IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/envirb/v22y1995i4p407-418.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Compromise Criterion in MCDM: Interpretation and Sensitivity to the p Parameter

Author

Listed:
  • E Karni

    (Faculty of Architecture and Town Planning, Technion-Israel Institute of Technology, Technion City, Haifa 32000, Israel)

  • E Werczberger

    (The Public Policy Program, Tel-Aviv University, Tel-Aviv 69978, Israel)

Abstract

In this paper we discuss the application of the compromise criterion to multicriteria decisionmaking and present an application taken from the field of architecture. The L p (Minkowski) metric is used to rank a given set of alternatives according to their generalized distance from the ideal solution. We also examine the interpretation of the parameter p and the sensitivity of the results to its value. When p = 1, the compromise solution minimizes the total regret; when p is very large, the alternative selected minimizes very low performance as regards all the objectives. However, intermediate values of p which lack a clear linguistic interpretation imply a second level of compromise between the two extreme strategies. An empirical problem is used to illustrate the model. It concerns the selection of lightweight construction systems for the enclosure of outdoor swimming pools. Fifteen construction systems were evaluated and ranked on the basis of twenty-six different criteria. The sensitivity analysis exemplifies the effect of changing the parameters.

Suggested Citation

  • E Karni & E Werczberger, 1995. "The Compromise Criterion in MCDM: Interpretation and Sensitivity to the p Parameter," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 22(4), pages 407-418, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:envirb:v:22:y:1995:i:4:p:407-418
    DOI: 10.1068/b220407
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1068/b220407
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1068/b220407?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. M. Freimer & P. L. Yu, 1976. "Some New Results on Compromise Solutions for Group Decision Problems," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 22(6), pages 688-693, February.
    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. Anna Straton & Sue Jackson & Oswald Marinoni & Wendy Proctor & Emma Woodward, 2011. "Exploring and Evaluating Scenarios for a River Catchment in Northern Australia Using Scenario Development, Multi-criteria Analysis and a Deliberative Process as a Tool for Water Planning," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 25(1), pages 141-164, January.

    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. Hsu, C.-H. & Wang, Fu-Kwun & Tzeng, Gwo-Hshiung, 2012. "The best vendor selection for conducting the recycled material based on a hybrid MCDM model combining DANP with VIKOR," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 95-111.
    2. Bas Dietzenbacher & Hans Peters, 2022. "Characterizing NTU-bankruptcy rules using bargaining axioms," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 318(2), pages 871-888, November.
    3. Claus-Jochen Haake & Cheng-Zhong Qin, 2018. "On unification of solutions to the bargaining problem," Working Papers CIE 113, Paderborn University, CIE Center for International Economics.
    4. Stokes, Jeffrey R. & Tozer, Peter R., 2002. "Sire selection with multiple objectives," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 73(2), pages 147-164, August.
    5. Francisco J. André & Carlos Romero, 2006. "On the equivalence between compromise programming and the use of composite compromise metrics," Working Papers 06.33, Universidad Pablo de Olavide, Department of Economics.
    6. Ma, Qiuzhuo & Song, Haiqing & Zhu, Wenbin, 2018. "Low-carbon airline fleet assignment: A compromise approach," Journal of Air Transport Management, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 86-102.
    7. F. Blasco & E. Cuchillo-Ibáñez & M. A. Morón & C. Romero, 1999. "On the Monotonicity of the Compromise Set in Multicriteria Problems," Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications, Springer, vol. 102(1), pages 69-82, July.
    8. Li, An-Da & He, Zhen & Wang, Qing & Zhang, Yang, 2019. "Key quality characteristics selection for imbalanced production data using a two-phase bi-objective feature selection method," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 274(3), pages 978-989.
    9. M. Voorneveld & A. Nouweland & R. McLean, 2011. "Axiomatizations of the Euclidean compromise solution," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 40(3), pages 427-448, August.
    10. Sankaran, J. K., 1998. "On a variant of lexicographic multi-objective programming," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 107(3), pages 669-674, June.
    11. Strauss, John, 1981. "Social Objective Functions in Agricultural Research," Evaluation of Agricultural Research, Proceedings of a Workshop, Minneapolis, MN, May 12-13, 1980, Miscellaneous Publication 8 49060, University of Minnesota, Agricultural Experiment Station.
    12. Casiano A. Manrique-de-Lara-Peñate & Dolores R. Santos-Peñate, 2017. "SAM updating using multi-objective optimization techniques," Papers in Regional Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 96(3), pages 647-667, August.
    13. Gwo-Hshiung Tzeng & Chi-Yo Huang, 2012. "Combined DEMATEL technique with hybrid MCDM methods for creating the aspired intelligent global manufacturing & logistics systems," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 197(1), pages 159-190, August.
    14. Büsing, Christina & Goetzmann, Kai-Simon & Matuschke, Jannik & Stiller, Sebastian, 2017. "Reference points and approximation algorithms in multicriteria discrete optimization," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 260(3), pages 829-840.
    15. Kuldeep Kavta & Arkopal K. Goswami, 2021. "A methodological framework for a priori selection of travel demand management package using fuzzy MCDM methods," Transportation, Springer, vol. 48(6), pages 3059-3084, December.
    16. Chi-Yo Huang & Pei-Han Chung & Joseph Z. Shyu & Yao-Hua Ho & Chao-Hsin Wu & Ming-Che Lee & Ming-Jenn Wu, 2018. "Evaluation and Selection of Materials for Particulate Matter MEMS Sensors by Using Hybrid MCDM Methods," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(10), pages 1-35, September.
    17. Carlos Alós-Ferrer & Jaume García-Segarra & Miguel Ginés-Vilar, 2018. "Anchoring on Utopia: a generalization of the Kalai–Smorodinsky solution," Economic Theory Bulletin, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 6(2), pages 141-155, October.
    18. Opricovic, Serafim & Tzeng, Gwo-Hshiung, 2007. "Extended VIKOR method in comparison with outranking methods," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 178(2), pages 514-529, April.
    19. Sebastián Lozano & Narges Soltani & Akram Dehnokhalaji, 2020. "A compromise programming approach for target setting in DEA," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 288(1), pages 363-390, May.
    20. Torki, Mohammad Mehdi & Hassanajili, Shadi & Jalisi, Marc Mehrzad, 2020. "Design optimizations of PLA stent structure by FEM and investigating its function in a simulated plaque artery," Mathematics and Computers in Simulation (MATCOM), Elsevier, vol. 169(C), pages 103-116.

    More about this item

    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:sae:envirb:v:22:y:1995:i:4:p:407-418. 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.