Browse > Article

Suggestion of Weighted Utopian Approach for Combining Weighting Methods and Utopian Approach  

Yoo, Do-Guen (고려대학교 공과대학 건축.사회환경공학부)
Jun, Hwan-Don (서울산업대학교 건설공학부)
Jung, Dong-Hwi (고려대학교 공과대학 건축.사회환경공학부)
Kim, Joong-Hoon (고려대학교 공과대학 건축.사회환경공학부)
Publication Information
Journal of the Korean Society of Hazard Mitigation / v.10, no.4, 2010 , pp. 119-125 More about this Journal
Abstract
The most important part in the decision making is to decide the weight of attributes which indicate the relative importance of the properties to be estimated with different criteria respectively. In this study, the new MCDM method which consider typical preexisting methods all together is proposed. For doing those, Weighted Utopian Approach is newly suggested by combining typical 7 weighting methods and distance-based Utopian Approach which is one of the MCDM methods. The suggested method has the advantage of accomplishing representativeness and universality of the MCDM methods because it incorporates multiple weighting methods of diverse characteristics. It also yields not only the one final result but also the results calculated from each weighting method, broadening the options of the choice to the alternatives. The application of the new model to virtual engineering problems show that we can perform the decision making and the assessment of priority order more objectively with it and that it has high applicability to the practice, giving us simple calculation process.
Keywords
Multi Criteria Decision Making (MCDM); Priority Order; Weighting Method; Weighted Utopian Approach;
Citations & Related Records
연도 인용수 순위
  • Reference
1 Ning, S.K. and Chang, N.B. (2002) Multi-Objective Decision-Based Assessment of a Water Quality Monitoring Network in a River System. Journal of Environmental Monitoring, Vol. 4, pp.121-126.   DOI   ScienceOn
2 Roy, B. (1991) The Outranking approach and the foundations of ELECTRE methods., Theory and Decision, Vol. 31. pp.49-73.
3 Saaty, T.L (1980) The Analytic Hierarchy Process, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
4 Saaty, T.L (1990) Multicriteria Decision Making : The Analytic Hierarchy Process, RWS Publications, Pittsburgh, PA.
5 Anderson, N.H. and Zalinski, J. (1988) Functional Measurement Approach to Self-Estimation in Multiattribute. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, Vol. 1, pp.191-221.   DOI
6 Ashton, R.H. (1980) Sensitivity of Multiattribute Decision Models to Alternative Specifications of Weighting Parameters. Journal of Business Research, Vol. 8, No. 3, pp.341-359.   DOI   ScienceOn
7 Saaty, T.L. (1994) Fundamentals of Decision Making and Priority Theory with the Analytic Hierarchy Process, RWS Publications, Pittsburgh, PA.
8 Tkach, R.J and Simonovic, S.P (1997) A new approach to multi-criteria decision making in water resources. Journal of Geographic Information and Decision Analysis, Vol. 1, pp.25-44.
9 Xanthopulos, Z., Melachrinoudis, E. Solomon, M.M. (2000) Interactive Multiobjective Group Decision Making with Interval Parameters. Management Science, Vol. 46, No. 12, pp.1721-1732.
10 Zeleny, M. (1982) Multiple Criteria Decision Making, McGraw- Hill, New York, New York, pp.315-325.
11 Eckenrode, R.T. (1965) Weighting Multiple Criteria. Management Science, Vol. 12, No. 3, pp.180-192.   DOI   ScienceOn
12 Barron, F.H. and Barrett, B. E. (1996) Sensitivity Analysis of Additive Multiattribute Value Model. Operations Research, Vol. 36, No. 1, pp.122-127.
13 Brans, J.P. and Vincke, PH. (1985) A preference ranking organisation method. Management Science, Vol. 31, No. 6, pp.647-656.   DOI   ScienceOn
14 Borda, J.C. (1781) Memoire sur les Elections au Scrutin, Histoire de l'Acad. Royale Sci., Paris.
15 Canada, J.R. and Sullivan, W.G. (1989) Economic and Multiattribute Evaluation of Advanced Manufacturing Systesms, Prentice Hall, NJ.
16 Charnes, A., Copper, W.W. and Rhodes, E.L. (1978) Measuring the Efficiency of Decision Making Units. European Journal of Operation Research, Vol. 2, No. 6. pp.429-444.   DOI   ScienceOn
17 Kemeny, J.G. and Snell, L.J. (1962) Preference Ranking : An Axiomatic Approach, Mathematical Models in the Social Sciences, Ginn, New York, pp.9-23.
18 Knoll, A.L. and Engelberg, A. (1978) Weighting Multiple Objectives- The Churchman-Ackoff Techniques Revisited. Computer and Operations Research, Vol. 5, No. 3, pp.165-177.   DOI   ScienceOn