SELECTION OF MULTI-CRITERIA ANALYSIS METHODS ON THE EXAMPLE OF THE PROBLEM OF RANKING
Abstract
This work is devoted to the selection and comparison of popular traditional methods of multi-
criteria decision making. The article presents an overview of the existing works of recent years
on the topic of their comparison, highlights the main criteria, as well as the most significant results.
Further, an example of the implementation of a DSS (decision support system) was considered
on the recommendation of such a method to the user, which includes a description of not only
the main methods, but also their modifications, highlighting an exhaustive taxonomy of multicriteria
analysis methods in general. For the selection of methods in this article, international
databases of scientific publications were used: Science Direct, Google Scholar and IEEE Xplore.
Certain search settings have been made to retrieve jobs that match the query. The next step describes the task of ranking alternatives to demonstrate the results of applying the selected methods.
As a method for distributing the weights of the criteria, the method of analysis of hierarchies
(AHP) was used. The calculation results are presented in tables and graphically. The evaluation
metric was considered to be the stability of the method to the number of alternatives and criteria,
as well as sensitivity to the weights of the criteria. At the current stage of the study, the following
methods were selected: TOPSIS, WASPAS, VIKOR, PROMETHEE and ELECTRE. As a result of
the study, optimal methods were determined (in terms of the ratio of computational complexity to
stability) for their further use in the development of DSS, the ELECTRE method was used as an
additional tool with a large number of alternatives to screen out the least attractive ones.
PROMETHEE showed high sensitivity to changes in weights and complexity of calculations, therefore
it was excluded from further development stages. VIKOR and TOPSIS showed the best stability
with the simplicity of calculations.
References
decision analysis methods with a new taxonomy-based decision support system, European
Journal of Operational Research, 2022, 302, pp. 633-651. Available at:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2022.01.011 8 2 (accessed 15 April 2023).
2. Cinelli M., Kadzinski M., Gonzalez M., Słowinski R. How to support the application of multiple
criteria decision analysis? Let us start with a comprehensive taxonomy, Omega, 2020, 96,
102261. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.omega.2020.102261 (accessed 17 April 2023).
3. Science Direct. Available at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/ (accessed 17 April 2023).
4. Google Scholar. Available at: https://scholar.google.com/ (accessed 17 April 2023).
5. IEEE Xplore. Available at: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/Xplore/home.jsp (accessed 17 April
2023).
6. Hwang C.L., Yoon K. Multiple Attribute Decision Making: Methods and Applications. New
York: Springer-Verlag, 1981.
7. Yoon K. A reconciliation among discrete compromise situations, Journal of the Operational
Research Society, 1987, 38 (3), pp. 277-286.
8. Forman Ernest H., Saul I. Gass. The analytical hierarchy process an exposition, Operations
Research, 2001, July (Vol. 49, No. 4), pp. 469-487. DOI: 10.1287/opre.49.4.469.1123.
9. Opricovic S., Gwo-Hshiung Tzeng. Extended VIKOR Method in Comparison with Outranking
Methods, European Journal of Operational Research, 2007, Vol. 178, No. 2, pp. 514-529.
10. Brans J., Mareschal B. PROMETHEE methods, Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis: State of
the Art Surveys, 2005. pp. 163-196.
11. Macharis C., Brans J., Mareschal B. The GDSS PROMETHEE procedure, Journal of Decision
Systems, 1998, Vol. 7. No. 4, pp. 283-307.
12. Brans J.P., Mareschal B., Vincke Ph. PROMETHEE: a new family of outranking methods in
multicriteria analysis, Operational Research, 1984, 84, pp. 477-490.
13. Roy B. The outranking approach and the foundation of ELECTRE methods, Theoryand Decision,
1991. No. 31, pp. 49-73.
14. Rezaei J. A Concentration Ratio for Non-Linear Best Worst Method, International Journal of
Information Technology & Decision Making, 2020, 19 (3), pp. 891-907.
15. Alinezhad A., Khalili J. COPRAS Method. In: New Methods and Applications in Multiple
Attribute Decision Making (MADM), International Series in Operations Research & Management
Science, Springer, Cham, 2019, Vol. 277. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-15009-9_12.
16. Brauers W.K.M., Karel W., Zavadskas E., Kazimieras E. Robustness of the multi-objective
MOORA method with a test for the facilities sector, Technological and economic development
of economy, 2009, No. 2 (15), pp. 352-375.
17. Alinezhad A., Khalili J. WASPAS Method. In: New Methods and Applications in Multiple
Attribute Decision Making (MADM), International Series in Operations Research & Management
Science, Springer, Cham, 2019, Vol. 277. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-15009-9_13.
18. Pamucar D., Cirovic G. The selection of transport and handling resources in logistics centers
using multi-attributive border approximation area comparison (MABAC), Expert Systems with
Applications, 2015, 42 (6), pp. 3016-3028. DOI: 10.1016/j.eswa.2014.11.057.
19. Daugavietis J.E., Soloha R., Dace E., Ziemele J.A. Comparison of Multi-Criteria Decision
Analysis Methods for Sustainability Assessment of District Heating Systems, Energies, 2022,
15, 2411.
20. Kizielewicz B., Bączkiewicz A. Comparison of Fuzzy TOPSIS, Fuzzy VIKOR, Fuzzy
WASPAS and Fuzzy MMOORA methods in the housing selection problem, Procedia Computer
Science, 2021, 192, pp. 4578-91.
21. Sałabun W., Wątróbski J., Shekhovtsov A. Are MCDA Methods Benchmarkable? A Comparative
Study of TOPSIS, VIKOR, COPRAS, and PROMETHEE II Methods, Symmetry, 2020,
12, pp. 1549.
