Comparison of Multi-Criteria Group Decision-Making Methods for Urban Sewer Network Plan Selection

Abstract

Selecting a suitable sewer network plan for a city is a complex and challenging task that requires discussion among a group of experts and the consideration of multiple conflicting criteria with different measurement units. A number of multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) methods have been proposed for analyzing sewer network selection problems, each having their own distinct advantages and limitations. Although many decision-making techniques are available, decision-makers are confronted with the difficult task of selecting the appropriate MCDM method, as each method can lead to different results when applied to an identical problem. This paper evaluates four different multi-criteria decision-making methods, which are the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP), the Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS), Elimination Et Choix Traduisant la REalité (ELECTRE III) and the Preference Ranking Organization METHods for Enrichment Evaluations II (PROMETHEE II), for one sewer network group decision problem in the early stage of sewer water infrastructure asset management. Moreover, during the implementation of different MCDM methods, the Delphi technique is introduced to organize and structure the discussions among all the decision-makers. The results of the study are examined based on each method’s ability to provide accurate representations of the decision-makers’ preferences and their experience implementing each method. As a conclusion, decision-makers identify PROMETHEE II as their favorite method, AHP is more time and energy consuming and results in a number of inconsistencies, while TOPSIS loses information during vector normalization for multi-dimension criteria, and ELECTRE III’s results are inconclusive.

Designing a Transportation-Strategy Decision-Making Process for a Supply Chain: Case of a Pharmaceutical Supply Chain

“…We have used the DELPHI method [ 86 ] to complete the established list of stakeholders and to prioritize them according to their degree of “having an influence on” and “being impacted by” the design of the transportation strategy of the pharmaceutical products in the Moroccan public sector. A key advantage of the Delphi method is its openness to a diverse set of expert opinions without having to bring everyone together for a physical meeting [ 87 ]. Also, it is considered to be an effective method for gaining judgments on complex matters where precise information is unavailable [ 87 ].…”

Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP)-Based Aggregation Mechanism for Resilience Measurement: NATO Aggregated Resilience Decision Support Model

“…Additionally, it is frequently stated in the literature that there are doubts about the objectivity of the evaluation, as the results are largely based on the subjectivity of decision makers [ 22 ]. Another disadvantage of AHP is the loss of information encountered when the good and bad scores given by experts to some criteria compensate each other [ 23 ]. Moreover, another weakness is that the difficulty of AHP calculations depends on the number of criteria and alternatives [ 23 ].…”

“…Another disadvantage of AHP is the loss of information encountered when the good and bad scores given by experts to some criteria compensate each other [ 23 ]. Moreover, another weakness is that the difficulty of AHP calculations depends on the number of criteria and alternatives [ 23 ]. However, AHP was preferred in this study, because it can solve complex decision-making problems by handling qualitative and quantitative variables together and takes into account the priorities of the decision maker.…”

“…However, AHP was preferred in this study, because it can solve complex decision-making problems by handling qualitative and quantitative variables together and takes into account the priorities of the decision maker. There are other multiple criteria decision making methods, such as ELECTRE, PROMETHEE, and TOPSIS, which can be listed as alternatives to AHP [ 23 ]. ELECTRE and PROMETHEE, which are outranking methods, focus on ranking the alternatives by criterion comparison and TOPSIS determines the distance of each alternative from the goals where the AHP method differentiates from these methods by its full aggregation feature [ 23 ].…”

“…There are other multiple criteria decision making methods, such as ELECTRE, PROMETHEE, and TOPSIS, which can be listed as alternatives to AHP [ 23 ]. ELECTRE and PROMETHEE, which are outranking methods, focus on ranking the alternatives by criterion comparison and TOPSIS determines the distance of each alternative from the goals where the AHP method differentiates from these methods by its full aggregation feature [ 23 ]. The AHP-based aggregation mechanism used in this study will replace the arbitrary weight allocation approach that NATO has been using for the resilience evaluation.…”