×

Weight determination for consistently ranking alternatives in multiple criteria decision analysis. (English) Zbl 1193.91043

Summary: One of the most difficult tasks in multiple criteria decision analysis (MCDA) is determining the weights of individual criteria so that all alternatives can be compared based on the aggregate performance of all criteria. This problem can be transformed into the compromise programming of seeking alternatives with a shorter distance to the ideal or a longer distance to the anti-ideal despite the rankings based on the two distance measures possibly not being the same. In order to obtain consistent rankings, this paper proposes a measure of relative distance, which involves the calculation of the relative position of an alternative between the anti-ideal and the ideal for ranking. In this case, minimizing the distance to the ideal is equivalent to maximizing the distance to the anti-ideal, so the rankings obtained from the two criteria are the same. An example is used to discuss the advantages and disadvantages of the proposed method, and the results are compared with those obtained from the TOPSIS method.

MSC:

91B06 Decision theory
90C08 Special problems of linear programming (transportation, multi-index, data envelopment analysis, etc.)
PDFBibTeX XMLCite
Full Text: DOI

References:

[1] Guitouni, A.; Martel, J. M., Tentative guidelines to help choosing an appropriate MCDA method, Eur. J. Oper. Res., 109, 501-521 (1998) · Zbl 0937.90042
[2] (Figueira, J.; Salvatore, G.; Ehrgott, M., Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis: State of the Art Surveys (2005), Springer: Springer New York) · Zbl 1060.90002
[3] Wallenius, J.; Dyer, J. S.; Fishburn, P. C.; Steuer, R. E.; Zionts, S.; Deb, K., Multiple criteria decision making, multiattribute utility theory: recent accomplishments and what lies ahead, Manage. Sci., 54, 1336-1349 (2008) · Zbl 1232.90228
[4] Eckenrode, R. T., Weighting multiple criteria, Manage. Sci., 12, 180-192 (1965)
[5] Keeney, R.; Raiffa, H., Decisions with Multiple Objectives: Preferences and Value Tradeoffs (1976), Wiley: Wiley New York · Zbl 0488.90001
[6] Saaty, T. L., A scaling method for priorities in hierarchical structures, J. Math. Psychol., 15, 234-281 (1977) · Zbl 0372.62084
[7] Saaty, T. L., The Analytic Hierarchy Process (1980), McGraw-Hill: McGraw-Hill New York · Zbl 1176.90315
[8] Jacquet-Lagrèze, E.; Siskos, J., Assessing a set of additive utility functions for multiple criteria decision making, Eur. J. Oper. Res., 10, 151-164 (1982) · Zbl 0481.90078
[9] Solymosi, T.; Dombi, J., A method for determining the weights of criteria: the centralized weights, Eur. J. Oper. Res., 26, 35-41 (1986)
[10] Zeleny, M., Multiple Criteria Decision Making (1982), McGraw-Hill: McGraw-Hill New York · Zbl 0588.90019
[12] Jahanshahloo, G. R.; Afzalinejad, M., A ranking method based on a full-inefficient frontier, Appl. Math. Model., 30, 248-260 (2006) · Zbl 1095.62009
[13] Yu, P. L., A class of solutions for group decision problems, Manage. Sci., 19, 936-946 (1973) · Zbl 0264.90008
[14] Charnes, A.; Cooper, W. W.; Rhodes, E., Measuring the efficiency of decision making units, Eur. J. Oper. Res., 2, 429-444 (1978) · Zbl 0416.90080
[15] Kao, C., Evaluation of junior colleges of technology: the Taiwan case, Eur. J. Oper .Res., 72, 43-51 (1994)
[16] Banker, R. D.; Charnes, A.; Cooper, W. W., Some models for estimating technical and scale efficiencies in data envelopment analysis, Manage. Sci., 30, 1078-1092 (1984) · Zbl 0552.90055
[17] Lovell, C. A.K.; Pastor, J. T., Radial DEA models without inputs or without outputs, Eur. J. Oper. Res., 118, 46-51 (1999) · Zbl 1138.91519
[18] Charnes, A.; Cooper, W. W.; Thrall, R. M., Classifying and characterizing efficiencies and inefficiencies in data envelopment analysis, Oper. Res. Lett., 5, 3, 105-110 (1986) · Zbl 0605.90082
[19] Cooper, W. W.; Tone, K., Measures of inefficiencies in data envelopment analysis and stochastic frontier estimation, Eur. J. Oper. Res., 99, 72-88 (1997) · Zbl 0953.90532
[20] Adler, N.; Friedman, L.; Sinuany-Stern, Z., Review of ranking methods in the data envelopment analysis context, Eur. J. Oper. Res., 140, 249-265 (2002) · Zbl 1001.90048
[21] Opricovic, S.; Tzeng, G. H., Compromise solution by MCDM methods: a comparative analysis of VIKOR and TOPSIS, Eur. J. Oper. Res., 156, 445-455 (2004) · Zbl 1056.90090
[22] Chen, S. J.; Hwang, C. L., Fuzzy Multiple Attribute Decision Making: Methods and Applications (1992), Springer-Verlag: Springer-Verlag Berlin
[23] Kao, C.; Hung, H. T., Data envelopment analysis with common weights: the compromise solution approach, J. Oper. Res. Soc., 56, 1196-1203 (2005) · Zbl 1081.90033
[24] Lai, Y. J.; Liu, T. Y.; Hwang, C. L., TOPSIS for MCDM, Eur. J. Oper. Res., 76, 486-500 (1994) · Zbl 0810.90078
[25] Deng, H.; Yeh, C. H.; Willis, R. J., Inter-company comparison using modified TOPSIS with objective weights, Comput. Oper. Res., 27, 963-973 (2000) · Zbl 0970.90038
This reference list is based on information provided by the publisher or from digital mathematics libraries. Its items are heuristically matched to zbMATH identifiers and may contain data conversion errors. In some cases that data have been complemented/enhanced by data from zbMATH Open. This attempts to reflect the references listed in the original paper as accurately as possible without claiming completeness or a perfect matching.