zbMATH — the first resource for mathematics

Multi-attribute decision making: A simulation comparison of select methods. (English) Zbl 0943.90054
Summary: Several methods have been proposed for solving multi-attribute decision making problems (MADM). A major criticism of MADM is that different techniques may yield different results when applied to the same problem. The problem considered in this study consists of a decision matrix input of \(N\) criteria weights and ratings of \(L\) alternatives on each criterion. The comparative performance of some methods has been investigated in a few, mostly field, studies. In this simulation experiment we investigate the performance of eight methods: ELECTRE, TOPSIS, Multiplicative Exponential Weighting (MEW), Simple Additive Weighting (SAW), and four versions of AHP (original vs. geometric scale and right eigenvector vs. mean transformation solution). Simulation parameters are the number of alternatives, criteria and their distribution. The solutions are analyzed using twelve measures of similarity of performance. Similarities and differences in the behavior of these methods are investigated. Dissimilarities in weights produced by these methods become stronger in problems with few alternatives, however, the corresponding final rankings of the alternatives vary across methods more in problems with many alternatives. Although less significant, the distribution of criterion weights affects the methods differently. In general, all AHP versions behave similarly and closer to SAW than the other methods. ELECTRE is the least similar to SAW (except for closer matching the top-ranked alternative), followed by MEW. TOPSIS behaves closer to AHP and differently from ELECTRE and MEW, except for problems with few criteria. A similar rank-reversal experiment produced the following performance order of methods: SAW and MEW (best), followed by TOPSIS, AHPs and ELECTRE. It should be noted that the ELECTRE version used was adapted to the common MADM problem and therefore it did not take advantage of the method’s capabilities in handling problems with ordinal or imprecise information.

90B50 Management decision making, including multiple objectives
91B06 Decision theory
91B16 Utility theory
Full Text: DOI
[1] Belton, V., A comparison of the analytic hierarchy process and a simple multi-attribute value function, European journal of operational research, 26, 7-21, (1986)
[2] Belton, V.; Gear, T., The legitimacy of rank reversal — A comment, Omega, 13, 143-144, (1984)
[3] Buchanan, J.T.; Daellenbach, H.G., A comparative evaluation of interactive solution methods for multiple objective decision models, European journal of operational research, 29, 353-359, (1987)
[4] Churchman, C.W.; Ackoff, R.L.; Arnoff, E.L., Introduction to operations research, (1957), Wiley New York · Zbl 0153.48902
[5] Currim, I.S.; Sarin, R.K., A comparative evaluation of multiattribute consumer preference models, Management science, 30, 543-561, (1984)
[6] Denpontin, M.; Mascarola, H.; Spronk, J., A user oriented listing of MCDM, Revue belge de researche operationelle, 23, 3-11, (1983)
[7] Dyer, J., Remarks on the analytic hierarchy process, Management science, 36, 249-258, (1990)
[8] Dyer, J.; Fishbum, P.; Steuer, R.; Wallenius, J.; Zionts, S., Multiple criteria decision making, multiattribute utility theory: the next ten years, Management science, 38, 645-654, (1992) · Zbl 0825.90620
[9] Gemunden, H.G.; Hauschildt, J., Number of alternatives and efficiency in different types of top-management decisions, European journal of operational research, 22, 178-190, (1985)
[10] Gershon, M.E.; Duckstein, L., Multiobjective approaches to river basin planning, Journal of water resource planning, 109, 13-28, (1983)
[11] Goicoechea, A.; Stakhiv, E.Z.; Li, F., Experimental evaluation of multiple criteria decision making models for application to water resources planning, Water resources bulletin, 28, 89-102, (1992)
[12] Gomes, L.F.A.M., Comparing two methods for multicriteria ranking of urban transportation system alternatives, Journal of advanced transportation, 23, 217-219, (1989)
[13] Harker, P.T.; Vargas, L.G., Reply to “remarks on the analytic hierarchy process”, Management science, 36, 269-273, (1990), by J.S. Dyer
[14] Hobbs, B.F., What can we learn from experiments in multiobjective decision analysis, IEEE transactions on systems management and cybernetics, 16, 384-394, (1986)
[15] Hobbs, B.J.; Chankong, V.; Hamadeh, W.; Stakhiv, E., Does choice of multicriteria method matter? an experiment in water resource planning, Water resources research, 28, 1767-1779, (1992)
[16] Hwang, C.L.; Yoon, K.L., Multiple attribute decision making: methods and applications, (1981), Springer-Verlag New York
[17] Jelassi, M.T.J.; Ozernoy, V.M., A framework for building an expert system for MCDM models selection, (), 553-562
[18] Karni, R.; Sanchez, P.; Tummala, V., A comparative study of multiattribute decision making methodologies, Theory and decision, 29, 203-222, (1990) · Zbl 0709.90003
[19] Kok, M., The interface with decision makers and some experimental results in interactive multiple objective programming methods, European journal of operational research, 26, 96-107, (1986) · Zbl 0589.90049
[20] Kok, M.; Lootsma, F.A., Pairwise-comparison methods in multiple objective programming, with applications in a longterm energy-planning model, European journal of operational research, 22, 44-55, (1985) · Zbl 0578.90040
[21] Lockett, G.; Stratford, M., Ranking of research projects: experiments with two methods, Omega, 15, 395-400, (1987)
[22] Legrady, K.; Lootsma, F.A.; Meisner, J.; Schellemans, F., Multicriteria decision analysis to aid budget allocation, (), 164-174
[23] Lootsma, F.A., The French and American school in multicriteria decision analysis, Recherche operationelle, 24, 263-285, (1990)
[24] MacCrimmon, K.R., An overview of multiple objective decision making, ()
[25] Olson, D.L.; Moshkovich, H.M.; Schellenberger, R.; Mechitov, A.I., Consistency and accuracy in decision aids: experiments with four multiattribute systems, Decision sciences, 26, 723-748, (1995)
[26] Ozernoy, V.M., A framework for choosing the most appropriate discrete alternative MCDM in decision support and expert systems, (), 56-64
[27] Ozernoy, V.M., Choosing the ‘best’ multiple criteria decision-making method, Infor, 30, 159-171, (1992) · Zbl 0775.90256
[28] Pomerol, J., Multicriteria DSS: state of the art and problems, Central European journal for operations research and economics, 2, 197-212, (1993) · Zbl 0824.90088
[29] Roy, B.; Bouyssou, D., Comparison of two decision-aid models applied to a nuclear power plant siting example, European journal of operational research, 25, 200-215, (1986)
[30] Saaty, T.L., The legitimacy of rank reversal, Omega, 12, 513-516, (1984)
[31] Saaty, T.L., An exposition of the AHP in reply to the paper remarks on the analytic hierarchy process, Management science, 36, 259-268, (1990)
[32] Schoemaker, P.J.; Waid, C.C., An experimental comparison of different approaches to determining weights in additive utility models, Management science, 28, 182-196, (1982)
[33] Stewart, T.J., A critical survey on the status of multiple criteria decision making theory and practice, Omega, 20, 569-586, (1992)
[34] Stillwell, W.; Winterfeldt, D.; John, R., Comparing hierarchical and nonhierarchical weighting methods for eliciting multiattribute value models, Management science, 33, 442-450, (1987)
[35] Takeda, E.; Cogger, K.O.; Yu, P.L., Estimating criterion weights using eigenvectors: A comparative study, European journal of operational research, 29, 360-369, (1987) · Zbl 0618.90046
[36] Timmermans, D.; Vlek, C.; Handrickx, L., An experimental study of the effectiveness of computer-programmed decision support, (), 13-23
[37] Triantaphyllou, E.; Mann, S.H., An examination of the effectiveness of multi-dimensional decision-making methods: A decision-making paradox, Decision support systems, 5, 303-312, (1989)
[38] Voogd, H., Multicriteria evaluation for urban and regional planning, (1983), Pion London
[39] Zahedi, F., A simulation study of estimation methods in the analytic hierarchy process, Socio-economic planning sciences, 20, 347-354, (1986)
[40] Zanakis, S.; Mandakovic, T.; Gupta, S.; Sahay, S.; Hong, S., A review of program evaluation and fund allocation methods within the service and government sectors, Socio-economic planning sciences, 29, 59-79, (1995)
This reference list is based on information provided by the publisher or from digital mathematics libraries. Its items are heuristically matched to zbMATH identifiers and may contain data conversion errors. It attempts to reflect the references listed in the original paper as accurately as possible without claiming the completeness or perfect precision of the matching.