English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  Items with full text/Total items : 51771/86989 (60%)
Visitors : 8370241      Online Users : 69
RC Version 7.0 © Powered By DSPACE, MIT. Enhanced by NTU Library & TKU Library IR team.
Scope Tips:
  • please add "double quotation mark" for query phrases to get precise results
  • please goto advance search for comprehansive author search
  • Adv. Search
    HomeLoginUploadHelpAboutAdminister Goto mobile version
    Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://tkuir.lib.tku.edu.tw:8080/dspace/handle/987654321/109386

    Title: Interpreting Weights in Multiple Criteria Decision Making
    Authors: Podkopaev, Dmitry
    Keywords: MADM;preference modeling;weighting;TOPSIS;VIKOR;PROMETHEE
    Date: 2016
    Issue Date: 2017-01-17 11:41:44 (UTC+8)
    Publisher: 淡江大學出版中心
    Abstract: Many decision making problems of business and management are formulated in terms of Multiple Attribute Decision Making (MADM): given a set of alternatives evaluated with multiple criteria, find the alternative which according to the Decision Maker (DM), has the most preferred combination of criteria values (attributes), or rank alternatives from the most preferred one to the least preferred one. The MADM methods incorporate mechanisms of building preference models based on information obtained from the DM. In a wide variety of such methods, the DM is supposed to provide information in terms of weights of criteria, usually understood as criteria’s priorities. These weights serve as parameters of the method-pecific preference models. The DM can define weights directly, or by using special weight elicitation techniques such as AHP, MAVT and others. Our concerns are that when using weight-based methods, the DM cannot ensure the correctness of the preference model. First, different weight-based methods use different kinds of preference models, which prioritize criteria based on weights in different manners. Second, interpretation of weights in some MADM methods is far from intuitive. Thus, a situation may occur when an inexperienced DM thinks of weights differently than they actually work in the method, and expresses the preference information incorrectly. In this paper we demonstrate the differences between how weights are interpreted in several methods: simple additive weighting, TOPSIS, VIKOR and PROMETHEE. We do it by comparing rankings produced with methods based on randomly generated data. We demonstrate that differences of interpreting weights significantly contribute to differences in produced rankings. A solution to this problem could be twofold: first, increasing awareness of differences between method-specific weight-based prioritizing mechanisms, and second, providing interpretations of weights for popular methods in the language understandable by the DMs.
    Relation: International Journal of Information and Management Sciences 27 (2), pp.191-202
    DOI: 10.6186/IJIMS.2016.27.2.7
    Appears in Collections:[資訊與管理科學期刊] 第27卷第2期

    Files in This Item:

    File Description SizeFormat

    All items in 機構典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.

    DSpace Software Copyright © 2002-2004  MIT &  Hewlett-Packard  /   Enhanced by   NTU Library & TKU Library IR teams. Copyright ©   - Feedback