IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jomega/v36y2008i1p45-63.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Ranking irregularities when evaluating alternatives by using some ELECTRE methods

Author

Listed:
  • Wang, Xiaoting
  • Triantaphyllou, Evangelos

Abstract

The ELECTRE II and III methods enjoy a wide acceptance in solving multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) problems. Research results in this paper reveal that there are some compelling reasons to doubt the correctness of the proposed rankings when the ELECTRE II and III methods are used. In a typical test we first used these methods to determine the best alternative for a given MCDM problem. Next, we randomly replaced a non-optimal alternative by a worse one and repeated the calculations without changing any of the other data. Our computational tests revealed that sometimes the ELECTRE II and III methods might change the indication of the best alternative. We treat such phenomena as rank reversals. Although such ranking irregularities are well known for the additive variants of the AHP method, it is the very first time that they are reported to occur when the ELECTRE methods are used. These two methods are also evaluated in terms of two other ranking tests and they failed them as well. Two real-life cases are described to demonstrate the occurrence of rank reversals with the ELECTRE II and III methods. Based on the three test criteria presented in this paper, some computational experiments on randomly generated decision problems were executed to test the performance of the ELECTRE II and III methods and an examination of some real-life case studies are also discussed. The results of these examinations show that the rates of the three types of ranking irregularities were rather significant in both the simulated decision problems and the real-life cases studied in this paper.

Suggested Citation

  • Wang, Xiaoting & Triantaphyllou, Evangelos, 2008. "Ranking irregularities when evaluating alternatives by using some ELECTRE methods," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 36(1), pages 45-63, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:jomega:v:36:y:2008:i:1:p:45-63
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305-0483(05)00169-6
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Stewart, TJ, 1992. "A critical survey on the status of multiple criteria decision making theory and practice," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 20(5-6), pages 569-586.
    2. Zanakis, Stelios H. & Mandakovic, Tomislav & Gupta, Sushil K. & Sahay, Sundeep & Hong, Sungwan, 1995. "A review of program evaluation and fund allocation methods within the service and government sectors," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 29(1), pages 59-79, March.
    3. Edwards, Ward & Barron, F. Hutton, 1994. "SMARTS and SMARTER: Improved Simple Methods for Multiattribute Utility Measurement," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 60(3), pages 306-325, December.
    4. Hokkanen, Joonas & Salminen, Pekka, 1997. "Choosing a solid waste management system using multicriteria decision analysis," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 98(1), pages 19-36, April.
    5. Jacquet-Lagreze, Eric & Siskos, Yannis, 2001. "Preference disaggregation: 20 years of MCDA experience," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 130(2), pages 233-245, April.
    6. De Keyser, Wim & Peeters, Peter, 1996. "A note on the use of PROMETHEE multicriteria methods," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 89(3), pages 457-461, March.
    7. James S. Dyer & Rakesh K. Sarin, 1979. "Measurable Multiattribute Value Functions," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 27(4), pages 810-822, August.
    8. Zanakis, Stelios H. & Solomon, Anthony & Wishart, Nicole & Dublish, Sandipa, 1998. "Multi-attribute decision making: A simulation comparison of select methods," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 107(3), pages 507-529, June.
    9. Belton, Valerie & Gear, Tony, 1983. "On a short-coming of Saaty's method of analytic hierarchies," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 11(3), pages 228-230.
    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. Govindan, Kannan & Jepsen, Martin Brandt, 2016. "ELECTRE: A comprehensive literature review on methodologies and applications," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 250(1), pages 1-29.
    2. Wątróbski, Jarosław & Jankowski, Jarosław & Ziemba, Paweł & Karczmarczyk, Artur & Zioło, Magdalena, 2019. "Generalised framework for multi-criteria method selection," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 107-124.
    3. Poyhonen, Mari & Hamalainen, Raimo P., 2001. "On the convergence of multiattribute weighting methods," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 129(3), pages 569-585, March.
    4. Rezaei, Jafar, 2015. "Best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 49-57.
    5. Vlachokostas, Ch. & Michailidou, A.V. & Achillas, Ch., 2021. "Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis towards promoting Waste-to-Energy Management Strategies: A critical review," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 138(C).
    6. Krejci, Igor & Voriskova, Andrea, 2010. "Analysis of the Method for the Selection of Regions with Concentrated State Aid," AGRIS on-line Papers in Economics and Informatics, Czech University of Life Sciences Prague, Faculty of Economics and Management, vol. 2(3), pages 1-8, September.
    7. Roszkowska, Ewa & Wachowicz, Tomasz, 2015. "Application of fuzzy TOPSIS to scoring the negotiation offers in ill-structured negotiation problems," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 242(3), pages 920-932.
    8. Hayashi, Kiyotada, 1998. "Multicriteria aid for agricultural decisions using preference relations: methodology and application," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 58(4), pages 483-503, December.
    9. Salo, Ahti A., 1995. "Interactive decision aiding for group decision support," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 84(1), pages 134-149, July.
    10. Chang, Yu-Hern & Yeh, Chung-Hsing, 2001. "Evaluating airline competitiveness using multiattribute decision making," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 29(5), pages 405-415, October.
    11. Marttunen, Mika & Haara, Arto & Hjerppe, Turo & Kurttila, Mikko & Liesiö, Juuso & Mustajoki, Jyri & Saarikoski, Heli & Tolvanen, Anne, 2023. "Parallel and comparative use of three multicriteria decision support methods in an environmental portfolio problem," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 307(2), pages 842-859.
    12. Tianjun Feng & L. Robin Keller, 2006. "A Multiple-Objective Decision Analysis for Terrorism Protection: Potassium Iodide Distribution in Nuclear Incidents," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 3(2), pages 76-93, June.
    13. Jin Zhao, 2019. "Information Entropy-Based Housing Spatiotemporal Dependence," The Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, Springer, vol. 58(1), pages 21-50, January.
    14. Hocine, Amine & Kouaissah, Noureddine, 2020. "XOR analytic hierarchy process and its application in the renewable energy sector," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 97(C).
    15. Roszkowska Ewa & Wachowicz Tomasz, 2019. "The Impact of Decision-Making Profiles on the Consistency of Rankings Obtained by Means of Selected Multiple Criteria Decision-Aiding Methods," Econometrics. Advances in Applied Data Analysis, Sciendo, vol. 23(2), pages 1-14, June.
    16. Jiménez, Antonio & Mateos, Alfonso & Sabio, Pilar, 2013. "Dominance intensity measure within fuzzy weight oriented MAUT: An application," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 41(2), pages 397-405.
    17. Mališa Žižović & Dragan Pamučar & Goran Ćirović & Miodrag M. Žižović & Boža D. Miljković, 2020. "A Model for Determining Weight Coefficients by Forming a Non-Decreasing Series at Criteria Significance Levels (NDSL)," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 8(5), pages 1-18, May.
    18. Qiang Yang & Ping-an Du & Yong Wang & Bin Liang, 2017. "A rough set approach for determining weights of decision makers in group decision making," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(2), pages 1-16, February.
    19. Bous, Géraldine & Fortemps, Philippe & Glineur, François & Pirlot, Marc, 2010. "ACUTA: A novel method for eliciting additive value functions on the basis of holistic preference statements," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 206(2), pages 435-444, October.
    20. Podinovskaya, Olga V. & Podinovski, Vladislav V., 2017. "Criteria importance theory for multicriterial decision making problems with a hierarchical structure," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 258(3), pages 983-992.

    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:eee:jomega:v:36:y:2008:i:1:p:45-63. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/375/description#description .

    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.