IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/rsg/littra/2016-013.html

Comparison of Multiple Criteria Decision Making Approaches Evaluating eGovernment Development

Author

Listed:
  • Eva Ardielli

Abstract

This paper focuses on the comparison of selected multiple criteria decision making (MCDM) methods for the evaluation of eGovernment development. Multiple criteria evaluation of alternatives is regarded as the basis of MCDM problems. The methods are defined as a set of techniques which aim to rank options, from the most preferred to the least preferred, with a view to supporting decision makers in their selection of the most appropriate alternative under uncertain circumstances. The application of the methods in practice therefore has great potential. As interest in the application of selected MCDM methods has grown, it has also come to encompass the issue of eGovernment development in terms of its ability to modernize public administration. The research in this article is based on the results of the following MCDM methods: WSA; TOPSIS; and MAPPAC. These methods are compared in terms of their applicability and reliability for the purpose of evaluating eGovernment development.

Suggested Citation

  • Eva Ardielli, 2016. "Comparison of Multiple Criteria Decision Making Approaches Evaluating eGovernment Development," Littera Scripta, VSTE, vol. 9(2), pages 10-24, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:rsg:littra:2016-013
    DOI: 10.36708/LS.2016.I02.001
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://littera-scripta.com/articles/comparison-of-multiple-criteria-decision-making-approaches-evaluating-egovernmen-59e8c226
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://littera-scripta.com/api/v1/public/files/5e243414-bfeb-4943-b290-0414d852c802
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.36708/LS.2016.I02.001?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Yang, Jian-Bo, 2001. "Rule and utility based evidential reasoning approach for multiattribute decision analysis under uncertainties," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 131(1), pages 31-61, May.
    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. Wu, Xingli & Liao, Huchang, 2021. "Modeling personalized cognition of customers in online shopping," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 104(C).
    2. J-B Yang & D-L Xu & X Xie & A K Maddulapalli, 2011. "Multicriteria evidential reasoning decision modelling and analysis—prioritizing voices of customer," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 62(9), pages 1638-1654, September.
    3. Catrinu, M.D. & Nordgård, D.E., 2011. "Integrating risk analysis and multi-criteria decision support under uncertainty in electricity distribution system asset management," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 96(6), pages 663-670.
    4. Fu, Chao & Yang, Shanlin, 2011. "An attribute weight based feedback model for multiple attributive group decision analysis problems with group consensus requirements in evidential reasoning context," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 212(1), pages 179-189, July.
    5. Ahmed Derbel & Younes Boujelbene, 2023. "Performance classification of Tunisian public transport operators," Public Transport, Springer, vol. 15(2), pages 535-574, June.
    6. Fu, Chao & Yang, Shanlin, 2012. "An evidential reasoning based consensus model for multiple attribute group decision analysis problems with interval-valued group consensus requirements," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 223(1), pages 167-176.
    7. Hani Alyami & Paul Tae-Woo Lee & Zaili Yang & Ramin Riahi & Stephen Bonsall & Jin Wang, 2014. "An advanced risk analysis approach for container port safety evaluation," Maritime Policy & Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 41(7), pages 634-650, December.
    8. Zhou, Zhi-Jie & Hu, Chang-Hua & Xu, Dong-Ling & Chen, Mao-Yin & Zhou, Dong-Hua, 2010. "A model for real-time failure prognosis based on hidden Markov model and belief rule base," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 207(1), pages 269-283, November.
    9. Sureeyatanapas, Panitas & Sriwattananusart, Kawinpob & Niyamosoth, Thanawath & Sessomboon, Weerapat & Arunyanart, Sirawadee, 2018. "Supplier selection towards uncertain and unavailable information: An extension of TOPSIS method," Operations Research Perspectives, Elsevier, vol. 5(C), pages 69-79.
    10. Ruchita & Ravi Shankar, 2025. "An integrated approach for modelling barriers of EVsCI," International Journal of System Assurance Engineering and Management, Springer;The Society for Reliability, Engineering Quality and Operations Management (SREQOM),India, and Division of Operation and Maintenance, Lulea University of Technology, Sweden, vol. 16(1), pages 356-376, January.
    11. Ha, Min-Ho & Yang, Zaili & Lam, Jasmine Siu Lee, 2019. "Port performance in container transport logistics: A multi-stakeholder perspective," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 25-40.
    12. Xiaojiao Qiao & Dan Shi, 2019. "Risk Analysis of Emergency Based on Fuzzy Evidential Reasoning," Complexity, Hindawi, vol. 2019, pages 1-10, November.
    13. Rachita Gupta & Ravi Shankar & Kee-Hung Lai & Ajay Kumar, 2025. "Risk profiling of food security impediments using decision maker’s behavioural preference towards operational risk management," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 348(2), pages 937-972, May.
    14. Sun, Bin, 2026. "Geographic information system-based urban community fire danger evaluation method fusing evidential reasoning and intelligent optimization," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 268(C).
    15. Chaoyu Zheng & Benhong Peng & Xuan Zhao & Guo Wei & Anxia Wan & Mu Yue, 2025. "Power battery third-party reverse logistics provider selection: Fuzzy evidential reasoning," Energy & Environment, , vol. 36(1), pages 323-355, February.
    16. Jun Liu & Jian-Bo Yang & Da Ruan & Luis Martinez & Jin Wang, 2008. "Self-tuning of fuzzy belief rule bases for engineering system safety analysis," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 163(1), pages 143-168, October.
    17. Wang, Ying-Ming & Yang, Jian-Bo & Xu, Dong-Ling & Chin, Kwai-Sang, 2006. "The evidential reasoning approach for multiple attribute decision analysis using interval belief degrees," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 175(1), pages 35-66, November.
    18. Quan, Ji & Zhou, Yawen & Wang, Xianjia & Yang, Jian-Bo, 2020. "Information fusion based on reputation and payoff promotes cooperation in spatial public goods game," Applied Mathematics and Computation, Elsevier, vol. 368(C).
    19. Shiva Moslemi & Hamidreza Izadbakhsh & Marzieh Zarinbal, 2019. "A new reliable performance evaluation model: IFB-IER–DEA," OPSEARCH, Springer;Operational Research Society of India, vol. 56(1), pages 14-31, March.
    20. Wan, Chengpeng & Yan, Xinping & Zhang, Di & Yang, Zaili, 2019. "A novel policy making aid model for the development of LNG fuelled ships," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 29-44.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    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:rsg:littra:2016-013. 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: Robin Kunju Mol Raj (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://littera-scripta.com/ .

    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.