IMPACT OF THE OBJECTIVE ATTRIBUTE WEIGHTING ON FIVE POPULAR MULTI-CRITERIA DECISION-MAKING METHODS: AN EMPIRICAL STUDY

Yıl 2024, Cilt: 25 Sayı: 3, 456 - 470, 30.09.2024

Hamiyet Merkepçi

https://doi.org/10.18038/estubtda.1483766

Öz

In a Multi Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) problem, it is rarely possible to optimize all objectives simultaneously, since they can be contradictory, ambiguous or may involve other types of inconsistencies or uncertainties. Therefore, when trying to choose from a number of available alternatives, a decision maker is expected to assign weights to attributes whose values are utilized to evaluate the alternative under consideration for ranking. Attributes can be qualitative or quantitative, and their weights can be assigned by the decision maker in a somewhat subjective manner or algorithmically. In this paper, the impact of attribute weighting approaches on the ranking results across a number of widely used MCDM methods are discussed. That is, it examines how different weighting methods affect the results on the same multi-criteria decision-making methods when making a rating. In doing so, consider five MCDM methods, namely, Evamix, Aras, Topsis, Vikor, Waspas, under three different objective attribute weight assignment procedures, namely, Critic, Entropy, and Standart Deviation (SD). Results indicate that, in some cases, the employed attribute weight-assignment mechanism influences the rating results more heavily than the MCDM method itself. In other words, different MCDM methods tend to yield similar results under the same weight assignment method whereas, the same method produces more distinguishable results under different weighting schemes.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Multi-Criteria Decision Making (Mcdm), Critic, Entropy, Evamix, Topsis

Kaynakça

• [1] Alinezhad A, Khalili J. New Methods and Applications in Multiple Attribute Decision Making (MADM), Springer, 2019.
• [2] Andalecio MN. Multi-criteria decision models for management of tropical coastal fisheries. A review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 2010; 30, 557–580.
• [3] Baležentis A, Baležentis T, Misiunas A. An integrated assessment of Lithuanian economic sectors based on financial ratios and fuzzy MCDM methods. Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 2012; 18(1), 34-53.
• [4] Balezentiene L, Kusta A. Reducing greenhouse gas emissions in grassland ecosystems of the central Lithuania: multi-criteria evaluation on a basis of the ARAS method. The Scientific World Journal, 2012.
• [5] Baležentis A, Štreimikienė D. Integrated Sustainability Index: the Case Study of Lithuania. Intelektinė ekonomika, 2013; 7 (3), 289-303.
• [6] Bakshi T, Sarkar B. MCA based performance evaluation of project selection. arXiv preprint arXiv:1105.0390, 2011.
• [7] Benitez JM, Martin JC, Roman C. Using Fuzzy Number For Measuring Quality Of Service In The Hotel Industry. Tourism Management, 2007; 28(2), 544–555.
• [8] Bisdorff R., et al. Evaluation and decision models with multiple criteria. Berlin: Springer, 2015.
• [9] Chakraborty S, Bhattacharyya O, Zavadskas EK, Antucheviciene J. Application of WASPAS method as an optimization tool in non-traditional machining processes. Information Technology and Control, 2015; 44(1), 77-88.
• [10] Chakraborty S, Zavadskas EK. Applications of WASPAS method in manufacturing decision making. Informatica, 2014; 25(1), 1–20.
• [11] Chatterjee P, Athawale VM., Chakraborty S. Materials selection using complex proportional assessment and evaluation of mixed data methods. Materials and Design, 2011; 32, 851–860.
• [12] Chatterjee P, Chakraborty S. Gear Material Selection using Complex Proportional Assessment and Additive Ratio Assessment-based Approaches: A Comparative Study. International Journal of Materials Science and Engineering, 2013; 1(2), 104-111.
• [13] Chatterjee P, Chakraborty S. Nontraditional machining processes selection using evaluation of mixed data method. International Journal Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 2013; 68, 1613–1626.
• [14] Chatterjee P, Chakraborty S. Flexible manufacturing system selection using preference ranking methods: A comparative study.International Journal of Industrial Engineering Computations, 2014; 5, 315–338.
• [15] Chen YC, Shi Y, et al. Fuzzy MCDM technique for planning the environment watershed, In Cutting-edge research topics on multiple criteria decision making, Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer, 2009; 744–752.
• [16] Cheng RW, Tsai LC., TSAI Pei Hsuan. Financial Service of Wealth Management Banking: Balanced Scorecard Approach. Journal of Social Sciences, 2008; 4 (4), 255-263.
• [17] Tsou CS. Multi-Objective Inventory Planning Using MOPSO And TOPSIS. Expert Systems With Applications, 2008; 35, 136-142.
• [18] Chu TC. Facility Location Selection Using Fuzzy TOPSIS Under Group Decisions. International Journal Of Uncertainty. Fuzziness and Knowledge Based Systems, 2002; 10 (6) 687–701.
• [19] Chu MT, Shyu J, Tzeng GH, Khosla R. Comparison Among Three Analytical Methods for Knowledge Communities Group-Decision Analysis. Expert Systems with Applications, 2007; 33, 1011–1024.
• [20] Chung ES, Lee KS. Identification of spatial ranking of hydrological vulnerability using multi-criteria decision making techniques: case study of Korea. Water Resour Manage, 2009; 23, 2395–2416.
• [21] Darji VP, Rao RV. Application of AHP/EVAMIX method for decision making in the industrial environment. American Journal of Operations Research, 2013; 3, 542-569.
• [22] Darji VP, Rao RV. Intelligent Multi Criteria Decision Making Methods for Material Selection in Sugar Industry. Procedia Materials Science, 2014; 5, 2585 –2594.
• [23] Dashti Z, Pedram MM.. Shanbehzadeh J. A Multi-Criteria Decision Making Based Method For Ranking Sequential Patterns. International MultiConference Of Engineers And Computers Scientists March 17-19, 2010; I, 611-614.
• [24] Diakoulaki D., Mavrotas G., Papayannakis L. Determining objective weights in multiple criteria problems: the CRITIC method. Computers & Operations Research, 1995; 22(7), 763–770.
• [25] Dosal E, Coronado M, Muñoz I, Viguri R, Andrés A, Application of multi-criteria decision-making tool to locate construction and demolition waste (C&DW) recycling facilities in a Northern Spanish Region. Environmental Engineering and Management Journal, 2012; 11(3), 545-556.
• [26] Ghadikolaei AS, Esbouei SK. Integrating Fuzzy AHP and Fuzzy ARAS for evaluating financial performance. Boletim da Sociedade Paranaense de Matemática, 2014; 32(2), 163-174.
• [27] Hajkowicz S, Higgins A, A comparison of multiple criteria analysis techniques for water resource management. Euro J Oper Res, 2008; 184, 255–265.
• [28] Hui Yin, Bao-Huey, Wang Huang, An Siou. Combining ANP And TOPSIS Concepts For Evaluation The Performance Of Property-Liability Insurance Companies. Journal Of Social Sciences, 2008; 4 (1), 56-61.
• [29] Kaklauskas A. Tupenaite L, Kanapeckiene L, Naimaviciene J. Knowledge-based model for standard housing renovation. Procedia Engineering, 2013; 57, 497-503.
• [30] Keršulienė V, Turskis Z. An integrated multi-criteria group decision making process: selection of the chief accountant. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2014; 110, 897-904.
• [31] Lashgari S, Antuchevičienė J, Delavari A, Kheirkhah O. Using QSPM and WASPAS methods for determining outsourcing strategies. Journal of Business Economics and Management, 2014; 15(4), 729-743.
• [32] Liu H, Yan T. Bidding-Evaluation of Construction Projects Based on VIKOR Method. Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Automation and Logistics. Jinan, China, 2007.
• [33] Madić M, Gecevska V, Radovanović M, Petković D. Multi-criteria economic analysis of machining processes using the WASPAS method. Journal of Production Engineering, 2014; 17(2), 79-82.
• [34] Maimone M. Multi-criteria evaluation techniques in water resource planning. Universities Council on Water Resources in American Water Resources Association Technical Publication Series. 2001; 227-232.
• [35] Manabendra N, Choudhury PK. Exploring The Dimensionality Of Service Quality: An Application Of TOPSIS In The Indian Banking Industry. Asia-Pacific Journal of Operational Research, 2009; 26(1), 115- 133.
• [36] Mathew M, Sahu S, Upadhyay AK. Effect of normalization techniques in robot selection using weighted aggregated sum product assessment. International Journal of Innovative Research and Advanced Studies (IJIRAS), 2017; 4(2), 59-63.
• [37] Medineckiene M, Zavadskas EK, Björk F, Turskis Z. Multi-criteria decision-making system for sustainable building assessment/certification. Archives of Civil and Mechanical Engineering, 2015; 15(1), 11-18.
• [38] Nolberto M, et al. Strategic Approach in Multi-Criteria Decision Making : A Practical Guide for Complex Scenarios,Springer, 2019: ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/polije-ebooks/detail.action?docID=5654954. [39] Opricovic S, Tzeng GH., Compromise Solution by MCDM Methods: a Comparative Analysis of VIKOR and TOPSIS. European Journal of Operational Research, 2004; 156, 445-455.
• [40] Opricovic S, Tzeng GH. Extended VIKOR Method in Comparison with Other Outranking Methods. European Journal of Operational Research, 2007; 178, 514-529.
• [41] Qureshi ME, Harrison SR, Wegener MK. Validation of multicriteria analysis model. Agriculture Systems, 1999; 62, 105-116.
• [42] Reza S, Majid A. Ranking Financial Institutions Based on of Trust in online banking Using ARAS and ANP Method. International Research Journal of Applied and Basic Sciences. 2013; 6 (4), 415-423.
• [43] Shariati S, Yazdani-Chamzini A, Salsani A, Tamošaitienė J. Proposing a New Model for Waste Dump Site Selection: Case Study of Ayerma Phosphate Mine. Engineering Economics, 2014; 25(4). 410-419.
• [44] Sliogeriene J, Turskis Z, Streimikiene D. Analysis and choice of energy generation technologies: the multiple criteria assessment on the case study of Lithuania. Energy Procedia, 2013; 32, 11-20.
• [45] Stanujkic D, Djordjevic B, Djordjevic M. Comparative analysis of some prominent MCDM methods: A case of ranking Serbian banks. Serbian Journal of Management, 2013; 8(2), 213-241.
• [46] Stanujkic D, Jovanovic R. Measuring a Quality of Faculty Website Using ARAS Method. Contemporary Issues In Business. Management And Education‘2012 ISSN 2029-7963/ISBN 978-609-457-323-1 doi:10.3846/cibme, 2012; 45.
• [47] Tekin M. Üretim Yönetimi. Arı Ofset, Konya, 1996; 1-16.
• [48] Tong LI, Chen CC, Wang CH. Optimization of Multi-Response Processes Using the VIKOR Method. International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 2007; 31, 1049–1057.
• [49] Turskis Z, Zavadskas EK. A novel method for multiple criteria analysis: grey additive ratio assessment (ARAS-G) method. Informatica, 2010; 21(4), 597-610.
• [50] Turskis Z, Zavadskas EK, Antucheviciene J, Kosareva N. A hybrid model based on fuzzy AHP and fuzzy WASPAS for construction site selection. International Journal of Computers Communications & Control, 2015; 10(6), 873-888.
• [51] Tzeng GH, Lin CW, Opricovic S. Multi Criteria Analysis of Alternative-Fuel Buses for Public Transportation. Energy Policy, 2005; 33, 1373-1383.
• [52] Voogd H. Multicriteria evaluation with mixed qualitative and quantitative data. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 1982; 9(2), 221–236.
• [53] Wu Z, Sun J, Liang L, Zha Y. Determination of weights for ultimate cross efficiency using Shannon entropy. Expert Systems with Applications, 2011; 38, 5162-5165.
• [54] Zavadskas EK, Antucheviciene J, Šaparauskas J, Zenonas Turskis Z. Multicriteria assessment of facades’ alternatives: peculiarities of ranking methodology. Procedia Engineering, 2013; 57, 107 – 112.
• [55] Zavadskas EK, Baušys R, Lazauskas M. Sustainable assessment of alternative sites for the construction of a waste incineration plant by applying WASPAS method with single-valued neutrosophic set. Sustainability, 2015; 7, 15923–15936.
• [56] Zavadskas EK, Turskis Z, Vilutiene T. Multiple criteria analysis of foundation instalment alternatives by applying Additive Ratio Assessment (ARAS) method. Archives of civil and mechanical engineering, 2010; 10(3), 123-141.
• [57] Zhang H, Gu CL, Gu LW, Zhang Y The evaluation of tourism destination competitiveness by TOPSIS & ınformation ENTROPY - A case in the Yangtze River Delta of China. Tourism Management, 2011; 32, 443-451.
• [58] Zolfani SH, Aghdaie MH. Derakhti A, Zavadskas EK, Varzandeh MHM. Decision making on business issues with foresight perspective; an application of new hybrid MCDM model in shopping mall locating. Expert systems with applications, 2013; 40(17), 7111-7121.