zbMATH — the first resource for mathematics

Examples
Geometry Search for the term Geometry in any field. Queries are case-independent.
Funct* Wildcard queries are specified by * (e.g. functions, functorial, etc.). Otherwise the search is exact.
"Topological group" Phrases (multi-words) should be set in "straight quotation marks".
au: Bourbaki & ti: Algebra Search for author and title. The and-operator & is default and can be omitted.
Chebyshev | Tschebyscheff The or-operator | allows to search for Chebyshev or Tschebyscheff.
"Quasi* map*" py: 1989 The resulting documents have publication year 1989.
so: Eur* J* Mat* Soc* cc: 14 Search for publications in a particular source with a Mathematics Subject Classification code (cc) in 14.
"Partial diff* eq*" ! elliptic The not-operator ! eliminates all results containing the word elliptic.
dt: b & au: Hilbert The document type is set to books; alternatively: j for journal articles, a for book articles.
py: 2000-2015 cc: (94A | 11T) Number ranges are accepted. Terms can be grouped within (parentheses).
la: chinese Find documents in a given language. ISO 639-1 language codes can also be used.

Operators
a & b logic and
a | b logic or
!ab logic not
abc* right wildcard
"ab c" phrase
(ab c) parentheses
Fields
any anywhere an internal document identifier
au author, editor ai internal author identifier
ti title la language
so source ab review, abstract
py publication year rv reviewer
cc MSC code ut uncontrolled term
dt document type (j: journal article; b: book; a: book article)
An extension of TOPSIS for group decision making. (English) Zbl 1187.90166
Summary: An extension of TOPSIS (technique for order performance by similarity to ideal solution), a multi-attribute decision making (MADM) technique, to a group decision environment is investigated. TOPSIS is a practical and useful technique for ranking and selection of a number of externally determined alternatives through distance measures. To get a broad view of the techniques used, we provide a few options for the operations, such as normalization, distance measures and mean operators, at each of the corresponding steps of TOPSIS. In addition, the preferences of more than one decision maker are internally aggregated into the TOPSIS procedure. Unlike in previous developments, our group preferences are aggregated within the procedure. The proposed model is indeed a unified process and it will be readily applicable to many real-world decision making situations without increasing the computational burden. In the final part, the effects of external aggregation and internal aggregation of group preferences for TOPSIS with different computational combinations are compared using examples. The results have demonstrated our model to be both robust and efficient.

MSC:
90B50Management decision making, including multiple objectives
Software:
MADM
WorldCat.org
Full Text: DOI
References:
[1] Hwang, C. L.; Yoon, K.: Multiple attribute decision making. (1981) · Zbl 0453.90002
[2] Belenson, S. M.; Kapur, K. C.: An algorithm for solving multicriterion linear programming problems with examples. Operational research quarterly 24, No. 1, 65-77 (1973) · Zbl 0261.90035
[3] Zeleny, M.: A concept of compromise solutions and the method of the displaced ideal. Computers and operations research 1, 479-496 (1974)
[4] Kim, G.; Park, C. S.; Yoon, K. P.: Identifying investment opportunities for advanced manufacturing systems with comparative-integrated performance measurement. International journal of production economics 50, 23-33 (1997)
[5] Cheng, S.; Chan, C. W.; Huang, G. H.: Using multiple criteria decision analysis for supporting decision of solid waste management. Journal of environmental science and health, part A 37, No. 6, 975-990 (2002)
[6] Zanakis, S. H.; Solomon, A.; Wishart, N.; Dublish, S.: Multi-attribute decision making: A simulation comparison of selection methods. European journal of operational research 107, 507-529 (1998) · Zbl 0943.90054
[7] Chen, M. F.; Tzeng, G. H.: Combining gray relation and TOPSIS concepts for selecting an expatriate host country. Mathematical and computer modelling 40, 1473-1490 (2004) · Zbl 1099.90549
[8] Janic, M.: Multicriteria evaluation of high-speed rail, transrapid maglev, and air passenger transport in Europe. Transportation planning and technology 26, No. 6, 491-512 (2003)
[9] Kwong, C. K.; Tam, S. M.: Case-based reasoning approach to concurrent design of low power transformers. Journal of materials processing technology 128, 136-141 (2002)
[10] Milani, A. S.; Shanian, A.; Madoliat, R.: The effect of normalization norms in multiple attribute decision making models: A case study in gear material selection. Structural multidisciplinary optimization 29, No. 4, 312-318 (2005)
[11] Srdjevic, B.; Medeiros, Y. D. P.; Faria, A. S.: An objective multi-criteria evaluation of water management scenarios. Water resources management 18, 35-54 (2004)
[12] Yang, T.; Chou, P.: Solving a multiresponse simulation--optimization problem with discrete variables using a multi-attribute decision-making method. Mathematics and computers in simulation 68, 9-21 (2005) · Zbl 1108.93305
[13] Yoon, K.; Hwang, C. L.: Manufacturing plant location analysis by multiple attribute decision making: part I--single-plant strategy. International journal of production research 23, 345-359 (1985) · Zbl 0563.90037
[14] Lai, Y. J.: TOPSIS for MODM. European journal of operational research 76, 486-500 (1994) · Zbl 0810.90078
[15] H.-S. Shih, W.Y. Lin, E.S. Lee, Group decision making for TOPSIS, in: Joint 9th IFSA World Congress and 20th NAFIPS International Conference, IFSA/NAFIPS 2001, 25--28 July, Vancouver, Canada, 2001, pp. 2712--2717
[16] Shih, H. S.; Wang, C. H.; Lee, E. S.: A multiattribute GDSS for aiding problem-solving. Mathematical and computer modelling 39, No. 11--12, 1397-1412 (2004) · Zbl 1109.91334
[17] Saaty, T. L.: The analytic hierarchy process. (1990) · Zbl 0707.90002
[18] Saaty, T. L.; Ozdemir, M. S.: Why the magic number seven plus or minus two. Mathematical and computer modelling 38, 233-244 (2003) · Zbl 1106.91312
[19] Deng, H.; Yeh, C. H.; Willis, R. J.: Inter-company comparison using modified TOPSIS with objective weights. Computers and operations research 27, 963-973 (2000) · Zbl 0970.90038
[20] Chu, T. C.: Facility location selection using fuzzy TOPSIS under group decision. International journal of uncertainty, fuzziness and knowledge-based systems 10, No. 6, 687-701 (2002) · Zbl 1065.90085
[21] Byun, H. S.; Lee, K. H.: A decision support system for the selection of a rapid prototyping process using the modified TOPSIS method. International journal of advanced manufacturing technology 26, No. 11--12, 1338-1347 (2005)
[22] Parkan, C.; Wu, M. L.: Decision-making and performance measurement models with applications to robot selection. Computers and industrial engineering 36, 503-523 (1999)
[23] Chen, C. T.: Extensions of the TOPSIS for group decision-making under fuzzy environment. Fuzzy sets and systems 114, No. 1, 1-9 (2000)
[24] Parkan, C.; Wu, M. L.: Process selection with multiple objective and subjective attributes. Production planning and control 9, No. 2, 189-200 (1998)
[25] Hwang, C. L.; Lin, M. J.: Group decision making under multiple criteria. (1987) · Zbl 0631.90001
[26] Yoon, K. P.; Hwang, C. L.: Multiple attribute decision making: an introduction. (1995)
[27] Berberian, S. K.: Fundamentals of real analysis. (1999) · Zbl 0914.26001
[28] Steuer, R. E.: Multiple criteria optimization: theory, computation, and application. (1986) · Zbl 0663.90085
[29] Jones, D. F.; Mardle, S. J.: A distance-metric methodology for the derivation of weights from a pairwise comparison matrix. Journal of the operational research society 55, 869-875 (2004) · Zbl 1060.90069
[30] Shipley, M. F.; Korvin, D. K.; Obit, R.: A decision making model for multi-attribute problems incorporating uncertainty and bias measures. Computers and operations research 18, 335-342 (1991)
[31] Olson, D. L.: Comparison of weights in TOPSIS models. Mathematical and computer modelling 40, 721-727 (2004) · Zbl 1066.90054