Encyclopedia of Quality of Life and Well-Being Research

2014 Edition
| Editors: Alex C. Michalos

Multi-attribute Decision Making

Reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-0753-5_1863

Synonyms

Definition

Multi-attribute decision making (MADM) refers to making preference decisions by evaluating and prioritizing a limited set of alternatives based on multiple conflict attributes.

Description

MADM has been a hot research area in management science for a long period of time (Zanakis, Solomon, Wishart, & Dublish, 1998). It has been widely applied in different areas, e.g., individual capability evaluation (Wagle, 2009), ecological risk assessment (Xie, Chen, Lin, & Zheng, 2009), and  quality of life assessment (Lazim & Osman, 2009). An MADM problem can be described with a set of attributes and finite alternatives. To solve an MADM problem, three steps are often needed. The first is to determine the weights of the attributes, the second step is to determine and normalize the attribute values for each alternative, and the third is to aggregate the normalized attribute values into an overall index for ranking the...

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

References

  1. Chen, P. C. (2009). A fuzzy multiple criteria decision making model in employee recruitment. International Journal of Computer Science and Network Security, 9(7), 113–117.Google Scholar
  2. Dawes, R. M., & Corrigan, B. (1974). Linear models in decision making. Psychological Bulletin, 81, 95–106.Google Scholar
  3. Ferré, L. (1995). Selection of components in principal component analysis: A comparison of methods. Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, 19(6), 669–682.Google Scholar
  4. Figueira, J., Greco, S., & Ehrgott, M. (2005). Multiple criteria decision analysis: State of the art surveys. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  5. Giannias, D. A. (1999). Life in the CEECs and the EU funding programmes. East-West Journal of Economics and Business, Vol. II, pp. 152–157.Google Scholar
  6. Lai, D. J. (2003). Principal component analysis on human development indicators of CHINA. Social Indicators Research, 61, 319–330.Google Scholar
  7. Lazim, M. A., & Osman, M. T. A. (2009). A new Malaysian quality of life index based on fuzzy sets and hierarchical needs. Social Indicators Research, 94, 499–508.Google Scholar
  8. Lee, G. K. L., & Cha, E. H. W. (2008). The analytic hierarchy process (AHP) approach for assessment of urban renewal proposals. Social Indicators Research, 89(1), 155–168.Google Scholar
  9. Lyubomirsky, S., & Lepper, H. S. (1999). A measure of subjective happiness: Preliminary reliability and construct validation. Social Indicators Research, 46(2), 137–155.Google Scholar
  10. Quadrado, L. (2001). Multidimensional analysis of regional inequality: The case of Hungary. Social Indicators Research, 56, 21–42.Google Scholar
  11. Sun, R. C. F., & Shek, D. T. L. (2009). Life satisfaction, positive youth development and problem behaviour among Chinese adolescents in Hong Kong. Social Indicators Research, 95(3), 455–474.Google Scholar
  12. Wagle, U. R. (2009). Capability deprivation and income poverty in the United States, 1994 and 2004: Measurement outcomes and demographic profiles. Social Indicators Research, 94(3), 509–533.Google Scholar
  13. Wang. J. J., Jing. Y. Y., Zhang, C. F., & Zhao. J. H. (2009). Review on multi-criteria decision analysis aid in sustainable energy decision-making. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 13(9), 2263–2278.Google Scholar
  14. Xie, G. W., Chen, W. G., Lin, M. Z., & Zheng, Y. L. (2009). Ecological risk assessment with MCDM of some invasive alien plants in China. Communications in Computer and Information Science, 35, 580–587.Google Scholar
  15. Zanakis, S. H., Solomon, A., Wishart, N., & Dublish, S. (1998). Multi-attribute decision making: A simulation comparison of select methods. European Journal of Operational Research, 107, 507–529.Google Scholar
  16. Zhou, P., & Ang, B. W. (2009). Comparing MCDA aggregation methods in constructing composite indicators using the Shannon-Spearman measure. Social Indicators Research, 94, 83–96.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.College of Economics and ManagementNanjing University of Aeronautics and AstronauticsNanjingChina