Advertisement

SMAA-TRI

A Parameter Stability Analysis Method for ELECTRE TRI
  • T. Tervonen
  • R. Lahdelma
  • J. Almeida Dias
  • J. Figueira
  • P. Salminen
Part of the NATO Security through Science Series book series (NASTC)

Abstract

ELECTRE TRI is a multiple criteria decision aiding sorting method with a history of successful real-life applications. ELECTRE TRI requires as input severalparameters, such as criteria weights, thresholds, category profiles, and lambda cutting level. We propose the SMAA-TRI method for analyzing the stability ofELECTRE TRI analysis and for deriving robust conclusions. SMAA-TRI is based on Stochastic Multicriteria Acceptability Analysis (SMAA), and it allowsELECTRE TRI to be used with imprecise, arbitrarily distributed values for weights and the lambda cutting level. The method computes for each alternative action theshare of parameter values that have it assigned to different categories. We list some potential military applications. To demonstrate SMAA-TRI, we re-analyze a casestudy in the field of risk assessment and management.

Keywords

Operational Research Feasible Parameter Multiple Criterion Decision Analysis Multicriteria Decision Analysis Land Mine Detection 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Barnes J., Wiley V., Moore J., and Ryer D. 2004. Solving the aerial fleet refueling problem using group theoretic tabu search. Mathematical and Computer Modelling 39(6–8), 617–640.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Berkson J. 1944. Application of the logistic function to bio-assay. Journal of American Statistical Association 39, 357–365.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bliss C. 1934. The methods of probits. Science 79, 38–39.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Chen S. 1996. Evaluating weapon systems using fuzzy arithmetic operations. Fuzzy Sets and Systems 77(3), 265–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cheng C. 1996. Evaluating naval tactical missile systems by fuzzy AHP based on the grade value of membership function. European Journal of Operational Research 96(2), 343–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cheng C. 1999. Evaluating weapon systems using ranking fuzzy numbers. Fuzzy Sets and Systems 107(1), 25–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cheng C. and Lin Y. 2002. Evaluating the best main battle tank using fuzzy decision theory with linguistic criteria evaluation. European Journal of Operational Research 142(1), 174–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    De Leeneer, I. and Pastijn H. 2002. Selecting land mine detection strategies by means of outranking MCDM techniques. European Journal of Operational Research 139(2), 327–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dias L. and Clímaco J. 1999. On computing ELECTREs credibility indices under partial information. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis 8(2), 74–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dias, L. and Clímaco J. 2000. ELECTRE TRI for groups with imprecise information on parameter values. Group Decision and Negotiation 9(5), 355–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Dias L. and Mousseau V. 2004. Inferring Electres veto-related parameters from outranking examples. European Journal of Operational Research 170(1), 172–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Dias L., Mousseau V., Figueira J. and Clímaco J. 2002. An aggregation/disaggregation approach to obtain robust conclusions with ELECTRE TRI. European Journal of Operational Research 138(2), 332–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Doumpos M. and Zopounidis C. 2002. Multicriteria Decision Aid Classification Methods, Vol. 73. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht. Preprint for NATO ARW, Thessaloniki 20–24 April, 2005.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Durbach I. 2005. A simulation-based test of stochastic multicriteria acceptability analysis using achievement functions. European Journal of Operational Research 170(3), 923–934.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Figueira J., Greco S., and Ehrgott M. (eds.) 2005a. Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis: State of the Art Surveys. New York: Springer Science+Business Media, Inc.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Figueira J., Mousseau V., and Roy B. 2005b. ELECTRE methods. Capter 4 In Figueira J., Greco S., and Ehrgott M. (eds.): Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis: State of the Art Surveys. New York: Springer Science+Business Media, Inc.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Figueira J. and Roy B. 2002. Determining the weights of criteria in the ELECTRE type methods with a revised Simos procedure. European Journal of Operational Research 139(2), 317–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Fisher R. 1936. The use of multiple measurements in taxonomic problems. Annals of Eugenics 7, 179–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Haapalinna I. 2003. How to allocate funds within the army. European Journal of Operational Research 144(1), 224–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hokkanen, J. and Salminen P. 1997. Choosing a solid waste management system using multicriteria decision analysis. European Journal of Operational Research 98(1), 19–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Jaiswal N., Sangeeta Y., and Gaur S. 1995. Stochastic analysis of combat models under different termination decision rules. European Journal of Operational Research 83(3), 530–546.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kim S., Ahn B., and Choi S. 1997. An efficient force planning system using multi-objective linear goal programming. Computers & Operations Research 24(6), 569–580.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Lahdelma R., Hokkanen J., and Salminen P. 1998. SMAA - Stochastic multiobjective acceptability analysis. European Journal of Operational Research 106(1), 137–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Lahdelma R., Miettinen K., and Salminen P. 2003. Ordinal criteria in stochastic multicriteria acceptability analysis (SMAA). European Journal of Operational Research 147(1), 117–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Lahdelma R., Miettinen K., and K. Salminen K. 2005. Reference point approach for multiple decision makers. European Journal of Operational Research 164(3), 785–791.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Lahdelma R. and Salminen P. 2001. SMAA-2: Stochastic multicriteria acceptability analysis for group decision making. Operations Research 49(3), 444–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Lahdelma R. and Salminen P. 2006. Stochastic multicriteria acceptability analysis using the data envelopment model. European Journal of Operational Research 170(1), 241–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Masud A., Metcalf P., and Hommertzheim D. 1995. A knowledge-based model management system for aircraft survivability analysis. European Journal of Operational Research 84(1), 47–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Merad M., Verdel T., Roy B., and Kouniali S. 2004. Use of multi-criteria decisionaids for risk zoning and management of large area subjected to mining-indiced hazards. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 19, 125–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Mousseau V. 1995. Eliciting information concerning the relative importance of criteria. In Y. Pardalos, C. Siskos, and C. Zopounidis (eds.): Advances in Multicriteria analysis. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, 17–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Mousseau V., Dias L., and Figueira J. 2004. Dealing with inconsistent judgements in multiple criteria sorting models. Research Report 17/2004 of The Institute of Systems Engineering and Computers (INESC-Coimbra), Coimbra, Portugal. http://www.inescc.pt.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Mousseau V., Figueira J., Dias L., Gomes da Silva C., and Clímaco J. 2003. Resolving inconsistencies among constraints on the parameters of an MCDA model. European Journal of Operational Research 147(1), 72–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Mousseau V., Figueira J., and Naux J. 2001. Using assignment examples to infer weights for ELECTRE TRI method: Some experimental results. European Journal of Operational Research 130(2), 263–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Mousseau V. and Slowinski R. 1998. Inferring an ELECTRE TRI model from assignment examples. Journal of Global Optimization 12(2), 157–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Mousseau V., Slowinski R., and Zielniewicz P. 2000. A user-oriented implementation of the ELECTRE-TRI method integrating preference elicitation support. Computers & Operations Research 27(7–8), 757–777.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Ngo The A. and Mousseau V. 2002. Using assignment examples to infer category limits for the ELECTRE TRI method. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis 11, 29–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Richbourg R. and Olson W. 1996. A hybrid expert system that combines technologies to address the problem of military terrain analysis. Expert Systems with Applications: An International Journal 11(2), 207–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Rogers M. and Bruen M. 1998. A new system for weighting environmental criteria for use within ELECTRE III. European Journal of Operational Research 107(2), 552–563.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Roy B. 2002. Robustesse de quoi et vis-à-vis de quoi mais aussi robustesse pourquoi en aide à la décision ?. Newsletter of the European Working Group on Multiple Criteria Decision Aiding, Series 3, Number 6.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Roy B. 2005. A propos de robustesse en recherche opérationelle et aide à la décision, Chapt. 2. In J. Billaut, A. Moukrim and E. Sanlaville (Eds.), Flexibilité et Robustesse en Ordonnancement (forthcoming).Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Smith C. 1947. Some examples of discrimination. Annals of Eugenics 13, 272–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Tervonen T., Almeida-Dias J., Figueira J., Lahdelma R., and Salminen P. 2005. SMAA-TRI: A Parameter Stability Analysis Method for ELECTRE TRI. Research Report 6/2005 of The Institute of Systems Engineering and Computers (INESCCoimbra), Coimbra, Portugal. http://www.inescc.pt.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Tervonen T., Figueira J., Lahdelma R., and Salminen P. 2004. An Inverse Approach for ELECTRE III. Research Report 20/2004 of The Institute of Systems Engineering and Computers (INESCCoimbra), Coimbra, Portugal. http://www.inescc.pt.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Washburn A. 1994. Military Operations Research. In: S. Pollock, M. Rothkopf, and A. Barnett (eds.): Operations Research and the Public Sector, Vol. 6 of Handbooks in Operations Research and Management Science. Amsterdam: North-Holland (Elsevier Science B. V.), Chapt. 4, 67–106.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Yu W. 1992. Aide multicritère à la décision dans le cadre de la problématique du tri : Concepts, méthodes et applications. Ph.D. thesis, Université Paris-Dauphine.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • T. Tervonen
    • 1
    • 2
  • R. Lahdelma
    • 1
    • 2
  • J. Almeida Dias
    • 3
  • J. Figueira
    • 4
  • P. Salminen
    • 5
  1. 1.Centre for Management Studies,Instituto Superior TécnicoPorto SalvoTécnico
  2. 2.Department of Information TechnologyUniversity of TurkuPorto SalvoPortugal
  3. 3.Centre for Management Studies, Instituto Superior TécnicoPorto SalvoPortugal
  4. 4.Centre for Management Studies, Instituto Superior TécnicoPorto SalvoPortugal
  5. 5.University of JyväskyläSchool of Business and EconomicsFinland

Personalised recommendations