A Comparative Study of Multiple-Criteria Decision-Making Methods under Stochastic Inputs

Kolios, Athanasios; Mytilinou, Varvara; Lozano-Mínguez, Estívaliz; Salonitis, Konstantinos

doi:10.3390/en9070566

Cited by 225 publications

(149 citation statements)

References 71 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

129

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Weighted sum models are often used for single dimensional problems, as for example for only one network [48] with limited amount of data. However, they still provide similar results when compared with more sophisticated methods [16,24,49]. In rehabilitation management this is seldom the case due to the large amount of data and influences.…”

Section: Review Of Available Methodsmentioning

confidence: 50%

“…It is mainly used, due to its simple application and because a more complicated approach would require a higher data quality. Sometimes it is applied together with other methods, for instance AHP [9], because of its simple applicability [49]. Applications can be found for the planning of urban infrastructures in general [50], the choosing of sewer rehabilitation methods [51] or urban flood management [24].…”

Section: Review Of Available Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The weighted sum model is formulated for problems in which all Water 2017, 9, 68 5 of 28 variables have the same physical dimensions, being based on the "additive utility" assumption [52]. For multi-dimensional problems (e.g., qualitative and quantitative attributes), the problem becomes difficult to handle, as the aforementioned hypothesis is violated, and hence, normalization schemes must be employed [49]. Furthermore, compensation effects between the different criteria can be observed [41].…”

Section: Review Of Available Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Comparison of Multi-Criteria Decision Support Methods for Integrated Rehabilitation Prioritization

Tscheikner-Gratl

Egger

Rauch

et al. 2017

Water

121

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:The decisions taken in rehabilitation planning for the urban water networks will have a long lasting impact on the functionality and quality of future services provided by urban infrastructure. These decisions can be assisted by different approaches ranging from linear depreciation for estimating the economic value of the network over using a deterioration model to assess the probability of failure or the technical service life to sophisticated multi-criteria decision support systems. Subsequently, the aim of this paper is to compare five available multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) methods (ELECTRE, AHP, WSM, TOPSIS, and PROMETHEE) for the application in an integrated rehabilitation management scheme for a real world case study and analyze them with respect to their suitability to be used in integrated asset management of water systems. The results of the different methods are not equal. This occurs because the chosen score scales, weights and the resulting distributions of the scores within the criteria do not have the same impact on all the methods. Independently of the method used, the decision maker must be familiar with its strengths but also weaknesses. Therefore, in some cases, it would be rational to use one of the simplest methods. However, to check for consistency and increase the reliability of the results, the application of several methods is encouraged.

show abstract

Section: Review Of Available Methodsmentioning

confidence: 50%

Section: Review Of Available Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Review Of Available Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Comparison of Multi-Criteria Decision Support Methods for Integrated Rehabilitation Prioritization

Tscheikner-Gratl

Egger

Rauch

et al. 2017

Water

121

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…So it can be said that the result of the WP calculation method is more detailed than the results given by the SAW method, since the WP method utilizing multiplication of the performance alternative rating value which is raised to the weight that has been improved. It is as revealed in the study [10] which states that SAW and WP methods calculation process is almost the same, what makes the difference is there is normalization process in the SAW method to resolve the variety of units ranges, while in the WP methods, the comparison of each alternative is done by multiplication of the ratio related to each criterion. That difference is what makes the final result of each method is also slightly different.…”

Section: Comparative Analysis Of Saw and Wp Methodsmentioning

confidence: 97%

Comparative Analysis of Simple Additive Weighting Method and Weighted Product Method to New Employee Recruitment Decision Support System (DSS) at PT. Warta Media Nusantara

Setyawan¹,

Arini²,

Akhlis³

2017

SJI

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Issue handling of inadvertence situations in the decision-making process of recruiting new employees at PT. Warta Media Nusantara that use criteria value of interviews, field test, a psychological test and medical check-up requires Multi Attribute Decision Making (MADM) as an auxiliary method of decision-making on the prospective eligible employee to be accepted in the company. There are various MADM methods, such as Simple Additive Weighting (SAW) method and Weighted Product (WP) method. Both of these methods are known as the most common method used in handling MADM issues, so in this study both methods are applied to the DSS and analyzed the differences in terms of obtained results and the execution time required for each method. The results of the study of the application of SAW and WP methods in the recruitment of new employees DSS there are some differences in the results of the candidates rank order and the differences in execution time of each method. The differences in rank order of these methods are due to the effects of alternative values, weighting criteria, and the calculation method. WP method is able to provide more rigorous result than SAW method, while the difference in execution time of SAW and WP methods explains that the execution time of SAW method relatively quick because SAW calculation method has a simpler process than the process of WP calculation methods.

show abstract

“…Mixed method as compared to TOPSIS and SAW is the preferred technique, moreover, AHP is more acceptable than Entropy for weighting. The comprehensive study [30] carried out the comparative analysis among well-known and widely-used methods WPM, WSM, TOPSIS, AHP, PROMETHEE, ELECTRE, when applied to the reference problem of the selection of wind turbine support structures for a given deployment location. The outcomes of this research highlight that more sophisticated methods, such as TOPSIS and Preference Ranking Organization METHod for Enrichment Evaluation (PROMETHEE), better predict the optimum design alternative.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

WEBIRA - Comparative Analysis of Weight Balancing Method

Krylovas

Kosareva

Zavadskas

2017

INT J COMPUT COMMUN

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The attributes weight establishing problem is one of the most important MCDM tasks. This study summarizes weight determining approach which is called WEBIRA (WEight Balancing Indicator Ranks Accordance). This method requires to solve complicated optimization problem and its application is possible by carrying out non trivial calculations. The efficiency of WEBIRA and other MCDM methods -SAW (Simple Additive Weighting) and EMDCW (Entropy Method for Determining the Criterion Weight) compared for 4 different data normalization methods. The results of the study revealed that more sophisticated WEBIRA method is significantly efficient for all considered numbers of alternatives. Efficiency of all methods decreases with increasing number of alternatives, but WEBIRA is still applicable, while application of other methods is impossible as the number of alternatives is greater than 11. WEBIRA is the least affected by the data normalization, while EMDCW is the most affected method.

show abstract

A Comparative Study of Multiple-Criteria Decision-Making Methods under Stochastic Inputs

Cited by 225 publications

References 71 publications

Comparison of Multi-Criteria Decision Support Methods for Integrated Rehabilitation Prioritization

Comparison of Multi-Criteria Decision Support Methods for Integrated Rehabilitation Prioritization

Comparative Analysis of Simple Additive Weighting Method and Weighted Product Method to New Employee Recruitment Decision Support System (DSS) at PT. Warta Media Nusantara

WEBIRA - Comparative Analysis of Weight Balancing Method

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About