Advertisement

Sensitivity Analysis by SIMUS: The IOSA Procedure

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

Abstract

This chapter addresses a fundamental subject: sensitivity analysis. It is not only a checking procedure but also a tool that allows the DM to answer questions from stakeholders as well as a way to study different attitudes; without it a MCDM process is incomplete. The main reason for its use lies in the uncertainty of data, and therefore, a test must be performed to verify how a solution holds when certain parameters change.

In this book, sensitivity analysis is performed in a different and novel way, compared as it is done nowadays because there are nonsubjective assumptions, and it is based on what is believed to be a more rational approach, by using economics principles such as criteria marginal values instead of subjective criteria weights. The advantage over the lack of effectiveness and transparency of the actual procedure is that it permits not only determining when a ranking changes – as is the information given by all methods – but also getting a quantitative measure on the effect of these changes. It also provides a graphic display of how the objective value increases or decreases according to increments or decrements in some criteria.

Another advantage is that it allows analysis of how exogenous factors, related somehow with criteria, may affect the best selection in the future, during operation of the alternative selected. Due to this, it is possible to compute the value of diverse risks related to the potential changes of these exogenous factors.

References1

  1. *Belton V, Gear T (1983) On a shortcoming of Saaty’s method of analytic hierarchies. Omega 11:228–230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. *Cox M (2015) Expected utility theory. Accessed: 23 Sept 2017Google Scholar
  3. *Dantzig G (1948) Linear programming and extensions. United States Air Force, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  4. Gomory RE (1958) Outline of an algorithm for integer solutions to linear programs. Bull Am Math Soc 64(5):275–278 https://projecteuclid.org/euclid.bams/1183522679CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. *Ishizaka A, Nemery P (2013) Multicriteria decision software: methods and analysis. Wiley, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  6. *Kantorovich L (1939) The best uses of economic resources. Pergamon Press (1965)Google Scholar
  7. *Kothari C (2009) An introduction to operational research, 3rd edn. Vikas Publishing House PVT LTD Noida, IndiaGoogle Scholar
  8. *Lliso P, Munier N (2014) Multicriteria decision-making by Simus. http://decisionmaking.esy.es/. Accessed: 08 Dec 2017Google Scholar
  9. *Mareschal B, De Smet Y, Nemery N (2008) Rank reversal in Promethee II method. Some new results. In: International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management (2008). p. 2008Google Scholar
  10. *Munier N (2011) A strategy for using multicriteria analysis in decision-making – a guide for simple and complex environmental projects. Springer, DordrechtCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. *Saaty T, Sagir M (2009) An essay on rank preservation and reversal. Math Comput Model 49:1230–1243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. *Shing Y, Lee L, Chun S, Chung D (2013) A critical view of multi-criteria decision-making methodologies. Issues Inf Syst 14(1):358–365Google Scholar
  13. *Solver – FrontLine Systems. http://www.solver.com/. Accessed 08 Dec 2017
  14. *Triantaphyllou E (2001) Two cases of rank reversal when the AHP and some of its additive variants are used that do not occur with the multiplicative AHP. J Multicrit Decis Anal 10(1):11–25. John Wiley and SonsGoogle Scholar
  15. *Verly C, De Smet Y (2013) Some considerations about rank reversal occurrences in the PROMETHEE methods. Accepted for publication in the Int J Multicrit Decis Mak 71, 3(4):325–345Google Scholar
  16. *Wan J-M, Luo Y (2009) On rank reversal in decision analysis. Math Comput Model 49(5–6):1221–1229Google Scholar
  17. *Wang Y-M, Elhag T (2006) An approach to avoiding rank reversal in AHP – Elsevier. Decis Support Syst 42(3):1474–1480CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. *Wang X, Triantaphyllou E (2008) Ranking irregularities when evaluating alternatives by using some ELECTRE methods. Elsevier – Science Direct. Omega 36:45–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. *Zavadskas E, Antuvichevicene J, Saparauskas J, Turskis Z (2012) MCDM methods Waspas and Multimoora: verification of robustness of methods when assessing alternative solutions. http://www.ecocyb.ase.ro/20132/Zavadskas%20(T).pdf. Accessed 05 Dec 2015Google Scholar
  20. *Zopounides C, Pardalos P (2010) Handbook of multi criteria analysis. Springer, Berlin/HeidelbergCrossRefGoogle 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