CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING THE CHOICE OF RANKING MULTIPLE CRITERIA DECISION MAKING METHODS

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Leoneti,Alexandre Bevilacqua
Data de Publicação: 2016
Tipo de documento: Artigo
Idioma: eng
Título da fonte: Pesquisa operacional (Online)
Texto Completo: http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0101-74382016000200259
Resumo: ABSTRACT Various methods, known as Multiple Criteria Decision Making Methods (MCDM), have been proposed to assist decision makers in the process of ranking alternatives. Given the variability of available methods, choosing an MCDM ranking method is a difficult task. There are key factors in the process of choosing an MCDM method such as: (i) available time; (ii) effort required by a given approach; (iii) importance of accuracy; (iv) transparency necessity; (v) conflict minimization necessity; and (vi) facilitator's skill with the method. However, the problem is further increased by the knowledge that the solution of MCDM ranking methods may be sensitive to slight variations in entrance data and, in some cases, might replace the best alternative for the worst when the weightings for the criteria are changed. Some researchers have addressed this problem through different approaches, including the evaluation of MCDM ranking methods in the sense of predicting the initial rankings given by the decision maker. The objective of this study is to propose an empirical experiment to evaluate the propensity for initial ranking prediction of the principal MCDM ranking methods, namely: SAW, TOPSIS, ELECTRE III, PROMETHEE II and TODIM. The study also aimed to assess possible common ranking problems in MCDM methods, such as reversibility, found in the literature. It was found that just up to 20% of initial ranking order was predicted entirely correct by some of the methods. It was also found that just a few methods did not present internal ranking inconsistency. The results of this study and those found in the literature give a warning regarding the choice of MCDM ranking methods. It is suggested that special care must be taken in the choice of methods and, besides axiomatic comparisons, ranking comparisons could be a useful way to enhance the decision making process, since MCDM methods are tools for learning about the problem and do not prescribe solutions.
id SOBRAPO-1_2f734956d3f16d0c9df5a9619256ee6c
oai_identifier_str oai:scielo:S0101-74382016000200259
network_acronym_str SOBRAPO-1
network_name_str Pesquisa operacional (Online)
repository_id_str
spelling CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING THE CHOICE OF RANKING MULTIPLE CRITERIA DECISION MAKING METHODSRanking comparisonRanking similarityPredicting propensitySAWTOPSISELECTRE IIIPROMETHEE IITODIMABSTRACT Various methods, known as Multiple Criteria Decision Making Methods (MCDM), have been proposed to assist decision makers in the process of ranking alternatives. Given the variability of available methods, choosing an MCDM ranking method is a difficult task. There are key factors in the process of choosing an MCDM method such as: (i) available time; (ii) effort required by a given approach; (iii) importance of accuracy; (iv) transparency necessity; (v) conflict minimization necessity; and (vi) facilitator's skill with the method. However, the problem is further increased by the knowledge that the solution of MCDM ranking methods may be sensitive to slight variations in entrance data and, in some cases, might replace the best alternative for the worst when the weightings for the criteria are changed. Some researchers have addressed this problem through different approaches, including the evaluation of MCDM ranking methods in the sense of predicting the initial rankings given by the decision maker. The objective of this study is to propose an empirical experiment to evaluate the propensity for initial ranking prediction of the principal MCDM ranking methods, namely: SAW, TOPSIS, ELECTRE III, PROMETHEE II and TODIM. The study also aimed to assess possible common ranking problems in MCDM methods, such as reversibility, found in the literature. It was found that just up to 20% of initial ranking order was predicted entirely correct by some of the methods. It was also found that just a few methods did not present internal ranking inconsistency. The results of this study and those found in the literature give a warning regarding the choice of MCDM ranking methods. It is suggested that special care must be taken in the choice of methods and, besides axiomatic comparisons, ranking comparisons could be a useful way to enhance the decision making process, since MCDM methods are tools for learning about the problem and do not prescribe solutions.Sociedade Brasileira de Pesquisa Operacional2016-08-01info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersiontext/htmlhttp://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0101-74382016000200259Pesquisa Operacional v.36 n.2 2016reponame:Pesquisa operacional (Online)instname:Sociedade Brasileira de Pesquisa Operacional (SOBRAPO)instacron:SOBRAPO10.1590/0101-7438.2016.036.02.0259info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessLeoneti,Alexandre Bevilacquaeng2016-08-30T00:00:00Zoai:scielo:S0101-74382016000200259Revistahttp://www.scielo.br/popehttps://old.scielo.br/oai/scielo-oai.php||sobrapo@sobrapo.org.br1678-51420101-7438opendoar:2016-08-30T00:00Pesquisa operacional (Online) - Sociedade Brasileira de Pesquisa Operacional (SOBRAPO)false
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING THE CHOICE OF RANKING MULTIPLE CRITERIA DECISION MAKING METHODS
title CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING THE CHOICE OF RANKING MULTIPLE CRITERIA DECISION MAKING METHODS
spellingShingle CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING THE CHOICE OF RANKING MULTIPLE CRITERIA DECISION MAKING METHODS
Leoneti,Alexandre Bevilacqua
Ranking comparison
Ranking similarity
Predicting propensity
SAW
TOPSIS
ELECTRE III
PROMETHEE II
TODIM
title_short CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING THE CHOICE OF RANKING MULTIPLE CRITERIA DECISION MAKING METHODS
title_full CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING THE CHOICE OF RANKING MULTIPLE CRITERIA DECISION MAKING METHODS
title_fullStr CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING THE CHOICE OF RANKING MULTIPLE CRITERIA DECISION MAKING METHODS
title_full_unstemmed CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING THE CHOICE OF RANKING MULTIPLE CRITERIA DECISION MAKING METHODS
title_sort CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING THE CHOICE OF RANKING MULTIPLE CRITERIA DECISION MAKING METHODS
author Leoneti,Alexandre Bevilacqua
author_facet Leoneti,Alexandre Bevilacqua
author_role author
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv Leoneti,Alexandre Bevilacqua
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv Ranking comparison
Ranking similarity
Predicting propensity
SAW
TOPSIS
ELECTRE III
PROMETHEE II
TODIM
topic Ranking comparison
Ranking similarity
Predicting propensity
SAW
TOPSIS
ELECTRE III
PROMETHEE II
TODIM
description ABSTRACT Various methods, known as Multiple Criteria Decision Making Methods (MCDM), have been proposed to assist decision makers in the process of ranking alternatives. Given the variability of available methods, choosing an MCDM ranking method is a difficult task. There are key factors in the process of choosing an MCDM method such as: (i) available time; (ii) effort required by a given approach; (iii) importance of accuracy; (iv) transparency necessity; (v) conflict minimization necessity; and (vi) facilitator's skill with the method. However, the problem is further increased by the knowledge that the solution of MCDM ranking methods may be sensitive to slight variations in entrance data and, in some cases, might replace the best alternative for the worst when the weightings for the criteria are changed. Some researchers have addressed this problem through different approaches, including the evaluation of MCDM ranking methods in the sense of predicting the initial rankings given by the decision maker. The objective of this study is to propose an empirical experiment to evaluate the propensity for initial ranking prediction of the principal MCDM ranking methods, namely: SAW, TOPSIS, ELECTRE III, PROMETHEE II and TODIM. The study also aimed to assess possible common ranking problems in MCDM methods, such as reversibility, found in the literature. It was found that just up to 20% of initial ranking order was predicted entirely correct by some of the methods. It was also found that just a few methods did not present internal ranking inconsistency. The results of this study and those found in the literature give a warning regarding the choice of MCDM ranking methods. It is suggested that special care must be taken in the choice of methods and, besides axiomatic comparisons, ranking comparisons could be a useful way to enhance the decision making process, since MCDM methods are tools for learning about the problem and do not prescribe solutions.
publishDate 2016
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2016-08-01
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0101-74382016000200259
url http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0101-74382016000200259
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv 10.1590/0101-7438.2016.036.02.0259
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv text/html
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Sociedade Brasileira de Pesquisa Operacional
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Sociedade Brasileira de Pesquisa Operacional
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv Pesquisa Operacional v.36 n.2 2016
reponame:Pesquisa operacional (Online)
instname:Sociedade Brasileira de Pesquisa Operacional (SOBRAPO)
instacron:SOBRAPO
instname_str Sociedade Brasileira de Pesquisa Operacional (SOBRAPO)
instacron_str SOBRAPO
institution SOBRAPO
reponame_str Pesquisa operacional (Online)
collection Pesquisa operacional (Online)
repository.name.fl_str_mv Pesquisa operacional (Online) - Sociedade Brasileira de Pesquisa Operacional (SOBRAPO)
repository.mail.fl_str_mv ||sobrapo@sobrapo.org.br
_version_ 1750318018115665920