Table of Contents Author Guidelines Submit a Manuscript
Applied Computational Intelligence and Soft Computing
Volume 2014, Article ID 536492, 14 pages
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2014/536492
Research Article

Identification of a Multicriteria Decision-Making Model Using the Characteristic Objects Method

Department of Artificial Intelligence Methods and Applied Mathematics, Faculty of Computer Science and Information Technology, West Pomeranian University of Technology, Ulica Żołnierska 49, 71-210 Szczecin, Poland

Received 6 May 2014; Revised 2 November 2014; Accepted 2 November 2014; Published 27 November 2014

Academic Editor: Sebastian Ventura

Copyright © 2014 Andrzej Piegat and Wojciech Sałabun. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Linked References

  1. T.-C. Chu and Y. Lin, “An extension to fuzzy MCDM,” Computers and Mathematics with Applications, vol. 57, no. 3, pp. 445–454, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Zentralblatt MATH · View at Scopus
  2. İ. Ertuğrul, “Fuzzy group decision making for the selection of facility location,” Group Decision and Negotiation, vol. 20, no. 6, pp. 725–740, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  3. B. Vahdani, R. Tavakkoli-Moghaddam, S. M. Mousavi, and A. Ghodratnama, “Soft computing based on new interval-valued fuzzy modified multi-criteria decision-making method,” Applied Soft Computing Journal, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 165–172, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  4. P. Guo, “Private teal estate investment analysis within one-shot decision framework,” International Real Estate Review, vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 238–260, 2010. View at Google Scholar
  5. P. Guo, “One-shot decision theory,” IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics Part A: Systems and Humans, vol. 41, no. 5, pp. 917–926, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  6. E. Garmendia and G. Gamboa, “Weighting social preferences in participatory multi-criteria evaluations: a case study on sustainable natural resource management,” Ecological Economics, vol. 84, pp. 110–120, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  7. G. A. Mendoza and H. Martins, “Multi-criteria decision analysis in natural resource management: a critical review of methods and new modelling paradigms,” Forest Ecology and Management, vol. 230, no. 1–3, pp. 1–22, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  8. W. Pedrycz, P. Ekel, and R. Parreiras, Fuzzy Multicriteria Decision-Making: Models, Methods and Applications, John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, UK, 2011.
  9. M. Amiri, M. Zandieh, R. Soltani, and B. Vahdani, “A hybrid multi-criteria decision-making model for firms competence evaluation,” Expert Systems with Applications, vol. 36, no. 10, pp. 12314–12322, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  10. T. Gal and T. Hanne, “Nonessential objectives within network approaches for MCDM,” European Journal of Operational Research, vol. 168, no. 2, pp. 584–592, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at MathSciNet · View at Scopus
  11. A. Piegat and W. Sałabun, “Nonlinearity of human multi-criteria in decision-making,” Journal of Theoretical and Applied Computer Science, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 36–49, 2012. View at Google Scholar
  12. M. Zarghami and F. Szidarovszky, Multicriteria Analysis: Applications to Water and Environment Managment, Springer, New York, NY, USA, 2011. View at MathSciNet
  13. S. French, Decision Behavior, Analysis and Support, Cambridge University Press, New York, NY, USA, 2009.
  14. T. D. Kontos, D. P. Komilis, and C. P. Halvadakis, “Siting MSW landfills with a spatial multiple criteria analysis methodology,” Waste Management, vol. 25, no. 8, pp. 818–832, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  15. R. Simanaviciene and L. Ustinovichius, “Sensitivity analysis for multiple criteria decision making methods: TOPSIS and SAW,” in Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Sensitivity Analysis of Model Output (SAMO '10), pp. 7743–7744, July 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  16. J. Stadnicki, Theory and Practice of Solving Optimization Problems, WNT, Warszawa, Poland, 2006.
  17. A. R. Blair, G. N. Mandelker, T. L. Saaty, and R. Whitaker, “Forecasting the resurgence of the U.S. economy in 2010: an expert judgment approach,” Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, vol. 44, no. 3, pp. 114–121, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  18. Y. Dong, G. Zhang, W.-C. Hong, and Y. Xu, “Consensus models for AHP group decision making under row geometric mean prioritization method,” Decision Support Systems, vol. 49, no. 3, pp. 281–289, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  19. E. Karami, “Appropriateness of farmers' adoption of irrigation methods: the application of the AHP model,” Agricultural Systems, vol. 87, no. 1, pp. 101–119, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  20. M. Kim, Y.-C. Jang, and S. Lee, “Application of Delphi-AHP methods to select the priorities of WEEE for recycling in a waste management decision-making tool,” Journal of Environmental Management, vol. 128, pp. 941–948, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  21. N. J. Mamat and J. K. Daniel, “Statistical analyses on time complexity and rank consistency between singular value decomposition and the duality approach in AHP: a case study of faculty member selection,” Mathematical and Computer Modelling, vol. 46, no. 7-8, pp. 1099–1106, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at MathSciNet · View at Scopus
  22. T. L. Saaty, “Decision making the analytic hierarchy and network processes (AHP/ANP),” International Journal Services Sciences, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 83–98, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  23. T. L. Saaty and J. S. Shang, “An innovative orders-of-magnitude approach to AHP-based multi-criteria decision making: prioritizing divergent intangible humane acts,” European Journal of Operational Research, vol. 214, no. 3, pp. 703–715, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at MathSciNet · View at Scopus
  24. T. L. Saaty and L. T. Tran, “On the invalidity of fuzzifying numerical judgments in the analytic hierarchy process,” Mathematical and Computer Modelling, vol. 46, no. 7-8, pp. 962–975, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at MathSciNet · View at Scopus
  25. A. Szczypińska and E. W. Piotrowski, “Inconsistency of the judgment matrix in the AHP method and the decision maker's knowledge,” Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, vol. 388, no. 6, pp. 907–915, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  26. T.-H. Hsu, L.-C. Hung, and J.-W. Tang, “A hybrid ANP evaluation model for electronic service quality,” Applied Soft Computing Journal, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 72–81, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  27. K. Kirytopoulos, D. Voulgaridou, A. Platis, and V. Leopoulos, “An effective Markov based approach for calculating the Limit Matrix in the analytic network process,” European Journal of Operational Research, vol. 214, no. 1, pp. 85–90, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  28. M. P. Niemira and T. L. Saaty, “An analytic network process model for financial-crisis forecasting,” International Journal of Forecasting, vol. 20, no. 4, pp. 573–587, 2004. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  29. T. L. Saaty, “Decision making—the analytic hierarchy and network processes (AHP/ANP),” Journal of Systems Science and Systems Engineering, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 1–35, 2004. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  30. T. L. Saaty, “Time dependent decision-making; dynamic priorities in the AHP/ANP: generalizing from points to functions and from real to complex variables,” Mathematical and Computer Modelling, vol. 46, no. 7-8, pp. 860–891, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  31. T. L. Saaty and C. Brandy, The Encyclicon, Volume 2: A Dictionary of Complex Decisions Using the Analytic Network Process, RWS Publications, Pittsburgh, Pa, USA, 2009.
  32. Y.-L. Wang and G.-H. Tzeng, “Brand marketing for creating brand value based on a MCDM model combining DEMATEL with ANP and VIKOR methods,” Expert Systems with Applications, vol. 39, no. 5, pp. 5600–5615, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  33. J. L. Yang and G.-H. Tzeng, “An integrated MCDM technique combined with DEMATEL for a novel cluster-weighted with ANP method,” Expert Systems with Applications, vol. 38, no. 3, pp. 1417–1424, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  34. M. Behzadian, S. K. Otaghsara, M. Yazdani, and J. Ignatius, “A state-of the-art survey of TOPSIS applications,” Expert Systems with Applications, vol. 39, no. 17, pp. 13051–13069, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  35. L. Dymova, P. Sevastjanov, and A. Tikhonenko, “An approach to generalization of fuzzy TOPSIS method,” Information Sciences, vol. 238, pp. 149–162, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at MathSciNet · View at Scopus
  36. K. Khalili-Damghani, S. Sadi-Nezhad, and M. Tavana, “Solving multi-period project selection problems with fuzzy goal programming based on TOPSIS and a fuzzy preference relation,” Information Sciences, vol. 252, pp. 42–61, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at MathSciNet · View at Scopus
  37. M. Nakhaeinejad and N. Nahavandi, “An interactive algorithm for multi-objective flow shop scheduling with fuzzy processing time through resolution method and TOPSIS,” International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, vol. 66, no. 5–8, pp. 1047–1064, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  38. S. Rouhani, M. Ghazanfari, and M. Jafari, “Evaluation model of business intelligence for enterprise systems using fuzzy TOPSIS,” Expert Systems with Applications, vol. 39, no. 3, pp. 3764–3771, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  39. M. S. García-Cascales and M. T. Lamata, “On rank reversal and TOPSIS method,” Mathematical and Computer Modelling, vol. 56, no. 5-6, pp. 123–132, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at MathSciNet · View at Scopus
  40. D. Yong, “Plant location selection based on fuzzy TOPSIS,” International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, vol. 28, no. 7-8, pp. 839–844, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  41. A. J. Brito, A. T. de Almeida, and C. M. M. Mota, “A multicriteria model for risk sorting of natural gas pipelines based on ELECTRE TRI integrating Utility Theory,” European Journal of Operational Research, vol. 200, no. 3, pp. 812–821, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Zentralblatt MATH · View at Scopus
  42. J. Figueira, S. Greco, and M. Ehrgott, Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis: State of the Art Surveys, Springer, New York, NY, USA, 2004.
  43. A. Hatami-Marbini and M. Tavana, “An extension of the Electre I method for group decision-making under a fuzzy environment,” Omega, vol. 39, no. 4, pp. 373–386, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  44. G. A. Montazer, H. Q. Saremi, and M. Ramezani, “Design a new mixed expert decision aiding system using fuzzy ELECTRE III method for vendor selection,” Expert Systems with Applications, vol. 36, no. 8, pp. 10837–10847, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  45. V. Mousseau and L. Dias, “Valued outranking relations in ELECTRE providing manageable disaggregation procedures,” European Journal of Operational Research, vol. 156, no. 2, pp. 467–482, 2004. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Zentralblatt MATH · View at Scopus
  46. M. Behzadian, R. B. Kazemzadeh, A. Albadvi, and M. Aghdasi, “Promethee: a comprehensive literature review on methodologies and applications,” European Journal of Operational Research, vol. 200, no. 1, pp. 198–215, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  47. Y.-C. Hu and C.-J. Chen, “A PROMETHEE-based classification method using concordance and discordance relations and its application to bankruptcy prediction,” Information Sciences, vol. 181, no. 22, pp. 4959–4968, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  48. A. Ishizaka and P. Nemery, “Selecting the best statistical distribution with PROMETHEE and GAIA,” Computers and Industrial Engineering, vol. 61, no. 4, pp. 958–969, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  49. R. Vetschera and A. T. de Almeida, “A PROMETHEE-based approach to portfolio selection problems,” Computers & Operations Research, vol. 39, no. 5, pp. 1010–1020, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  50. B. Yilmaz and M. Daǧdeviren, “A combined approach for equipment selection: F-PROMETHEE method and zero-one goal programming,” Expert Systems with Applications, vol. 38, no. 9, pp. 11641–11650, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  51. E. Triantaphyllou, Multi-Criteria Decision-Making: A Comparative Study, Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2000.
  52. E. Triantaphyllou and S. H. Mann, “An examination of the effectiveness of multi-dimensional decision-making methods: a decision-making paradox,” Decision Support Systems, vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 303–312, 1989. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  53. I. Ertuğrul and N. Karakaşoğlu, “Comparison of fuzzy AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS methods for facility location selection,” International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, vol. 39, no. 7-8, pp. 783–795, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  54. P. van Laarhoven and W. Pedrycz, “A fuzzy extension of Saaty's priority theory,” Fuzzy Sets and Systems, vol. 11, no. 13, pp. 199–227, 1983. View at Google Scholar
  55. J. H. May, J. Shang, Y. C. Tjader, and L. G. Vargas, “A new methodology for sensitivity and stability analysis of analytic network models,” European Journal of Operational Research, vol. 224, no. 1, pp. 180–188, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at MathSciNet · View at Scopus
  56. L. G. Vargas, “Comments on Barzilai and Lootsma: why the multiplicative AHP is invalid: a practical counterexample,” Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 169–170, 1997. View at Google Scholar
  57. W. Pedrycz, “Statistically grounded logic operators in fuzzy sets,” European Journal of Operational Research, vol. 193, no. 2, pp. 520–529, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at MathSciNet · View at Scopus
  58. W. Pedrycz and F. Gomide, Fuzzy Systems Engineering: Toward Human-Centric Computing, John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY, USA, 2011.
  59. A. Piegat, Fuzzy Modeling and Control, Springer, New York, NY, USA, 2001.
  60. W. Sałabun, “The use of fuzzy logic to evaluate the nonlinearity of human multi-criteria used in decision making,” Przeglad Elektrotechniczny, vol. 88, no. 10b, pp. 235–238, 2012. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus