IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/orinte/v48y2018i2p156-165.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

An Approach to Determining the Importance of Model Criteria in Certifying a City as Business-Friendly

Author

Listed:
  • Milan Ranđelović

    (City of Niš, Local Economic Development Office, 18000 Niš, Serbia)

  • Jelena Stanković

    (Faculty of Economics, University of Niš, Şumatovaćka, 18105 Niš, Serbia)

  • Kristijan Kuk

    (The Criminalistic and Police University, 11000 Belgrade, Serbia)

  • Gordana Savić

    (Faculty of Organizational Sciences, University of Belgrade, 11000 Belgrade, Serbia)

  • Dragan Ranđelović

    (The Criminalistic and Police University, 11000 Belgrade, Serbia)

Abstract

One of the key problems in the application of multicriteria analysis methods is identifying the importance of the model criteria. The relevance and validity of the decisions are directly conditioned by the relevance of a given set of criteria used for evaluating alternatives, and the correct determination of the weights of these criteria. Several methodologies have been developed to calculate the importance of each criterion for a given problem. All methodologies are classified into two main groups: subjective and objective. In this paper, we present a new procedure to integrate two recognized methods for determining the weights of factors—the analytic hierarchy method as a subjective method and entropy as an objective method. We apply our methodology to a contemporary local economic problem in Serbia—the process of certifying cities and municipalities as favorable to business. We also discuss its implementation in a software tool on a local government website.

Suggested Citation

  • Milan Ranđelović & Jelena Stanković & Kristijan Kuk & Gordana Savić & Dragan Ranđelović, 2018. "An Approach to Determining the Importance of Model Criteria in Certifying a City as Business-Friendly," Interfaces, INFORMS, vol. 48(2), pages 156-165, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:inm:orinte:v:48:y:2018:i:2:p:156-165
    DOI: 10.1287/inte.2017.0923
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1287/inte.2017.0923
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/inte.2017.0923?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. V. Srinivasan & Allan Shocker, 1973. "Estimating the weights for multiple attributes in a composite criterion using pairwise judgments," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 38(4), pages 473-493, December.
    2. Charnes, A. & Cooper, W. W. & Rhodes, E., 1978. "Measuring the efficiency of decision making units," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 2(6), pages 429-444, November.
    3. Wolfgang Ossadnik & Stefanie Schinke & Ralf H. Kaspar, 2016. "Group Aggregation Techniques for Analytic Hierarchy Process and Analytic Network Process: A Comparative Analysis," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 25(2), pages 421-457, March.
    4. Ramanathan, R. & Ganesh, L. S., 1994. "Group preference aggregation methods employed in AHP: An evaluation and an intrinsic process for deriving members' weightages," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 79(2), pages 249-265, December.
    5. Chun-Chu Liu, 2009. "A study of optimal weights restriction in Data Envelopment Analysis," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 41(14), pages 1785-1790.
    6. Vaidya, Omkarprasad S. & Kumar, Sushil, 2006. "Analytic hierarchy process: An overview of applications," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 169(1), pages 1-29, February.
    7. Yoram Wind & Thomas L. Saaty, 1980. "Marketing Applications of the Analytic Hierarchy Process," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(7), pages 641-658, July.
    8. Thomas L. Saaty, 1994. "How to Make a Decision: The Analytic Hierarchy Process," Interfaces, INFORMS, vol. 24(6), pages 19-43, December.
    9. 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.
    10. Forman, Ernest & Peniwati, Kirti, 1998. "Aggregating individual judgments and priorities with the analytic hierarchy process," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 108(1), pages 165-169, 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. Aditya Kamat & Saket Shanker & Akhilesh Barve & Kamalakanta Muduli & Sachin Kumar Mangla & Sunil Luthra, 2022. "Uncovering interrelationships between barriers to unmanned aerial vehicles in humanitarian logistics," Operations Management Research, Springer, vol. 15(3), pages 1134-1160, 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. Zhu, Bin & Xu, Zeshui, 2014. "Analytic hierarchy process-hesitant group decision making," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 239(3), pages 794-801.
    2. Jahangir Wasim & Vijay Vyas & Pietro Amenta & Antonio Lucadamo & Gabriella Marcarelli & Alessio Ishizaka, 2023. "Deriving the weights for aggregating judgments in a multi-group problem: an application to curriculum development in entrepreneurship," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 326(2), pages 853-877, July.
    3. Sasaki, Yasuo, 2023. "Strategic manipulation in group decisions with pairwise comparisons: A game theoretical perspective," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 304(3), pages 1133-1139.
    4. Bernasconi, Michele & Choirat, Christine & Seri, Raffaello, 2014. "Empirical properties of group preference aggregation methods employed in AHP: Theory and evidence," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 232(3), pages 584-592.
    5. Wolfgang Ossadnik & Stefanie Schinke & Ralf H. Kaspar, 2016. "Group Aggregation Techniques for Analytic Hierarchy Process and Analytic Network Process: A Comparative Analysis," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 25(2), pages 421-457, March.
    6. Jacinto González-Pachón & Carlos Romero, 2007. "Inferring consensus weights from pairwise comparison matrices without suitable properties," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 154(1), pages 123-132, October.
    7. Gerda Ana Melnik-Leroy & Gintautas Dzemyda, 2021. "How to Influence the Results of MCDM?—Evidence of the Impact of Cognitive Biases," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 9(2), pages 1-25, January.
    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. Aull-Hyde, Rhonda & Erdogan, Sevgi & Duke, Joshua M., 2006. "An experiment on the consistency of aggregated comparison matrices in AHP," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 171(1), pages 290-295, May.
    10. Omid Valizadeh & Mojtaba Ghiyasi, 2023. "Assessing telecommunication contractor firms using a hybrid DEA-BWM method," Operations Research and Decisions, Wroclaw University of Science and Technology, Faculty of Management, vol. 33(4), pages 189-200.
    11. O. Flores Baquero & J. Gallego-Ayala & R. Giné-Garriga & A. Jiménez-Fernández. Palencia & A. Pérez-Foguet, 2017. "The Influence of the Human Rights to Water and Sanitation Normative Content in Measuring the Level of Service," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 133(2), pages 763-786, September.
    12. Seyed Saeed Hosseinian & Hamidreza Navidi & Abas Hajfathaliha, 2012. "A New Linear Programming Method for Weights Generation and Group Decision Making in the Analytic Hierarchy Process," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 21(3), pages 233-254, May.
    13. Lee, Hakyeon & Geum, Youngjung, 2017. "Development of the scenario-based technology roadmap considering layer heterogeneity: An approach using CIA and AHP," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 12-24.
    14. Lin, Ming-Ian & Lee, Yuan-Duen & Ho, Tsai-Neng, 2011. "Applying integrated DEA/AHP to evaluate the economic performance of local governments in China," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 209(2), pages 129-140, March.
    15. Mohammad Pakkar, 2015. "An integrated approach based on DEA and AHP," Computational Management Science, Springer, vol. 12(1), pages 153-169, January.
    16. Peng Wu & Jinpei Liu & Ligang Zhou & Huayou Chen, 2022. "An Integrated Group Decision-Making Method with Hesitant Qualitative Information Based on DEA Cross-Efficiency and Priority Aggregation for Evaluating Factors Affecting a Resilient City," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 31(2), pages 293-316, April.
    17. Mehmet Yüksel, 2019. "A Model Proposal for the Evaluation of Chemistry Education in the Context of Learning Environment," Asian Journal of Education and Training, Asian Online Journal Publishing Group, vol. 5(3), pages 488-494.
    18. Mangirdas Morkunas & Povilas Labukas, 2020. "The Evaluation of Negative Factors of Direct Payments under Common Agricultural Policy from a Viewpoint of Sustainability of Rural Regions of the New EU Member States: Evidence from Lithuania," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-14, June.
    19. Pietro Amenta & Alessio Ishizaka & Antonio Lucadamo & Gabriella Marcarelli & Vijay Vyas, 2020. "Computing a common preference vector in a complex multi-actor and multi-group decision system in Analytic Hierarchy Process context," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 284(1), pages 33-62, January.
    20. Wu, Cheng-Ru & Lin, Chin-Tsai & Tsai, Pei-Hsuan, 2010. "Evaluating business performance of wealth management banks," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 207(2), pages 971-979, 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:inm:orinte:v:48:y:2018:i:2:p:156-165. 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: Chris Asher (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/inforea.html .

    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.