Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A comparative analysis of multi-criteria decision-making methods

  • Regular Paper
  • Published:
Progress in Artificial Intelligence Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In this work, we empirically compare the rankings produced by several multi-criteria decision-making methods. We analyzed multi-MOORA, TOPSIS and three different settings for VIKOR. Using decision matrices with different number of alternatives and criteria, we compared the rankings produced using the Spearman’s correlation coefficient index. Our results showed that VIKOR could fail to obtain a ranking due to the failure of certain calculations. The rankings produced by TOPSIS and multi-MOORA were very similar, while the rankings produced by the different VIKOR variants showed a great variability.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Abu Taha, R., Daim, T.: Multi-criteria applications in renewable energy analysis, a literature review. In: Daim, T., Oliver, T., Kim, J. (eds.) Research and Technology Management in the Electricity Industry: Methods, Tools and Case Studies, pp. 17–30. Springer, London (2013)

  2. Baležentis, T., Baležentis, A.: A survey on development and applications of the multi-criteria decision making method MULTIMOORA. J. Multi-Criteria Decis. Anal. 21(3–4), 209–222 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Brans, J.P., Mareschal, B., Vincke, P.: Promethee: a new family of outranking methods in multicriteria analysis. In: Operational Research ’84, Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference, pp. 477–490. Washington, DC (1984)

  4. Brans, J.P., Vincke, Ph, Mareschal, B.: How to select and how to rank projects: the Promethee method. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 24(2), 228–238 (1986)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  5. Brauers, W.K.M., Zavadskas, E.K.: Project management by multimoora as an instrument for transition economies. Technol. Econ. Dev. Econ. 16(1), 5–24 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Brauers, Willem Karel M., Zavadskas, Edmundas Kazimieras: Robustness of multimoora: a method for multi-objective optimization. Informatica 23(1), 1–25 (2012)

  7. Chen, S.J., Hwang, C.L., Hwang, F.P.: Fuzzy multiple attribute decision making(methods and applications). Lecture Notes in Economics and Mathematical Systems (1992)

  8. Mardani, A., Jusoh, A., Zavadskas, E.K.: Fuzzy multiple criteria decision-making techniques and applications: two decades review from 1994 to 2014. Expert Syst. Appl. 42(8), 4126–4148 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Mardani, A., Jusoh, A., Zavadskas, E.K., Khalifah, Z., Nor, K.M.D.: Application of multiple-criteria decision-making techniques and approaches to evaluating of service quality: a systematic review of the literature. J. Bus. Econ. Manage. 16(5), 1034–1068 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Mohamed, N.H., Lamsali, H., Sathyamoorthy, D.: Multi-criteria decision making (mcdm) for technical evaluation of tenderers: a review of methods employed. Defence S T Tech Bull 8(1), 90–102 (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  11. Opricovic, S.: Multicriteria Optimization of Civil Engineering Systems. Faculty of Civil Engineering, Belgrade (1998)

    Google Scholar 

  12. Opricovic, S., Tzeng, G.-H.: Compromise solution by MCDM methods: a comparative analysis of VIKOR and TOPSIS. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 156(2), 445–455 (2004)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  13. Roy, B., Hugonnard, J.C.: Ranking of suburban line extension projects on the Paris metro system by a multicriteria method. Transp. Res. A: Gen. 16(4), 301–312 (1982)

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  15. Triantaphyllou, E.: Multi-criteria decision making methods. In: Multi-criteria Decision Making Methods: A Comparative Study, pp. 5–21. Springer, New York (2000)

  16. Triantaphyllou, E., Chi-Tun, L.: Development and evaluation of five fuzzy multiattribute decision-making methods. Int. J. Approximate Reasoning 14(4), 281–310 (1996)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  17. Triantaphyllou, E., Mann, S.H.: An examination of the effectiveness of multi-dimensional decision-making methods: a decision-making paradox. Decis. Support Syst. 5(3), 303–312 (1989)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Yildiz, A., Yayla, A.Y.: Multi-criteria decision-making methods for supplier selection: a literature review. S. Afr. J. Ind. Eng 26(2), 158–177 (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  19. Zanakis, S.H., Solomon, A., Wishart, N., Dublish, S.: Multi-attribute decision making: a simulation comparison of select methods. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 107(3), 507–529 (1998)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Authors acknowledge support through projects TIN2014-55024-P and P11-TIC-8001 from the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness, and Consejería de Economía, Innovación y Ciencia, Junta de Andalucía (both including FEDER funds), respectively. B. Ceballos enjoys a training Grant research staff under project TIN2011-27696-C02-01 (Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence, University of Granada, 18014, Granada, Spain

    Blanca Ceballos, María Teresa Lamata & David A. Pelta

Authors
  1. Blanca Ceballos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. María Teresa Lamata
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. David A. Pelta
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to David A. Pelta.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

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

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13748-016-0093-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation