New McEqls Fuzzy Ahp Methodology for Evaluating Learning Repositories: A Tool for Technological Development of Economy

Kurilovas, Eugenijus; Vinogradova, Irina; Kubilinskienė, Svetlana

doi:10.3846/20294913.2015.1074950

Cited by 20 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 25 publications

(32 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The weights of criteria by means of the FAHP (Kurilovas et al, 2016) method are determined at the following stages: STAGE I: Experts evaluate the pairwise comparison by applying the AHP method scale. The consistency of the filled in matrix is checked by formula (3).…”

Section: Fuzzy Ahp Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The value S i , referred to as the extension of the fuzzy synthesis (Chang, 1992;Kurilovas et al, 2016), is calculated for each criterion:…”

Section: Fuzzy Ahp Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Simple Additive Weighting (SAW), Technique for Order of Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) and Complex Proportional Assessment (COPRAS) MADM methods (Ginevičius & Podviezko, 2013;Hwang & Yoon, 1981;Podvezko, 2011;Podviezko & Podvezko, 2014;Vinogradova & Kliukas, 2015;Zavadskas, Kaklauskas, & Šarka, 1994) as well as the new Evaluation Based on Distance from Average Solution (EDAS) method (Keshavarz Ghorabaee, Zavadskas, Olfat, & Turskis, 2015) were applied in this paper for comparison of different contracts and determination of the best alternative. The Fuzzy AHP (FAHP) method (Chang, 1992;Kurilovas, Vinogradova, & Kubilinskiene, 2016;Kurilov & Vinogradova, 2016) was used for determination of criteria weights with due consideration of uncertainty of expert evaluation. The entropy method and new criteria impact loss (CILOS) and integrated determination of objective criteria weights (IDOCRIW) methods (Zavadskas & Podvezko, 2016) were used for evaluation of the data structure.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Evaluation of quality assurance in contractor contracts by multi-attribute decision-making methods

Trinkūnienė

Podvezko

Zavadskas

et al. 2017

Economic Research-Ekonomska Istraživanja

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The goal of this paper is to compare quality assurance in different contractor contracts by means of multi-attribute decision-making (MADM) and to select the best option. For this investigation, the authors have developed the complex of quality evaluation criteria. During experimental evaluation, the significance of criteria was determined and the expert evaluation of template construction contracts was performed. The complex comparison of contractor contracts was carried out by means of the following MADM methods: Simple Additive Weighting (SAW), Technique for Order of Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS), Complex Proportional Assessment (COPRAS) as well as the new Evaluation Based on Distance from Average Solution (EDAS). MADM. method. To determine the weights of criteria, with due consideration of uncertainty of expert evaluation, the Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process (FAHP) method was applied. Evaluation of the data structure was performed by methods for the determination of objective weights: an entropy method and new criteria impact loss (CILOS) and integrated determination of objective criteria weights (IDOCRIW) methods. Expert subjective and objective weights were combined into aggregate weights. Based on the investigation performed, the authors make conclusions regarding possibilities for improving quality assurance in contractor contracts.

show abstract

Section: Fuzzy Ahp Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The value S i , referred to as the extension of the fuzzy synthesis (Chang, 1992;Kurilovas et al, 2016), is calculated for each criterion:…”

Section: Fuzzy Ahp Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Evaluation of quality assurance in contractor contracts by multi-attribute decision-making methods

Trinkūnienė

Podvezko

Zavadskas

et al. 2017

Economic Research-Ekonomska Istraživanja

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In this research, we use such methods as entropy, the Criterion Impact Loss (CILOS) and the Integrated Determination of Objective Criteria Weights (IDOCRIW) (Section 5.1). Subjective weights based on expert judgement are, however, more common in practice [77]. Subjective criteria weights, as overall averages of expert opinions, may be applied in a multiple criteria assessment if the expert opinions are in concordance.…”

Section: The Criteria Weights' Determination Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

MCDM Assessment of a Healthy and Safe Built Environment According to Sustainable Development Principles: A Practical Neighborhood Approach in Vilnius

Zavadskas¹,

Cavallaro

Podvezko³

et al. 2017

Sustainability

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Urbanization has a massive effect on the environment, both locally and globally. With an ever-increasing scale of construction and manufacturing and misuse of energy resources come poorer air quality, growing mortality rates and more rapid climate change. For these reasons, a healthy and safe built environment is ever more in demand. Global debates focus on sustainable development of the built environment; a rational approach to its analysis is multiple criteria decision making (MCDM) methods. Alternative MCDM methods applied to the same problem often produce different results. In the search for a more reliable tool, this study proposes that a system of MCDM methods should be applied to a single problem. This article assesses 21 neighborhoods in Vilnius in the context of a healthy and safe built environment in view of the principles of sustainable development. MCDM methods were used for this purpose: entropy, Criterion Impact LOSs (CILOS) and Integrated Determination of Objective Criteria Weights (IDOCRIW) methods were used to determine the objective weights of the criteria, while expert judgement determined the subjective weights. With the overall weights determined, the Vilnius neighborhoods were assessed through the application of COmplex PRoportional ASsessment (COPRAS), Simple Additive Weighting (SAW), Technique for Order of Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) and Evaluation based on Distance from Average Solution (EDAS) methods. The final results were then processed using the rank average method, Borda count and Copeland's method.

show abstract

“…These weights are most important for assessing the results because they express the opinions of highly qualified experts with extensive experience. The well-known approaches are the Delphi method [6,7], the expert evaluation method [3], the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) [8][9][10], the stepwise weight assessment ratio analysis (SWARA) [6,11], the factor relationship (FARE) [12], and KEmeny Median Indicator Ranks Accordance (KEMIRA) [13].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Recalculation of the Weights of Criteria in MCDM Methods Using the Bayes Approach

2018

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The application of multiple criteria decision-making methods (MCDM) is aimed at choosing the best alternative out of the number of available versions in the absence of the apparently dominant alternative. One of the two major components of multiple criteria decision-making methods is represented by the weights of the criteria describing the considered process. The weights of the criteria quantitatively express their significance and influence on the evaluation result. The criterion weights can be subjective, i.e., based on the estimates assigned by the experts, and the so-called objective, i.e., those which assess the structure of the data array at the time of evaluation. Several groups of experts, representing the opinions of various interested parties may take part in the evaluation of criteria. The evaluation data on the criterion weights also depend on the mathematical methods used for calculations and the estimation scales. In determining the objective weights, several methods, assessing various properties or characteristics of the data array's structure, are usually employed. Therefore, the use of the procedures, improving the accuracy of the evaluation of the weights' values and the integration of the obtained data into a single value, is often required. The present paper offers a new approach to more accurate evaluation of the criteria weights obtained by using various methods based on the idea of the Bayes hypothesis. The performed investigation shows that the suggested method is symmetrical and does not depend on the fact whether a priori or posterior values of the weights are recalculated. This result is the theoretical basis for practical use of the method of combining the weights obtained by various approaches as the geometric mean of various estimates. The ideas suggested by the authors have been repeatedly used in the investigation for combining the objective weights, for recalculating the criteria weights after obtaining the estimates of other groups of experts and for combining the subjective and the objective weights. The recalculated values of the weights of the criteria are used in the work for evaluating the quality of the distant courses taught to the students. Keywords: MCDM; the criteria of the weights; Bayes' theorem; combining the weights; symmetry of the method; IDOCRIW; FAHP; evaluating the quality of distant courses

show abstract

New McEqls Fuzzy Ahp Methodology for Evaluating Learning Repositories: A Tool for Technological Development of Economy

Cited by 20 publications

References 25 publications

Evaluation of quality assurance in contractor contracts by multi-attribute decision-making methods

Evaluation of quality assurance in contractor contracts by multi-attribute decision-making methods

MCDM Assessment of a Healthy and Safe Built Environment According to Sustainable Development Principles: A Practical Neighborhood Approach in Vilnius

The Recalculation of the Weights of Criteria in MCDM Methods Using the Bayes Approach

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About