Advertisement

Analysis of Lack of Agreement Between MCDM Methods Related to the Solution of a Problem: Proposing a Methodology for Comparing Methods to a Reference

  • Nolberto Munier
  • Eloy Hontoria
  • Fernando Jiménez-Sáez
Chapter
First Online:
  • 568 Downloads
Part of the International Series in Operations Research & Management Science book series (ISOR, volume 275)

Abstract

It is a proven fact that at present, there is not a course of action that can evaluate or validate the reliability of the solution reached by a MCDM method, because the ‘true’ solution is not known, and it is impossible to make a comparison to assess the efficiency of a result found. This chapter presents a procedure that can help in this endeavour.

It proposes to use a proxy of the true solution, to test a result of any MCDM method; this proxy solution must be the consequence of a more faithful model to replicate as much as possible real-world conditions, as well as the absence of subjectivity in criteria weighting, and the result achieved by an indisputable mathematical procedure. For this purpose, this book suggests using the SIMUS method that fulfils these conditions. In so doing, a problem is solved by this method and its result used as a benchmark to determine the closeness to this result by other methods. To measure the closeness to the proxy, it is suggested to use the Kendall tau rank correlation coefficient (Kendall, Biometrika 30(1–2): 81–89, 1938).

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

References1

  1. Arrow K (1951) Social choice and individual values, 2nd edn. Wiley, New York, p 1963Google Scholar
  2. Brans J, Vincke P (1985) A preference ranking organisation method: (the PROMETHEE method for multiple criteria decision-making). Manag Sci 31(6):647–656CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Buchanan J, Hening E, Hening M (1998) Objectivity and subjectivity in the decision-making process. Ann Oper Res 80(1998):333–334CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ceballos B, Lamata M, Pelta D (2016) A comparative analysis of multi-criteria decision-making methods. Prog Artif Intell 5(4):315–322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cochrane J, Zeleny M (1973) Multiple criteria decision making. University of South Carolina Press, ColumbiaGoogle Scholar
  6. Dantzig G (1948) Linear programming and extensions. United States Air Force Linear Programming and Extensions, Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  7. DTLR – Department for Transport Local Government and the Regions (2001) Planning green paper planning: delivering a fundamental change, UKGoogle Scholar
  8. Fishburn P (1991) Nontransitive preferences in decision theory. J Risk Uncertain 4(2):113–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hwang C, Yoon K (1981) Multiple attribute decision making: methods and applications. Springer, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Ishizaka A, Nemery P (2013) Multicriteria decision aid: methods and software. Wiley, ChichesterCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Jahan A, Edwards K (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 (1980–2015) 65:335–342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kantorovich L (1939) The best uses of economic resourcesGoogle Scholar
  13. Keeney R, Raffia H (1993) Decisions with multiples objectives – preferences and values. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge/New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kendall M (1938) A new measure of rank correlation. Biometrika 30(1–2):81–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Lieferink M, Van Till J, Groothuis-Oudshoorn K, Goetghebeur M, Dolan J (2014) Validating a multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) framework for health care making – University report. https://ris.utwente.nl/ws/portalfiles/portal/6159219. Accesses 5 May 2018
  16. Lliso P (2014) Multicriteria decision-making by Simus. http://decisionmaking.esy.es/. Accessed 30 Apr 2018
  17. MacCrimon K (1968) Decision making among multiple attribute alternatives: A survey and consolidated approach. Rand Memorandum, RM-4823-ARPAGoogle Scholar
  18. Moshkovich H, Monteiro Gomes L, Mechitov A, Rangel S (2012) Influence of model and scales on the ranking of multiattribute alternatives. Pesquisa Operacional 32(3):523–542CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Mulliner E, Malys N, Maliene V (2016) Comparative analysis of MCDM methods for the assessment of sustainable housing affordability. Omega 59:146–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Oprocovic S (1980) VIseKriterijumska Optimizacija I Kompromisno Resenje (multicriteria optimization and compromise solution). Science Watch, April 2009Google Scholar
  21. Pearson K (1895) Notes on regression and inheritance in the case of two parents. Proc R Soc Lond 58:240–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Roy B (1991) The outranking approach and the foundations of ELECTRE methods. Theor Decis 31(1):49–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Saaty T (1996) Decision making with dependence and feedback: the analytic network process. RWS Publications, PittsburghGoogle Scholar
  24. Saaty T (2008) Decision making with the analytic hierarchy process. Int J Serv Sci 1(1):83–98Google Scholar
  25. Shannon C (1948) A mathematical theory of communication. Bell Syst Tech J 27: 379–423, 623–656CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Simon H (1957) Models of man. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  27. Stanujkic D (2014) Comparative analysis of some prominent MCDM methods: a case of ranking Serbian banks. Serbian J Manag 8(2):213–241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Steuer R, Qi Y, Hirschberger M (2005) Multiple objectives in portfolio selection. J Financ Decis Making 1(1):5–20Google Scholar
  29. Stewart T (1996) Robustness of additive value function methods in MCDM. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-1360(199612)5:4<301::AID-MCDA120>3.0.CO;2-QGoogle Scholar
  31. Tversky A, Kahnemann D (1974) Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases science. New Series 185(4157):1124–1131Google Scholar
  32. Wallenius J, Dyer J, Fishburn P, Steuer R, Zionts S, Deb Wang K (2007) Multiple criteria decision making, multiattribute utility theory: recent accomplishments and what lies ahead- seminar, Helsinki School of EconomicsGoogle Scholar
  33. *Wang X, Triantaphyllou E (2006) Ranking irregularities when evaluating alternatives by using some multi-criteria decision analysis methods. Handbook of industrial and system engineering. CRC Press/Taylor & Francis Group, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
  34. *Wang X, Triantaphyllou E (2008) Ranking irregularities when evaluating alternatives by using some ELECTRE methods. Elsevier – Science Direct. Omega 36(1):45–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Yu P (1973) A class of solutions for group decision problems. Manag Sci 19(8):936–946CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Zanakis S, Solomon A, Wishart N, Dublish S (1998) Multi-attribute decision making: a simulation comparison of selection methods. Eur J Oper Res 107:507–529CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Zardari N, Ahmed H, Shirazi K, Yusop Z (2015) Weighting methods and their effects on multi-criteria decision-making model outcomes in water resources management. Springer International Publishing, ChamCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Zeleny M (1974) A concept of compromise solutions and the method of the displaced ideal. Comput Oper Res 1(4):479–496CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nolberto Munier
    • 1
  • Eloy Hontoria
    • 2
  • Fernando Jiménez-Sáez
    • 3
  1. 1.INGENIO, Polytechnic University of ValenciaKingstonCanada
  2. 2.Universidad Politécnica de CartagenaCartagenaSpain
  3. 3.Universidad Politécnica de ValenciaValenciaSpain

Personalised recommendations

Cite chapter

Buy options