Statistical and analytical comparison of multi-criteria decision-making techniques under fuzzy environment

Hamed Zamani-Sabzi, James Phillip King, Charlotte C. Gard and Shalamu Abudu

Operations Research Perspectives, 2016, vol. 3, issue C, 92-117

Abstract: Different multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) techniques require different levels of computational intensity and may produce different outputs, so selecting an appropriate technique largely determines the quality of the recommended decision and the effort required to obtain that decision. In most real environments, criteria and their constraints are not deterministic and cannot be specified precisely; therefore, those criteria are uncertain or fuzzy. To facilitate the selection of an appropriate MCDM method under a fuzzy environment, this study investigates and statistically compares the performances of ten commonly used MCDM techniques: simple additive weights (SAW), weighted product method (WPM), compromise programming (CP), technique for order preference by similarity to ideal solution (TOPSIS), four types of analytical hierarchy process (AHP), VIKOR (in Serbian: VIseKriterijumska Optimizacija I Kompromisno Resenje), and ELECTRE (in French: ELimination Et Choix Traduisant la REalité). These techniques’ performances were compared using fuzzy criteria and constraints, matching the conditions usually found in real applications. To conduct the comparisons, the 10 multi-criteria decision ranking methods were applied to 1250 simulated sets of decision matrices with fuzzy triangular values, and 12,500 sets of ranks were analyzed to compare the ranking methods. SAW and TOPSIS had statistically similar performances. ELECTRE was not preferable in providing full, sorted ranks among the alternatives. VIKOR considering its ranking process, for specific conditions, assigns identical ranks for several alternatives; when full, sorted ranks are required, VIKOR is unfavorable, although it is a powerful technique in introducing the closest alternative to the ideal condition. Types 1 and 3 of AHP and types 2 and 4 of AHP had close performances. Notably, no ranking method was significantly sensitive to uncertainty levels when uncertainty changed symmetrically.

Keywords: Statistical analysis of ranking methods; Fuzzy environment; Multi-criteria decision-making; Defuzzification (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2016
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (13)

Downloads: (external link)
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214716016300483
Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:eee:oprepe:v:3:y:2016:i:c:p:92-117

DOI: 10.1016/j.orp.2016.11.001

Access Statistics for this article

Operations Research Perspectives is currently edited by Rubén Ruiz Garcia

More articles in Operations Research Perspectives from Elsevier
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Catherine Liu ().