Abstract
This paper presents an expert system to select a most suitable discrete Multi-Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) method using an approach that analyses problem characteristics, MCDM methods characteristics, risk and uncertainty in inputs and applies sensitivity analysis to the inputs for a decisional problem. Outcomes of this approach can provide decision makers with a suggested candidate method that delivers a robust outcome. Numerical examples are presented where two MCDM methods are compared and one is recommended by calculating the minimum percentage change in criteria weights and performance measures required to alter the ranking of any two alternatives. A MCDM method will be recommended based on a best compromise in minimum percentage change required in inputs to alter the ranking of alternatives.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Raju, K.S., Kumar, D.N.: Irrigation planning using genetic algorithms. Water Resour. Manag. 18, 163–176 (2004)
Olson, D.L., Mechitov, A., Moshkovich, H.: Learning aspects of decision aids. In: Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on MCDM 2000, IEEE Symposium on Computational Intelligence in Multicriteria Decision Making (MCDM 2007), Ankara, Turkey (2007)
Mutikanga, H.E.: Water loss management, tools and methods for developing countries. Ph.D. dissertation, Eng. Delft Uni, Delft, Netherlands (2012)
Kornyshova, E., Salinesi, C.: MCDM techniques selection approaches: state of the art. In: Proceedings of the 2007 IEEE Symposium on Computational Intelligence in Multicriteria Decision Making (MCDM 2007) (2007)
Laaribi, A.: SIG et Analyse Multicitere. Hermes Science Publications, Paris (2000)
Ulengin, F., Topcu, Y.I., Sahin, S.O.: An artificial neural network approach to multicriteria method selection. In: Proceedings of 15th International Conference on MCDM 2000, IEEE Symposium on Computational Intelligence in Multicriteria Decision Making (MCDM 2007), Ankara, Turkey (2007)
Miller, G.A.: The magical number seven, plus or minus two: some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychol. Rev. 21, 81–97 (1956)
Project Management Institute: Risk Management Plan. A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK), 6th edn. PMI, Newtown Square (2004)
Eldarandaly, K.A., Ahmed, A.N., AbdelAziz, N.M.: An expert system for choosing the suitable MCDM method for solving a spatial decision problem. In: Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Production Engineering, Design and Control, Alexandria, Egypt, 10–12 February 2009
Ozernoy, V.M.: Choosing the best multiple criteria decision making method. INFOR 30(2), 159–171 (1992)
Hobbs, B.F.: What can we learn from experiments in multi-objective decision analysis? IEEE Trans. Syst. Man, Cybern. 16(3), 384–394 (1986)
Saaty, T.L., Ergu, D.: When is a decision making method trustworthy? Criteria for evaluating multi-criteria decision making methods. Int. J. Inf. Technol. Decis. Mak. 14(6) (2015). https://doi.org/10.1141/s021962201550025x
Ballestero, E., Romero, C.: Multiple Criteria Decision Making and Its Applications to Economic Problems. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht (1998)
Mota, P.: Comparative analysis of multicriteria decision making methods. Ph.D. dissertation, Elec. and Comp. Eng. Uni. Nova De Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal (2013)
Grenshon, M.: Model choice in multi-objective decision making in natural resources systems. Ph.D. dissertation, Sys. And Ind. Eng. U.A., Arizona, Ar., USA (1981)
Vincke, P.: A short note on a methodology for choosing a decision-aid method. In: Pardalos, P.M., Siskos, Y., Zopoundis, C. (eds.) Advances in Multicriteria Analysis, pp. 3–7. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Netherlands (1995)
Guitouni, A., Martel, J.M.: Tentative guidelines to help choosing an appropriate MCDM method. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 109, 501–521 (1997)
Hanne, T.: Meta decision problems in multiple criteria decision making. In: Multiple Criteria Decision Making-Advances in MCDM Model, Algorithms, Theory and Applications, vol. 21. Springer (Kluwer) (1999)
MacCrimmon, K.R.: An overview of the multiple objective decision making. In: Multiple Criteria Decision Making. The University of South Carolina Press, Columbia, South Carolina (1973)
Roy, B., Slowinski, R.: Questions guiding the choice of a multicriteria decision aiding method. Euro J. Decis. Process 1, 69–97 (2013)
Expert Choice Sample Model: Voice of customer, Part I, Prioritizing Market Segments. 2004, Expert Choice, from Zultner, R. “Prioritization of restaurant services as a function of how well they contribute to each of their market segments,” Decision by Objectives, pp. 340–344, Princeton, N.J. (1991)
Tscheikner-Gratl, F., Egger, P., Rauch, W., Kleidorfer, M.: Comparison of multi-criteria decision support methods for integrated rehabilitation prioritization. Water 9(68) (2017)
Sanders, D.A., Gegov, A., Haddad, M., Ikwan, F., Wiltshire, D. Tan, Y.C.: A rule-based expert system to decide on direction and speed of a powered wheelchair. In: IEEE Proceedings of the SAI Conference on Intelligent Systems 2018 (in press)
Sanders, D.A., Bausch, N.C.: Improving steering of a powered wheelchair using an expert system to interpret hand tremor. In: Liu, H., Kubota, N., Zhu, X., Dillmann, R., Zhou, D. (eds.) Intelligent Robotics and Applications: Part II. Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, vol. 9245, pp. 460–471. Springer, Cham (2015)
Sanders, D., Gegov, A., Tewkesbury, G.E., Khusainov, R.: Sharing driving between a vehicle driver and a sensor system using trust-factors to set control gains. In: IEEE Proceedings of the SAI Conference on Intelligent Systems 2018 (in press)
Sanders, D.: New method to design large scale high-recirculation airlift reactors. Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng. J. Environ. Eng. Sci. 12(3), 62–78 (2017)
Sanders, D., Robinson, D.C., Hassan, M., Haddad, M., Gegov, A., Ahmed, N.: Making decisions about saving energy in Compressed Air Systems using Ambient Intelligence and AI. In: IEEE Proceedings of the SAI Conference on Intelligent Systems 2018 (in press)
Sanders, D.A.: Using self-reliance factors to decide how to share control between human powered wheelchair drivers and ultrasonic sensors. IEEE Trans. Neural Syst. Rehabil. Eng. 25(8), 1221–1229 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1109/TNSRE.2016.2620988
Sanders, D., Wang, Q., Bausch, N., Huang, Y., Khaustov, S. Popov, I.: An efficient method to produce minimal real time geometric representations of moving obstacles. In: IEEE Proceedings of the SAI Conference on Intelligent Systems 2018 (in press)
Sanders, D.A., Sanders, H., Gegov, A., Ndzi, D.: Rule-based system to assist a tele-operator with driving a mobile robot. In: Bi, Y., Kapoor, S., Bhatia, R. (eds.) SAI Intelligent Systems (IntelliSys) vol. 2, Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems, vol. 16, pp. 599–615. Springer (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-56991-8_44
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this paper
Cite this paper
Haddad, M., Sanders, D., Bausch, N., Tewkesbury, G., Gegov, A., Hassan, M. (2019). Learning to Make Intelligent Decisions Using an Expert System for the Intelligent Selection of Either PROMETHEE II or the Analytical Hierarchy Process. In: Arai, K., Kapoor, S., Bhatia, R. (eds) Intelligent Systems and Applications. IntelliSys 2018. Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing, vol 868. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-01054-6_91
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-01054-6_91
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-01053-9
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-01054-6
eBook Packages: Intelligent Technologies and RoboticsIntelligent Technologies and Robotics (R0)