Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A new method for weighting decision making attributes: an application in high-tech selection in oil and gas industry

  • Soft computing in decision making and in modeling in economics
  • Published:
Soft Computing Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In multiple attribute decision making (MADM), there is often a need for comparing the attributes. In situations such as time pressure and lack of adequate knowledge, eliciting exact numerical weights from decision maker (DM) is impossible, but instead, obtaining a ranking of the attributes using an elicitation method is practical. Hence, many investigators have concentrated on a branch of the methods called approximate weighting. These methods generate the surrogate weights for the precise numbers that cannot be extracted from the DM’s mind. Many researchers have attempted to get the best approximate weights as close as possible to precise weights. There are several approximate weighting methods; among others, it is well known that the rank order centroid (ROC) outperforms the others. In competition with the ROC method, this paper develops a novel method, called rank order logarithm (ROL), that is based on a justifiable and well-founded concept. Three evaluations are performed to compare the ROC and ROL methods: a set of simulation experiments, a theoretical analysis, and a real-case analysis. Interestingly, the results of all the three evaluations reveal that the ROL method is comparable to the ROC method in most situations. To show applicability of the ROL method in real-world situations, a study case taken from high-technology selection in petroleum industry is examined.

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
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

Enquiries about data availability should be directed to the authors.

References

  • Adeogun BK (2018) Biotechnology and its applications: a review. Appl Res J Biotechnol 1(1):1–4

    Google Scholar 

  • Ahn BS (2011) Compatible weighting method with rank order centroid: maximum entropy ordered weighted averaging approach. Eur J Oper Res 212(3):552–559

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Ahn BS (2017) Approximate weighting method for multi-attribute decision problems with imprecise parameters. Omega 72:87–95

    Google Scholar 

  • Ahn BS, Park KS (2008a) Comparing methods for multi attribute decision making with ordinal weights. Comput Oper Res 35(5):1660–1670

    Google Scholar 

  • Ahn BS, Park KS (2008b) Least-squared ordered weighted averaging operator weights. Int J Intell Syst 23:33–49

    Google Scholar 

  • Alemi-Ardakania M, Milani AS, Yannacopoulos S, Shokouhi G (2016) On the effect of subjective, objective and combinative weighting in multiple criteria decision making: a case study on impact optimization of composites. Expert Syst Appl 46:426–438

    Google Scholar 

  • Alfares HK, Duffuaa SO (2008) Assigning cardinal weights in multi-criteria decision making based on ordinal ranking. J Multi-Criteria Decision Anal 15(5–6):125–133

    Google Scholar 

  • Alfares HK, Duffuaa SO (2016) Simulation-based evaluation of criteria rank weighting methods in multi-criteria decision making. Int J Inf Technol Decis Mak 15(1):43–61

    Google Scholar 

  • Bachmann RT, Clemensis A, Johnson R, Edyvean GJ (2014) Biotechnology in the petroleum industry: an overview. Int Biodeterioration Biodegradation 86:225–237

    Google Scholar 

  • Barron FH (1992) Selecting a best multi attribute alternative with partial information about attribute weights. Acta Physiol (oxf) 80:91–103

    Google Scholar 

  • Barron F, Barrett BE (1996) Decision quality using ranked attribute weights. Manage Sci 42(11):1515–1523

    Google Scholar 

  • Bottomley PA, Doyle JR (2001) A comparison of three weight elicitation methods: good, better, and best. Omega 29:553–560

    Google Scholar 

  • Cadena PCB, Magro JMV (2015) Setting the weights of sustainability criteria for the appraisal of transport projects. Transport Special Issue Smart Sustain Transport 30(3):298–306

    Google Scholar 

  • Campbell-Phillips S (2020) A critical assessment of digital oilfield implementations in the middle-east. Int J Recent Eng Sci 7(3):72–85

    Google Scholar 

  • Danielson M, Ekenberg L (2014) Rank ordering methods for multi-criteria decisions. Proceedings of the 14th group decision and negotiation (GDN 2014), Springer

  • Danielson M, Ekenberg L (2016) A robustness study of state-of-the-art surrogate weights for MCDM. Group Decis Negot 7:1–15

    Google Scholar 

  • Davoudabadi R, Mousavi S, Zavadskas EK, Dorfeshan Y (2023) Introducing MOWSCER method for multiple criteria group decision making: a new method of weighting in the structure of cause and effect relationships. Int J Inf Technol Decis Mak 22(2):641–677

    Google Scholar 

  • Dawes RM, Corrigan B (1974) Linear models in decision making. Psychol Bull 81:91–106

    Google Scholar 

  • Deb S (2014) Information technology, its impact on society and its future. Adv Comput 4(1):25–29

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Doyle JR, Green RH, Bottomley PA (1997) Judging relative importance: direct rating and point allocation are not equivalent. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 70(1):65–72

    Google Scholar 

  • Dubs MH (2022) The principle of insufficient reason. Philos Sci 9(2):123–131

    Google Scholar 

  • Fayazbakhsh K, Abedian A, Manshadi BD, Khabbaz RS (2009) Introducing a novel method for materials selection in mechanical design using Z-transformation in statistics for normalization of material properties. Mater Design 30:4396–4404

    Google Scholar 

  • Fischer GW, Hawkins SA (1993) Strategy compatibility, scale compatibility, and the prominence effect. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 19:580–597

    Google Scholar 

  • Garcia-Gil D, Luengo J, Garcia S, Herrera F (2019) Enabling smart data: noise filtering in big data classification. Inf Sci 479:135–152

    Google Scholar 

  • Ginevicius R (2011) A new determining method for the criteria weights in multi-criteria evaluation. Int J Inf Technol Decis Mak 10(6):1067–1095

    Google Scholar 

  • Glen AG, Leemis LM, Drew JH (2004) Computing the distribution of the product of two continuous random variables. Comput Stat Data Anal 44(3):451–464

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Gomes LFVAM, Rangel LAD (2009) An application of the TODIM method to the multi-criteria rental evaluation of residential properties. Eur J Oper Res 193:204–211

    Google Scholar 

  • Governatori G, Idelberger F, Milosevic Z, Riveret R, Sartor G, Xu X (2018) On legal contracts, imperative and declarative smart contracts, and Blockchain systems. Artificial Intelligent Law 26:377–409

    Google Scholar 

  • Hatefi MA (2019) Indifference threshold-based attribute ratio analysis: a method for assigning the weights to the attributes in multiple attribute decision making. Appl Soft Comput 74:643–651

    Google Scholar 

  • Hatefi MA (2021) BRAW: Block-wise rating the attribute weights in MADM. Comput Ind Eng 156(107274):1–14

    Google Scholar 

  • Hatefi MA (2023a) A typology scheme for the criteria weighting methods in MADM. Int J Inf Technol Decis Mak 22(4):1439–1488

    Google Scholar 

  • Hatefi MA (2023b) An improved rank order centroid method (IROC) for criteria weight estimation: an application in the engine/vehicle selection problem. Informatica 34(2):1–22

    Google Scholar 

  • Hatefi MA, Balilehvand HR (2023) Risk assessment of oil and gas drilling operation: an empirical case using a hybrid GROC-VIMUN-modified FMEA method. Process Saf Environ Prot 170:392–402

    Google Scholar 

  • Hwang CL, Yoon K (1981) Multiple attribute decision making: methods and applications. Springer, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Ishihara T (2002) The distribution of the sum and the product of independent uniform random variables distributed at different intervals (in Japanese). Transact Jpn Soc Ind Appl Math 12(3):197

    Google Scholar 

  • Jahan A, Edwards KL (2015) A state-of-the-art survey on the influence of normalization techniques in ranking: improving the materials selection process in engineering design. Mater Des 65:335–342

    Google Scholar 

  • Janzing D (2021) Causal versions of maximum entropy and principle of insufficient reason. J Causal Inference 9(1):285–301

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Jia J, Fischer GW, Dyer JS (1998) Attribute weighting methods and decision quality in the presence of response error: a simulation study. J Behav Decis Mak 11(2):85–105

    Google Scholar 

  • Kapitonov I (2020) Economic evaluation of energy-efficient engineering systems. Scientia Iranica 27(5):2283–2300

    Google Scholar 

  • Karim AV, Selvaraj A (2021) Graphene composites in photo-catalytic oxidation of aqueous organic contaminants—a state of art. Process Saf Environ Prot 146:136–160

    Google Scholar 

  • Katsikopoulos KV, Fasolo B (2006) New tools for decision analysts. IEEE Transact Syst Man Cybern Part A Syst Hum 36(5):960–967

    Google Scholar 

  • Kendall M, Gibbons J (1990) Rank correlation method. Edward Arnold, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Kersulien V, Zavadskas EK, Turskis Z (2010) Selection of rational dispute method by applying new step-wise weight assessment ratio analysis (SWARA). J Bus Econ Manag 11(2):243–258

    Google Scholar 

  • Keshavarz-Ghorabaee M, Amiri M, Zavadskas EK, Turskis Z, Antucheviciene J (2018) Simultaneous evaluation of criteria and alternatives (SECA) for multi-criteria decision making. Informatica 29(2):265–280

    Google Scholar 

  • Keshavarz-Ghorabaee M, Amiri M, Zavadskas EK, Turskis Z, Antucheviciene J (2021) Determination of objective weights using a new method based on the removal effects of criteria (MEREC). Symmetry 13:525

    Google Scholar 

  • Krishnan AR, Kasim MM, Hamid R, Ghazali MFA (2021) Modified CRITIC method to estimate the objective weights of decision criteria. Symmetry 13:973

    Google Scholar 

  • Krylovas A, Zavadskas EK, Kosareva N, Dadelo S (2014) New KEMIRA method for determining criteria priority and weights in solving MCDM problem. Int J Inf Technol Decis Mak 13(6):1119–1133

    Google Scholar 

  • Krylovas A, Kosareva N, Zavadskas EK (2017) WEBIRA: comparative analysis of weight balancing method. Inte J Comput Commun Control 12(2):238–253

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee B (2003) Review of the present status of optical fiber sensors. Opt Fiber Technol 9(2):57–79

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Liu D, Li T, Liang D (2020) An integrated approach towards modelling ranked weights. Comput Ind Eng 147(106629):1–16

    Google Scholar 

  • Lootsma FA, Mensch TCA, Vos FA (1990) Multi-criteria analysis and budget reallocation in long-term research planning. Eur J Oper Res 47:293–305

    Google Scholar 

  • Luo W, Wen J, Qi W, Yang M (2022) Mechanical safety analysis of the gas lift completion string used for a high-pressure sandwich layer. Scientia Iranica 29(1):1–12

    Google Scholar 

  • Morais DC, Almeida AT, Alencar LH, Clemente TRN, Cavalcanti CZB (2015) PROMETHEE-ROC model for assessing the readiness of technology for generating energy. Math Problems Eng 2015(7):1–11

    Google Scholar 

  • Pamucar D, Stevic Z, Sremac S (2018) A new model for determining weight coefficients of criteria in MCDM models: full consistency method (FUCOM). Symmetry 10(393):2–22

    Google Scholar 

  • Paramanik AR, Sarkar S, Sarkar B (2022) OSWMI: An objective-subjective weighted method for minimizing inconsistency in multi-criteria decision making. Comput Ind Eng 169:108138

    Google Scholar 

  • Rao RV (2007) Decision making in the manufacturing environment using graph theory and fuzzy multiple attribute decision making methods. Springer-Verlag, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Richard Y, Nataf HC, Montagner JP (1996) The three-dimensional seismological model a priori constrained: confrontation with seismic data. J Geophys Res 101(B4):8457–8472

    Google Scholar 

  • Roco MC, Williams RS, Alivisatos P (1999) Nanotechnology research directions: IWGN Research Report, Committee on Technology, Interagency Working Group on Nanoscience, Engineering and Technology (IWGN), National Science and Technology Council

  • Ryan M, Bate A, Eastmond CJ, Ludbrook L (2001) Use of discrete choice experiments to elicit preferences. Qual Health Care 10(Suppl I):i55–i60

    Google Scholar 

  • Saaty TL (1980) The analytic hierarchy process. McGraw-Hill, NY

    Google Scholar 

  • Sarabando P, Dias LC (2009) Multi-attribute choice with ordinal information: a comparison of different decision rules. IEEE Transact Syst Man Cybern Part A 39(3):545–554

    Google Scholar 

  • Sarabando P, Dias LC (2010) Simple procedures of choice in multi-criteria problems without precise information about the alternatives’ values. Comput Oper Res 37(12):2239–2247

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Shapiro SS, Wilk MB (1965) An analysis of variance test for normality. Biometrika 52(3/4):591–611

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Sheth A, Bhosale S, Burondkar M (2021) Robotics—new ERA, contemporary research India, Special Issue: 257–261

  • Srivastava J, Connolly T, Beach LR (1995) Do ranks suffice? A comparison of alternative weighting approaches in value elicitation. Organizational Behav Hum Decision Process 63(1):112–116

    Google Scholar 

  • Stillwell WG, Seaver DA, Edwards W (1981) A Comparison of weight approximation techniques in multi-attribute utility decision making. Organ Behav Hum Perform 28(1):62–77

    Google Scholar 

  • Suh Y, Park Y, Kang D (2019) Evaluating mobile services using integrated weighting approach and fuzzy VIKOR. PLoS ONE 14(6):e0217786

    Google Scholar 

  • Sureeyatanapas P, Sriwattananusart K, Niyamosoth T, Sessomboon W, Arunyanart S (2018) Supplier selection towards uncertain and unavailable information: an extension of TOPSIS method. Operations Res Perspect 5:69–79

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Tversky A, Sattath S, Slovic P (1988) Contingent weighting in judgment and choice. Psychol Rev 95:371–384

    Google Scholar 

  • Tzeng GH, Lin CW, Opricovic S (2005) Multi-criteria analysis of alternative fuel buses for public transportation. Energy Policy 33:1373–1383

    Google Scholar 

  • Ulutas A, Karabasevic D, Popovic G, Stanujkic D, Nguyen PT, Karakoy C (2020) Development of a novel integrated CCSD-ITARA-MARCOS decision making approach for stackers selection in a logistics system. Mathematics 8(1672):1–15

    Google Scholar 

  • Ustinovichius L (2001) Determining integrated weights of attributes. J Civil Eng Manage 7(4):321–326

    Google Scholar 

  • Vafaeipour M, Hashemkhani Zolfani S, Morshed Varzandeh MH, Derakhti A, Keshavarz Eshkalag M (2014) Assessment of regions priority for implementation of solar projects in Iran: New application of a hybrid multi-criteria decision making approach. Energy Convers Manage 86:653–663

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang YM, Lou Y (2010) Integration of correlations with standard deviations for determining attribute weights in multiple attribute decision making. Mathematical Comput Modeling 51(1–2):1–12

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Wang J, Zionts S (2015) Using ordinal data to estimate cardinal values. J Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis 22:185–196

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilcoxon F (1945) Individual comparisons by ranking methods. Biometrics Bulletin 1(6):80–83

    Google Scholar 

  • Winkler RL, Hays WL (1985) Statistics: probability, inference, and decision. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Yager RR (1988) On ordered weighted averaging aggregation operators in multi-criteria decision making. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern 18:183–190

    Google Scholar 

  • Yang GL, Yang JB, Xu DL, Khoveyni M (2017) A three-stage hybrid approach for weight assignment in MADM. Omega 71:93–105

    Google Scholar 

  • Zavadskas EK, Antucheviciene J, Saparauskas J, Turskis Z (2013) Multi-criteria assessment of facades’ alternatives: peculiarities of ranking methodology. Proc Eng 57:107–112

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhang J, Kou G, Peng Y, Zhang Y (2021) Estimating priorities from relative deviations in pairwise comparison matrices. Inf Sci 552:310–327

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Zizovic M, Pamucar D (2019) New model for determining criteria weights: level-based weight assignment (LBWA) model. Decision Making 2(2):126–137

    Google Scholar 

  • Zizovic M, Pamucar D, Cirovic G, Zizovic MM, Miljkovic BD (2020) Model for determining weight confidents by forming a non-decreasing series at criteria significance levels (NDSL). Mathematics 8:745

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

The authors have not disclosed any funding.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Energy Economics and Management, Petroleum University of Technology, Tehran, Iran

    Mohammad Ali Hatefi

Authors
  1. Mohammad Ali Hatefi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mohammad Ali Hatefi.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

Author declares that he has received no research grants from any company, he has received no speaker honorarium from any company, and he has no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hatefi, M.A. A new method for weighting decision making attributes: an application in high-tech selection in oil and gas industry. Soft Comput 28, 281–303 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00500-023-09282-7

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00500-023-09282-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation