IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jmathe/v9y2021i9p976-d544293.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Evaluation of Human Resources in Transportation Companies Using Multi-Criteria Model for Ranking Alternatives by Defining Relations between Ideal and Anti-Ideal Alternative (RADERIA)

Author

Listed:
  • Vladimir Jakovljevic

    (School of Mathematics and Statistics, Faculty of Science, University of Sydney, Carslaw Building, Eastern Ave, Camperdown, NSW 2006, Australia)

  • Mališa Zizovic

    (Faculty of Technical Sciences in Cacak, University of Kragujevac, Svetog Save 65, 32102 Cacak, Serbia)

  • Dragan Pamucar

    (Department of Logistics, Military Academy, University of Defence in Belgrade, Pavla Jurisica Sturma 33, 11000 Belgrade, Serbia)

  • Željko Stević

    (Faculty of Transport and Traffic Engineering, University of East Sarajevo, Vojvode Mišića 52, 74000 Doboj, Bosnia and Herzegovina)

  • Miloljub Albijanic

    (FEFA Faculty, Metropolitan University, 11000 Belgrade, Serbia)

Abstract

Multi-criteria decision-making methods (MCDM) represent a very powerful tool for making decisions in different areas. Making a rational and reliable decision, while respecting different factors, is a challenging and difficult task; MCDM models have a great impact on achieving this goal. In this paper, a new MCDM technique is presented—ranking alternatives by defining relations between the ideal and anti-ideal alternative (RADERIA), which was tested for the evaluation of human resources (HR) in a transportation company. The RADERIA model has three key advantages that recommend it for future use: (1) the RADERIA model has a new approach for data normalization that enables defining the normalization interval according to the judgments of a decision-maker; (2) an adaptive model for data normalization of the RADERIA model allows tough conversion into various forms of decreasing functions (linear, quadratic equation, etc.); and (3) the resistance of the RADERIA model to the rank reversal problem. Furthermore, in many simulations, the RADERIA method has shown stability when processing a larger number of datasets. This was also confirmed by a case study with 36 alternatives, as considered in this paper. The results and verification of the proposed new method were acquired through a comprehensive verification of the complexity of the results. The complexity of the results was executed through (1) comparison with four other multi-criteria methods, (2) checking the resistance of the RADERIA model to the rank reversal problem, and (3) the analysis of the impact of changes in the measurement scale on the ranking results.

Suggested Citation

  • Vladimir Jakovljevic & Mališa Zizovic & Dragan Pamucar & Željko Stević & Miloljub Albijanic, 2021. "Evaluation of Human Resources in Transportation Companies Using Multi-Criteria Model for Ranking Alternatives by Defining Relations between Ideal and Anti-Ideal Alternative (RADERIA)," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 9(9), pages 1-25, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jmathe:v:9:y:2021:i:9:p:976-:d:544293
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7390/9/9/976/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7390/9/9/976/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Qunzhen Qu & Wenjing Wang & Mengxue Tang & Youhu Lu & Sang-Bing Tsai & Jiangtao Wang & Guodong Li & Chih-Lang Yu, 2017. "A Performance Evaluation Study of Human Resources in Low-Carbon Logistics Enterprises," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(4), pages 1-10, April.
    2. 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.
    3. Borzacchiello, Maria Teresa & Torrieri, Vincenzo & Nijkamp, Peter, 2009. "An operational information systems architecture for assessing sustainable transportation planning: principles and design," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 32(4), pages 381-389, November.
    4. Alessio Ishizaka & Markus Lusti, 2006. "How to derive priorities in AHP: a comparative study," 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. 14(4), pages 387-400, December.
    5. Sajjad Zahir, 2009. "Normalisation and rank reversals in the additive analytic hierarchy process: a new analysis," International Journal of Operational Research, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 4(4), pages 446-467.
    6. Karri Rantasila & Lauri Ojala, 2012. "Measurement of National-Level Logistics Costs and Performance," International Transport Forum Discussion Papers 2012/4, OECD Publishing.
    7. Qin, Jindong & Liu, Xinwang & Pedrycz, Witold, 2017. "An extended TODIM multi-criteria group decision making method for green supplier selection in interval type-2 fuzzy environment," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 258(2), pages 626-638.
    8. P Leskinen & J Kangas, 2005. "Rank reversals in multi-criteria decision analysis with statistical modelling of ratio-scale pairwise comparisons," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 56(7), pages 855-861, July.
    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. Aleksey I. Shinkevich & Nadezhda Yu. Psareva & Tatyana V. Malysheva, 2022. "Choosing Industrial Zones Multi-Criteria Problem Solution for Chemical Industries Development Using the Additive Global Criterion Method," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-16, April.

    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. Nebiyu Kedir & Phuong H. D. Nguyen & Citlaly Pérez & Pedro Ponce & Aminah Robinson Fayek, 2023. "Systematic Literature Review on Fuzzy Hybrid Methods in Photovoltaic Solar Energy: Opportunities, Challenges, and Guidance for Implementation," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(9), pages 1-38, April.
    2. Indre Siksnelyte-Butkiene & Dalia Streimikiene & Tomas Balezentis & Virgilijus Skulskis, 2021. "A Systematic Literature Review of Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Methods for Sustainable Selection of Insulation Materials in Buildings," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(2), pages 1-21, January.
    3. A Ishizaka & D Balkenborg & T Kaplan, 2011. "Influence of aggregation and measurement scale on ranking a compromise alternative in AHP," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 62(4), pages 700-710, April.
    4. Weibing Sun & Fu Zhang & Shuya Tai & Jinkui Wu & Yaqiong Mu, 2021. "Study on Glacial Tourism Exploitation in the Dagu Glacier Scenic Spot Based on the AHP–ASEB Method," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(5), pages 1-18, March.
    5. Joanna Jaroszewicz & Anna Majewska, 2021. "Group Spatial Preferences of Residential Locations—Simplified Method Based on Crowdsourced Spatial Data and MCDA," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(9), pages 1-24, April.
    6. Jingmei Xiao & Mei Cai & Yu Gao, 2022. "A VIKOR-Based Linguistic Multi-Attribute Group Decision-Making Model in a Quantum Decision Scenario," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 10(13), pages 1-23, June.
    7. Bice Cavallo, 2019. "Coherent weights for pairwise comparison matrices and a mixed-integer linear programming problem," Journal of Global Optimization, Springer, vol. 75(1), pages 143-161, September.
    8. Hannan Amoozad Mahdiraji & Aliasghar Abbasi Kamardi & Moein Beheshti & Seyed Hossein Razavi Hajiagha & Luis Rocha-Lona, 2022. "Analysing supply chain coordination mechanisms dealing with repurposing challenges during Covid-19 pandemic in an emerging economy: a multi-layer decision making approach," Operations Management Research, Springer, vol. 15(3), pages 1341-1360, December.
    9. Serafim Opricovic, 2009. "A Compromise Solution in Water Resources Planning," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 23(8), pages 1549-1561, June.
    10. Sirirat Sae Lim & Hong Ngoc Nguyen & Chia-Li Lin, 2022. "Exploring the Development Strategies of Science Parks Using the Hybrid MCDM Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(7), pages 1-29, April.
    11. Zeynep Gamze Mert & Gülşen Akman, 2011. "The Profile of the Organized Industrial Zones in Kocaeli/TURKEY," ERSA conference papers ersa11p1137, European Regional Science Association.
    12. Haji Vahabzadeh, Ali & Asiaei, Arash & Zailani, Suhaiza, 2015. "Reprint of “Green decision-making model in reverse logistics using FUZZY-VIKOR method”," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 104(PB), pages 334-347.
    13. Saja Kosanović & Mirjana Miletić & Ljubo Marković, 2021. "Energy Refurbishment of Family Houses in Serbia in Line with the Principles of Circular Economy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(10), pages 1-14, May.
    14. Hsu, C.-H. & Wang, Fu-Kwun & Tzeng, Gwo-Hshiung, 2012. "The best vendor selection for conducting the recycled material based on a hybrid MCDM model combining DANP with VIKOR," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 95-111.
    15. Junling Zhang & Gajanan G. Hegde & Jennifer Shang & Xiaowen Qi, 2016. "Evaluating Emergency Response Solutions for Sustainable Community Development by Using Fuzzy Multi-Criteria Group Decision Making Approaches: IVDHF-TOPSIS and IVDHF-VIKOR," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(4), pages 1-28, March.
    16. Arash Malekian & Ali Azarnivand, 2016. "Application of Integrated Shannon’s Entropy and VIKOR Techniques in Prioritization of Flood Risk in the Shemshak Watershed, Iran," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 30(1), pages 409-425, January.
    17. M Tavana & M A Sodenkamp, 2010. "A fuzzy multi-criteria decision analysis model for advanced technology assessment at Kennedy Space Center," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 61(10), pages 1459-1470, October.
    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. Lei Xiong & Cheng-Lein Teng & Bo-Wei Zhu & Gwo-Hshiung Tzeng & Shan-Lin Huang, 2017. "Using the D-DANP-mV Model to Explore the Continuous System Improvement Strategy for Sustainable Development of Creative Communities," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 14(11), pages 1-37, October.
    20. Aleksandar Aleksić & Danijela Tadić, 2023. "Industrial and Management Applications of Type-2 Multi-Attribute Decision-Making Techniques Extended with Type-2 Fuzzy Sets from 2013 to 2022," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 11(10), pages 1-24, May.

    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:gam:jmathe:v:9:y:2021:i:9:p:976-:d:544293. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.