TOP

, Volume 16, Issue 1, pp 90–113

ℱlow \(\mathcal{S}\) ort: a flow-based sorting method with limiting or central profiles

Original Paper

Abstract

Based on the ranking methodology of PROMETHEE, a new sorting method (ℱlow \(\mathcal{S}\) ort) is proposed for assigning actions to completely ordered categories defined either by limiting profiles or by central profiles. The ℱlow \(\mathcal{S}\) ort assignment rules are based on the relative position of an action with respect to the reference profiles, in terms of the incoming, leaving, and/or net flows. For a better understanding of the issues involved, a graphical representation is given. An explicit relationship between the assignments obtained when working either with limiting or central profiles is formalized. Finally, an empirical comparison with Electre-Tri is made to compare the resulting assignments.

Keywords

Multicriteria decision aid Sorting Preference relation 

Mathematics Subject Classification (2000)

91B08 91B06 91B50 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Araz C, Ozkarahan I (2007) Supplier evaluation and management system for strategic sourcing based on a new multicriteria sorting procedure. Int J Prod Econ 106:585–606 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Brans JP, Vincke Ph (1985) A preference ranking organization method: the Promethee method for multiple criteria decision making. Manag Sci 31:647–656 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Devaud J, Groussaud G, Jacquet-Lagrèze E (1980) Une méthode de construction de fonctions d’utilité additives redandant compte de jugements globaux. European Working Group on Multicriteria Decision Aid, Bochum Google Scholar
  4. Dias L, Mousseau V (2006) Inferring electre’s veto-related parameters from outranking examples. Eur J Oper Res 170:172–191 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Doumpos M, Zopounidis C (2004a) Developing sorting models using preference disaggregation analysis: an experimental investigation. Eur J Oper Res 154:585–598 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Doumpos M, Zopounidis C (2004b) A multicriteria classification approach based on pairwise comparisons. Eur J Oper Res 158:378–389 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Figueira J, De Smet Y, Brans J (2004) MCDA methods for sorting and clustering problems: Promethee TRI and Promethee CLUSTER, VUB. Tech Rep Google Scholar
  8. Greco S, Matarazzo B, Slovinski R (2001) Rough sets theory for multicriteria decision analysis. Eur J Oper Res 129:1–47 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Huenaerts L, Nemery P (2007) Détermination des profils de référence dans la problématique de tri, Internet draft. [Online]. Available: http://code.ulb.ac.be
  10. Ngo The A, Mousseau V (2002) Using assignment examples to infer category limits for the ELECTRE TRI method. JMCDA 11:29–43 Google Scholar
  11. Roy B, Bouyssou D (1993) Aide multicritère à la décision: méthodes et cas. Economica, Paris Google Scholar
  12. Yu W (1992) ELECTRE TRI: Aspects méthodologiques et manuel d’utilisation. Document du Lamsade, Université Paris-Dauphine, 74 Google Scholar
  13. Zopounidis C, Doumpos M (2002a) Business failure predictions using the UTADIS multicriteria analysis method. J Oper Res Soc 50:1138–1148 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Zopounidis C, Doumpos M (2002b) Multicriteria classification and sorting methods: a literature review. Eur J Oper Res 138:229–246 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Sociedad de Estadística e Investigación Operativa 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Ecole Polytechnique, Service de Mathématiques de la Gestion—CoDEUniversité Libre de BruxellesBrusselsBelgium

Personalised recommendations