IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cys/ecocyb/v50y2016i3p25-44.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A New Combinative Distance-Based Assessment(Codas) Method For Multi-Criteria Decision-Making

Author

Listed:
  • Mehdi KESHAVARZ GHORABAEE

    (Department of Industrial Management, Faculty of Management and Accounting, Allameh Tabataba’i University, Tehran, Iran)

  • Edmundas Kazimieras ZAVADSKAS

    (Department of Construction Technology and Management, Faculty of Civil Engineering, Vilnius Gediminas Technical University, Lithuania)

  • Zenonas TURSKIS

    (Department of Construction Technology and Management, Faculty of Civil Engineering, Vilnius Gediminas Technical University, Lithuania)

  • Jurgita ANTUCHEVICIENE

    (Department of Construction Technology and Management, Faculty of Civil Engineering, Vilnius Gediminas Technical University, Lithuania)

Abstract

A key factor to attain success in any discipline, especially in a field which requires handling large amounts of information and knowledge, is decision making. Most real-world decision-making problems involve a great variety of factors and aspects that should be considered. Making decisions in such environments can often be a difficult operation to perform. For this reason, we need multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) methods and techniques, which can assist us for dealing with such complex problems. The aim of this paper is to present a new COmbinative Distance-based ASsessment (CODAS) method to handle MCDM problems. To determine the desirability of an alternative, this method uses the Euclidean distance as the primary and the Taxicab distance as the secondary measure, and these distances are calculated according to the negative- ideal point. The alternative which has greater distances is more desirable in the CODAS method. Some numerical examples are used to illustrate the process of the proposed method. We also perform a comparative sensitivity analysis to examine the results of CODAS and compare it by some existing MCDM methods. These analyses show that the proposed method is efficient, and the results are stable.

Suggested Citation

  • Mehdi KESHAVARZ GHORABAEE & Edmundas Kazimieras ZAVADSKAS & Zenonas TURSKIS & Jurgita ANTUCHEVICIENE, 2016. "A New Combinative Distance-Based Assessment(Codas) Method For Multi-Criteria Decision-Making," ECONOMIC COMPUTATION AND ECONOMIC CYBERNETICS STUDIES AND RESEARCH, Faculty of Economic Cybernetics, Statistics and Informatics, vol. 50(3), pages 25-44.
    • Handle: RePEc:cys:ecocyb:v:50:y:2016:i:3:p:25-44
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: ftp://www.eadr.ro/RePEc/cys/ecocyb_pdf/ecocyb3_2016p25-44.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Opricovic, Serafim & Tzeng, Gwo-Hshiung, 2004. "Compromise solution by MCDM methods: A comparative analysis of VIKOR and TOPSIS," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 156(2), pages 445-455, July.
    2. Bertrand Mareschal & Jean Pierre Brans & Philippe Vincke, 1986. "How to select and how to rank projects: the Prométhée method," ULB Institutional Repository 2013/9307, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    3. Peter C. Fishburn, 1967. "Letter to the Editor—Additive Utilities with Incomplete Product Sets: Application to Priorities and Assignments," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 15(3), pages 537-542, June.
    4. Ho, William & Xu, Xiaowei & Dey, Prasanta K., 2010. "Multi-criteria decision making approaches for supplier evaluation and selection: A literature review," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 202(1), pages 16-24, April.
    5. Brans, J. P. & Vincke, Ph. & Mareschal, B., 1986. "How to select and how to rank projects: The method," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 24(2), pages 228-238, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Marina Polykarpou & Flora Karathanasi & Takvor Soukissian & Vasiliki Loukaidi & Ioannis Kyriakides, 2023. "A Novel Data-Driven Tool Based on Non-Linear Optimization for Offshore Wind Farm Siting," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(5), pages 1-17, February.
    2. Thomas L. Saaty & Daji Ergu, 2015. "When is a Decision-Making Method Trustworthy? Criteria for Evaluating Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Methods," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 14(06), pages 1171-1187, November.
    3. Daniel R. Georgiadis & Thomas A. Mazzuchi & Shahram Sarkani, 2013. "Using multi criteria decision making in analysis of alternatives for selection of enabling technology," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 16(3), pages 287-303, September.
    4. Yi Peng, 2015. "Regional earthquake vulnerability assessment using a combination of MCDM methods," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 234(1), pages 95-110, November.
    5. Zhaoyu Cao & Yucheng Zou & Xu Zhao & Kairong Hong & Yanwei Zhang, 2021. "Multidimensional Fairness Equilibrium Evaluation of Urban Housing Expropriation Compensation Based on VIKOR," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 9(4), pages 1-26, February.
    6. Irina Vinogradova, 2019. "Multi-Attribute Decision-Making Methods as a Part of Mathematical Optimization," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 7(10), pages 1-21, October.
    7. Ioannis Sitaridis & Fotis Kitsios, 2020. "Competitiveness analysis and evaluation of entrepreneurial ecosystems: a multi-criteria approach," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 294(1), pages 377-399, November.
    8. Rezaei, Jafar, 2015. "Best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 49-57.
    9. Manuel Casal-Guisande & Alberto Comesaña-Campos & Alejandro Pereira & José-Benito Bouza-Rodríguez & Jorge Cerqueiro-Pequeño, 2022. "A Decision-Making Methodology Based on Expert Systems Applied to Machining Tools Condition Monitoring," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 10(3), pages 1-30, February.
    10. Govindan, Kannan & Kadziński, Miłosz & Sivakumar, R., 2017. "Application of a novel PROMETHEE-based method for construction of a group compromise ranking to prioritization of green suppliers in food supply chain," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 129-145.
    11. Roman Vavrek, 2019. "Evaluation of the Impact of Selected Weighting Methods on the Results of the TOPSIS Technique," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 18(06), pages 1821-1843, November.
    12. Claudia Margarita Acuña-Soto & Vicente Liern & Blanca Pérez-Gladish, 2020. "Multiple criteria performance evaluation of YouTube mathematical educational videos by IS-TOPSIS," Operational Research, Springer, vol. 20(4), pages 2017-2039, December.
    13. Ridha, Hussein Mohammed & Gomes, Chandima & Hizam, Hashim & Ahmadipour, Masoud & Heidari, Ali Asghar & Chen, Huiling, 2021. "Multi-objective optimization and multi-criteria decision-making methods for optimal design of standalone photovoltaic system: A comprehensive review," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 135(C).
    14. Xiao-Kang Wang & Wen-Hui Hou & Chao Song & Min-Hui Deng & Yong-Yi Li & Jian-Qiang Wang, 2021. "BW-MaxEnt: A Novel MCDM Method for Limited Knowledge," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 9(14), pages 1-17, July.
    15. Willem Brauers, 2013. "Multi-objective seaport planning by MOORA decision making," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 206(1), pages 39-58, July.
    16. Weibing Sun & Fu Zhang & Shuya Tai & Jinkui Wu & Yaqiong Mu, 2021. "Study on Glacial Tourism Exploitation in the Dagu Glacier Scenic Spot Based on the AHP–ASEB Method," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(5), pages 1-18, March.
    17. Priscila Celebrini de Oliveira Campos & Tainá da Silva Rocha Paz & Letícia Lenz & Yangzi Qiu & Camila Nascimento Alves & Ana Paula Roem Simoni & José Carlos Cesar Amorim & Gilson Brito Alves Lima & Ma, 2020. "Multi-Criteria Decision Method for Sustainable Watercourse Management in Urban Areas," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(16), pages 1-22, August.
    18. Agata Sielska, 2010. "Multicriteria rankings of open-end investment funds and their stability," Operations Research and Decisions, Wroclaw University of Science and Technology, Faculty of Management, vol. 20(1), pages 111-129.
    19. Irene Josa & Albert de la Fuente & Maria del Mar Casanovas-Rubio & Jaume Armengou & Antonio Aguado, 2021. "Sustainability-Oriented Model to Decide on Concrete Pipeline Reinforcement," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(6), pages 1-25, March.
    20. Alizadeh, Reza & Soltanisehat, Leili & Lund, Peter D. & Zamanisabzi, Hamed, 2020. "Improving renewable energy policy planning and decision-making through a hybrid MCDM method," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 137(C).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Multi-criteria decision-making; MCDM; MADM; Euclidean distance; Taxicab distance; CODAS.;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C02 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - General - - - Mathematical Economics
    • C44 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Econometric and Statistical Methods: Special Topics - - - Operations Research; Statistical Decision Theory
    • C61 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Mathematical Methods; Programming Models; Mathematical and Simulation Modeling - - - Optimization Techniques; Programming Models; Dynamic Analysis
    • C63 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Mathematical Methods; Programming Models; Mathematical and Simulation Modeling - - - Computational Techniques
    • L6 - Industrial Organization - - Industry Studies: Manufacturing

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cys:ecocyb:v:50:y:2016:i:3:p:25-44. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Corina Saman (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/feasero.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.