IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/cir/cirwor/2003s-53.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Analyse multicritère : Étude de comparaison des méthodes existantes en vue d'une application en analyse de cycle de vie

Author

Listed:
  • Renaud Caillet

Abstract

Life cycle analysis is an environmental concept that is more and more applied in companies that take care of environment. It does not replace environmental laws, but it gives managers a mean to compare different alternatives (which can be goods, processes, services, etc.). Lately this concept has been integrated in environmental ISO norms. However it is still a subject where research is quite active (definition of impacts, weighting, etc. ). One problem for life cycle analysis is to combine the different indicators and aggregate them, to get a ranking of all the alternatives. Multicriteria analysis is an older concept , but its framework fits the methodology of life cycle analysis. Moreover it is also a tool for managers to select an alternative. Many methods have been proposed to aggregate the performances of an alternative relatively to a criterion. The first two parts consist in a presentation of some multicriteria decision making methods, and a brief presentation of life cycle analysis. Then we evaluate what could multicriteria analysis bring to life cycle analysis, and what are the obstacles for the application of multicriteria analysis to life cycle analysis. The basic idea is to apply multicriteria analysis to life cycle analysis. Some papers have already been written, proposing rules to get coherent criteria, etc. But among the many existing multicriteria methods, we still don't know which one to choose. There are many ways to aggregate indicators and the multicriteria method chosen should be evaluated on some points : is it compensatory ?, does it provide a real number as a result ?, etc. We think that there is no unique method which can be applied to all problems, but we should certainly choose the most suitable method for a specific problem or context. In this paper some methods will be evaluated with their associated softwares, using life cycle analysis data. L'analyse de cycle de vie est un concept environnemental de plus en plus appliqué dans le monde de l'entreprise. Il ne remplace pas les normes environnementales, mais donne aux décideurs un moyen de comparer différentes solutions possibles (qui peuvent être des processus, des biens, des services, etc.). Il y a peu, ce concept a fait l'objet de normes environnementales ISO. Cependant, l'analyse de cycle de vie est toujours un domaine où la recherche est active (définition des impacts, pondération, etc.). Notamment, un des problèmes de l'analyse de cycle de vie est de combiner les différents indicateurs, de les agréger et d'en déduire un classement des solutions possibles. L'analyse multicritère est un concept plus vieux, mais sa structure est équivalente à celle de l'analyse de cycle de vie. De plus, c'est aussi un outil pour des décideurs, permettant de sélectionner une solution. De nombreuses méthodes ont été proposées pour agréger les performances de chacune des solutions relativement à chacun des critères. Les deux premières parties de ce papier sont une présentation de quelques unes des principales méthodes d'analyse multicritère; ainsi qu'une brève introduction à l'analyse de cycle de vie. Nous évaluons ensuite quels pourraient être les apports de l'analyse multicritère à l'analyse de cycle de vie, et quels en seraient les obstacles. L'idée de base est d'appliquer l'analyse multicritère à l'analyse de cycle de vie. Quelques papiers ont déjà été écrits en ce sens, proposant des règles pour construire une famille cohérente de critères, etc. Mais parmi les nombreuses méthodes multicritère, nous ne savons toujours pas laquelle choisir. Il y a bien des façons d'agréger des indicateurs, et la méthode d'analyse multicritère devrait être évaluée selon plusieurs points : est-elle compensatoire ?, fournit-elle un résultat numérique ?, etc. Nous pensons qu'il n'y a pas de méthode unique, applicable à tous les problèmes. On devrait certainement choisir la méthode la plus adaptée à un problème et un contexte spécifique. Ce papier évalue également certaines méthodes à l'aide de leurs logiciels associés, en implémentant des données d'analyse de cycle de vie.

Suggested Citation

  • Renaud Caillet, 2003. "Analyse multicritère : Étude de comparaison des méthodes existantes en vue d'une application en analyse de cycle de vie," CIRANO Working Papers 2003s-53, CIRANO.
  • Handle: RePEc:cir:cirwor:2003s-53
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://cirano.qc.ca/files/publications/2003s-53.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Stewart, TJ, 1992. "A critical survey on the status of multiple criteria decision making theory and practice," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 20(5-6), pages 569-586.
    2. Briggs, Th. & Kunsch, P. L. & Mareschal, B., 1990. "Nuclear waste management: An application of the multicriteria PROMETHEE methods," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 44(1), pages 1-10, January.
    3. F. Hutton Barron & Bruce E. Barrett, 1996. "Decision Quality Using Ranked Attribute Weights," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 42(11), pages 1515-1523, November.
    4. Bertrand Mareschal & Jean Pierre Brans & Philippe Vincke, 1984. "Prométhée: a new family of outranking methods in multicriteria analysis," ULB Institutional Repository 2013/9305, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    5. Edwards, Ward & Barron, F. Hutton, 1994. "SMARTS and SMARTER: Improved Simple Methods for Multiattribute Utility Measurement," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 60(3), pages 306-325, December.
    6. Paelinck, J. H. P., 1978. "Qualiflex: A flexible multiple-criteria method," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 1(3), pages 193-197.
    7. Olson, David L., 2001. "Comparison of three multicriteria methods to predict known outcomes," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 130(3), pages 576-587, May.
    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. Yang, Chih-Hao & Lee, Kuen-Chang, 2020. "Developing a strategy map for forensic accounting with fraud risk management: An integrated balanced scorecard-based decision model," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 80(C).
    2. Guitouni, Adel & Martel, Jean-Marc, 1998. "Tentative guidelines to help choosing an appropriate MCDA method," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 109(2), pages 501-521, September.
    3. Jiménez, Antonio & Mateos, Alfonso & Sabio, Pilar, 2013. "Dominance intensity measure within fuzzy weight oriented MAUT: An application," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 41(2), pages 397-405.
    4. de Almeida, Jonatas Araujo & Costa, Ana Paula Cabral Seixas & de Almeida-Filho, Adiel Teixeira, 2016. "A new method for elicitation of criteria weights in additive models: Flexible and interactive tradeoffAuthor-Name: de Almeida, Adiel Teixeira," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 250(1), pages 179-191.
    5. Aron Larsson & Mona Riabacke & Mats Danielson & Love Ekenberg, 2015. "Cardinal and Rank Ordering of Criteria — Addressing Prescription within Weight Elicitation," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 14(06), pages 1299-1330, November.
    6. Podinovski, Vladislav V., 2020. "Maximum likelihood solutions for multicriterial choice problems," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 286(1), pages 299-308.
    7. Beynon, Malcolm J. & Wells, Peter, 2008. "The lean improvement of the chemical emissions of motor vehicles based on preference ranking: A PROMETHEE uncertainty analysis," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 36(3), pages 384-394, June.
    8. Hayashi, Kiyotada, 1998. "Multicriteria aid for agricultural decisions using preference relations: methodology and application," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 58(4), pages 483-503, December.
    9. Roger Chapman Burk & Richard M. Nehring, 2023. "An Empirical Comparison of Rank-Based Surrogate Weights in Additive Multiattribute Decision Analysis," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 20(1), pages 55-72, March.
    10. Olcer, A. I. & Odabasi, A. Y., 2005. "A new fuzzy multiple attributive group decision making methodology and its application to propulsion/manoeuvring system selection problem," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 166(1), pages 93-114, October.
    11. Chang, Yu-Hern & Yeh, Chung-Hsing, 2001. "Evaluating airline competitiveness using multiattribute decision making," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 29(5), pages 405-415, October.
    12. A. Psomas & I. Vryzidis & A. Spyridakos & M. Mimikou, 2021. "MCDA approach for agricultural water management in the context of water–energy–land–food nexus," Operational Research, Springer, vol. 21(1), pages 689-723, March.
    13. Zhenyu Zhang & Jie Lin & Huirong Zhang & Shuangsheng Wu & Dapei Jiang, 2020. "Hybrid TODIM Method for Law Enforcement Possibility Evaluation of Judgment Debtor," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 8(10), pages 1-21, October.
    14. Richard M. Anderson & Robert Clemen, 2013. "Toward an Improved Methodology to Construct and Reconcile Decision Analytic Preference Judgments," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 10(2), pages 121-134, June.
    15. Richard M. Anderson & Benjamin F. Hobbs, 2002. "Using a Bayesian Approach to Quantify Scale Compatibility Bias," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 48(12), pages 1555-1568, December.
    16. Ewa Roszkowska, 2020. "The extention rank ordering criteria weighting methods in fuzzy enviroment," Operations Research and Decisions, Wroclaw University of Science and Technology, Faculty of Management, vol. 30(2), pages 91-114.
    17. Mareschal, Bertrand & Mertens, Daniel, 1993. "Évaluation financière par la méthode multicritère GAIA : application au secteur de l’assurance en Belgique," L'Actualité Economique, Société Canadienne de Science Economique, vol. 69(1), pages 206-228, mars.
    18. Amin Mahmoudi & Saad Ahmed Javed, 2023. "Uncertainty Analysis in Group Decisions through Interval Ordinal Priority Approach," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 32(4), pages 807-833, August.
    19. Mats Danielson & Love Ekenberg, 2016. "The CAR Method for Using Preference Strength in Multi-criteria Decision Making," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 25(4), pages 775-797, July.
    20. Renaud, J. & Thibault, J. & Lanouette, R. & Kiss, L.N. & Zaras, K. & Fonteix, C., 2007. "Comparison of two multicriteria decision aid methods: Net Flow and Rough Set Methods in a high yield pulping process," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 177(3), pages 1418-1432, March.

    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:cir:cirwor:2003s-53. 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: Webmaster (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ciranca.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.