IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/cejnor/v27y2019i3d10.1007_s10100-019-00615-2.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Bipolar method and its modifications

Author

Listed:
  • Tadeusz Trzaskalik

    (University of Economics)

  • Sebastian Sitarz

    (University of Silesia)

  • Cezary Dominiak

    (Rosomak S.A)

Abstract

Bipolar is one of the multiple criteria decision analysis methods, proposed by Konarzewska-Gubała (in Archiwum Automatyki i Telemechaniki 32(4):289–300, 1987). The main feature of the method is that alternatives are not compared directly with each other, but they are confronted to the two reference sets of objects: desirable and non-acceptable. Practical application of the method revealed its shortcomings, therefore improvements of the method were desirable. The aim of the paper is to formulate some modifications of the classical Bipolar approach and consider a case where reference sets are numerous. Unified Bipolar procedure which contains classical Bipolar method as well as the modifications described in the paper is given. Numerical illustrations of the modifications and unified approach are also presented.

Suggested Citation

  • Tadeusz Trzaskalik & Sebastian Sitarz & Cezary Dominiak, 2019. "Bipolar method and its modifications," Central European Journal of Operations Research, Springer;Slovak Society for Operations Research;Hungarian Operational Research Society;Czech Society for Operations Research;Österr. Gesellschaft für Operations Research (ÖGOR);Slovenian Society Informatika - Section for Operational Research;Croatian Operational Research Society, vol. 27(3), pages 625-651, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:cejnor:v:27:y:2019:i:3:d:10.1007_s10100-019-00615-2
    DOI: 10.1007/s10100-019-00615-2
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10100-019-00615-2
    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/s10100-019-00615-2?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. Diakoulaki, D. & Koumoutsos, N., 1991. "Cardinal ranking of alternative actions: extension of the method," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 53(3), pages 337-347, August.
    2. Nowak, Maciej, 2006. "INSDECM--an interactive procedure for stochastic multicriteria decision problems," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 175(3), pages 1413-1430, December.
    3. Wojtek Michalowski & Tomek Szapiro, 1992. "A Bi-Reference Procedure for Interactive Multiple Criteria Programming," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 40(2), pages 247-258, April.
    4. Yoram Wind & Thomas L. Saaty, 1980. "Marketing Applications of the Analytic Hierarchy Process," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(7), pages 641-658, July.
    5. Maciej Nowak, 2010. "Trade-Off Analysis in Discrete Decision Making Problems Under Risk," Lecture Notes in Economics and Mathematical Systems, in: Dylan Jones & Mehrdad Tamiz & Jana Ries (ed.), New Developments in Multiple Objective and Goal Programming, pages 103-115, Springer.
    6. Larichev, O. I. & Moshkovich, H. M., 1995. "ZAPROS-LM -- A method and system for ordering multiattribute alternatives," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 82(3), pages 503-521, May.
    7. Edwards, Ward & Barron, F. Hutton, 1994. "SMARTS and SMARTER: Improved Simple Methods for Multiattribute Utility Measurement," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 60(3), pages 306-325, December.
    8. C. West Churchman & Russell L. Ackoff, 1954. "An Approximate Measure of Value," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 2(2), pages 172-187, May.
    9. 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.
    10. Greco, Salvatore & Matarazzo, Benedetto & Slowinski, Roman, 2002. "Rough sets methodology for sorting problems in presence of multiple attributes and criteria," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 138(2), pages 247-259, April.
    11. Larichev, Oleg I., 2001. "Ranking multicriteria alternatives: The method ZAPROS III," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 131(3), pages 550-558, June.
    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. Ewa Roszkowska & Marzena Filipowicz-Chomko & Tomasz Wachowicz, 2020. "Using individual and common reference points to measure the performance of alternatives in multiple criteria evaluation," Operations Research and Decisions, Wroclaw University of Science and Technology, Faculty of Management, vol. 30(3), pages 77-96.
    2. Tadeusz Trzaskalik, 2021. "Bipolar sorting and ranking of multistage alternatives," Central European Journal of Operations Research, Springer;Slovak Society for Operations Research;Hungarian Operational Research Society;Czech Society for Operations Research;Österr. Gesellschaft für Operations Research (ÖGOR);Slovenian Society Informatika - Section for Operational Research;Croatian Operational Research Society, vol. 29(3), pages 933-955, September.
    3. Andrej Kastrin & Janez Povh & Lidija Zadnik Stirn & Janez Žerovnik, 2021. "Methodologies and applications for resilient global development from the aspect of SDI-SOR special issues of CJOR," Central European Journal of Operations Research, Springer;Slovak Society for Operations Research;Hungarian Operational Research Society;Czech Society for Operations Research;Österr. Gesellschaft für Operations Research (ÖGOR);Slovenian Society Informatika - Section for Operational Research;Croatian Operational Research Society, vol. 29(3), pages 773-790, September.
    4. Janez Povh & Lidija Zadnik Stirn & Janez Žerovnik, 2019. "Editorial," Central European Journal of Operations Research, Springer;Slovak Society for Operations Research;Hungarian Operational Research Society;Czech Society for Operations Research;Österr. Gesellschaft für Operations Research (ÖGOR);Slovenian Society Informatika - Section for Operational Research;Croatian Operational Research Society, vol. 27(3), pages 597-599, September.

    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. Tadeusz Trzaskalik, 2022. "Multiobjective dynamic programming in bipolar multistage method," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 311(2), pages 1259-1279, April.
    2. Dorota Górecka & Ewa Roszkowska & Tomasz Wachowicz, 2016. "The MARS Approach in the Verbal and Holistic Evaluation of the Negotiation Template," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 25(6), pages 1097-1136, November.
    3. P P Sutton & R H Green, 2007. "Choice is a value statement. On inferring optimal multiple attribute portfolios from non-optimal nominations," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 58(11), pages 1526-1533, November.
    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. Ewa Roszkowska, 2020. "The extention rank ordering criteria weighting methods in fuzzy enviroment," Operations Research and Decisions, Wroclaw University of Science and Technology, Faculty of Management, vol. 30(2), pages 91-114.
    6. Aytekin, Ahmet & Korucuk, Selçuk & Görçün, Ömer Faruk, 2024. "Determining the factors affecting transportation demand management and selecting the best strategy: A case study," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 150-166.
    7. Nejc Trdin & Marko Bohanec, 2018. "Extending the multi-criteria decision making method DEX with numeric attributes, value distributions and relational models," Central European Journal of Operations Research, Springer;Slovak Society for Operations Research;Hungarian Operational Research Society;Czech Society for Operations Research;Österr. Gesellschaft für Operations Research (ÖGOR);Slovenian Society Informatika - Section for Operational Research;Croatian Operational Research Society, vol. 26(1), pages 1-41, March.
    8. Guitouni, Adel & Martel, Jean-Marc, 1998. "Tentative guidelines to help choosing an appropriate MCDA method," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 109(2), pages 501-521, September.
    9. Lin, Sheng-Hau & Zhao, Xiaofeng & Wu, Jiuxing & Liang, Fachao & Li, Jia-Hsuan & Lai, Ren-Ji & Hsieh, Jing-Chzi & Tzeng, Gwo-Hshiung, 2021. "An evaluation framework for developing green infrastructure by using a new hybrid multiple attribute decision-making model for promoting environmental sustainability," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 75(C).
    10. Tom Koch & Mark Ridgley, 2000. "The Condorcet's Jury Theorem in a Bioethical Context: The Dynamics of Group Decision Making," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 9(5), pages 379-392, September.
    11. Serafim Opricovic, 2009. "A Compromise Solution in Water Resources Planning," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 23(8), pages 1549-1561, June.
    12. 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.
    13. Dorota Górecka, 2012. "Applying Multi-Criteria Decision Aiding techniques in the process of project management within the wedding planning business," Operations Research and Decisions, Wroclaw University of Science and Technology, Faculty of Management, vol. 22(4), pages 41-67.
    14. Lin, Sheng-Hau & Huang, Xianjin & Fu, Guole & Chen, Jia-Tsong & Zhao, Xiaofeng & Li, Jia-Hsuan & Tzeng, Gwo-Hshiung, 2021. "Evaluating the sustainability of urban renewal projects based on a model of hybrid multiple-attribute decision-making," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 108(C).
    15. Łatuszyńska Anna, 2014. "Multiple-Criteria Decision Analysis Using Topsis Method For Interval Data In Research Into The Level Of Information Society Development," Folia Oeconomica Stetinensia, Sciendo, vol. 13(2), pages 63-76, July.
    16. Ustaoglu, E. & Sisman, S. & Aydınoglu, A.C., 2021. "Determining agricultural suitable land in peri-urban geography using GIS and Multi Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) techniques," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 455(C).
    17. Rađenović Žarko & Veselinović Ivana, 2017. "Integrated AHP-TOPSIS Method for the Assessment of Health Management Information Systems Efficiency," Economic Themes, Sciendo, vol. 55(1), pages 121-142, March.
    18. Peyman Mohammady & Amin Amid, 2011. "Integrated fuzzy AHP and fuzzy VIKOR model for supplier selection in an agile and modular virtual enterprise," Fuzzy Information and Engineering, Springer, vol. 3(4), pages 411-431, December.
    19. 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.
    20. J. M. Sánchez-Lozano & F. J. Salmerón-Vera & C. Ros-Casajús, 2020. "Prioritization of Cartagena Coastal Military Batteries to Transform Them into Scientific, Tourist and Cultural Places of Interest: A GIS-MCDM Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(23), pages 1-16, November.

    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:cejnor:v:27:y:2019:i:3:d:10.1007_s10100-019-00615-2. 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.