The SIR method: A superiority and inferiority ranking method for multiple criteria decision making

In this paper, a superiority and inferiority ranking (SIR) method is proposed. This new method uses two types of information, the superiority and the inferiority information, to derive two types of flows, the superiority flow and the inferiority flow, by which the set of alternatives are ranked partially or completely. Relationships between the SIR method and some of the classical multiple criteria decision making (MCDM) methods (such as SAW, TOPSIS and PROMETHEE) are explored. It is proved that the SIR method is a significant extension of the well-known PROMETHEE method.     

Extended VIKOR method in comparison with outranking methods

The VIKOR method was developed to solve MCDM problems with conflicting and noncommensurable (different units) criteria, assuming that compromising is acceptable for conflict resolution, the decision maker wants a solution that is the closest to the ideal, and the alternatives are evaluated according to all established criteria. This method focuses on ranking and selecting from a set of alternatives in the presence of conflicting criteria, and on proposing compromise solution (one or more). The VIKOR method is extended with a stability analysis determining the weight stability intervals and with trade-offs analysis. The extended VIKOR method is compared with three multicriteria decision making methods: TOPSIS, PROMETHEE, and ELECTRE. A numerical example illustrates an application of the VIKOR method, and the results by all four considered methods are compared.     

Extensions of the multicriteria analysis with pairwise comparison under a fuzzy environment

Multicriteria decision-making (MCDM) problems often involve a complex decision process in which multiple requirements and fuzzy conditions have to be taken into consideration simultaneously. The existing approaches for solving this problem in a fuzzy environment are complex. Combining the concepts of grey relation and pairwise comparison, a new fuzzy MCDM method is proposed. First, the fuzzy analytic hierarchy process (AHP) is used to construct fuzzy weights of all criteria. Then, linguistic terms characterized by L–R triangular fuzzy numbers are used to denote the evaluation values of all alternatives versus subjective and objective criteria. Finally, the aggregation fuzzy assessments of different alternatives are ranked to determine the best selection. Furthermore, this paper uses a numerical example of location selection to demonstrate the applicability of the proposed method. The study results show that this method is an effective means for tackling MCDM problems in a fuzzy environment.     

Modeling subjective evaluation for fuzzy group multicriteria decision making

This paper presents a new fuzzy multicriteria decision making (MCDM) approach for evaluating decision alternatives involving subjective judgements made by a group of decision makers. A pairwise comparison process is used to help individual decision makers make comparative judgements, and a linguistic rating method is used for making absolute judgements. A hierarchical weighting method is developed to assess the weights of a large number of evaluation criteria by pairwise comparisons. To reflect the inherent imprecision of subjective judgements, individual assessments are aggregated as a group assessment using triangular fuzzy numbers. To obtain a cardinal preference value for each decision alternative, a new fuzzy MCDM algorithm is developed by extending the concept of the degree of optimality to incorporate criteria weights in the distance measurement. An empirical study of aircraft selection is presented to illustrate the effectiveness of the approach.     

Determining new possible weight values in PROMETHEE: a procedure based on data envelopment analysis

Operational research (OR) offers efficient tools to support managers in strategic decision-making processes. Data envelopment analysis (DEA) and multiple criteria decision aid (MCDA) are two important research areas in OR. These two domains are both based on the evaluation of “objects” according to multiple “points of views”. Within the MCDA framework, choosing appropriate weights for the different criteria often arises as a problem itself for decision makers. As a consequence, researchers have developed original methodologies to help them during this elicitation phase. In this work, we aim to investigate how DEA can be used to propose weights in the context of the PROMETHEE II method. More precisely, we suggest an extension of the so-called “decision maker brain” used in the GAIA plane (also known as PROMETHEE VI) based on DEA. The underlying idea is based on the computation of weights in PROMETHEE (GAIA brain) which are compatible with the DEA analysis. We end this paper with a numerical example.     

An estimate of the objective function optimum for the network Steiner problem

The study area is La Colacha sub-basins from Arroyos Menores basins, natural areas at West and South of Río Cuarto in Province of Córdoba of Argentina, fertile with loess soils and monsoon temperate climate, but with soil erosions including regressive gullies that degrade them progressively. Cultivated gently since some hundred 60 years coordinated action planning has become necessary to conserve lands while keeping good agro-production. Some of the authors were engineers trained here and other had former experience in Salta, Argentina, using a set of Decision Theory Methods, (DTM), to consider the possible systems of soil uses and actions to be recommended. After having improved data on soils and on hydrology for the study area, they have adapted as academic study these DTM for Arroyos Menores areas where gully erosions are severe, also intending to offer better view for the necessary planning to have policies of actions and uses, done by the local society decision and services, and in part by land owners. This paper concentrates on the application of a set of discrete multi-criteria models (MCDM), where alternatives were global, considering soil conservation and hydrologic management actions, and main types of use of soil, and where criteria were about the diverse consequences, grouped as environmental, economic, and social. As methods they have used for the sub areas PROMETHEE with sets of weights, comparing results with ELECTRE with same data and weights, and with AHP method needing comparisons of criteria by authors, getting somehow compatible results, but finding that the “weighted PROMETHEE II” was the more adapted for the present study. The system and results are very global, and are offered as indications for planning, that will require using detailed engineering and administration aspects for series of local singular actions or for management pursued in time.     

The aspiration level interactive method (AIM) reconsidered: Robustness of solutions

In this paper we explore theory and practice for the aspiration-level interactive model (AIM), a useful decision tool that takes advantage of the concepts of satisficing as well as other concepts of multiple criteria decision making (MCDM). We examine the relationship between aspiration levels and their mapped-to solutions in the MCDM context using AIM.We extend the concept of robustness in decision making, by defining a solution to be robust if many (suitably defined) aspiration levels map to it. We use simulation to help explore robustness, by generating three groups of random test problems. Each problem has twenty alternatives. For each group of problems, the top 5 (most-mapped-to) alternatives out of 20 are mapped to by at least 50% of the aspiration levels. We also relate the concept of robustness in decision making to the ideas of simply ranking alternatives using equal weights. There is a strong correlation between the robustness ranking and the equal-weights ranking. Based on our analyses, we then randomly generate additional problems to explore certain other factors. We also discuss practical aspects of robustness.     

A new decision support model in multi-criteria decision making with intuitionistic fuzzy sets based on risk preferences and criteria reduction

In this paper, we propose a new model for decision support to address the ‘large decision table’ (eg, many criteria) challenge in intuitionistic fuzzy sets (IFSs) multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) problems. This new model involves risk preferences of decision makers (DMs) based on the prospect theory and criteria reduction. First, we build three relationship models based on different types of DMs’ risk preferences. By building different discernibility matrices according to relationship models, we find useful criteria for IFS MCDM problems. Second, we propose a technique to obtain weights through discernibility matrix. Third, we also propose a new method to rank and select the most desirable choice(s) according to weighted combinatorial advantage values of alternatives. Finally, we use a realistic voting example to demonstrate the practicality and effectiveness of the proposed method and construct a new decision support model for IFS MCDM problems.     

Eliciting Electre Tri category limits for a group of decision makers

Multiple criteria sorting aims at assigning alternatives evaluated on several criteria to predefined ordered categories. In this paper, we consider a well known multiple criteria sorting method, Electre Tri, which involves three types of preference parameters: (1) category limits defining the frontiers between consecutive categories, (2) weights and majority level specifying which coalitions form a majority, and (3) veto thresholds characterizing discordance effects. We propose an elicitation procedure to infer category limits from assignment examples provided by multiple decision makers. The procedure computes a set of category limits and vetoes common to all decision makers, with variable weights for each decision maker. Hence, the method helps reaching a consensus among decision makers on the category limits and veto thresholds, whereas finding a consensus on weights is left aside. The inference procedure is based on mixed integer linear programming and performs well even for datasets corresponding to real-world decision problems. We provide an illustrative example of the use of the method and analyze the performance of the proposed algorithms.     

A distance-metric methodology for the derivation of weights from a pairwise comparison matrix

A variety of approaches exist for the determination of a weighting scheme from a pairwise comparison matrix describing a scale-relation between objectives or alternatives. The most common context for such an algorithm is that of the analytic hierarchy process (AHP), although uses in other areas of the field of multicriteria decision making (MCDM) can also be found. Typically, the eigenvalue method is the standard method employed in the AHP to determine weights, as in the ExpertChoice software. However, another class of techniques are the distance-metric-based approaches, which are frequently proposed as alternatives to the eigenvalue method. This paper evaluates such distance-metric-based approaches comparing their effectiveness, using the eigenvalue method as a benchmark. A common framework is introduced to establish an efficient frontier for method comparison.     

A multiple criteria ranking method based on game cross-evaluation approach

The application of Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) as an alternative multiple criteria decision making (MCDM) tool has been gaining more attentions in the literatures. Doyle (Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 62(1):87?C100, 1995) presents a method of multi-attribute choice based on an application of DEA. In the first part of his method, the straightforward DEA is considered as an idealized process of self-evaluation in which each alternative weighs the attributes in order to maximize its own score (or desirability) relative to the other alternatives. Then, in the second step, each alternative applies its own DEA-derived best weights to each of the other alternatives (i.e., cross-evaluation), then the average of the cross-evaluations that get placed on an alternative is taken as an index of its overall score. In some cases of multiple criteria decision making, direct or indirect competitions exist among the alternatives, while the factor of competition is usually ignored in most of MCDM settings. This paper proposes an approach to evaluate and rank alternatives in MCDM via an extension of DEA method, namely DEA game cross-efficiency model in Liang, Wu, Cook and Zhu (Oper. Res. 56(5):1278?C1288, 2008b), in which each alternative is viewed as a player who seeks to maximize its own score (or desirability), under the condition that the cross-evaluation scores of each of other alternatives does not deteriorate. The game cross-evaluation score is obtained when the alternative??s own maximized scores are averaged. The obtained game cross-evaluation scores are unique and constitute a Nash equilibrium point. Therefore, the results and rankings based upon game cross-evaluation score analysis are more reliable and will benefit the decision makers.     

Using assignment examples to infer weights for ELECTRE TRI method: Some experimental results

Given a finite set of alternatives A, the sorting (or assignment) problem consists in the assignment of each alternative to one of the pre-defined categories. In this paper, we are interested in multiple criteria sorting problems and, more precisely, in the existing method ELECTRE TRI. This method requires the elicitation of preferential parameters (weights, thresholds, category limits,…) in order to construct a preference model which the decision maker (DM) accepts as a working hypothesis in the decision aid study. A direct elicitation of these parameters requiring a high cognitive effort from the DM (V. Mosseau, R. Slowinski, Journal of Global Optimization 12 (2) (1998) 174), proposed an interactive aggregation–disaggregation approach that infers ELECTRE TRI parameters indirectly from holistic information, i.e., assignment examples. In this approach, the determination of ELECTRE TRI parameters that best restore the assignment examples is formulated through a nonlinear optimization program.In this paper, we consider the subproblem of the determination of the weights only (the thresholds and category limits being fixed). This subproblem leads to solve a linear program (rather than nonlinear in the global inference model). Numerical experiments were conducted so as to check the behaviour of this disaggregation tool. Results showed that this tool is able to infer weights that restores in a stable way the assignment examples and that it is able to identify “inconsistencies” in the assignment examples.     

A new method for multiple criteria group decision making with incomplete weight information under linguistic environment

A new method is proposed to solve multiple criteria group decision making (MCGDM) problems, in which both the criteria values and criteria weights take the form of linguistic information, and the information about linguistic criteria weights is partly known or completely unknown. Firstly, to get reasonable decision result, instead of assigning the same weight to the decision maker (DM) for all criteria, we propose a method to determine the weight of DM with respect to each criterion under linguistic environment by calculating the similarity degree between individual 2-tuple linguistic evaluation value and the mean given by all decision makers (DMs). Secondly, for the situations where the information about the criteria weights is partly known or completely unknown, we establish optimization models to determine the criteria weights by defining 2-tuple linguistic positive ideal solution (TL-PIS), 2-tuple linguistic right negative ideal solution (TL-RNIS) and 2-tuple linguistic left negative ideal solution (TL-LNIS) of the collective 2-tuple linguistic decision matrix. Thirdly, we propose a new method to solve MCGDM problems with partly known or completely unknown linguistic weight information. Finally, an illustrative example is given to demonstrate the calculation process of the proposed method.     

基于概率语言BWM与PROMETHEEII的多准则决策方法

提出了一种改进的偏好顺序结构评估法(Preference Ranking Organization Method For Enrichment Evaluations, PROMETHEE),即基于概率语言BWM与PROMETHEE II的多准则决策方法。针对多准则决策过程中,评价信息的模糊性和不确定性,采用概率语言(Probabilistic Linguistic Term Set, PLTS)处理评价信息,并纳入PROMETHEE II中对备选方案进行排序。针对传统的PROMETHEE II 中准则权重需要从外部获得的问题,采用最优最劣法(Best-worst Method, BWM)确定准则的权重。最后,以某企业无人机改造方案为例进行分析,验证所提方法的有效性和可行性。     

A study of high-level managerial decision processes, with implications for MCDM research

We study six real-world major strategic decisions and discuss the role that analytic Multiple Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) models could play in helping decision makers structure and solve such problems. We have interviewed successful and well-educated managers who had access to quantitative decision models, but did not use them as part of their decision process. Our approach is a clinical one that takes a close look at the decision processes. We believe that the normative MCDM framework is oversimplified and does not always fit well with complex, real-world organizational decision processes. This may be one reason why decision tools are not used more widely for solving high-level decision problems. We believe that it would be worthwhile to revise some of the MCDM mainstream postulates and practices to make existing models and tools more suitable for practical purposes. The MCDM mainstream research has until today focused on the choice among alternatives. One should realize that MCDM models could also be used in creating alternatives, in assessing the importance of criteria, in providing the decision makers with “post-commitment support”, and as part of a devil's advocate approach.     

Nonessential objectives within network approaches for MCDM

In Gal and Hanne [Eur. J. Oper. Res. 119 (1999) 373] the problem of using several methods to solve a multiple criteria decision making (MCDM) problem with linear objective functions after dropping nonessential objectives is analyzed. It turned out that the solution does not need be the same when using various methods for solving the system containing the nonessential objectives or not. In this paper we consider the application of network approaches for multicriteria decision making such as neural networks and an approach for combining MCDM methods (called MCDM networks). We discuss questions of comparing the results obtained with several methods as applied to the problem with or without nonessential objectives. Especially, we argue for considering redundancies such as nonessential objectives as a native feature in complex information processing. In contrast to previous results on nonessential objectives, the current paper focuses on discrete MCDM problems which are also denoted as multiple attribute decision making (MADM).     

Preference modeling experiments with surrogate weighting procedures for the PROMETHEE method

One of the main tasks in a multi-criteria decision-making process is to define weights for the evaluation criteria. However, in many situations, the decision-maker (DM) may not be confident about defining specific values for these weights and may prefer to use partial information to represent the values of such weights with surrogate weights. Although for the additive model, the use of surrogate weighting procedures has been already explored in the literature, there is a gap with regard to experimenting with such kind of preference modeling in outranking based methods, such as PROMETHEE, for which there already are applications with surrogate weights in the literature. Thus, this paper presents an experimental study on preference modeling based on simulation so as to increase understanding and acceptance of a recommendation obtained when using surrogate weights within the PROMETHEE method. The main approaches to surrogate weights in the literature (EW, RS, RR and ROC) have been evaluated for choice and ranking problematics throughout statistical procedures, including Kendall's tau coefficient. The surrogate weighting procedure that most faithfully represents a DM's value system according to this analysis is the ROC procedure.     

An improved method for ranking alternatives in multiple criteria decision analysis

Scoring rules are an important disputable subject in data envelopment analysis (DEA). Various organizations use voting systems whose main object is to rank alternatives. In these methods, the ranks of alternatives are obtained by their associated weights. The method for determining the ranks of alternatives by their weights is an important issue. This problem has been the subject at hand of some authors. We suggest a three-stage method for the ranking of alternatives. In the first stage, the rank position of each alternative is computed based on the best and worst weights in the optimistic and pessimistic cases, respectively. The vector of weights obtained in the first stage is not a singleton. Hence, to deal with this problem, a secondary goal is used in the second stage. In the third stage of our method, the ranks of the alternatives approach the optimistic or pessimistic case. It is mentionable that the model proposed in the third stage is a multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) model and there are several methods for solving it; we use the weighted sum method in this paper. The model is solved by mixed integer programming. Also, we obtain an interval for the rank of each alternative. We present two models on the basis of the average of ranks in the optimistic and pessimistic cases. The aim of these models is to compute the rank by common weights.     

Building a binary outranking relation in uncertain, imprecise and multi-experts contexts: The application of evidence theory

We consider multicriteria decision problems where the actions are evaluated on a set of ordinal criteria. The evaluation of each alternative with respect to each criterion may be uncertain and/or imprecise and is provided by one or several experts. We model this evaluation as a basic belief assignment (BBA). In order to compare the different pairs of alternatives according to each criterion, the concept of first belief dominance is proposed. Additionally, criteria weights are also expressed by means of a BBA. A model inspired by ELECTRE I is developed and illustrated by a pedagogical example.     

Graph-based multi-agent decision making

In lots of practical multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) problems, there exist various and changeable relations among the criteria which cannot be handled well by means of the existing methods. Considering that graphic or netlike structures can be used to describe the relationships among several individuals, we first introduce the graphic structure into MCDM and formalize the relations among criteria. Then, we develop a new tool, called graph-based multi-agent decision making (GMADM) model, to deal with a kind of MCDM problems with the interrelated criteria. In the model, the graphic structure is paid sufficient attention to in two main aspects: (1) how the graphic structure has influence on the benefits of agents (or the criteria values); and (2) the relation between the graphic structure and the importance weights of agents (criteria). In this case, we can select the best plan(s) (or alternative(s)) according to the overall benefits (the overall criteria values) resulting from the model. Moreover, a fuzzy graph-based multi-agent decision making (FGMADM) method is developed to solve a common kind of situations where the graphic structure of agents is uncertain (confidential or false). Three examples are used to illustrate the feasibility of these two developed methods.