Ordinal Priority Approach (OPA) in Multiple Attribute Decision-Making

Abstract The current study aims to present a new method called Ordinal Priority Approach (OPA) in Multiple Attribute Decision-Making (MADM). This method can be used in individual or group decision-making (GDM). In the case of GDM, through this method, we first determine the experts and their priorities. The priority of experts may be determined based on their experience and/or knowledge. After prioritization of the experts, the attributes are prioritized by each expert. Meanwhile, each expert ranks the alternatives based on each attribute, and the sub-attributes if any. Ultimately, by solving the presented linear programming model of this method, the weights of the attributes, alternatives, experts, and sub-attributes would be obtained simultaneously. A significant advantage of the proposed method is that it does not make use of pairwise comparison matrix, decision-making matrix (no need for numerical input), normalization methods, averaging methods for aggregating the opinions of experts (in GDM) and linguistic variables. Another advantage of this method is the possibility for experts to only comment on the attributes and alternatives for which they have sufficient knowledge and experience. The validity of the proposed model has been evaluated using several group and individual instances. Finally, the proposed method has been compared with other methods such as AHP, BWM, TOPSIS, VIKOR, PROMETHEE and QUALIFLEX. Based on comparisons among the weights and ranks using Spearman and Pearson correlation coefficients, the proposed method has an applicable performance compared with other methods.

[1]  Subhabrata Chakraborti,et al.  Nonparametric Statistical Inference , 2011, International Encyclopedia of Statistical Science.

[2]  Shady Aly,et al.  Fuzzy aggregation and averaging for group decision making: A generalization and survey , 2009, Knowl. Based Syst..

[3]  Wei-Wen Wu,et al.  Selecting knowledge management strategies by using the analytic network process , 2007, Expert Syst. Appl..

[4]  T. Saaty Axiomatic foundation of the analytic hierarchy process , 1986 .

[5]  Gregory W. Corder,et al.  Nonparametric Statistics : A Step-by-Step Approach , 2014 .

[6]  Jing-nan Sun,et al.  Entropy method for determination of weight of evaluating indicators in fuzzy synthetic evaluation for water quality assessment. , 2006, Journal of environmental sciences.

[7]  James Nga-Kwok Liu,et al.  Application of decision-making techniques in supplier selection: A systematic review of literature , 2013, Expert Syst. Appl..

[8]  T. Saaty Fundamentals of the analytic network process — Dependence and feedback in decision-making with a single network , 2004 .

[9]  R. Hogarth Methods for Aggregating Opinions , 1977 .

[10]  J. Rezaei Best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method , 2015 .

[11]  B. Roy THE OUTRANKING APPROACH AND THE FOUNDATIONS OF ELECTRE METHODS , 1991 .

[12]  Reza Zanjirani Farahani,et al.  Fuzzy AHP to determine the relative weights of evaluation criteria and Fuzzy TOPSIS to rank the alternatives , 2010, Appl. Soft Comput..

[13]  Rita Almeida Ribeiro,et al.  Normalization Techniques for Multi-Criteria Decision Making: Analytical Hierarchy Process Case Study , 2016, DoCEIS.

[14]  T. L. Saaty A Scaling Method for Priorities in Hierarchical Structures , 1977 .

[15]  J. Paelinck Qualiflex: A flexible multiple-criteria method , 1978 .

[16]  David L. Olson,et al.  Comparison of weights in TOPSIS models , 2004, Math. Comput. Model..

[17]  E. Zavadskas,et al.  Multiple criteria decision making (MCDM) methods in economics: an overview , 2011 .

[18]  Chen-Tung Chen,et al.  Aggregation of fuzzy opinions under group decision making , 1996, Fuzzy Sets Syst..

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

[20]  Gwo-Hshiung Tzeng,et al.  New Concepts and Trends of Hybrid Multiple Criteria Decision Making , 2017 .

[21]  Shi-Woei Lin,et al.  Characterizing Disagreement and Inconsistency in Experts'' Judgments in the Analytic Hierarchy Process , 2011 .

[22]  T. Saaty How to Make a Decision: The Analytic Hierarchy Process , 1990 .

[23]  Gülçin Büyüközkan,et al.  Using a multi-criteria decision making approach to evaluate mobile phone alternatives , 2007, Comput. Stand. Interfaces.

[24]  Ravi Shankar,et al.  Selection of logistics service provider: An analytic network process (ANP) approach , 2007 .

[25]  Deng-Feng Li,et al.  Linear programming method for MADM with interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy sets , 2010, Expert Syst. Appl..

[26]  Thomas L. Saaty,et al.  Applications of analytical hierarchies , 1979 .

[27]  O. Bayazit Use of analytic network process in vendor selection decisions , 2006 .

[28]  Ching-Lai Hwang,et al.  Fuzzy Multiple Attribute Decision Making - Methods and Applications , 1992, Lecture Notes in Economics and Mathematical Systems.

[29]  J. Rezaei Best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method: Some properties and a linear model , 2016 .

[30]  Ching-Lai Hwang,et al.  A new approach for multiple objective decision making , 1993, Comput. Oper. Res..

[31]  Allan D. Shocker,et al.  Linear programming techniques for multidimensional analysis of preferences , 1973 .

[32]  Bernard Roy,et al.  Classement et choix en présence de points de vue multiples , 1968 .

[33]  D. Kumar,et al.  Multicriterion decision making in irrigation planning , 1999 .

[34]  Miroslaw Kwiesielewicz,et al.  Inconsistent and contradictory judgements in pairwise comparison method in the AHP , 2004, Comput. Oper. Res..

[35]  C. Hwang,et al.  TOPSIS for MODM , 1994 .

[36]  Edmundas Kazimieras Zavadskas,et al.  Selection of rational dispute resolution method by applying new step‐wise weight assessment ratio analysis (Swara) , 2010 .

[37]  Gwo-Hshiung Tzeng,et al.  Compromise solution by MCDM methods: A comparative analysis of VIKOR and TOPSIS , 2004, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[38]  Adrian K. Rantilla,et al.  Confidence in aggregation of expert opinions. , 2000, Acta psychologica.

[39]  E. Paulson,et al.  An Approximate Normalization of the Analysis of Variance Distribution , 1942 .

[40]  Deng-Feng Li,et al.  A ratio ranking method of triangular intuitionistic fuzzy numbers and its application to MADM problems , 2010, Comput. Math. Appl..