Dealing with conflicting targets by using group decision making within PROMETHEE

Conference paper
Part of the Operations Research Proceedings book series (ORP)

Abstract

This paper presents an approach to applying PROMETHEE for group decision making to support strategic decision making for the implementation of product-service systems (PSS). Such strategic decisions are not only dependent on profit but also on other economic and ecological criteria, i.e. gain or loss of knowhow and chances as well as risks concerning cooperation. Therefore, the application of a multi criteria decision support methodology is necessary, in order to include both, the provider’s and the customer’s perspective. In contrast to the application of PROMETHEE by a single decision maker, the weighting process includes the share of the vote of the different decision makers – as already shown in other approaches – as well as contrary targets of the decision makers for the defined set of criteria.

Keywords

Decision Maker Group Decision Decision Matrix Normalize Group Weighting Weighting Process 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Brans, J.-P., Mareschal B.: PROMETHEE Methods. In: Figueira, J., Greco, S., Ehrgott, M. (eds) Multiple Criteria Decision Anlaysis, pp. 163 – 195, Springer, New York (2005)Google Scholar
  2. 1.
    Brans, J.-P., Vincke, P., Mareschal, B.: How to Select and how to Rank Projects: The PROMETHEE Method. Europ. J. of Operational Research 24, 228 – 238 (1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Geldermann, J.:Mehrzielentscheidungen in der industriellen Produktion. Universitaetsverlag, Karlsruhe (2006)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Geldermann, J., Rentz, O.: Integrated technique assessment with imprecise information as a support for the identification of best available techniques (BAT). OR Spektrum 23 (1), 137 –157 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ghafghazi, S., Sowlati, T., Sokhansanj, S., Melin, S.: A multicriteria approach to evaluate district heating system options. Applied Energy, 87 (4), 1134 – 1140 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Haralambopoulos, D.A., Polatidis, H.: Renewable energy projects: Structuring amulti-criteria group decision-making framework. Renewable Energy, 28 (6), 961 – 973 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Macharis, C., Brans, J.-P.,Mareschal, B.: The GDSS PROMETHEE Procedure. J. of Decision Systems, 7, 283 – 307 (1998)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Tukker, A.: Eight types of Product-service System: Eight ways to sustainability? Experiences from SUSPRONET. Bus. Strat. Env. 13, 246 – 260 (2004)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Weissfloch, U.,Mattes, K., Schroeter, M.:Multi-criteria evaluation of service-based new business concepts to increase energy efficiency in compressed air systems. Innovation for Sustainable Production 2010, Proceedings, 61 – 65, Bruges (2010)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research ISIKarlsruheGermany
  2. 2.Georg-August-University of GoettingenGoettingenGermany

Personalised recommendations