A Handbook on Multi-Attribute Decision-Making Methods. Omid Bozorg-Haddad

is, generally, composed of four features, namely, alternatives, criteria, the weights of criteria, and the performance value of alternatives. Additionally, the importance of normalizing the element of the decision‐matrix, which is a mathematical procedure through which the preference values of the decision‐matrix are rendered dimensionless, was also reviewed in this chapter. Lastly, two of the majorly implemented, basic MADM methods, namely, WSM and WPM, were presented, and stepwise instructions for each method were listed. The WSM and WPM are compensatory methods founded on the assumption of criteria independence. Tough and more advanced methods are available, the WSM and WPM remain relevant. They constitute the foundation on which most state‐of‐the‐arts MADM methods are founded upon.

References

      1 Andrews, S.S. and Carroll, C.R. (2001). Designing a soil quality assessment tool for sustainable agroecosystem management. Ecological Applications 11 (6): 1573–1585.

      2 Athawale, V.M. and Chakraborty, S. (2011). A comparative study on the ranking performance of some multi‐criteria decision‐making methods for industrial robot selection. International Journal of Industrial Engineering Computations 2 (4): 831–850.

      3 Chang, Y.H. and Yeh, C.H. (2001). Evaluating airline competitiveness using multiattribute decision making. Omega 29 (5): 405–415.

      4 Cheng, S., Chan, C.W., and Huang, G.H. (2003). An integrated multi‐criteria decision analysis and inexact mixed integer linear programming approach for solid waste management. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence 16 (5‐6): 543–554.

      5 Chou, S.Y., Chang, Y.H., and Shen, C.Y. (2008). A fuzzy simple additive weighting system under group decision‐making for facility location selection with objective/subjective attributes. European Journal of Operational Research 189 (1): 132–145.

      6 Churchman, C.W. and Ackoff, R.L. (1954). An approximate measure of value. Journal of the Operations Research Society of America 2 (2): 172–187.

      7 Ebert, U. and Welsch, H. (2004). Meaningful environmental indices: A social choice approach. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 47 (2): 270–283.

      8 Goicoechea, A., Stakhiv, E.Z., and Li, F. (1992). Experimental evaluation of multiple criteria decision models for application to water resources planning. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 28 (1): 89–102.

      9 Hobbs, B.F., Chankong, V., Hamadeh, W., and Stakhiv, E.Z. (1992). Does choice of multicriteria method matter? An experiment in water resources planning. Water Resources Research 28 (7): 1767–1779.

      10 Howard, A.F. (1991). A critical look at multiple criteria decision making techniques with reference to forestry applications. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 21 (11): 1649–1659.

      11 Jato‐Espino, D., Castillo‐Lopez, E., Rodriguez‐Hernandez, J., and Canteras‐Jordana, J.C. (2014). A review of application of multi‐criteria decision making methods in construction. Automation in Construction 45: 151–162.

      12 Kang, S.M. (2002). A sensitivity analysis of the Korean composite environmental index. Ecological Economics 43 (2): 159–174.

      13 Ma, J., Fan, Z.P., and Huang, L.H. (1999). A subjective and objective integrated approach to determine attribute weights. European Journal of Operational Research 112 (2): 397–404.

      14 Olson, D.L., Moshkovich, H.M., Schellenberger, R., and Mechitov, A.I. (1995). Consistency and accuracy in decision aids: experiments with four multiattribute systems. Decision Sciences 26 (6): 723–747.

      15 Pohekar, S.D. and Ramachandran, M. (2004). Application of multi‐criteria decision making to sustainable energy planning: a review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 8 (4): 365–381.

      16 Saaty, T.L. and Ergu, D. (2015). When is a decision‐making method trustworthy? Criteria for evaluating multi‐criteria decision‐making methods. International Journal of Information Technology and Decision Making 14 (06): 1171–1187.

      17 San Cristóbal, J.R. (2011). Multi‐criteria decision‐making in the selection of a renewable energy project in Spain: the VIKOR method. Renewable Energy 36 (2): 498–502.

      18 San Cristóbal, J.R. (2012). Weighted sum method and weighted product method. In: Multi Criteria Analysis in the Renewable Energy Industry (ed. J.R. San Cristobal), 19–22. London, UK: Springer.

      19 Savitha, K. and Chandrasekar, C. (2011). Vertical Handover decision schemes using SAW and WPM for network selection in heterogeneous wireless networks. Global Journal of Computer Science and Technology 11 (9): 19–24.

      20 Şener, B., Süzen, M.L., and Doyuran, V. (2006). Landfill site selection by using geographic information systems. Environmental Geology 49 (3): 376–388.

      21 Triantaphyllou, E. and Mann, S.H. (1989). An examination of the effectiveness of multi‐dimensional decision‐making methods: a decision‐making paradox. Decision Support Systems 5 (3): 303–312.

      22 Tzeng, G.H. and Huang, J.J. (2011). Multiple Attribute Decision Making: Methods and Applications. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.

      23 Wang, M., Liu, S., Wang, S., and Lai, K.K. (2010). A weighted product method for bidding strategies in multi‐attribute auctions. Journal of Systems Science and Complexity 23 (1): 194–208.

      24 Yu, P.L. (1990). Forming Winning Strategies: An Integrated Theory of Habitual Domains. Heidelberg, Germany: Springer Science and Business Media Publication.

      25 Zanakis, S.H., Mandakovic, T., Gupta, S.K. et al. (1995). A review of program evaluation and fund allocation methods within the service and government sectors. Socio‐Economic Planning Sciences 29 (1): 59–79.

      26 Zanakis, S.H., Solomon, A., Wishart, N., and Dublish, S. (1998). Multi‐attribute decision making: a simulation comparison of select methods. European Journal of Operational Research 107 (3): 507–529.

      27 Zarghami, M. (2011). Effective watershed management; case study of Urmia Lake, Iran. Lake and Reservoir Management 27 (1): 87–94.

      28 Zhou, P., Ang, B.W., and Poh, K.L. (2006). Comparing aggregating methods for constructing the composite environmental index: an objective measure. Ecological Economics 59 (3): 305–311.