IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/h/spr/isochp/978-3-031-44453-1_11.html
   My bibliography  Save this book chapter

Analysis of Lack of Agreement Between MCDM Methods Related to the Solution of a Problem: Proposing a Methodology for Comparing Methods to a Reference

In: Strategic Approach in Multi-Criteria Decision Making

Author

Listed:
  • Nolberto Munier

    (INGENIO, Polytechnic University of Valencia)

Abstract

It is a proven fact that at present, there is no course of action that can evaluate or validate the reliability of the solution reached by a MCDM method, because the “true” solution is not known, and it is impossible to make a comparison to assess the efficiency of a result found. This Chapter presents a procedure that can help in this endeavor. It proposes to use a proxy of the true solution, to test a result of any MCDM method; this proxy solution must be the consequence of a more faithful model to replicate as much as possible real-world conditions, as well as the absence of subjectivity in criteria weighting, and the result achieved by an indisputable mathematical procedure. For this purpose, this book suggests using the SIMUS method that fulfils these conditions. In so doing, a problem is solved by this method and its result is used as a benchmark to determine the closeness to this result by other methods. To measure closeness to the proxy, it is suggested to use the Kendall Tau Rank Correlation Coefficient (Kendall, Biometrika 30(1–2):81–89, 1938).

Suggested Citation

  • Nolberto Munier, 2024. "Analysis of Lack of Agreement Between MCDM Methods Related to the Solution of a Problem: Proposing a Methodology for Comparing Methods to a Reference," International Series in Operations Research & Management Science, in: Strategic Approach in Multi-Criteria Decision Making, edition 2, chapter 0, pages 199-215, Springer.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:isochp:978-3-031-44453-1_11
    DOI: 10.1007/978-3-031-44453-1_11
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    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:isochp:978-3-031-44453-1_11. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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.