IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/transa/v134y2020icp1-15.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Selecting a discrete multiple criteria decision making method for Boeing to rank four global market regions

Author

Listed:
  • Haddad, M.
  • Sanders, D.
  • Tewkesbury, G.

Abstract

This work describes the creation of a new method to choose a suitable Multi-Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) method for a Boeing strategic decision. The decision involved four global market regions being ranked based on their market attractiveness and competitive strength when risk and uncertainty were anticipated. Following an analysis of MCDM problems and methods, a new organized approach was created to provide a decision maker with a sub-group of suitable MCDM methods. Sensitivity analysis was used to investigate the robustness of the outputs from the various candidate methods. A MCDM method is recommended automatically. The recommended candidate method is the one that provided the most robust output (solution to the problem). Only methods that deal with a discrete set of choices were considered. In the Boeing strategic decision presented in this paper, two MCDM methods were compared and a recommendation was made after calculating the minimum percentage change in performance measures and criteria weights required to change the ranking of any two alternatives. An MCDM method was recommended based on a compromise between the minimum percentage change that was required in the inputs to change the ranking of alternatives. Some propositions are discussed based on general scenarios concerning MCDM problems.

Suggested Citation

  • Haddad, M. & Sanders, D. & Tewkesbury, G., 2020. "Selecting a discrete multiple criteria decision making method for Boeing to rank four global market regions," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 134(C), pages 1-15.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:transa:v:134:y:2020:i:c:p:1-15
    DOI: 10.1016/j.tra.2020.01.026
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0965856418314988
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.tra.2020.01.026?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    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. M. Haddad & D. Sanders & N. Bausch, 2019. "Selecting a robust decision making method to evaluate employee performance," International Journal of Management and Decision Making, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 18(4), pages 333-351.
    2. Durbach, Ian N. & Stewart, Theodor J., 2012. "Modeling uncertainty in multi-criteria decision analysis," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 223(1), pages 1-14.
    3. Pacheco, Ricardo Rodrigues & Fernandes, Elton, 2017. "International air passenger traffic, trade openness and exchange rate in Brazil: A Granger causality test," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 101(C), pages 22-29.
    4. Simon French, 2003. "Modelling, making inferences and making decisions: The roles of sensitivity analysis," TOP: An Official Journal of the Spanish Society of Statistics and Operations Research, Springer;Sociedad de Estadística e Investigación Operativa, vol. 11(2), pages 229-251, December.
    5. Ishizaka, Alessio & Siraj, Sajid, 2018. "Are multi-criteria decision-making tools useful? An experimental comparative study of three methods," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 264(2), pages 462-471.
    6. Wolters, W. T. M. & Mareschal, B., 1995. "Novel types of sensitivity analysis for additive MCDM methods," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 81(2), pages 281-290, March.
    7. 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.
    8. Theodor J Stewart, 2005. "Dealing with Uncertainties in MCDA," International Series in Operations Research & Management Science, in: Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis: State of the Art Surveys, chapter 0, pages 445-466, Springer.
    9. Simon, Herbert A, 1979. "Rational Decision Making in Business Organizations," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 69(4), pages 493-513, September.
    10. Arjomandi, Amir & Dakpo, K. Hervé & Seufert, Juergen Heinz, 2018. "Have Asian airlines caught up with European Airlines? A by-production efficiency analysis," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 389-403.
    11. repec:hal:wpaper:hal-00874292 is not listed on IDEAS
    12. Durbach, Ian N. & Stewart, Theodor J., 2011. "An experimental study of the effect of uncertainty representation on decision making," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 214(2), pages 380-392, October.
    13. Vaidya, Omkarprasad S. & Kumar, Sushil, 2006. "Analytic hierarchy process: An overview of applications," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 169(1), pages 1-29, February.
    14. Nassereddine, M. & Eskandari, H., 2017. "An integrated MCDM approach to evaluate public transportation systems in Tehran," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 427-439.
    15. Thomas L. Saaty, 1994. "How to Make a Decision: The Analytic Hierarchy Process," Interfaces, INFORMS, vol. 24(6), pages 19-43, December.
    16. Mahtani, Umesh S. & Garg, Chandra Prakash, 2018. "An analysis of key factors of financial distress in airline companies in India using fuzzy AHP framework," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 87-102.
    17. Bernard Roy & Roman Slowinski, 2013. "Questions guiding the choice of a multicriteria decision aiding method," Post-Print hal-00874292, HAL.
    18. Scholten, Lisa & Schuwirth, Nele & Reichert, Peter & Lienert, Judit, 2015. "Tackling uncertainty in multi-criteria decision analysis – An application to water supply infrastructure planning," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 242(1), pages 243-260.
    19. Grechuk, Bogdan & Zabarankin, Michael, 2018. "Direct data-based decision making under uncertainty," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 267(1), pages 200-211.
    20. Cynthia Barnhart & Peter Belobaba & Amedeo R. Odoni, 2003. "Applications of Operations Research in the Air Transport Industry," Transportation Science, INFORMS, vol. 37(4), pages 368-391, November.
    21. Haddad, Malik & Sanders, David, 2018. "Selection of discrete multiple criteria decision making methods in the presence of risk and uncertainty," Operations Research Perspectives, Elsevier, vol. 5(C), pages 357-370.
    22. Thomas L. Saaty & Luis G. Vargas, 2012. "Models, Methods, Concepts & Applications of the Analytic Hierarchy Process," International Series in Operations Research and Management Science, Springer, edition 2, number 978-1-4614-3597-6, December.
    23. Barbosa, Samuel Borges & Ferreira, Marcelo Gitirana Gomes & Nickel, Elton Moura & Cruz, Jorge Alcides & Forcellini, Fernando Antônio & Garcia, Jéssica & Guerra, José Baltazar Salgueirinho Osório de An, 2017. "Multi-criteria analysis model to evaluate transport systems: An application in Florianópolis, Brazil," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 1-13.
    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. Pal Singh, Satender & Adhikari, Arnab & Majumdar, Adrija & Bisi, Arnab, 2022. "Does service quality influence operational and financial performance of third party logistics service providers? A mixed multi criteria decision making -text mining-based investigation," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 157(C).

    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. Haddad, Malik & Sanders, David, 2018. "Selection of discrete multiple criteria decision making methods in the presence of risk and uncertainty," Operations Research Perspectives, Elsevier, vol. 5(C), pages 357-370.
    2. Scholten, Lisa & Schuwirth, Nele & Reichert, Peter & Lienert, Judit, 2015. "Tackling uncertainty in multi-criteria decision analysis – An application to water supply infrastructure planning," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 242(1), pages 243-260.
    3. Wulf, David & Bertsch, Valentin, 2016. "A natural language generation approach to support understanding and traceability of multi-dimensional preferential sensitivity analysis in multi-criteria decision making," MPRA Paper 75025, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    4. Renan Favarão da Silva & Marjorie Maria Bellinello & Gilberto Francisco Martha de Souza & Sara Antomarioni & Maurizio Bevilacqua & Filippo Emanuele Ciarapica, 2021. "Deciding a Multicriteria Decision-Making (MCDM) Method to Prioritize Maintenance Work Orders of Hydroelectric Power Plants," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(24), pages 1-22, December.
    5. Cuoghi, Kaio Guilherme & Leoneti, Alexandre Bevilacqua & Passador, João Luiz, 2022. "On the choice of public or private management models in the Brazilian Unified Health System (SUS)," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 84(C).
    6. Eduardo Fernandez & Jorge Navarro & Rafael Olmedo, 2018. "Characterization of the Effectiveness of Several Outranking-Based Multi-Criteria Sorting Methods," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 17(04), pages 1047-1084, July.
    7. Ian Durbach, 2019. "Scenario planning in the analytic hierarchy process," Futures & Foresight Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 1(2), June.
    8. Mustafa Hamurcu & Tamer Eren, 2020. "Strategic Planning Based on Sustainability for Urban Transportation: An Application to Decision-Making," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(9), pages 1-24, April.
    9. Thi Yen Pham & Gi-Tae Yeo, 2019. "Evaluation of Transshipment Container Terminals’ Service Quality in Vietnam: From the Shipping Companies’ Perspective," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(5), pages 1-14, March.
    10. Jochen Wulf, 2020. "Development of an AHP hierarchy for managing omnichannel capabilities: a design science research approach," Business Research, Springer;German Academic Association for Business Research, vol. 13(1), pages 39-68, April.
    11. Ezbakhe, Fatine & Pérez-Foguet, Agustí, 2021. "Decision analysis for sustainable development: The case of renewable energy planning under uncertainty," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 291(2), pages 601-613.
    12. 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.
    13. Ormerod, Richard J. & Ulrich, Werner, 2013. "Operational research and ethics: A literature review," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 228(2), pages 291-307.
    14. María Romero & María Luisa Cuadrado & Luis Romero & Carlos Romero, 2020. "Optimum acceptability of telecommunications networks: a multi-criteria approach," Operational Research, Springer, vol. 20(3), pages 1899-1911, September.
    15. Durbach, Ian N., 2014. "Outranking under uncertainty using scenarios," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 232(1), pages 98-108.
    16. Paweł Karczmarek & Witold Pedrycz & Adam Kiersztyn, 2021. "Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process in a Graphical Approach," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 30(2), pages 463-481, April.
    17. Chen, Jeng-Chung & Lin, Shu-Chiang & Yu, Vincent F., 2017. "Structuring an effective human error intervention strategy selection model for commercial aviation," Journal of Air Transport Management, Elsevier, vol. 60(C), pages 65-75.
    18. Ram, Camelia, 2020. "Scenario presentation and scenario generation in multi-criteria assessments: An exploratory study," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 151(C).
    19. Durbach, Ian N. & Stewart, Theodor J., 2012. "A comparison of simplified value function approaches for treating uncertainty in multi-criteria decision analysis," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 40(4), pages 456-464.
    20. Zsuzsanna Katalin Szabo & Zsombor Szádoczki & Sándor Bozóki & Gabriela C. Stănciulescu & Dalma Szabo, 2021. "An Analytic Hierarchy Process Approach for Prioritisation of Strategic Objectives of Sustainable Development," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-26, February.

    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:transa:v:134:y:2020:i:c:p:1-15. 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/547/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.