IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/oprepe/v3y2016icp92-117.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Statistical and analytical comparison of multi-criteria decision-making techniques under fuzzy environment

Author

Listed:
  • Zamani-Sabzi, Hamed
  • King, James Phillip
  • Gard, Charlotte C.
  • Abudu, Shalamu

Abstract

Different multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) techniques require different levels of computational intensity and may produce different outputs, so selecting an appropriate technique largely determines the quality of the recommended decision and the effort required to obtain that decision. In most real environments, criteria and their constraints are not deterministic and cannot be specified precisely; therefore, those criteria are uncertain or fuzzy. To facilitate the selection of an appropriate MCDM method under a fuzzy environment, this study investigates and statistically compares the performances of ten commonly used MCDM techniques: simple additive weights (SAW), weighted product method (WPM), compromise programming (CP), technique for order preference by similarity to ideal solution (TOPSIS), four types of analytical hierarchy process (AHP), VIKOR (in Serbian: VIseKriterijumska Optimizacija I Kompromisno Resenje), and ELECTRE (in French: ELimination Et Choix Traduisant la REalité). These techniques’ performances were compared using fuzzy criteria and constraints, matching the conditions usually found in real applications. To conduct the comparisons, the 10 multi-criteria decision ranking methods were applied to 1250 simulated sets of decision matrices with fuzzy triangular values, and 12,500 sets of ranks were analyzed to compare the ranking methods. SAW and TOPSIS had statistically similar performances. ELECTRE was not preferable in providing full, sorted ranks among the alternatives. VIKOR considering its ranking process, for specific conditions, assigns identical ranks for several alternatives; when full, sorted ranks are required, VIKOR is unfavorable, although it is a powerful technique in introducing the closest alternative to the ideal condition. Types 1 and 3 of AHP and types 2 and 4 of AHP had close performances. Notably, no ranking method was significantly sensitive to uncertainty levels when uncertainty changed symmetrically.

Suggested Citation

  • Zamani-Sabzi, Hamed & King, James Phillip & Gard, Charlotte C. & Abudu, Shalamu, 2016. "Statistical and analytical comparison of multi-criteria decision-making techniques under fuzzy environment," Operations Research Perspectives, Elsevier, vol. 3(C), pages 92-117.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:oprepe:v:3:y:2016:i:c:p:92-117
    DOI: 10.1016/j.orp.2016.11.001
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214716016300483
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.orp.2016.11.001?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. R. E. Bellman & L. A. Zadeh, 1970. "Decision-Making in a Fuzzy Environment," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 17(4), pages 141-164, December.
    2. Abbas Mardani & Edmundas Kazimieras Zavadskas & Kannan Govindan & Aslan Amat Senin & Ahmad Jusoh, 2016. "VIKOR Technique: A Systematic Review of the State of the Art Literature on Methodologies and Applications," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(1), pages 1-38, January.
    3. Opricovic, Serafim & Tzeng, Gwo-Hshiung, 2007. "Extended VIKOR method in comparison with outranking methods," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 178(2), pages 514-529, April.
    4. Govindan, Kannan & Jepsen, Martin Brandt, 2016. "ELECTRE: A comprehensive literature review on methodologies and applications," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 250(1), pages 1-29.
    5. Various, 1973. "Conference Programs," NBER Chapters, in: The New Realities of the Business Cycle, pages 126-131, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    6. Zanakis, Stelios H. & Solomon, Anthony & Wishart, Nicole & Dublish, Sandipa, 1998. "Multi-attribute decision making: A simulation comparison of select methods," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 107(3), pages 507-529, June.
    7. Behzadian, Majid & Kazemzadeh, R.B. & Albadvi, A. & Aghdasi, M., 2010. "PROMETHEE: A comprehensive literature review on methodologies and applications," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 200(1), pages 198-215, January.
    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. Mohammed Talal & A. H. Alamoodi & O. S. Albahri & A. S. Albahri & Dragan Pamucar, 2024. "Evaluation of remote sensing techniques-based water quality monitoring for sustainable hydrological applications: an integrated FWZIC-VIKOR modelling approach," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 26(8), pages 19685-19729, August.
    2. Wu, Nianyuan & Zhang, Fang & Zhang, Fuzheng & Jiang, Chenxing & Lin, Jian & Xie, Shan & Jing, Rui & Zhao, Yingru, 2024. "An integrated multi-objective optimization, evaluation, and decision-making method for ship energy system," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 373(C).
    3. Yolandi Schoeman & Paul Oberholster & Vernon Somerset, 2021. "A Zero-Waste Multi-Criteria Decision-Support Model for the Iron and Steel Industry in Developing Countries: A Case Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(5), pages 1-23, March.
    4. Francesco Ciardiello & Andrea Genovese, 2023. "A comparison between TOPSIS and SAW methods," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 325(2), pages 967-994, June.
    5. Akshay Hinduja & Manju Pandey, 2023. "Analysis and Comparison of State-of-the-Art Fuzzy Multi-criteria Decision-making Methods Under Different Levels of Uncertainty," Vision, , vol. 27(1), pages 93-109, February.
    6. Alizadeh, Reza & Soltanisehat, Leili & Lund, Peter D. & Zamanisabzi, Hamed, 2020. "Improving renewable energy policy planning and decision-making through a hybrid MCDM method," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 137(C).
    7. C. Veeramani & R. Venugopal & S. Muruganandan, 2023. "An Exploration of the Fuzzy Inference System for the Daily Trading Decision and Its Performance Analysis Based on Fuzzy MCDM Methods," Computational Economics, Springer;Society for Computational Economics, vol. 62(3), pages 1313-1340, October.
    8. Eduardo Fernandez & Jorge Navarro & Rafael Olmedo, 2018. "Characterization of the Effectiveness of Several Outranking-Based Multi-Criteria Sorting Methods," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 17(04), pages 1047-1084, July.
    9. R. N. Ossei-Bremang & F. Kemausuor, 2021. "A decision support system for the selection of sustainable biomass resources for bioenergy production," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 41(3), pages 437-454, September.
    10. Jose Martino Neto & Valerio Antonio Pamplona Salomon & Miguel Angel Ortiz-Barrios & Antonella Petrillo, 2023. "Compatibility and correlation of multi-attribute decision making: a case of industrial relocation," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 326(2), pages 831-852, July.
    11. Umut Asan & Ayberk Soyer, 2022. "A Weighted Bonferroni-OWA Operator Based Cumulative Belief Degree Approach to Personnel Selection Based on Automated Video Interview Assessment Data," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-33, May.
    12. Khalid Aljohani & Russell G. Thompson, 2018. "A Stakeholder-Based Evaluation of the Most Suitable and Sustainable Delivery Fleet for Freight Consolidation Policies in the Inner-City Area," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(1), pages 1-27, December.
    13. Abbas Roozbahani & Ebrahim Ebrahimi & Mohammad Ebrahim Banihabib, 2018. "A Framework for Ground Water Management Based on Bayesian Network and MCDM Techniques," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 32(15), pages 4985-5005, December.

    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. Roman Vavrek, 2019. "Evaluation of the Impact of Selected Weighting Methods on the Results of the TOPSIS Technique," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 18(06), pages 1821-1843, November.
    2. Ateekh Ur Rehman & Syed Hammad Mian & Usama Umer & Yusuf Siraj Usmani, 2019. "Strategic Outcome Using Fuzzy-AHP-Based Decision Approach for Sustainable Manufacturing," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(21), pages 1-22, October.
    3. Yandong He & Xu Wang & Yun Lin & Fuli Zhou, 2016. "Optimal Partner Combination for Joint Distribution Alliance using Integrated Fuzzy EW-AHP and TOPSIS for Online Shopping," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(4), pages 1-18, April.
    4. Mimica R. Milošević & Dušan M. Milošević & Ana D. Stanojević & Dragan M. Stević & Dušan J. Simjanović, 2021. "Fuzzy and Interval AHP Approaches in Sustainable Management for the Architectural Heritage in Smart Cities," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 9(4), pages 1-29, February.
    5. Tingting Li & Dan Zhao & Guiyun Liu & Yuhong Wang, 2022. "How to Evaluate College Students’ Green Innovation Ability—A Method Combining BWM and Modified Fuzzy TOPSIS," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(16), pages 1-17, August.
    6. Riley, David & Schaafsma, Marije & Marin-Moreno, Héctor & Minshull, Tim A., 2020. "A social, environmental and economic evaluation protocol for potential gas hydrate exploitation projects," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 263(C).
    7. Zida Song & Quan Liu & Zhigen Hu, 2020. "Decision-Making Framework, Enhanced by Mutual Inspection for First-Stage Dam Construction Diversion Scheme Selection," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 34(2), pages 563-577, January.
    8. Montlaur, Adeline & Delgado, Luis & Prats, Xavier, 2023. "Domain-driven multiple-criteria decision-making for flight crew decision support tool," Journal of Air Transport Management, Elsevier, vol. 112(C).
    9. Lin, Sheng-Hau & Zhao, Xiaofeng & Wu, Jiuxing & Liang, Fachao & Li, Jia-Hsuan & Lai, Ren-Ji & Hsieh, Jing-Chzi & Tzeng, Gwo-Hshiung, 2021. "An evaluation framework for developing green infrastructure by using a new hybrid multiple attribute decision-making model for promoting environmental sustainability," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 75(C).
    10. Marwa Hannouf & Getachew Assefa, 2018. "A Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment-Based Decision-Analysis Framework," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-22, October.
    11. Chen, Lisa Y. & Wang, Tien-Chin, 2009. "Optimizing partners' choice in IS/IT outsourcing projects: The strategic decision of fuzzy VIKOR," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 120(1), pages 233-242, July.
    12. Kokaraki, Nikoleta & Hopfe, Christina J. & Robinson, Elaine & Nikolaidou, Elli, 2019. "Testing the reliability of deterministic multi-criteria decision-making methods using building performance simulation," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 112(C), pages 991-1007.
    13. Hajkowicz, Stefan & Higgins, Andrew, 2008. "A comparison of multiple criteria analysis techniques for water resource management," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 184(1), pages 255-265, January.
    14. Mahsa Ghandi & Abbas Roozbahani, 2020. "Risk Management of Drinking Water Supply in Critical Conditions Using Fuzzy PROMETHEE V Technique," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 34(2), pages 595-615, January.
    15. Manuel Casal-Guisande & Alberto Comesaña-Campos & Alejandro Pereira & José-Benito Bouza-Rodríguez & Jorge Cerqueiro-Pequeño, 2022. "A Decision-Making Methodology Based on Expert Systems Applied to Machining Tools Condition Monitoring," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 10(3), pages 1-30, February.
    16. Francis Marleau Donais & Irène Abi-Zeid & E. Owen D. Waygood & Roxane Lavoie, 2021. "A Framework for Post-Project Evaluation of Multicriteria Decision Aiding Processes from the Stakeholders’ Perspective: Design and Application," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 30(5), pages 1161-1191, October.
    17. Audrius Čereška & Edmundas Kazimieras Zavadskas & Fausto Cavallaro & Valentinas Podvezko & Ina Tetsman & Irina Grinbergienė, 2016. "Sustainable Assessment of Aerosol Pollution Decrease Applying Multiple Attribute Decision-Making Methods," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(7), pages 1-12, June.
    18. Pedro Jose Gudiel Pineda & Chao-Che Hsu & James J. H. Liou & Huai-Wei Lo, 2018. "A Hybrid Model for Aircraft Type Determination Following Flight Cancellation," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 17(04), pages 1147-1172, July.
    19. Govindan, Kannan & Jepsen, Martin Brandt, 2016. "ELECTRE: A comprehensive literature review on methodologies and applications," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 250(1), pages 1-29.
    20. Bartłomiej Kizielewicz & Jarosław Wątróbski & Wojciech Sałabun, 2020. "Identification of Relevant Criteria Set in the MCDA Process—Wind Farm Location Case Study," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(24), pages 1-40, December.

    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:oprepe:v:3:y:2016:i:c:p:92-117. 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/operations-research-perspectives .

    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.