A Novel Method for Measuring the Performance of Decision Alternatives in Multi-Criteria Decision Making: Proportional Superiority Approach (PSA)

Year 2024, Volume: 5 Issue: 2, 102 - 126

Furkan Fahri Altıntaş

https://doi.org/10.53525/jster.1501506

Abstract

In the face of increasing complexity and uncertainty, new multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) methods facilitate making informed and rational decisions by enhancing problem-solving skills. Therefore, the discovery of new MCDM methods is of great importance. In this context, this study introduces a new MCDM model (Proportional Superiority Approach-PSA) based on the fundamental logic of measuring the performance of decision alternatives, which relies on the proportional increase of decision alternatives to each other, aiming to expand the modeling logic of MCDM and enrich MCDM literature. Initially, a comparative analysis of the proposed method was conducted. According to the findings, although the relationship of PSA with other MCDM methods included in the study was high, it was found to be different from those MCDM methods. Therefore, based on the results of the comparative analysis, it was observed that the proposed method is credible and reliable. In the scope of the simulation analysis, 10 scenarios were obtained, and it was found that as the number of scenarios increased, the relationship levels of the PSA method with other methods differed and decreased. Furthermore, the PSA method was found to be capable of discriminating between the performances of decision alternatives through variance measurement. Finally, in the analysis, the level of variance of the PSA method was measured within the scenarios, and it was found that the variances of the PSA method were homogeneous within the scenarios. Therefore, according to the results of the simulation analysis, it was evaluated that the PSA method is robust and stable.

Keywords

Rate of increase, proportional increase superiority, proportional superiority approach-PSA, MCDM

Çok Kriterli Karar Verme Kapsamında Karar Alternatiflerin Performanslarının Ölçümüne Yönelik Yeni Bir Yaklaşım: Oransal Üstünlük Yaklaşaımı

Abstract

Artan karmaşıklık ve belirsizlik karşısında, yeni çok kriterli karar verme (ÇKKV) yöntemleri, problem çözme becerilerini geliştirerek bilgilendirilmiş ve rasyonel kararlar alınmasını kolaylaştırır. Bu nedenle, yeni ÇKKV yöntemlerinin keşfi büyük önem taşımaktadır. Bu bağlamda, bu çalışma, karar alternatiflerinin performansını ölçmenin temel mantığına dayanan ve ÇKKV modelleme mantığını genişletmeyi ve ÇKKV literatürünü zenginleştirmeyi amaçlayan yeni bir ÇKKV modeli (Orantılı Üstünlük Yaklaşımı-PSA) sunmaktadır. Öncelikle, önerilen yönteminin karşılaştırmalı bir analizi yapılmıştır. Bulgulara göre, PSA'nın çalışmaya dahil edilen diğer ÇKKV yöntemleriyle ilişkisi yüksek olmasına rağmen, bu ÇKKV yöntemlerinden farklı olduğu bulunmuştur. Dolayısıyla, karşılaştırmalı analiz sonuçlarına dayanarak, önerilen yöntemin güvenilir ve geçerli olduğu gözlemlenmiştir. Simülasyon analizinin kapsamında, 10 senaryo elde edilmiş ve senaryo sayısı arttıkça, PSA yönteminin diğer yöntemlerle olan ilişki seviyelerinin farklılaştığı ve azaldığı bulunmuştur. Ayrıca, PSA yönteminin, varyans ölçümü yoluyla karar alternatiflerinin performansları arasında ayrım yapabildiği tespit edilmiştir. Son olarak, analizde, PSA yönteminin senaryolar içindeki varyans seviyesi ölçülmüş ve PSA yönteminin varyanslarının senaryolar içinde homojen olduğu bulunmuştur. Dolayısıyla, simülasyon analizinin sonuçlarına göre, PSA yönteminin sağlam ve istikrarlı olduğu değerlendirilmiştir.

Keywords

Oransal artış, Oransal artış üstünlüğü, oransal üstünlük yaklaşımı, ÇKKV

References

• [1] Aktaş, R., Doğanay, M. M., Gökmen, Y., Gazibey, Y., & Türen, U. (2015). Sayısal karar verme yöntemleri. İstanbul: Beta Yayıncılık.
• [2] Al Khoiry, I., & Amelia, D. R. (2023). Exploring simple addictive weighting (SAW) for decision making. Jurnal Inovtek Polbeng - Seri Informatika, 8(2), 281-290. DOI: 10.35314/isi.v8i2.3433.
• [3] Amor, S. B., De Almedia, A. T., De Miranda, J. L., & Aktas, E. (2021). Advanced studies in multi-criteria decision making. Oxfordshire: Taylor & Francis.
• [4] Atan, M., & Altan, Ş. (2020). Örnek uygulamalarla çok kriterli karar verme yöntemleri. Ankara: Gazi Kitapevi.
• [5] Ayçin, E. (2019). Çok kriterli karar verme . Ankara: Nobel Yayın.
• [6] Azad, T. (2019). Implementation of TOPSIS method for multi criteria decision making of supplier selection. European Journal of Advances in Engineering and Technology, 6(11), 22-27.
• [7] Behl, A. (2020). Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis in Management. Hershey, PA : Business Science Reference.
• [8] Biswas, T. K., Chaki, S., & Das, M. C. (2019). MCDM technique application to the selection of an Indian institute of technology. Operational Research in Engineering Sciences: Theory and Applications, 2(3), 65-76. DOI: 10.31181/ 10.31181/oresta1903065b.
• [9] Bridgman, P. W. (1922). Dimensional analysis. New Haven: Yale University Press.
• [10] Chinnasamy, S., Ramachandran, M., Rajkumar, S., & Sivaji, C. (2023). A survey on transportation system using the WPM method. Building Materials and Engineering Structures, 1(2), 37-44. DOI: 10.46632/bmes/1/2/5.
• [11] Chourabi, Z., Khedher, F., Babay, A., & Cheikhrouhou, M. (2019). Multi criteria decision making in workforce choice using AHP, WSM and WPM. The Journal of The Textile Institute, 110(7), 1092-1101. DOI: 10.1080/00405000.2018.1541434.
• [12] Churchman, C. W., & Ackoff, R. L. (1954). An approximate measure of value. Journal of Operationn Research Society of America, 2(2), 172-187.
• [13] Ciardiello, F., & Genovese, A. (2023). A comparison between TOPSIS and SAW methods. Annals of Operations Research, 325, 967–994. DOI: 10.1007/s10479-023-05339-w.
• [14] Çelikbilek, Y. (2018). Çok kriterli karar verme yöntemleri. Ankara: Nobel Akademik Yayıncılık.
• [15] Demir, G., Özyalçın, A. T., & Bircan, H. (2021). Çok kriterli karar verme yöntemleri ve ÇKKV yazılımı ile problem çözümü. Ankara: Nobel.
• [16] Demirci, A. (2020). Sağlık hizmetleri yönetiminde çok kriterli karar verme teknikleri. Ankara: Gazi Kitapevi.
• [17] Dhanalakshmi, C. S., Madhu, P., Karthick, A., Mathew, M., & Kumar, R. V. (2022). A comprehensive MCDM-based approach using TOPSIS and EDAS as an auxiliary tool for pyrolysis material selection and its application. Biomass Conv. Bioref, 12, s. 5845–5860. DOI: 10.1007/s13399-020-01009-0.
• [18] Dinçer, S. E. (2019). Çok kriterli karar alma. Ankara: Gece Akademi.
• [19] Ecer, F. (2020). Çok kriterli karar verme. Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık.
• [20] Ghorabaee, M. K., Zavadskas, E. K., Olfat, L., & Turskis, Z. (2015). Multi criteria inventory classification using a new method of evaluation based on distance from avarege solution (EDAS). Informatica, 26(3), 435-451. DOI: 10.15388/Informatica.2015.57
• [21] Goswami, S. S., & Behera, D. K. (2021). Solving material handling equipment selection problems in an industry with the help of Entropy integrated COPRAS and ARAS MCDM techniques. Process Integr. Optim. Sustain., 5, 947–973. DOI: 10.1007/s41660-021-00192-5.
• [22] Handayani, N., Heriyani, N., Septian, F., & Alexander, A. D. (2023). Multi-criteria decision making using The WASPAS method for online English course selection. Jurnal Teknoinfo, 17(1), 260-270.
• [23] Heritage Foundation (2023). Economic Freedom Index. Country Scores: Retrieved from https://www.heritage.org/index.
• [24] Hezer, S., Gelmez, E., & Özceylan, E. (2021). Comparative analysis of TOPSIS, VIKOR and COPRAS methods for the COVID 19 regional safety assessment. Journal of Infection and Public Health, 14, 775–786. DOI: 10.1016/j.jiph.2021.03.003
• [25] Hwang, C. L., & Yoon, K. (1981). Multiple attribute decision making: Methods and applications. New York: Springer-Verlag.
• [26] Kabir, G., & Hasin, M. A. (2012). Comparative analysis of TOPSIS and FUZZY TOPSIS for the evaluation of travel website service quality. International Journal for Quality Research, 6(3), 169-185.
• [27] Karabašević, D., Stanujkić, D., & Urošević, S. (2015). The MCDM model for personnel selection based on SWARA and ARAS methods. Management, 77, 43-51.
• [28] Karakış, E. (2021). Machine selection for a textile company with CRITIC and MAUT methods. Avrupa Bilim ve Teknoloji Dergisi(27), 842-848. DOI: 10.31590/ejosat.994697
• [29] Karande, P., Zavadskas, E. K., & Chakraborty, S. (2016). A study on the ranking performance of some MCDM methods for industrial robot selection problems. International Journal of Industrial Engineering Computations, 7(3), 399-422. DOI: 10.5267/j.ijiec.2016.1.001
• [30] Kaya, İ., & Karaşan, A. (2020). Çok kriterli karar verme. İstanbul: Umuttepe Yayınları.
• [31] Keeney, R. L., & Raiffa, H. (1976). Decision with multiple objectives: Preferences and value trade off. New York: John Wiley & Sons .
• [32] Keshavarz-Ghorabaee, M., Amiri, M., Zavadskas, E. K., Turskis, Z., & Antucheviciene, J. (2021). Determination of objective weights using a new method based on the removal effects of criteria (MEREC). Symmetry, 13, 1-20. DOI: 10.3390/sym13040525
• [33] Lopez, L. M., Ishizaka, A., & Qin, J. (2023). Multi criteria decision making sorting methods: applications to real world. Cambridge-Massachusetts: Academic Press.
• [34] Maharani, S., Ridwanto, H., Hatta, H. R., Khairina, D. M., & Ibrahim, M. R. (2021). Comparison of TOPSIS and MAUT methods for recipient determination home surgery. IAES International Journal of Artificial Intelligence (IJ-AI), 10(4), 930~937. DOI: 10.11591/ijai.v10.i4.pp930-937.
• [35] Maniya, K., & Bhatt, M. G. (2010). A selection of material using a novel type decision-making method: Preference selection index method. Materials and Design(31), 1785-1789.
• [36] Mousavi-Nasab, S. H., & Sotoudeh-Anvari, A. (2017). A comprehensive MCDM based approach using TOPSIS, COPRAS and DEA as an auxiliary tool for material selection problems. Materials & Design, 121, 237-253. DOI: 10.1016/j.matdes.2017.02.041
• [37] Onajite, O., & Oke, S. A. (2021). The application of WSM, WPM and WASPAS multicriteria methods for optimum operating conditions selection in machining operations. Jurnal Rekayasa Sistem Industri, 10(1), 1-15. DOI: 10.26593/jrsi.v10i1.4271.1-14.
• [38] Özbek, A. (2019). Çok kriterli karar verme yöntemleri ve excel ile problem çözümü kavram-teori-uygulama (2. b.). Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık.
• [39] Öztel, A., & Alp, İ. (2020). Çok kriterli karar verme yöntemi seçiminde yeni bir yaklaşim. İstanbul: Kriter Yayınevi.
• [40] Paksoy, S. (2017). Çok kriterli karar vermede güncel yaklaşimlar. Adana: Karahan Kitapevi.
• [41] Petković, D., Madić, M., Radovanović, M., & Gečevska, V. (2017). Application of the performance selection index method for solving machining MCDM problems. FACTA Universitatis-Series: Mechanical Engineering, 15(1), 97-106. DOI: 10.22190/FUME151120001P.
• [42] Puška, A. (2013). Comparative analysis of MCDM methods in investment decision. London: LAP LAMBERT Academic Publishing.
• [43] Sotoudeh-Anvaria, A., Sadjadi, S. J., Molanaa, S. M., & Sadi-Nezhad, S. (2018). A new MCDM-based approach using BWM and SAW for optimal search model. Decision Science Letters, 7, 395–404. DOI: 10.5267/j.dsl.2018.2.001
• [44] Stanujkić, D., & Karabašević, D. (2018). An extension of the decision making problems with intuitionistic fuzzy numbers: A case of web site evaluation. Operational Research in Engineering Sciences: Theory and Applications, 7(1), 29-39. DOI: 10.31181/oresta19012010129s
• [45] Sudha, S. (2019). Application of EDAS method on water requirement in agriculture. International Journal of Engineering Research & Technology (IJERT), 8(12), 558-561. DOI: 10.17577/IJERTV8IS120283
• [46] Taherdoost, H. (2023). Analysis of Simple Additive Weighting Method (SAW) as a Multi-Attribute Decision-Making Technique: A Step-by-Step Guide. Journal of Management Science & Engineering Research, 6(1), 21-24. DOI: 10.30564/jmser.v6i1.5400
• [47] Taufik, I., Alam, C. N., Mustofa, Z., Rusdiana, A., & Uriawan, W. (2020). Implementation of multi-attribute utility theory (MAUT) method for selecting diplomats. The 5th Annual Applied Science and Engineering Conference (AASEC 2020) (pp. 1-7). Bandung Barat: AASEC.
• [48] Tepe, S. (2021). Örnek uygulamalarla çok kriterli karar verme yöntemleri. Ankara: Akademisyen Kitapevi.
• [49] Tiwari, R. K., & Kumar, R. (2021). A robust and efficient MCDM based framework for cloud service selection using modified TOPSIS. International Journal of Cloud Applications and Computing, 11(1), 21-50. DOI: 10.4018/IJCAC.2021010102.
• [50] Triantaphyllou, E. (2010). Multi-Criteria Decision Making Methods: A Comparative Study. New York: Springer.
• [51] Trung, D. (2021). Application of EDAS, MARCOS, TOPSIS, MOORA AND PIV Methods For Multi-Criteria Decision Making In Milling Process. Journal of Mechanical Engineering, 71(2), 69-84. DOI: 10.2478/scjme-2021-0019
• [52] Tuş, A., & Adalı, E. A. (2018). Personel assessment with CODAS and PSI methods. Alphanumeric Journal, 6(2), 243-255. DOI: 10.17093/alphanumeric.432843
• [53] Uludağ, A. S., & Doğan, H. (2021). Üretim yönetiminde çok kriterli karar verme. Ankara: Nobel.
• [54] Ulutaş, A., & Topal, A. (2020). Bütünleştirilmiş çok kriterli karar verme yöntemlerinin üretim sektörü uygulamaları. Ankara: Akademisyen Kitapevi.
• [55] Van Thanh, N. (2020). Multi Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) Model for Supplier Evaluation and Selection in the Supply Chain Management. Moscova: Eliva Press.
• [56] Varatharajulu, M., Duraiselvam, M., Kumar, M. B., Jayaprakash, G., & Baskar, N. (2022). Multi criteria decision making through TOPSIS and COPRAS on drilling parameters of magnesium AZ91. Journal of Magnesium and Alloys, 10, 2857–2874. DOI: 10.1016/j.jma.2021.05.006
• [57] Vijayakuma, A. (2020). Comparison of multi criteria decision making methods SAW and ARAS: An application to performance of Indian pharmaceutical companies. Journal of Economics and Technology Research, 1(2), 23-46. DOI: 10.22158/jetr.v1n2p23
• [58] Walters, S. J. (2009). Quality of life outcomes in clinical trials and health-care evaluation: A practical guide to analysis and interpretation. New York: Wiley.
• [59] Yadav, S., Pathak, V. K., & Gangwar, S. (2019). A novel hybrid TOPSIS-PSI approach for material selection in marine applications. Sādhanā, 44(58), 1-12. DOI: 10.1007/s12046-018-1020.
• [60] Yıldırım, B. F., & Çiftçi, H. N. (2020). Çok kriterli karar verme yöntemleri ile finansal performans analizi ve tahmin modeli. İstanbul: Türkmen Kitapevi.
• [61] Zavadskas, E. K., & Kaklauskas, A. (1996). Systemotechnical evaluation of buildings (pastatu sistemotechninis ivertinimas). Vilnius: Technika.
• [62] Zavadskas, E. K., Turskis, Z., & Vilutiene, T. (2010). Multiple criteria anaysis of foundation instalment alternatives by applying additive ration assessment (ARAS) method. Archives of Civil and Mechanical Engineering, 10(3), 123-141. DOI: 10.1016/S1644-9665(12)60141-1
• [63] Zavadskas, E. K., Turskis, Z., Antucheviciene, J., & Zakarevicius, A. (2012). Optimization of weighted aggregated sum product assessment. elektronika ır electrotechnika, 122(6), 3-6. DOI: 10.5755/j01.eee.122.6.181
• [64] Zhang, X., Wang, C., Li, E., & Xu, C. (2014). Assessment model of ecoenvironmental vulnerability based on improved entropy weight method. Scientific World Journal, 2014, s. 1-7. DOI: 10.1155/2014/797814.