PROMETHEE for prioritized criteria
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.
KeywordsDecision making Multicriteria Prioritization PROMETHEE Outranking method
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.
This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- Sugeno M (1974) Theory of fuzzy integrals and its applications. PhD thesis, Tokyo Institute of TechnologyGoogle Scholar
- 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
- 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
- Wang YM (1998) Using the method of maximizing deviations to make decision for multi-indicies. J Syst Eng Electron 8(3):21–26Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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