AN APPROACH FOR EXTENDING PROMETHEE TO REFLECT CHOICE BEHAVIOUR OF THE DECISION MAKER

Yıl 2019, Cilt: 30 Sayı: 2, 123 - 140, 31.10.2019

Esra Karasakal , Orhan Karasakal Ahmet Bozkurt

Öz

In this study, an approach
based on PROMETHEE is developed to correctly reflect the choice behavior of the
decision maker that is not explained by the utility theory. The proposed
approach is behaviorally realistic and tolerates some degree of intransitivities
in the preferences of the decision maker. Performance of the approach is
demonstrated on a university ranking problem.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Multiple Criteria Decision Making, choice behaviour, PROMETHEE

PROMETHEE’NİN KARAR VERİCİNİN SEÇİM DAVRANIŞINI YANSITACAK ŞEKİLDE GENİŞLETİLMESİ İÇİN BİR YAKLAŞIM

Öz

Bu çalışmada, karar
vericinin fayda teorisi ile açıklanamayan seçim davranışını doğru bir şekilde
yansıtabilmek için PROMETHEE yöntemini temel alan bir yaklaşım
geliştirilmiştir. Önerilen yaklaşım, davranışsal olarak gerçekçi ve karar
vericinin tercihlerinde oluşabilecek geçişsiz değerlendirmelere izin veren bir
yöntemdir. Önerilen yaklaşımın etkinliği bir üniversite sıralama problem
üzerinde gösterilmiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Çok kriterli karar verme, seçim davranışı, PROMETHEE

Kaynakça

• ARWU. 2006. “Academic Ranking of World Universities”, http://www.shanghairanking.com/ ARWU2006.html as of February 15, 2019.
• Babic, Z., Plazibat, N. 1998. “Ranking of Enterprises based on Multicriteria Analysis”, International Journal of Production Economics, 56-57, 29-35.
• Billaut J.C., Bouyssou D., Vincke P. 2010. "Should You Believe in the Shanghai Ranking? An MCDM View”, Scientometrics, 84(1), 237-263.
• Brans, J.P., Vincke, Ph., Mareschal, B. 1986. “How to Select and How to Rank Projects: The PROMETHEE Method”, European Journal of Operational Research, 24(2), 228-238.
• Currim, I.S., Sarin, R.K. 1989. “Prospect versus Utility”, Management Science, 35(1), 22-41.
• Gomes L.F.A.M., Lima M.M.P.P. 1992a. “TODIM: Basics and Application to Multicriteria Ranking of Projects with Environmental Impacts”, Foundations of Computing and Decision Sciences, 16(3), 113-127.
• Gomes L.F.A.M., Lima M.M.P.P. 1992b. “From Modeling Individual Preferences to Multicriteria Raking of Discrete Alternatives: A Look at Prospect Theory and the Additive Difference Model”, Foundations of Computing and Decision Sciences, 17(3), 171-184.
• Gomes L.F.A.M., Gonzalez X.I. 2012. “Behavioral Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis: Further Elaborations on the TODIM Method”, Foundations of Computing and Decision Sciences, 37(1), 3-8.
• Kahneman, D., Tversky, A. 1979. “Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk”, Econometrica, 47(2), 262-291.
• Keeney, R.L., Raiffa, H. 1976. Decisions with multiple objectives: Preferences and values tradeoffs, Wiley, New York.
• Korhonen, P.,Moskowitz, H., Wallenius, J. 1990. “Choice Behaviour in Interactive Multiple Criteria Decision Making”, Annals of Operations Research, 23(1), 161-179.
• Lahdelma R., Salminen P. 2009. “Prospect Theory and Stochastic Multicriteria Acceptability Analysis (SMAA)”, OMEGA- International Journal of Management Science, 37(5), 961-971.
• Saaty, T.L.1990. “How to Make a Decision: The Analytic Hierarchy Process”, European Journal of Operational Research, 48, 9-26.
• Salminen, P. 1994. Solving the Discrete Multiple Criteria Problem using Linear Prospect Theory”, European Journal of Operational Research, 72(1), 146-154.Wang, J.J., Yang, D.L. 2007. “Using a Hybrid Multi-Criteria Decision Aid Method for Information Systems Outsourcing”, Computers and Operations Research, 34(12), 3691–3700
• Wang J.Q., Li K.J., Zhang H.Y. 2012. “Interval-Valued Intuitionistic Fuzzy Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Approach based on Prospect Score Function”, Knowledge-Based Systems, 27, 119-125.