IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/annopr/v315y2022i1d10.1007_s10479-022-04644-0.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A new dynamic multi-attribute decision making method based on Markov chain and linear assignment

Author

Listed:
  • Seyed Hossein Razavi Hajiagha

    (Department of Management, Faculty of Management and Finance, Khatam University)

  • Jalil Heidary-Dahooie

    (Faculty of Management, University of Tehran)

  • Ieva Meidutė-Kavaliauskienė

    (Faculty of Business Management, Vilnius Gediminas Technical University (VILNIUS TECH))

  • Kannan Govindan

    (China Institute of FTZ Supply Chain, Shanghai Maritime University
    Yonsei Frontier Lab, Yonsei University
    Center for Sustainable Supply Chain Engineering, Department of Technology and Innovation, Danish Institute for Advanced Study, University of Southern Denmark)

Abstract

This paper presents a new Dynamic Multi-Attribute Decision-Making method based on Markovian property, which can predict the performance of each alternative in the future and at the same time allows modeling interrelationship among different periods. To this aim, the criteria and decision alternatives in different periods are determined at first, and the information of decision matrices over the decision-making horizon is gathered. To increase the robustness of the results, criteria weights are extracted using the Entropy method in each period and alternatives performance is evaluated using different Multi-Attribute Decision-Making methods. To attain the final rank of alternatives in each period, the results of different methods are aggregated by the Correlation coefficient and standard deviation method. Following this, the rank transformation matrices of alternatives during the evaluation horizon are extracted and the stable rank probability of alternatives is calculated based on limiting probability. Eventually, the overall rank of alternatives is determined using a linear assignment-based method. The proposed model has been used in the promotion of the sales staff in a private company to show the model effectiveness in a real-world problem. Results are compared with some well-known methods (five methods, to be exact). Finally, the trustworthiness and acceptability of the method are assessed based on features discussed in the literature.

Suggested Citation

  • Seyed Hossein Razavi Hajiagha & Jalil Heidary-Dahooie & Ieva Meidutė-Kavaliauskienė & Kannan Govindan, 2022. "A new dynamic multi-attribute decision making method based on Markov chain and linear assignment," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 315(1), pages 159-191, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:annopr:v:315:y:2022:i:1:d:10.1007_s10479-022-04644-0
    DOI: 10.1007/s10479-022-04644-0
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10479-022-04644-0
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10479-022-04644-0?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. Liu, Jian & Zhao, Hong-Kuan & Li, Zhao-Bin & Liu, Si-Feng, 2017. "Decision process in MCDM with large number of criteria and heterogeneous risk preferences," Operations Research Perspectives, Elsevier, vol. 4(C), pages 106-112.
    2. Morteza Yazdani & Pascale Zaraté & Edmundas Kazimieras Zavadskas & Zenonas Turskis, 2019. "A Combined Compromise Solution (CoCoSo) method for multi-criteria decision-making problems," Post-Print hal-02879091, HAL.
    3. Fernando A. F. Ferreira & Sérgio P. Santos, 2021. "Two decades on the MACBETH approach: a bibliometric analysis," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 296(1), pages 901-925, January.
    4. 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.
    5. C. West Churchman & Russell L. Ackoff, 1954. "An Approximate Measure of Value," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 2(2), pages 172-187, May.
    6. Opricovic, Serafim & Tzeng, Gwo-Hshiung, 2004. "Compromise solution by MCDM methods: A comparative analysis of VIKOR and TOPSIS," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 156(2), pages 445-455, July.
    7. Konstantinos Petridis & Georgios Drogalas & Eleni Zografidou, 2021. "Internal auditor selection using a TOPSIS/non-linear programming model," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 296(1), pages 513-539, January.
    8. A. Arrais-Castro & Maria Leonilde Rocha Varela & G. D. Putnik & Rita Ribeiro & F. C. C. Dargam, 2015. "Collaborative Negotiation Platform using a Dynamic Multi-Criteria Decision Model," International Journal of Decision Support System Technology (IJDSST), IGI Global, vol. 7(1), pages 1-14, January.
    9. V. Srinivasan & Allan Shocker, 1973. "Estimating the weights for multiple attributes in a composite criterion using pairwise judgments," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 38(4), pages 473-493, December.
    10. Zeshui Xu, 2011. "Approaches To Multi-Stage Multi-Attribute Group Decision Making," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 10(01), pages 121-146.
    11. Asadabadi, Mehdi Rajabi, 2017. "A customer based supplier selection process that combines quality function deployment, the analytic network process and a Markov chain," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 263(3), pages 1049-1062.
    12. Kannan Govindan & Vernika Agarwal & Jyoti Dhingra Darbari & P. C. Jha, 2019. "An integrated decision making model for the selection of sustainable forward and reverse logistic providers," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 273(1), pages 607-650, February.
    13. Prasenjit Mondal, 2020. "Computing semi-stationary optimal policies for multichain semi-Markov decision processes," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 287(2), pages 843-865, April.
    14. Sarfaraz Hashemkhani Zolfani & Edmundas Kazimieras Zavadskas & Payam Khazaelpour & Fausto Cavallaro, 2018. "The Multi-Aspect Criterion in the PMADM Outline and Its Possible Application to Sustainability Assessment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-15, November.
    15. Mohammad Azadfallah, 2017. "Supplier Performance Prediction for Future Collaboration: Based on Markov Chain Model," International Journal of Business Analytics (IJBAN), IGI Global, vol. 4(4), pages 48-59, October.
    16. A. C. Georgiou & N. Tsantas, 2002. "Modelling recruitment training in mathematical human resource planning," Applied Stochastic Models in Business and Industry, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 18(1), pages 53-74, January.
    17. Shi Yin & Baizhou Li & Hengmin Dong & Zeyu Xing, 2017. "A New Dynamic Multicriteria Decision-Making Approach for Green Supplier Selection in Construction Projects under Time Sequence," Mathematical Problems in Engineering, Hindawi, vol. 2017, pages 1-13, December.
    18. Varmazyar, Mohsen & Dehghanbaghi, Maryam & Afkhami, Mehdi, 2016. "A novel hybrid MCDM model for performance evaluation of research and technology organizations based on BSC approach," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 125-140.
    19. Bernardo, John J & Blin, Jean-Marie, 1977. "A Programming Model of Consumer Choice among Multi-Attributed Brands," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 4(2), pages 111-118, Se.
    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. Barak, Sasan & Dahooei, Jalil Heidary, 2018. "A novel hybrid fuzzy DEA-Fuzzy MADM method for airlines safety evaluation," Journal of Air Transport Management, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 134-149.
    2. Zheng Yuan & Baohua Wen & Cheng He & Jin Zhou & Zhonghua Zhou & Feng Xu, 2022. "Application of Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Analysis to Rural Spatial Sustainability Evaluation: A Systematic Review," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(11), pages 1-31, May.
    3. Tsai, Pei-Hsuan & Kao, Ya-Ling & Kuo, Szu-Yu, 2023. "Exploring the critical factors influencing the outlying island talent recruitment and selection evaluation model: Empirical evidence from Penghu, Taiwan," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    4. Roman Vavrek, 2019. "Evaluation of the Impact of Selected Weighting Methods on the Results of the TOPSIS Technique," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 18(06), pages 1821-1843, November.
    5. Karatas, Mumtaz & Sulukan, Egemen & Karacan, Ilknur, 2018. "Assessment of Turkey's energy management performance via a hybrid multi-criteria decision-making methodology," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 153(C), pages 890-912.
    6. Willem Brauers, 2013. "Multi-objective seaport planning by MOORA decision making," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 206(1), pages 39-58, July.
    7. Kuo, Ting, 2017. "A modified TOPSIS with a different ranking index," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 260(1), pages 152-160.
    8. Francesco Ciardiello & Andrea Genovese, 2023. "A comparison between TOPSIS and SAW methods," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 325(2), pages 967-994, June.
    9. 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.
    10. 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.
    11. Małgorzata Trojanowska & Krzysztof Nęcka, 2020. "Selection of the Multiple-Criiater Decision-Making Method for Evaluation of Sustainable Energy Development: A Case Study of Poland," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(23), pages 1-24, November.
    12. Ecer, Fatih, 2021. "A consolidated MCDM framework for performance assessment of battery electric vehicles based on ranking strategies," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 143(C).
    13. Tingting Li & Dan Zhao & Guiyun Liu & Yuhong Wang, 2022. "How to Evaluate College Students’ Green Innovation Ability—A Method Combining BWM and Modified Fuzzy TOPSIS," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(16), pages 1-17, August.
    14. C. Veeramani & R. Venugopal & S. Muruganandan, 2023. "An Exploration of the Fuzzy Inference System for the Daily Trading Decision and Its Performance Analysis Based on Fuzzy MCDM Methods," Computational Economics, Springer;Society for Computational Economics, vol. 62(3), pages 1313-1340, October.
    15. 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.
    16. Irina Vinogradova, 2019. "Multi-Attribute Decision-Making Methods as a Part of Mathematical Optimization," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 7(10), pages 1-21, October.
    17. Miguel Ortíz-Barrios & Natalia Jaramillo-Rueda & Muhammet Gul & Melih Yucesan & Genett Jiménez-Delgado & Juan-José Alfaro-Saíz, 2023. "A Fuzzy Hybrid MCDM Approach for Assessing the Emergency Department Performance during the COVID-19 Outbreak," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(5), pages 1-39, March.
    18. 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).
    19. Ewa Roszkowska & Marzena Filipowicz-Chomko, 2021. "Measuring Sustainable Development Using an Extended Hellwig Method: A Case Study of Education," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 153(1), pages 299-322, January.
    20. Claudia Margarita Acuña-Soto & Vicente Liern & Blanca Pérez-Gladish, 2020. "Multiple criteria performance evaluation of YouTube mathematical educational videos by IS-TOPSIS," Operational Research, Springer, vol. 20(4), pages 2017-2039, 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:spr:annopr:v:315:y:2022:i:1:d:10.1007_s10479-022-04644-0. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.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.