A Novel Method for Assessing the Weight Coefficients of Criteria within the Framework of Multi-Criteria Decision-Making: Measurement Relying on the Impacts of an Exponential Curve Function (MIEXCF)

Abstract

In the realm of multi-criteria decision making (MCDM), this study introduces the Measurement Relying on the Impacts of an Exponential Curve Function (MIEXCF) as a novel approach for objectively determining criteria weight coefficients. Utilizing exponential curve interactions among criteria, MIEXCF is designed to enrich the MCDM literature. The dataset comprises criterion values extracted from Global Innovation Index (GII) evaluations for 19 G20 members. Results demonstrate the efficacy of MIEXCF in objectively deriving criteria weights for diverse nations. Comparative analyses with other methods (ENTROPY, CRITIC, SD, SVP, LOPCOW, MEREC) further validate MIEXCF's credibility, reliability, and stability. Notably, the simulation analysis indicates MIEXCF's effectiveness in discerning criteria weights and stability across scenarios. In conclusion, MIEXCF stands out as a robust objective criterion weighting technique, offering substantial contributions to exponential functions and the broader MCDM literature.

Keywords

• MCDM
• Exponential Function
• Exponential Curve Function
• MIEXCF

References

1. Akın, N. G. (2017). İşletme bölümü öğrencilerinin meslek seçimini etkileyen faktörlerin bulanık dematel yöntemi ile değerlendirilmesi. Uluslararası Yönetim İktisat ve İşletme Dergisi, 13(4), 873-890. http://www. doi.org/10.17130/ijmeb.2017433413.
2. Alfaro, L., Chari, A., Greenland, A. N., & Schott, P. K. (2020). Aggregate and firm-level stock returns during pandemics, in real time. NBER Working Paper (26950), 1-31.
3. Ali, T., Aghaloo, K., Chiu, Y.-R., & Ahmad, M. (2022). Lessons learned from the COVID-19 pandemic in planning the future energy systems of developing countries using an integrated MCDM approach in the off-grid areas of Bangladesh. Renewable Energy, 189, 26-38. https://www.doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2022.02.099.
4. Alrababah, S., & Gan, K. H. (2023). Effects of the hybrid CRITIC–VIKOR method on product aspect ranking in customer reviews. Appl. Sci., 13, 1-14. https://www.doi.org/10.3390/app13169176.
5. Altıntaş, F. F. (2021). Sağlık güvenliği bileşenleri bileşenleri arasındaki ilişkilerin analizi: Somer's d temelli DEMATEL yöntemi ile bir uygulama. Eurasian Academy of Sciences Social Sciences Journal, 36, 48-63. https://www.doi.org/10.17740/eas.soc.2021.V36-04.
6. Altıntaş, F. F. (2023). A novel approach to measuring criterion weights in multiple criteria decision making: cubic effect-based measurement (CEBM). Nicel Bilimler Dergisi, 5(2), 151-195. https://www.doi.org/10.51541/nicel.1349382.
7. Arslan, R. (2020). Critic yöntemi. In: H. Bircan (Eds.), Çok Kriterli Karar Verme Problemlerinde Kriter Ağırlıklandırma Yöntemleri (pp. 120-122). Nobel Yayıncılık.
8. Arvis, J.-F., Ojala, L., Shepherd, B., Ulybina, D., & Wiederer, C. (2023). Connecting to compete trade logistics in the global economy. International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/The World Bank.

9. Ayan, B., Abacıoğlu, S., & Basilio, M. P. (2023). A comprehensive review of the novel weighting methods for multi-criteria decision-making. Information, 14(5), 1-28. https://www.doi.org/10.3390/info14050285.
10. Ayçin, E. (2019). Çok Kriterli Karar Verme. Ankara: Nobel Yayın.
11. Balaban, E. (2015). Temel Matematik ve İşletme Uygulamaları. İstanbul: Türkmen Kitapevi.
12. Baş, F. (2021). Çok Kriterli Karar Verme Yöntemlerinde Kriter Ağırlıklarının Belirlenmesi. Ankara: Nobel Bilimsel.
13. Bayram, N. (2010). Yapısal Eşitlik Modellemesine Giriş: Amos Uygulamaları. Bursa: Ezgi Kitapevi.
14. Bernett, M. A., Ziegler, M., & Byleen, K. E. (2015). Calculus for business, economics, life sciences and social sciences. Pearson.
15. Bircan, H. (2020). Çok Kriterli Karar Verme Problemlerinde Kriter Ağırlıklandırma Yöntemleri. Ankara: Nobel Yayıncılık.
16. Çelik, E. H., & Yılmaz, V. (2013). Lisrel 9.1 ile Yapısal Eşitlik Modellemesi. Ankara: Anı Yayıncılık.
17. Chakrabarty, D., & Rahman, A. (2007). Exponential curve: Estimation-using the just preceding observation in fitted curve. Int.J.Agricult.Stat.Sci, 3(2), 381-186.
18. Civelek, M. E. (2018). Yapısal Eşitlik Modellemesi Metodolojisi. İstanbul: Beta Yayımları.
19. Demir, G., Özyalçın, T., & Bircan, H. (2021). Çok Kriterli Karar Verme Yöntemleri ve ÇKKV Yazılımı ile Problem Çözümü. Ankara: Nobel.
20. Diakoulaki, D., Mavrotas, G., & Papayannakis , L. (1995). Determining objective weights in multiple criteria problems: The Critic method. Computers & Operations Research, 22(7), 763-770.
21. Ecer, F. (2020). Çok Kriterli Karar Verme. Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık.
22. Ecer, F., & Pamucar, D. (2022). A novel LOPCOW-DOBI multi-criteria sustainability performance assessment methodology: An application in developing country banking sector. Omega, 1-35. https://www.www.doi.org/10.1016/j.omega.2022.102690.
23. Eroğlu, E. (2017). İşletme, Iktisat Ve Sosyal Bilimler Için Matematik. Bursa: Dora Yayın.
24. Ersoy, N. (2023). BIST perakende ticaret sektöründe LOPCOW-RSMVC modeli ile performans ölçümü. Sosyoekonomi, 31(57), 419-436.
25. Ertik, H., Şendur, A., & Tulga, İ. (2015). Matematik İşletme İktisat ve Ekonomi Uygulamaları. Çanakkale: Paradigma Akademi Yayınları.
26. Fontela, E., & Gobus, A. (1976). The DEMATEL observer. Battelle Geneva Research Center.
27. Fosu, G. O., & Edunyah, G. (2020). Flattening the exponential growth curve of covid-19 in Ghana and other developing countries; Divine ıntervention is a necessity. SSRN, 1-13. http://www.www.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3565147.
28. Gigovic, L., Pamucar, D., Bajic, Z., & Milicevic, M. (2016). The combination of expert judgment and GIS-MAIRCA analysis for the selection of sites for ammunition depots. Sustainability, 8, 1-30. https://www.doi.org/10.3390/su8040372.
29. Göncü, K. K., & Çetin, O. (2022). A Decision model for supplier selection criteria in healthcare enterprises with dematel ANP method. Sustainability, 14, 1-16. https://www.doi.org/10.3390/su142113912.
30. Gülençer, İ., & Türkoğlu, S. P. (2020). Gelişmekte olan Asya ve Avrupa ülkelerinin finansal gelişmişlik performansının İstatistiksel Varyans Prosedürü temelli OCRA yöntemiyle analizi. Üçüncü Sektör Sosyal Ekonomi Dergisi, 55(2), 1330-1344. https://www.doi.org/10.15659/3.sektor-sosyal-ekonomi.
31. Gürbüz, S. (2019). AMOS ile Yapısal Eşitlik Modellemesi. Ankara: Seçkin Yayınevi.
32. Hamill, J. T., Deckro, R. F., & Kloeber, J. M. (2005). Evaluating Information Assurance Strategies. Decision Support Systems, 39(3), 463-484.
33. IBM. (2013). SPSS tutorial. IBM.
34. Jones, C. I. (2023). Recipes and Economic Growth: A combinatorial march down an exponential tail. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 38(55), 767–785. https://www.doi.org/10.1086/723631.
35. Joujan, A. (2018). Summit Math Series: Algebra 2: Book 7: Exponential functions. XanEdu Publishing Inc.
36. Kahn, D. S. (2015). Attacking problems in logarithms and exponential functions. Dover Publications.
37. Karagöz, Y. (2017). SPSS ve AMOS 23 Uygulamalı İstatistiksel Analizler. Ankara: Nobel Akademik Yayıncılık.
38. Kartal, M., Karagöz, Y., & Kartal, Z. (2014). Temel Matematik. Ankara: Nobel Yayın.
39. Keleş, N. (2023). Uygulamalarla Klasik ve Güncel Karar Verme Yöntemleri. Ankara: Nobel.
40. Keshavarz-Ghorabaee, M., Amiri, M., Zavadskas, E. K., Turskis, Z., & Antucheviciene, J. (2021). Determination of objectiveweights using a new method based on the removal effects of criteria (MEREC). Symmetry, 13, 1-20. https://www.doi.org/10.3390/sym13040525.
41. Keshavarz-Ghorabaee, M., Amiri, M., Zavadskas, E. K., Turskis, Z., & Antucheviciene, J. (2018). Simultaneous evaluation of criteria and alternatives (SECA) for multi-criteria decision-making. Informatica, 29(2), 265–280. https://www.doi.org/10.15388/Informatica.2018.167.
42. Kline, R. B. (2019). Yapısal Eşitlik Modellemesinin İlkeleri ve Uygulaması, Translate: Şen, S. İstanbul: Nobel Yayınları.
43. Kuruüzüm, A., & İpekçi Çetin, E. (2015). İşletme ve Ekonomi Öğrencileri Için Uygulamalı Matematik. Ankara: Gazi Kitapevi.
44. Landsberg, J. J. (1977). Some useful equations for biological studies. Expl Agric., 13, 273-286.
45. Lin, C.-Y. (2014). An Exponential function approach to parabolic equations. World Scientific Publishing Company.
46. Meydan, C. H., & Şeşen, H. (2015). Yapısal Eşitlik Modellemesi AMOS Uygulamaları. Ankara: Detay Yayıncılık.
47. Mukhametzyanov, I. Z. (2021). Specific character of objective methods for determining weights of criteria in MCDM problems: Entropy, CRITIC, SD. Decision Making: Applications in Management and Engineering 4(2), 76-105. https://www.doi.org/10.31181/dmame210402076i.
48. Murillo-Escobar, M. A., Quintana-Ibarra, J. A., & Cruz-Hernández, C. (2023). Biosignal encryption algorithm based on Ushio chaotic map for e-health. Multimed Tools Appl(82), 23373–23399. https://www.doi.org/10.1007/s11042-022-14092-4.
49. Nasser, A. A., Alkhulaidi, A. A., Ali, M. N., Hankal, M., & Al-olofe, M. (2019). A weighted euclidean distance - statistical variance procedure based approach for ımproving the healthcare decision making system in Yemen. Indian Journal of Science and Technology, 12(3), https://www.doi.org/1-15. 10.17485/ijst/2019/v12i3/140661.
50. Natalija, B. (2021). Exponential functions through a real-world context. Open Schools Journal for Open Science, 3, 1-10. https://www.doi.org/10.12681/osj.24891.
51. Odu, G. 0. (2019). Weighting methods for multi-criteria decision making technique. J. Appl. Sci. Environ. Manage, 23(8), 1449-1457. https://dx.www.doi.org/10.4314/jasem.v23i8.7.
52. Önalan, Ö. (2010). İşletme Matematiği. İstanbul: Avcıol Basım Yayım.
53. Özdamar, K. (2016). Eğitim, Sağlık ve Davranış Bilimlerinde Ölçek Geliştirme ve Yapısal Eşitlik Modellemesi. Eskişehir: Nisan Kitapevi.
54. Paksoy, S. (2017). Çok Kriterli Karar Vermede Güncel Yaklaşımlar. Adana: Karahan Kitapevi.
55. Pekkaya, M. (2016). İşletme ve Iktisat Için Genel Matematik ve Matematiksel Yöntemler. Bursa: Ekin Yayınevi.
56. Rasmussen, A., Sabic, H., Saha, S., & Nielsen, I. E. (2023). Supplier selection for aerospace & defense industry through MCDM methods. Cleaner Engineering and Technology, 12, 1-12. https://www.doi.org/10.1016/j.clet.2022.100590.Saaty, T. L. (2008). Decision making with the analytic hierarchy process. International Journal of Services Sciences, 1(1), 83-98.
57. Sel, A. (2020). IDOCRIW Yöntemi, In: H. Bircan (Eds.), Çok Kriterli Karar Verme Problemlerinde Kriter Ağirliklandirma Yöntemleri (pp. 37-50). Nobel Akdemik Yayıncılık.
58. Shparlinski, I., & Konyagin, S. (1999). Character sums with exponential functions and their applications. Cambridge University Press.
59. Sümerli Sarigül, S., Ünlü, M., & Yaşar, E. (2023). A new MCDM approach in evaluating airport service quality: MEREC-Based MARCOS and CoCoSo Methods. Uluslararası Yönetim Akademisi Dergisi, 6(1), 90-108. https://www.doi.org/10.33712/mana.1250335.
60. Thomas, C. (1991). Introduction to exponents and logarithms. University of Sydney.
61. Uludağ, A. S., & Doğan, H. (2021). Üretim Yönetiminde Çok Kriterli Karar Verme. Ankara: Nobel.
62. Vavrek, R. (2019). Evaluation of the ımpact of selected weighting methods on the results of the TOPSIS technique. International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making, 18(6), 1821–1843. https://www.doi.org/10.1142/S021962201950041X.
63. Walters, S. J. (2009). Quality of life outcomes in clinical trials and health-care evaluation: A practical guide to analysis and interpretation. Wiley.
64. Wang, C.-N., Nguyen, N.-A.-T., & Dang, T.-T. (2023). Sustainable evaluation of major third-party logistics providers: A framework of an MCDM-Based Entropy objective weighting method. Mathematics, 11, 1-27. https://www.doi.org/10.1142/S021962201950041X.
65. Weon, B. M., & Je, J. H. (2014). Plasticity and rectangularity in survival curves. Scientific Reports, 1(104), 1-5.
66. Wood, P. K. (2023). Combined logistic and confined exponential growth models. A Multidisciplinary Journal, 1-10. http://www.www.doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2023.2220918.
67. Zavadskas, E. K., & Podvezko, V. (2016). Integrated determination of objective criteria wights in MCMD. International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making, 15(2), 267-283. https://www.doi.org/10.1142/S0219622016500036.