When is a Decision-Making Method Trustworthy? Criteria for Evaluating Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Methods

被引:138
作者
Saaty, Thomas L. [1 ]
Ergu, Daji [2 ]
机构
[1] Univ Pittsburgh, Grad Sch Business, Pittsburgh, PA 15260 USA
[2] Southwest Univ Nationalities, Chengdu 610041, Peoples R China
基金
中国国家自然科学基金;
关键词
Multi-criteria decision-making methods; conflicting criteria; decision problems; evaluation; ROUGH APPROXIMATION; MCDM METHODS; VIKOR; HIERARCHY; CHOICE; SELECT; GREY;
D O I
10.1142/S021962201550025X
中图分类号
TP18 [人工智能理论];
学科分类号
081104 ; 0812 ; 0835 ; 1405 ;
摘要
Decision makers often face complicated decision problems with intangible and conflicting criteria. Numerous multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) methods have been proposed to handle the measurement of the priorities of conflicting tangible/intangible criteria and in turn use them to choose the best alternative for a decision. However, the presence of many MCDM methods bewilders users. The existence of these methods becomes a decision problem in itself, and decision makers may be uncertain about which one to use. Thus the comparative analysis and evaluation of various MCDM methods has come under scrutiny by both researchers and practitioners in order to discover if there are logical, mathematical, social or practical reasons why one method is better than another. Criteria for their evaluation are the first important issue that needs to be resolved. In this paper, 16 criteria are introduced that may be used to judge and evaluate various MCDM methods. The criteria proposed and some guidelines for their evaluation are given to help readers evaluate these MCDM methods.
引用
收藏
页码:1171 / 1187
页数:17
相关论文
共 81 条
[1]   ON THE POSSIBLE MERGING FUNCTIONS [J].
ACZEL, J ;
ROBERTS, FS .
MATHEMATICAL SOCIAL SCIENCES, 1989, 17 (03) :205-243
[2]   Comparative analysis of MCDM methods for pipe material selection in sugar industry [J].
Anojkumar, L. ;
Ilangkumaran, M. ;
Sasirekha, V. .
EXPERT SYSTEMS WITH APPLICATIONS, 2014, 41 (06) :2964-2980
[3]  
[Anonymous], 2008, GLOBAL SENSITIVITY A, DOI DOI 10.1002/9780470725184.CH4
[4]  
[Anonymous], 1981, Methods for multiple attribute decision making, DOI DOI 10.1007/978-3-642-48318-93
[5]  
[Anonymous], EINSTEINS SPACE VANG
[6]  
[Anonymous], 1976, Decisions with Multiple Objectives: Preference and Value Tradeoffs
[7]  
Bana e Costa C. A., 1994, International Transactions in Operational Research, V1, P489
[8]  
Brans JP, 2005, INT SER OPER RES MAN, V78, P163, DOI 10.1007/b100605
[9]   HOW TO SELECT AND HOW TO RANK PROJECTS - THE PROMETHEE METHOD [J].
BRANS, JP ;
VINCKE, P ;
MARESCHAL, B .
EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF OPERATIONAL RESEARCH, 1986, 24 (02) :228-238
[10]  
Buchanan JT, 1997, J OPER RES SOC, V48, P202, DOI 10.1038/sj.jors.2600349