Comparative analysis of objective techniques for criteria weighing in two MCDM methods on example of an air conditioner selection

This paper deals with comparative analysis of two different types of objective techniques for criteria weighing: Entropy and CRITIC and two MCDM methods: MOORA and SAW on example of an air conditioner selection. We used six variants for calculation of normalized performance ratings. Results showed that the decision of the best air conditioner was basically independent of the MCDM method used, despite the applied technique for determination of criteria weights. Complete ranking within all of the combinations of methods and techniques with diverse ratio calculation variants showed that the best ranked air conditioner was A7, while the worst ones were A5 and A9. Significant positive correlation was obtained for almost all the pairs of variants in all the combinations except for the MOORA – CRITIC combination with SAW – Entropy combination to have the highest correlations between variants (p < 0.01).

[1]  E. Zavadskas,et al.  Robustness of the multi‐objective MOORA method with a test for the facilities sector , 2009 .

[2]  John Psarras,et al.  Supporting sustainable electricity technologies in Greece using MCDM , 2006 .

[3]  Shankar Chakraborty,et al.  Applications of the MOORA method for decision making in manufacturing environment , 2011 .

[4]  Edmundas Kazimieras Zavadskas,et al.  The MOORA method and its application to privatization in a transition economy , 2006 .

[5]  G. Mavrotas,et al.  Determining objective weights in multiple criteria problems: The critic method , 1995, Comput. Oper. Res..

[6]  J. Voogd,et al.  Multicriteria evaluation for urban and regional planning , 1982 .

[7]  Valentinas Podvezko,et al.  The Comparative Analysis of MCDA Methods SAW and COPRAS , 2011 .

[8]  Friedel Peldschus,et al.  Zur Anwendung der Theorie der Spiele für Aufgaben der Bautechnologie , 1986 .

[9]  D. Pamučar,et al.  USING FUZZY LOGIC : FUZZY AHP APPROACH AS A SUPPORT TO THE DECISION MAKING PROCESS CONCERNING ENGAGEMENT OF THE GROUP FOR ADDITIONAL HINDERING , 2015 .

[10]  Milan Zeleny,et al.  Multiple Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) , 2004 .

[11]  Alireza Afshari,et al.  Simple Additive Weighting approach to Personnel Selection problem , 2010 .

[12]  Prasenjit Chatterjee,et al.  Material selection using preferential ranking methods , 2012 .

[13]  Nilgun B. Harmancioglu,et al.  Multi-criteria decision making for water resource management: a case study of the Gediz River Basin, Turkey , 2010 .

[14]  Russell L. Ackoff,et al.  An Approximate Measure of Value , 1954, Oper. Res..

[15]  Dragisa Stanujkic,et al.  Comparative analysis of some prominent MCDM methods: A case of ranking Serbian banks , 2013 .