IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/grdene/v25y2016i3d10.1007_s10726-015-9451-9.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Mixed-Data Evaluation in Group TOPSIS with Differentiated Decision Power

Author

Listed:
  • Hsu-Shih Shih

    (Tamkang University)

Abstract

This main objective of this paper is to provide decision support for mixed data in group Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Idea Solution (TOPSIS) with differentiated decision power. We use a signum function to compare the ordinal performance of alternatives on any qualitative criterion, or the partial information provided by decision makers. The proposed process for ordinal information is uniformly coherent with the traditional TOPSIS steps, preserving the characteristic of distance-based utilities. Ordinal weights are also considered herein, and the decision power of the group members is formulated by their weights under an agreement in the group. Two examples demonstrate that the proposed approach has some benefits and achieves robustness with two types of sensitivity analyses. Some discussions and their limitations to the approach are also provided.

Suggested Citation

  • Hsu-Shih Shih, 2016. "A Mixed-Data Evaluation in Group TOPSIS with Differentiated Decision Power," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 25(3), pages 537-565, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:grdene:v:25:y:2016:i:3:d:10.1007_s10726-015-9451-9
    DOI: 10.1007/s10726-015-9451-9
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10726-015-9451-9
    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/s10726-015-9451-9?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. Lahdelma, Risto & Miettinen, Kaisa & Salminen, Pekka, 2003. "Ordinal criteria in stochastic multicriteria acceptability analysis (SMAA)," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 147(1), pages 117-127, May.
    2. Robert T. Eckenrode, 1965. "Weighting Multiple Criteria," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 12(3), pages 180-192, November.
    3. Majid Zerafat Angiz Langroudi & Ali Emrouznejad & Adli Mustafa & Joshua Ignatius, 2013. "Type-2 TOPSIS: A Group Decision Problem When Ideal Values are not Extreme Endpoints," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 22(5), pages 851-866, September.
    4. B. Ahn & S. Choi, 2012. "Aggregation of ordinal data using ordered weighted averaging operator weights," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 201(1), pages 1-16, December.
    5. Dan Horsky & M. R. Rao, 1984. "Estimation of Attribute Weights from Preference Comparisons," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 30(7), pages 801-822, July.
    6. Craig W. Kirkwood & Rakesh K. Sarin, 1985. "Ranking with Partial Information: A Method and an Application," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 33(1), pages 38-48, February.
    7. Bana e Costa, Carlos A. & Chagas, Manuel P., 2004. "A career choice problem: An example of how to use MACBETH to build a quantitative value model based on qualitative value judgments," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 153(2), pages 323-331, March.
    8. Bernasconi, Michele & Choirat, Christine & Seri, Raffaello, 2014. "Empirical properties of group preference aggregation methods employed in AHP: Theory and evidence," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 232(3), pages 584-592.
    9. Yeu-Shiang Huang & Wei-Hao Li, 2012. "A Study on Aggregation of TOPSIS Ideal Solutions for Group Decision-Making," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 21(4), pages 461-473, July.
    10. Yoram Wind & Thomas L. Saaty, 1980. "Marketing Applications of the Analytic Hierarchy Process," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(7), pages 641-658, July.
    11. Manel Baucells & Rakesh K. Sarin, 2003. "Group Decisions with Multiple Criteria," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 49(8), pages 1105-1118, August.
    12. R.C. Van den Honert, 2001. "Decisional Power in Group Decision Making: A Note on the Allocation of Group Members' Weights in the Multiplicative AHP and SMART," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 10(3), pages 275-286, May.
    13. Larichev, O. I. & Olson, D. L. & Moshkovich, H. M. & Mechitov, A. J., 1995. "Numerical vs Cardinal Measurements in Multiattribute Decision Making: How Exact Is Enough?," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 64(1), pages 9-21, October.
    14. Xu, Xiaozhan & Martel, Jean-Marc & Lamond, Bernard F., 2001. "A multiple criteria ranking procedure based on distance between partial preorders," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 133(1), pages 69-80, August.
    15. Forman, Ernest & Peniwati, Kirti, 1998. "Aggregating individual judgments and priorities with the analytic hierarchy process," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 108(1), pages 165-169, July.
    16. H Voogd, 1982. "Multicriteria Evaluation with Mixed Qualitative and Quantitative Data," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 9(2), pages 221-236, June.
    17. Olson, D. L. & Dorai, V. K., 1992. "Implementation of the centroid method of Solymosi and Dombi," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 60(1), pages 117-129, July.
    18. F. Hutton Barron & Bruce E. Barrett, 1996. "Decision Quality Using Ranked Attribute Weights," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 42(11), pages 1515-1523, November.
    19. Ahn, Byeong Seok, 2011. "Compatible weighting method with rank order centroid: Maximum entropy ordered weighted averaging approach," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 212(3), pages 552-559, August.
    20. D F Jones & S J Mardle, 2004. "A distance-metric methodology for the derivation of weights from a pairwise comparison matrix," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 55(8), pages 869-875, August.
    21. Francineide Morais Bezerra & Paulo Melo & João Paulo Costa, 2014. "Visual and Interactive Comparative Analysis of Individual Opinions: A Group Decision Support Tool," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 23(1), pages 101-125, January.
    22. Ramanathan, R. & Ganesh, L. S., 1994. "Group preference aggregation methods employed in AHP: An evaluation and an intrinsic process for deriving members' weightages," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 79(2), pages 249-265, December.
    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. Zunhao Luo & Zexin Li, 2019. "A MAGDM Method Based on Possibility Distribution Hesitant Fuzzy Linguistic Term Set and Its Application," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 7(11), pages 1-32, November.

    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. Sasaki, Yasuo, 2023. "Strategic manipulation in group decisions with pairwise comparisons: A game theoretical perspective," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 304(3), pages 1133-1139.
    2. Bernasconi, Michele & Choirat, Christine & Seri, Raffaello, 2014. "Empirical properties of group preference aggregation methods employed in AHP: Theory and evidence," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 232(3), pages 584-592.
    3. Jacinto González-Pachón & Carlos Romero, 2007. "Inferring consensus weights from pairwise comparison matrices without suitable properties," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 154(1), pages 123-132, October.
    4. Roger Chapman Burk & Richard M. Nehring, 2023. "An Empirical Comparison of Rank-Based Surrogate Weights in Additive Multiattribute Decision Analysis," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 20(1), pages 55-72, March.
    5. 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.
    6. Maria del Mar Casanovas-Rubio & Bernat Vinolas, 2024. "New method for assigning cardinal weights in multi-criteria decision-making: the constant weight ratio method," Operational Research, Springer, vol. 24(2), pages 1-33, June.
    7. Ahn, Byeong Seok, 2017. "Approximate weighting method for multiattribute decision problems with imprecise parameters," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 87-95.
    8. de Almeida Filho, Adiel T. & Clemente, Thárcylla R.N. & Morais, Danielle Costa & de Almeida, Adiel Teixeira, 2018. "Preference modeling experiments with surrogate weighting procedures for the PROMETHEE method," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 264(2), pages 453-461.
    9. Amenta, Pietro & Lucadamo, Antonio & Marcarelli, Gabriella, 2021. "On the choice of weights for aggregating judgments in non-negotiable AHP group decision making," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 288(1), pages 294-301.
    10. Carmona-Torres, Carmen & Parra-López, Carlos & Hinojosa-Rodríguez, Ascensión & Sayadi, Samir, 2014. "Farm-level multifunctionality associated with farming techniques in olive growing: An integrated modeling approach," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 97-114.
    11. Jahangir Wasim & Vijay Vyas & Pietro Amenta & Antonio Lucadamo & Gabriella Marcarelli & Alessio Ishizaka, 2023. "Deriving the weights for aggregating judgments in a multi-group problem: an application to curriculum development in entrepreneurship," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 326(2), pages 853-877, July.
    12. 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.
    13. Ahn, Byeong Seok, 2011. "Compatible weighting method with rank order centroid: Maximum entropy ordered weighted averaging approach," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 212(3), pages 552-559, August.
    14. Baudry, Gino & Macharis, Cathy & Vallée, Thomas, 2018. "Range-based Multi-Actor Multi-Criteria Analysis: A combined method of Multi-Actor Multi-Criteria Analysis and Monte Carlo simulation to support participatory decision making under uncertainty," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 264(1), pages 257-269.
    15. Mehmet Ali Dereli & Emre Tercan, 2021. "Comparison of GIS-based surrogate weighting methods for multi-directional landfill site selection in West Mediterranean Planning Region in Turkey," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 23(3), pages 3438-3457, March.
    16. L. Sun & B. S. Greenberg, 2006. "Multicriteria Group Decision Making: Optimal Priority Synthesis from Pairwise Comparisons," Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications, Springer, vol. 130(2), pages 317-339, August.
    17. Vetschera, Rudolf & Chen, Ye & Hipel, Keith W. & Marc Kilgour, D., 2010. "Robustness and information levels in case-based multiple criteria sorting," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 202(3), pages 841-852, May.
    18. Alessandro Luè & Alberto Colorni, 2015. "Conflict Analysis for Environmental Impact Assessment: A Case Study of a Transportation System in a Tourist Area," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 24(4), pages 613-632, July.
    19. B S Ahn & S H Choi, 2008. "ERP system selection using a simulation-based AHP approach: a case of Korean homeshopping company," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 59(3), pages 322-330, March.
    20. te Boveldt, Geert & Van Raemdonck, Koen & Macharis, Cathy, 2018. "A new railway tunnel under Brussels? Assessing political feasibility and desirability with competence-based multi criteria analysis," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 30-39.

    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:grdene:v:25:y:2016:i:3:d:10.1007_s10726-015-9451-9. 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.