Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

An Interval-Valued Hesitant Fuzzy TOPSIS Method to Determine the Criteria Weights

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Outlooks and Insights on Group Decision and Negotiation (GDN 2015)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing ((LNBIP,volume 218))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

In a multi-criteria group decision analysis, numerous methods have been developed and proposed to determine the weight of each criterion; however, the group decision methods, except AHP, have rarely considered for obtaining the criteria weights. This study presents a new TOPSIS method based on interval-valued hesitant fuzzy information to compute the criteria weights. In this respect, the weight of each expert and the experts’ judgments about the criteria weights are considered in the proposed procedure. In addition, an application example about the location problem is provided to show the capability of the proposed weighting method. Finally, results of the proposed method are compared with some methods from the related literature in the presented illustrative example to show the validation of the proposed interval-valued hesitant fuzzy TOPSIS method.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Ahn, B.S., Park, K.S.: Comparing methods for multiattribute decision making with ordinal weights. Comput. Oper. Res. 35(5), 1660–1670 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Barron, F.H., Barrett, B.E.: Decision quality using ranked attribute weights. Manage. Sci. 42(11), 1515–1523 (1996)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Solymosi, T., Dombi, J.: A method for determining the weights of criteria: the centralized weights. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 26(1), 35–41 (1986)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Bottomley, P.A., Doyle, J.R.: A comparison of three weight elicitation methods: good, better, and best. Omega 29(6), 553–560 (2001)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Goodwin, P., Wright, G., Phillips, L.D.: Decision Analysis for Management Judgment. Wiley, London (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Tzeng, G.-H., Huang, J.-J.: Multiple Attribute Decision Making: Methods and Applications. CRC Press, New York (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Takeda, E., Cogger, K., Yu, P.: Estimating criterion weights using eigenvectors: a comparative study. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 29(3), 360–369 (1987)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Roberts, R., Goodwin, P.: Weight approximations in multi-attribute decision models. J. Multi-Criteria Decis. Anal. 11(6), 291–303 (2002)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Doyle, J.R., Green, R.H., Bottomley, P.A.: Judging relative importance: direct rating and point allocation are not equivalent. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 70(1), 65–72 (1997)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Horsky, D., Rao, M.: Estimation of attribute weights from preference comparisons. Manage. Sci. 30(7), 801–822 (1984)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Srinivasan, V., Shocker, A.D.: Linear programming techniques for multidimensional analysis of preferences. Psychometrika 38(3), 337–369 (1973)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Xu, X.: A note on the subjective and objective integrated approach to determine attribute weights. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 156(2), 530–532 (2004)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Wu, Z., Chen, Y.: The maximizing deviation method for group multiple attribute decision making under linguistic environment. Fuzzy Sets Syst. 158(14), 1608–1617 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Wei, G.-W.: Maximizing deviation method for multiple attribute decision making in intuitionistic fuzzy setting. Knowl.-Based Syst. 21(8), 833–836 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Deng, H., Yeh, C.-H., Willis, R.J.: Inter-company comparison using modified TOPSIS with objective weights. Comput. Oper. Res. 27(10), 963–973 (2000)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Wang, Y.-M., Luo, Y.: Integration of correlations with standard deviations for determining attribute weights in multiple attribute decision making. Math. Comput. Modell. 51(1), 1–12 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Ma, J., Fan, Z.-P., Huang, L.-H.: A subjective and objective integrated approach to determine attribute weights. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 112(2), 397–404 (1999)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Mousavi, S.M., Torabi, S.A., Tavakkoli-Moghaddam, R.: A hierarchical group decision-making approach for new product selection in a fuzzy environment. Arab. J. Sci. Eng. 38(11), 3233–3248 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Mousavi, S.M., Jolai, F., Tavakkoli-Moghaddam, R.: A fuzzy stochastic multi-attribute group decision-making approach for selection problems. Group Decis. Negot. 22(2), 207–233 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Vahdani, B., Tavakkoli-Moghaddam, R., Mousavi, S.M., Ghodratnama, A.: Soft computing based on new interval-valued fuzzy modified multi-criteria decision-making method. Appl. Soft Comput. 13(1), 165–172 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Vahdani, B., Zandieh, M.: Selecting suppliers using a new fuzzy multiple criteria decision model: the fuzzy balancing and ranking method. Int. J. Prod. Res. 48(18), 5307–5326 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Parreiras, R., et al.: A flexible consensus scheme for multicriteria group decision making under linguistic assessments. Inf. Sci. 180(7), 1075–1089 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Xu, Z.: Intuitionistic preference relations and their application in group decision making. Inf. Sci. 177(11), 2363–2379 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Hashemi, H., Bazargan, J., Mousavi, S.M.: A compromise ratio method with an application to water resources management: an intuitionistic fuzzy set. Water Resour. Manage 27(7), 2029–2051 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Torra, V., Narukawa, Y.: On hesitant fuzzy sets and decision. In: IEEE International Conference on Fuzzy Systems, 2009, FUZZ-IEEE 2009. IEEE (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  26. Torra, V.: Hesitant fuzzy sets. Int. J. Int. Syst. 25(6), 529–539 (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  27. Chen, N., Xu, Z., Xia, M.: Interval-valued hesitant preference relations and their applications to group decision making. Knowl.-Based Syst. 37, 528–540 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Wang, J.-q: Interval-valued hesitant fuzzy linguistic sets and their applications in multi-criteria decision-making problems. Knowl.-Based Syst. 288, 55–72 (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  29. Greco, S., Matarazzo, B., Giove, S.: The Choquet integral with respect to a level dependent capacity. Fuzzy Sets Syst. 175(1), 1–35 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Doria, S.: Characterization of a coherent upper conditional prevision as the Choquet integral with respect to its associated Hausdorff outer measure. Ann. Oper. Res. 195(1), 33–48 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Demirel, T., Demirel, N.Ç., Kahraman, C.: Multi-criteria warehouse location selection using Choquet integral. Expert Syst. Appl. 37(5), 3943–3952 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Wang, J.Q.: Multi-criteria outranking approach with hesitant fuzzy sets. OR Spectr. 36(4), 1–19 (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  33. Qin, J., Liu, X.: Study on interval intuitionistic fuzzy multi-attribute group decision making method based on Choquet integral. Procedia Comput. Sci. 17, 465–472 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Fan, Z.-P., Ma, J., Zhang, Q.: An approach to multiple attribute decision making based on fuzzy preference information on alternatives. Fuzzy Sets Syst. 131(1), 101–106 (2002)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Wang, Y.-M., Parkan, C.: A general multiple attribute decision-making approach for integrating subjective preferences and objective information. Fuzzy Sets Syst. 157(10), 1333–1345 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Chen, C.-F., Lee, C.-L.: Determining the attribute weights of professional conference organizer selection: an application of the fuzzy AHP approach. Tourism Econ. 17(5), 1129–1139 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Zhang, Y., Wang, Y., Wang, J.: Objective attributes weights determining based on shannon information entropy in hesitant fuzzy multiple attribute decision making. Math. Probl. Eng. 2014, 7 (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  38. Xu, Z., Zhang, X.: Hesitant fuzzy multi-attribute decision making based on TOPSIS with incomplete weight information. Knowl.-Based Syst. 52, 53–64 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Beg, I., Rashid, T.: TOPSIS for hesitant fuzzy linguistic term sets. Int. J. Intell. Syst. 28(12), 1162–1171 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Zhang, J.L., Qi, X.W., Huang, H.B.: A hesitant fuzzy multiple attribute group decision making approach based on TOPSIS for parts supplier selection. Appl. Mech. Mater. 357, 2730–2737 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Feng, X.: TOPSIS method for hesitant fuzzy multiple attribute decision making. J. Intell. Fuzzy Syst. 26(5), 2263–2269 (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  42. Jahanshahloo, G.R., Lotfi, F.H., Davoodi, A.: Extension of TOPSIS for decision-making problems with interval data: Interval efficiency. Math. Comput. Modell. 49(5), 1137–1142 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Yue, Z.: An extended TOPSIS for determining weights of decision makers with interval numbers. Knowl.-Based Syst. 24(1), 146–153 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This work has been supported financially by the Center for International Scientific Studies & Collaboration (CISSC) and the French Embassy in Tehran as well as the Partenariats Hubert Curien (PHC) program in France. Additionally, the authors would like thank anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Industrial Engineering, College of Engineering, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran

    Reza Tavakkoli-Moghaddam

  2. School of Industrial Engineering, Iran University of Science and Technology, Tehran, Iran

    Hossein Gitinavard

  3. Industrial Engineering Department, Faculty of Engineering, Shahed University, Tehran, Iran

    Seyed Meysam Mousavi

  4. LCFC, Arts et Métier Paris Tech, Centre de Metz, Metz, France

    Ali Siadat

Authors
  1. Reza Tavakkoli-Moghaddam
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Hossein Gitinavard
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Seyed Meysam Mousavi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Ali Siadat
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Reza Tavakkoli-Moghaddam .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Warsaw School of Economics, Warsaw, Poland

    Bogumił Kamiński

  2. Concordia University, Montreal, Québec, Canada

    Gregory E. Kersten

  3. Warsaw School of Economics, Warsaw, Poland

    Tomasz Szapiro

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this paper

Cite this paper

Tavakkoli-Moghaddam, R., Gitinavard, H., Mousavi, S.M., Siadat, A. (2015). An Interval-Valued Hesitant Fuzzy TOPSIS Method to Determine the Criteria Weights. In: Kamiński, B., Kersten, G., Szapiro, T. (eds) Outlooks and Insights on Group Decision and Negotiation. GDN 2015. Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing, vol 218. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-19515-5_13

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-19515-5_13

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-19514-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-19515-5

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation