(Vol. 115: Lecture Notes in Operations Research and Mathematical Economics, Vol. 1659: Lecture
Notes in Operations Research and Mathematical Systems) For information about Vols. 129. please contact
your bookseller or SpringerVerlag
Vol. 30: H. Noltemeler, Sens1tlvltatsanalyse bel diskreten linearen VoL 58 P. B. Hagelschuer. TheOrie der linearen Dekomposition.
Optimierungsproblemen VI. 102 Seilen 1970 VII. 191 Selten 1971
Vol 31. M Khlmeyer. Die nichtzentrale tVerteilung 11. 106 Sei' Vol. 59 J. A. Hc:nson. Growth Irl Open Economles. V. 128 pages
ten. 1970 1971
Vol. 32 F. Bartholomes und G Hotl, HOTTlomorphlsmen und Re
duktionen linearer Sprachen. XII. 143 Sel!en. 1970. DM 18. Vol 60 H. Hauptmann, Schtz und Kontrolltheorie In stetigen
dynamischen Wirtschafts modellen V. 104 Selten 1971
VoL 33: K. Hmderer, Foundatlons of Nonstationary Dynamlc Pro
gramming wlth Discrete Time Parameter. VI, 160 pages 1970 Vol. 61 : K. H. F. Meyer, Wartesysteme mit vanabler BearbeItungs
rate. VII. 314 Selten. 1971
Vol. 34. H. Strmer, SemtMarkoffProzesse mit endlich vielen
Zustnden. Theorie und Anwendungen. VII. 128 Selten 1970 Vol. 62' W. Krelle u. G. Gablsch unter Mitarbeit von J. Burger
meister. WachstumstheorIe. VII. 223 Selten. 1972.
Vol. 35 F. Ferschl. Markovketten VI. 168 Selten. 1970
Vol.36 M J. P Magili. On a General Economlc Theory of Motion Vol. 63 J Kohlas. Monte Carlo Simulation Im Operations Re
VI. 95 pages. 1970 search. VI. 162 Selten 1972
Vol. 37 H MllerMerbach. On RoundOff Errors In Linear Pro Vol. 64 P Gessner u K. Spremann. Optimierung In Funktionen
grammlng. V. 48 pages. 1970 rumen. IV. 120 Selten. 1972
Vol 38 Statistische Methoden I Herausgegeben von E Walter
Vol 65 W. Everllng, Exerclses In Computer Systems AnalysIs
VIII. 338 Selten. 1970
VIII. 184 pages 1972
Vol. 39 Statistische Methoden II Herausgegeben von E Walter
IV. 157 Selten. 1970 Val. 66: F. Bauer. P. Garabedtan and 0 Korn. Supercntlcal Wing
Sectlons. V. 211 pages. 1972
Vol. 40 H Drygas. The CoordlnateFree Approach to Gauss
Markov Estlmaflon. VIII. 113 pages. 1970 Vol. 67' I. V. Glrsanov. Lectures on Mathematical Theory of
Extremum Problems. V. 136 pages. 1972
Vol.41 U, Uelng, Zwei Lsungsmethoden fur nichtkonvexe Pro
grammlerungsprobleme iV, 92 Seiten. 1971 Vol. 68 J Loeckx. Computabdlty and Decldabdlty An Introductlon
\/01.42 A. \/, Balaknshnan, Introductlon to OptlfTilzatlon Theory In for Students of Computer SClence. VI. 76 pages 1972.
a Hilber! Space. IV. 153 pages 1971
Vol 69: S. Ashour. Sequenclng Theory. V. 133 pages 1972
Voi. 43. J. A. Morales. Bayeslan Full Information Structural Analy
SIS VI. 154 pages. 1971 Vol. 70: J P. Brown. The Economlc Effects of Floods. Investlga
tions of a Stochastlc Model of Rational Investment. Behavlor In the
Vol 44 G. Felchtmger. Stochastische Modelie demogr.qphlscher Face of Floods. V. 87 pages. 1972
Prozesse. IX. 404 Seifen. 1971.
Vol. 71 R. Henn und O. OPltZ. Konsum und ProduktionstheorIe II
Val. 45 K. Wendler. Hauptaustauschschntte (Pnnclpal PlvotlngJ
11. 64 Seilen 1971 V. 134 Selten. 1972
Vol. 46: C. Boucher. Le<;:ons sur la theorie des autornates ma Vol. 72. T. P Bagchl and J G. C. Templeton. Numerlcal Methods ,n
themallques. VIII. 193 pages. 1971 Markov Cha,"s and Bulk Queues. XI. 89 pages. 1972.
Vol. 47' H. A. Nour Eldln. Optimierung linearer Regelsysteme Val. 73: H. Klendl. Suboptimale Regler mit abschnittweise linearer
mit quadratischer ZIelfunktion. VIII. 163 Selten 1971 Struktur. VI. 146 Selten. 1972
Vol 48 M. Constarr.. FORTRAN fr Anfnger 2. Auflage. VI. Vol. 74: F. Pokropp. Aggregation von Produktionsfunktionen. VI.
148 Selten. 1973 107 Selten. 1972.
Vol. 49: Ch. Schneewei. Regelungstechnische stochastische Vol. 75: GIGesellschaft fr Informatik e.V. Bericht Nr. 3. 1 Fach
Opllmlerungsverfahren. XI. 254 Selten. 1971 tagung ber Programmiersprachen' Mnchen, 9.11. Mrz 1971
Val. 50: Unternehmensforschung Heute  bersIchtsvortrge der Herausgegeben im Auftrag der Gesellschaft fr Informarl,k von H
Zricher Tagung von SVOR und DGU. September 1970. Heraus Langmaack und M. Paul. VII. 280 Seifen. 1972
gegeben von M. Beckmann. IV. 133 Selten 1971
Vol. 76: G. Fandei. Optimale Entscheidung bel mehrfacher Ziel
Vol. 51: Digitale Simulation Herausgegeben von K. Bauknecht setzung. 11. 121 Selten. 1972.
und W Nef. IV. 207 Seiten. 1971.
Vol. 77: A Auslender. Problemes de Minimax via l'Analyse Con
Vol. 52: Invariant Imbeddlng. Proceedmgs 1970. Edlted by R. E vexe et les Inegalit8s Vanatlonelles: Theone et Aigorithmes. VII.
Bellman and E D. Denman. IV. 148 pages. 1971. 132 pages. 1972.
Vol. 53: J. Rosenmller. Kooperative Spiele und Mrkte. 111. 152 Vol. 78: GIGesellschaft fr Informatik e.V 2. Jahrestagung. Karls
ruhe. 2.4. Oktober 1972. Herausgegeben im Auftrag der Gesell
Seiten. 1971
schaft fr Informatik von P Deussen. XI. 576 Selten. 1973
Vol. 54: C. C. von Welzscker. Steady State Capltal Theory. 111.
Vol. 79: A. Berman, Cones, Matrices and Mathematical Program
102 pages. 1971
mlng. V. 96 pages. 1973.
Vol. 55: P A. V. B. Swamy. Statlstlcal Inference In Random Coef Vol. 80: Internatlona! Seminar on Trends In Mathemat!cal Model
flcient Regression Models. VIII. 209 pages. 1971 Img. Venlce. 1318 December 1971. Edlted by N. Hawkes VI
288 pages. 1973.
Vol. 56: Mohamed A EIHodlrl. Constrained Extrema. Introductlon
to the Dlfferenllable Case with Economlc Appllcaflons. 111. 130 Vol. 81: Advanced Course on Software Engineering. Edlted by
pages. 1971 F L Bauer. XII. 545 pages. 1973.
Vol. 57: E. Freund. ZeitvarIable Mehrgrensysteme. VII1.160 Sei Vol. 82: R Saeks. Resolution Space. Operators and Systems X
ten. 1971. 267 pages. 1973
186
ChingLai Hwang
Kwangsun Yoon
SpringerVerlag
Berlin Heidelberg New York 1981
editorial Board
H. Albach A V. Balakrishnan M. Beckmann (Managing Editor)
P. Dhrymes J. Green W. Hildenbrand W. Krelle
H. P. Knzi (Managing Editor) K Ritter R. Sato H. Schelbert
P. Schnfeld
Managing Editors
Prof. Dr. M. Beckmann Prof. Dr. H. P. Knzi
Brown University Universitt Zrich
Providence, RI 02912/USA CH8090 Zrich/Schweiz
Authors
ChingLai Hwang Kwangsun Yoon
Dept of Industrial Engineering Dept. of Industrial Engineering
Durland Hall and Management Science
Kansas State University Fairleigh Dickinson University
Manhattan, KS 66506/USA Teaneck, NJ 07666/USA
This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved, whether the whole or part of the
material is concerned, specifically those of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations,
broadcasting, reproduction by photocopying machine or similar means, and storage in
data banks. Under 54 of the German Copyright Law where copies are made for other
than private use, a fee is payable to 'Verwertungsgesellschaft Wort', Munieh.
by SpringerVerlag Berlin Heidelberg 1981
Softcover reprint ofthe hardcover 1st edition 1981
2142/31405432
PREFACE
Making (MADM) has been reviewed and classified systematically. This study
provides readers with a capsule look into the existing methods, their char
The basic MADM concepts are defined and a standard notation is introduced
in Part 11. Also introduced are foundations such as models for MADM, trans
weight.
of them are classical ones, but the other half have appeared recently. The
Part IV of the survey deals with the applications of these MADM methods.
The literature has been classified into selection of commodity, site, people,
is given.
IV
presented.
by Dr. Kenneth R. MacCrimmon in 1968 and 1973; and to Professors Doris Grosh,
The first draft was used in the first author's Spring 1980 c1ass of "Advanced
Cynthia S. McCahon, K. S. Raju, and Larry M. Strecker have tested and critica11y
evaluated many methods. Special thanks are due to Merla Oppy for typing and
This study was part1y supported by the Office of Nava1 Research, and
Department of Energy.
Page
I. INTRODUCTION 1
1. Definitions 16
3. Transformation of Attributes 26
3.2 Norma1ization 29
5.4 LINMAP 57
1.1.1 Dominance 58
1.1.2 Maximin 61
1.1.3 Maximax 64
VI
Page
Page
Figure Title
3.9 A set of indifference curves between MPG and the space of 144
passenger compartment
Table Title
criteria decision making are common occurrences in everyday life. For example:
In a personal context, the job one chooses may depend upon its prestige,
The car one buys may be characterized in terms of price, gas mileage, style,
may depend on the company's earnings over aperiod of time, its stock price,
rollment, tuition level, faculty leverage, new programs, and net improvement, etc.
(reuse factor), recreation, flood protection, land and forest use, water
quality, etc.
2
transportation system which would minimize travel time, departure delays, arrival
delays, fare cost, and so on. The choice of missile systems for the Air Force
The problems of MCDM are widely diverse. However, even with the diversity,
all the problems which are considered here share the following common char
acteristics:
Conflict among criteria. Multiple criteria usually conflict with each other.
For example, in designing a car, the objective of higher gas mileage might reduce
measurement. In the car selection case, gas mileage is expressed by miles per
best alternative or to select the best one among previously specified finite
One may notice that there exist two alternative sets due to the different
and the other has an infinite number. For instance a car a customer may purchase
(select) is among the available finite models auto companies have produced; but
a model which a certain company mass produced is among the infinite number of
The problems of MCDM can be broadly classified into two categories in this
MODM is for design. This is a widely accepted classification [BM5, BMll, 275,
283). Table 1.1 shows the contrast of the features between these two classes.
problem where the alternatives are predetermined. The thrust of these models is
the design constraints which best satisfy the DM by way of attaining some ac
acteristics of MODM methods are that they possess: (1) a set of quantifiable
Thus MODM is associated with design problems (in contrast to selection problems
with the help of inter and intraattribute comparisons. The comparisons may
MADM MODM
the normative decision making process started within the last two decades,
the study on multiple criteria has a long tradition. We notice the earlier
sequently each area has developed method(s) for its own particular usage.
For example:
best alternative that maximizes his/her satisfaction with respect to more than
one attribute, many of the above approaches may not be directly used in MADM
been the basis in the development of MADM. The substantial advancement of MADM
It was Churchman, Ackoff, and Arnoff [57] in 1957 who first treated a MADM
weighting method. Many potentially useful concepts/methods for MADM had been
laid aside until 1968 when MacCrimmon [273] reviewed the methods and the appli
In his second review [275] in 1973, more methods are added and grouped according
rather surprising that little effort has been given on the review of MADM since
then. The literature on MADM is briefly treated in some of the MCDM reviews
burn [120, 126], Huber [196, 197], and Farquhar [98]'s reviews on MAUT are ex
haustive and theoretically indepth. Keeney and Raiffa [BM13] published a
and applications on MCDM have been edited by Cochrane and Zeleny [BM4], Leitman
and Marzollo [BM16], Wendt and Vleck [BM22], Thiriez and Zionts [BM2l], Zeleny
[BM24], Bell, Keeneyand Raiffa [BM3], Starr and Zeleny [BM20], and Zionts
[BM24]. However, only a small number of articles in these volumes deal with
MADM problems except on MAUT.
Green et al. [BM9, BMlO], Krushkal [BM14], Shepard [BM19]. Nijkamp and van
The rapid progress of MADM in re cent years makes necessary a thorough review
to reviewing the methods, we will also review the actual or proposed applications
of these methods. Some basic concepts and terminology will be defined so that we
7
Class References
can explain the literature with a unified notation of the most used terms.
This review will provide readers with a capsule look into the existing
The decision makers' judgments vary in form and depth. One may not indicate
his preferences at all. or may represent his preference through the form of
attribute or alternative. The degree of judgment skill also varies. For instance.
judgments. We classify methods for MADM based upon different forms of preference
information from a DM. A taxonomy of MADM methods is shown in Fig. 1.1. The
classification has been made in three stages: Stage I: the type of information
(attribute or alternative or neither) needed from the DM; Stage 11: the salient
feature of the information needed; Stage 111: the major methods in any
branch formed from Stages I and 11. Finally in Table 1.3. all references are
Before going into the actual review. some key concepts and notations will
notation of the most used terms. Also in Part 11 some supporting techniques
weights. are discussed. In Part 111. the literature dealing with the techniques
the literature dealing with the actual or proposed applications of MADM methods
~ 1.1.1 Dominance
I' No Information 11 . 1 . 2 Maximin
1.1.3 Maximax
CLASS REFERENCES
1.1.1 Dominance 23, 44, 163, 400, 426, 443, 444, 445
I
2.1.1 Disjunctive Method
(Satisficing Method) 3, 14, 70, 88, 240, 311, 319, 334, 373,
2.1.2 Conjunctive Method
406
2.2.1 Lexicographic Method 26, 75, 93, 120, 191, 269, 322, 409
2.2.2 Elimination by Aspect 28, 410, 410a, 410b
2.3.2 Simple Additive Weighting 1, 56, 62, 85, 86, 87, 90a, 91, 108,
Method 127, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156,
214, 239a, 267, 268, 309, 356, 358,
416
Tab1e 1. 3 (continued)
2.4.1 Hierarchica1 Tradeoffs 63, 175, 274, 276, 277, 278, 428
Methods
3.2.1 Multidimensional Sca1ing with 58, 94, 183, 190, 239, 242, 252, 253, 255,
Ideal Point 280, 343, 394, 427, BM8, BM9, BM10
12
direct1y on the topics in this survey. We apo1ogize to both the readers and
6. American Psychologist
7. American Sociological Review
8~ Annals of Economic &Social Measurement
9. Annals of Mathematical Statistics
10. Annals of Statistics
21. Economica
22. Economic Jol.
23~ Engineering Economist
24~ Harvard Business Review
25. Human Factors
1. DEFINITIONS
The four words most used in MCDM literature are: attributes, objectives,
goals and criteria. There are no universal definitions of these terms [BM13].
Some authors make distinctions in their usage while many use them inter
their usage.
1.1. Terms for MCDM Environment
Criteria: A criterion is a measure of effectiveness. It is the basis for
Often we refer to them as constraints because they are designed to limit and
restrict the alternative set. For example, the standard gas mileage, say 20
For example, a car manufacturer may want to maximize gas mileage or minimize
format. Adecision matrix Dis a (mxn) matrix whose element x .. 's indicate
1J
evaluation or value of alternative i, Ai' with respect to attribute j, X .
J
Hence Ai' i = 1,2, ... ,m is denoted by
A country decided to purchase a fleet of jet fighters from the U.S. The
may be sold to that country. The Air Force analyst team of that country agreed
that six characteristics (attributes) should be considered. They are: maximum
speed (Xl)' ferry range (X 2), maximum payload (X 3), purchasing cost (X4 ), re1i
ability (XS), and maneuverability (X6 ). The values of the six attributes for
The decision matrix for the fighter aircraft selection problem, then, is:
Xs
X2 X3 X4
\
Al
A2
[ ,Xi
2.5
1500
2700
20000
18000
5.5
6.5
average
low
very high
average
D A3 1.8 2000 21000 4.5 high high
A4 2.2 1800 20000 5.0 average average
18
Attributes (X. )
J
Alternatives Maximum Ferry Maximum Acquisition Re l i ab ility Maneuverability
speed range payload cost
(Ai) (Mach) (NM) (pounds) ($ x 10 6 ) (highlow) (highlow)
f\lr all x E X.
at examples:
19
ExamEle 1: ExamEle 2:
Max fl xl + x 2 Max fl x2
Max f2 x2  xl
Max f2 x2  xl
subject to xl ~3
subject to xl < 3
x2 < 3
x2 < 3
Figure 2.1 shows the decision variable space representation of both ex
Example 1; let us call this 51. Figure 2.3 shows the objective function space
in Fig. 2.3. For Example 1, there is no optimal solution. The maximum value
which occurs dt (xl' x2 ) = (0, 3). Point F in Fig. 2.2 gives f l = 6 and
It may be noted that the optimal solution is also known as the superior
problem: max [fl(x), f 2 (x), ... , fk(x)), X ={xlgi(x)~ 0, i = 1,2, ... ,m}, the
xe: X
ideal solution is the one that optimizes each objective function simultaneously,
A*
where f~ is a feasible and optimal value for the jth objective function. This
J
solution is generally infeasible; if it were not, then there would be no con
Xl 2. 3
X2 2. 3
Xl' X2 ~ 0
3 B E A
o c D
Xl
2 3
Nax f l = Xl + X2
6
/1ax f2 = X2  Xl
5
4
I
3   B      ~
F
I
2
O~~+r~r+~~~A~fl
23 6
1
o
4
5
6
3 B
tfax
2 Ifax
E
O~ ______4 ______~______~~A~__________
3 f1
1
2
composed of the most preferable values from each attributes given in the
x~, .. , x*)
J n
where
Though an ideal solution does not actually exist, the concept of an ideal
In Fig. 2.2, these nondominated solutions are represented by the straight line
BA. It is obvious that all the nondominated solutions must lie on the boundary
The nondominated solution concept is weIl utilized for the initial screen
rather the nondominated concept is used for the sufficient condition of the
processing. In this respect the MCDM can be referred to as the decision aids
to reach the preferred solution through utilizing the DM's preference infor
mation.
2. MODELS FOR MADM
A MADM method is a procedure that specifies how attribute information is
to be processed in order to arrive at a choice. There are two major approaches
in attribute information processing: noncompensatory and compensatory models.
The two approaches are compared with the relevant MADM moethds.
favorable value in some other attribute. Each attribute must stand on its own.
25
methods which belong to this model are credited for their simplicity which
matches the behavior process of the DM whose knowledge and ability are limited.
these models changes (perhaps small changes only) in one attribute can be
Scoring model: This model selects an alternative which has the highest
score (or the maximum utility); therefore the problem is how to assess the
to the ideal solution. TOPSIS (2.3.5), LINMAP (3.1.1) and nonmetric MDS (3.2.1)
model.
26
3. TRANSFORMATION OF ATTRIBUTES
how can we treat the nonhomogeneous units of measure (Mach, NM, lb, $, etc.)?
These are the scaling problems. We are dealing with scaling problems with
out the concept of utility function.
There are three kinds of scales of measurement that can be employed
rank order but teIls not hing of the relative distance between ranks. An
interval scale provides equal intervals between entities and indicates the
difference or distances of entities from some arbitrary origin. One out
standing example is that of the two common temperature scales (notice that
the zero point is different for Fahrenheit and Centigrade scales). The
ratio scale provides equal intervals between entities and indicates the
into the ordinal scale is much easier than into the interval scale. We
27
We ean start with end points, giving 10 points to the maximum value that
that are favorable (or better than average) and values that are unfavorable
problem: how many points should we assign to the value 'high'? Any value
on the seale between 5.1 and 10.0 will satisfy the high rating; it will be
on the seale and greater than the value assigned to 'average'. Cornrnonly,
thus, for instanee, 'very high' might be assigned the value 9.0. This in
seale value 7.0. On the low end of the seale, 'very low' might be assoeiated
with the value 1.0 and 'low' with the value 3.0. These seale values are
The proeedures that derive these nurnerieal va lues use addition and
that the difference between 'high' and 'low' is the same as the difference
between 'very low' and 'average' (4 scale points). Further, the combination
of values across attributes implies that the difference between any two
specific values (say, 'high' and 'low') is the same for each attribute.
above is highly arbitrary. Many other scales are possible, for example
a scale of (very bad, bad, poor, fair, good, very good, excellent).
Such checks are desirable but make the scaling procedure a very involved
3.2 Normalization
of the decision matrix is divided by its norm [305, BM18], so that each
x ..
r ..
1J (2.1)
1J
2
x ..
1J
30
This imp1ies that all co1umns (attributes) have the same unit 1ength of
vector.
drawback is the fact that this norma1ization procedure does not lead to
measurement sca1es with an equa1 1ength. The minimum and the maximum
va1ues of the sca1e are not equa1 to each criterion, so that a straight
criteria are defined as benefit criteria (the larger x., the greater pre
J
ference); then the transformed outcome of x .. is
1J
x ..
r .. 2:L (2.2)
1J x.*
J
where x j* max x ... It is clear 0 < r .. < l, and the outcome is more
i 1J  1J
favorable as r .. approaches 1. The advantage of this scale transformation
1J
is that all out comes are transformed in a linear (proportional) way, so
that the relative order of magnitude of the out comes remains equal [BMl8].
x ..
r ..
1J
1  iL (2.3)
x.
J
31
When both benefit and cost criteria exist in the decision matrix we
shou1d not use eqs. (2.2) and (2.3) at the same time because their bases
are different, 0 for benefit criterion, 1 for cost. We can treat cost
min x .. min
l/x ij 1J x.
i J
r .. (2.4)
1J max (l/x ij ) x .. x ..
i 1J 1J
When the number of benefit criteria is greater than that of the cost
criteria, we treat all attributes as benefit criteria and use eqs. (2.2)
x.*  x1J..
r .. J (2.6)
1J min
x.*  x.
J J
The advantages of the definition of r .. byeqs. (2.5) and (2.6) are that
1J
the sca1e of measurement varies precise1y from 0 to 1 for each criterion.
fuzzy) attributes in the MADM environment. Fuzzy attributes result from fuzzy
In these goals the underlined term is responsible for the fuzziness; then the
i) young, not young, very young, more or less young, not very young, old,
not old, not very young and not very old, etc.
ii) famous, not famous, very famous, more or less famous, not very famous,
etc.
iii) and iv) low, not low, very low, more or less low, medium high, not high,
very high, more or less high, not low and not high, etc.
ad hoc methods for converting fuzzy attributes into nonfuzziness, but these
conventional quantitative techniques are not weIl suited for dealing with de
in describing these systems. The basis for this contention is what Zadeh [456]
lias the complexity of a system increases, our ability to make precise and yet
Zadeh [452] laid the initial foundations of the fuzzy set theory with his
paper 'Fuzzy Sets' in 1965; since then the development in both theory and app
lications have been remarkable. Gaines and Kohout [137] listed 1150 papers in
their review on the fuzzy set, and 45 papers were classified for decision
making. We have found very few papers discussing fuzzy sets for the MADM
In this section we will review some of the basic concepts of fuzzy sets
and their operations as it applies to the MADM methods. The text of Kaufmann
AcE
symbol E:
x E A
~A (x) 1, if x E A
Imagine now that this characteristic. fllnc.tiOTI may take an)' valuc whatsocvcr
A (~A = 0), could be a member of A a little (~A near 0), may more or less be
34
a member of A (~A neither too near 0 nor too near 1), could be strongly a
member of A (~A near 1), or finally might be a member of A (~A = 1). In this
way the notion of membership takes on extension and leads the definition of the
fuzzy set.
A = { (x, ~ A (x)) } Vx E: E
takes its values in a set M, called the membership set, one may say that x
takes its value in M through the function ~A (x). This function will be called
the membership function. When M = {O, I}, the fuzzy sub set A is nonfuzzy and
which there is no sharp boundary between two objects, one belonging to the
Numerical Example
{(Australia, 0.), (Canada, 0.), (China, 1.), (France, 0.) (India, 0.),
{(China, Yugoslavia)}
{(Australia, .8), (Canada., .95), (China, .05), (France, .8), (India, .3)
values of ~A (.) are selected subjectively but it does give us a handle for
2
dealing with subjective concepts in a rational way, in a similar manner as the
35
method used by the Bayesian decision makers enables them to handle sub
defined as the largest fuzzy set contained in both A and B. The membership
function of A n B is given by
Vx E: E
Vx E: E
Numerical Example
and is defined by
Vx e: E
a
Il A (x) 'IX e: E
Aa (i.e., Aac A) in which the degree of membership for those x that are large
is reduced much less than for those that are small. If a < 1, the result is
Numerical Example
then
is defined by
Vx E E
37
1
where the supreme has taken over the set of points f (y) in EI which are
mapped by f into y.
Numerical Example
Let
EI {Amy, Becky, Cindy, Donna}
E2 {Bill, David, Tom}
Then what is the fuzzy subset B of E2 , of which a boy has a beautiful wife?
~B(Tom) = Sup(.6) = .6
The resulting fuzzy sub set B is
expressed by ~B(ylx). Suppose that the parameter x ranges over aspace EI'
so that to each x in EI corresponds a fuzzy set B(x) in E2 . Through this
Numerical EXamples
Assume that the reliability of the fighter aircraft depends upon the
a country) is
/_....... . f _
I Am~ ~/ BiU......... \
I . I I .7 I
I Becky D "d I
I
II
.2 an
A .8 I B
\ Cindy I I Tom I
I .8 \ .6 I
\ Donna

' .....  /
,.6 /
Many methods for MCDM problems require information about the relative
T
w
n
1:: w. 1
j=l J
small (single) statistical sample for a large one. We will deal with four
method, entropy method, and LINMAP. Entropy method and LINMAP can not be
input.
Let matrix A be
A=
42
wl wl wl
wl w2 W
n
w2 w2 w2
wl w2 W
n
(2.7)
This is a 'reciprocal matrix' which has all positive elements and has the
reciprocal property
a .. l/a .. (2.8)
1J Jl.
and
(2.9)
a ij = ai/a jk
wl wl wl =n n W
A ~ = wl wl
wl w2 W
n
w2 w2 w2 w2
w2
wl w2 wn
wn w w w w
n n n n
wl w2 wn
or
CA  n!) w = 0 (2.10)
43
In general, the precise va lues of w./w. are unknown and must be estimated.
~ J
In other words, human judgments can not be so accurate that eq. (2.9) be
A w~ (2.11)
max
Numerica1 Examp1e
2 1/3 1 A
The 1argest eigenva1ue of A, Amax ' is 3.0536, and we have
1 1
3" 2 o
2.0536 3
1
3" 2.0536
The Scale
For assessing the scale ratio w./w., Saaty [350J gives an intensity
1. J
scale of importance for activities and has broken down the importance ranks
Numerical Example (The Wealth of Nations through their World Influence [350])
factors: (1) human resources; (2) wealth; (3), trade; (4) technology; (5) mil
itary power; and (6) potential natural resources (such as oil).
Seven countries (the United States, the U.S.S.R., China, France, the
United Kingdom, Japan, and West Germany) as a group comprise a dominant class
and for illustration of the method, we consider only the single factor of
wealth. The question to answer is: how much more strongly does one nation
The first row of Table 2.3 gives the pairwise comparison of the wealth
contributed by the United States with wealth contributed by the other nations.
For example,it is of equal importance to the United States (hence, the unit
entry), between weak importance and strong importance when compared with the
U.S.S.R. (hence, the value of 4), of absolute importance when compared with
China (hence, the value of 9), between strong and demonstrated importance
when compared with France and the United Kingdom (hence, 6 for both) , strong
importance when compared with Japan and West Germany (hence, 5 for both).
The reciprocals,of the numbers in the first row are entered into the entries
in the first column, which indicates the inverse relation of relative strength
of the wealth of the other countries when compared with the United States,
and so on, for the remaining values in the second row and second column, etc.
45
Intensity of
importance Definition Explanation
US 1 4 9 6 6 5 5
USSR 1/4 1 7 5 5 3 4
China 1/9 1/7 1 1/5 1/5 1/7 1/5
France 1/6 1/5 5 1 1 1/3 1/3
UK 1/6 1/5 5 1 1 1/3 1/3
Japan 1/5 1/3 7 3 3 1 2
W. Germany 1/5 1/4 5 3 3 1/2 1
Total 2823
QBillions of dollars
47
The largest eigenvalue of the wealth matrix given by Table 2.3 is 7.61
and .231 for the Uni ted States and Russia are obtained, and these weights
total GNP as shown in Table 2.4. Despite the apparent arbitrariness of the
scale, the irregularities disappear and the numbers occur in good accord with
observed data.
Note
A (2.12)
max
In the consistent case there is a constant c such that
vector. However, for m ~ 4 the two can disagree even when matrix A is
consistent. Johnson et al. note that use of the left eigenvectors is equally
the weight. This method has the advantage that it involves the solution of
a .. w./w. (2.13)
1J 1 J
n n
2 (2.14 )
min z = l: (a .. w.  wi )
l:
i=l j =1 1J J
n
s.t. l: w. 1 (2.15)
i=l 1
n n 2 n
L l: l: Ca .. w.  wi ) + 2>..( l: wi  1) (2.16)
i=l j=l 1J J i=l
n n
l: (aiR,wR,  wi ) aiR,  l: (aR,J.w J.  wR,) + A 0, 1,2, ... ,n (2.17)
i=l j =1
that a ..
11
= 1 Vi):
Given the coefficients a ij , the above equations can be solved for w1 ' w2 '
and A.
In general, eqs. (2.17) and (2.15) can be expressed in the matrix form
Bw =m (2.18)
where
T
(w 1 , w2 ' ... , wn ' A)
m (0, 0, ... , 0, 1) T
B (m + 1) x (n + 1) matrix with elements b ..
1J
n 2
(n 1) + E a ji , i, j = 1, ... , n
j=i
b ..
1J
= (a 1J
.. + a J 1 L i, j = 1, ... , n
b b 1, k 1, ... , n
k,n+l n+1,k
b 0
n+1,n+1
Numerica1 Examp1e 1.
A =
50
method.
matrix (See Table 2.3). The results are compared with Saaty's results as
Saaty's Weighted
eigenvector leastsquare
Country (A max = 7.61) method
US 0.429 0.4867
USSR 0.231 0.1750
China 0.021 0.0299
France 0.053 0.0593
UK 0.053 0.0593
Japan 0.119 0.1043
W. Germany 0.095 0.0853
52
When the data of the decision matrix is known, instead of the Saaty's
pairwise comparison matrix as given by eq. (2.7), the entropy method and
represents more uncertainty than does a sharply peaked one [209]. This
n
k L: p. ~n p. (;; .19)
j=l J J
are considered as synonymous. When all Pi are equal to each other for a
between sets of data. For example, a criterion does not function much when
all the alternatives have the similar outcomes for that criterion. Further,
if all the va lues are the same, we can eliminate the cri terion.
through criterion j.
be
X
n
A x
m mn
x ..
1J \li,j
Pij m (220)
I: x.
1j
i=l
m
E. k I: p.. tn p .. , Vj (2. 21)
) i=l 1) 1)
k = l/Rn m
d. lE., Vj (2.22 )
J J
equally preferred. Then the best weight set he can expect, instead of
the equal weight. is
d.
w. L... vj (2.23)
J n
E d.
j=l J
If the DM has a prior, subjective weight ~., then this can be adapted
J
with the help of w. information. The new weight w.O is,
J J
A. w.
w.
J n
J J
E A. w.
Vj (2.24)
j=l J J
6 attributes
Xl X2 X3 X4 Xs X6
Xl X2 X3 X4 X5 X6
Xl X2 X3 X4 X5 X6
Then the subjective weights which are calculated by using eq. (2.24) are
Note
x ..
1.J
r ..
1.J *
x.
J
or min
x ..  X.
r .. 1.J J
1.J x.*  x.min
J J
min v.
x. min x ij '
J i J
then P ij is defined as
r ..
~ Vi, (2.25)
m
1: r ..
i=l 1.J
The weights of importance obtained by using eq. (2.25), however, are very
5.4 LINMAP
Srinivasan and Shocker [ 380J developed LINMAP (LINear programming
his most preferred stimulus (alternative) location in this space and a set of
those stimuli which are "closer" to his ideal point (in terms of a weighted
1.1.1 DOMINANCE
An alternative is dominated if there is another alternative which
Xl X2 X3 X4 Xs X6
[2'.
1500 20,000 5.5 average very high Al
2.5 2700 18,000 6.5 low average ~
1
0
1.8 2000 21,000 4.5 high high ~
2.2 1800 20,000 5.0 average average A4
59
are nondominated.
NOTE
Calpine and Golding [44] derived the expected number of nondominated
Consider first the very special case in which all the elements in the deci
sion matrix are random numbers uniformly distributed over the range 0 to M.
Attention is first focussed on the final (nth ) column. Arrange the rows
so that the elements in the nth column are in decreasing order of magnitude.
row being the r th in the order is I/rn. Let p(m, n) be the probability that
that this row is not dominated by any row below it and also that it exceeds
Thus the probability of a row being the r th and nondominated is per, nl)/m.
m
p (m, n) I per, n  l)/m
r=l
a(m. n) = mp(m. n)
nl
+ (1n m) /(n  I)! (3.2)
where y is Euler's constant (0.5772). Some typical results are shown in Fig. 3.1.
e.g., n=4. will be reduced to 8, 20, and 80 for m=lO, 100, and 1000, respec
tively; however, the number of nondominated alternatives for a large number of
attributes, e.g., n=8. will still be very large, i.e . 10, 90, and 900, respec
tively for m=lO, 100, and 1000.
1000 m = 1000
100
10
2 4 6 8 10
+n
Number of attributes
1.1.2 MAXIMIN
An astronaut's 1ife or death in the orbit may depend upon his worst
vital organ, and a chain is on1y as strong as its weakest link. In this
values for each alternative, note the lowest value for each alternative,
and then select the alternative with the most acceptable value in its
as they often do, we may be basing our final choice on single values of
maximin method can be used only when interattribute values are comparable;
that is, all attributes must be measured on a common scale; however, they
+
need not be numerica1. The alternative, A , is selected such that
to the ideal solution [459]; the ratio of an attribute value to the most
x ..
r .. 1J
1J *
x.
J
min
x ..  X.
1) ) (3.5)
r ..
1) *
X. 
min
x .
) )
or
x.*  x ..
J 1)
x.*  x.min
) )
The decision matrix after assigning numerical values (by using the
interval scale of Fig. 2.4) to qualitative attributes is
Xl X2 X3 X4 X5 X6
2.0 1500 20,000 5.5 5 9 Al
2.5 2700 18,000 6.5 3 5 A2
o= 1.8 2000 21,000 4.5 7 7 A3
2.2 1800 20,000 5.0 5 5 A4
The maximin procedure requires a common scale for all elements in the
decision matrix. The converted decision matrix, by using eq. (3.7) for
Xl X2 X3 X4 X5 X6
lowest attribute value for Al is 0.56 (for X2 , the ferry range); the lowest
attribute value for A3 is 0.72 (for Xl' the maximum speed); and the lowest
Note
making a final choice  only one attribute per alternative. Thus even
would be chosen over it. The maximin method, the~has some obvious short
procedure is reasonable for selecting a chain because all the links are
used at the same time and they are essentially interchangeable, in that
link.
pessimistic nature in the decision making situation. The maximin and its
1.1.3 MAXIMAX
In contrast to the maximin method, the maximax method se1ects an a1ter
nate by its best attribute va1ue rather than its worst attribute value [273].
In this case the highest attribute value for each alternative is identified,
then these maximum values are compared in order to select the alternative
Note that in this procedure, as with the maximin procedure only the single
strongest attribute represents an alternative; all other (nl) attributes
for the particular alternative are ignored; and it may evaluate different
maximin method, the maximax method can be used only when all attributes are
measured on a common scale (see eqs. (3.3), (3.4), (3.7) and (3.8)). The
max max r 1" J.}' j 1,2, ... ,n; i 1,2, ... ,m (3.9)
i j
max method do not make it a very useful technique for general decision
making [273]. However, just as the maximin method may have a domain in which
Xl X2 X3 X4 X5 X6
I
0.80 0.56 0.95 0.82 0.71 1.0 Al
1.0 1.0 0.86 0.69 0.43 0.56 A2
D'
0.72 0.74 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.78 A3
0.88 0.67 0.95 0.90 0.71 0.36 A4
65
value for Al is 1.0 (for x6 ' the maneuverability); the highest attribute
value for A2 is 1.0 (for both Xl' the maximum speed, and X2 ' the ferry
range); the highest attribute value for A3 is 1.0 (for x3 ' X4 ' and x5 ' the
highest attribute value for A4 is 0.95 (for X3 ' the maximum payload).
Note
Both the maximin procedure and the maximax procedure use wh at could be
attribute value and a weight of 0 to all others; the maximax method assigns
outcome (attribute value) for each choice (alternative), and then choosing
that choice (alternative) for which the worst outcome is least bad. This
only the worst that can happen, while ignoring other aspects of the choice.
the individual as choosing that choice for which the best outcome is the
such that
(3.10)
A+ ., {A. I max [Cl min r.. + ( I  Cl) max r. . ]}
1 i 1J 1J
The weight a is referred to as the pessimismoptimism index; it is supposed
to vary (over 0 ~ a ~ 1) among the individual DMs; the higher a the more
Ce.g., drafting the whole team on the basis of a single attribute  unless
compensatory models.
68
The DM sets up the minimal attribute values (standard levels) he/she will
accept for each of the attributes. Any alternative (or candidate) which has
an attribute value less than the standard level will be rejected. This proce
dure is called the conjunctive method [70] or the satisficing method des
players is done according to this method. (See Table 1.3 for references.)
limited by the lesser of his/her abilities in history and French; he/she can
the conjunctive method (or satisficing method), all the standards must be
To apply the method, the DM must supply the minimal attribute values (the
cutoff values) acceptable for each of the attributes. The cutoff values
given by the DM play the key role in eliminating the noncontender alter
natives; if too high, none is left; if relatively low quite a few alternatives
are left after filtering. Hence increasing the minimal standard levels in
choice.
69
where x o
j is the standard level of x j .
In the fighter aircraft problem, suppose that the DM specified the fol
Al and A4 are acceptable; that is, they satisfy these requirements. Alter
native A2 fails to satisfy them because its maximum payload (X 3) is too low
(18,000 vs. 20,000), its acquisition cost (X4 ) is too high (6.5 vs. 6.0),
and its reliability (Xs ) is too low (low vs. average); alternative A3 fails
because its maximum speed (Xl) is too low (1.8 vs. 2.0).
Note
Then
r =1 _ pn
c
since the probability of being rejected is equal to one minus the probability
p (1 _ r)l/n (3.13)
c
For example [70]. suppose that a college evaluates applicants for admis
pendent and that the college considers them all equally important. Suppose
that the college wishes to accept one fifth of its applicants. Now we have
n 4
r = 54
1
Pc (1  !)4 0.67
5
Hence. the college must choose a cutting score for each attribute such that
67% of its applicants will place above this score. This cutting score is
called the conjunctive cutting score.
The conjunctive method does not require that the attribute information
use minimum cutoff values for each of the attributes. none of the alter
native systems gets credited for especially good attribute values.
Thus A3 of the fighter aircraft problem fails even though it has the lowest
j 1 or 2 or ... or n (3.13)
with any extreme talent, while the conjunctive method guarantees rejection
very high, very high). Given these desirable levels~ alternatives Al' A2 ,
accepted because its maximum speed (Xl) is acceptable (2.5 vs. 2.4), and/or
its ferry range (X 2) is acceptable (2700 vs. 2500); and A3 is accepted be
cause its maximum payload (X 3) is acceptable (21,000 vs. 21,000), and/or its
it does not possess any one of the desirable levels specified by the DM.
72
Note
(3.14)
the college uses a disjunctive method, it will accept any applicant who
Then we have
n 4
r =4
5
1/4
Pd =1  (!)
5
= 0.05
that is, the disjunctive probability, Pd' equals 0.05, hence the disjunctive
cutting score for each attribute will be one such that 5% of the applicants
As with the conjunctive method, the disjunctive method does not require
cardinal preference.
The permutation method was originally developed for the cardinal pre
ferences of attributes given, but it is bett er used for the ordinal preferences
given, and the method will identify the best ordering of the alternative rankings.
74
For example, "buy the cheapest" rule is that in which the price is the most
important attribute to that DM. One way of treating this situation is to
compare the alternatives on the most important attribute. If one alternative
has a higher attribute value than any of the other alternatives, the alter
native is chosen and the decision process ends. However, if some alternatives
are tied on the most important attribute, the subset of tied alternatives are
then compared on the next most important attribute. The process continues
sequentially until a single alternative is chosen or until all n attributes
have been considered.
The method requires that the attributes be ranked in the order of impor
tance by the DM. Let the subscripts of the attributes indicate not only the
components of the attribute vector, but also the priorities of the attributes,
i.e., Xl be the most important attribute to the DM, X2 the second most impor
tant one, and so on. Then alternative(s), Al, is(are) selected such that
{A.
1
I max
i
x. l },
1
i = l,2, ... ,m (3.16)
If this set {Al} has a single element, then this element is the most preferred
alternative. If there are multiple maximal alternatives, consider
(3.17)
If this set {A2} has a single element, then stop and select this alternative.
If not, consider
A3 = {A2 I ~x x i3 }, (3.18)
Continue this process until either (a) some {Ak } with a single element is
found which is then the most preferred alternative, or (b) all n attributes
have been considered, in which case, if the remaining set contains more than
LEXICOGRAPHIC SEMIORDER
where values for several alternatives on the most important attribute are
equal but also for cases where the differences between the values on the most
may then be used for further attributes if more than one alternative still
Tversky [409] showed how this method can lend itself to intransitive choices
Suppose that Xl is the more important attribute, but that differences of one
lexicographic method because its maximum speed (Xl) of 2.5 Mach is the
Note
of the method are given by Luce [269], Shepard [367], and Fishburn [120].
For example, for the fighter aircraft problem only the information of Xl
does not require comparability across attributes as did maximin and maximax.
information on the preference among attribute values and the order in which
not passing the cutoff on that attribute are eliminated. Then another at
tribute is selected, and sO forth. The process continues until all alter
natives but one are eliminated [29]. Like lexicographic method (2.2.1), it
satisfy some standard level, and it continues until all alternatives except
one have been eliminated. Another difference is that the attributes are not or
a probabilistic mode.
arbitrary features of the alternatives that do not fit into any simple dimen
The announcer puts some two dozen eggs and one walnut on the table to
Xl {al' a2,9l,92,Pl,P2'w}
yl {Sl,S2,9 l ,9 2 ,ol,02'w}
and
their aspects is yresented in Fig. 3.2. It is readily seen that a i , Si' and
0i' and Pi are, respectively, the aspects shared by x and y, by Y and z, and
by x and z; and that w is shared by all three alternatives. Since the selection
number representing its utility or value, and let K be the sum of the scale
values of all the aspects under consideration, that is, K = E u(a) where the
a
summation ranges over all the aspects except w. Using these notations we
now compute P(x,T). Note first that x can be chosen directly from T if
either a l or u 2 is selected in the first stage (in which case both y and z
are eliminated). This occurs with probability [u(a l ) + u(a 2)]/K. Alter
first stage (in which case z is eliminated), and then x is chosen over y.
This occurs with probability [u(9 l ) + u(9 2)] P(x; y)/K. Finally,x can be
chosen via {x,z} if either PI or P2 is selected in the first stage (in which case
[u(P l ) + u(P 2)]P(x;z)/K. Since the above paths leading to the choice
where
P(x;y) etc.
any finite set of alternatives. For any A ~ T let AI {ala E Xl for some
X E A}, and AO = {ala E Xl for all x E A}. Thus, AI is the set of aspects
by all the alternatives under study. Given any aspect a E T! let Adenote
a
those alternatives of A which include a, that is, Aa {x Ix E A and a E Xl}.
The EBA asserts that there exists a positive scale u defined on the aspects
E u(a)P(x,A ) (3.19)
aEXI_Ao a
P (x,A)
E 0 u()
E I_A
provided the denominator does not vanish. Note that the summations in the
numerator and the denominator of eq. (3.19) range, respectively, over all
aspects of x and A except those that are shared by all elements of A. Hence,
82
the denominator of eq. (3.19) vanishes only if all elements of A share the
same aspects, in which case it is assumed that P(x,A) = l/a, where a is the
number of elements in A.
spective aspects of x.
Tversky expands eq. ~ .19) (where the scale u is defined over individual
aspects) into the choice probability where a scale can be defined over
Note
and conjunctive method (2.1.1). It differs from them in that, due to its
probabilistic nature, the criteria for elimination (i.e., the selected aspects)
and the order in which they are applied vary from one occasion to another and
are not determined in advance. And the lexicographic method does not require
from conjunctive method in that the number of criteria for elimination varies.
a priority ordering defined on the aspects. The major flow on the logic of
EBA lies in the noncompensatory nature of the selection process. Although each
selected aspect is desirable, it might lead to the elimination of alternatives
that are bett er than those which are retained. In general,the strategy of
testing each possible ranking of the alternatives against all others. With
tive. The method was originally deve10ped for the cardinal preferences
of attributes (i.e . a set of weight) given. but it is rather to be used
for the ordinal preferences given. We will discuss first the case of
cardinal preferences given. then the ordinal ones.
Xl X2
Al xll x 12
A2 x 21 x 22
D
A xml xm2
m
Assume that a set of cardinal weights wj j 1.2 ... n. E wJ. 1. be given to the
j
set of corresponding attributes.
Suppose that there are three alternatives: Al' A2 and A3 . Then six
permutations of the ranking of the alternatives exist (m! = 3! = 6). They
are:
85
Xkj ? X~j will be rated wj , xkh 5 x~h being rated wh' The evaluation
where Ak is ranked higher than A~, Then the evaluation criterion of Pi' Ri ,
is given by
R.1. 2 w.
J I
jEDU
wj , i 1,2"",m! (3.20)
jEC H
where
The concordance set Cu is the subset of all criteria for wh ich x kj ? Xtj '
and the discordance set DH is the subset of all criteria for which
xk ~ X~j
J
86
Xl Xz X3 X4 Xs X6
Z.O 1500 ZOOOO 5.5 average very high Al
Z.S ZlOO 18000 6.5 low average AZ
D
1.8 2000 21000 4.5 high high A3
Z.2 1800 20000 5.0 average average A4
Assume that the cardinal weight of the attributes be w = (O.Z, 0.1, 0.1,
0.1, O.Z, 0.3). There are Z4(=4!) permutations of the alternatives which
Let us, for example, compute the testing of the ordering P4 = (Al' A3 ,
presented in matrix C4 .
1 3 4 2
where x ll ( = 2.0) > x 3l ( 1.8) that gives wl ' and x 16 ( very high) > x 36
( = average) < x 3S ( = high) that gives wS. Then the evaluating criterion of
P4 , R4 , is:
w. is the
J
88
hypothesis.
Similarly, 24 different Ci' i = 1,2, .. ,24 matriees are eomputed and
their evaluation eriteria, Ri , i 1,2, .. ,24 are ealeulated. Theyare:
1.2, R14 = 1.4, R15 = 0.4, R16 = 0.6, R17 1.6, RlS = O. S,
0.4, R20 0.4, R2l =1.2, R22 1.2, R 23 0.4, R24 0.4 }
Sinee R17 = 1.6 gives the maximum value, the best order of the alternatives
1: w. = 1, j = 1,2, ... ,n
j J
k < R,
ean be subdivided into subfie1ds on the sole basis of the evaluation of eaeh
ranking for the extreme points (1, 0), (0.5,0.5, 0), (0.333, 0.333, 0.333, 0),
The aigorithm based on this theorem is quite simple. Evaluate eaeh ranking
for the sueeessive end points (1, 0), (0.5, 0.5, 0), ... , and seleet the maxi
mum values. If some rankings are eommon to two end points, they are eommon
89
along the line passing through these end points; if separate rankings appear
on two end points, they have a joint value somewhere on the joining line,
but this value is anyway dominated by that of corumon end points. Inside the
six different w's in Table 3.1 satisfy these inequality relations. The best
rankings for the six different cardinal weight ~'s are identified in Table 3.1
2
a) As long as w6 + Ws >
3' Al
is selected.
2
b) As soon as w6 + Ws <
3'
A3 is selected.
The result matches the solution of the cardinal weight given, in which A3 is
Note
rather complicated conditions for the values of weights may arise, particularly
because numerical statements about ordinal weights are not easy to inter
pret [BM18]. Also with the increase of the number of alternatives the number
order, whereas ELECTRE method (see Section 2.3.4) measures the concordance
leVf~l of the part.ia1 orcler among alternative<; fir<;t then form<: the po<;<;ihle
aggregate order. Both methods can treat ordinal and cardinal preferences of
attributes, but the permutation method is rather designed for ordinal cases and
ELECTRE is for cardinal cases. This is the reason we classify them separately.
Tab1e 3.1. The best order for the different w's.
Gi ven: w6 ~ w5 ~ w1 ~ w2 ~ w3 ~ w4
91
P17
(l/b)
P4 , P14
(~, 1/2, 1/2)
P 17
P4
P 17 P4
P10 , P16
The methods in this class require the DM's cardinal preferences of at
tributes. This (a set of weights for the attributes) is the most common
satisfies a given concordance measure (for linear assignment method and ELECTRE),
and (3) select an alternative which has the largest relative closeness to the
Bernardo and Blin [25] developed the linear assignment method based on a
set of attributewise rankings and a set of attribute weights. The method features
In the process only ordinal data, rather than cardinal data, are used as the
There is one simple way to trans form the attributewise ranks into the
overall ranks. The method is to pick the sum of ranks for each alternative
and rank them from the lowest sum to the highest sumo For instance, consider
rank Xl X2 X3
1st Al Al A2
2nd A2 A3 Al
3rd A3 A2 A3
because the final rank of an alternative only depends on its own attribute
wise ranks (which are summed) without taking account of all the other alter
native attributewise ranks at the same time. Thus in spite of its apparent
simplicity, this method fails to meet our basic linear compensation require
uses all information contained in the attributewise rankings rat her than
[.,..,
(.2, .3, .5), w matrix becomes
~3
.5 0 .5
[ .5
w= .5 .2 .3 ] .5 .2 ]
0 .3 .2+.5 0 .3 .7
3rd
it can be equalized by taking one more attribute with half of the original
weight value such as
95
1st Al A2
2nd A2 Al
3rd A3 A3
It is understood that TI
ik measures the contribution of Ai to the overall
ranking, if Ai is assigned to the k th overall rank. The larger TI
ik indicates
the more concordance in assigning A. to the kth overall rank. Hence the
1
m
problem is to find Ai for each k, k = 1,2, ... ,m which maximizes E TI. k .
k=l 1
This is an m! comparison problem. An LP model is suggested for the case
of large m.
m m
max E E TI ik Pik (3.21)
i=l k=l
subject to
m
E Pik 1, i 1,2, ... ,m (3.22)
k=l
m
E Pik 1, k 1,2, ... ,m (3.23)
i=l
alternative i can be assigned to only one rank, therefore, we have eq. (3.22).
Likewise, a given rank k can only have one alternative assigned to it;
Let the optimal permutation matrix, which is the solution of the above
plying A by PW
96
Rank Xl X2 X3 X4 Xs X6
1st A2 A2 A3 A3 A3 Al
2nd A4 A3 Al ,A4 A4 Al ,A4 A3
3rd Al A4 Al A2 ,A4
4th A3 Al A2 A2 A2
can be equa1.ized as
1st A3 A3 A3 A3 Al Al
2nd Al A4 Al A4 A3 A3
3rd A4 Al A4 Al A2 A4
4th A2 A2 A2 A2 A4 A2
where each of these rankings has the half weight of the tied ranking. The
DM has. set up the weight of w = (.2, .1, .1, .1, .2, .3), then the ~ matrix
becomes
1 st 2nd 3rd 4 th
.3 .1S .4S .1 Al
.3 0 .1S .SS A2
~ =
.4 .4 0 .20 A3
where rr ll = w61 + w62 = 0.15 + 0.15 = 0.3, rr 12 w31 + w51 .05 + .1 .15,
4 4
max l: l: rr ik Pik
i=l k=l
4
s.t. l: Pik 1, i 1,2, ... ,4
k=l
4
l: Pik 1, k 1,2, ... ,4
i=l
0 0 1 0
p* 0 0 0 1
1 0 0 0
0 1 0 0
Note
ment computer codes are available; hence special computer packages are not
necessary.
action and comul.naticTI. S1lt only ordinal data, rather than cardinal data,
Besides being able to determine the best alternative, the method has
other procedures which rely on minimal data do not. For example, the
for references.)
which become the coefficients of the variables. To reflect the DM's marginal
of intraattribute values. The DM can then obtain a total score for each
alternative simply by multiplying the scale rating for each attribute value
by the importance weight assigned to the attribute and then summing these
products over all attributes. After the total scores are computed for each
alternative, the alternative with the highest score (the highest weighted
where x .. is the outcome of the i th alternative about the jth attribute with
1J
a numerically comparable scale. Usually the weights are normalized so
n
that 1: w. = 1.
j=l J
100
The decision matrix after assigning numerical values (by using the
Xl X2 X3 X4 X5 X6
2.0 1500 20,000 5.5 5 9 Al
2.5 2700 18,000 6.5 3 5 A2
D
1.8 2000 21,000 4.5 7 7 A3
Simple additive weighting method requires a comparable scale for all elements
in the decision matrix. The comparable scale is obtained by using eq. (2.2)
for benefit criteria and by eq. (2.4) for cost criteria, that is,
x ..
r .. 2l.. j 1,2,3,5,6
1J x~
J
and
x.min
r 1
i4
Xi4
X2 X3 X4
Xl X5
\
0.80 .0.56 0.95 0.82 0.71 1.0 A
1
1.0 1.0 0.86 0.69 0.43 0.56 A2
D'
0.72 0.74 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.78 A3
w (0.2, 0.1, 0.1, 0.1, 0.2, 0.3). Then the weighted average values
101
A2 0.709
A3 0.852
A4 0.738
Therefore, A3 is selected.
Note
Simple additive weighting method uses all n attribute values of an
and addition; therefore, the attribute values must be both numerical and
which to form the weights reflecting the importance of each of the attributes.
In the fighter aircraft problem, for instance, the weights, ~ (0.2, 0.1, 0.1,
0.1, 0.2, 0.3), imp1y that maximum speed (Xl) or reliability (X 5 ) is twice as
What does it mean to say that one attribute is twice as important as another?
such as eigenvector method, weighted least square method, entropy method, etc.,
(see Section 11 5) have been suggested for determining such weighted values,
The attribute values must be put into a numerical and comparable form.
They must be comparable because we are going to combine across attributes; e.g.,
a "high" value for one attribute must receive approximate1y the same numerical
When weights are assigned and attribute values are numerical and comparable,
some arbitrary assumptions still remain. Note that 0.36 (=r 46 ) multiplied by
0.3 (=w6 ) and 1.0 (=r 33 ) multiplied by 0.1 (=w 3) both Yleld about the same
0.36 as being a below average attribute value, then this identity implies
ability just offset each other. By "offset each other" we mean that both
make the same contribution to the weighted average. Thus there exist some
values by weights.
of weighted averages may give misleading results. But when the attributes
very powerful approach to MADM. The approach will lead to a unique choice
since a single number is arrived at for each alternative, and since these numbers
will usually be different. For this reason, and because it has some intuitive
The utility functions being used for uncertainty can be equally used
in the case of certainty, and is called value function V(x 1 , x 2 ' ... , xn ). A
n n
E w. v. (x.) E w.r.
j=l J J J j=l J J
where v.C.) is the value function for the jth attribute and r. is the jth
J J
attribute transformed into the comparable scale. A utility fnction Can be
that is,
Hence a valid additive uti1ity function can be substituted for the simple
is assumed that the utility (score, value) of the multiple attributes can be
separated into utilities for each of the individual attributes. When the
substitutes (that is, excellence with respect to one attribute reduces the
is hard to expect that attributes take the separab1e additive form. Then the
form. Basic theoretica1 matters are discussed by Fishburn [108, 128], and
Raiffa and Keeney [BMl3]. But theory, simulation computations, and experience
all suggest that simple additive weighting method yie1ds extreme1y c10se
n n
I: w. x .. / I: w.
j=l J ~J
j=l J
n
where in general. I: w. = 1. and x .. is in a ratio sca1e.
j=l J ~J
. h regard to t h
w~t e J th ..
cr~ter~on. Then t he vector ~j = ( x1j x2j ... xij
x .) may indicate the contribution. importance (another weight) of A. 's
mJ ~
for the jth criteria as the weight vector ~ represents the importance of
m
I: x .. 1. j 1.2, ... n
~J
i=l
the SAW is simple to compose weights from the different levels. This approach
matches Saaty's [350] hierarchica1 structures. For examp1e. the fighter air
craft decision problem by the SAW can be represented as a hierarchy with three
levels. In Fig. 3.4 the first hierarchy level has a single objective. the
maximum speed. ferry range. maximum pay1oad. purchasing cost. re1iabi1ity. and
weight assessing methods with respect to the objective of the first level.
The third hierarchy level has the four fighters considered. In this level
First Level
Third
Level
Fighters
levels: the top level consists of a single element and each element of a
or all of the elements in the level irnrnediately below. The pairwise comparison
with respect to a purpose from the adjacent higher level. The process is
repeated up the hierarchy and the problem is to compose the resu1ting priorities
way as to obtain one overall priority vector of the impact of the lowest
cornposition.
th
Let the symbol Lk represent the k level of a hierarchy of h levels.
Assurne that Y = {Yl' Y2' ... , Yk} e Lk and that X = {xl' x2 ' xi' ... , ~+f
e Lk +l . Also assurne that there is an element z,e:L k _1 such that Y is covered
k
E w (x.)w (y.), i 1,2, ... ,k+1 (3.25)
j=l Yj 1 Z J
It is obvious that this is no more than the process of weighting the influence
of Yj with respect to z.
107
Thus, we may speak of the priority vector W and,indeed, of the priority matrix
h levels. ..
Let Bk b e t he pr10r1ty . 0 f k th level, k
matr1x = 1 , 2, . , h If W'
.
lS t h e pr10r1ty
.. vector 0 f t h e p th level wit h respect to some e l
ement '
Z 1n
st th
the (pl) level, then the priority vector W of the q level (p < q) with
respect to Z is given by
Thus, the priority vector of the lowest level with respect to the element b
is given by:
(3.28)
The decision matrix of the fighter problem with all numerical attributes is
Xl X2 X3 X4 Xs X6
All elements of the fighter decision matrix are already given; thus it is not
necessary to use the pairwise comparison matrix to assess the relative con
tribut ion of fighters for each criterion (attribute). This is the consistency
obtained by
x ..
1J
k. j 1,2,3,5,6
J 4
L x ..
i=l 1J
4 1
1 j 4 (cost criterion)
/ L
x .. i=1 x ..
1J 1J
Then
B3 [Pij]
Xl X2 X3 X4 Xs X6
Al
A2 ["2353
.2941
.1875
.3375
.2532
.2278
.2399
.2030
.25
.15
.3462 ]
.1923
A3 .2118 .25 .2658 .2932 .35 .2692
A4 .2588 .2250 .2532 .2639 .25 .1923
B2 = ~=[.2 .1 .1 .1 .2 .3]T
The composite vector for the hierarchy of mission effectiveness (see Fig. ~.4)
is given by
.269 ]
.223
[
.274
.234
A student who had just received his Ph.D. degree was offered three jobs.
Six attributes were selected for the comparison. They are: research, growth,
benefits, col1eagues, location, and reputation. His criteria for selecting the
jobs and their pairwise comparison matrix are given in Table 3.2. Due to the
the jobs with respect to each criteria rather than the decision matrix. They
The eigenvalues of the matrix of the Table 3.2 is A 6.35 and the
max
corresponding eigenvector is
RS G B C L RP
B2 = [.16 .19 .19 .05 .12 .30] T
The eigenvalue and the eigenvectors of the remaining matrices are given by
A 3.02 3.02 3.56 3.05 3. 3.21
max
RS G B C L RP
B3 A
B [14 .63
.10
.33
.32
.22
.28
.65
.47
.47 77]
.17
C .24 .57 .46 .07 .07 .05
A
,40 ]
B [ .34
C .26
The differences were sufficiently large for the candidate to accept the offer
of job A.
110
1
Research 1 1 1 4 1
"2
1
Growth 1 1 2 4 1
"2
1 1
Benefits 1 1 5 3
"2 2
1 1 1 1
Colleagues 1
"4 "4 5 3 "3
1
Location 1 1 3 1 1
"3
Reputation 2 2 2 3 1 1
A B C A B C A B C
1 1 1 1 1
A 1 A 1 A 1 3
"4 "2 "4 5 "3
1 1
B 4 1 3 B 4 1 B 1 1
"2 3
1
C 2 1 C 5 2 1 C 3 1 1
3
A B C A B C A B C
1
A 1 5 A 1 1 7 A 1 7 9
"3
1
B 3 1 7 B 1 1 7 B 1 5
7
1 1 1 1 1 1
C 7 1 C 1 C 1
5 "7 "7 9 5
111
adult experiences. Factors in growth and maturity which impinge upon well
being may be the influences of the father and the mother separately as weIl
where the individual in question feels that his selfconfidence has been
hood experiences only and is asked to relate the following elements pair
i) for L2
o.w.
R S A
R 1 6 4
1
S 1 3
6"
1 1
A 1
4 3
ii) for L3
R S A
V E D 0 V E D 0 V E D 0
1 1
V 1 6 6 3 V 1 6 6 3 V 1 1
1 1
5 "3 1
E 1 4 3 E 1 4 3 E 5 1 4
6" 1
6" 1 1 1
5
1. 1
D
6 "4 1
2 D
i "4 1
2 D 3
"4 1
"4
0 1 1 2 1 0 1 1 2 1 0 1 5 4 1
3 3 "3 "3
iii) for L4
V t:: U 0
M F B M F B M F B M F B
M 1 9 4 M 1 1 1 M 1 9 6 M 1 5 5
1 1 1 1 1
F 1 8 F 1 1 1 F 1 F 1
9 9 "4 5 3
B 1 1 1 B 1 1 1 B 1 4 1 B 1 3 1
"4 8" 6" 5"
O.W.
B2 R
S
[.701 ] .193
A .106
R S A
f604
J1
V .604 .127
D
l"o64 .064
.120
0 .119 .119 .463
114
B4
M
F
[,721
.210
.333
.333
.713
.061
,701 ]
.097
B .069 .333 .176 .202
The final composite vector of influence on wellbeing obtained from the product
W :
B
[::~:]
.156
Note
When the decision problem has a large number of attributes, say more than
seven, it is easier to assess the set of weights using the hierarchical structure
assesses the weights of the four major attributes, then he judges within
each class. The composition of these different weights leads to the weights
on the lowest level attributes. MacCrimmon termed this approach
Miller and Saaty use the hierarchical structure for different purposes;
van Delft et al. [303, 344, 345, 349, 413] have developed this method to the
present state.
and ~ do not dominate each other mathematically (see 1.1.1 Dominance), the
ship can be eliminated. But the construction of this partial order is not
an unambiguous task for the DM. ELECTRE sets the criteria for the mechanical
which weighted evaluations differ from each other. These stages are based
be calculated as:
x ..
~J
r .. R r ll r 12 r 1n (3.29)
I i=lm
~J
2
l: x ..
~J r 21 r 22 r 2n
r
mn
V RW
v . w.r .
lJ J lJ
vml v v w.r . wr
mj mn J mJ n mn
(3.30)
where
W w1 0
w2
o
117
pair of alternatives k and ~(k, ~ = 1,2, ... ,m and k r ~), the set of decision
criteria J = {jlj = 1,2, ... ,n} is divided into two distinct subsets. The
(3.31)
(3.32)
dance index is equal to the sum of the weights associated with those criteria
which are contained in the concordance set. Therefore, the concordance index
n
w./ L w.
J j=l J
w. (3.33)
J
C (3.34)
em(m_l) 
deeision eriteria. So far no attention has been paid to the degree to whieh
defined,
(3.35)
It is elear that 0 ~ dki ~ 1. A higher value of dk~ implies that, for the
D (3.36)
x
d
m(ml) ,
~
matrix.
be calculated with the aid of a threshold value for the concordance index.
This thresho1d va1ue can be determined, for example, as the average concor
m m
c = ~ ~ ck~/m(m  1) (3.37)
k=l ~=1
kf~ ~fk
120
1, if c ki > c (3.38)
a
m m
E E dki/m(m  1) (3.39)
k=l i=l
k~i i~k
Also the unit elements in the G matrix represent the dominance relationships
(3.40)
dance criteria, but Ak still has the chance of being dominated by the other
cedure is,
can be easily identified in the E matrix. If any column of the E matrix has
have an element of 1.
Qualitative attributes are quantified with the scale of; very high = 9,
high = 7, average = 5, and low = 3; then the decision matrix of the fighter
problem is,
r
X3 X4 X5
Xl X2
\
~l
1.5 2.0 5.5 5 Al
D 20
2.5 2.7 1.8 6.5 3 A2
1.8 2.0 2.1 4.5 7 A3
L 2.2 1.8 L. 5.0 5 ~ ...J "4
A
122
The DM determines the preference weight of ~ = (.2, .1, . 1, .1, .2, .3) .
R=
[ .4671
.5839
.4204
.3662
.6591
.4882
.5056
.4550
.5380
.5063
.5983
.4143
.4811
.2887
.6736
7
]
.3727
,6
.5217
.5139 .4392 .5056 .4603 .4811 .3727
[093'
.1168
.0366
.0659
.0506
.0455
.0506
.0598
.0962
.0577
,201]
.1118
V =
.0841 .0488 .0531 .0414 .1347 .1565
.1028 .0439 .0506 .0460 .0962 .1118
C12 {3, 4, 5, 6}
12 H, 2}
C13 H, 6} 13
{2, 3, 4, 5}
C23 U, 2}
23
{3, 4, 5, 6}
C24 U, 2, 6} 0 24 {3, 4, 5}
C34 {2, 3, 4, 5, 6}
34
U}
C41 H, 2, 3, 4, 5} 41
{6}
w. .7
J
.7 .5 .6
C
.3 .3 .6
.5 .7 .8
.7 .7 .2
max I v l'  v 2 . I
J. ED J J
12
max{.0234, .0293}
.0293
.0894 = .3277
D 1. 1. 1.
x
1. .4247 .4183
1. .5714 1.
124

c .55
4 x 3
[~ :::]
F
d = 4 x 3
.7257
[:
1 0 1
G 0 0
1 1
1 0
125
1 o 1
E o o
1 1
1 o
tation,
We can easily see that A2 and A4 are dominated by Al and A3 . But we cannot
tell the preference relation between Al and A3 . This relationship can also
be directly identified from the E matrix (see the first and the third column
of the E matrix which do not have any element of 1.) Hence A2 and A4 can be
eliminated by ELECTRE method.
Note
and d. These values are rather arbitrary, although their impact on the
one (in the aircraft problem if d = .9 is taken instead of the average dis
cordance index of .7257, then only Al is left as a nondominated alternative).
van Delft and Nijkamp [BM18] introduced the net dominance relation
ships for the complementary analysis of the ELECTRE method. First they define
the net concordance dominance value c k ' which measured the degree to which the
total dominance of the ~ exceeds the degree to which all competing alter
(3.42)
m m
(3.43)
Obviously ~ has a higher chance of being accepted with the higher c k and
the lower dk . Hence the final selection should satisfy the condition that
its net concordance dominance value should be at a maximum and its net dis
out. The procedure is to rank the alternatives acr.ording to their net con
the average as the highest one can be selected as the final solution. For
the aircraft problem, the net concordance dominance values are: cl .3,
c2 .9, c 3 = 1., c4 = .4; and the net discordance dominance values are:
ranks the first and Al the second in c k ' and that Al ranks first and A3
second in dk . Hence both Al and A3 are judged acceptable for the final
solution.
Yoon and Hwang [440a, 440b] developed the Technique for Order Preference
by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) based upon the concept that the
chosen alternative should have the shortest distance from the ideal solution
Assume that each attribute takes the monotonically increasing (or de
at the same time. Sometimes the chosen alternative, which has the minimum
Euclidean distance from the ideal solution, has the shorter distance (to the
by taking the relative closeness to the ideal solution. Dasarathy [66] used
v
u
~
V
H A*
v
~
V
H
~
~
~
~
~
~
V
H
U
~
~
N
X
V
~
~
~
~
H
~
A
~
~
The Algoritlun
Xl X2 X. X
J n
Al X u x 12 x lj x ln
A2 x2l ~2
x 2j x 2n
D
A. xi! x i2 x .. x.
~ ~J ~n
where
t he ~. th a 1ternat~ve
. dered ,
cons~
jth criterion.
TOPSIS assumes that each attribute in the decision matrix takes eitner ~ono
successive steps.
Step 1. Construct the normalized decision matrix: This process tries to
which allows co~~arison acrcss the attributes. One way is to take the outcome
131
of each criterion divided by the norm of the total outcome vector of the
be calculated as
r.. = x . .
~) ~I
11 ~
i=1
xi).
plying each column of the matrix R with its associated weight wj . Therefore,
w.r ..
J ~J
V v .. v.~n w.r ..
~J J ~J
v . v w.r . w r
mJ mn J mJ n mn
Step 3. Determine ideal and negative ideal solutions: Let thetwo ar~i
,
A* = {(max v .. 1j e: J), (min v .. 1 j e: J )I i 1,2, ... ,m}
i ~J
i ~J
= {vI * v 2* , ... , v. * ,
J
... , v *}
n (3.44)
,
A = {(min v .. 1j e:. J), emax v .. Ij e: J ) i 1,2, ... ,m}
i J.J 1J
. , v j
, ... , (3.45)
132
Then it is certain that the two created alternatives A* and A indicate the
most preferable alternative (ideal sOlution) and the least preferable alterna
/ ~L. * 2
(v ij  v j ) , i 1,2, ... ,m (3.46)
j=l
s.
Calculate the relative closeneS5 to the ideal solution: The relative
closeness of A. with respect to A* is defined as
~
The decision matrix of the fighter aircraft problem after the quantifi
X2 X3 X4
Xl Xs
\
Al 2.0 lSOO 20000 S.S S 9
.0545 .1197
.0580 .1009
5.
1
Ir j =1
(v ..
1J
 vj  ) 2, i 1,2,3,4
53 _ .0920 54 _ .0458
Note
Probably the best known and widely used MADM method is the Simple Additive
Weighting (SAW) method (2.3.2). This method is so simple that some decision
makers are reluctant to accept the solution. In this section the SAW method is
n n
max I: wJ.r iJ./ I: w. }
i j =1 j =1 J
n
where I: w. =1
and r .. is the normalized outcome of A. with respect to the
j =1 J 1J 1
jth benefit criterion (cost criterion is converted to the benefit by taking
written by
n
max I: v .. }
i j=l 1J
Let the separation measure in TOPSIS be defined by the city block distance
[66] instead of the Euclidean distance; then the separation between A. and
1
n
Sik I: v ..
1J  vkj I, i,k = 1,2, .. ,m
j=l
i f k
This city block distancemeasure has the following useful relationship [440a]:
... S.
1
.. ,
J( ,? J
.A, ,_ ......
m
,&1.1
The relationship says that any alternative which has the shortest distance
negativeideal solution. (This is not true for the Euclidean distance measure.)
Now the relative closeness to the ideal solution can be simplified as
l.
Now it can be concluded that the result of SAW is a special case of TOPSIS
Al .643 .596
A2 .268 .244
A3 .614 .629
A4 .312 .328
Even though they have similar values, the best alternative for the Euclidean
distance measure is Al' and that for the city block distance is A3 The
preference orders are (Al' A3 , A4 , A2) for the Euclidean distance measure,
is, a set of weights for the attributes is required. The solution depends
upon the weighting scheme given by the DM. Fortunately some reliable methods
for weight assessment have appeared [54, 350, 459] which will enhance the
such as Lhe optimum number of rooms in a house or the blood sugar count in a
human body,where the best utility is located sornewhere in the middle of an
attribute range.
The two different separation measures of TOPSIS eby the city block dis
Here they are contrasted with the concept of tradeoffs [BM13, 277, 278]. A
(3.49)
.A = af / (lf (3.50)
ClV 2 _ (lVI
SAW or TOPSIS with city block distance measure has the value function of
ference curves form straight lines with the slope of 1. A constant MRS is
a special rare case of MRS, which implies the local MRS is also the global
MRS.
S.
1
c
s.1 + SI' *
(3.52)
S~1 2
(Vi  v 2) + Si* (v 2  V;)
A
2 (3.53)
S~l (vi  vI) + Si* (vI  v) I
where distances to the ideal and negativeideal solution are equal. When
v*
2  v2
A = (3.54)
v*
I  vI
139
when Si* = Si_. It is not easy to illustrate the general shapes of the
cS.*
~
 (1  c) S.~ o (3.55)
where the difference of its weighted (c and (lc)) distances from two fixed
Some typical indifference curves are shown in Fig. 3.7. AnY curves with
Ci * > 0.5 are convex to the preference origin,which indicate the property
one which has the best attribute with the other worst attribute rather than
to take one which has two worse attributes. Hence this approach can be viewed
C .5 c .6 c =.7 C = .8 C = .9
v*
2
v*
1
We sometimes trade in an old car plus some amount of money for a new
car based upon our acceptance of the dealer's offeT. The procedure
for this commercial transaction is applied in multiple attribute decision
(e.g., reduce an amount in one's savings account), how much can we expect
to get the improved value of another attribute (e.g., enjoying a new car)?
lower the gas mileage value, how much roomier space can one get if other
things remain the same?
Most MADM methods except the noncompensatory model deal with tradeoffs
difference curve are the two basic terms describing the tradeoff information.
where two attributes Xl (gas mileage) and X2 (roominess) are specified desirable
attributes while other attributes remain equal, you are asked:
If X2 is increased by 6 units, how much does Xl have to decrease in order
for you to remain indifferent? Clearly, in many cases, your answer depends
on the levels Xl of Xl and x 2 of X2 . If, at a point (xl' x 2), you are willing
to give up A6 units of Xl for 6 units of X2 , then we will say that the marginal
the amoUQt of Xl you are willing to pay for a unit of X2 given that you presently
attributes at a time.
142
I
I
~
L__\i
1
c
A I
c I
I
I
I
~~~~ I
I
I
I
I
><
N
~a I
I
Xl (gas mileage)
In this case it is not possible to get a higher value on one attribute even
Xl and X2 , that is, on (xl' x2). For example, suppose the substitution rate
at (xl' x2), the point b in Fig. 3.8,is Ab' If we hold xl fixed, we might
find that the substitution rates increase with a decrease in X2 and decrease
that the more of X2 (roominess) we have, the less of Xl (gas mileage) we would
less at point c than at point a. This implies that the MRS at which you would
MRS diminishes.
Indifference Curves: Let us consider again the car selection problem with
as (26, 81) in Fig. 3.9. The indifference curve would require a new alternative,
say A2 (20, 95), that the DM would deern equivalent in preference to Al' By
through Al' The indifference curve is, then, the locus of all attribute va lues
those preferred to the reference point, and (c) those to which the reference
144
140
Direction of increasing
preference
120
100
(26,81)
+> 80
4<
A4
::l
u
'' 60
N
><
40
20
o 10 20 30
Xl (MPG)
Fig. 3.9 Aset of indifference curves between MPG and the space
of passenger compartment.
145
point is preferred. We know that any point on the preferred side of the in
side of the curve. Hence, if we are asked to compare Al with any other alter
points on the preferred side of the indifference curve , we cannot say which is
the most preferred. It would be necessary to draw new indifference curves [278].
Three major properties are assumed for indifference curves [277]. One
are desirable, then in order to get more of one attribute we would be willing
curve to the preference origin (not to the mathematical origin). A third property
the preference origin. This implies that the MRS diminishes. Note that the
slope of indifference curves in Fig. 3.9 gets steeper as we move up the curves (from
right to left). Also it is observed that the MRS at (xl' x 2 ) is the negative re
MacCrimmon et al. [276, 277, 278] suggest some effective methods for ob
taining indifference curves. One of their methods has the three types of
(b) generating points by fixing both attributes, but fixing them one at a time;
and (c) generating points by fixing both attributes simultaneously. Keeney and
offs allows us to make the alternatives much more comparable than they are
initially. That is, we can make alternatives equivalent for all attributes
except one by tradeoffs, and then evaluate the alternatives by the attribute
but two attributes; then we discard attributes one by one through the trade
are located on the indifference curves. We can easily drive the one attribute
level to the same, and read the corresponding modified value of the other
attribute. The attribute which is driven to the same level (calied base
can be carried through for pairs of the remaining n2 attributes, we will
also have pairs of natural combinations we can consider the tradeoffs among
the pairs and use the indifference curves we obtain to scale a new higher
until we obtain two high order composite attributes for which we again form
able to locate it in the final composite space. This can be done by assuring
we finally consider.
among the initial classes. That is, while the tradeoff between any
suggests that a useful way to form the initial pairs is by grouping attri
r
X2 X3 X4
Xl \ X6
each other and that the interdependency exists within each pair; speed
maneuverability (X 6 ).
The above modified value of maximum speed will represcnt botn Xl and Xs '
148
high
. ~
.0
<IS
....
.~
~ low
1.5 2 2.5 3
to another higher order of tradeoffs until we are getting the single attribute
values.
Note
A drawback of the hierarchical tradeoff analysis with two attributes at
Base level
~ 2
0
0
....
0
''
(I)
t>O
1
'>."' 1
''""''
(I)
~
~
N
><
lS 20 2S 30
very high
>,
+' high base level
.,<
......
,<
.g
1<
Q)
~Q)
average
::E
4 5 6 7
X4 , Cost($ x 10 6 )
If the most important cl ass by the lexicographic method (see Section 2.2.1)
has more than one attribute. we form tradeoffs among these attributes.
The methods in this cl ass require that the DM be able to indicate his/her
preference between two alternatives. This kind of information is far more de
understand, and predict decision behavior, but they are weIl fitted for
LINMAP and interactive simple additive weighting method take the pair
set may contain inconsistent elements (choice). Both methods allow this
3.1.1 LINMAP
decided, we can choose an alternative which has the shortest distance from
alternative which is closer to his ideal point. Then the weighted Euclidean
n 2 1/2
d. E wJ. (xi]  x]~)] , i 1,2, ... ,m (3.56)
1
j=l
where x~ is the ideal value for the jth attribute. The weights here take
]
ac count of both the units in which each dimension is scaled and of the
s. d 2i,1S
. g1ven
. by
1
n * 2
s. E w.(x .. x].), i 1,2, ... ,m (3.57)
1
j =1 J 1J
Let n = {(k, i)} denote a set of ordered pairs (k, i) where k des
in it. For every order pair (k, i) e n, the solution (~, ~*) could be
155
(3.58)
Now the problem is to determine the solution (~, ~*) for which the above
For the pair (k, ~), if s~ ~ sk' the condition (3.58) is satisfied
and there is no error attributable to the solution. On the other hand if
s~ < sk' then (sk  s~) denotes the error extent to which the condition is
violated. In general, if we define
(3.59)
s~, if s~ < sk
then (sk s~) denotes the error for the pair (k, ~) G. Summing it up
B = poorness of fit
(3.60)
problem is to find a solution (~, ~*) for which B is minimal. Usually this
problem leads to the trivial solution with w. 0, hence we should add one
J
constraint in minimizing B.
156
G (3.61)
where
B,
G> B
(3.62)
or
G B =h
h (3.63)
optimization problem of
s.t.
157
(3.64)
s.t.
(3.65)
h (3.66)
(3.67)
for (k, ~) E: rl
The following reasoning may clear the doubt about the conversion. In LP
(3.68)
Since we are minimizing the objective function, eq. (3.64), which is the sum
n n
sR.  sk E w. (xR. .  X~)2 E w. (x k .  X~/
j=l J J J j=l J J J
n 2 n
2
E w. (xR. . x kj )  2 E  Xkj )
J J (xR.j
w.x~ (3.69)
j=l J J j =1
min E zkR.
(k, R.) e:n
n 2 2 n
S.t. E wJ,(xR.J'  ~J')  2 E vJ,(xR.J'  xkJ') + zkR. ~ 0, for (k,R.) e: n
j=l j=l
n 2 2 n
E w. E (xR.J'  xkJ )  2 E v. E (xR.J'  xkJ') h
(3.70)
j=l J (k,R.) dl j=l J (k,R.)e:n
i) if w~ > 0, then x~ = v~ / w~
J J J J
ii) if w~
J and
and v~
J
0, define X~
J =
iii) if W~
J and v~
J
> 0, then X~
J
+""
iv) if W~
J v~
J
< 0, then X~
J
159
where
Srinivasan and Shocker [381] used another criteria for s. in eq. (3.57).
1
n
s. z: w.x ..
1
j=l J 1J
where x .. 's are at least intervally scaled and the larger x .. , the larger
1J 1J
preference. Then we have
n
LW. (xk  x t .)
j =1 J J J
160
n
S.t. L wJ.(~J.  x tJ) + Zkt ~ 0, for (k,t) E Q
j=l
n
L w. L (x kj  Xtj ) h
j=l J (k,t) dl
(3.72)
w. ~ 0, j 1,2, ... ,n
J
Numerica1 Examp1e 1.
considered [380].
Xl X2
Al 0 5
A2 5 4
D
A3 0 2
A4 1 3
A5 4 1
Q {(I, 2), (3, 1), (4, 1), (5, 1), (2, 3), (2, 4), (2, 5), (4, 3),
(3, 5), (4, 5)}
161
judgment: for instance, Al > A2 and A2 > A3 , but A3 > Al' etc.
To obtain the best weight and ideal point, a linear programming problem
is set up using eq. (3.70). The first of the constraints of eq. (3.70) is
2 222 2
~ w. (x 2'  Xl J' )  2 ~ v J. (x 2J'  Xl J') + Z12 > 0
j=l J J j=l
i.e. ,
min
> 0
S.t. 2Sw l  YW2l0Vl+2v2+Zl2
2lw 2 6v 2 > 0
+z31
> 0
w l +16w 2+ 2v l 4v 2 +z41
> 0
16w l +24w 2+ 8vl8v2 +zSl
> 0
2Sw l 12w 2+lOw l +4v 2 +z23
> 0
24w l  7w 2+ 8v l +2v 2 +z24
> 0
9w l lSw 2+ 2v l +6v 2 +z2S
+z43 > 0
w  Sw 2+ 2v1 4 2v 2
1 > 0
l6w l  3w 2  8v 1+2v 2 +z~S
wl ' w2 , z12' z3l' z4l' zSl' z23' z24' z2S' z43' z3S' z4S > 0
z* .25
w* (.0277, .0554)
v* (.0833, .1944)
w* (1., 2.)
v* (3.,7.)
The above distance si's satisfy all the partial orders in n except (1, 2).
The fact that z12 = .25 indicates that the weights imply SI > s2,and hence
The DM may select either A2 or A4 which has the minimum distance from the
ideal point.
The decision matrix after assigning numerical values (by using the
Xl X2 X3 X4 X5 X6
Since a set of weights in LINMAP takes account of the units in which each
z41 1
z32 1
z24 1
z34 1
S. i 1,2,3,4
1
which is
The DM may select Al or A3 which has the minimum distance from the ideal point.
LIN~~P for comparison purposes. The cost attribute, x4 ' is changed to the
benefit one by taking the negative value of it. The changed decision matrix
is now
w.
J 
> 0, = 1,2, ... ,6
166
z* o. )
w* (0., .2,0.,0., .09, .14)
6
s.  E w.x ..
1
j =1 J 1J
are
Again alternative Al and A3 have the minimum value of Si which matches the
Note
The LINMAP procedure does not require that the set Q consist of all
m(ml)/2 paired comparison judgments from the DM. However, the set of weights
(i.e., m > n), LINMAP gives the better fitting. The method does not require
weighted Euclidean distance from the ideal point, is based on the quadratic
utility (ar value) af the number af roams when ane is purchasing a hause.
The buyer likes neither the small number of rooms nor the large number.
utility function where the ideal point is located at the positive or negative
infinite. Recall that v~ = ~x~ and x~ = v~/w~ in eq. ~.7l), then the set
J J J J J J
j" is identified to be the set of attributes whose ideal values are located
(or decreasing) utility function only, the set j" will represent the set of
n
s 2 ~ v.x .. , i 1,2, ... ,m
i j=l J 1J
model. When all attributes in the deeision matrix are recognized to take the
The same solutions for the fighter aireraft problem obtained by using eq. (3.7W
and eq. (3.7~ indicate that the DM made paired eomparison judgments based on
LINMAP the DM gives a set of the partial orders as input, and a set of weights
is the output. When the number of attributes exeeeds the number of alternatives
(i.e., n > m), it is not easy for the DM to assess the partial orders, and
by the DM and leads to the identification of the final ranking and the
is preferred to q if,
T
w (x  x ) > 0 (3.74)
 p q
n
where W E W {wl L w. l,w. > O}.
1 1
i=l
of the malternatives, and n(j) be the alternative in the jth position of the
T
!. (~(j)  ~(j+l)) > 0, j = 1, 2, ... , m  1 (3.75)
by the DM, he can be indifferent to the use of any !. E WQ as the weights for
the linear utility function since any such w will produce the order n [248].
for such a utility function he should accept the order n as his preference
ordering. The interactive simple additive weighting method introduces a
way whereby the DM can progressively change n and approach his desired
We note that the set of all the feasible orderings {n} induces a parti
tion of W, Le.,
W = U Wn
n
and
In other words, if any one of the constraint set of eq. (3.76) is satisfied,
ranked higher than the dominant one. Only for the nondominated pair, alter
natives can be ranked alternately due to the different w.
Assume that the ~ and A~ are adjacent in the current order n, and that
the constraint:
T
~ (~  ~) > 0
t;3 .77)
is a tight constraint.
170
to moving from the space Wn to an adjacent space Wn , across the boundary de
feasible. This finding allows the DM to correct and improve the order n by
switching a pair of the order at a time. If he corrects only the binding con
Now the problem is to identify the tight constraint set from (m  1) set
matrix whose rows Bn(i) are given by ~(i)  ~(i+l)' The closure of Wn
is the set {w} such that
Bn w ~
(3.78)
n
(3.79)
L w.
1
1
i=l
w.
1
~ 0, i 1, 2, ... , n (3.80)
The boundary of Wn 15 determined by those rows of eq. 0.78) which are tight
(active)constraints for some value of w. For such rows the optimum value
min Bn(i) w
s.t.
(3.81)
n
l: w. 1
i=l 1
i 1, 2, ... , n
171
max p
reduce the number of dual problems that need to be solved in order to deter
n* is as follows:
Step 1. Identify an initial feasible ordering (say lexicographical ordering
Step 3. present the DM with the list of pairs in n which determine the
Numerical Example
Consider the fo11owing decision matrix D of 7 alternatives with 3 attri
butes. All attributes are the benefit criteria (the greater, the higher
Iteration No. 1:
is:
B11 ~ ~ 2 3 2
B12 ~  1
x 1 4 2
B13 ~1  2
x 1 8 6
BI B14 ~2 ~7 1 2 0
~7  5
l:
BIS x 5 5
B16 !.s  3
x 3 2
max p
s.t.
111
BT
1
112
.Xj ~
T
BU
i=1,2, ... ,6
p unconstrained.
wh ere BT
li' l' = 1 , 2 , ... , 6 are rows 0 f B1 .
For B11 the solution is p * .75. 112 = .625 and 114 = .625 are basic
(strict1y positive) imp1ying that the pairs (6,1) (2,7) are binding. The
pair we do not need to solve for B12 . For B13 the solution is p * = .2222.
114 = .7778 and 116 = 3.111 are basic imp1ying that the pairs (2,7) (5,3)
are binding, but (1,2) is not, etc. The binding constraints are:
Step 3. The decision step: The DM is unsatisfied with the relative posi
Iteration No. 2:
B21  x 3 7 4
~ 1
B22 ~1 ~ 1 4 2
B23  x 2 4 4
B2 ~ 2
B24 ~2  ~7 1 2 0
B25  !s 1 5 5
r
~7
max p
s.t.
)11
)12
BT
2
'0[:1 ~
T
B2i
)16
p unconstrained
First we know pair (1,6) is binding from the judgment in Iteration No. 1.
For B 21 the solution is p * = .3889. )14 = 1.889 and )15 = .7222 are basic
imp1ying (4,1) is not binding but (2,7) and (7,5) are binding. For B26
(2,7) is binding but not (5,3). The on1y undecided pair is (6,2). For B
23
the solution is p
* = 1.0. The pair (6,2) is not binding. The binding
Step 3. The decision step: The DM accepts the present order n2 = (4, 1, 6,
pairs;
2
5
w2 + w4 + Ws = 1
wi ~ 0, i = 2,4,5
A solution of the above constraint is ~ = (.6, .25, .15). Conversely we
may verify that this w can reproduce n2 by the simple additive weighting
metlhod.
175
Note
made at each stage tends to be less than n+l, where n is the number of
weight space.
176
are represented by points in the space of much less dimensions than the original.
The DM is asked to locate ideal alternatives in this space,and then the dis
[BMS, BM9, BM10]. When alternatives have too many attributes or in some
cases have vague or unknown attributes, MDS has great advantage in the
solution of MADM problems.
ternatives are represented by points in the space. The points that are
DM is asked to locate his ideal point in the space and then the distance from
rank the alternatives in terms of preference. Some key features of MDS will
Kruskal ~ld Green's text deal with this topic in detail [BMlO, BM14].
Nonmetric MDS: Suppose you are given a map showing the locations of
several cities in the United States, and are asked to construct a tab1e of
distances between these cities. It is a simple matter to fil1 in any entry
in the tab1e by measuring the distance between the cities with a ruler, and
converting the ru1er distance into the real distance by using the sca1e of
the map. Now consider the reverse problem, where you are given the tab1e of
distances between the cities which are identified by numbers, and are asked to
produce the map. MDS is a method for solving this reverse problem. This ex
ample is only confined to two dimensional st.:aling, but MDS can offer any
dimensional sca1ing as the name indicates. The procedure for converting from
the ratio sca1ed midpoint distances to the mapping of the cities is ca11ed metric MDS.
178
Because both input and output are composed of real ratio values (i.e.
reason, the name nonmetric MDS is used to describe MDS which is designed
Kruskal [252, 253, 255] developed this idea and suggested a practical
0 .. for i
lJ
< j, i = 1,2, ... , rnI, j = 2,3, ... , m. We ignore the possi
bility of ties, that is, we assume that no two of these m(ml)/2 numbers
points in tdimensional space. Let us call these points Xl' x 2 ' ... , xm'
d..
l.J
=/
I 5=1
~ (xl.' 5  XJ' 5) 2
that whenever one dissimilarity is smaller than another, then the corres
... ,
distance comes first, and the other distances follow in ascending order.
one from bottom to top, we a1ways move to the right, never to the 1eft.
This fails in Fig. 3.13 but ho1ds in Fig. 3.14, To measure how far a
scatter diagram such as Fig. 3.13 departs from the ideal of perfect fit,
then to measure the deviation from the star to the curve. Kruska1 [252]
m 2 1/2
L
A
(d ..  d .. )
ilj l.J l.J
S
m
L d~.
l.J
i~j
...  
2,4
     11 1,2
1,4
.

3,4 _ _., 111: 1,3
Distance, d ..
1J
...,>.
~ ~~'2
/',4
.....
!I
ol
......
......
.....
Cl
/
..~2
1,4 1,3 ,3
3,4
Distance , d ..
1J
that the chances of finding proper fitting increases (i.e., stress decreases)
interpret the hidden structure from that configuration. Hence the pro
blem is to find the lowest dimensionality for which the monotonicity con
20% poor
10% fair
5% good
2.5% excellent
0% perfect
the attributes which were scaled. One way to discover these characteri
known about the alternatives. But this is difficult due to its ambiguity.
dimensions are made, the DM is supposed to locate his ideal point on the
procedures (see section 3.1.1); then the nonmetric MDS is used simply for
To illustrate the MDS concepts, assume that a DM has been given the task
cards on each of which are the names of two cars. Using criteria of his own
the cards into two piles, representing similar cars versus different cars.
similarity. Finally the DM is asked to rank order the cards within each
are shown in Table 3.4 as a geometrie configuration whose rank order of inter
shown in Table 3.4. Such a configuration appears in Fig. 3.15. Note that the
shortest, but that between Falcon (pt. 5) and Continental (pt. 3) is the longest.
8
1
2
9 4
DIM 1
11
3
6
5
10
1. Ford Mustang 6
2. Mercury Cougar va
3. Lincoln Continental V8
4. Ford Thunderbird V8
5. Ford Falcon 6
6. Chrysler Imperial V8
7. Jaguar Sedan
8. AMC Javelin V8
9. Plymouth Barracuda V8
10. Buick Le Sabre V8
11. Chevro1et Corvair
Tab1e 3.4 Rank order of dissimi1arities between pairs of car mode1s* [147]
A. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
1
1
2 8
3 50 38
4 31 9 11
5 12 33 55 44
6 48 37 1 13 54
7 36 22 23 16 53 26
8 2 6 46 19 30 47 29
9 5 4 41 25 28 40 35 3
10 39 14 17 18 45 24 34 27 20
11 10 32 52 42 7 51 49 15 21 43
Numerical Example 2
The Queen Motor Company wants to select a sales representative for dis
patching to the European market. The sales manager recommended 7 candidates
for the opening and evaluated them on 6 attributes in the following decision
matrix:
Xl X2 X3 X4 X5 X6
8 4 7 5 0 4 Al
0 I 4 4 6 1 A2
4 6 3 2 3 7 A3
D I 3 2 8 4 5 A4
7 2 8 2 I 2 A5
4 9 5 6 2 3 A6
2 5 I 3 6 8 A7
where the outcomes are based on the IOpoint bipolar scale with theIarger
viewed 7 candidates. The president said "I cannot easily judge which one is
the best, but I may make the dissimilarity judgment between the pairs of
candidates" and gave the rank order of dissimilarity judgments in the Table
3.5. The OR department decided to help the president's decision using the
A. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
~
2 21
3 13 10
4 18 8 16
5 3 19 4 20
6 7 12 6 5 11
7 17 1 2 14 15 9
A. D1Ml D1M2
1
1 1.6196 0.5867
2 1.5199 0.3735
3 0.2405 0.9098
4 1.1257 1.3917
5 1.5321 0.4227
6 0.0452 0.6705
7 0.7918 0.9430
The second and third co1umns of Tab1e 3.6 show the optimum weights corres
equa1s 1). Among the significant regressions the significant weights are
3.080 OlM 1
I
Fig. 3.16 Twodimensiona1 configuration by the ALSCAL pro gram for
7 candidates.
190
Regression Weights
(Oirection Cosines) Direction Degree Multiple
x.] 01Ml OlM2 OlMl OlM2 Corr.
may be utilized, but the president thinks he can locate his ideal point
easily in the two dimension space. The ideal point of the president is
(.5, .25). Then candidate A6 (which has the shortest distance from the
Note
This nonmetric MDS procedure suggests several points [273]. For one
terms of its similarity. This requires quite fine discrimination and may
be the most difficult for the DM among the MADM methods. Actually we arrange this
method at the end of the MADM list. The configuration is not unique. In
addition, the distance measure used to form the configuartion assumes that
the attributes (i.e., the dimensions of the chosen configuration) are independent
the number of attributes is quite large, say more than 7, and when the majority
The drive to have practical models for management systems has been
the impetus towards the development of many excellent methods for MADM
the relevant set of attributes. This section aims to help planner, manager,
1. COMMODITY SELECTION
Srinivasan's review [154] for various choiee models and Green et al's works
[BM 810, 145156] on this topie. Hammond's bullet seleetion [165] and
mobiles.
193
C1ass References
1. Commodity Selection BM 89, 145, 156, 156a, 165, 205, 319 324
2. Facility Location (Siting) BM13, 51a, 69b, 84, 157, 158, 181, 230
3. People/Personnel Selection 71, 84, 91, 148, 186, 239, 297, 377
4. Project Se1ection
4.2 Land use planning 86, 87, 183, 184, 191, 264, 303, 305,
4.3 R &0 project 162, 178, 258, 268, 300, 309, 327, 361
4.4 Water resources planning 67, 86, 160, 234, 292, 401
4.5 Miscellaneous BM13, 16, 62, 85, 141, 174, 192, 225,
5. Public Facility Se1ection BM17, 108, 133, 164, 198, 199, 207,
6. Misce11aneous 51, 65, 92, 133, 164, 231, 286, 362, 396
1~
selected attributes are: price, gas mileage, car size, car style, trunk
Pekelmanand Sen [324] use LINMAP model to assess the weight of at
discreet decision making. For instance decision making for the siting
one of three proposed sites for a modern air terminal system in south Florida.
potential new sites in the Pacific Northwest suitable for a thermal electric
power generating station is made by Keeney and Nair [232]. They initially
Criteria used in the screen process are: health and safety (measured by
distance from populated areas, height above nearest water source for flood
the candidate sites are: site population factor (relative human radiational
sites.
A similar study was made by Gros et al. [157] for the nuclear facility
siting along the New England coast. The utility functions for four interested
groups are assessed over four attributes: number of units at a site, cost,
population within ten kilometers of a site, and incremental water temperature
HilI and Alterman [181], and Davos et al. [69b] report the case study
of power plant site evaluation for Israel and the State of California,
respectively.
Site for Pumped Storage Facility: Keeney [230] evaluates 10 sites
for the pumped storage hydroelectric generation facility. The attributes
in his multiattribute utility are: first year cost, transmission line
bad smell, traffic accidents, sulphurous acid gas, soot and smoke, factories,
accessibility to the center of the city, offices of the business affecting
3. PEOPLE/PERSONNEL SELECTION
people to work for them. Employment of MADM analyses in this field are bene
tributes of player performance are used: field goal percentage, free throw
played, and blocked shots. The model yielded a rank order of all forwards,
guards, and centers for each season. This ordering then is compared with
the NBA allstar team. The results showed that the model predicted the
and Carmone [148] make a pilot study involving graduate business students'
utilized.
PhD students. The attributes of prime importance are test scores on standard
exams (GRE), the student's undergraduate grades (GPA), and the quality
for business school admission. The attributes considered are: high school
Air Pollution Control: Ellis and Keeney [92a] report use of a multi
strategies for New York City. These alternatives are the status quo, which
to 0.37 percent for oil and .7 percent for coal. Seven attributes considered
are: per capita increase in the number of days of remaining lifetime,
per capita decrease in the number of days of bed disability per year, per
199
capita annual net costs to lowincome residents, per capita annual net
per million, total annual net cost to city government, subjective index
of political desirability.
Solid Waste Management Problem: One real problem faced by the Bureau
cars. Three alternatives for wood removal in salvaging the metal from
retired railroad cars are: open burning, gritblasting, and use of a high
under five attributes: capital cost of the facility, ability of the process
to salvage the wood removed, time needed to develop the process, contribution
Land Reclarnation Project: Nijkarnp et al. [303, 305, 306, 413] present
and Tazmir [183] use multidimensional scalogram analysis for the case
of Israel.
mean high tide line, density of the proposed development, onsite parking
Selection of Load (Pipe) Line: Lhoas [264] uses ELECTRE model for
activities, etc.
Holmes [191] employs an ordinal model (a primitive form of linear
assignment method) for the evaluation of four alternatives for a new load
research because there are always more ideas and problems to be investigated
faced with the problem of selecting a set of projects which will achieve
Their uti1ity model has five attributes: promise of success, time to completion,
Other studies for this area are: aerospace industry for military
David and Duckstein [67] use ELECTRE model for evaluating five alternative
longrange water resources development plans for the Tisza River basin
flexibility. The same problem is treated by Keeney and Wood [234] by the
method and simple additive weighting) for the choice of water resources
4.5 Miscellaneous
attribute utility function (simple additive form) that reflects the pre
the size and shape of the institution. LINMAP is utilized to obtain the
weight for each attribute. The attributes considered are: regular faculty,
systems through various MADM methods. Six attributes considered are: range,
flexibility.
203
done for the Mexico government to help select the most effective strategy
for developing the airport facilities in the Mexico City metropolitan area
to insure quality air service for the remainder of the century. A multi
per hour), access time to and from the airport, number of people seriously
Wehrung et al. [426] use the dominance model in order to explain the
investment preferences for over 400 top level business executives in Canada
and U.5. They report the dominance model with two criteria (expected rate
of return and variance) fits weIl for their selection behavior among other
Hax and Wiig [174] use decision tree technique with multiattribute
have frequently been attacked by an insect pest known as the spruce budworm.
forest and economy. The attributes are profit, unemployment, and recreational
project. They list numerous attributes under three major affected groups
commodities. But this area is also important to improve the existing systems/
banking hours.
ward.
for the evaluation of high schools. His selection criteria are: learning,
friends, school life, vocational training, college preparation, and music classes.
studied by Punz and Staelin [332]. Results indicate that such factors as
price (tuition), fellowships, distance from horne, and quality of school are
by Hagerty [164].
v. CONCLUDING REMARKS
(see Fig. 1.1 A taxonomy of methods for multiple attribute decision making);
half of them are classical methods in this field, and the other half have
but here for the first time they are presented together. The literature
On Applications of MADM:
references are identified (see Table 4.1), and a summary of each article
these terms are used interchangeably, and there are no universal definitions
of these terms [BM13]. Multiple criteria decision making (MCDM) has become
the accepted designation for all methodologies dealing with MODM and/or MADM.
208
Our definitions distinguish between MODM and MADM (see 11 Basic Concepts
and Foundations). In our survey the problems of MCDM are broadly classified
into two categories  MADM and MODM. MADM methods are for selecting an
constraints [275]. MODM methods thus address design problems while MADM
Multiattribute utility theory (MAUT) has been developed for the un
alternative with the highest expected utility. But the assessment of ap
the aim of the most theoretical work in MAUT is the investigation of pos
[219, 220, 222, 224, 226] among others. The literature on MAUT and its
107], Fishburn [120, 126], Huber [196, 197], and Winterfe1dt and Fischer
[434]. Keeney and Raiffa [BM13] in particu1ar deal extensive1y with uti1ity
r. Stage at which I I. Type of 111. Major classes of methods
information is needed information
4. APosteriori
Articulation of 4.1.1. Parametric Method
Preference Information 4.1. Implicit 4.1.2. Econstraint Method
(Nondominated Solutions Tradeoff 4.1.3. MOLP Methods
Generation Method) 4.1.4. Adaptive Search Method
Fig. 5.1 A taxonomy of methods for multiple objective decision making [BMII].
210
applicati ons
A Choice Rule for MADM Methods:
As to which method(s) we should use, the selection of MADM method(s)
numbers in the circles refer to the MADM methods in the taxonomy (see Fig.
find the best alternative or will take any of the alternatives which satisfy
the minimum acceptable level(s) of attributes. When the DM does not have
enough time and knowledge to examine the problem furt her the answer to
question 1 may be "no" and he gives the minimum acceptable level(s) for
attribute(s).
If the minimum levels for multiple attributes are given, the method
of conjunctive constraints (2.1.1) is used; and if the minimum level for
used.
If the answer to the first question has been "yes", the DM wants to
get a better solution with the extra effort. Then different followup questions
are asked.
The second question asks whether the dominated alternatives are screened.
No
Q2: Are the dominated alterna
es
No
Q6: What is the salient feature Q7: What is the salient feature
of preference information for of preference information for
attributes? al ternati ves?
third question asks whether the group of decision makers reaches the agreement
in their preferences. If they can not, the easiest way with the multiple
determined by the best or the worst attribute. If the answer to the question
the DM is more familiar with attributes, he will supply the attribute pref
valid (in question 6 and 7). To help answer question 6, consider the pref
erence inputs in roughly the order of the least demanding to the most demanding.
with ideal point (3.2.1) can be used. The assessment of order of pairwise
Some methods may not fully satisfy the underlying assumptions (e.g.,
and some may have more tedious procedures (e.g., constructing indifference
curves for hierarchical tradeoffs than other~. There are also methods fitted
for a specific situation only (e.g., maximin for the pessimistic decision
situation, maximax for the optimistic, disjunctive method for the selection
method evaluates the problem from a different point of view (e.g., with a
one may narrow down his/her options by following the branches of MADM taxonomy
in Fig. 1.1. Otherwise he/she still has to select one method. The existence
who want to use ont: method. Easton [84] mentioned that "the selection of
some MADM methods simultaneously instead of selecting the best method for
the situation. The proposed approach consists of four phases whose main
method, simple additive weighting method, TOPSIS, and ELECTRE, using cardinal
Screening Phase:
Phases
Yes
Yes
"'Cl
'1
(I)
~
'1
A set of weights (I)
n=='
(I)
o
a(I)
.....
'1
=='
OQ
'r+"
.....
o
=='
~
r+
::r
Construct a partially ordered set (I)
.....
UI
UI
not to set the cutoffs high. Normally multiple alternatives are expected
utilizing a weighting scheme are selected. They are linear assignment method
(2.3.4)
Aggregation Phase:
of the majority rule case taking into ac count "losses" as weH as "wins".
ranked by the four MADM methods in the previous stage. Their results are
shown in Table 5.1. This data will be aggregated by the three techniques.
Average ranking procedure: The average rank order (over four MADM
the average rank, the aggregate rank order is A2 , Al' A3 , and A4 If two
alternatives have the same average rank, the one with the smallest standard
deviation can be ranked ahead.
217
example data of Table 5.1, one can determine the set of MADM methods which
Similarly one can see that only one method prefers A3 to Al' i.e., M4
of this process are shown in Table 5.2. The ordering criterion is based
on how many times an alternative "wins" a majority vote. The last column
in the voting. The alternative with the highest sum for EC is ranked first,
etc. Ties can again occur in that several alternatives have the same sumo
These alternatives are then identified as a group and ranked at the same
Copeland method: This proccdure starts where the Borda method stops.
The Copeland method considers not only how many "wins" an alternative has,
but also explicity includes the "losses". The bottom row of Table 5.2 represents
lost to both Al and A2 Therefore, reading down column A3 one finds two
The scores for Al through A4 and 2, 2, 1, and 3, respectively. This
"losses", and "ties" must add up to (rnI), not 0111)' "wins" but also"losses"
MI M2 M3 M4
I 2 I 4 2
Al
A2 2 I 2 I 1.5
A3 3 3 4 2 3
A 4 4 3 3 3.5
4
Al A2 A3 A4 EC
Al X M* M 2
A2 X M M 2
A3 X X M I
A4 X X X 0
ER 0 0 2 3
*
An M in the i, j cell implie s that (A. M A.), which also
implie s that an X appear s in the i, j1cell~ implyin g not
(A. M A.).
1 J
219
From the above observation one can see that each ordering strategy
views the original rankordered data of the four MADM methods from different
Synthesis Phase:
K {Ol' 02}
where
and
A4
x 2) it is not true that xl < x2 and it is not true that x2 < xl' so they
are deemed incomparable.
The poset of the illustrative example in the aggregation phase has
A Hypothetical Example:
A MADM problem with eight attributes is considered. After the screening
column of Table 5.3. The results of majority vote are given in Table 5.4.
Aggregate ranking by Borda method and Copeland methods can be obtained
by reading the descending order of tC. and (tC.  tR.) of Table 5.4, respectively.
111
The three sets of aggregate preference rankings are given in Table 5.5.
221
Al 3 7 4 4 4.S
A2 4 S 6 S 5.
A3 7 I 3 3 3.S
A4 1 2 I 6 2.S
A5 6 6 5 7 6.
A6 S 4 7 I 4.25
A7 2 3 2 2 2.25
Al A2 A3 A4 AS A6 A7 EC
Al M X X M X X 2
A2 X X X M X X I
A3 M M X M X X 3
A4 M M X M M M S
AS X X X X X X 0
A6 X X X X M X 1
A7 M M M X M M S
ER 3 4 I 0 6 2 I
222
Fig. 5.4 shows the partially ordered set realized by the orderings
of Table 5.5. The poset is composed of four levels where there is disagree
ment among the alternative orderings. The poset reflects this by making
on attributes.
On Future Study:
each attribute value was known, and that that value was unique. But we
recognize that the information available to the DM is often highly uncertain,
is to use expected values for each attribute value and then treat the problem
A third and most complex way to account for attribute value with uncertainty
fuzzy set theory [217, 453] to MADM methods aims to overcome these difficulties.
Bellman and Zadeh [19] have shown its applicability to MCDM study, and
Yager and Basson [440], and Bass and Kwakernaak [8, 257] introduce maximin
and simple additive weighting method using membership function of the fuzzy
set. Many efficient MADM methods are waiting for accommodation to the
1st A7 A4 ,A7 A4
2nd A4 A7
3rd A3 A3 A3
4th A6 Al Al ,A6
5th Al A2 ,A6
6th A2 A2
7th AS AS AS
Level
4
But MAUT is one of the most confusing topics of MADM study mainly due to
can be easily taught and used, though it may lack the theoretical elegance
there is a single DM (or a group with 'one voice') who articulates pref
can be obtained about the preference information. For instance, the pref
arithmetic mean [56], and weighted average depending upon the individual's
weight, (3) selection of evaluation method, etc. The group problem certainly
has difficulties not presented in the single DM problem. Tell [399] proposes
However, not much has been done in the way of developing methodology for
approaching the group problem [64, 302, 399, 407]. It is hoped that this
The development of methods for the "fuzzy" area which combines MADM
and MODM problems may be a topic for future research. Many multiple criteria
decision making problems blend selection (MADM) and design (MODM) of al
ternatives. Except for utility function methods which are used in both
This kind of activity should be carried out and continued for some time
[BM22] Wendt, D. and C. Vlek (eds.), Utility, Probability, and Human Decision
Making, D. Reidel Pub. Co., Boston, 1975.
10. Baron, D. P., "Stochastic Programming and Risk Aversion," in Ref. [BM4],
pp. 124138, 1973.
12. Bauer, V. and M. Wegener, "A Community Information Feedback System with
Multiattribute Utilities," in Ref. [BM3], pp. 323357, 1977.
13. Baumo1, W. J., "An Expected Gainconfidence Limit Criterion for Portfolio
Se1ection," Management Science, Vol. 10, No. I, pp. 174182, 1963.
15. Be1k, R. W., "It's the Thought That Counts: A Signed Diagraph Analysis
of GiftGiving," Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 3, No. 3, pp. 155
162, 1976.
16. Bell, D. E., "A Decision Analysis of Objectives for a Forest Pest Prob
lem," in Ref. {BM3], pp. 389424, 1977.
229
22. Bereanu, B., "Large Group Decision Making with Multiple Criteria,"
in Ref. [BM21], pp. 87102, 1976.
27. Bettman, J. R., "Toward a Statistics for Consumer Decision Net Models",
Journal of Consumer Research, Vo1. 1, No. 2, pp. 7180, 1974.
35. Blin, J.M.,and J. R. Dodson Jr., "A Multiple Criteria Decision Model
for Repeated Choice Siutations," in Ref. [BM24], pp. 822, 1978.
37. Borch, K., "Economic Objectives and Decision Problems", IEEE Trans.
on Systems Science and Cybernetics, Velo SSC4, No. 3, pp. 266270,
1968.
48. Cassidy, R. G., "Urban Housing Selection," Behaviora1 Science, Vol. 20,
No. 4, pp. 241250, 1975.
231
64. Dalkey, N. C., "Group Decision Analysis," in Ref. [BM23]. pp. 4574,
1976.
77. Deutsch, S. D., and J. J. Martin, "An Ordering Algorithm for Analysis of
Data Arrays," Operations Research, Vol. 19, No. 6, pp. 13501362, 1971.
80. Dyer, J. S., W. Farrell, and P. Bradley, "Utility Functions for Test
Performance," Management Science, Vol. 20, No. 4, Part I, pp. 507519,
1973.
87. Edwards, W., "How to Use Multiattribute Utility Measurement for Social
Decision Making," IEEE Trans. on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Vol.
SMC7, No. 5, pp. 326340, 1977.
98. Farquhar, Po H., "A Survey of Multiattribute Utility Theory and App1i
cations," in Ref. [BM20], pp. 5990, 1977.
100. Farquhar, P. H., and V. R. Rao, "A Balance Model for Eva1uating Subsets
of Multiattributed Items," Management Science, Vol. 22, No. 5, pp. 528
539, 1976.
102. Fie1ds, D. S., "Cost/Effectiveness Analysis: Its Tasks and Their Inter
relation," Operations Research, Vol. 14, No. 3, pp. 515527, 1966.
103. Find1er, N. V., "On the Complexity of Decision Trees, the QuasiOptimizer,
and the Power of Heuristic Ru1es", Information and Contro1, Vo1. 40,
No. 1, pp. 119, 1979.
108. Fishburn, P. C., "Independence in Utility Theory with Who1e Product Sets,"
Operations Research, Vo1. 13, No. 1, pp. 2845, 1965.
114. Fishburn, P. C., "An Abbreviated States of the Wor1d Decision Model,"
IEEE Trans. on Systems Science and Cybernetics, Vo1. SSC4, No. 3,
pp. 300306, 1968.
116. Fishburn, P. C., "The Theorem of the Alternative in Socia1 Choice Theory,"
Operations Research, Vo1. 19, No. 6, pp. 13231330, 1971.
131. Fisk, C. and C. R. Brown, "A Note on the Entropy Formu1ation of Dis
tribution Models," Operationa1 Research Quarter1y, Vo1. 26, No. 4,
i, pp. 755758, 1975.
134. Funk, S. G. , A. D. Horowi tz, R. Lipshi tz, and F. W. Young, "The Percei ved
Structure of American Ethnic Groups: The Use of Multidimensional Scaling
in Stereotype Research," Sociometry, Vol. 39, No. 2, pp. 116130, 1976.
136. Gaines, B. R., "Stochastic and Fuzzy Logics", E1ectronics Letters, Vol.
11, No. 9, pp. 188189, 1975.
138. Gardiner, P. C., "Decision Spaces," IEEE Trans. on Systems, Man, and
Cybernetics, Vol. SMC7, No. 5, pp. 340349, 1977.
143. Giordano, JL. and JC. Suquet, I!On Multicriteria Decision Making: An
Application to a WorkShop Organization Problem," in M. Roubens (ed.),
Advances in Operations Research, pp. 181192, North Holland, Amsterdam,
1977.
146. Green, P. E., "On the Design of Choice Experiments Invo1ving Mu1tifactor
Alternatives," Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 6168,
1974.
158. Guigou, JL, "On Ftench Location Models for Product Units," Regional and
Urban Economics, Vo1. 1, No. 2, pp. 107138 and Vo1. 1, No. 3, pp.
289316, 1971.
167. Handa, J., "Risk, Probabilities, and a New Theory of Cardina1 Utility,"
Journal of Po1itica1 Economy, Vo1. 85, No. 1, pp. 97122, 1977.
185. Hirsch, Go, "The Notion of Characteristic Set and Its Implication for
the Analysis and Development of Multicriterion Methods," in Ref. [BM2l].
pp. 247262. 1976.
240
189. Ho11oway, C. A., Decision Making under Uncertainty Models and Choices,
PrenticeHa11, Eng1ewood C1iffs, N.J., 1979, (Chap. 20 Choices with
Multiple Attributes).
191. Holmes, J. c., ",'\.11 Ordinal Method ofEvaluation," Urban Studies, Vol. 10,
No. 1, pp. 179191, 1973.
199. Huber, G. P., V. K. Sahney, and D. L. Ford, "A Study of Subjective Evaluation
Models," Behavioral S~ience, Vo1. 14, No. 6, pp. 483489, 1969.
203. Ito, J., "On Certain Kinds of Orderings," Journal of the Operations
Research Society of Japan, Vo1. 9, No. 1, pp. 115, 1966.
214. Kahne, S., "A Procedure for Optimizing Deve10pment Decisions," Automatica,
Vol. 11, No. 3, pp. 261269, 1975.
231. Keeney, R. L. and G. L. Lilien, "A Utility Model for Product Positioning,"
in Ref. [BM24], pp. 321334, 1978.
232. Keeney, R. L. and K. Nair, "Se1ecting Nuc1ear Power Plant Sites in the
Pacific Northwest Using Decision Analysis," in Ref. [BM3], pp. 298322,
1977.
234. Keeney, R. L. and .E. F. Wood, "An Illustrative Exarnp1e of the Use of
Multiattribute Utility Theory for Water Resources P1anning," Water
Resources Research, Vo1. 13, No. 4, pp. 705712, 1977. 
240. Kleinmuntz, B., "MMPI Decision Ru1es for the Identification of College
Maladjustment: A Digital Computer Approach," Psycho1ogy Monographs:
General and App1ied, Vo1. 77, No. 14, pp. 122, 1963.
242. Kabayashi, T., "A Method for Counting the Number of Feasib1e Subsets
of a Partially Ordered Finite Set," Journal of the Operations Research
Society of Japan, Vo1. 8, No. 4, pp. 155171, 1966.
251. Kruivak, J. A., "Integrating Water Quality and Water Resources P1arung,"
Journal of the Hydrau1ics Division, Vo1. 100, No. NY9, pp. 12571262,
1974.
252. Kruska1, J. B., "Multidimensional Sca1ing by Optimizing Goodness of Fit
to a Nonmetric Hypothesis," Psychometrika, Vol. 29, No. 1, pp. 127,
1964.
253. Kruska1, J. B., "Nonmetric Multidimensional Scaling: A Numerica1 Method,"
Psychometrika, Vo1. 29, No. 2, pp. 115129, 1964.
254. Kruska1, J. B., "Analysis of Factoria1 Experiments by Estimating Monotone
Transformations of the Data," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society,
Vol. 27, No. 2, pp. 251263, 1965.
255. Kruskal, J. B., "Multidimensional Scaling and Other Methods for Discovering
Structure," in Ens1ein, Ra1ston, and Wi1f (eds.), Statistical Methods for
Digital Computers, pp. 296339, Wiley, New York, 1977.
256. Krzysztofowicz, R. and L. Duckstein, "Preference Criterion for F100d
Contro1 under Uncertainty," Water Resources Research, Vol. 15, No. 3,
pp. 513520, 1979.
259. LaValle, I. H., "On Admissibility and Bayesness When Risk Attitude But
Not the Preference Ranking is Permitted to Vary," in Ref. [BM4l,
pp. 7283, 1973.
262. Leung, P., "Sensitivity Analysis of the Effect of Variations in the Form
and Parameters of a Multiattribute Utility Model: A Survey," Behaviora1
Science, Vo1. 23, No. 6, pp. 478485, 1978.
245
267. Litchfie1d, J. W., "A Research and Deve10pment Decision Model Incorporating
Utility Theory and Measurement of Socia1 Va1ues," IEEE Trans. on Systems,
Man, and Cybernetics, Vo1. SMC6, No. 6, pp. 400410, 1976.
270. Luce, R. D., "A Probabitistic Theory of llti1ity," Econometrica, Vol. 26,
No. 2, pp. 193224, 1958.
274. MacCrimmon, K. R., "Improving the System Design and Evaluation Process
by the Use of Tradeoff Information: An App1ication to Northeast
Corridor Transportation P1anning," RAND Memorandum, RH5877DOT, 1969.
281. Maj one, G., "The Use of Decision Analysis in the Public Sector ," in Ref.
[BM22], pp. 397408, 1975.
282. Hajumdar, T., "Choice and Related Preference," Econometrica, Vol. 24,
No. 1, pp. 7173, 1956.
284. May, K. 0., "A Set of Independent Necessary and Sufficient Conditions for
Simple Majority Decision," Econometrica, Vol. 20, No. 4, pp. 680684,
1952.
285. May, K. 0., "Intransitivity, Utility, and the Aggregation of Preference
Patterns," Econometrica, Vol. 22, No. 1, pp. 113, 1954.
286. McClain, J. 0., "Decision Modeling in Case Selection for Medical Utilization
Review," Management Science, Vol. 18, No. 2, pp. B706 B717, 1972.
287. McFadden, D., "Quantal Choice Analysis: A Survey," Annals of Economic and
Social Measurement, Vol. 5, No. 4, pp. 363390, 1976.
288. Medanic, J., "Minimax Pareto Optimal Solutions with Application to Linear
Quadratic Problems," in Ref. [BM16], pp. 55124, 1975.
289. Meyer, R. F., "StateDependent Time Preference," in Ref. [BM3J, pp. 232
246, 1977.
296. Morse, J. N., "ATheory of Naive Weights," in Ref. rB~124], pp. 384401,
1978.
303. Nijkamp, P., "A Multicriteria Analysis for Project Evaluation: Economic
Eco1ogica1 Evaluation of aLand Reclamation Project," Papers of the Regional
Science Association, Vo1. 35, pp. 87111, 1974.
304. Nijkamp, P., "Reflections on Gravity and Entropy Models," Regional Science
and Urban Economics, Vo1. 5, No. 2, pp. 203225, 1975.
306. Nijkamp, P. and J. B. Vos, "A Mu1ticriteria Analysis for Water Resource
and Land Use Deve1opment," Water Resources Research, Vol. 13, No. 3,
pp. 513518, 1977.
307. North, D. W., "A Tutoria1 Introduction to Decision Theory," IEEE Trans.
on Systems and Cybernetics, Vo1. SSC4, No. 3, pp. 200210, 1968.
309. Nowlan, D. M., "The Use of Criteria Weights in Rank Ordering Techniques
of Project Evaluation," Urban Studies, Vol. 12, No. 2, pp. 169176,
1975.
248
310. Okuda, T., H. Tanaka, and A. Asai, "A Formu1ation of Fuzzy Decision Problems
with Fuzzy Information Using Probability Measures of Fuzzy Events,"
Information and Contro1, Vol. 38, No. 2, pp. 135147, 1978.
313. Ortolano, L., "Water Plan Ranking and the Pub1ic Interest," Journal of the
Water Resources P1anning and Management Division, Vo1. 102, No. WRI, pp. 35
48, 1976.
316. Paine, N. R., "A Useful Approach to the Group Choice Problems," Decision
Sciences, Vo1. 4, No. 1, pp. 2130, 1973.
320. Park, C. W., "A Conflict Resolution Choice Model," Journal of Consumer
Research, Vo1. 5, No. 2, pp. 124137, 1978.
327. Pinkel, B., "On the Decision Matrix and the Judgment Process: A Developmental
Decision Example," RAND P3620, 1969.
328. Pitz, G. F., "A Structural Theory of Uncertain Knowledge," in Ref. [BM22],
pp. 163176, 1975.
330. Pratt, J. W., "Risk Aversion in the Small and in the Large," Econometrica,
Vol. 32, No. 12, pp. 122136, 1964.
331. Pollak, R. A., "The Risk Independence Axiom," Econometrica, Val. 41, No. 1,
pp. 3539, 1973.
332. Punj, G. N. and R. Staelin, "The Choice Process for Graduate Business Schools,"
Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 15, No. 4, pp. 588598, 1978.
338. Rapoport, A., "Research Paradigms for Studying Dynamic Decision Behavior,"
in Ref. [BM22], pp. 349370, 1975.
340. Remus, W. E., "Testing Bowrnan's Managerial Coefficient Theory Using Com
petitive Gaming Environment," Management Science, Vol. 24, No. 8, pp. 827835,
1978.
342. Richer, M. K., "Revealed Preference Theory," Econometrica, Vol. 34, No. 3,
pp. 635645, 1966.
250
361. Schwartz, S. L., 1. Vertinsky, and W. T. Ziemba, "R & D Project Selection
Behavior: Study Designs and Some Pilot Results," in Ref. [BM2l], pp. 136
146, 1976.
366. Shepard, R. N., "The Analysis of Proximities," Part land II, Psychometrica,
Vol. 27, pp. 125139 and 219246, 1962.
372. Siegel, S., "A Method for Obtaining an Ordered Metric Scale," Psychometrica,
Vol. 21, No. 2, pp. 207216, 1956.
373. Simon, H. A., "A Behavioral Model of Rational Choice," Quarterly Journal of
Economics, Vol. 69, No. 1, pp. 99114, 1955.
375. Sizer, P. W., "A Behavioral Model of Company Development," in Ref. [BM2l],
pp. 392401, 1976.
376. Smith, L. H., R. W. Lawless, and B. Shenoy, "Evaluation Multiple Criteria
Models for TwoCriteria Situations," Decision Sciences, Vol. 5, No. 4,
pp. 587596, 1974.
377. Smith, R. D. and P. S. Greenlaw, "Simulation of a Psychological Decision
Process in Personnel Selection," Management Science, Vol. 13, No. 8,
pp. B409B419, 1967.
378. Spetzler, C. S., "The Development of a Corporate Risk Policy for Capi tal
Investment Decisions," IEEE Trans. on Systems Science and Cybernetics,
Vol. SSC4, No. 3, pp. 279300, 1968.
379. Srinivasan, V., "Network Models for Estimating BrandSpecific Effects in
Mul tiAttribute Marketing Models," Management Science, Vol. 25, No. 1,
pp. 1121, 1979.
380. Srinivasan, V. and A. D. Shocker, "Linear Programming Techniques for
Multidimensional Analysis of Preference," Psychometrika, Vol. 38, No. 3,
pp. 337369, 1973.
38l. Srinivasan, V. and A. D. Shocker, "Estimating the Weights for Multiple
Attributes in a Composite Criterion Using Pairwise Judgments," Psychometrika,
Vo1. 38, No. 4, pp. 473493, 1973.
382. Stad1er, W., "Sufficient Conditions for Preference Optimality," in Ref.
[BM15], pp. 129148, 1976.
383. Stadler, W., "Preference Optimality (On Optimality Concept in Multicriteria
Problems)," in W. Oettli and K. Ritter (eds.), Optimization and Operations
Research, pp. 297306, SpringerVerlag, New York, 1976.
384. Starr, M. K. and L. H. Greenwood, "Normative Generation of Alternatives
with Multiple Criteria Evaluation," in Ref. [BM20], pp. 111128, 1977.
385. Starr, M. K. and M. Zeleny, "MCDMState and Future of the Arts," in Ref.
[BM20], pp. 529, 1977.
386. Stevens, S. S., "Measurement, Psychophysics, and Utility," in C. W. Churchman
and P. Ratoosh (eds.), MeasurementDefinitions and Theories, pp. 1863,
Wiley, 1959.
387. Stigum, B. P., "Finite State Space and Expected Utility Maximization,"
Econometrica, Vo1. 40, No. 2, pp. 253259, 1972.
388. Stimson, D. H., "Utility Measurement in Public Health Decision Making,"
Management Science, Vol. 16, No. 2, pp. B17B30, 1969.
391. Swa1m, R. 0., "Utility TheoryInsights into Risk Taking," Harvard Business
Review, Vo1. 44, No. 6, pp. 123136, 1966.
395. Tapiero, C. S., "The Theory of Graphs in Behaviora1 Science," Decision Sciences,
Vol. 3, No. 1, pp. 5781, 1972.
396. Teger, S., "Presidential Stragety for the Appointment of Supreme Court Justices,"
Public Choice, Vo1. 31, pp. 122, 1977.
397. Tell, B., "A Comparati ve Study of Four Mul tipleCriteria Methods," in Ref.
[BM21], pp. 183197, 1976.
401. The Technica1 Committee of the Water Resources Centers of the Thirteen
Western States, "Water Resources P1anning and Socia1 Goals: Conceptualization
Toward a New Methodo1ogy," Utah Water Research Laboratory Pub1ication PRWG941,
Utah State University, Logan, Utah, 1971.
404. Togsverd, T., "MultiLevel P1anning in the Public Sector," in Ref. [BM21],
pp. 201214, 1976.
405. Torgerson, W. S., Theoryand Methods of Sca1ing, Wi1ey, New York, 1958.
411. Tversky, A., "On the E1icitation of Preferences: Descriptive and Pre
scriptive Considerations," in Ref. [BM3], pp. 209222, 1977.
413. van Delft, A. and P. Nijkamp, "A Mu1tiobjective Decision Model for
Regional Development, Environmental Qua1ity Contro1 and Industria1
Land Use," Papers of the Regional Science Association, Vol. 36, pp. 35
57, 1976.
415. Vargas, G., M. Hottenstein, and S. Aggarwa1, "Using Utility Functions for
Aggregate Schedu1ing in Health Maintenance Organizations (HMO' s),"
AllE Transactions, Vol. 11, No. 4, pp. 327335, 1979.
418. Vi ckson , R. G., nStochastic Dominance Tests for Decreasing Absolute Risk
Aversion I: Discrete Random Variables," Management Science, Vol. 21,
No. 12, pp. 14381446, 1975.
419. Vickson, R. G., "Stochastic Dominance Tests for Decreasing Absolute Risk
Aversion 11: General Random Variables," Management Science, Vol. 23,
No. 5, pp. 478489, 1977.
421. von Neumann, J. and O. Morgenstern, Theory of Games and Economic Behavior,
Princeton University Press, Princeton, N.J., 1944.
424. Watanabe, S., "A Generalized FuzzySet Theory," IEEE Trans.on Systems, Man,
and Cybernetics, Vo1. SMC8, No. 10, pp. 756760, 197.
255
428. Westwood, D., 1. Lunn, and D. Beazley, "The Tradeoff Model and Its
Extensions," Journal of the Market Research Society, Vol. 16, No. 3,
pp. 227241, 1974.
430. Wiedey, G. and H. J. Zimmermann, "Media Selection and Fuzzy Linear Pro
gramming," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Vol. 29, No. 11,
pp. 10711084, 1978.
431. Willis, R. E., "A Simulation of Multiple Selection Using Nominal Group
Procedures," Management Science, Vol. 25, No. 2, pp. 171181, 1979.
432. Wilson, A. G., "The Use of the Concept of Entropy in System Modeling,"
perational Research Quarterly, Vol. 21, No. 2, pp. 247265, 1970.
438. Yager, R. R., "Possibility Decision Makirlg," IEEE Trans. on Systems, Man,
and Cybernetics, Vol. SMC9, No. 7, pp. 388392, 1979.
440. Yager, R. R. and D. Basson, "Decision Making with Fuzzy Sets," Decision
Sciences, Vol. 6, No. 3, pp. 590600, 1975.
441. Young, D. R., "Choosing Among Alternative Complex Systems When Input
Characteristics are Uncertain," IEEE Trans. on Systems, .and Cybernetics,
Vol. SMCl, No. 1, pp. 7782, 1971.
256
442. Yu, P. L., "A Glass of Solutions for Group Decision Problems," Management
Science, Vol. 19, No. 8, pp. 936946, 1973.
444. Yu, P. L., "Gone Gonvexity, Gone Extreme Points, and Nondominated
Solutions in Decision Problems with Multiobjectives," Journal of
Optimization Theory and App1ications, Vo1. 14, No. 3, pp. 319376,
1974.
452. Zadeh, L. A., "Fuzzy Sets," Information and Contro1, Vol. 8, No. 3,
pp. 338353, 1965.
453. Zadeh, L. A., "Fuzzy A1gorithms," Information and Contro1, Vol. 12, No. 2,
pp. 94102, 1968.
458. Ze1eny, M., "A Se1ected Bibliography of Works Re1ated to Multiple Criteria
Decision Making," in Ref. [BM4], pp. 779796, 1973.
462. Zeleny, M., "MCDM Bibliography  1975," in Ref. [BM23], pp. 291321, 1976.
467. Zionts, S., "Multiple Criteria Decision Making for Discrete Alternatives
with Ordinal Criteria," Working Paper No. 299, School of Management,
State University of New York at Buffal0, 1977.
468. Zionts, S., "MCDMIf Not a Roman Numeral, Then What?," Working Paper
No. 358, School of Management, State University of New York at Buffal0,
1978.
469. Zionts, S., "Methods for Solving Management Problems Involving Multiple
Objectives," Working Paper No. 400, School of Management, State University
of New York at Buffal0, 1979.
258
Supplement
41a. Brown, R. V., A. S. Kahn, and C. Peterson, Decision Analysis for the
Manager, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York, 1974.
41b. Browning, J. E., How to Se1ect a Business Site, McGrawHi11 , New York,
1980.
l56a. Grochow, J. M., "On User Supplied Evaluations of Time Shared Computer
Systems," IEEE Trans. on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Vol. SMC3,
No. 2, pp. 204206, 1973.
239a. Klee, A. J., "The Ro1e of Decision Models in the Evaluation of Competing
Environmental Health Alternatives," Management Science, Vol. 18, No. 2,
pp. B52B67, 1971.
259
302a. Navarrete, N. Jr., M. Fukushima, and H. Mine, "A New Ranking Method
Based on Relative Position Estimate and Its Extensions," IEEE Trans.
on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Vol. SMC9, No. 11, pp. 681689, 1979.
355a. Savage, L. J., The Foundations of Statistics, Wiley, New York, 1954.
365a. Shapley, L. S. and M. Shubik, "A Method for Evaluating the Distribution
of Power in a Committee System," The American Political Science Review,
Vol. 48, No. 3, pp. 787792, 1954.
Vol. 88: H. Steckhan, Gterstrme in Netzen. VII, 134 Seiten. Vol. 117: Optimization and Operations Research. Proceedings 1975.
1973. Edited by W. OettIi and K. Ritter. IV, 316 pages. 1976.
Vol. 89: J. P. Wallace and A. Sherrel, Eslimation of Product. Vol. 118: Traffic Equilibrium Methods, Proceedings 1974. Edited by
Attributes and Their Importances. V, 94 pages. 1973. M. A. Aorian. XXIII, 432 pages. 1976.
Vol. 90: J.F. Richard, Posterior and Predictive Densities for Vol. 119: Inllation in Small Countries. Proceedings 1974. Edited by
Simultaneous Equation Models. VI, 226 pages. 1973. H. Frisch. VI, 356 pages. 1976.
Vol. 91: Th. Marschak and R. Selten, General Equilibrium with Vol. 120: G. Hasenkamp, Specilication and Estimation of Multiple
PriceMaking Firms. XI, 246 pages. 1974. Output Production Functions. VII, 151 pages.1976.
Vol. 92: E. Dierker, Topological Methods in Walrasian Economics. Vol. 121: J. W. Cohen, On Regenerative Processes in Queueing
IV, 130 pages. 1974. Theory. IX, 93 pages. 1976.
Vol. 93: 4th IFACIIFIP International Conference on Digital Com Vol. 122: M. S. Bazaraa, and C. M. Shetty,Foundations of Optimization
puter Applications to Process Control, Part I. Zrich/Switzerland, VI. 193 pages. 1976
March 1922, 1974. Edi1ed by M. Mansour and W. Schaufelberger.
XVIII, 544 pages. 1974. Vol. 123: Multiple Criteria Decision Making. Kyoto 1975. Edited by
M. Zeleny. XXVII, 345 pages. 1976.
Vol. 94: 4th IFACIIFIP International Conference on Digital Com
Vol. 124: M. J. Todd. The Computation of Fixed Points and Applica
puter Applications to Process Control, Part 11. Zrich/Switzerland,
tions. VII, 129 pages. 1976.
March 1922, 1974. Edited by M. Mansour and W. Schaufelberger.
XVIII, 546 pages. 1974. Vol. 125: Karl C. Moaler. Optimale Transportnetze. Zur Bestimmung
ihres koslengnsligslen Standorta bei gegebener Nachfrage. VI,
Vol. 95: M. Zeleny, Linear Multiobjective Pr09ramming. X. 220 pages.
142 Seiten. 1976.
1974.
Vol. 126: Energy, Regional Science and Public Policy. Energy and
Vol. 96: O. Moeschlin, Zur Theorie von Neumannscher Wachs Environment I. Proceedings 1975. Edited by M. Chatterji and P. Van
tumsmodelle. XI, 115 Seiten. 1974. Rompuy. VIII, 316 pages. 1976.
Vol. 97: G. Schmidt, ber die Stabilitt des einfachen Bedienungs Vol. 127: Environment, Regional Science and Interregional Modeling.
kanals. VII, 147 Seiten. 1974. Energy and Environment 1I.,proceedings 1975. Edited by M. Chatterji
Vol. 98: Mathematical Methods in Queueing Theory. Proceedings and P. Van Rompuy.IX, 211 pages.1976.
1973. Edited by A. B. Clarke. VII, 374 pages. 1974. Vol. 128: Integer Programming and Relaled Aress. A Classilied
Vol. 99: Production Theory. Edited by W. Eichhom, R. Henn, Bibliography. Ediled by C. Kastning. XII, 495 pages. 1976.
O. Opitz, and R. W. Shephard. VIII, 386 pages. 1974. Vol. 129: H.J. Lthi, Komplementaritts und Fixpunktslgorithmen in
Vol. 100: B. S. Duran and P. LOdell, Cluster Analysis. A Survey. der mathematischen Programmierung. Spieltheorie und konomie.
VI, 137 pages. 1974. VII, 145 Seiten. 1976.
Vol. 101: W. M. Wonham, Linear Multivariable Control. A Geo Vol. 130: Multiple Criteria Decision Making, JouyenJosas, France.
metric Approach. X. 344 pages. 1974. Proceed.ings 1975. Edited by H. Thiriez and S. Zionts. VI, 409 pages.
1976.
Vol. 102: Analyse Convexe et Ses Applications. Comptes Rendus,
Janvier 1974. Edited by J.P. Aubin. IV, 244 pages. 1974. Vol. 131: Mathematical Systems Theory. Proceedings 1975. Edited
by G. Marchesini and S. K. Miller. X, 408 pages. 1976.
Vol. 103: D. E. Boyce, A. Farhi, R. Weischedel, Optimal Subset
Vol. 132: U. H. Funke, Mathematical Models in Marketing. A Collec
Selection. Multiple Regression, Interdependence and Optimal
N_ork Aigorilhms. XIII, 187 pages. 1974. tion of Abetracts. xx, 514 pages. 1976.
Vol. 133: Warsaw Fall Seminars in Mathematical Economics 1975.
Vol. 104: S. Fujino, A NeoKeynesian Theory of Inflation and
Economic Growth. V, 96 pages. 1974. Edited by M. W. LOB, J. LoS, and A. Wieczorek. V. 159 pages. 1976.
Vol. 134: Computing Methods in Applied Sciences and Engineering.
Vol. 105: Opiimal Control Theory and its Applir.ations. Part I. Pro
Proceedings 1975. VIII, 390 pages. 1976.
ceedings 1973. Edited by B. J. Kirby. VI, 425 pages. 1974.
Vol. 135: H. Haga, A Disequilibrium  Equilib!ium Model with Money
Vol. 106: Optimal Control Theory and its Applications. Part 11. Pro
and Bonds. A Keynesian  Walrasian Synthesis. VI, 119 pages.1976.
ceedings 1973. Edited by B. J. Kirby. VI, 403 pages. 1974.
Vo1.136: E. Koller und G. Menges, Entscheidungen bei unvollstndiger
Vol. 107: Control Theory, Numerical Methods and Computer
Information.. XII, 357 Seiten. 1976.
Systems Modeling. International Symposium, Rocquencourt, June
1721,1974. Edited by A. Bensoussan and J. L Lions. VIII, 757 pages. Vol. 137: R. Wets, Grundlagen Konvexer Optimierung. VI, 146 Seiten.
1975. 1976.
Vol. 108: F. Bauer et al., Supercritical Wing Seclions 11. A Hand Vol. 138: K Okuguchi, Expectstions and Stability in Oligopoly Models.
book. V, 296 pages. 1975. VI, 103 pages. 1976.
Vol. 109: R. von Randow, Introduction to the Theory of Matroids. Vol. 139: Production Theory and 118 Applications. Proceedings. Edited
IX, 102 pages. 1975. by H. Albach and G. Bergendahl. VIII, 193 pages. 1977.
Vol. 140: W. Eichhorn end J. VoeIler, Theory of Ihe Price Index. Vol. 169: A. Rapoport et al., Coalition Formation by Sophisticated
Fieher's Test Approach end Generalizations. VII, 95 pages. 1976. Playsrs. VII, 170 pages. 1979.
Vol. 141: Melhematical Economies end Game Theory. Essays in Honor Vol. 170: A. E. Rolh, Axiomatic Models 01 Bargaining. V, 121 pages.
of Oekar Morgenstern. Edited by R. Henn and O. Moeschlin. XIV, 1979.
703 pages. 1977.
Vol. 171: G. F. Newell, Approximate Behavior of Tandem Queues. XI,
Vol. 142: J. S. Lane, On Optimal Population Pathe. V. 123 pages. 1977.
410 pages. 1979.
Vol. 143: B. Nslund, An Analysis of Economic Size Distributions.
Vol. 172: K. Neumann and U. Steinhardt GERT Networks and the
XV,100 pages. 1977.
TimeOriented Evaluation of Projects. 268 pages. 1979.
Vol. 144: Convex Analysis and Its Applications. Proceedings 1976.
Vol. 173: S. Erlander, Optimal Spatial Interaction and the Gravity
Edited by A. Auslender. VI, 219 pages. 1977.
Model. VII, 107 pages.1980.
Vol. 145: J. Rosenmller, Extreme Games and Their Solutions. IV,
Vol. 174: Extremal Methods and Systems Analysis. Edited by A. V.
126 pages. 1977.
Fiacco and K. O. Kortsnek. XI, 645 pages. 1980.
Vol. 146: In Sesreh of Economic Indicators. Edited by W. H. Strigel.
XVI, 198 pages. 1977. Vol. 175: S. K. Srinivasan and R. Subramanian, Probabilistic Analysis
of Redundant Systems. VII, 356 pages. 1980.
Vol. 147: Resource Allocstion end Division of Space. Proceedings.
Edited by T. Fujii and R. Sato. VIII, 184 pages. 1977. Vol. 176: R. Fre, Lews of Diminishing Returns. VIII, 97 pages. 1980.
Vol. 148: C. E. Mandl, Simulationstechnik und Simulationsmodelle Vol. 177: Multiple Criteria Decision MakingTheory and Application.
in den Sozial und Wirtschaftswissenschaften. IX, 173 Seiten. 1977. Proceedings, 1979. Edited by G. Fandei and T. Gal. XVI, 570 pages.
'bl. 149: StationIIre und schrumpfende Bevlkerungen: Demogra 1980.
phisches Null und Negalivwachstum in sterreich. Herausgegeben
von G. Feichtinger. VI, 262 Seiten. 1977. Vol. 178: M. N. Bhattscharyya, Comparison of BoxJenkins and Bonn
Monetary Model Prediction Performance. VII, 146 pages. 1980.
Vol.150: Bauer et al., Supercritical Wing Sections 111. VI, 179 pages.
1977. Vol. 179: Recent Results in Stochastic Programming. Proceedings,
1979. Edited by P. Kali and A. Prekopa. IX, 237 pages. 1980.
'bl. 151: C. A. SchneeweiB,lnventoryProduction Theory. VI, 116 pages.
1977. Vo1.180: 1. F. Brotchie, 1. W. Dickeyand R. Sharpe, TOPAZ General
Planning Technique and its Applications at the Regional, Urban,
Vol. 152: Kirsch et al., Notwendige Optimalittsbedingungen und and Facility Planning Levels. VII, 356 pages. 1980.
ihre Anwendung. VI, 157 Seiten. 1976.
Vol. 153: Kombinatorische Entscheidungsprobleme: Methoden und Vol. 181: H. D. Sherali and C. M. Shetty, Optimization with Disjunctive
Anwendungen. Herausgegeben von T. M. Liebling und M. Rssler. Constraints. VIII, 156 pages. 1980.
VIII, 206 Seiten. 1978. Vol. 182: 1. Wolters, Stochastic Dynamic Properties 01 Linear Eco
Vol. 154: Problems and Instruments of Business Cycle Analysis. nometric Models. VIII, 154 pages. 1980.
Proceedings 1977. Edited by W. H. Strigel. VI, 442 pages. 1978.
Vol. 183: K. Schittkowski, Nonlinear Programming Codes. VIII, 242
Vol. 155: Multiple Criteria Problem Solving. Proceedings 1977. Edited pages.1980.
by S. Zionts. VIII, 567 pages. 1978.
Vol. 184: R. E. Burkard and U. Derigs, Assignment and Matching
Vol. 156: B. Nslund and B. Sellstedt NeoRiesrdian Theory. With Problems: Solution Methods with FORTRANPrograms. VIII, 148
Applications to Some Current Economic Problems. VI, 165 pages. pages.1980.
1978.
Vol. 157: Optimization and Operations Research. Proceedings 1977. Vol. 185: C. C. von Weizscker, Barriers to Entry. VI, 220 pages. 1980.
Edited by R. Henn, B. Korte, and W. Oettli. VI, 270 pages. 1978. Vol. 186: Ch.L. Hwang and K. Yoon, Multiple Attribute Decision
Vol. 158: L J. Cherene, Set Valued Dynamical Systems and Economic Making  Methods and Applications. A StsteoftheArtSurvey. XI,
Flow. VIII, 83 pages. 1978. 269 pages. 1981.