Normalization Techniques for Multi-Criteria Decision Making: Analytical Hierarchy Process Case Study

Multi-Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) methods use normalization techniques to allow aggregation of criteria with numerical and comparable data. With the advent of Cyber Physical Systems, where big data is collected from heterogeneous sensors and other data sources, finding a suitable normalization technique is also a challenge to enable data fusion (integration). Therefore, data fusion and aggregation of criteria are similar processes of combining values either from criteria or from sensors to obtain a common score. In this study, our aim is to discuss metrics for assessing which are the most appropriate normalization techniques in decision problems, specifically for the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) multi-criteria method. AHP uses a pairwise approach to evaluate the alternatives regarding a set of criteria and then fuses (aggregation) the evaluations to determine the final ratings (scores).

[1]  Jiafu Wan,et al.  A survey of Cyber-Physical Systems , 2011, 2011 International Conference on Wireless Communications and Signal Processing (WCSP).

[2]  Aydin Çelen,et al.  Comparative Analysis of Normalization Procedures in TOPSIS Method: With an Application to Turkish Deposit Banking Market , 2014, Informatica.

[3]  Ching-Hsue Cheng,et al.  Evaluating attack helicopters by AHP based on linguistic variable weight , 1999, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[4]  Evangelos,et al.  [Applied Optimization] Multi-criteria Decision Making Methods: A Comparative Study Volume 44 || A Computational Evaluation of the Original and the Revised AHP , 2000 .

[5]  C. Yeh,et al.  A simulation comparison of normalization procedures for TOPSIS , 2009, 2009 International Conference on Computers & Industrial Engineering.

[6]  Ali Jahan,et al.  A state-of-the-art survey on the influence of normalization techniques in ranking: Improving the materials selection process in engineering design , 2015 .

[7]  B. Gaudenzi,et al.  Managing risks in the supply chain using the AHP method , 2006 .

[8]  Dubravka M. Pavlicic,et al.  Normalisation affects the results of MADM methods , 2001 .

[9]  Ying Luo,et al.  Integration of correlations with standard deviations for determining attribute weights in multiple attribute decision making , 2010, Math. Comput. Model..

[10]  Chung-Hsing Yeh,et al.  Rank similarity based MADM method selection , 2012, 2012 International Conference on Statistics in Science, Business and Engineering (ICSSBE).

[11]  Hamideh Afsarmanesh,et al.  Collaborative Systems for Smart Environments: Trends and Challenges , 2014, PRO-VE.

[12]  Subrata Chakraborty,et al.  A simulation based comparative study of normalization procedures in multiattribute decision making , 2007 .

[13]  T. Saaty,et al.  The Analytic Hierarchy Process , 1985 .

[14]  Gülfem Tuzkaya,et al.  An analytic network process approach for locating undesirable facilities: an example from Istanbul, Turkey. , 2008, Journal of environmental management.

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

[16]  Fatemeh Zahedi,et al.  The Analytic Hierarchy Process—A Survey of the Method and its Applications , 1986 .

[17]  A. Milani,et al.  The effect of normalization norms in multiple attribute decision making models: a case study in gear material selection , 2005 .

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