IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cys/ecocyb/v50y2017i2p211-230.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

OWA-based Aggregation Operations in Multi-Expert MCDM Model

Author

Listed:
  • Binyamin YUSOFF

    (School of Informatics and Applied Mathematics University of Malaysia Terengganu, Malaysia)

  • Jose Maria MERIGÓ

    (Department of Management Control & Information Systems University of Chile, Santiago, Chile)

  • David CEBALLOS

    (Department of Mathematical Economics, Finance & Actuarial Sciences University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain)

Abstract

This paper presents an analysis of multi-expert multi-criteria decision making (ME-MCDM) model based on the ordered weighted averaging (OWA) operators. Two methods of modeling the majority opinion are studied as to aggregate the experts’ judgments, in which based on the induced OWA operators. Then, an overview of OWA with the inclusion of different degrees of importance is provided for aggregating the criteria. An alternative OWA operator with a new weighting method is proposed which termed as alternative OWAWA (AOWAWA) operator. Some extensions of ME-MCDM model with respect to two-stage aggregation processes are developed based on the classical and alternative schemes. A comparison of results of different decision schemes then is conducted. Moreover, with respect to the alternative scheme, a further comparison is given for different techniques in integrating the degrees of importance. A numerical example in the selection of investment strategy is used as to exemplify the model and for the analysis purpose.

Suggested Citation

  • Binyamin YUSOFF & Jose Maria MERIGÓ & David CEBALLOS, 2017. "OWA-based Aggregation Operations in Multi-Expert MCDM Model," ECONOMIC COMPUTATION AND ECONOMIC CYBERNETICS STUDIES AND RESEARCH, Faculty of Economic Cybernetics, Statistics and Informatics, vol. 51(2), pages 211-230.
    • Handle: RePEc:cys:ecocyb:v:50:y:2017:i:2:p:211-230
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: ftp://www.eadr.ro/RePEc/cys/ecocyb_pdf/ecocyb2_2017p211-230.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Michel Grabisch & Jean-Luc Marichal & Radko Mesiar & Endre Pap, 2009. "Aggregation functions," Université Paris1 Panthéon-Sorbonne (Post-Print and Working Papers) halshs-00445120, HAL.
    2. JosÉ Figueira & Salvatore Greco & Matthias Ehrogott, 2005. "Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis: State of the Art Surveys," International Series in Operations Research and Management Science, Springer, number 978-0-387-23081-8, December.
    3. Che Mohd Imran Che Taib & Binyamin Yusoff & Mohd Lazim Abdullah & Abdul Fatah Wahab, 2016. "Conflicting Bifuzzy Multi-attribute Group Decision Making Model with Application to Flood Control Project," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 25(1), pages 157-180, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Silvia Bortot & Ricardo Alberto Marques Pereira & Anastasia Stamatopoulou, 2020. "Shapley and superShapley aggregation emerging from consensus dynamics in the multicriteria Choquet framework," Decisions in Economics and Finance, Springer;Associazione per la Matematica, vol. 43(2), pages 583-611, December.
    2. Fancello, Giovanna & Tsoukiàs, Alexis, 2021. "Learning urban capabilities from behaviours. A focus on visitors values for urban planning," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 76(C).
    3. Bana e Costa, Carlos A. & Oliveira, Carlos S. & Vieira, Victor, 2008. "Prioritization of bridges and tunnels in earthquake risk mitigation using multicriteria decision analysis: Application to Lisbon," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 36(3), pages 442-450, June.
    4. Denys Yemshanov & Frank H. Koch & Yakov Ben‐Haim & Marla Downing & Frank Sapio & Marty Siltanen, 2013. "A New Multicriteria Risk Mapping Approach Based on a Multiattribute Frontier Concept," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(9), pages 1694-1709, September.
    5. Luca Anzilli & Silvio Giove, 2020. "Multi-criteria and medical diagnosis for application to health insurance systems: a general approach through non-additive measures," Decisions in Economics and Finance, Springer;Associazione per la Matematica, vol. 43(2), pages 559-582, December.
    6. Corrente, Salvatore & Figueira, José Rui & Greco, Salvatore, 2014. "The SMAA-PROMETHEE method," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 239(2), pages 514-522.
    7. Comino, E. & Ferretti, V., 2016. "Indicators-based spatial SWOT analysis: supporting the strategic planning and management of complex territorial systems," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 64142, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    8. Kaveh Madani & Laura Read & Laleh Shalikarian, 2014. "Voting Under Uncertainty: A Stochastic Framework for Analyzing Group Decision Making Problems," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 28(7), pages 1839-1856, May.
    9. Kadziński, MiŁosz & Greco, Salvatore & SŁowiński, Roman, 2012. "Extreme ranking analysis in robust ordinal regression," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 40(4), pages 488-501.
    10. Haurant, P. & Oberti, P. & Muselli, M., 2011. "Multicriteria selection aiding related to photovoltaic plants on farming fields on Corsica island: A real case study using the ELECTRE outranking framework," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(2), pages 676-688, February.
    11. Growiec, Jakub, 2018. "Factor-specific technology choice," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 1-14.
    12. José M. Merigó & Anna M. Gil-Lafuente & Daniel Palacios-Marqués, 2014. "A new method for fuzzy decision making under risk and uncertainty," International Journal of Business Continuity and Risk Management, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 5(1), pages 29-42.
    13. Franceschini, Fiorenzo & Maisano, Domenico, 2015. "Checking the consistency of the solution in ordinal semi-democratic decision-making problems," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 57(PB), pages 188-195.
    14. Bouyssou, Denis & Marchant, Thierry, 2007. "An axiomatic approach to noncompensatory sorting methods in MCDM, II: More than two categories," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 178(1), pages 246-276, April.
    15. Grabisch, Michel & Kojadinovic, Ivan & Meyer, Patrick, 2008. "A review of methods for capacity identification in Choquet integral based multi-attribute utility theory: Applications of the Kappalab R package," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 186(2), pages 766-785, April.
    16. Pablo Aragonés‐Beltrán & Mª. Carmen González‐Cruz & Astrid León‐Camargo & Rosario Viñoles‐Cebolla, 2023. "Assessment of regional development needs according to criteria based on the Sustainable Development Goals in the Meta Region (Colombia)," Sustainable Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 31(2), pages 1101-1121, April.
    17. Boris Yatsalo & Sergey Gritsyuk & Terry Sullivan & Benjamin Trump & Igor Linkov, 2016. "Multi-criteria risk management with the use of DecernsMCDA: methods and case studies," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 36(3), pages 266-276, September.
    18. Juliana Martins Ruzante & Valerie J. Davidson & Julie Caswell & Aamir Fazil & John A. L. Cranfield & Spencer J. Henson & Sven M. Anders & Claudia Schmidt & Jeffrey M. Farber, 2010. "A Multifactorial Risk Prioritization Framework for Foodborne Pathogens," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(5), pages 724-742, May.
    19. Becchio, Cristina & Bottero, Marta Carla & Corgnati, Stefano Paolo & Dell’Anna, Federico, 2018. "Decision making for sustainable urban energy planning: an integrated evaluation framework of alternative solutions for a NZED (Net Zero-Energy District) in Turin," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 803-817.
    20. Tunjo Perić & Zoran Babić & Josip Matejaš, 2018. "Comparative analysis of application efficiency of two iterative multi objective linear programming methods (MP method and STEM method)," Central European Journal of Operations Research, Springer;Slovak Society for Operations Research;Hungarian Operational Research Society;Czech Society for Operations Research;Österr. Gesellschaft für Operations Research (ÖGOR);Slovenian Society Informatika - Section for Operational Research;Croatian Operational Research Society, vol. 26(3), pages 565-583, September.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    multi-expert MCDM; OWA operator; IOWA operator; majority concept; weighting methods; financial decision making.;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C44 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Econometric and Statistical Methods: Special Topics - - - Operations Research; Statistical Decision Theory
    • D81 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Criteria for Decision-Making under Risk and Uncertainty
    • G11 - Financial Economics - - General Financial Markets - - - Portfolio Choice; Investment Decisions

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cys:ecocyb:v:50:y:2017:i:2:p:211-230. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Corina Saman (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/feasero.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.