IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/matcom/v77y2008i5p499-511.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Weights determination of OWA operators by parametric identification

Author

Listed:
  • Renaud, Jean
  • Levrat, Eric
  • Fonteix, Christian

Abstract

This contribution presents a new approach on weights determination in industrial decision making aided by OWA operators. Multi-criteria decision aid is a good way, for an industrialists, to determine his preferred compromise products, in the case of risk products or innovative products. The multi-criteria decision support chosen is the Ordered Weighted Average (OWA) operators, introduced by Yager [R.R. Yager, On ordered weighted averaging aggregation operators in multicriteria decision making, IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. 18 (1988) 183–190]. The interest of this aggregation method is, beyond its simplicity of use, product evaluation according unique scale. Furthermore, the weights are not fixed by criterion but according to utility level. First, a learning sample is ranked by the decision-maker. Then, this ranked sample is used in order to determine the weights by parametric identification. For this, an hypothesis of equipartition of the scores of each sample is used. An industrial application, from a food production, illustrates this approach. The ranks obtained from several samples are compared.

Suggested Citation

  • Renaud, Jean & Levrat, Eric & Fonteix, Christian, 2008. "Weights determination of OWA operators by parametric identification," Mathematics and Computers in Simulation (MATCOM), Elsevier, vol. 77(5), pages 499-511.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:matcom:v:77:y:2008:i:5:p:499-511
    DOI: 10.1016/j.matcom.2007.11.024
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378475407003564
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.matcom.2007.11.024?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. 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.
    2. Shanteau, James & Weiss, David J. & Thomas, Rickey P. & Pounds, Julia C., 2002. "Performance-based assessment of expertise: How to decide if someone is an expert or not," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 136(2), pages 253-263, January.
    3. Robert T. Eckenrode, 1965. "Weighting Multiple Criteria," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 12(3), pages 180-192, 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. Reimann, Olivier & Schumacher, Christian & Vetschera, Rudolf, 2017. "How well does the OWA operator represent real preferences?," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 258(3), pages 993-1003.

    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. 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.
    2. Renaud, J. & Thibault, J. & Lanouette, R. & Kiss, L.N. & Zaras, K. & Fonteix, C., 2007. "Comparison of two multicriteria decision aid methods: Net Flow and Rough Set Methods in a high yield pulping process," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 177(3), pages 1418-1432, March.
    3. Hajkowicz, Stefan, 2006. "Taking a closer look at multiple criteria analysis and economic evaluation," 2006 Conference (50th), February 8-10, 2006, Sydney, Australia 139785, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    4. Zanakis, Stelios H. & Mandakovic, Tomislav & Gupta, Sushil K. & Sahay, Sundeep & Hong, Sungwan, 1995. "A review of program evaluation and fund allocation methods within the service and government sectors," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 29(1), pages 59-79, March.
    5. Fanghui Yi & Chen Li & Yan Feng, 2018. "Two precautions of entropy-weighting model in drought-risk assessment," 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. 93(1), pages 339-347, August.
    6. (Ato) Xu, Wangtu & Zhou, Jiangping & Yang, Linchuan & Li, Ling, 2018. "The implications of high-speed rail for Chinese cities: Connectivity and accessibility," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 308-326.
    7. Hajkowicz, Stefan, 2006. "Multi-attributed environmental index construction," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 57(1), pages 122-139, April.
    8. Hsu-Shih Shih, 2016. "A Mixed-Data Evaluation in Group TOPSIS with Differentiated Decision Power," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 25(3), pages 537-565, May.
    9. Spassova, Gerri & Palmeira, Mauricio & Andrade, Eduardo B., 2018. "A ratings pattern heuristic in judgments of expertise: When being right Looks wrong," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 147(C), pages 26-47.
    10. Mikkel Bojesen & Luc Boerboom & Hans Skov-Petersen, 2014. "Towards a sustainable capacity expansion of the Danish biogas sector," IFRO Working Paper 2014/03, University of Copenhagen, Department of Food and Resource Economics.
    11. Zenonas Turskis & Violeta Keršulienė, 2024. "SHARDA–ARAS: A Methodology for Prioritising Project Managers in Sustainable Development," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 12(2), pages 1-23, January.
    12. Mauksch, Stefanie & von der Gracht, Heiko A. & Gordon, Theodore J., 2020. "Who is an expert for foresight? A review of identification methods," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 154(C).
    13. Fausto Cavallaro & Edmundas Kazimieras Zavadskas & Saulius Raslanas, 2016. "Evaluation of Combined Heat and Power (CHP) Systems Using Fuzzy Shannon Entropy and Fuzzy TOPSIS," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(6), pages 1-21, June.
    14. Padraig MacNeela & Anne Scott & Pearl Treacy & Abbey Hyde, 2010. "In the know: cognitive and social factors in mental health nursing assessment," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(9‐10), pages 1298-1306, May.
    15. Tomer Geva & Maytal Saar‐Tsechansky, 2021. "Who Is a Better Decision Maker? Data‐Driven Expert Ranking Under Unobserved Quality," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 30(1), pages 127-144, January.
    16. Wang, Qi & Wu, Chong & Sun, Yang, 2015. "Evaluating corporate social responsibility of airlines using entropy weight and grey relation analysis," Journal of Air Transport Management, Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 55-62.
    17. Dillon, John L. & Perry, Chad, 1977. "Multiattribute Utility Theory, Multiple Objectives And Uncertainty In Ex Ante Project Evaluation," Review of Marketing and Agricultural Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 45(01-2), pages 1-25, March.
    18. Stefan Hajkowicz & Kerry Collins, 2007. "A Review of Multiple Criteria Analysis for Water Resource Planning and Management," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 21(9), pages 1553-1566, September.
    19. 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.
    20. Vaida Zemlickienė & Zenonas Turskis, 2022. "Determination of Importance of Key Decision Points in the Technology Commercialization Process: Attitude of the US and German Experts," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(23), pages 1-13, November.

    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:matcom:v:77:y:2008:i:5:p:499-511. 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.journals.elsevier.com/mathematics-and-computers-in-simulation/ .

    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.