Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Selecting a Multi-criteria Decision Analysis Method

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Data Science and Intelligent Systems (CoMeSySo 2021)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems ((LNNS,volume 231))

Included in the following conference series:

  • 1291 Accesses

Abstract

Multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) methods are widely used in various fields and disciplines. A large number of studies have been focused on the development of new methods and the selection of the most appropriate decision making for a particular task. The purpose of this study is to analyze the existing approaches to selecting MCDA methods, to determine the most appropriate method for solving multi-criteria problems and to provide guidelines how to choose MCDA methods. The paper investigates the existing ways to select a MCDA method. We described the qualitative selection criteria and conducted experiments to determine the most appropriate method using various quantitative indicators. The result of the study is a set of recommendations for selecting a MCDA method.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 139.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Wa̧tróbski, J., Jankowski, J., Ziemba, P., Karczmarczyk, A., Zioło, M.: Generalised framework for multi-criteria method selection. Omega 86, 107–124 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.omega.2018.07.004

  2. Pelissari, R., Oliveira, M.C., Abackerli, A.J., Ben-Amor, S., Assumpção, M.R.P.: Techniques to model uncertain input data of multi-criteria decision-making problems: a literature review. Int. Trans. Oper. Res. 28(2), 523–559 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1111/itor.12598

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  3. Roy, B.: The optimisation problem formulation: criticism and overstepping. J. Oper. Res. Soc. 32(6), 427–436 (1981)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Höfer, T., Sunak, Y., Siddique, H., Madlener, R.: Wind farm siting using a spatial Analytic Hierarchy Process approach: a case study of the Städteregion Aachen. Appl. Energy 163, 222–243 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.10.138

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Whaiduzzaman, M., Gani, A., Anuar, N.B., Shiraz, M., Haque, M.N., Haque, I.T.: Cloud service selection using multicriteria decision analysis. Sci. World J. 2014, 1–10 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/459375

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Eason, T., Meyer, D., Curran, M., Upadhyayula, V.K.: Guidance to Facilitate Decisions for Sustainable Nanotechnology (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Aspen, D.M., Sparrevik, M., Fet, A.M.: Review of methods for sustainability appraisals in ship acquisition. Environ. Syst. Decis. 35(3), 323–333 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10669-015-9561-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Roy, B.: The outranking approach and the foundations of ELECTRE methods. Theory Decis. 31, 49–73 (1991)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  9. Bana e Costa, C.A., Vincke, P.: Multiple criteria decision aid: an overview. In: Bana e Costa, C.A. (ed.) Readings in Multiple Criteria Decision Aid, pp. 3–14. Springer, Heidelberg (1990). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-75935-2_1

  10. Choo, E.U., Wedley, W.C.: Comparing fundamentals of additive and multiplicative aggregation in ratio scale multi-criteria decision making. Open J. Oper. Res. Soc. 2(1), 1–7 (2008). https://doi.org/10.2174/1874243200802010001

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  11. Mabin, V., Beattie, M.: A practical guide to multi-criteria decision analysis. Victoria University of Wellington (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  12. Munier, N., Hontoria, E., Jiménez-Sáez, F.: Analysis of lack of agreement between MCDM methods related to the solution of a problem: proposing a methodology for comparing methods to a reference. In: Strategic Approach in Multi-Criteria Decision Making, vol. 275, pp. 203–219. Springer, Cham (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-02726-1_11

  13. Asgharizadeh, E., Taghizadeh Yazdi, M., Mohammadi Balani, A.: An output-oriented classification of multiple attribute decision-making techniques based on fuzzy c -means clustering method. Int. Trans. Oper. Res. 26(6), 2476–2493 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1111/itor.12449

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  14. Watróbski, J., Jankowski, J.: Guideline for MCDA method selection in production management area. In: Róż, P., Novikov, D., Bakhtadze, N., Zaikin, O. (eds.) New Frontiers in Information and Production Systems Modelling and Analysis, vol. 98, pp. 119–138. Springer, Cham (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-23338-3_6

  15. Guarini, M., Battisti, F., Chiovitti, A.: A methodology for the selection of multi-criteria decision analysis methods in real estate and land management processes. Sustainability 10(2), 507 (2018). https://doi.org/10.3390/su10020507

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Polatidis, H., Haralambopoulos, D.A., Munda, G., Vreeker, R.: Selecting an appropriate multi-criteria decision analysis technique for renewable energy planning. Energy Sources Part B 1(2), 181–193 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1080/009083190881607

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Meszaros, Cs., Rapcsák, T.: On sensitivity analysis for a class of decision systems. Decis. Support Syst. 16, 231–240 (1996)

    Google Scholar 

  18. De Toro, P., et al.: Criteria for quality assessment of MCDA methods (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  19. Ivlev, I., Kneppo, P., Bartak, M.: Multicriteria decision analysis: a multifaceted approach to medical equipment management. Technol. Econ. Dev. Econ. 20(3), 576–589 (2014). https://doi.org/10.3846/20294913.2014.943333

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Roy, B.: Classement et choix en présence de points de vue multiples. Revue Française d’informatique et de Recherche Opérationnelle 2(8), 57–75 (1968). https://doi.org/10.1051/ro/196802v100571

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Kumar, P., Singh, R.K.: A fuzzy AHP and TOPSIS methodology to evaluate 3PL in a supply chain. J. Model. Manag. 7(3), 287–303 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1108/17465661211283287

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  22. Żak, J., Wȩgliński, S.: The selection of the logistics center location based on MCDM/A methodology. Transp. Res. Proc. 3, 555–564 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trpro.2014.10.034

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Patel, M., Bhatt, B., Vashi, M.: SMART-multi-criteria decision-making technique for use in planning activities (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  24. Jaini, N., Utyuzhnikov, S.: Trade-off ranking method for multi-criteria decision analysis. J. Multi-Criteria Decis. Anal. 24(3–4) (2016). https://doi.org/10.1002/mcda.1600

  25. Adhikary, P., Kundu, S.: MCDA or MCDM based selection of transmission line conductor: small hydropower project planning and development. IJERA 4, 2248–9622357 (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  26. Ishizaka, A., Pearman, C., Nemery, P.: AHPSort: an AHP-based method for sorting problems. Int. J. Prod. Res. 50(17), 4767–4784 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2012.657966

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Vinodh, S., Jeya Girubha, R.: PROMETHEE based sustainable concept selection. Appl. Math. Model. 36(11), 5301–5308 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apm.2011.12.030

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  28. Joshi, R., Banwet, D.K., Shankar, R.: A Delphi-AHP-TOPSIS based benchmarking framework for performance improvement of a cold chain. Expert Syst. Appl. 38(8), 10170–10182 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2011.02.072

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Fierek, S., Zak, J.: Planning of an integrated urban transportation system based on macro - simulation and MCDM/A methods. Procedia. Soc. Behav. Sci. 54, 567–579 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.09.774

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Ferrari, P.: A method for choosing from among alternative transportation projects. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 150(1), 194–203 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1016/s0377-2217(02)00463-0

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  31. Jeffreys, I.: The use of compensatory and non-compensatory multi-criteria analysis for small-scale forestry. Small-Scale Forest Econ. Manage. Policy 3(1), 99–117 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11842-004-0007-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Malczewski, J.: GIS and Multicriteria Decision Analysis. Wiley, New York (1999)

    Google Scholar 

  33. Triantaphyllou, E., Sánchez, A.: A sensitivity analysis approach for some deterministic multi-criteria decision-making methods. Decis. Sci. 28(1), 151–194 (1997). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5915.1997.tb01306.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Triantaphyllou, E., Mann, S.H.: An examination of the effectiveness of multi-dimensional decision-making methods: a decision-making paradox. Decis. Support Syst. 5(3), 303–312 (1989). https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-9236(89)90037-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Alinezhad, A., Khalili, J.: New Methods and Applications in Multiple Attribute Decision Making (MADM). International Series in Operations Research & Management Science. Springer, Cham (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-15009-9

  36. Aytaç Adalı, E., Tuş Işık, A.: The multi-objective decision making methods based on MULTIMOORA and MOOSRA for the laptop selection problem. J. Ind. Eng. Int. 13(2), 229–237 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40092-016-0175-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Pavić, Z., Novoselac, V.: Notes on TOPSIS method. Int. J. Res. Eng. Sci. 1, 5–12 (2013)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Computers, Vyatka State University, Moskovskaya, 36, 610000, Kirov, Russia

    Nikita Gorodilov, Maria Dolzhenkova & Gennadiy Chistyakov

Authors
  1. Nikita Gorodilov
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Maria Dolzhenkova
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Gennadiy Chistyakov
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Applied Informatics, Tomas Bata University in Zlín, Zlín, Czech Republic

    Radek Silhavy

  2. Faculty of Applied Informatics, Tomas Bata University in Zlín, Zlín, Czech Republic

    Petr Silhavy

  3. Faculty of Applied Informatics, Tomas Bata University in Zlín, Zlín, Czech Republic

    Zdenka Prokopova

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Gorodilov, N., Dolzhenkova, M., Chistyakov, G. (2021). Selecting a Multi-criteria Decision Analysis Method. In: Silhavy, R., Silhavy, P., Prokopova, Z. (eds) Data Science and Intelligent Systems. CoMeSySo 2021. Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems, vol 231. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-90321-3_17

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation