Benha Unversity

Benha faculty of engineering

Multi-Criteria Decision Making: An

Operations Research Approach

Prof : Ebrahim Sapry

Mostafa Rabea Ahmed

This study reviewed a total of 393 articles published from 2000 to 2014 in more than 120 peer
reviewed journals (extracted from Web of Science). According to experts’ opinion, these articles
were grouped into 15 fields. Furthermore, these articles were categorised based on authors,
publication date, name of journals, methods, tools, and type of research (MCDM utilising
research, MCDM developing research, and MCDM proposing research). The results of this
study indicated that in 2013 scholars have published articles more than in other years. In
addition, the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) method in the individual tools and hybrid MCDM
in the integrated methods were ranked as the first and second methods in use. Additionally,
the European Journal of Operational Research as the first journal with 70 publications was the
significant journal in this study. Finally, energy, environment and sustainability were ranked as
the first areas that have applied MCDM techniques and approaches.

Introduction:-
In this article, the literature related to the descriptors of MCDM has been reviewed
comprehensively using academic databases of Web of Science. Following a methodological
decision analysis on the whole collected articles, a total of 393 international journal articles
published from 2000 to 2014 were reviewed. This article attempts to answer the following
questions: (1) which decision-making (DM) techniques have been used?; (2) Which type of
study has been conducted on these MCDM techniques?; (3) Which one of the 15 fields (Energy,
environment and sustainability, Supply chain management, Material, Quality management, GIS,
construction and project management, safety and risk management, manufacturing systems,
technology management, operation research and soft computing, strategic management,
knowledge management, production management, tourism management and other fields) has
further used these MCDM techniques

Field of category :-

Due to wide range of applications of MCDM in the real world, there is a strong motivation to
categorise these applications across several areas and particular sub-areas. The studies that
have used MCDM are categorised into three groups: MCDM utilising research, MCDM
developing research, and MCDM proposing research. To identify the differences and
similarities, the 393 articles were categorised into the 15 fields we have previously mentioned.
In cases of articles that could fall into more than one category, based on the targeted audience
defined by the article’s objectives, the best possible choice was selected. This ensured the
absence of any duplication in the classification scheme. In the following sections, the articles
are briefly presented and each topic is further summarised using tables corresponding to their
sub-areas. In each table, the articles are summarised and highlighted according to their
introductions, research methods, and the results of the study. Similarly, previous studies (e.g.,
Behzadian, Khanmohammadi Otaghsara, Yazdani, and Ignatius (2012)) have categorised
TOPSIS articles based on area of applications like manufacturing systems, supply chain issue,
business and management, human resource management, energy and safety, environmental
science and so on.

Operation research, soft computing and other fields:-

In fields of operation research and soft computing some of previous studies have developed,
proposed and presented the MCDM techniques and approaches. Most of these previous studies
have attempt to solving problems in DM techniques and approaches. For example in case of
developed AHP technique; (Lin, Wang, Yu, 2008; Lai, Wang, Wang, 2008; Hu & Tsai, 2006;
Bortot & Marques Pereira, 2013), in the case of the TOPSIS method (Liu, Chan, & Ran, 2013;
Shidpour, Shahrokhi, & Bernard, 2013; Jahanshahloo, Lotfi, & Izadikhah, 2006a; Zhang &
Yu, 2012; Baky, 2014; García-Cascales & Lamata, 2012), DEMATEL technique (Li &
Tzeng, 2009), ELECTRE (Figueira, Greco, Roy, & Słowiński, 2013), (Leyva-López &
Fernández-González, 2003), PROMETHEE (Zhang, Fan, & Liu, 2010; Ishizaka &
Nemery, 2011; Hu, 2010), ANP (Khademi, Mohaymany, Shahi, Zerguini, 2012; Lin, Chen, &
Ting, 2010), and VIKOR (Sayadi, Heydari, & Shahanaghi, 2009; Ju & Wang, 2013; Liu, Mao,
Zhang, & Li, 2013). Operation research and soft computing fields had the first rank in these
categories, in these fields; 109 previous scholars (27.74%) have applied MCDM techniques and
approaches.

CONCLUSION :-

Numerous MCDM methods have been created and utilized over the last several decades. Based on the
literature reviewed, the observed advantages and advantages, as well as areas of application for each
method, are summarized in Table

1. Most have seen a common pattern of improvement and evolution, such as the transition from MAVT
to MAUT and, to an extent, AHP to ANP. Outranking methods, like ELECTRE and PROMETHEE, which were
prevalent early on in the development of the MCDA field, were overtaken by the use of value
measurement approaches such as AHP, ANP, and MAUT. In recent years, because of ease of use due to
advancing technologies, combining different methods has become commonplace in MCDA. The
combination of multiple methods addresses deficiencies that may be seen in certain methods. These
methods, along with the methods in their original forms, can be extremely successful in their applications,
but only if their strengths and weaknesses are properly assessed. Certain problems could easily utilize a
method that may not be best suited to solve it. This paper assessed the more common methods of MCDM
in order to benefit practitioners to choose a method for solving a specific problem. Identification of
common MCDM methods and identification of strengths and weaknesses is a major step in establishing
the foundation of research in this area, but it is only the first step. This research could lead to a survey of
users to assess which advantages and disadvantages are more prevalent for each method. The industry
could then begin to research new methods which utilize and incorporate advantages, while accounting
for or altogether eliminating disadvantages

REFERENCES :-

1. Belton, V., and T. Gear, "On a short-coming of Saaty's method of analytic hierarchies," Omega, 228-
230,1983.

2. Benayoun, R., B. Roy, and N. Sussman, "Manual de reference du programme electre, Note de Synthese
et Formation," No. 25, Direction Scientifique SEMA, Paris, Franch, 1966.

3. Boucher, T.O. and E.L. McStravic, "Multi-attribute Evaluation Within a Present Value Framework and its
Relation to the Analytic Hierarchy Process," The Engineering Economist, 37, 55-71, 1991.

4. Bridgman, P.W., Dimensional Analysis, Yale University Press, New Haven, CN, 1922.

5. Cambron, K.E. and G.W. Evans, "Layout Design Using the Analytic Hierarchy Process," Computers
&Industrial Engineering, 20, 221-229, 1991

6. Chen, S.J. and C.L. Hwang, Fuzzy Multiple Attribute Decision Making: Methods and Applications,Lecture
Notes in Economics and Mathematical Systems, No. 375, Sringer-Verlag, Berlin, Germany, 1992.

7. Chu, A.T.W., R.E. Kalaba, and K. Spingarn, "A comparison of two methods for determining the weightsof
belonging to fuzzy sets," Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications, 27, 531-538, 1979.

9. Dantzig, G.B., Linear programming and extensions. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 1963.

10. Evans, J.R. "Sensitivity analysis in decision theory," Decision Sciences, 1(15), 239-247, 1984.

11. Federov, V.V., V.B. Kuz'min, and A.I. Vereskov, "Membership degrees determination from Saaty matrix
totalities," Institute for System Studies, Moscow, USSR. Paper appeared in: Approximate Reasoning in
Decision Analysis, M.M. Gupta, and E. Sanchez (editors), North-Holland Publishing Company, 23-30,1982.

12. Fishburn, P.C., Additive Utilities with Incomplete Product Set: Applications to Priorities and
Assignments, Operations Research Society of America (ORSA) Publication, Baltimore, MD, 1967.

13. Hwang C.L. and K. Yoon, Multiple Attribute Decision Making: Methods and Applications, Springer-
Verlag, New York, NY, 1981.
14. Kuhn, H.W. and A.W. Tucker, "Nonlinear Programming," Proc. 2nd Berkeley Symp. Math. Stat. Prob.,
481-492, 1951.

15. Lootsma, F.A., "Numerical scaling of human judgment in pairwise-comparison methods for fuzzy multi-
criteria decision analysis," Mathematical Models for Decision Support. NATO ASI Series F, Computer and
System Sciences, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Germany, 48, 57-88, 1988.

16. Lootsma, F.A., T.C.A. Mensch, and F.A. Vos, "Multi-criteria analysis and budget reallocation in long-
term research planning," European Journal of Operational Research, 47, 293-305, 1990.

17. Lootsma, F.A., "The French and the American school in multi- criteria decision analysis," Recherche
Operationnele / Operations Research, 24(3), 263-285, 1990.

18. Ma, D. and X. Zheng, "9/9-9/1 scale method of the AHP," Proceedings of the 2nd International
Symposium on the AHP, Vol. 1, Pittsburgh, PA, 197-202, 1991.

19. Marks, L.E., Sensory Processes, The New Psychophysics, Academic Press, New York, NY, 1974.

20. Masuda, T. "Hierarchical sensitivity analysis of the priorities used in the Analytic Hierarchy Process,"
Systems Science, 21(2), 415-427, 1990.

21. Michon, J.A., E.G.J. Eijkman, and L.F.W. de Klerk, Handboek der Psychonomie, (in Dutch), Van Loghum
Slaterus, Deventer, The Netherlands, 1976.

22. Miller, D.W., and M.K. Starr, Executive Decisions and Operations Research, Prentice-Hall, Inc.,
Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1969.