IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/cejnor/v30y2022i2d10.1007_s10100-021-00767-0.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Revised PROMETHEE algorithm with reference values

Author

Listed:
  • František Zapletal

    (VŠB-Technical University of Ostrava)

Abstract

PROMETHEE method is a very popular quantitative method of decision-making with many benefits. However, the evaluation of alternatives in the original PROMETHEE method is derived only from differences in values, i.e., regardless the performance values themselves. In some situations, ignoring these values can distort the final results. This paper brings several examples of such situations, for which the original PROMETHEE fails and does not bring reliable results. Ishizaka and Resce (Soft Comput 22:7325–7338, 2018) have recently introduced the modification of PROMETHEE which considers the performance values, but also changed substantially the logic of the ranking algorithm. The aim of this paper is to modify the original PROMETHEE method to make it possible to include the performance values, without losing any main benefit of the original method and with keeping the original logic of the algorithm based on pair-wise comparisons. Two particular preference functions’ types are proposed for the proposed extension (Gaussian function and strictly concave function), whose choice depends on the performance of the worst-performing alternative under consideration. In addition, the new algorithm is provided also in the fuzzy environment, which is useful if the decision-maker is not able to set the input parameters of the preference function precisely. Both the deterministic and fuzzy extensions are demonstrated using numerical examples. The results show that the final ranking can be strongly influenced by the level of performance. Moreover, the fuzzy extension brings richer information through the natural interpretation provided by possibility and necessity measures if the parameters of the preference functions are imprecise.

Suggested Citation

  • František Zapletal, 2022. "Revised PROMETHEE algorithm with reference values," 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. 30(2), pages 521-545, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:cejnor:v:30:y:2022:i:2:d:10.1007_s10100-021-00767-0
    DOI: 10.1007/s10100-021-00767-0
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10100-021-00767-0
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10100-021-00767-0?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. Bruce R. Beattie & Jeffrey T. LaFrance, 2006. "The Law of Demand versus Diminishing Marginal Utility," Review of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 28(2), pages 263-271.
    2. Goumas, M. & Lygerou, V., 2000. "An extension of the PROMETHEE method for decision making in fuzzy environment: Ranking of alternative energy exploitation projects," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 123(3), pages 606-613, June.
    3. Céline Verly & Yves De Smet, 2013. "Some results about rank reversal instances in the PROMETHEE methods," International Journal of Multicriteria Decision Making, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 3(4), pages 325-345.
    4. Ishizaka, Alessio & Resce, Giuliano, 2021. "Best-Worst PROMETHEE method for evaluating school performance in the OECD's PISA project," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 73(C).
    5. Ishizaka, Alessio & Lokman, Banu & Tasiou, Menelaos, 2021. "A Stochastic Multi-criteria divisive hierarchical clustering algorithm," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 103(C).
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Marco Rogna, 2019. "A First-Phase Screening Device for Site Selection of Large-Scale Solar Plants with an Application to Italy," BEMPS - Bozen Economics & Management Paper Series BEMPS57, Faculty of Economics and Management at the Free University of Bozen.
    2. Fereydooni, Ali & Barak, Sasan & Asaad Sajadi, Seyed Mehrzad, 2024. "A novel online portfolio selection approach based on pattern matching and ESG factors," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 123(C).
    3. Aikaterini Papapostolou & Charikleia Karakosta & Kalliopi-Anastasia Kourti & Haris Doukas & John Psarras, 2019. "Supporting Europe’s Energy Policy Towards a Decarbonised Energy System: A Comparative Assessment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(15), pages 1-26, July.
    4. Arjan Ruijs, 2007. "Welfare and Distribution Effects of Water Pricing Policies," Working Papers 2007.92, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.
    5. Hernandez-Perdomo, Elvis A. & Mun, Johnathan & Rocco S., Claudio M., 2017. "Active management in state-owned energy companies: Integrating a real options approach into multicriteria analysis to make companies sustainable," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 195(C), pages 487-502.
    6. Athanasios Kolios & Varvara Mytilinou & Estivaliz Lozano-Minguez & Konstantinos Salonitis, 2016. "A Comparative Study of Multiple-Criteria Decision-Making Methods under Stochastic Inputs," Energies, MDPI, vol. 9(7), pages 1-21, July.
    7. Yihe Lu & Yinyun Yu & Ting Qu, 2023. "An ESG Assessment Approach with Multi-Agent Preference Differences: Based on Fuzzy Reasoning and Group Decision-Making," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(16), pages 1-17, August.
    8. G Özerol & E Karasakal, 2008. "Interactive outranking approaches for multicriteria decision-making problems with imprecise information," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 59(9), pages 1253-1268, September.
    9. Kangas, Annika S. & Kangas, Jyrki, 2004. "Probability, possibility and evidence: approaches to consider risk and uncertainty in forestry decision analysis," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 6(2), pages 169-188, March.
    10. Mahsa Montajabiha, 2016. "An Extended PROMETHE II Multi-Criteria Group Decision Making Technique Based on Intuitionistic Fuzzy Logic for Sustainable Energy Planning," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 25(2), pages 221-244, March.
    11. Zhang, Jingshun & Hu, Jiayi & Wang, Xitong & Fang, Lien & Jin, Yi & Li, Muyang & Liu, Yangqing & Wu, Anna & Wang, Libin & Liu, Ruining & Zhang, Yi & Chen, Faan, 2023. "Quantifying transport safety success at the regional level: A guide to policy and practice on investment for G20," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 89(C).
    12. Madlener, Reinhard & Stagl, Sigrid, 2005. "Sustainability-guided promotion of renewable electricity generation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 53(2), pages 147-167, April.
    13. Jan Macháč & Lenka Zaňková, 2020. "Renewables—To Build or Not? Czech Approach to Impact Assessment of Renewable Energy Sources with an Emphasis on Municipality Perspective," Land, MDPI, vol. 9(12), pages 1-15, December.
    14. Blanca Ceballos & David A. Pelta & María T. Lamata, 2018. "Rank Reversal and the VIKOR Method: An Empirical Evaluation," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 17(02), pages 513-525, March.
    15. Zhang, Xinwei & Yan, Yong & Wang, Lilin & Wang, Yang, 2024. "A ranking approach for robust portfolio decision analysis based on multilinear portfolio utility functions and incomplete preference information," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 122(C).
    16. Gitinavard, Hossein & Mousavi, S. Meysam & Vahdani, Behnam, 2017. "Soft computing based on hierarchical evaluation approach and criteria interdependencies for energy decision-making problems: A case study," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 556-577.
    17. Dayo-Olupona, Oluwatobi & Genc, Bekir & Onifade, Moshood, 2020. "Technology adoption in mining: A multi-criteria method to select emerging technology in surface mines," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 69(C).
    18. Gamboa, Gonzalo & Munda, Giuseppe, 2007. "The problem of windfarm location: A social multi-criteria evaluation framework," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(3), pages 1564-1583, March.
    19. Seddiki, Mohammed & Bennadji, Amar, 2019. "Multi-criteria evaluation of renewable energy alternatives for electricity generation in a residential building," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 110(C), pages 101-117.
    20. Liu, Xianliang & Ma, Yonghao, 2021. "A method to analyze the rank reversal problem in the ELECTRE II method," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 102(C).

    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:spr:cejnor:v:30:y:2022:i:2:d:10.1007_s10100-021-00767-0. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.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.