate ranking. Thus, the proposed performance-based comparison method is based on the performance of the obtained rankings. A total of fourteen different MCDA techniques have been compared for the purpose. These methods have been applied to a case study so as to get the rankings of the alternatives. The proposed method is applied on these obtained rankings so as to identify the most effective ranking among them, for the problem at hand. The comparison with the help of the case study establishes the effectiveness of the proposed method of comparison among MCDA techniques.

Vorheriger Artikel Hybrid-EPC: an Emperor Penguins Colony algorithm with crossover and mutation operators and its application in community detection

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 390 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Vieira, A.C.L., Oliveira, M.D., Costa, C.A.B.: e: Enhancing knowledge construction processes within multicriteria decision analysis: The Collaborative Value Modelling framework. Omega 94, 102047 (2020)

Hamurcu, M., Eren, T.: Electric bus selection with multicriteria decision analysis for green transportation. Sustainability 12(7), 2777 (2020)

Abdelkarim, A., Al-Alola, S.S., Alogayell, H.M., Mohamed, S.A., Alkadi, I.I., Ismail, I.Y.: Integration of GIS-based multicriteria decision analysis and analytic hierarchy process to assess flood hazard on the Al-Shamal Train Pathway in Al-Qurayyat Region, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Water 12(6), 1702 (2020)

Angelis, A., Thursz, M., Ratziu, V., O’Brien, A., Serfaty, L., Canbay, A., Schiefke, I., Costa, J. B. e, Lecomte, P., Kanavos, P.: Early health technology assessment during nonalcoholic steatohepatitis drug development: A two-round cross-country, multicriteria decision analysis. Med. Decis. Mak. 40(6), 830–845 (2020)

Garre, A., Boue, G., Fernández, P.S., Membré, J.-M., Egea, J.A.: Evaluation of multicriteria decision analysis algorithms in food safety: a case study on emerging zoonoses prioritization. Risk Anal. 40(2), 336–351 (2020)

Smith, J.P., Meerow, S., Turner, B.L., II: Planning urban community gardens strategically through multicriteria decision analysis. Urban For. Urban Green. 58, 126897 (2021)

Bianchini, J., Humblet, M.-F., Cargnel, M., der Stede, Y.V., Koenen, F., de Clercq, K., Saegerman, C.: Prioritization of livestock transboundary diseases in Belgium using a multicriteria decision analysis tool based on drivers of emergence. Transbound. Emerg. Dis. 67(1), 344–376 (2020)

Zhang, T., Lan, J., Yu, J., Liu, Z., Yao, S.: Assessment of forest restoration projects in different regions using multicriteria decision analysis methods. J. For. Res. 25(1), 12–20 (2020)

Kitsios, F.C., Grigoroudis, E.: Evaluating service innovation and business performance in tourism: a multicriteria decision analysis approach. Manag. Decis. 58(11), 2429–2453 (2020)

10.

Bacca, E.J.M., Knight, A., Trifkovic, M.: Optimal land use and distributed generation technology selection via geographic-based multicriteria decision analysis and mixed-integer programming. Sustain. Cities Soc. 55, 102055 (2020)

11.

Madadian, E., Amiri, L., Abdoli, M.A.: Application of analytic hierarchy process and multicriteria decision analysis on waste management: a case study in Iran. Environ. Prog. Sustain. Energy 32(3), 810–817 (2013)

12.

de Pereira, L.S., Morais, D.C.: Multicriteria decision model to establish maintenance priorities for wells in a groundwater system. Water Resour. Manag. 34(1), 377–392 (2020)

13.

Marqués, A.I., García, V., Sánchez, J.S.: Ranking-based MCDM models in financial management applications: analysis and emerging challenges. Prog. Artif. Intell. 9, 171–193 (2020)

14.

Alinezhad, A., Khalili, J.: New Methods and Applications in Multiple Attribute Decision Making (MADM). International Series in Operations Research & Management Science, Volume 277. Springer, Switzerland (2019)

15.

Tzeng, G.-H., Huang, J.-J.: Multiple Attribute Decision Making: Methods and Applications. CRC Press, USA (2011)MATH

16.

Emovon, I., Norman, R.A., Murphy, A.J.: Methodology of using an integrated averaging technique and MAUT method for failure mode and effects analysis. J. Eng. Technol. 7(1), 140–155 (2016)

17.

Bana e Costa, C.A., Chagas, M.P.: A career choice problem: An example of how to use MACBETH to build a quantitative value model based on qualitative value judgments. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 153(2), 323–331 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0377-2217(03)00155-3CrossRefMATH

18.

Roubens, M.: Preference relations on actions and criteria in multicriteria decision making. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 10(1), 51–55 (1982). https://doi.org/10.1016/0377-2217(82)90131-XCrossRefMATH

19.

Opricovic, S., Tzeng, G.H.: Multicriteria planning of post earthquake sustainable reconstruction. Comput. Aided Civ. Infrastruct. Eng. 17(3), 211–220 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8667.00269CrossRef

20.

Xu, X.: The SIR methods: a superiority and inferiority ranking method for multiple criteria decision making. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 131(3), 587–602 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0377-2217(00)00101-6MathSciNetCrossRefMATH

21.

Voogd, H.: Multicriteria evaluation with mixed qualitative and quantitative data. Environ. Plann. B 9, 221–236 (1982). https://doi.org/10.1068/b090221CrossRef

22.

Zavadskas, E.K., Turskis, Z., Vilutiene, T.: Multiple criteria analysis of foundation instalment alternatives by applying Additive Ratio Assessment (ARAS) method. Arch. Civ. Mech. Eng. 10(3), 123–141 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1016/S1644-9665(12)60141-1CrossRef

23.

Brauers, W.K., Zavadskas, E.K., Turskis, Z., Antucheviciene, J.: Evaluating redevelopment alternatives of buildings with an application of the MOORA method. In: International Conference on Operational Research: Simulation and Optimisation in Business and Industry, Tallinn, Estonia, pp. 131–35 (2006)

24.

Zavadskas, E.K., Kaklauskas, A., Peldschus, F., Turskis, Z.: Multi-attribute assessment of road design solutions by using the COPRAS method. Baltic J. Road Bridge Eng. 2(4), 193–203 (2007)

25.

Zavadskas, E.K., Turskis, Z., Antucheviciene, J., Zakarevicius, A.: Optimization of weighted aggregated sum product assessment. Elektronika ir elektrotechnika 122(6), 3–6 (2012). https://doi.org/10.5755/j01.eee.122.6.1810CrossRef

26.

Gomes, L.F.A.M., Machado, M.A.S., Rangel, L.A.D.: Behavioral multi-criteria decision analysis: the TODIM method with criteria interactions. Ann. Oper. Res. 211(1), 531–548 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-013-1454-9MathSciNetCrossRefMATH

27.

BožanićDarko, I., DraganPamučar, S., SamedKarović, M.: Application the MABAC method in support of decision-making on the use of force in a defensive operation. Tehnika 71(1), 129–136 (2016). https://doi.org/10.5937/tehnika1601129BCrossRef

28.

Hodgett, R.E.: Multi-criteria decision-making in whole process design. Doctoral Thesis, Newcastle University, 2013.

29.

Ishizaka, A., Nemery, P.: Multi-criteria Decision Analysis: Methods and Software. Wiley, UK (2013)

30.

Brans, J.P., Mareschal, B.: Multiple criteria decision analysis: state of the art surveys, pp. 163–186. Springer, New York (2005)

31.

Saaty, T.: The Analytic Hierarchy Process. McGraw-Hill, New York (1980)MATH

32.

Saaty, T.L.: Fundamentals of the analytic network process-multiple networks with benefits, costs, opportunities and risks. J. Syst. Sci. Syst. Eng. 13(3), 348–379 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11518-006-0171-1CrossRef

33.

Figueira, J.R., Greco, S., Roy, B., Slowinski, R.: ELECTRE methods: Main features and recent developments. In: Zopounidis, C., Pardalos, P.M. (eds.) Handbook of multicriteria analysis, vol. 103, pp. 51–89. Springer, New York (2010)

34.

Cooper, W.W., Seiford, L.M., Zhu, J.: Handbook on Data Envelopment Analysis, 2nd edn. Springer, New York (2011)MATH

35.

Ali, Y., Mehmood, B., Huzaifa, M., Yasir, U., Khan, A.U.: Development of new hybrid multi criteria decision-making method for a car selection scenario. Facta Universitatis 18(3), 357–373 (2020)

36.

Hassanpour, M.: Evaluation of Iranian wood and cellulose industries. Decis. Mak. Appl. Manag. Eng. 2(1), 13–34 (2019)MathSciNet

37.

Dobrosavljević, A., Urošević, S.: Anaklysis of business process management defining and structuring activities in micro, small and medium-sized enterprises. Oper. Res. Eng. Sci. Theory Appl. 2(3), 40–54 (2019)

38.

Bobar, Z., Božanić, D., Djurić, K., Pamučar, D.: Ranking and assessment of the efficiency of social media using the fuzzy AHP-Z number model—fuzzy MABAC. Acta Polytechnica Hungarica 17(3), 43–70 (2020)

39.

Khoshnava, S.M., Rostami, R., Valipour, A., Ismail, M., Rahmat, A.R.: Rank of green building material criteria based on the three pillars of sustainability using the hybrid multi criteria decision making method. J. Clean. Prod. 173, 82–99 (2018)

40.

Wang, J.-J., Yang, D.-L.: Using hybrid multi-criteria decision aid method for information systems outsourcing. Comput. Oper. Res. 34(12), 3691–3700 (2007)MATH

41.

Senthil, S., Srirangacharyulu, B., Ramesh, A.: A robust hybrid multi-criteria decision making methodology for contractor evaluation and selection in third-party reverse logistics. Expert Syst. Appl. 41(1), 50–58 (2014)

42.

Dağdeviren, M.: A hybrid multi-criteria decision-making model for personnel selection in manufacturing systems. J. Intell. Manuf. 21, 451–460 (2010)

43.

Lee, S.K., Mogi, G., Hui, K.S.: A fuzzy analytic hierarchy process (AHP)/data envelopment analysis (DEA) hybrid model for efficiently allocating energy R&D resources: in the case of energy technologies against high oil prices. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 21, 347–355 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2012.12.067CrossRef

44.

Tavana, M., Zandi, F., Katehakis, M.N.: A hybrid fuzzy group ANP–TOPSIS framework for assessment of e-government readiness from a CiRM perspective. Inf. Manag. 50, 383–397 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2013.05.008CrossRef

45.

Collan, M., Fedrizzi, M., Luukka, P.: A multi-expert system for ranking patents: an approach based on fuzzy pay-off distributions and a TOPSIS–AHP framework. Expert Syst. Appl. 40, 4749–4759 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2013.02.012CrossRef

46.

Tavana, M., Momeni, E., Rezaeiniya, N., Mirhedayatian, S.M., Rezaeiniya, H.: A novel hybrid social media platform selection model using fuzzy ANP and COPRAS. Expert Syst. Appl. 40, 5694–5702 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2013.05.015CrossRef

47.

Nixon, J.D., Dey, P.K., Davies, P.A.: Design of a novel solar thermal collector using a multi-criteria decision-making methodology. J. Clean. Prod. 59, 150–159 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.06.027CrossRef

48.

Zandi, A., Roghanian, E.: Extension of Fuzzy ELECTRE based on VIKOR method. Comput. Ind. Eng. 66, 258–263 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2013.06.011CrossRef

49.

Liu, C.-H., Tzeng, G.-H., Lee, M.-H., Lee, P.-Y.: Improving metro–airport connection service for tourism development: using hybrid MCDM models. Tour. Manag. Perspect. 6, 95–107 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tmp.2012.09.004CrossRef

50.

Peng, A.-H., Xiao, X.-M.: Material selection using PROMETHEE combined with analytic network process under hybrid environment. Mater. Des. 47, 643–652 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2012.12.058CrossRef

51.

Khalili-Damghani, K., Sadi-Nezhad, S., Tavana, M.: Solving multi-period project selection problems with fuzzy goal programming based on TOPSIS and a fuzzy preference relation. Inf. Sci. 252, 42–61 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2013.05.005MathSciNetCrossRefMATH

52.

Oztaysi, B.: A decision model for information technology selection using AHP integrated TOPSIS-Grey: the case of content management systems. Knowl. Based Syst. 70, 44–54 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knosys.2014.02.010CrossRef

53.

Triantaphyllou, E.: Multi-Criteria Decision Making Methods: A Comparative Study. Applied Optimization, vol. 44. Springer, USA (2000)MATH

54.

Ishizaka, A., Siraj, S.: Are multi-criteria decision making tools useful? An experimental comparative study of three methods. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 264(2), 462–471 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2017.05.041MathSciNetCrossRefMATH

55.

Sheskin, D.J.: Handbook of Parametric and Nonparametric Statistical Procedures, 3rd edn. Chapman & Hall/CRC Press, FL (2000)MATH

56.

Moradian, M., Modanloo, V., Aghaiee, S.: Comparative analysis of multi criteria decision making techniques for material selection of brake booster valve body. J. Traffic Transp. Eng. 6(5), 526–534 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtte.2018.02.001CrossRef

57.

Zamani-Sabzi, H., Phillip King, J., Gard, C.C., Abudu, S.: Statistical and analytical comparison of multi-criteria decision-making techniques under fuzzy environment. Oper. Res. Perspect. 3, 92–117 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.orp.2016.11.001MathSciNetCrossRef

58.

Moghassem, A.R.: Comparison among two analytical methods of multi-criteria decision making for appropriate spinning condition selection. World Appl. Sci. J. 21(5), 784–794 (2013). https://doi.org/10.5829/idosi.wasj.2013.21.5.80CrossRef

59.

Rębiasz, B., Maciol, A.: Comparison of classical multi-criteria decision making methods with fuzzy rule-based methods on the example of investment projects evaluation. In: Neves-Silva, R., Jain, L., Howlett, R. (Eds.),Intelligent Decision Technologies, Smart Innovation, Systems and Technologies, Vol 39. Springer, Cham (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-19857-6_47

60.

Sureeyatanapas, P.: Comparison of rank-based weighting methods for multi-criteria decision making. KKU Eng. J. 43(S3), 376–379 (2016)

61.

Javaid, B., Arshad, M.W., Ahmad, S., Abas Kazmi, S.A.: Comparison of different multi criteria decision analysis techniques for performance evaluation of loop configured micro grid. In: 2nd International Conference on Computing, Mathematics and Engineering Technologies, iCoMET 2019, IEEE, 30–31 January 2019, Pakistan (2019)

62.

Chu, M.-T., Shyu, J., Tzeng, G.-H., Khosla, R.: Comparison among three analytical methods for knowledge communities group-decision analysis. Expert Syst. Appl. 33(4), 1011–1024 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2006.08.026CrossRef

63.

Ceballos, B., Lamata, M.T., Pelta, D.A.: A comparative analysis of multi-criteria decision-making methods. Prog. Artif. Intell. 5(4), 315–322 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13748-016-0093-1CrossRef

64.

Ӧzcan, T., Çelebi, N., Esnaf, Ş: Comparative analysis of multi-criteria decision making methodologies and implementation of a warehouse location selection problem. Expert Syst. Appl. 38(8), 9773–9779 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2011.02.022CrossRef

65.

Hodgett, R.E.: Comparison of multi-criteria decision-making methods for equipment selection. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 85(5–8), 1145–1157 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-015-7993-2CrossRef

66.

Hajkowicz, S., Higgins, A.: A comparison of multiple criteria analysis techniques for water resource management. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 184(1), 255–265 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2006.10.045CrossRefMATH

67.

Mathew, M., Sahu, S.: Comparison of new multi-criteria decision making methods for material handling equipment selection. Manag. Sci. Lett. 8(3), 139–150 (2018). https://doi.org/10.5267/j.msl.2018.1.004CrossRef

68.

Mukhametzyanov, I., Pamučar, D.: A sensitivity analysis in MCDM problems: a statistical approach. Decis. Mak. Appl. Manag. Eng. 1(2), 51–80 (2018)

69.

Pamučar, D.S., Božanić, D., Ranđelović, A.: Multi-criteria decision making: an example of sensitivity analysis. Serb. J. Manag. 12(1), 1–27 (2017)

70.

Yu, O.-Y., Guikema, S.D., Briaud, J.-L., Burnett, D.: Sensitivity analysis for multi-attribute system selection problems on onshore environmentally friendly drilling (EFD). Syst. Eng. 15(2), 153–171 (2012)

71.

Podinovski, V.V.: Sensitivity analysis for choice problems with partial preference relations. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 221, 198–204 (2012)MathSciNetMATH

72.

Maliene, V., Dixon-Gough, R., Malys, N.: Dispersion of relative importance values contributes to the ranking uncertainty: Sensitivity analysis of multiple criteria decision making methods. Appl. Comput. 67, 286–298 (2018)

73.

Feizizadeh, B., Jankowski, P., Blaschke, T.: A GIS based spatially-explicit sensitivity and uncertainty analysis approach for multi-criteria decision analysis. Comput. Geosci. 64, 81–95 (2014)

74.

Feizizadeh, B., Kienberger, S.: Spatially explicit sensitivity and uncertainty analysis for multicriteria-based vulnerability assessment. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 60(11), 2013–2035 (2017)

75.

Guitoumi, A., Martel, J.-M.: Tentative guidelines to help choosing an appropriate MCDA method. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 109, 501–521 (1998)MATH

76.

Wątrὁbski, J., Jankowski, J.: Guideline for MCDA method selection in production management area. In: New Frontiers in Information and Production Systems Modelling and Analysis, pp. 119–138. Springer, Cham (2016)

77.

Peng, Y., Kou, G., Wang, G., Shi, Y.: FAMCDM: a fusion approach of MCDM methods to rank multiclass classification algorithms. Omega 39, 677–689 (2011)

78.

Selmi, M., Kormi, T., Ali, N. B. H.: Comparing Multi-Criteria Decision Aid Methods through a Ranking Stability Index. 2013 5th International Conference on Modeling, Simulation and Applied Optimization (ICMSAO), IEEE (2013).

79.

Beatty, W.: Decision Support Using Nonparametric Statistics. Springer, Berlin (2018)

80.

Kitagawa, T., Nybom, M., Stuhler, J.: Measurement error and rank correlations, No. CWP28/18. Cemmap Working Paper (2018)

81.

Hillier, F.S., Lieberman, G.J.: Introduction to Operations Research, 7th edn. McGraw-Hill, New York (2001)MATH

Titel: Comparison among multi-criteria decision analysis techniques: a novel method
verfasst von: Susmita Bandyopadhyay
Publikationsdatum: 18.02.2021
Verlag: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Erschienen in: Progress in Artificial Intelligence / Ausgabe 2/2021
Print ISSN: 2192-6352
Elektronische ISSN: 2192-6360
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13748-021-00235-5

Springer Professional

Abstract

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu Ihrer Lizenz zu erhalten.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Technik"

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 2/2021

Brain tumor segmentation via C-dense convolutional neural network

Transportation problem with interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy sets: impact of a new ranking

Prescriptive analytics for impulsive behaviour prevention using real-time biometrics

DeepHaul: a deep learning and reinforcement learning-based smart automation framework for dump trucks

Active learning approach using a modified least confidence sampling strategy for named entity recognition

Hybrid-EPC: an Emperor Penguins Colony algorithm with crossover and mutation operators and its application in community detection