Cybernetics And Systems Analysis logo
Editorial Board Announcements Abstracts Authors Archive
Cybernetics And Systems Analysis
International Theoretical Science Journal
Volume 56 >>> № 6 NOVEMBER — DECEMBER 2020
UDC 519.816
M.M. Potomkin1, A.A. Sedlyar2, O.V. Deineha3, O.P. Kravets4


1 Central Scientific and Research Institute of the Armed Forces
of Ukraine, Kyiv, Ukraine

 favorite_p@ukr.net

2 Central Scientific and Research Institute of the Armed Forces
of Ukraine, Kyiv, Ukraine

 saa66ua@ukr.net

3 Central Scientific and Research Institute of the Armed Forces
of Ukraine, Kyiv, Ukraine

 davdoma@gmail.com

4 Central Scientific and Research Institute of the Armed Forces
of Ukraine, Kyiv, Ukraine

 kop19710303@gmail.com

COMPARISON OF THE METHODS USED IN MULTICRITERIA DECISION MAKING
TO DETERMINE THE VALUES OF THE COEFFICIENTS OF IMPORTANCE
OF INDICATORS THAT CHARACTERIZE A COMPOSITE SYSTEM

Abstract. The paper provides a general description of typical methods that are used in multi-criteria decision making to determine the values of the coefficients of importance of indicators that characterize a composite system: analytic hierarchy process, critical distance, pairwise comparisons, ranks, Fishburn, CRITIC, entropy. The features of these methods are determined and calculations are carried out that illustrate the differences in the values of the coefficients of importance of the obtained indicators with their use. The recommendations on the practical application of these methods are provided.

Keywords: hierarchy process, critical distance method, pair wise comparison method, rank method, Fishburn method, CRITIC method, coefficients of importance of indicators, entropy method.



FULL TEXT

REFERENCES

  1. Sarraf A.Z., Mohaghar A., Bazargani H. Developing TOPSIS method using statistical normalization for selecting knowledge management strategies. Journal of Industrial Engineering and Management. 2013. Vol. 6, N 4. Р. 860–875.

  2. Larichev O.I. Theory and methods of decision making [in Russian]. Moscow: Logos, 2000. 296 p.

  3. Zagorka O.M., Mosov S.P., Sbitnev A.I., Stuzhuk P.I. Elements of research of complex systems of military purpose [in Ukrainian]. Kyiv: NAOU, 2005. 100 p.

  4. Chatterjee P., Chakraborty S. Flexible manufacturing system selection using preference ranking methods: A comparative study. International Journal of Industrial Engineering Computations. 2014. Vol. 5, Iss. 2. Р. 315–338.

  5. Hajkowicz S., Higgins A. A comparison of multiple criteria analysis techniques for water resource management. European Journal of Operational Research. 2008. Vol. 184. Р. 255–265.

  6. Deni W., Sudana O., Sasmita A. Analysis and implementation fuzzy multi-attribute decision making SAW method for selection of high achieving students in faculty level. International Journal of Computer Science Issues. 2013. Vol. 10, Iss. 1, N 2. Р. 674–680.

  7. Madi M., Gecevska V., Radovanovi M., Petkovi D. Multi-criteria economic analysis of machining processes using the WASPAS method. Journal of Production Engineering. 2014. Vol. 17, N 2. Р. 79–82.

  8. Anand G., Kodali R. Selection of lean manufacturing systems using the PROMETHEE. Journal of Modelling in Management. 2008. Vol. 3, Iss. 1. Р. 40–70.

  9. Gomesa L.F.A.M., Rangel L.A.D., Maranhoc F.J.C. Multicriteria analysis of natural gas destination in Brazil: an application of the TODIM method. Mathematical and Computer Modelling. 2009. Vol. 50, Iss. 1–2. Р. 92–100.

  10. El-Santawy M. F. A VIKOR method for solving personnel training selection problem. International Journal Of Computing Science. 2012. Vol. 1, N 2. P. 9–12.

  11. Brauers W.K., Zavadskas E.K. Robustness of the multi-objective MOORA method with a test for the facilities sector. Technological and Economic Development of Economy. 2009. Vol. 15, N 2. Р. 352–375.

  12. Poklepovi T., Babi Z. Stock selection using a hybrid MCDM approach. Croatian Operational Research Review. 2014. Vol. 5, N 2. Р. 273–290.

  13. Madi M., Petkovi D., Radovanovi M. Selection of non-conventional machining processes using the OCRA method. Serbian Journal of Management. 2015. Vol. 10, Iss. 1. Р. 61–73.

  14. Anokhin A.M., Glotov V.A., Pavelyev V.V., Cherkashin A.M. Methods for determining the coefficients of the importance of criteria. Avtomatika i telemekhanika. 1997. Iss. 8. P. 3–35.

  15. Postnikov V.M., Spiridonov S.B. Methods for choosing the weighting coefficients of local criteria. Science and education: electron. journal. 2015. N 6. P. 267–287.

  16. Mirskykh GO, Reutska Yu.Yu. Combined methods for determining weights in the tasks of optimization and evaluation of the quality of objects. Bulletin of NTUU "KPI". Ser. Radio engineering. Radio engineering. 2011. N 47. P. 199–211.

  17. Makarova I.L. Analysis of methods for determining weighting factors in the integral indicator of public health. Science symbol. 2015. N 7. P. 87–94.

  18. Saaty T., Kerns K. Analytical planning. Organization of systems [Russian translation]. Moscow: Radio i svyaz', 1991. 224 p.

  19. MartЗnez J., Narvїez R.A.C. Use of multicriteria decision making (MCDM) methods for biomass selection aimed to Fischer Tropsch processes. International Journal of Engineering Trends and Technology. 2016. Vol, 34. N 6. P. 266–272.

  20. A., Podvezko V., Zavadskas E.K. Operating characteristics analysis of rotor systems using MCDM methods. Studies in Informatics and Control. 2016. Vol. 25, № 1. P. 59–68.

  21. Moghimi M., Yazdi M.T. Applying multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) methods for economic ranking of Tehran-22 districts to establish financial and commercial centers (Case: city of Tehran). Urban Economics and Management. 2017. Vol. 5, N 4 (20). Р. 43–55.

  22. M.D., Papi M.Z., Blagojevi M.D. Comparative analysis of objective techniques for criteria weighing in two MCDM methods on example of an air conditioner selection. Tehnika — Menad 2017. Vol. 67, N 3. P. 422–429.
Editorial Board Announcements Abstracts Authors Archive
about scope office editorial board instructions for authors subscriptions contacts
© 2020 Kibernetika.org. All rights reserved.