IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/grdene/v32y2023i6d10.1007_s10726-023-09846-w.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Novel Multi-attribute Model to Select Appropriate Weighting Method in Decision Making, an Empirical Application in Petroleum Industry

Author

Listed:
  • Mohammad Ali Hatefi

    (Petroleum University of Technology (PUT))

  • Seyyed Abdollah Razavi

    (Petroleum University of Technology (PUT))

  • Vahid Abiri

    (National Iranian Oil Refining and Distribution Company)

Abstract

A Surrogate Weighting Method (SWM) is a type of the techniques to determine quantitative weights of the criteria in decision making. Briefly speaking, a SWM starts with ranking the criteria in the order of Decision Maker (DM)’s preference, and then estimates the weights of the criteria using a function based on rank positions of the criteria. Despite the existence of several SWMs in the literature, there is no manifest and reliable model to theoretically analyze them and to select the best-fit SWM. Hence, this paper establishes a set of reasonable and well-founded attributes to gauge different features of the SWMs. The paper also compares the existent SWMs from the view of the attributes. Finally, a guideline procedure to choose best-fit SWM is offered. The paper uses this procedure for weight estimation in a real-life project portfolio selection in petroleum industry.

Suggested Citation

  • Mohammad Ali Hatefi & Seyyed Abdollah Razavi & Vahid Abiri, 2023. "A Novel Multi-attribute Model to Select Appropriate Weighting Method in Decision Making, an Empirical Application in Petroleum Industry," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 32(6), pages 1351-1390, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:grdene:v:32:y:2023:i:6:d:10.1007_s10726-023-09846-w
    DOI: 10.1007/s10726-023-09846-w
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10726-023-09846-w
    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/s10726-023-09846-w?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. F. Hutton Barron & Bruce E. Barrett, 1996. "Decision Quality Using Ranked Attribute Weights," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 42(11), pages 1515-1523, November.
    2. Mats Danielson & Love Ekenberg, 2017. "A Robustness Study of State-of-the-Art Surrogate Weights for MCDM," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 26(4), pages 677-691, July.
    3. C. West Churchman & Russell L. Ackoff, 1954. "An Approximate Measure of Value," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 2(2), pages 172-187, May.
    4. Hesham K. Alfares & Salih O. Duffuaa, 2016. "Simulation-Based Evaluation of Criteria Rank-Weighting Methods in Multi-Criteria Decision-Making," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 15(01), pages 43-61, January.
    5. Özge Şahin Zorluoğlu & Özgür Kabak, 2020. "Weighted Cumulative Belief Degree Approach for Project Portfolio Selection," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 29(4), pages 679-722, August.
    6. Oancea, Bogdan & Andrei, Tudorel & Pirjol, Dan, 2017. "Income inequality in Romania: The exponential-Pareto distribution," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 469(C), pages 486-498.
    7. Marco Araújo & Love Ekenberg & Mats Danielson & João Confraria, 2022. "A Multi-Criteria Approach to Decision Making in Broadband Technology Selection," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 31(2), pages 387-418, April.
    8. Wade D. Cook & Moshe Kress, 1990. "A Data Envelopment Model for Aggregating Preference Rankings," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 36(11), pages 1302-1310, November.
    9. 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.
    10. Mohammad Ali Hatefi, 2023. "A Typology Scheme for the Criteria Weighting Methods in MADM," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 22(04), pages 1439-1488, July.
    11. Mats Danielson & Love Ekenberg, 2016. "The CAR Method for Using Preference Strength in Multi-criteria Decision Making," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 25(4), pages 775-797, July.
    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. Byeong Seok Ahn, 2024. "An Integrated Approach to Preferential Voting Models with Variable Weights for Rank Positions," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 33(3), pages 565-586, June.

    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. Luigi Fabbris & Manuela Scioni, 2021. "Pooling Rankings to Obtain a Set of Scores for a Composite Indicator of Erasmus + Mobility Effects," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 156(2), pages 481-497, August.
    2. Kunsch, Pierre L. & Ishizaka, Alessio, 2019. "A note on using centroid weights in additive multi-criteria decision analysis," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 277(1), pages 391-393.
    3. 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.
    4. Francesco Ciardiello & Andrea Genovese, 2023. "A comparison between TOPSIS and SAW methods," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 325(2), pages 967-994, June.
    5. Nadejda Komendantova & Leena Marashdeh & Love Ekenberg & Mats Danielson & Franziska Dettner & Simon Hilpert & Clemens Wingenbach & Kholoud Hassouneh & Ahmed Al-Salaymeh, 2020. "Water–Energy Nexus: Addressing Stakeholder Preferences in Jordan," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(15), pages 1-16, July.
    6. Dong, Yucheng & Liu, Yating & Liang, Haiming & Chiclana, Francisco & Herrera-Viedma, Enrique, 2018. "Strategic weight manipulation in multiple attribute decision making," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 154-164.
    7. 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.
    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. Milad Zamanifar & Timo Hartmann, 2021. "A prescriptive framework for recommending decision attributes of infrastructure disaster recovery problems," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 41(4), pages 633-650, December.
    10. 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.
    11. Amin Mahmoudi & Saad Ahmed Javed, 2023. "Uncertainty Analysis in Group Decisions through Interval Ordinal Priority Approach," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 32(4), pages 807-833, August.
    12. Llamazares, Bonifacio, 2024. "Ranking voting systems and surrogate weights: Explicit formulas for centroid weights," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 317(3), pages 967-976.
    13. Tobias Fasth & Samuel Bohman & Aron Larsson & Love Ekenberg & Mats Danielson, 2020. "Portfolio Decision Analysis for Evaluating Stakeholder Conflicts in Land Use Planning," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 29(2), pages 321-343, April.
    14. 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.
    15. Pishchulov, Grigory & Trautrims, Alexander & Chesney, Thomas & Gold, Stefan & Schwab, Leila, 2019. "The Voting Analytic Hierarchy Process revisited: A revised method with application to sustainable supplier selection," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 211(C), pages 166-179.
    16. Adler, Nicole & Friedman, Lea & Sinuany-Stern, Zilla, 2002. "Review of ranking methods in the data envelopment analysis context," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 140(2), pages 249-265, July.
    17. Che khairil Izam Che Ibrahim & Seosamh B. Costello & Suzanne Wilkinson, 2013. "Development of a conceptual team integration performance index for alliance projects," Construction Management and Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 31(11), pages 1128-1143, November.
    18. Lichner, Ivan & Lyócsa, Štefan & Výrostová, Eva, 2022. "Nominal and discretionary household income convergence: The effect of a crisis in a small open economy," Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 18-31.
    19. Podinovski, Vladislav V., 2020. "Maximum likelihood solutions for multicriterial choice problems," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 286(1), pages 299-308.
    20. Paul L. Goethals & Natalie M. Scala, 2018. "Eliminating the Weakest Link Approach to Army Unit Readiness," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 15(2), pages 110-130, June.

    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:32:y:2023:i:6:d:10.1007_s10726-023-09846-w. 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.