IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/vision/v27y2023i1p93-109.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Analysis and Comparison of State-of-the-Art Fuzzy Multi-criteria Decision-making Methods Under Different Levels of Uncertainty

Author

Listed:
  • Akshay Hinduja
  • Manju Pandey

Abstract

Often, data in multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) problems are imprecise and changeable due to the mandatory participation of human judgement, which is often unclear and vague. Besides, different MCDM methods may produce different results under different levels of uncertainty and require divergent levels of computational resources. Therefore, the quality of the decision and the amount of effort are heavily affected by selection of the MCDM method. With the regular proliferation of such methods and their modifications, it is important to carry out a comparative study that provides comprehensive insight into their performances under uncertain conditions. In this study, we use the randomized quasi-Monte Carlo simulation approach to compare empirically the results produced by 12 classic and contemporary fuzzy MCDM (FMCDM) approaches with rank-reversal perspective over increasing uncertainty in various decision scenarios. Furthermore, this study also investigates the similarity between ranks produced by each pair of methods for the same decision problems. The study further compares the results obtained by quasi-Monte Carlo simulation with the results obtained by Monte Carlo simulation. The findings of this study will assist decision-makers in the selection of most appropriate fuzzy MCDM approach for different decision scenarios. The results of this research are significant additions to the current repository of knowledge in the multi-criteria decision analysis as well as the literature pertaining to the Information Systems. It also provides insights for many managerial applications of these MCDM methods.

Suggested Citation

  • Akshay Hinduja & Manju Pandey, 2023. "Analysis and Comparison of State-of-the-Art Fuzzy Multi-criteria Decision-making Methods Under Different Levels of Uncertainty," Vision, , vol. 27(1), pages 93-109, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:vision:v:27:y:2023:i:1:p:93-109
    DOI: 10.1177/09722629211002936
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/09722629211002936
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/09722629211002936?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. Ebru Turanoglu Bekar & Mehmet Cakmakci & Cengiz Kahraman, 2016. "Fuzzy COPRAS method for performance measurement in total productive maintenance: a comparative analysis," Journal of Business Economics and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 17(5), pages 663-684, September.
    2. Athanasios Kolios & Varvara Mytilinou & Estivaliz Lozano-Minguez & Konstantinos Salonitis, 2016. "A Comparative Study of Multiple-Criteria Decision-Making Methods under Stochastic Inputs," Energies, MDPI, vol. 9(7), pages 1-21, July.
    3. Büyüközkan, Gülçin & Güleryüz, Sezin & Karpak, Birsen, 2017. "A new combined IF-DEMATEL and IF-ANP approach for CRM partner evaluation," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 191(C), pages 194-206.
    4. Zamani-Sabzi, Hamed & King, James Phillip & Gard, Charlotte C. & Abudu, Shalamu, 2016. "Statistical and analytical comparison of multi-criteria decision-making techniques under fuzzy environment," Operations Research Perspectives, Elsevier, vol. 3(C), pages 92-117.
    5. Alev Taskin Gumus & A. Yesim Yayla & Erkan Çelik & Aytac Yildiz, 2013. "A Combined Fuzzy-AHP and Fuzzy-GRA Methodology for Hydrogen Energy Storage Method Selection in Turkey," Energies, MDPI, vol. 6(6), pages 1-16, June.
    6. 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.
    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. Francesco Ciardiello & Andrea Genovese, 2023. "A comparison between TOPSIS and SAW methods," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 325(2), pages 967-994, June.
    2. Kokaraki, Nikoleta & Hopfe, Christina J. & Robinson, Elaine & Nikolaidou, Elli, 2019. "Testing the reliability of deterministic multi-criteria decision-making methods using building performance simulation," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 112(C), pages 991-1007.
    3. Janis Edmunds Daugavietis & Raimonda Soloha & Elina Dace & Jelena Ziemele, 2022. "A Comparison of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis Methods for Sustainability Assessment of District Heating Systems," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(7), pages 1-23, March.
    4. 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.
    5. Katerina Kabassi, 2021. "Comparing Multi-Criteria Decision Making Models for Evaluating Environmental Education Programs," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(20), pages 1-17, October.
    6. Yolandi Schoeman & Paul Oberholster & Vernon Somerset, 2021. "A Zero-Waste Multi-Criteria Decision-Support Model for the Iron and Steel Industry in Developing Countries: A Case Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(5), pages 1-23, March.
    7. Jose Martino Neto & Valerio Antonio Pamplona Salomon & Miguel Angel Ortiz-Barrios & Antonella Petrillo, 2023. "Compatibility and correlation of multi-attribute decision making: a case of industrial relocation," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 326(2), pages 831-852, July.
    8. 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.
    9. Barak, Sasan & Javanmard, Shima, 2020. "Outsourcing modelling using a novel interval-valued fuzzy quantitative strategic planning matrix (QSPM) and multiple criteria decision-making (MCDMs)," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 222(C).
    10. Yazdi, Amir Karbassi & Wanke, Peter Fernandes & Hanne, Thomas & Abdi, Farshid & Sarfaraz, Amir Homayoun, 2022. "Supplier selection in the oil & gas industry: A comprehensive approach for Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 79(C).
    11. Leoneti, Alexandre Bevilacqua & Gomes, Luiz Flavio Autran Monteiro, 2021. "A novel version of the TODIM method based on the exponential model of prospect theory: The ExpTODIM method," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 295(3), pages 1042-1055.
    12. Rohit Agrawal & Vishal A. Wankhede & Anil Kumar & Sunil Luthra, 2021. "Analysing the roadblocks of circular economy adoption in the automobile sector: Reducing waste and environmental perspectives," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(2), pages 1051-1066, February.
    13. Serhat Yuksel & Hasan Dincer & Senol Emir, 2017. "Comparing the performance of Turkish deposit banks by using DEMATEL, Grey Relational Analysis (GRA) and MOORA approaches," World Journal of Applied Economics, WERI-World Economic Research Institute, vol. 3(2), pages 26-47, December.
    14. 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.
    15. Mulliner, Emma & Smallbone, Kieran & Maliene, Vida, 2013. "An assessment of sustainable housing affordability using a multiple criteria decision making method," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 41(2), pages 270-279.
    16. Michael O. Ukoba & Ogheneruona E. Diemuodeke & Mohammed Alghassab & Henry I. Njoku & Muhammad Imran & Zafar A. Khan, 2020. "Composite Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis for Optimization of Hybrid Renewable Energy Systems for Geopolitical Zones in Nigeria," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(14), pages 1-27, July.
    17. Manel Baucells & Rakesh K. Sarin, 2003. "Group Decisions with Multiple Criteria," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 49(8), pages 1105-1118, August.
    18. Hajkowicz, Stefan & Higgins, Andrew, 2008. "A comparison of multiple criteria analysis techniques for water resource management," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 184(1), pages 255-265, January.
    19. Mehdi Salimi & Mahboubeh Khodaparast, 2019. "Providing a combined model of fuzzy AHP and numerical taxonomy analysis for sport organizational ranking and performance appraisal," 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. 10(5), pages 1133-1144, October.
    20. Abbas Roozbahani & Ebrahim Ebrahimi & Mohammad Ebrahim Banihabib, 2018. "A Framework for Ground Water Management Based on Bayesian Network and MCDM Techniques," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 32(15), pages 4985-5005, December.

    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:vision:v:27:y:2023:i:1:p:93-109. 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.