A Comparative Analysis of CE-Topsis and CE-Maut Methods

2020 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
pp. 18-51
Author(s):  
Hakan Altin
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Comparative Analysis ◽  
Multi Criteria Decision Making ◽  
Positive Direction ◽  
Entropy Methods ◽  
The Third ◽  
First Finding ◽  
Close Relationship ◽  
Analysis Of Performance ◽  
Performance Ranking

The key objective of this study is to conduct a comparative analysis of performance ranking results of the two multi-criteria decision-making methods, namely TOPSIS and MAUT. In this study, the CRITIC and ENTROPY methods were utilized as objective weighting techniques. In the application part of this study, three salient findings were attained. The first finding was that of the close relationship between TOPSIS ranking conducted by CRITIC and ENTROPY methods. The second finding was that of the close relationship between the MAUT ranking conducted by the CRITIC and ENTROPY methods. The third finding was that of the mutual and significant relationship in a positive direction between the performance ranking results obtained by TOPSIS and MAUT methods. In other words, TOPSIS and MAUT methods give the same performance ranking results. The results found are statistically significant.

Complex q-rung orthopair fuzzy Schweizer–Sklar Muirhead mean aggregation operators and their application in multi-criteria decision-making

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-23
Author(s):  
Peide Liu ◽  
Tahir Mahmood ◽  
Zeeshan Ali
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Comparative Analysis ◽  
Imaginary Part ◽  
Fuzzy Set ◽  
Score Function ◽  
Aggregation Operators ◽  
Unit Interval ◽  
Multi Criteria Decision Making ◽  
Accuracy Function ◽  
Special Cases

Complex q-rung orthopair fuzzy set (CQROFS) is a proficient technique to describe awkward and complicated information by the truth and falsity grades with a condition that the sum of the q-powers of the real part and imaginary part is in unit interval. Further, Schweizer–Sklar (SS) operations are more flexible to aggregate the information, and the Muirhead mean (MM) operator can examine the interrelationships among the attributes, and it is more proficient and more generalized than many aggregation operators to cope with awkward and inconsistence information in realistic decision issues. The objectives of this manuscript are to explore the SS operators based on CQROFS and to study their score function, accuracy function, and their relationships. Further, based on these operators, some MM operators based on PFS, called complex q-rung orthopair fuzzy MM (CQROFMM) operator, complex q-rung orthopair fuzzy weighted MM (CQROFWMM) operator, and their special cases are presented. Additionally, the multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) approach is developed by using the explored operators based on CQROFS. Finally, the advantages and comparative analysis are also discussed.

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

2015 ◽  
Vol 14 (06) ◽  
pp. 1171-1187 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas L. Saaty ◽  
Daji Ergu
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Comparative Analysis ◽  
Decision Problem ◽  
Decision Makers ◽  
Decision Problems ◽  
Practical Reasons ◽  
Multi Criteria Decision Making ◽  
Analysis And Evaluation ◽  
Better Than

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.

scholarly journals A NEW LOGARITHM METHODOLOGY OF ADDITIVE WEIGHTS (LMAW) FOR MULTI-CRITERIA DECISION-MAKING: APPLICATION IN LOGISTICS

2021 ◽  
Vol 19 (3) ◽  
pp. 361
Author(s):  
Dragan Pamučar ◽  
Mališa Žižović ◽  
Sanjib Biswas ◽  
Darko Božanić
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Comparative Analysis ◽  
Outcome Variable ◽  
Multi Criteria Decision Making ◽  
Competitive Growth ◽  
Reversal Problem ◽  
Rank Reversal ◽  
Logistics Service Provider ◽  
Operational Metrics

Logistics management has been playing a significant role in ensuring competitive growth of industries and nations. This study proposes a new Multi-Criteria Decision-making (MCDM) framework for evaluating operational efficiency of logistics service provider (LSP). We present a case study of comparative analysis of six leading LSPs in India using our proposed framework. We consider three operational metrics such as annual overhead expense (OE), annual fuel consumption (FC) and cost of delay (CoD, two qualitative indicators such as innovativeness (IN) which basically indicates process innovation and average customer rating (CR)and one outcome variable such as turnover (TO) as the criteria for comparative analysis. The result shows that the final ranking is a combined effect of all criteria. However, it is evident that IN largely influences the ranking. We carry out a comparative analysis of the results obtained from our proposed method with that derived by using existing established frameworks. We find that our method provides consistent results; it is more stable and does not suffer from rank reversal problem.

A comparative analysis of multi-criteria decision-making methods

2016 ◽  
Vol 5 (4) ◽  
pp. 315-322 ◽  
Author(s):  
Blanca Ceballos ◽  
María Teresa Lamata ◽  
David A. Pelta
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Comparative Analysis ◽  
Multi Criteria Decision Making
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document