 Comparison of multi-criteria decision methods through a ranking stability indexMbarka Selmi, Tarek Kormi and Nizar Bel Hadj Ali International Journal of Operational Research, 2016, vol. 27, issue 1/2, 165-183 Abstract: Various multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) procedures have been developed over the last few decades to help decision-making in complex and seemingly intractable decision tasks. A major criticism of various MCDM methods is that they may yield different results when applied to the same problem. A comparative study is proposed here to identify similarities and divergences between the most used MCDM methods. Compared approaches include: ELECTRE III, PROMETHEE I and II, TOPSIS, AHP and PEG. Two multi-criteria case studies are presented. Studied methods are employed to establish an arrangement of a number of alternatives based on two and eight conflicting criteria, respectively. A Gini index is used to quantify rankings dispersion of Pareto optima obtained through studied MCDM methods. Results highlight the sensitivity of the Pareto-compromise design and ranking to the applied MCDM method. Keywords: multicriteria decision making; MCDM; Pareto compromise design; ranking dispersion; Gini index; ranking stability; ELECTRE III; PROMETHEE; TOPSIS; AHP; analytical hierarchy process; PEG; Pareto-Edgeworth-Grierson. (search for similar items in EconPapers) Downloads: (external link) Related works: Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:ids:ijores:v:27:y:2016:i:1/2:p:165-183 Access Statistics for this article More articles in International Journal of Operational Research from Inderscience Enterprises Ltd |
Is your work missing from RePEc? Here is how to contribute.
Questions or problems? Check the EconPapers FAQ or send mail to .
EconPapers is hosted by the
School of Business at Örebro University.