Weight determination for consistently ranking alternatives in multiple criteria decision analysis

被引:146
作者
Kao, Chiang [1 ]
机构
[1] Natl Cheng Kung Univ, Dept Ind & Informat Management, Tainan 70101, Taiwan
关键词
Multiple criteria decision analysis; Compromise programming; Pareto optimality; Data envelopment analysis; TOPSIS; DATA ENVELOPMENT ANALYSIS; COMPROMISE SOLUTION; INEFFICIENCIES; MODELS; TOPSIS;
D O I
10.1016/j.apm.2009.09.022
中图分类号
T [工业技术];
学科分类号
08 ;
摘要
One of the most difficult tasks in multiple criteria decision analysis (MCDA) is determining the weights of individual criteria so that all alternatives can be compared based on the aggregate performance of all criteria. This problem can be transformed into the compromise programming of seeking alternatives with a shorter distance to the ideal or a longer distance to the anti-ideal despite the rankings based on the two distance measures possibly not being the same. In order to obtain consistent rankings, this paper proposes a measure of relative distance, which involves the calculation of the relative position of an alternative between the anti-ideal and the ideal for ranking. In this case, minimizing the distance to the ideal is equivalent to maximizing the distance to the anti-ideal, so the rankings obtained from the two criteria are the same. An example is used to discuss the advantages and disadvantages of the proposed method, and the results are compared with those obtained from the TOPSIS method. (C) 2009 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:1779 / 1787
页数:9
相关论文
共 25 条
[1]   Review of ranking methods in the data envelopment analysis context [J].
Adler, N ;
Friedman, L ;
Sinuany-Stern, Z .
EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF OPERATIONAL RESEARCH, 2002, 140 (02) :249-265
[2]   SOME MODELS FOR ESTIMATING TECHNICAL AND SCALE INEFFICIENCIES IN DATA ENVELOPMENT ANALYSIS [J].
BANKER, RD ;
CHARNES, A ;
COOPER, WW .
MANAGEMENT SCIENCE, 1984, 30 (09) :1078-1092
[3]   MEASURING EFFICIENCY OF DECISION-MAKING UNITS [J].
CHARNES, A ;
COOPER, WW ;
RHODES, E .
EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF OPERATIONAL RESEARCH, 1978, 2 (06) :429-444
[4]   CLASSIFYING AND CHARACTERIZING EFFICIENCIES AND INEFFICIENCIES IN DATA DEVELOPMENT ANALYSIS [J].
CHARNES, A ;
COOPER, WW ;
THRALL, RM .
OPERATIONS RESEARCH LETTERS, 1986, 5 (03) :105-110
[5]  
CHEN SJ, 1992, LECT NOTES ECON MATH, V375, P1
[6]   Measures of inefficiency in data envelopment analysis and stochastic frontier estimation [J].
Cooper, WW ;
Tone, K .
EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF OPERATIONAL RESEARCH, 1997, 99 (01) :72-88
[7]   Inter-company comparison using modified TOPSIS with objective weights [J].
Deng, H ;
Yeh, CH ;
Willis, RJ .
COMPUTERS & OPERATIONS RESEARCH, 2000, 27 (10) :963-973
[8]   WEIGHTING MULTIPLE CRITERIA [J].
ECKENRODE, RT .
MANAGEMENT SCIENCE, 1965, 12 (03) :180-192
[9]  
Figueira J, 2005, INT SER OPER RES MAN, V78, P133, DOI 10.1007/0-387-23081-5_4
[10]   Tentative guidelines to help choosing an appropriate MCDA method [J].
Guitouni, A ;
Martel, JM .
EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF OPERATIONAL RESEARCH, 1998, 109 (02) :501-521