SpringerLink
Log in

A novel multi-criteria decision analysis technique incorporating demanding essential characteristics of existing MCDA techniques

  • Regular Paper
  • Published:
Progress in Artificial Intelligence Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper has proposed a novel multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) technique that considers relationships among the criteria, relationships among the alternatives, relationships among the criteria and the alternatives, the uncertainty or dilemma that the decision makers face in their decision-making, the entropy among the criteria. These characteristics are the essential characteristics of various MCDA techniques as evident from the existing literature. Incorporating all these characteristics in a single algorithm is the novelty and unique contribution of the proposed technique in this paper. The existing MCDA techniques are based on individual characteristics such as distance measurement from the best solution, utility measurement, measuring kind of average values, pair-wise comparison and considerations of relationships among criteria. However, no single research study has considered the prime characteristics of these techniques through a single algorithm. This is the motivation behind the proposed technique. The dilemma of the decision makers has been captured by the use of hesitant fuzzy elements; the information content among the criteria has been captured by applying the concept of entropy through the application of a technique called IDOCRIW. Relationships have been determined by calculating covariances among the criteria and among the alternatives. A kind of sensitivity analysis, rank reversal method has been performed to verify the effectiveness of the proposed technique. The proposed method has also been compared with four different types of already existing MCDA techniques, AHP, MAUT, MACBETH and MOORA. Both the sensitivity analysis and the comparison with other methods establish the effectiveness of the proposed technique. The results of the comparison by these methods establish the superiority of the proposed MCDA technique over the existing techniques.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

I confirm that the data for my manuscript may be available if the data is required by the journal.

References

  1. Saaty, T.: The analytic hierarchy process. McGraw-Hill, New York (1980)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  2. Brans, J.P., Mareschal, B.: PROMETHEE methods. Multiple criteria decision analysis: State of the art surveys, pp. 163–186. Springer, New York (2005)

  3. Behzadian, M., Otaghsara, K., Yazdani, M., Ignatius, J.: A state-of the-art survey of TOPSIS applications. Expert Syst. Appl. 39(17), 13051–13069 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2012.05.056

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Saaty, T.L.: Fundamentals of the analytic network process-multiple networks with benefits, costs, opportunities and risks. J. Syst. Sci. Syst. Eng. 13(3), 348–379 (2004)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Figueira, J.R., Greco, S., Roy, B., Slowinski, R.: ELECTRE methods: main features and recent developments. In: Handbook of multicriteria analysis, Vol. 103, pp. 51–89 (2010)

  6. Nixon, J.D., Dey, P.K., Davies, P.A.: Design of a novel solar thermal collector using a multi-criteria decision-making methodology. J. Clean. Prod. 59, 150–159 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Oztaysi, B.: A decision model for information technology selection using AHP integrated TOPSIS-Grey: the case of content management systems. Knowl. Based Syst. 70, 44–54 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Bandyopadhyay, S.: Comparison among multi-criteria decision analysis techniques: a novel method. Prog. Artif. Intell. 10, 195–216 (2021)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Emovon, I., Norman, R.A., Murphy, A.J.: Methodology of using an integrated averaging technique and MAUT method for failure mode and effects analysis. J. Eng. Technol. (JET) 7(1), 140–155 (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  10. BanaeCosta, C.A., Chagas, M.P.: A career choice problem: An example of how to use MACBETH to build a quantitative value model based on qualitative value judgments. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 153(2), 323–331 (2004)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  11. Brauers, W.K., Ginevicius, R., Zavadskas, E.K., Antucheviciene, J.: The future of sustainable development in some Baltic states by application of the MOORA method. In Citizens and governance for sustainable development, pp. 156–161 (2006).

  12. Alinezhad, A.., Khalili, J.: New methods and applications in multiple attribute decision-making (MADM). In: International series in operations research & management science, Vol. 277. Springer, Switzerland (2019).

  13. Gomes, L.F.A.M., Machado, M.A.S., Rangel, L.A.D.: Behavioral multi-criteria decision analysis: the TODIM method with criteria interactions. Ann. Oper. Res. 211(1), 531–548 (2013)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  14. Ishizaka, A., Nemery, P.: Multi-criteria decision analysis: methods and software. Wiley, UK (2013)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  15. Sheskin, D.J.: Handbook of parametric and nonparametric statistical procedures, (3rd ed). Chapman & Hall/CRC, Florida (2004).

  16. Tzeng, G.-H., Huang, J.-J.: Multiple attribute decision-making: methods and applications. CRC Press, US (2011)

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  17. Edwards, W., Barron, F.H.: SMARTS and SMARTER: Improved simple methods for multi-attribute utility measurement. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 60(3), 306–325 (1994)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Hinloopen, E., Nijkamp, P.: REGIME methode voor ordinal multi-criteria analyse. Kwant. Methoden 7(22), 61–78 (1986)

    Google Scholar 

  19. Roubens, M.: Preference relations on actions and criteria in multicriteria decision-making. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 10(1), 51–55 (1982)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  20. Opricovic, S., Tzeng, G.H.: Multicriteria planning of post earthquake sustainable reconstruction. Compu. Aided Civ. Infrastruct. Eng. 17(3), 211–220 (2002)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Voogd, H.: Multicriteria evaluation for urban and regional planning. Pion Ltd., London (1983)

    Google Scholar 

  22. Zavadskas, E.K., Turskis, Z., Vilutiene, T.: Multiple criteria analysis of foundation instalment alternatives by applying additive ratio assessment (ARAS) method. Arch. Civ. Mech. Eng. 10(3), 123–141 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Zavadskas, E.K., Kaklauskas, A., Peldschus, F., Turskis, Z.: Multi-attribute assessment of road design solutions by using the COPRAS method. Baltic J. Road Bridge Eng. 2(4), 193–203 (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  24. Zavadskas, E.K., Antucheviciene, J., Saparauskas, J., Turskis, Z.: MCDM methods WASPAS and MULTIMOORA: Verification of robustness of methods when assessing alternative solutions. Econom. Comput. Econom. Cybernet. Stud. Res. 47(2), 5–20 (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  25. Gomes, L.F.A.M.: An application of the TODIM method to the multicriteria rental evaluation of residential properties. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 193(1), 204–211 (2009)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  26. Keshavarz Ghorabaee, M., Amiri, M., Zavadskas, E.K., Turskis, Z., Antucheviciene, J.: Stochastic EDAS method for multi-criteria decision-making with normally distributed data. J. Intell. Fuzzy Syst. 33(3), 1627–1638 (2017)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  27. Bozanic, D.I., Pamucar, D.S., Karovic, S.M.: Application the MABAC method in support of decision-making on the use of force in a defensive operation. Tehnika 71(1), 129–136 (2016)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Liu, C.-H., Tzeng, G.-H., Lee, M.-H., Lee, P.-Y.: Improving metro–airport connection service for tourism development: Using hybrid MCDM models. Tour. Manage. Perspect. 6, 95–107 (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  29. Collan, M., Fedrizzi, M., Luukka, P.: A multi-expert system for ranking patents: An approach based on fuzzy pay-off distributions and a TOPSIS–AHP framework. Expert Syst. Appl. 40, 4749–4759 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Tavana, M., Zandi, F., Katehakis, M.N.: A hybrid fuzzy group ANP–TOPSIS framework for assessment of e-government readiness from a CiRM perspective. Inf. Manage. 50, 383–397 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Golpîra, H.: A novel multiple attribute decision making approach based on interval data using U2P-miner algorithm. Data Knowl. Eng. 115, 116–128 (2018)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Zakeri, S.: Ranking based on optimal points multi-criteria decision-making method. Grey Syst. Theory Appl. 9(1), 45–69 (2018)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Shen, K.-w, **ao-kang, W., Jian-qiang, W.: Multi-criteria decision-making method based on smallest enclosing circle in incompletely reliable information environment. Comput. Ind. Eng. 130, 1–13 (2019)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Zakeri, S., Ecer, F., Konstantas, D., Cheikhrouhou, N.: The vital-immaterial-mediocre multi-criteria decision-making method. Article in Press, Kybernetes (2021)

    Google Scholar 

  35. Fei, L., Yong, D., Yong, H.: DS-VIKOR: a new multi-criteria decision-making method for supplier selection. Int. J. Fuzzy Syst. 21(1), 157–175 (2019)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  36. Keshavarz Ghorabaee, M., Zavadskas, E.K., Turskis, Z., Antucheviciene, J.: A new combinative distance-based assessment (CODAS) method for multi-criteria decision-making. Econom. Comput. Econom. Cybernet. Stud. Res. 50(3), 25–44 (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  37. Huchang, L., Xunjie, G., Zeshui, X., **ao-Jun, Z., Herrera, F.: Hesitancy degree-based correlation measures for hesitant fuzzy linguistic term sets and their applications in multiple criteria decision-making. Inf. Sci. 508, 275–292 (2020)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  38. Sellak, H., Ouhbi, B., Frikh, B.: A knowledge based outranking approach for multi-criteria decision-making with hesitant fuzzy linguistic term sets. Appl. Soft Comput. 67, 625–640 (2018)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Gou, X., Xu, Z., Liao, H.: Hesitant fuzzy linguistic entropy and cross-entropy measures and alternative queing method for multiple criteria decision-making. Inf. Sci. 388–389, 225–246 (2017)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Jibin Lan, R.J.: Priority degrees for hesitant fuzzy sets: application to multiple attribute decision-making. Oper. Res. Prespect. 4, 67–73 (2017)

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  41. Wang, J., Wang, J.-X., Zhang, H.-y, Chen, X.-H.: Multi criteria decision-making based on hesitant fuzzy linguistic term sets: an outranking approach. Knowl. Based Syst. 86, 224–236 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Wang, F., Li, X., Chen, X.: Hesitant fuzzy soft set and its applications in multicriteria decision-making. J. Appl. Math. 2014, 1–11 (2014)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  43. Chen, S.-M., Hong, J.-A.: Multicriteria linguistic decision-making based on hesitant fuzzy linguistic term sets and the aggregation of fuzzy sets. Inf. Sci. 286, 63–74 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Eghbali-Zarch, M., Tavakkoli-Moghaddam, R., Dehghan-Sanej, K., Kaboli, A.: Prioritizing the effective strategies for construction and demolition waste management using fuzzy IDOCRIW and WASPAS methods. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management (2014).

  45. Čereška, A., Podviezko, A., Zavadskas, E.K.: Assessment of different metal screw joint parameters by using multiple criteria analysis methods. Metals 8(5), 318 (2018)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Podvezko, V., Zavadskas, E.K., Podviezko, A.: An extension of the new objective weight assessment methods CILOS and IDOCRIW to fuzzy MCDM. Econom. Comput. Econom. Cybernet. Stud. Res. 54(2), 59–75 (2020)

    Google Scholar 

  47. Zavadskas, E.K., Podvezko, V.: Integrated determination of objective criteria weights in MCDM. Int. J. Inf. Technol. Decis. Mak. 15(02), 267–283 (2016)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Čereška, A., Zavadskas, E.K., Bucinskas, V., Podvezko, V., Sutinys, E.: Analysis of steel wire rope diagnostic data applying multi-criteria methods. Appl. Sci. 8(2), 260 (2018)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Vavrek, R., Bečica, J.: Capital city as a factor of multi-criteria decision analysis: application on transport companies in the Czech Republic. Mathematics 8(10), 1765 (2020)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Zavadskas, E.K., Cavallaro, F., Podvezko, V., Ubarte, I., Kaklauskas, A.: MCDM assessment of a healthy and safe built environment according to sustainable development principles: a practical neighborhood approach in Vilnius. Sustainability 9(5), 702 (2021)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Dayyani, L., Pourtaheri, M., Ahmadi, H.: Evaluation of texture deterioration stages of rural settlements on the Tehran metropolitan fringe using the decision-making method of OW and CODAS. J. Hous. Built Environ. 37(1), 1–49 (2021)

    Google Scholar 

  52. Triantaphyllou, E., Mann, S.H.: An examination of the effectiveness of multi-dimensional decision-making methods: a decision-making paradox. Decis. Support Syst. 5, 303–312 (1989)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Ishizaka, A., Siraj, S.: Are multi-criteria decision-making tools useful? an experimental comparative study of three methods. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 264(2), 462–471 (2013)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  54. Moradian, M., Modanloo, V., Aghaiee, S.: Comparative analysis of multi criteria decision-making techniques for material selection of brake booster valve body. J. Traffic Transp. Eng. 6(5), 526–534 (2019)

    Google Scholar 

  55. Zamani-Sabzi, H., Phillip King, J., Gard, C.C., Abudu, S.: Statistical and analytical comparison of multi-criteria decision-making techniques under fuzzy environment. Op. Res. Perspect. 3, 92–117 (2016)

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  56. Moghassem, A.R.: Comparison among two analytical methods of multi-criteria decision-making for appropriate spinning condition selection. World Appl. Sci. J. 21(5), 784–794 (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  57. Javaid, B., Arshad, M.W., Ahmad, S., Abas Kazmi, S.A.: Comparison of Different Multi Criteria Decision Analysis Techniques for Performance Evaluation of Loop Configured Micro Grid. 2nd International Conference on Computing, Mathematics and Engineering Technologies, iCoMET 2019, IEEE, 30–31, Pakistan. (2019)

  58. Ceballos, B., Lamata, M.T., Pelta, D.A.: A comparative analysis of multi-criteria decision-making methods. Prog. Artif. Intell. 5(4), 315–322 (2016)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Ӧzcan, T., Çelebi, N., Esnaf, Ş: Comparative analysis of multi-criteria decision-making methodologies and implementation of a warehouse location selection problem. Expert Syst. Appl. 38(8), 9773–9779 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Hodgett, R.E.: Comparison of Multi-criteria decision-making methods for equipment selection. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 85(5–8), 1145–1157 (2016)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Hajkowicz, S., Higgins, A.: A comparison of multiple criteria analysis techniques for water resource management. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 184(1), 255–265 (2008)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  62. Selmi, M., Kormi, T., Ali, N.B.H.: Comparing multi-criteria decision aid methods through a ranking stability index. In: 2013 5th International conference on modeling, simulation and applied optimization (ICMSAO) pp. 1–5. IEEE.

  63. Athawale, V.M., Chakraborty, S.: A comparative study on the ranking performance of some multi-criteria decision-making methods for industrial robot selection. Int. J. Ind. Eng. Comput. 2(4), 831–850 (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  64. Chitsaz, N., Banihabib, M.E.: Comparison of different multi criteria decision-making models in prioritizing flood management alternatives. Water Resour. Manage. 29(8), 2503–2525 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Mathew, M., Sahu, S.: Comparison of new multi-criteria decision-making methods for material handling equipment selection. Manage. Sci. Lett. 8(3), 139–150 (2018)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Sarraf, R., McGuire, M.P.: Integration and comparison of multi-criteria decision-making methods in safe route planner. Expert Syst. Appl. 154, 113399 (2020)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Pelegrina, G.D., Duarte, L.T., Grabisch, M., Romano, J.M.T.: Dealing with redundancies among criteria in multicriteria decision making through independent component analysis. Comput. Ind. Eng. 169, 108171 (2022)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Juanpera, M., Domenech, B., Ferrer-Martí, L., García-Villoria, A., Pastor, R.: Methodology for integrated multicriteria decision-making with uncertainty: extending the compromise ranking method for uncertain evaluation of alternatives. Fuzzy Sets Syst. 434, 135–158 (2022)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  69. Şahin, M.: A comprehensive analysis of weighting and multicriteria methods in the context of sustainable energy. Int J Environ Sci Technol 18(6), 1591–1616 (2021)

  70. Zhang, X., **a, Q., Yang, F., Song, S., Ang, S.: Interval cross-efficiency for ranking decision making units using the stochastic multicriteria acceptability analysis-evidential reasoning approach. Comput. Ind. Eng. 156, 107222 (2021)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Li, H., Wu, P., Zhou, L., Chen, H.: A new approach for multicriteria group decision making under interval type-2 fuzzy environment. Measurement 172, 108818 (2021)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. García-Cáceres, R.G.: Stochastic multicriteria acceptability analysis–matching (SMAA-M). Op. Res. Perspect. 7, 100145 (2020)

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  73. Jia, Q., Hu, J., He, Q., Zhang, W., Safwat, E.: A multicriteria group decision-making method based on AIVIFSs, Z-numbers, and trapezium clouds. Inf. Sci. 566, 38–56 (2021)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  74. Tavares, L.V., Arruda, P.: A multicriteria model to select candidates for public contracting using the OPTIONCARDS method. Autom. Constr. 136, 104162 (2022)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. Hussain, A., Chun, J., Khan, M.: A novel multicriteria decision making (MCDM) approach for precise decision making under a fuzzy environment. Soft. Comput. 25(7), 5645–5661 (2021)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  76. Stoilova, S., Munier, N.: A novel fuzzy SIMUS multicriteria decision-making method. An application in railway passenger transport planning. Symmetry 13(3), 483 (2021)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. Harju, M., Liesiö, J., Virtanen, K.: Spatial multi-attribute decision analysis: axiomatic foundations and incomplete preference information. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 275(1), 167–181 (2019)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  78. Wang, J.-Q., Wang, J., Chen, Q.-H., ZhangChen, H.-Y.X.-H.: An outranking approach for multi-criteria decison-making with hesitant fuzzy linguistic term sets. Inf. Sci. 280, 338–351 (2014)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  79. Mukhametzyanov, I., Pamučar, D.: A Sensitivity Analysis in MCDM Problems: A Statistical Approach. Decis. mak. Appl. Manage. Eng. 1(2), 51–80 (2018)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  80. Triantaphyllou, E.: Multi-criteria decision-making methods: a comparative study. In: Applied optimization, Vol. 44. Springer, USA (2000).

  81. Pamučar, D.B., Ranđelović, A.: Multi-criteria decision-making: an example of sensitivity analysis. SJM 12(1), 1–27 (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  82. Yu, O.-Y., Guikema, S.D., Briaud, J.-L., Burnett, D.: Sensitivity analysis for multi-attribute system selection problems in onshore environmentally friendly drilling (EFD). Syst. Eng. 15(2), 153–171 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  83. Li, P., Qian, H., Wu, J., Chen, J.: Sensitivity analysis of TOPSIS method in water quality assessment: I. Sensitivity to the parameter weights. Environ. Monit. Assess 185, 2453–2461 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Business Administration, University of Burdwan, Purba Bardhaman, West Bengal, 713104, India

    Susmita Bandyopadhyay

Authors
  1. Susmita Bandyopadhyay
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

The author contributes the following through this paper: A novel multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) technique has been proposed. The proposed MCDA technique has considered relationships among the alternatives, relationships among the criteria, relationships between the criteria and the alternatives, the dilemma in decision-making for the decision makers, consideration of information content in the criteria. The proposed MCDA technique has been analyzed by sensitivity analysis. The proposed technique has also been compared with other six different MCDA techniques in order to establish its effectiveness and validity.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Susmita Bandyopadhyay.

Ethics declarations

Ethical approval

(1) No content from the manuscript has been copyrighted, published, or accepted for publication elsewhere; (2) No content is or will be under review by another journal while under consideration by this journal; (3) The manuscript uses appropriate citations for the reproduction of someone else's original words or expression of ideas; (4) The manuscript has not been submitted to any journal before; (5) No working paper, prior draft, and final version of the manuscript were posted online and will not be posted during the review process.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bandyopadhyay, S. A novel multi-criteria decision analysis technique incorporating demanding essential characteristics of existing MCDA techniques. Prog Artif Intell 12, 231–255 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13748-023-00299-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13748-023-00299-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation