Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Towards Reliable Results - A Comparative Analysis of Selected MCDA Techniques in the Camera Selection Problem

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Information Technology for Management: Business and Social Issues (FedCSIS-AIST 2021, ISM 2021)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing ((LNBIP,volume 442))

Abstract

Objective evaluation in real-life decision problems requiring considering many contrasting criteria is quite a challenge for the decision-maker. This paper presents an approach employing several MCDA methods to objectify the multi-criteria assessment procedure in the camera selection problem. The proposed approach includes a comparative analysis of four MCDA methods, namely the Preference Ranking Organization METHod for Enrichment of Evaluations (PROMETHEE II), the Multi-Attributive Border Approximation area Comparison method (MABAC), the Evaluation based on Distance from Average Solution method (EDAS) and the Multi-Objective Optimization Method by Ratio Analysis method (MOORA), applied with two objective criterion weighting methods. The similarity of the rankings provided by the employed MCDA methods was determined using two ranking correlation coefficients. In addition, a compromise ranking strategy called the Dominance-Directed Graph was applied to obtain a single reliable ranking. The performed research confirmed the significance of the appropriate selection of multi-criteria decision-making methods for the solved problem and the relevance of benchmarking in method selection and construction of objective rankings of alternatives.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 49.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Faizi, S., Sałabun, W., Nawaz, S., ur Rehman, A., Wątróbski, J.: Best-Worst method and Hamacher aggregation operations for intuitionistic 2-tuple linguistic sets. Expert Syst. Appli. 181, 115088 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2021.115088

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Pamučar, D., Behzad, M., Božanić, D., Behzad, M.: Decision making to support sustainable energy policies corresponding to agriculture sector: case study in Iran’s Caspian Sea coastline. J. Clean. Prod. 292, 125302 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.125302

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Ziemba, E.: Synthetic indexes for a sustainable information society: measuring ICT adoption and sustainability in Polish government units. In: Ziemba, E. (ed.) AITM/ISM -2018. LNBIP, vol. 346, pp. 214–234. Springer, Cham (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-15154-6_12

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  4. Ziemba, E.: The contribution of ICT adoption to the sustainable information society. J. Comput. Inf. Syst. 59(2), 116–126 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1080/08874417.2017.1312635

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Ziemba, E.: The contribution of ICT adoption to sustainability: households’ perspective. Inf. Technol. People (2019). https://doi.org/10.1108/ITP-02-2018-0090

  6. Puška, A., Stević, Ž., Pamučar, D.: Evaluation and selection of healthcare waste incinerators using extended sustainability criteria and multi-criteria analysis methods. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 1–31 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-021-01902-2

  7. Wątróbski, J., Jankowski, J., Piotrowski, Z.: The selection of multicriteria method based on unstructured decision problem description. In: Hwang, D., Jung, J.J., Nguyen, N.-T. (eds.) ICCCI 2014. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 8733, pp. 454–465. Springer, Cham (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-11289-3_46

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  8. Guitouni, A., Martel, J.M.: Tentative guidelines to help choosing an appropriate MCDA method. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 109(2), 501–521 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0377-2217(98)00073-3

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  9. Sałabun, W., Wątróbski, J., Shekhovtsov, A.: Are MCDA methods benchmarkable? A comparative study of TOPSIS, VIKOR, COPRAS, and PROMETHEE II methods. Symmetry 12(9), 1549 (2020). https://doi.org/10.3390/sym12091549

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Lombardi Netto, A., Salomon, V.A.P., Ortiz Barrios, M.A.: Multi-criteria analysis of green bonds: hybrid multi-method applications. Sustainability 13(19), 10512 (2021). https://doi.org/10.3390/su131910512

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Tuş, A., Aytaç Adalı, E.: The new combination with CRITIC and WASPAS methods for the time and attendance software selection problem. Opsearch 56(2), 528–538 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12597-019-00371-6

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  12. Wątróbski, J., Jankowski, J.: Guideline for MCDA method selection in production management area. In: Różewski, P., Novikov, D., Bakhtadze, N., Zaikin, O. (eds.) New Frontiers in Information and Production Systems Modelling and Analysis. ISRL, vol. 98, pp. 119–138. Springer, Cham (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-23338-3_6

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  13. Wątróbski, J., Jankowski, J., Ziemba, P., Karczmarczyk, A., Zioło, M.: Generalised framework for multi-criteria method selection. Omega 86, 107–124 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.omega.2018.07.004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Kumar, G., Parimala, N.: A weighted sum method MCDM approach for recommending product using sentiment analysis. Int. J. Bus. Inf. Syst. 35(2), 185–203 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1504/IJBIS.2020.110172

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Marsh, K., Thokala, P., Mühlbacher, A., Lanitis, T.: Incorporating preferences and priorities into MCDA: selecting an appropriate scoring and weighting technique. In: Marsh, K., Goetghebeur, M., Thokala, P., Baltussen, R. (eds.) Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis to Support Healthcare Decisions, pp. 47–66. Springer, Cham (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-47540-0_4

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  16. Cinelli, M., Kadziński, M., Gonzalez, M., Słowiński, R.: How to support the application of multiple criteria decision analysis? Let us start with a comprehensive taxonomy. Omega 96, 102261 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.omega.2020.102261

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Chmielarz, W., Zborowski, M.: Scoring method versus TOPSIS method in the evaluation of E-banking services. In: 2018 Federated Conference on Computer Science and Information Systems (FedCSIS), pp. 683–689. IEEE (2018). https://doi.org/10.15439/2018F115

  18. Wątróbski, J., Ziemba, E., Karczmarczyk, A., Jankowski, J.: An index to measure the sustainable information society: the Polish households case. Sustainability 10(9), 3223 (2018). https://doi.org/10.3390/su10093223

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Karczmarczyk, A., Wątróbski, J., Jankowski, J., Ziemba, E.: Comparative study of ICT and SIS measurement in Polish households using a MCDA-based approach. Procedia Comput. Sci. 159, 2616–2628 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2019.09.254

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Chmielarz, W., Zborowski, M.: The selection and comparison of the methods used to evaluate the quality of e-banking websites: the perspective of individual clients. Procedia Comput. Sci. 176, 1903–1922 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2020.09.230

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Brans, J.P., Vincke, P., Mareschal, B.: How to select and how to rank projects: the PROMETHEE method. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 24(2), 228–238 (1986). https://doi.org/10.1016/0377-2217(86)90044-5

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  22. Bagherikahvarin, M., De Smet, Y.: A ranking method based on DEA and PROMETHEE II (a rank based on DEA & PR. II). Measurement 89, 333–342 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.measurement.2016.04.026

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Andreopoulou, Z., Koliouska, C., Galariotis, E., Zopounidis, C.: Renewable energy sources: using PROMETHEE II for ranking websites to support market opportunities. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 131, 31–37 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2017.06.007

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Polatidis, H., Haralambidou, K., Haralambopoulos, D.: Multi-criteria decision analysis for geothermal energy: a comparison between the ELECTRE III and the PROMETHEE II methods. Energy Sources Part B 10(3), 241–249 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1080/15567249.2011.565297

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Sotiropoulou, K.F., Vavatsikos, A.P.: Onshore wind farms GIS-Assisted suitability analysis using PROMETHEE II. Energy Policy 158, 112531 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2021.112531

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Bączkiewicz, A., Kizielewicz, B.: Towards sustainable energy consumption evaluation in Europe for industrial sector based on MCDA methods. Procedia Comput. Sci. 192, 1334–1346 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2021.08.137

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Chmielarz, W., Zborowski, M.: On the assessment of e-banking websites supporting sustainable development goals. Energies 15(1), 378 (2022). https://doi.org/10.3390/en15010378

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Chmielarz, W., Zborowski, M.: Towards sustainability in E-banking website assessment methods. Sustainability 12(17), 7000 (2020). https://doi.org/10.3390/su12177000

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Chmielarz, W., Zborowski, M.: A hybrid method of assessing individual electronic banking services in 2019. The case of Poland. Procedia Comput. Sci. 176, 3881–3889 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2020.10.093

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Pamučar, D., Ćirović, G.: The selection of transport and handling resources in logistics centers using Multi-Attributive Border Approximation area Comparison (MABAC). Expert Syst. Appl. 42(6), 3016–3028 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2014.11.057

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Gigović, L., Pamučar, D., Božanić, D., Ljubojević, S.: Application of the GIS-DANP-MABAC multi-criteria model for selecting the location of wind farms: a case study of Vojvodina, Serbia. Renew. Energy 103, 501–521 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2016.11.057

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Shahiri Tabarestani, E., Afzalimehr, H.: A comparative assessment of multi-criteria decision analysis for flood susceptibility modelling. Geocarto Int. 1–24 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1080/10106049.2021.1923834

  33. Bączkiewicz, A., Kizielewicz, B., Shekhovtsov, A., Wątróbski, J., Sałabun, W.: Methodical aspects of MCDM based E-commerce recommender system. J. Theor. Appl. Electron. Commer. Res. 16(6), 2192–2229 (2021). https://doi.org/10.3390/jtaer16060122

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Chmielarz, W., Zborowski, M.: Analysis of e-banking websites’ quality with the application of the TOPSIS method-a practical study. Procedia Comput. Sci. 126, 1964–1976 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2018.07.256

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Dhanalakshmi, C.S., Madhu, P., Karthick, A., Mathew, M., Kumar, R.V.: A comprehensive MCDM-based approach using TOPSIS and EDAS as an auxiliary tool for pyrolysis material selection and its application. Biomass Conv. Bioref. 1–16 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13399-020-01009-0

  36. Keshavarz Ghorabaee, M., Zavadskas, E.K., Olfat, L., Turskis, Z.: Multi-criteria inventory classification using a new method of evaluation based on distance from average solution (EDAS). Informatica 26(3), 435–451 (2015). https://doi.org/10.15388/Informatica.2015.57

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Tadić, S., Krstić, M., Brnjac, N.: Selection of efficient types of inland intermodal terminals. J. Transp. Geogr. 78, 170–180 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2019.06.004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Skvarciany, V., Jurevičienė, D., Volskytė, G.: Assessment of sustainable socioeconomic development in European Union countries. Sustainability 12(5), 1986 (2020). https://doi.org/10.3390/su12051986

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Krishankumar, R., Pamucar, D., Deveci, M., Ravichandran, K.S.: Prioritization of zero-carbon measures for sustainable urban mobility using integrated double hierarchy decision framework and EDAS approach. Sci. Total Environ. 797, 149068 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.149068

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Aggarwal, A., Choudhary, C., Mehrotra, D.: Evaluation of smartphones in Indian market using EDAS. Procedia Comput. Sci. 132, 236–243 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2018.05.193

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Karande, P., Zavadskas, E., Chakraborty, S.: A study on the ranking performance of some MCDM methods for industrial robot selection problems. Int. J. Ind. Eng. Comput. 7(3), 399–422 (2016). https://doi.org/10.5267/j.ijiec.2016.1.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Brauers, W.K., Zavadskas, E.K.: The MOORA method and its application to privatization in a transition economy. Control. Cybern. 35(2), 445–469 (2006)

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  43. Indrajayanthan, V., Mohanty, N.K.: Assessment of clean energy transition potential in major power-producing states of India using multi-criteria decision analysis. Sustainability 14(3), 1166 (2022). https://doi.org/10.3390/su14031166

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Brauers, W.K.M., Zavadskas, E.K., Peldschus, F., Turskis, Z.: Multi-objective optimization of road design alternatives with an application of the MOORA method (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  45. Kizielewicz, B., Bączkiewicz, A., Shekhovtsov, A., Wątróbski, J., Sałabun, W.: Towards the RES development: multi-criteria assessment of energy storage devices. In: 2021 International Conference on Decision Aid Sciences and Application (DASA), pp. 766–771. IEEE (2021). https://doi.org/10.1109/DASA53625.2021.9682220

  46. Shekhovtsov, A., Więckowski, J., Kizielewicz, B., Sałabun, W.: Towards Reliable Decision-Making in the green urban transport domain. Facta Universitatis Ser. Mech. Eng. (2021). https://doi.org/10.22190/FUME210315056S

  47. Altuntas, S., Dereli, T., Yilmaz, M.K.: Evaluation of excavator technologies: application of data fusion based MULTIMOORA methods. J. Civ. Eng. Manag. 21(8), 977–997 (2015). https://doi.org/10.3846/13923730.2015.1064468

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Wu, W.W.: Beyond Travel & Tourism competitiveness ranking using DEA, GST, ANN and Borda count. Expert Syst. Appl. 38(10), 12974–12982 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2011.04.096

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Hafezalkotob, A., Hafezalkotob, A., Liao, H., Herrera, F.: An overview of MULTIMOORA for multi-criteria decision-making: theory, developments, applications, and challenges. Inf. Fusion 51, 145–177 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.inffus.2018.12.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Ecer, F.: A consolidated MCDM framework for performance assessment of battery electric vehicles based on ranking strategies. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 143, 110916 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2021.110916

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Karabasevic, D., Stanujkic, D., Urosevic, S., Maksimovic, M.: Selection of candidates in the mining industry based on the application of the SWARA and the MULTIMOORA methods. Acta Montanist. Slovaca 20(2), 116–124 (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  52. Ziemba, P.: Towards strong sustainability management-a generalized PROSA method. Sustainability 11(6), 1555 (2019). https://doi.org/10.3390/su11061555

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Ziemba, P., Wątróbski, J., Zioło, M., Karczmarczyk, A.: Using the PROSA method in offshore wind farm location problems. Energies 10(11), 1755 (2017). https://doi.org/10.3390/en10111755

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Papathanasiou, J., Ploskas, N., et al.: Multiple Criteria Decision Aid. Methods, Examples and Python Implementations, vol. 136. Springer, Cham (2018)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  55. Ziemba, P.: Multi-criteria stochastic selection of electric vehicles for the sustainable development of local government and state administration units in Poland. Energies 13(23), 6299 (2020). https://doi.org/10.3390/en13236299

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Lotfi, F.H., Fallahnejad, R.: Imprecise Shannon’s entropy and multi attribute decision making. Entropy 12(1), 53–62 (2010). https://doi.org/10.3390/e12010053

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  57. Lai, H., Liao, H., Šaparauskas, J., Banaitis, A., Ferreira, F.A., Al-Barakati, A.: Sustainable cloud service provider development by a Z-number-based DNMA method with Gini-coefficient-based weight determination. Sustainability 12(8), 3410 (2020). https://doi.org/10.3390/su12083410

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The work was supported by the project financed within the framework of the program of the Minister of Science and Higher Education under the name “Regional Excellence Initiative” in the years 2019–2022, Project Number 001/RID/2018/19; the amount of financing: PLN 10.684.000,00 (A.B. and J.W.) and by the National Science Centre, Decision number UMO-2018/29/B/HS4/02725 (B.K. and W.S.).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Szczecin, Szczecin, Poland

    Aleksandra Bączkiewicz & Jarosław Wątróbski

  2. West Pomeranian University of Technology in Szczecin, Szczecin, Poland

    Bartłomiej Kizielewicz & Wojciech Sałabun

Authors
  1. Aleksandra Bączkiewicz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jarosław Wątróbski
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Bartłomiej Kizielewicz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Wojciech Sałabun
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Aleksandra Bączkiewicz .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. University of Economics in Katowice, Katowice, Poland

    Ewa Ziemba

  2. University of Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland

    Witold Chmielarz

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Bączkiewicz, A., Wątróbski, J., Kizielewicz, B., Sałabun, W. (2022). Towards Reliable Results - A Comparative Analysis of Selected MCDA Techniques in the Camera Selection Problem. In: Ziemba, E., Chmielarz, W. (eds) Information Technology for Management: Business and Social Issues. FedCSIS-AIST ISM 2021 2021. Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing, vol 442. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-98997-2_7

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-98997-2_7

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-98996-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-98997-2

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation