Comparative Study Of Decision Making Techniques For Multi-Attribute Decision Making Problems

Topics: Decision theory, Decision making, Decision making software Pages: 5 (3818 words) Published: July 17, 2014
ISSN No. 0976-5697

Volume 5, No. 5, May-June 2014

International Journal of Advanced Research in Computer Science REVIEW ARTILCE
Available Online at

Comparative Study Of Decision Making Techniques For Multi-Attribute Decision Making Problems
Tb. Ai Munandar

Azhari, SN

Information Tech. Faculty – Informatics Eng. Dept
Universitas Serang Raya (UNSERA)
Banten Province – INDONESIA

Faculty of Math. & Natural Sciences
Universitas Gajah Mada (UGM)
Yogyakarta - INDONESIA

Abstract: The selection of the method of decision-making in order to determine the expected outcomes of the solution of the case of multi attributes is difficult because faced with the problems associated with the subjectivity and inconsistency of the results of the calculation. Therefore, scientists continue to develop a variety of approaches in order to produce the proper method with a minimal degree of subjectivity from the decision maker. This article discusses the literature review three methods of decision making by utilizing the weighting of the criteria in determining the outcome of the decision process. They are Analytical hierarchy process (AHP), TOPSIS and PROMETHEE. The discussion in this article is not intended to discredit one or several existing methods, however, because the presence of these three methods has provided significant benefits in the process of determining an alternative to the concept of decision support systems, and in certain cases subjectivity is required in the absence of mathematical procedures specific to describe human creative process in assessing something. Keywords: decision-making, subjectivity, inconsistency, AHP, TOPSIS, PROMETHEE



The primary purpose of decision support systems are able
to support and improve the decision making process to be
performed by the decision makers, although in one hand, it is difficult to measure the outcomes of the decisions related to the quality and confidence decisions [1]. To meet these objectives, the research related to improving the quality of decisionmaking and confidence being developed, and resulted in the decision-making methods which were also developed along

with the desire for quality and the right confidence to decision outcomes obtained, such as Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS), Analytic Hierarchy
Process (AHP), PROMETEE, fuzzy AHP, Simple Additive
weighting (SAW), Weighted Product (WP) and ELECTRE.
In a multi-criteria decision making, the most crucial thing is how to determine the value of the preference alternatives to existing criteria, and the determination of the weight values of criteria. Subjectivity still plays a major role, so the outcome of decisions sometimes less as expected. Not only that, the

functions involved in each method, they require more in-depth scientific study to produce a more precise method. Therefore, the selection of appropriate methods, at least will give the most expected outcome. On the other hand, the existence of methods of decision-making continues to be studied more in depth by

several scientists, in order to produce a method that minimizes subjectivity of decision makers.
For example, AHP subjective regarded in terms of
determining the value of the pairwise comparison matrix [2], which is only determined by the scale value 1-9 thus affecting the level of Consistency Ratio (Lane and Verdini (1989) in [3]. Moreover, the use of principal eigen value on AHP priority

vector to produce, yet meet the condition of order preservation (COP) and consistency ratio (CR) if it exceeds the value of 0.1

© 2010-14, IJARCS All Rights Reserved

(10%), so that the pairwise comparison matrix should be reexamined, and calculations made from scratch [4]. Similarly with AHP, TOPSIS subjectivity in common in
terms of determining the value of a decision matrix preference, sometimes vague and often inaccurate [5], especially if faced with incomplete...

References: Edition, Prentice Hall of India, New Delhi, 2007.
Computers & Operations Research 31 (2004) 893–908.
International Journal of Uncertainty,Fuzziness and KnowledgeBased Systems Vol. 14, No. 4 (2006), pp. 445−459
e Costa, Carlos A
187 (2008) 1422–1428, ELSEVIER
Nan, Jiangxia and Maojun Zhang, "Extension of the TOPSIS for
11:5, 2014, pp. 1635 – 1645
Jahanshahloo, G.R., F
and Computation, 2006, pp. 1544 – 1551.
Science Ltd, 2004.
2, Issue : 6, 2013, pp. 27 – 34
Maadi, Mansoureh and Marzieh Soltanolkottabi, "Extention of
Management, Vol. 6, No. 7, 2005, pp. 808 – 819
Zoran, Despodov., Mitic Sasa and Peltecki Dragi, "Application
19 (2011), pp. 93-99.
Environment Advances in Biomedical Engineering, Vol.7, 2012.
IOSR Journal of Engineering (IOSRJEN), Volume 2, Issue 10
(October 2012), pp 43-50.
[17] Asadzadeh, Asad., Sujit Kumar Sikder, Farzin Mahmoudi and
[21] Ishizaka, Alessio and Ashraf Labib, 2011, "Review of the main
3, No. 1, 2014.
Systems With The Use Of A Hybrid IFS-TOPSIS Method",
Journal of Intelligent Decision Technologies 7 (2013), pp
developments in the Analytic Hierarchy Process", Expert
Systems with Applications, 38(11), 14336-14345, 2011
Continue Reading

Please join StudyMode to read the full document

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Problem Solving & Decision Making Techniques Essay
  • Decision-Making Tools and Techniques Essay
  • Decision Making Technique Essay
  • Essay about Applying Decision Making Techniques
  • Decision Making Case Study Essay
  • Solving problems and making decisions Essay
  • Judgment and Decision Making Essay
  • Decision Making Essay

Become a StudyMode Member

Sign Up - It's Free
Estrenos 2017 | Trier Pertinence | new movies 2018