IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/apmaco/v393y2021ics0096300320307694.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Multi-attribute decision making: An innovative method based on the dynamic credibility of experts

Author

Listed:
  • Zhang, Zhi-Gang
  • Hu, Xiao
  • Liu, Zhao-Ting
  • Zhao, Lu-Tao

Abstract

Multi-attribute decision making has become a topic of interest for scholars because it can comprehensively and effectively be used to make decisions in situations in which there are multiple homogeneous options. Attribute weighting is an important step and has a significant impact on decision-making, and the subjective weighting method is commonly used in reality. However, as experts have different knowledge, experiences, preferences and so on, the weights of attributes given by experts are subjective. So expert credibility affects the final weights, and the correctness of the weights calculated in this case cannot be guaranteed. Therefore, the dynamic expert credibility model (DECM) is proposed. First, based on the decision matrix and the weight evaluation matrix, the method for calculating distance-based expert credibility calculates the distance between expert evaluations via the score deviation and ranking deviation. Second, considering the differences in the weight evaluation matrix caused by changes in the individual background of the experts, the expert background change process (EBCP) is proposed. Third, the dynamic value of credibility before and after the EBCP can be calculated. To prove the validity of the model, a test method is proposed from the perspective of data envelopment analysis. Finally, evaluations on industrial economic benefits of 16 provinces or municipalities in China are conducted to illustrate the applicability of the proposed model in practice. Using the test, DECM effectively eliminates the influence of the weight calculation due to expert credibility. After the EBCP, the target value of the DECM reaches 6.0989 and the validity of attribute weights is improved by 2.30%. Compared with the traditional weight determination method, the decision-making result under the DECM is consistent.

Suggested Citation

  • Zhang, Zhi-Gang & Hu, Xiao & Liu, Zhao-Ting & Zhao, Lu-Tao, 2021. "Multi-attribute decision making: An innovative method based on the dynamic credibility of experts," Applied Mathematics and Computation, Elsevier, vol. 393(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:apmaco:v:393:y:2021:i:c:s0096300320307694
    DOI: 10.1016/j.amc.2020.125816
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0096300320307694
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.amc.2020.125816?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ma, Jian & Fan, Zhi-Ping & Huang, Li-Hua, 1999. "A subjective and objective integrated approach to determine attribute weights," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 112(2), pages 397-404, January.
    2. Shirland, Larry E. & Jesse, Richard R. & Thompson, Ronald L. & Iacovou, Charalambos L., 2003. "Determining attribute weights using mathematical programming," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 31(6), pages 423-437, December.
    3. Xue, Min & Fu, Chao & Yang, Shan-Lin, 2020. "Group consensus reaching based on a combination of expert weight and expert reliability," Applied Mathematics and Computation, Elsevier, vol. 369(C).
    4. Jelena Markovic Brankovic & Milica Markovic & Djordje Nikolic, 2018. "Comparative study of hydraulic structures alternatives using promethee II complete ranking method," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 32(10), pages 3457-3471, August.
    5. Dong, Yucheng & Liu, Yating & Liang, Haiming & Chiclana, Francisco & Herrera-Viedma, Enrique, 2018. "Strategic weight manipulation in multiple attribute decision making," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 154-164.
    6. Takeda, E. & Cogger, K. O. & Yu, P. L., 1987. "Estimating criterion weights using eigenvectors: A comparative study," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 29(3), pages 360-369, June.
    7. Yang, Guo-liang & Yang, Jian-Bo & Xu, Dong-Ling & Khoveyni, Mohammad, 2017. "A three-stage hybrid approach for weight assignment in MADM," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 93-105.
    8. S. Razavi Toosi & J. Samani, 2014. "A New Integrated MADM Technique Combined with ANP, FTOPSIS and Fuzzy Max-Min Set Method for Evaluating Water Transfer Projects," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 28(12), pages 4257-4272, September.
    9. Wang, Cao & Zhang, Hao & Li, Quanwang, 2019. "Moment-based evaluation of structural reliability," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 181(C), pages 38-45.
    10. Abd Ulazeez M. Alkouri & Abdul Razak Salleh, 2013. "Complex Atanassov's Intuitionistic Fuzzy Relation," Abstract and Applied Analysis, Hindawi, vol. 2013, pages 1-18, June.
    11. Sharp, Alanna & Andrade, Jose & Ruffini, Nicholas, 2019. "Design for reliability for the high reliability fuze," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 181(C), pages 54-61.
    12. Fu, Chao & Yang, Jian-Bo & Yang, Shan-Lin, 2015. "A group evidential reasoning approach based on expert reliability," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 246(3), pages 886-893.
    13. Rezaei, Jafar, 2015. "Best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 49-57.
    14. Joshi, Deepa & Kumar, Sanjay, 2016. "Interval-valued intuitionistic hesitant fuzzy Choquet integral based TOPSIS method for multi-criteria group decision making," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 248(1), pages 183-191.
    15. Wade D. Cook & Moshe Kress, 1990. "A Data Envelopment Model for Aggregating Preference Rankings," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 36(11), pages 1302-1310, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Chen, Xiaohong & Yang, Shuhan & Hu, Dongbin & Li, Xihua, 2024. "Sustainable mining method selection by a multi-stakeholder collaborative multi-attribute group decision-making method," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 92(C).
    2. Zhao, Lu-Tao & Liu, Zhao-Ting & Cheng, Lei, 2021. "How will China's coal industry develop in the future? A quantitative analysis with policy implications," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 235(C).

    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. Dong, Yucheng & Liu, Yating & Liang, Haiming & Chiclana, Francisco & Herrera-Viedma, Enrique, 2018. "Strategic weight manipulation in multiple attribute decision making," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 154-164.
    2. Dongye Sun & Yuanhua Jia & Lingqiao Qin & Yang Yang & Juyong Zhang, 2018. "A Variance Maximization Based Weight Optimization Method for Railway Transportation Safety Performance Measurement," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(8), pages 1-13, August.
    3. Lu Gan & Yuanyuan Wang & Yusheng Wang & Benjamin Lev & Wenjing Shen & Wen Jiang, 2021. "Coupling coordination analysis with data-driven technology for disaster–economy–ecology system: an empirical study in China," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 107(3), pages 2123-2153, July.
    4. Madjid Tavana & Mehdi Soltanifar & Francisco J. Santos-Arteaga, 2023. "Analytical hierarchy process: revolution and evolution," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 326(2), pages 879-907, July.
    5. Apichit Maneengam, 2023. "Multi-Objective Optimization of the Multimodal Routing Problem Using the Adaptive ε-Constraint Method and Modified TOPSIS with the D-CRITIC Method," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(15), pages 1-22, August.
    6. Babak Daneshvar Rouyendegh & Kazim Topuz & Ali Dag & Asil Oztekin, 2019. "An AHP-IFT Integrated Model for Performance Evaluation of E-Commerce Web Sites," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 21(6), pages 1345-1355, December.
    7. Ewa Roszkowska, 2020. "The extention rank ordering criteria weighting methods in fuzzy enviroment," Operations Research and Decisions, Wroclaw University of Science and Technology, Faculty of Management, vol. 30(2), pages 91-114.
    8. Chaoyu Zheng & Benhong Peng & Xuan Zhao & Anxia Wan & Mu Yue, 2023. "A novel assessment approach based on group evidential reasoning and risk attitude," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 32(4), pages 925-964, August.
    9. Yang, Guo-liang & Yang, Jian-Bo & Xu, Dong-Ling & Khoveyni, Mohammad, 2017. "A three-stage hybrid approach for weight assignment in MADM," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 93-105.
    10. Chao Fu & Dong-Ling Xu, 2016. "Determining attribute weights to improve solution reliability and its application to selecting leading industries," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 245(1), pages 401-426, October.
    11. Xu, Xiaozhan, 2004. "A note on the subjective and objective integrated approach to determine attribute weights," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 156(2), pages 530-532, July.
    12. Alptekin Ulutaş & Ayşe Topal & Dragan Pamučar & Željko Stević & Darjan Karabašević & Gabrijela Popović, 2022. "A New Integrated Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Model for Sustainable Supplier Selection Based on a Novel Grey WISP and Grey BWM Methods," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(24), pages 1-20, December.
    13. Färe, Rolf & Karagiannis, Giannis, 2014. "Benefit-of-the-doubt aggregation and the diet problem," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 33-35.
    14. James J. H. Liou & Perry C. Y. Liu & Huai-Wei Lo, 2020. "A Failure Mode Assessment Model Based on Neutrosophic Logic for Switched-Mode Power Supply Risk Analysis," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 8(12), pages 1-19, December.
    15. Junnan Wu & Xin Liu & Dianqi Pan & Yichen Zhang & Jiquan Zhang & Kai Ke, 2023. "Research on Safety Evaluation of Municipal Sewage Treatment Plant Based on Improved Best-Worst Method and Fuzzy Comprehensive Method," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(11), pages 1-15, May.
    16. Zanella, Andreia & Camanho, Ana S. & Dias, Teresa G., 2015. "Undesirable outputs and weighting schemes in composite indicators based on data envelopment analysis," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 245(2), pages 517-530.
    17. Jinyi Hu, 2023. "Linguistic Multiple-Attribute Decision Making Based on Regret Theory and Minimax-DEA," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 11(20), pages 1-14, October.
    18. Pishchulov, Grigory & Trautrims, Alexander & Chesney, Thomas & Gold, Stefan & Schwab, Leila, 2019. "The Voting Analytic Hierarchy Process revisited: A revised method with application to sustainable supplier selection," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 211(C), pages 166-179.
    19. Shuli Liu & Xinwang Liu, 2016. "A Sample Survey Based Linguistic MADM Method with Prospect Theory for Online Shopping Problems," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 25(4), pages 749-774, July.
    20. Adler, Nicole & Friedman, Lea & Sinuany-Stern, Zilla, 2002. "Review of ranking methods in the data envelopment analysis context," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 140(2), pages 249-265, July.

    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:eee:apmaco:v:393:y:2021:i:c:s0096300320307694. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/applied-mathematics-and-computation .

    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.