Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

State of the Art in Decision-Making

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
A Strategy for Using Multicriteria Analysis in Decision-Making

  • 1913 Accesses

Abstract

The purpose of this chapter is to have a look at the most current models and methodologies used for helping the DM. It is not a detailed analysis because there is abundant bibliography on each one of them; it gives instead enough information to learn about their capabilities, limits and potential, and thus enabling the DM to choose the model that he/she believes is more adequate. This chapter examines the five most popular models, which are MAUT, ELECTRE, PROMETHEE, TOPSIS and AHP, and comments on an expansion of the latter known as ANP. However, it does not consider Linear Programming because its explanation and exemplification are in Chap. 4. It is a common belief that there is no one method superior to another, albeit there is perhaps one that is more popular, but most of the time any of them can be used to solve a problem; however, there is a comparison made on their characteristics and that is illustrated in Chap. 7.

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 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover 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

Notes

  1. 1.

    Integer Linear Programming is a mathematical programming model with an additional condition demanding that variables in the result must be expressed as integers. It is a difficult problem to solve and still more restrictive than the LP model; normally uses the Gomory algorithm (Gomory 1958).

  2. 2.

    Decision Lab software: http://visualdecision.com/dlab.htm

References

  • Bana e Costa, C., Vansnick, J-C. (2001). A fundamental criticism to Saaty’s use of the eigenvalue procedure to derive priorities. Working paper LSEOR 01.42ISBN No. 0 7530 1503 X. London: Department of Operational Research London School of Economics and Political Science.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brans, J., & Vincke, Ph. (1985). A preference ranking organization method: The PROMETHEE method. Management Science, 31, 647–656.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brans, J., Vincke, P., & Mareschal, B. (1986). How to select and how to rank projects: The PROMETHEE method. European Journal of Operational Research, 24, 228–238.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brent, A. C., Rogers, D. E., Ramabitsa-Siimane, T. M., & Rohwer, H. B. (2007). Application of the analytical hierarchy process to establish health care waste management systems that minimize infection risks in developing countries. European Journal of Operational Research, 181(1), 403–424.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dyer, J. (1990). Remarks on the analytical hierarchy process. Management Science, 36(3), 249–258.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flament, M. (1999). Glosario multicriterio. Edmonton: Universidad de Alberta. Retrieved from http://www.unesco.org.uy/red-m/glosariom.htm.

  • Ghazinoory, S., Aliahmadi, A., Namdarzangeneh, S., & Ghodsypour, H. (2008). Using AHP and L.P. for choosing the best alternatives based the gap analysis. Applied Mathematics and Computation, 184(2), 316–321 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gomory, R. (1958). Outline of an algorithm for integer solutions to linear programs. Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society, 64(5), 275–278.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guerrero Padilla, N., Quijada Arévalo, M., & Guerreo Casas, F. (2000). Aplicación del método PROMETHEE en la jerarquización de títulos de una cartera de valores. Métodos matemáticos para la economía y empresa. Madrid: UNED.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hinloopen, E., Nijkamp, P., & Rietveld, P. (1983). The regime method: A new multi-criteria technique. In P. Hansen (Ed.), Essays and surveys on multiple criteria decision making. Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hwang, C., & Yoon, K. (1981). Multiple attribute decision making: Methods and applications, a state- of – the – Art survey. Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Jaramillo, P. (2002). Métodos de análisis multiobjetivo para problemas continuos. Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Sede Medellín Módulo 4. Journal of Multi-criteria Decision Analysis. (Wiley). http://pisis.unalmed.edu.co/vieja/cursos/analisis_decisiones/AD_4_%20ponderantes%20y%20compromiso.pdf.

  • *Jaramillo, P., Álvarez, J., & Quintero, R. (2002). Ecualizador: un método integral para la decisión con múltiples objetivos. Ingeniería del agua, 9(2).

    Google Scholar 

  • *Kangas, J., Puakkala, T., & Kangas, S. (2001). HERO heuristic optimization of multi-criteria forestry decision analysis. In The analytical hierarchy process in natural resources and environmental decision making. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lootsma, F. (1999). The French and the American school in multi-criteria decision analysis. In F. Lootsma (Ed.), MCDA in the hands of its masters. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Munda, G. (2004). Métodos y procesos multicriterio para la evaluación social de las políticas públicas. Revista Iberoamericana de Economía Ecológica, 1, 31–45.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pomerol, J.-C., & Barba-Romero, S. (2000). Multicriterion decision in management: Principles and practice. Leiden: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roy, B. (1968). Classement et choix en présence de points de vue multiples (la méthode ELECTRE). Revue Francaises Informatique Recherche Operationnelle, 2(8), 57–75.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rogers, M., Bruen, N., & Maystre, L. (1999). ELECTRE and decisions support. Methods and applications in engineering and infrastructure investment. London: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saaty, T. (1980). Multicriteria decision making – The analytic hierarchy process. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Delft, A., & Nijkamp, P. (1977). Multi-criteria analysis and regional decision-making. Leiden: H.E. Stenfert Kroese, B.V.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vincke, P. (1992). Multicriteria decision aid. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wallenius, J., Dyer, J., Fishburn, C., Steur, R., Zionts, S., & Deb, K. (2008). Multiple criteria decision making, multiattribute utility theory: Recent accomplishments and what lies ahead. Management Science, 54(7), 1336–1349.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zeleny, M. (1982). Multiple criteria decision making. McGraw-Hill: New York.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Carrer Poeta Josep Cervera i Grifol 14 - 33, 46013, Valencia, Spain

    Nolberto Munier

Authors
  1. Nolberto Munier
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nolberto Munier .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2011 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Munier, N. (2011). State of the Art in Decision-Making. In: A Strategy for Using Multicriteria Analysis in Decision-Making. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-1512-7_3

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation