A Hybrid Multiple-Attribute Decision-Making Model with Modified PROMETHEE for Identifying Optimal Performance-Improvement Strategies for Sustainable Development of a Better Life

  • Shu-Kung HuEmail author
  • Gwo-Hshiung TzengEmail author


Governments worldwide are cognizant of the deficiencies of measuring quality of life according to gross domestic product; consequently, they have created indicators of citizen well-being that can be applied in governmental policy. To improve citizens’ lives, governments should create an environment with maximal quality of life, ideal material living conditions, and sustainable well-being and determine the true needs of citizens. This paper proposes a hybrid multiple-attribute decision-making model with a modified PROMETHEE method that can identify practical performance-improvement strategies for the sustainable development of a better life by accounting for the complex dependencies among the indicators. In the proposed model, an influential network relation map is first obtained using the DEMATEL method to delineate the interrelationships among the indicators. Second, to address the feedback and dependence concerns associated with interrelationships among criteria, the influence weights are identified through the DANP method. Finally, the degree of preference is determined through the modified PROMETHEE method and combined with the influence weights to calculate flow indicators, which facilitate attaining the aspiration level. The aspiration level is set and an aspiration alternative is identified as an improvement benchmark to facilitate continual melioration and sustainable development of a better life. This model uses the OECD well-being indicators consisting of 11 dimensions and 24 criteria to measure material living conditions (namely housing, income, jobs) and quality of life (namely civic engagement, community, education, environment, health, life satisfaction, safety, and work–life balance). An empirical case study was performed to illustrate the feasibility and effectiveness of the proposed model by using questionnaire data of six cities in Taiwan. Our results prove that the proposed model (aspired-worst as benchmark) outperforms the traditional model (max–min as benchmark) and that it can obtain more realistic net flows and an improvement benchmark to conduct ranking, selection, and continual improvement for facilitating sustainable development of a better life.


Aspiration level Performance-improvement strategies Sustainable development Hybrid MADM (multiple attribute decision-making) Modified PROMETHEE (preference ranking organization method for enrichment evaluations) INRM (influential network relationship map) DANP (DEMATEL-based analytic network process) 



  1. Behzadian, M., Kazemzadeh, R. B., Albadvi, A., & Aghdasi, M. (2010). PROMETHEE: A comprehensive literature review on methodologies and applications. European Journal of Operational Research, 200(1), 198–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bhutan. (2005). Gross national happiness. Bhutan: Bhutan Publishing. Accessed 27 Jan 2019.
  3. Brans, J. P. (1982). Lingenierie de la decision. Elaboration dinstruments daide a la decision. Methode PROMETHEE. In R. Nadeau & M. Landry (Eds.), Laide a la decision: Nature, instrument set perspectives Davenir (pp. 183–214). Quebec: Presses de Universite Laval.Google Scholar
  4. Brans, J. P., & Vincke, Ph. (1985). Note—A preference ranking organization method (The PROMETHEE method for multiple criteria decision-making). Management Science, 31(6), 647–656.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brauers, W. K. M., & Zavadskas, E. K. (2006). The MOORA method and its application to privatization in a transition economy. Control and Cybernetics, 35(2), 445–469.Google Scholar
  6. Büyüközkan, G., & Çifçi, G. (2012a). A combined fuzzy AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS based strategic analysis of electronic service quality in healthcare industry. Expert Systems with Applications, 39(3), 2341–2354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Büyüközkan, G., & Çifçi, G. (2012b). A novel hybrid MCDM approach based on fuzzy DEMATEL, fuzzy ANP and fuzzy TOPSIS to evaluate green suppliers. Expert Systems with Applications, 39(3), 3000–3011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Charnes, A., & Cooper, W. W. (1955). Generalizations of the warehousing model. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 6(4), 131–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Charnes, A., Cooper, W. W., & Rhodes, E. (1978). Measuring the efficiency of decision making units. European Journal of Operational Research, 2(6), 429–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Deng, J. L. (1982). Control problems of grey system. System and Control Letters, 1(5), 288–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Diener, E., & Suh, E. (1997). Measuring quality of life: Economic, social, and subjective indicators. Social Indicators Research, 40(1), 189–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Directorate‐General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics, Executive Yuan, Taiwan. (2013). Happiness index. Taiwan Publishing. Accessed 27 Jan 2019.
  13. Directorate‐General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics, Executive Yuan, Taiwan. (2016). Happiness index. Taiwan Publishing.
  14. do Carvalhal Monteiro, R. L., Pereira, V., & Costa, H. G. (2018). Analysis of the better life index trough a cluster algorithm. Social Indicators Research. Scholar
  15. Durand, M. (2015). The OECD better life initiative: How’s life? and the measurement of well-being. Review of Income and Wealth, 61(1), 4–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Faculty of Applied Health Sciences, University of Waterloo, Canada. (2011). Canada Publishing.
  17. Gabus, A., & Fontela, E. (1972). World problems, an invitation to further thought within the framework of DEMATEL. Geneva: Battelle Geneva Research Centre.Google Scholar
  18. Gabus, A., & Fontela, E. (1973). Perceptions of the world problematique: communication procedure, communicating with those bearing collective responsibility (DEMATEL Report No. 1). Geneva: Battelle Geneva Research Centre.Google Scholar
  19. Greco, S., Matarazzo, B., & Slowinski, R. (2002). Rough approximation by dominance relations. International Journal of Intelligent Systems, 17(2), 153–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hu, S. K., Liou, J. J. H., Chuang, Y. C., & Tzeng, G. H. (2018a). New hybrid FMADM model for mobile commerce improvement. Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 24(5), 1801–1828.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hu, S. K., Liou, J. J. H., Lu, M. T., Chuang, Y. C., & Tzeng, G. H. (2018b). Improving NFC technology promotion for creating the sustainable education environment by using a hybrid modified MADM Model. Sustainability, 10(5), 1379–1401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hu, S. K., Lu, M. T., & Tzeng, G. H. (2014). Exploring smart phone improvements based on a hybrid MADM model. Expert Systems with Applications, 41(9), 4401–4413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hu, S. K., Lu, M. T., & Tzeng, G. H. (2015). Improving mobile commerce adoption using a new hybrid fuzzy MADM model. International Journal of Fuzzy Systems, 17(3), 399–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Huang, J. J., & Tzeng, G. H. (2014). New thinking of multi-objective programming with changeable spaces—In search of excellence. Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 20(2), 242–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hwang, C. L., & Yoon, K. (1981). Multiple attribute decision making methods and applications: A state of the art survey. Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kim, Y., Kee, Y., & Lee, S. J. (2015). An analysis of the relative importance of components in measuring community wellbeing: perspectives of citizens, public officials, and experts. Social Indicators Research, 121(2), 345–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Klausen, S. H. (2016). Happiness, dispositions and the self. Journal of Happiness Studies, 17(3), 995–1013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Liou, J. J. H. (2013). New concepts and trends of MADM for tomorrow—In honor of Professor Gwo-Hshiung Tzeng on the occasion of his 70th birthday. Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 19(2), 367–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Liou, J. J. H., Tamošaitienė, J., Zavadskas, E. K., & Tzeng, G. H. (2016). New hybrid COPRAS-GMADM model for improving and selecting suppliers in green supply chain management. International Journal of Production Research, 54(1), 114–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Liou, J. J. H., & Tzeng, G. H. (2012). Comments on multiple criteria decision making (MADM) methods in economics: An overview. Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 18(4), 672–695.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lu, M. T., Hu, S. K., Huang, L. H., & Tzeng, G. H. (2015). Evaluating the implementation of business-to-business m-commerce by SMEs based on a new hybrid MADM model. Management Decision, 53(2), 290–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Mardani, A., Jusoh, A., Zavadskas, E. K., Cavallaro, F., & Khalifah, Z. (2015). Sustainable and renewable energy: An overview of the application of multiple criteria decision making techniques and approaches. Sustainability, 7(10), 13947–13984.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Martín, J. C., & Mendoza, C. (2013). A DEA approach to measure the quality-of-life in the municipalities of the Canary Islands. Social Indicators Research, 113(1), 335–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. National Academy of Sciences, United States of America. (2008). The key national indicators act. America Publishing. Accessed 27 Jan 2019.
  35. OECD. (2011a). OECD better life index. OECD Publishing, Paris. Accessed 27 Jan 2019.
  36. OECD. (2011b). Better policies for better lives. Paris: OECD Publishing. Accessed 27 Jan 2019.
  37. OECD. (2011c). Compendium of OECD well-being indicators. Paris: OECD Publishing. Accessed 27 Jan 2019.
  38. Office for National Statistics, United Kingdom. (2011). England Publishing. Accessed 27 Jan 2019.
  39. Opricovic, S. (1998). Multicriteria optimization of civil engineering systems. Belgrade: Faculty of Civil Engineering, University of Belgrade.Google Scholar
  40. Opricovic, S., & Tzeng, G. H. (2007). Extended VIKOR method in comparison with outranking methods. European Journal of Operational Research, 178(2), 514–529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Pawlak, Z. (1982). Rough sets. International Journal of Computer and Information Sciences, 11(5), 341–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Peiró-Palomino, J., & Picazo-Tadeo, A. J. (2018). OECD: One or many? Ranking countries with a composite well-being indicator. Social Indicators Research, 139(3), 847–869.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Pesta, B. J., McDaniel, M. A., & Bertsch, S. (2010). Toward an index of well-being for the fifty U.S. states. Intelligence, 38(1), 160–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Roy, B. (1968). Classement et choix en présence de points de vue multiples. Revue franįaise d’informatique et de recherche opérationnelle, 8(1), 57–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Saaty, T. L. (1980). The analytic hierarchy process. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  46. Saaty, T. L. (1996). Decision making with dependence and feedback: The analytic network process. Pittsburgh, PA: RWS Publications.Google Scholar
  47. Shen, K. Y., Hu, S. K., & Tzeng, G. H. (2017). Financial modeling and improvement planning for the life insurance industry by using a rough knowledge based hybrid MCDM model. Information Sciences, 375, 296–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Shen, K. Y., & Tzeng, G. H. (2018). Advances in multiple criteria decision making for sustainability: Modeling and applications. Sustainability, 10(5), 1600–1606.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Simon, H. A. (1955). A Behavioral model of rational choice. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 69(1), 99–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. The National Institute of Statistics and Economic Studies, France. (2010). Analyses and disseminates information on the French economy and society. France Publishing.
  51. Tsui, C. W., Tzeng, G. H., & Wen, U. P. (2015). A hybrid MCDM approach for improving the performance of green suppliers in the TFT-LCD industry. International Journal of Production Research, 53(21), 6436–6454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Tzeng, G. H., Chiang, C. H., & Li, C. W. (2007). Evaluating intertwined effects in e-learning programs: A novel hybrid MCDM model based on factor analysis and DEMATEL. Expert Systems with Applications, 32(4), 1028–1044.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Tzeng, G. H., & Huang, J. J. (2011). Multiple attribute decision making: Methods and applications. Boca Raton: CRC Press.Google Scholar
  54. Tzeng, G. H., & Huang, J. J. (2013). Fuzzy multiple objective decision making. Boca Raton: CRC Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Tzeng, G. H., & Shen, K. Y. (2017). New concepts and trends of hybrid multiple criteria decision making. Boca Raton: CRC Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Tzeng, G. H., Shiau, T. A., & Lin, C. Y. (1992). Application of multicriteria decision making to the evaluation of new energy system development in Taiwan. Energy, 17(10), 983–992.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Yu, P. L. (1973). A class of solutions for group decision problems. Management Science, 19(8), 936–946.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Zavadskas, E. K., Kaklauskas, A., & Sarka, V. (1994). The new method of multicriteria complex proportional assessment of projects. Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 1, 131–139.Google Scholar
  59. Zeleny, M. (1986). Optimal system design with multiple criteria: De Novo programming approach. Engineering costs and production economics, 10(1), 89–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Zhou, P., & Ang, B. W. (2009). Comparing MCDA aggregation methods in constructing composite indicators using the Shannon-Spearman measure. Social Indicators Research, 94(1), 83–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Zhu, B. W., Zhang, J. R., Tzeng, G. H., Huang, S. L., & Xiong, L. (2017). Public open space development for elderly people by using the DANP-V model to establish continuous improvement strategies towards a sustainable and healthy aging society. Sustainability, 9(3), 420–449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Business and Entrepreneurial ManagementKainan UniversityTaoyuan CityTaiwan, ROC
  2. 2.Graduate Institute of Urban Planning, College of Public AffairsNational Taipei UniversityNew Taipei CityTaiwan, ROC

Personalised recommendations