IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jomega/v41y2013i2p397-405.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Dominance intensity measure within fuzzy weight oriented MAUT: An application

Author

Listed:
  • Jiménez, Antonio
  • Mateos, Alfonso
  • Sabio, Pilar

Abstract

We introduce a dominance intensity measuring method to derive a ranking of alternatives to deal with incomplete information in multi-criteria decision-making problems on the basis of multi-attribute utility theory (MAUT) and fuzzy sets theory. We consider the situation where there is imprecision concerning decision-makers' preferences, and imprecise weights are represented by trapezoidal fuzzy weights. The proposed method is based on the dominance values between pairs of alternatives. These values can be computed by linear programming, as an additive multi-attribute utility model is used to rate the alternatives. Dominance values are then transformed into dominance intensity measures, used to rank the alternatives under consideration. Distances between fuzzy numbers based on the generalization of the left and right fuzzy numbers are utilized to account for fuzzy weights.

Suggested Citation

  • Jiménez, Antonio & Mateos, Alfonso & Sabio, Pilar, 2013. "Dominance intensity measure within fuzzy weight oriented MAUT: An application," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 41(2), pages 397-405.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:jomega:v:41:y:2013:i:2:p:397-405
    DOI: 10.1016/j.omega.2012.03.004
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305048312000734
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.omega.2012.03.004?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. Chan, Felix T.S. & Kumar, Niraj, 2007. "Global supplier development considering risk factors using fuzzy extended AHP-based approach," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 35(4), pages 417-431, August.
    2. Lahdelma, Risto & Miettinen, Kaisa & Salminen, Pekka, 2003. "Ordinal criteria in stochastic multicriteria acceptability analysis (SMAA)," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 147(1), pages 117-127, May.
    3. Mesiar, R., 2007. "Fuzzy set approach to the utility, preference relations, and aggregation operators," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 176(1), pages 414-422, January.
    4. Edwards, Ward & Barron, F. Hutton, 1994. "SMARTS and SMARTER: Improved Simple Methods for Multiattribute Utility Measurement," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 60(3), pages 306-325, December.
    5. Hatami-Marbini, Adel & Tavana, Madjid, 2011. "An extension of the Electre I method for group decision-making under a fuzzy environment," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 39(4), pages 373-386, August.
    6. Jiménez, Antonio & Mateos, Alfonso & Ríos-Insua, Sixto, 2009. "Missing consequences in multiattribute utility theory," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 37(2), pages 395-410, April.
    7. Quattrone, Agata & Vitetta, Antonino, 2011. "Random and fuzzy utility models for road route choice," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 47(6), pages 1126-1139.
    8. Risto Lahdelma & Pekka Salminen, 2001. "SMAA-2: Stochastic Multicriteria Acceptability Analysis for Group Decision Making," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 49(3), pages 444-454, June.
    9. Stewart, TJ, 1992. "A critical survey on the status of multiple criteria decision making theory and practice," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 20(5-6), pages 569-586.
    10. Kirkwood, Craig W. & Corner, James L., 1993. "The Effectiveness of Partial Information about Attribute Weights for Ranking Alternatives in Multiattribute Decision Making," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 54(3), pages 456-476, April.
    11. Saaty, Thomas L. & Vargas, Luis G., 1987. "Uncertainty and rank order in the analytic hierarchy process," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 107-117, October.
    12. Peter H. Farquhar, 1984. "State of the Art---Utility Assessment Methods," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 30(11), pages 1283-1300, November.
    13. Insua, David Rios & French, Simon, 1991. "A framework for sensitivity analysis in discrete multi-objective decision-making," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 54(2), pages 176-190, September.
    14. Lahdelma, Risto & Makkonen, Simo & Salminen, Pekka, 2009. "Two ways to handle dependent uncertainties in multi-criteria decision problems," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 37(1), pages 79-92, February.
    15. Yoram Wind & Thomas L. Saaty, 1980. "Marketing Applications of the Analytic Hierarchy Process," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(7), pages 641-658, July.
    16. Chiou, Hua-Kai & Tzeng, Gwo-Hshiung & Cheng, Ding-Chou, 2005. "Evaluating sustainable fishing development strategies using fuzzy MCDM approach," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 33(3), pages 223-234, June.
    17. Salo, Ahti A. & Hamalainen, Raimo P., 1995. "Preference programming through approximate ratio comparisons," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 82(3), pages 458-475, May.
    18. Papadopoulos, Agis & Karagiannidis, Avraam, 2008. "Application of the multi-criteria analysis method Electre III for the optimisation of decentralised energy systems," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 36(5), pages 766-776, October.
    19. F. Hutton Barron & Bruce E. Barrett, 1996. "Decision Quality Using Ranked Attribute Weights," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 42(11), pages 1515-1523, 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. Ahn, Byeong Seok, 2015. "Extreme point-based multi-attribute decision analysis with incomplete information," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 240(3), pages 748-755.
    2. Wan, Shu-Ping & Li, Deng-Feng, 2013. "Fuzzy LINMAP approach to heterogeneous MADM considering comparisons of alternatives with hesitation degrees," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 41(6), pages 925-940.
    3. Sven Peters & Mendy Tönsfeuerborn & Rüdiger von Nitzsch, 2024. "Integrating Uncertainties in a Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis with the Entscheidungsnavi," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 12(11), pages 1-28, June.
    4. Hsin-Chieh Wu & Yu-Cheng Wang & Tin-Chih Toly Chen, 2020. "Assessing and Comparing COVID-19 Intervention Strategies Using a Varying Partial Consensus Fuzzy Collaborative Intelligence Approach," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 8(10), pages 1-23, October.
    5. Ahn, Byeong Seok & Park, Haechurl, 2014. "Establishing dominance between strategies with interval judgments of state probabilities," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 53-59.
    6. Antonio Jiménez-Martín & Eduardo Gallego & Alfonso Mateos & Juan A. Fernández Pozo, 2017. "Restoring a Radionuclide Contaminated Aquatic Ecosystem: A Group Decision Making Problem with Incomplete Information within MAUT Accounting for Veto," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 26(4), pages 653-675, July.
    7. Ahn, Byeong Seok, 2017. "Approximate weighting method for multiattribute decision problems with imprecise parameters," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 87-95.
    8. Yan, Hong-Bin & Ma, Tieju & Huynh, Van-Nam, 2017. "On qualitative multi-attribute group decision making and its consensus measure: A probability based perspective," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 94-117.
    9. Xiaochen Zhang & Xinyu Liu & Yang Zhang & Xing Xu & Jiaxin Xiao & Ding-Bang Luh, 2023. "Assessing the Feasibility of Practical Cradle to Cradle in Sustainable Conceptual Product Design," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(8), pages 1-32, April.
    10. Ahn, Byeong Seok, 2017. "The analytic hierarchy process with interval preference statements," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 67(C), pages 177-185.

    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. Jiménez, Antonio & Mateos, Alfonso & Ríos-Insua, Sixto, 2009. "Missing consequences in multiattribute utility theory," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 37(2), pages 395-410, April.
    2. Jessop, Alan, 2014. "IMP: A decision aid for multiattribute evaluation using imprecise weight estimates," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 18-29.
    3. Valentin Bertsch & Wolf Fichtner, 2016. "A participatory multi-criteria approach for power generation and transmission planning," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 245(1), pages 177-207, October.
    4. Podinovski, Vladislav V., 2020. "Maximum likelihood solutions for multicriterial choice problems," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 286(1), pages 299-308.
    5. Zhu, Bin & Xu, Zeshui, 2014. "Stochastic preference analysis in numerical preference relations," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 237(2), pages 628-633.
    6. Hocine, Amine & Kouaissah, Noureddine, 2020. "XOR analytic hierarchy process and its application in the renewable energy sector," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 97(C).
    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. Antonio Jiménez-Martín & Eduardo Gallego & Alfonso Mateos & Juan A. Fernández Pozo, 2017. "Restoring a Radionuclide Contaminated Aquatic Ecosystem: A Group Decision Making Problem with Incomplete Information within MAUT Accounting for Veto," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 26(4), pages 653-675, July.
    9. Lahdelma, Risto & Salminen, Pekka, 2009. "Prospect theory and stochastic multicriteria acceptability analysis (SMAA)," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 37(5), pages 961-971, October.
    10. Kajanus, Miika & Leskinen, Pekka & Kurttila, Mikko & Kangas, Jyrki, 2012. "Making use of MCDS methods in SWOT analysis—Lessons learnt in strategic natural resources management," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 20(C), pages 1-9.
    11. de Almeida, Jonatas Araujo & Costa, Ana Paula Cabral Seixas & de Almeida-Filho, Adiel Teixeira, 2016. "A new method for elicitation of criteria weights in additive models: Flexible and interactive tradeoffAuthor-Name: de Almeida, Adiel Teixeira," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 250(1), pages 179-191.
    12. Ahn, Byeong Seok, 2017. "Approximate weighting method for multiattribute decision problems with imprecise parameters," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 87-95.
    13. Katsikopoulos, Konstantinos V. & Durbach, Ian N. & Stewart, Theodor J., 2018. "When should we use simple decision models? A synthesis of various research strands," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 17-25.
    14. A Jessop, 2011. "Using imprecise estimates for weights," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 62(6), pages 1048-1055, June.
    15. Huang, Yeu-Shiang & Chang, Wei-Chen & Li, Wei-Hao & Lin, Zu-Liang, 2013. "Aggregation of utility-based individual preferences for group decision-making," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 229(2), pages 462-469.
    16. Menou, Abdellah & Benallou, Abdelhanine & Lahdelma, Risto & Salminen, Pekka, 2010. "Decision support for centralizing cargo at a Moroccan airport hub using stochastic multicriteria acceptability analysis," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 204(3), pages 621-629, August.
    17. Ahn, Byeong Seok, 2011. "Compatible weighting method with rank order centroid: Maximum entropy ordered weighted averaging approach," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 212(3), pages 552-559, August.
    18. Song, Lianlian & Fu, Yelin & Zhou, Peng & Lai, Kin Keung, 2017. "Measuring national energy performance via Energy Trilemma Index: A Stochastic Multicriteria Acceptability Analysis," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 313-319.
    19. Mustajoki, Jyri & Hamalainen, Raimo P. & Lindstedt, Mats R.K., 2006. "Using intervals for global sensitivity and worst-case analyses in multiattribute value trees," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 174(1), pages 278-292, October.
    20. García Cáceres, Rafael Guillermo & Aráoz Durand, Julián Arturo & Gómez, Fernando Palacios, 2009. "Integral analysis method - IAM," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 192(3), pages 891-903, February.

    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:jomega:v:41:y:2013:i:2:p:397-405. 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: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/375/description#description .

    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.