The Impact of Aggregating Benefit and Cost Criteria in Four MCDA Methods

Evangelos Triantaphyllou · K. Baig

138 citations0/0 files storedIEEE Transactions on Engineering Management

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Multi-Criteria Decision Making Decision Support System Applications Optimization and Mathematical Programming

Abstract

Multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) problems (also known as multicriteria decision-making or MCDM) involve the ranking of a finite set of alternatives in terms of a finite number of decision criteria. Often times such criteria may be in conflict with each other. That is, an MCDA problem may involve both benefit and cost criteria at the same time. Although this is a frequent characteristic of many real-life MCDA problems, this subject has not received adequate attention in the literature. This paper examines the use of four key MCDA methods when two approaches for dealing with conflicting criteria are used. The two approaches are the benefit to cost ratio approach and the benefit minus cost approach. The MCDA methods used in this study are the weighted sum model, the weighted product model, and the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) along with some of its variants, including the multiplicative AHP. Not surprisingly, these two approaches for aggregating conflicting criteria may result in a different indication of the best alternative or ranking of all alternatives when they are used on the same problem. As it is demonstrated here, it is also possible for the two approaches to even result in the opposite ranking of the alternatives. An extensive empirical analysis of this methodological problem revealed that the previous phenomena might occur frequently on simulated MCDA problems. The WSM, the AHP, and the revised AHP performed in an almost identical manner in these tests. The contradiction rates in these tests were rather significant and became more dramatic when the number of alternatives was high. Although it may not be possible to know which ranking is the "correct" one, this study also theoretically proved that the multiplicative AHP is immune to these ranking inconsistencies.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 138 citations exist upstream.

References

1985The Analytic Hierarchy Process 1981Multiple Attribute Decision Making 1994Decisions with Multiple Objectives: Preferences and Value Tradeoffs.1981Multiple Attribute Decision Making: Methods and Applications 2000Multi-criteria Decision Making Methods: A Comparative Study 1992Value-Focused Thinking: A Path to Creative Decisionmaking 1994SMARTS and SMARTER: Improved Simple Methods for Multiattribute Utility Measurement 1990Remarks on the Analytic Hierarchy Process

Cited by

2010Influence of aggregation and measurement scale on ranking a compromise alternative in AHP 2023Root Assessment Method (RAM): A novel multi-criteria decision making method and its applications in sustainability challenges 2018Dispersion of relative importance values contributes to the ranking uncertainty: Sensitivity analysis of Multiple Criteria Decision-Making methods 2021Comparing Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Methods for the Assessment of Flow Release Scenarios From Small Hydropower Plants in the Alpine Area 2020A new standardisation and selection framework for real-time image dehazing algorithms from multi-foggy scenes based on fuzzy Delphi and hybrid multi-criteria decision analysis methods

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.