Advertisement

PROMETHEE for prioritized criteria

  • Xiuli Qi
  • Xiaohan YuEmail author
  • Lei Wang
  • Xianglin Liao
  • Suojuan Zhang
Foundations

Abstract

In most cases, PROMETHEE method just applies to traditional multicriteria decision making (MCDM) problems with independent criteria. However, there exist more or less interdependences among criteria in actual situations. A special case is MCDM with prioritizations among criteria, called prioritized MCDM. In recent years, how to deal with MCDM problems in the environment of prioritized criteria becomes hot topic increasingly. Lots of existing methods, especially some methods based on aggregated operators, are modified for the prioritized MCDM. However, up to now, PROMETHEE methods are not very mature when used into prioritized MCDM problems. Therefore, our purpose is to modify traditional PROMETHEE methods according to prioritized MCDM after considering the characteristics of both PROMETHEE methods and prioritized criteria. Firstly, preference information is not static any longer for prioritized criteria, so we design an approach to weight the criteria dynamically based on a new concept—preference expectations. Furthermore, an ordered weighted averaging operator is used to generate pseudo-criteria for the situation of weakly ordered prioritizations. In such a case, the situation of weakly ordered prioritizations is transformed into that of strictly ones. After quantifying preference information properly, we can then calculate aggregated preference indices which are important intermediate outcomes for PROMETHEE to rank alternatives. An example, for assessing the strategic status of islands and reefs, is taken to illustrate the practicability and feasibility of our method.

Keywords

Decision making Multicriteria Prioritization PROMETHEE Outranking method 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This study was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant Nos. 71501186, 61702543, 61806221).

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

Authors Xiuli Qi, Xiaohan Yu, Lei Wang, Xianglin Liao, Suojuan Zhang declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

References

  1. Albadvi A, Chaharsooghi SK, Esfahanipour A (2007) Decision making in stock trading: an application of PROMETHEE. Eur J Oper Res 177(2):673–683.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2005.11.022 zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. Araz OU (2005) A simulation based multi-criteria scheduling approach of dual-resource constrained manufacturing systems with neural networks. In: Zhang S, Jarvis R (eds) AI 2005: advances in artificial intelligence—18th Australian joint conference on artificial intelligence, Sydney, Australia, December 5–9, 2005. Proceedings. Springer, Berlin, pp 1047–1052Google Scholar
  3. Batyrshin I, Kaynak O (1999) Parametric classes of generalized conjunction and disjunction operations for fuzzy modeling. IEEE Trans Fuzzy Syst 7(5):586–596Google Scholar
  4. Brans JP (1982) L’ingénièrie de la décision; elaboration d’instruments d’aide à la décision. la méthode PROMETHEE. In: Nadeau R, Landry M (eds) L’aide à la décision: Nature, Instruments et Perspectives d’Avenir, Presses de l’Université Laval. Canada, Québec, pp 183–213Google Scholar
  5. Brans JP, Mareschal B (1992) PROMETHEE V: MCDM problems with segmentation constraints. INFOR Inf Syst Oper Res 30(2):85–96.  https://doi.org/10.1080/03155986.1992.11732186 zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. Brans JP, Mareschal B (1995) The PROMETHEE VI procedure: how to differentiate hard from soft multicriteria problems. J Decis Syst 4(3):213–223.  https://doi.org/10.1080/12460125.1995.10511652 Google Scholar
  7. Brans JP, Mareschal B (2005) Promethee Methods. Springer, New York, pp 163–186.  https://doi.org/10.1007/0-387-23081-5_5 zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. Calizaya A, Meixner O, Bengtsson L, Berndtsson R (2010) Multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) for integrated water resources management (IWRM) in the Lake Poopo basin, Bolivia. Water Resour Manag 24(10):2267–2289Google Scholar
  9. Chen LH, Xu ZS (2015) A new prioritized multi-criteria outranking method: the prioritized PROMETHEE. J Intell Fuzzy Syst 29(5):2099–2110.  https://doi.org/10.3233/ifs-151686 Google Scholar
  10. Chen LH, Xu ZS, Yu XH (2014) Prioritized measure-guided aggregation operators. IEEE Trans Fuzzy Syst 22(5):1127–1138.  https://doi.org/10.1109/TFUZZ.2013.2282169 Google Scholar
  11. Figueira J, Greco S, Ehrogott M (2005) Multiple criteria decision analysis: state of the art surveys, International Series in Operations Research & Management Science, vol 78. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  12. Haq AN, Kannan G (2007) A hybrid normalised multi criteria decision making for the vendor selection in a supply chain model. Int J Manag Decis Mak 8(5/6):601–622Google Scholar
  13. Hwang CL, Yoon KP (1981) Multiple attribute decision making and applications. Springer, New YorkzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. Klement EP, Mesiar R, Pap E (2000) Triangular norms. Springer, DordrechtzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. Kolesárová A, Komorníková M (1999) Triangular norm-based iterative compensatory operators. Fuzzy Sets Syst 104(1):109–120.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0165-0114(98)00263-2 MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. Kolesárová A, Mayor G, Mesiar R (2007) Weighted ordinal means. Inf Sci 177(18):3822–3830.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2007.03.003 MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. Kuang H, Kilgour DM, Hipel KW (2015) Grey-based PROMETHEE II with application to evaluation of source water protection strategies. Inf Sci 294(10):376–389MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  18. Lei Q, Xu ZS, Bustince H, Fernandez J (2016) Intuitionistic fuzzy integrals based on Archimedean t-conorms and t-norms. Inf Sci 327(Supplement C):57–70.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2015.08.005 MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. Linkov I, Satterstrom FK, Steevens J, Ferguson E, Pleus RC (2007) Multi-criteria decision analysis and environmental risk assessment for nanomaterials. J Nanoparticle Res 9(4):543–554Google Scholar
  20. Mareschal B, Brans JP (1988) Geometrical representations for MCDA. Eur J Oper Res 34(1):69–77.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0377-2217(88)90456-0 MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  21. Murofushi T, Sugeno M (2000) Fuzzy measures and fuzzy integrals. Physica-Verlag Heidelberg, Berlin, Germany, pp 3–41zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  22. O’Hagan M (1987) Fuzzy decision aids. In: Proceedings of 21st Asilomar conference on signal, systems and computers, vol II. IEEE and Maple Press, Pacific Grove, pp 624–628Google Scholar
  23. Oussalah M (2003) On the use of Hamacher’s t-norms family for information aggregation. Inf Sci 153(Supplement C):107–154.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0020-0255(03)00072-0 MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  24. Petraš JC (1997) Ranking the sites for low- and intermediate-level radioactive waste disposal facilities in Croatia. Int Trans Oper Res 4(4):237–249.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0969-6016(97)00003-8 zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  25. Pohekar SD, Ramachandran M (2004) Application of multi-criteria decision making to sustainable energy planning—a review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 8(4):365–381Google Scholar
  26. Rodríguez A, Ortega F, Concepción R (2017) An intuitionistic method for the selection of a risk management approach to information technology projects. Inf Sci 375(Supplement C):202–218.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2016.09.053 Google Scholar
  27. Saaty TL (1980) The analytic hierarchy process. McGraw Hill Company, New YorkzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  28. Sugeno M (1974) Theory of fuzzy integrals and its applications. PhD thesis, Tokyo Institute of TechnologyGoogle Scholar
  29. Tsai WH, Chou WC (2010) Building an integrated multi-criteria decision-making model based on DEMATEL and ANP for selecting the risk management system of banking. Int J Manag Enterp Dev 8(4):358–382Google Scholar
  30. Wan SP, Xu GL, Dong JY (2017) Supplier selection using ANP and electre II in interval 2-tuple linguistic environment. Inf Sci 385–386:19–38Google Scholar
  31. Wang YM (1998) Using the method of maximizing deviations to make decision for multi-indicies. J Syst Eng Electron 8(3):21–26Google Scholar
  32. Wang G, Huang SH, Dismukes JP (2004) Product-driven supply chain selection using integrated multi-criteria decision-making methodology. Int J Prod Econ 91(1):1–15Google Scholar
  33. Wang JJ, Jing YY, Zhang CF, Zhao JH (2009) Review on multi-criteria decision analysis aid in sustainable energy decision-making. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 13(9):2263–2278Google Scholar
  34. Weng SQ, Huang GH, Li YP (2010) An integrated scenario-based multi-criteria decision support system for water resources management and planning—a case study in the Haihe River Basin. Expert Syst Appl 37(12):8242–8254Google Scholar
  35. Xu ZS (2005) An overview of methods for determining OWA weights: research articles. Int J Intell Syst 20(8):843–865zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  36. Yager RR (1988) On ordered weighted averaging aggregation operators in multicriteria decision making. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern Part B Cybern 18(1):183–190zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  37. Yager RR (2004) Modeling prioritized multicriteria decision making. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern Part B 34(6):2396–2404.  https://doi.org/10.1109/TSMCB.2004.837348 Google Scholar
  38. Yager RR (2008) Prioritized aggregation operators. Int J Approx Reason 48(1):263–274.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijar.2007.08.009 MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  39. Yager RR (2009) Prioritized OWA aggregation. Fuzzy Optim Decis Mak 8(3):245–262.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10700-009-9063-4 MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  40. Yager RR, Walker CL, Walker EA (2011) A prioritized measure for multi-criteria aggregation and its Shapley index. In: 2011 annual meeting of the North American Fuzzy Information Processing Society, pp 1–4.  https://doi.org/10.1109/NAFIPS.2011.5751955
  41. Yan HB, Huynh VN, Nakamori Y, Murai T (2011) On prioritized weighted aggregation in multi-criteria decision making. Expert Syst Appl 38(1):812–823Google Scholar
  42. Yoon PK, Hwang CL, Yoon K (1995) Multiple attribute decision making: an introduction. Sage University Paper Series on Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences. Sage Publications, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
  43. Yu XH, Xu ZS (2013) Prioritized intuitionistic fuzzy aggregation operators. Inf Fusion 14(1):108–116.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.inffus.2012.01.011 Google Scholar
  44. Yu XH, Xu ZS, Liu SS (2013a) Generalized prioritized multicriteria aggregation. Int J Intell Syst 28(12):1141–1161.  https://doi.org/10.1002/int.21622 Google Scholar
  45. Yu XH, Xu ZS, Liu SS (2013b) Prioritized multi-criteria decision making based on preference relations. Comput Ind Eng 66(1):104–115.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2013.06.007 Google Scholar
  46. Yu XH, Xu ZS, Ma Y (2013c) Prioritized multi-criteria decision making based on the idea of PROMETHEE. In: Shi Y, Xi Y, Wolcott P, Tian Y, Li J, Berg D, Chen Z, Herrera Viedma E, Kou G, Lee H, Peng Y, Yu L (eds) First international conference on information technology and quantitative management. Elsevier Science Bv, Procedia Computer Science, vol 17, pp 449–456.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2013.05.058
  47. Yu XH, Zhang SJ, Liao XL, Qi XL (2018) ELECTRE methods in prioritized MCDM environment. Inf Sci 424:301–316.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2017.09.061 MathSciNetGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.College of Command & Control EngineeringArmy Engineering UniversityNanjingChina
  2. 2.College of Communication EngineeringArmy Engineering UniversityNanjingChina

Personalised recommendations