The Selection of Multicriteria Method Based on Unstructured Decision Problem Description

  • Jarosław Wątróbski
  • Jarosław Jankowski
  • Zbigniew Piotrowski
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8733)

Abstract

Decision support processes and methods require applying numerous mathematical transformations, including one of the developed processes of multicriteria analysis. The core of most existing processes is usually one of the multicriteria decision aid methods (MCDA). The paper presents research focused on identifying which factors of a decision situation are significant for selecting a multicriteria method. The identified factors were analyzed with data-mining methods. Conclusions contain an outline of factors of decision situations that support MCDA methods to support decisions in particular situations.

Keywords

decision support multicriteria methods MCDA 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Araz, C., Ozkarahan, I.: Supplier evaluation and management system for strategic sourcing based on a new multicriteria sorting procedure. International Journal of Production Economics 106, 585–606 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Augusto, M., Lisboa, J., Yasin, M., Figueira, J.R.: Benchmarking in a multiple criteria performance context: An application and a conceptual framework. European Journal of Operational Research 184, 244–254 (2008)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Augusto, M.R., Lisboa, J.O., Yasin, M., Figueira, J.R.: Benchmarking in a multiple criteria performance context: An application and a conceptual framework. European Journal of Operational Research 184, 244–254 (2008)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Brans, J.P., Vincke, P.: A preference ranking organisation method. Management Science 31, 647–656 (1985)CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Brans, J.P., Vincke, P., Mareschal, B.: How to select and how to rank projects: The PROMETHEE method. European Journal of Operational Research 24, 228–238 (1986)CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Donegan, H.A., Dodd, F.J., McMaster, T.B.M.: A New Approach to AHP Decision-Making, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series D (The Statistician) 41(3), 295–302 (1992)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dong, C., Loo, G.: Flexible Web-Based Decision Support System Generator (FWDSSG) utilising software agents. In: Proceedings of the 12th International Workshop on Database and Expert Systems Applications Dexa 2000, pp. 0892–0910. IEEE Computer Society (2001)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fortemps, P., Greco, S., Słowiński, R.: Multicriteria Choice and Ranking Using Decision Rules Induced from Rough Approximation of Graded Preference Relations. In: Tsumoto, S., Słowiński, R., Komorowski, J., Grzymała-Busse, J.W. (eds.) RSCTC 2004. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3066, pp. 510–522. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Goumas, M., Lygerou, V.: An extension of the PROMETHEE method for decision making in fuzzy environment: Ranking of alternative energy exploitation projects. European Journal of Operational Research 123, 606–613 (2000)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Guitouni, A., Martel, J.M.: Tentative guidelines to help choosing an appropriate MCDA method. European Journal of Operational Research 109, 501–521 (1998)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Guitouni, A., Martel, J.M., Vincke, P.: A Framework to Choose a Discrete Multicriterion Aggregation Procedure. Defence Research Establishment Valcatier, DREV (1998)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hokkanen, J., Salminen, P.: ELECTRE III and IV Decision Aids in an Environmental Problem. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis 6, 215–226 (1997)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
  14. 14.
    Kangas, A., Kangas, J., Pykaelaeinen, J.: Outranking Methods As Tools in Strategic Natural Resources Planning. Silva Fennica 35, 215–227 (2001)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Li, D.F.: Compromise ratio method for fuzzy multi-attribute group decision making. Applied Soft Computing 7, 807–817 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    MPERIA Project Report, Comparison of Multi – Criteria Decision Analytical Software Searching for ideas for developing a new EIA- specific multi - criteria software Jyri Mustajoki Mika Marttunen Finnish Environment Institute (February 19, 2013)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Munda, G.: Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis and Sustainable Development, Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis: State of the Art Surveys. Springer, New York (2005)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ozerol, G., Karasakal, E.: A Parallel between Regret Theory and Outranking Methods for Multicriteria Decision Making Under Imprecise Information. Theory and Decision 65(1), 45–70 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Pistolesi, G.: MicroDEMON: A Decision-making Intelligent Assistant for Mobile Business. Intelligent. In: Gupta, J.N.D., Forgionne, G.A., Manuel Mora, T. (eds.) Decision-Making Support Systems Decision Engineering, pp. 237–254. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Rao, R., Davim, J.: A decision-making framework model for material selection using a combined multiple attribute decision-making method. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology 35, 751–760 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Roy, B.: Paradigms and challenges. In: Figueira, J., Greco, S., Ehrgott, M. (eds.) Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis. State of the Art Surveys, Springer Science and Business Media, Inc. (2005)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Roy, B.: The outranking approach and the foundations of ELECTRE methods. Theory and Decision 31, 49–73 (1991)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Saaty, T.L.: How to make a decision: The analytic hierarchy process. European Journal of Operational Research 48, 9–26 (1990)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Saaty, T.L.: The Analytic Hierarchy and Analytic Network Processes for the Measurement of Intangible Criteria and for Decision-Making, Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis: State of the Art Surveys (2005)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Wang, X., Triantaphyllou, E.: Ranking irregularities when evaluating alternatives by using some ELECTRE methods. Omega 36, 45–63 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Wang, X., Triantaphyllou, E.: Ranking irregularities when evaluating alternatives by using some ELECTRE methods. Omega 36, 45–63 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Wang, J.J., Yang, D.L.: Using a hybrid multi-criteria decision aid method for information systems outsourcing. Computers & Operations Research 34, 3691–3700 (2007)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Wei, C.C., Chien, C.F., Wang, M.J.J.: An AHP-based approach to ERP system selection. International Journal of Production Economics 96, 47–62 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jarosław Wątróbski
    • 1
  • Jarosław Jankowski
    • 1
  • Zbigniew Piotrowski
    • 1
  1. 1.Faculty of Computer Science and Information TechnologyWest Pomeranian University of Technology SzczecinPoland

Personalised recommendations