Multi-Criteria Decision Making Methods: A Comparative Study

by Evangelos Triantaphyllou, Ph.D.

LIST OF FIGURES


1             Introduction to Multi-Criteria Decision Making..............1
Figure 1-1:   A Typical Decision Matrix...................................3
Figure 1-2:   A Taxonomy of MCDM methods (according to 
              Chen and Hwang [1991])......................................4


2             Multi-Criteria Decision Making Methods......................5


3             Quantification of Qualitative Data for MCDM Problems.......23
Figure 3-1:   Actual Comparison Values...................................37
Figure 3-2:   Maximum, Average, and Minimum CI Values of 
              Random CDP Matrices When the Original 
              Saaty Scale is used........................................42
Figure 3-3:   Inversion Rates for Different Scales and Size 
              of Set (Class 1 Scales)....................................46
Figure 3-4:   Indiscrimination Rates for Different Scales 
              and Size of Set (Class 1 Scales)...........................47
Figure 3-5:   Inversion Rates for Different Scales and Size 
              of Set (Class 2 Scales)....................................48
Figure 3-6:   Indiscrimination Rates for Different Scales 
              and Size of Set (Class 2 Scales)...........................49
Figure 3-7:   The Best Scales............................................51
Figure 3-8:   The Worst Scales...........................................52


4             Deriving Relative Weights from Ratio Comparisons...........57
Figure 4-1:   Average Residual and CI versus Order of Set 
              When the Human Rationality Assumption is Used
              (the Results Correspond to 100 Random Observations)........70
Figure 4-2:   Average Residual and CI versus Order of Set 
              When the Eigenvalue Method is Used 
              (the Results Correspond to 100 Observations)...............71


5             Deriving Relative Weights from Difference Comparisons......73


6             A Decomposition Approach for Evaluating Relative 
              Weights Derived from Comparisons...........................87
Figure 6-1:   Partitioning of the n(n-1)/2 Pairwise 
              Comparisons................................................90
Figure 6-2:   Error Rates Under the LP Approach for Sets  
              of Different Size as a Function of the 
              Available Comparisons.....................................106
Figure 6-3:   Error Rates Under the Non-LP Approach for Sets
              of Different Size as a Function of the 
              Available Comparisons.....................................107
Figure 6-4:   Error Rates Under the LP Approach for Sets 
              of Different Size as a Function of the 
              Common Comparisons........................................108
Figure 6-5:   Error Rates Under the Non-LP Approach for Sets
              of Different Size as a Function of the 
              Common Comparisons........................................109
Figure 6-6:   Error Rates for the two Approaches as a 
              Function of the Available Comparisons.....................110
Figure 6-7:   Error Rates for the two Approaches as a 
              Function of the Common Comparisons........................111


7             Reduction of Pairwise Comparisons Via a 
              Duality Approach..........................................115
Figure 7-1:   Total Number of Comparisons and Reduction 
              Achieved When the Dual Approach is Used.  
              The Number of Criteria n = 5..............................125
Figure 7-2:   Total Number of Comparisons and Reduction 
              Achieved When the Dual Approach is Used.  
              The Number of Criteria n = 10.............................125
Figure 7-3:   Total Number of Comparisons and Reduction 
              Achieved When the Dual Approach is Used.  
              The Number of Criteria n = 15.............................126
Figure 7-4:   Total number of Comparisons and Reduction 
              Achieved When the Dual Approach is Used.  
              The Number of Criteria n = 20.............................126
Figure 7-5:   Net Reduction on the Number of 
              Comparisons When the Dual Approach is used.  
              Results for Problems of Various Sizes.....................127
Figure 7-6:   Percent (%) Reduction on the Number of 
              Comparisons When the Dual Approach is used.  
              Results for Problems of Various Sizes.....................127


8             A Sensitivity Analysis Approach for MCDM Methods..........131
Figure 8-1:   Frequency of the time that the PT Critical 
              Criterion is the Criterion with 
              the Highest Weight........................................149
Figure 8-2:   Frequency of the time that the PT Critical 
              Criterion is the Criterion with 
              the Lowest Weight.........................................149
Figure 8-3:   Frequency of the time that the PA Critical 
              Criterion is the Criterion with 
              the Highest Weight........................................150
Figure 8-4:   Frequency of the time that the PA Critical 
              Criterion is the Criterion with 
              the Lowest Weight.........................................150
Figure 8-5:   Frequency of the time that the AT Critical 
              Criterion is the Criterion with 
              the Highest Weight........................................151
Figure 8-6:   Frequency of the time that the AT Critical 
              Criterion is the Criterion with 
              the Lowest Weight.........................................151
Figure 8-7:   Frequency of the time that the AA Critical 
              Criterion is the Criterion with 
              the Highest Weight........................................152
Figure 8-8:   Frequency of the time that the AA Critical 
              Criterion is the Criterion with 
              the Lowest Weight.........................................152
Figure 8-9:   Frequency of the time that the AT and PT 
              Definitions point to the Same Criterion...................153
Figure 8-10:  Frequency of the time that the AA and PA 
              Definitions point to the Same Criterion...................153
Figure 8-11:  Frequency of the time that the AT, PT, AA, and PA
              Definitions point to the Same Criterion 
              Under the WSM Method......................................154
Figure 8-12:  Rate that the AT Criterion is the one 
              with the Lowest Weight for Different Size 
              Problems Under the WPM Method.............................154


9             Evaluation of Methods for Processing a Decision Matrix 
              and Some Cases of Ranking Abnormalities...................177
Figure 9-1:   Contradiction Rate (%) Between the 
              WSM and the AHP...........................................184
Figure 9-2:   Contradiction Rate (%) Between the 
              WSM and the Revised AHP...................................185
Figure 9-3:   Contradiction Rate (%) Between the 
              WSM and the WPM...........................................185
Figure 9-4:   Rate of Change (%) of the Indication of the 
              Optimum Alternative When a Non-Optimum 
              Alternative is Replaced by a Worse one.  
              The AHP Case..............................................191
Figure 9-5:   Rate of Change (%) of the indication of the 
              Optimum Alternative When a Non-Optimum 
              Alternative is Replaced by a Worse one.  
              The Revised AHP Case......................................191
Figure 9-6:   Contradiction Rate (%) Between the WSM 
              and TOPSIS Method.........................................196
Figure 9-7:   Rate of Change (%) of the Indication of the 
              Optimum Alternative When a Non-Optimum 
              Alternative is Replaced by a Worse one.  
              The TOPSIS Case...........................................196
Figure 9-8:   Indication of the Best MCDM Method According  
              to Different MCDM Methods.................................198


10            A Computational Evaluation of the Original
              and the Revised AHP.......................................201
Figure 10-1:  The Failure Rates are Based on 1,000 Randomly 
              Generated Problems.  The AHP Case.........................210
Figure 10-2:  The Failure Rates are Based on 1,000 Randomly 
              Generated Problems.  The Revised AHP Case.................211


11            More Cases of Ranking Abnormalities When Some 
              MCDM Methods Are Used.....................................213
Figure 11-1:  Contradiction Rates on the Indication of the 
              Best Alternative When Alternatives are 
              Considered Together and in Pairs.
              The Original AHP Case.....................................225
Figure 11-2:  Contradiction Rates on the Indication of the 
              Best Alternative When Alternatives are 
              Considered Together and in Pairs.
              The Ideal Mode (Revised) AHP Case.........................225
Figure 11-3:  Contradiction Rates on the Indication of 
              Any Alternative When Alternatives are 
              Considered Together and in Pairs.
              The Original AHP Case.....................................226
Figure 11-4:  Contradiction Rates on the Indication of 
              Any Alternative When Alternatives are 
              Considered Together and in Pairs.
              The Ideal Mode (Revised) AHP Case.........................226
Figure 11-5:  Contradiction Rates on the indication of 
              Any Alternative When Alternatives are 
              Considered in Pairs.
              The Original AHP Case.....................................227
Figure 11-6:  Contradiction Rates on the indication of 
              Any Alternative When Alternatives are 
              Considered in Pairs.
              The Ideal Mode AHP Case...................................227


12            Fuzzy Sets and Their Operations...........................235
Figure 12-1:  Membership Functions for the Two Fuzzy 
              Alternatives A1 and A2....................................239


13            Fuzzy Multi-Criteria Decision Making......................241
Figure 13-1:  Membership Functions of the Fuzzy Alternatives
              A1, A2, and A3 of Example 13-1 According 
              to the Fuzzy WSM Method...................................243
Figure 13-2:  Membership Functions of the Fuzzy Alternatives
              A1, A2, and A3 of Example 13-2 According 
              to the Fuzzy WPM Method...................................244
Figure 13-3:  Contradiction Rate R11 When the Number of 
              Fuzzy Alternatives is Equal to 3..........................259
Figure 13-4:  Contradiction Rate R11 When the Number of 
              Fuzzy Alternatives is Equal to 21.........................259
Figure 13-5:  Contradiction Rate R21 When the Number of 
              Fuzzy Alternatives is Equal to 3..........................260
Figure 13-6:  Contradiction Rate R21 When the Number of 
              Fuzzy Alternatives is Equal to 21.........................260
Figure 13-7:  Contradiction Rate R12 When the Number of
              Fuzzy Alternatives is Equal to 3..........................261


14            Conclusions and Discussion for Future Research............263




Click the BACK key of your browser or click here to return to the book's webpage

Dr. Triantaphyllou's Homepage