IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jomega/v41y2013i2p397-405.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Dominance intensity measure within fuzzy weight oriented MAUT: An application

Author

Listed:
  • Jiménez, Antonio
  • Mateos, Alfonso
  • Sabio, Pilar

Abstract

We introduce a dominance intensity measuring method to derive a ranking of alternatives to deal with incomplete information in multi-criteria decision-making problems on the basis of multi-attribute utility theory (MAUT) and fuzzy sets theory. We consider the situation where there is imprecision concerning decision-makers' preferences, and imprecise weights are represented by trapezoidal fuzzy weights. The proposed method is based on the dominance values between pairs of alternatives. These values can be computed by linear programming, as an additive multi-attribute utility model is used to rate the alternatives. Dominance values are then transformed into dominance intensity measures, used to rank the alternatives under consideration. Distances between fuzzy numbers based on the generalization of the left and right fuzzy numbers are utilized to account for fuzzy weights.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:jomega:v:41:y:2013:i:2:p:397-405
    DOI: 10.1016/j.omega.2012.03.004
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305048312000734
    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. Chan, Felix T.S. & Kumar, Niraj, 2007. "Global supplier development considering risk factors using fuzzy extended AHP-based approach," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 35(4), pages 417-431, August.
    2. Lahdelma, Risto & Miettinen, Kaisa & Salminen, Pekka, 2003. "Ordinal criteria in stochastic multicriteria acceptability analysis (SMAA)," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 147(1), pages 117-127, May.
    3. Mesiar, R., 2007. "Fuzzy set approach to the utility, preference relations, and aggregation operators," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 176(1), pages 414-422, January.
    4. 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.
    5. Jiménez, Antonio & Mateos, Alfonso & Ríos-Insua, Sixto, 2009. "Missing consequences in multiattribute utility theory," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 37(2), pages 395-410, April.
    6. Quattrone, Agata & Vitetta, Antonino, 2011. "Random and fuzzy utility models for road route choice," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 47(6), pages 1126-1139.
    7. 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.
    8. Kirkwood, Craig W. & Corner, James L., 1993. "The Effectiveness of Partial Information about Attribute Weights for Ranking Alternatives in Multiattribute Decision Making," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 54(3), pages 456-476, April.
    9. Saaty, Thomas L. & Vargas, Luis G., 1987. "Uncertainty and rank order in the analytic hierarchy process," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 107-117, October.
    10. Peter H. Farquhar, 1984. "State of the Art---Utility Assessment Methods," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 30(11), pages 1283-1300, November.
    11. Insua, David Rios & French, Simon, 1991. "A framework for sensitivity analysis in discrete multi-objective decision-making," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 54(2), pages 176-190, September.
    12. Lahdelma, Risto & Makkonen, Simo & Salminen, Pekka, 2009. "Two ways to handle dependent uncertainties in multi-criteria decision problems," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 37(1), pages 79-92, February.
    13. Yoram Wind & Thomas L. Saaty, 1980. "Marketing Applications of the Analytic Hierarchy Process," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(7), pages 641-658, July.
    14. Chiou, Hua-Kai & Tzeng, Gwo-Hshiung & Cheng, Ding-Chou, 2005. "Evaluating sustainable fishing development strategies using fuzzy MCDM approach," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 33(3), pages 223-234, June.
    15. Salo, Ahti A. & Hamalainen, Raimo P., 1995. "Preference programming through approximate ratio comparisons," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 82(3), pages 458-475, May.
    16. Papadopoulos, Agis & Karagiannidis, Avraam, 2008. "Application of the multi-criteria analysis method Electre III for the optimisation of decentralised energy systems," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 36(5), pages 766-776, October.
    17. F. Hutton Barron & Bruce E. Barrett, 1996. "Decision Quality Using Ranked Attribute Weights," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 42(11), pages 1515-1523, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Ahn, Byeong Seok & Park, Haechurl, 2014. "Establishing dominance between strategies with interval judgments of state probabilities," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 53-59.
    2. repec:spr:grdene:v:26:y:2017:i:4:d:10.1007_s10726-017-9526-x is not listed on IDEAS
    3. repec:eee:jomega:v:72:y:2017:i:c:p:87-95 is not listed on IDEAS
    4. repec:eee:jomega:v:70:y:2017:i:c:p:94-117 is not listed on IDEAS
    5. Antonio Jiménez-Martín & Eduardo Gallego & Alfonso Mateos & Juan A. Fernández Pozo, 0. "Restoring a Radionuclide Contaminated Aquatic Ecosystem: A Group Decision Making Problem with Incomplete Information within MAUT Accounting for Veto," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 0, pages 1-23.
    6. Ahn, Byeong Seok, 2017. "The analytic hierarchy process with interval preference statements," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 67(C), pages 177-185.
    7. Ahn, Byeong Seok, 2015. "Extreme point-based multi-attribute decision analysis with incomplete information," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 240(3), pages 748-755.
    8. Wan, Shu-Ping & Li, Deng-Feng, 2013. "Fuzzy LINMAP approach to heterogeneous MADM considering comparisons of alternatives with hesitation degrees," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 41(6), pages 925-940.

    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:41:y:2013:i:2:p:397-405. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Dana Niculescu). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/375/description#description .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.