Using individual and common reference points to measure the performance of alternatives in multiple criteria evaluation

• Authors: ROSZKOWSKA Ewa , FILIPOWICZ-CHOMKO Marzena , WACHOWICZ Tomasz
• Languages of publication: EN

Abstracts

EN

When evaluating or ordering alternatives concerning given multiple criteria, decision-makers often use aspiration and reservation levels for criteria, which allows them to define some reference alterna-tives that build a common framework for the evaluation. In this paper, new multiple criteria approach, called distances to aspiration reference points (DARP), is presented, which can be implemented in a specific evaluation or ranking problem when many different aspiration levels should be taken into consideration. One example of such problem is measuring sustainable development of countries or states within the Union. In DARP, to measure the performance of alternative (state), the notion of dis-tances between alternative and individual or common aspiration reference points is used. To manage the problem of different reference points, a modified max-min normalisation technique is proposed. DARP application for measuring smart growth of the EU countries is conducted to demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed method.

Keywords

EN

reference points; aspiration level; distance measure; MCDM methods; smart growth

• Publisher: Politechnika Wrocławska. Oficyna Wydawnicza Politechniki Wrocławskiej
• Journal: Operations Research and Decisions
• Year: 2020
• Volume: 30
• Issue: 3
• Pages: 77-96

Contributors

author

ROSZKOWSKA Ewa

• University of Bialystok, Warszawska 53, 15-062 Białystok, Poland

author

FILIPOWICZ-CHOMKO Marzena

• Bialystok University of Technology, Wiejska 45A, 15-351 Białystok, Poland

author

WACHOWICZ Tomasz

• University of Economics in Katowice, ul. 1 Maja 50, 40-287 Katowice, Poland

References

• AIRES R.F.F., FERREIRA L., The rank reversal problem in multi-criteria decision making: a literature review, Pesq. Oper., 2018, 38 (2), 331–362.
• BANDURA R., Composite Indicators and Rankings. Inventory 2011, Technical report, Office of Development Studies, United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), New York 2011.
• BASTER N., Measuring Development. The Role and Adequacy of Development Indicators, Frank Cass, London 1972.
• BAZERMAN M., MOORE D.A., Judgment in Managerial Decision Making, Wiley, 2009.
• BEHZADIAN M., OTAGHSARA S.K., YAZDANI M., IGNATIUS J., A state-of-the-art survey of TOPSIS applications, Exp. Syst. Appl., 2012, 39, 13051–13069.
• BURNS T., ROSZKOWSKA E., Social Theory of Choice. From Simon and Kahneman–Tversky to GGT modeling of socially contextualized decision situations, Opt. Econ. Studies, 2008, 3 (39), 3–44.
• BÜYÜKÖZKAN G., KARABULUT Y., Sustainability performance evaluation. Literature review and future directions, J. Environ. Manage., 2018, 217, 253–267.
• CHATTERJEE P., CHAKRABORTY S., A comparative analysis of VIKOR method and its variants, Dec. Sci. Lett., 2016, 5, 469–486.
• DIAZ-BALTEIRO L., GONZÁLEZ-PACHÓN J., ROMERO C., Measuring systems sustainability with multi-criteria methods. A critical review, Eur. J. Oper. Res., 2017, 258 (2), 607–616.
• DI DOMIZIO M., The competitive balance in the Italian football league. A taxonomic approach, wpcomunite.it, Department of Communication, University of Teramo, 2008, 48.
• European Commission, Europe 2020, A strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth, Brussels 2010, http.//ec.europa.eu/eu2020/pdf/COMPLET%20EN%20BARROSO%20%20%20007%20-%20 Europe %202020%20-%20EN%20version.pdf (accessed 20 November 2019).
• EUROSTAT, Europe 2020 indicators – country profiles, 2019, https.//ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statisticsexplained/ index.php?title=Europe_2020_indicators_-_country_profiles#Articles_by_country (accessed 20 November 2019).
• Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis. State of the Art Surveys, J. Figueira, S. Greco, M. Ehrgott (Eds.), Springer, New York 2005.
• GÓRECKA D., Using Bipolar Mix in the process of selecting projects applying for co-financing from the European Union, [In:] L.Z. Stirn, M.K. Borštnar, J. Žerovnik, S. Drobne (Eds.), Proc. SOR 2017, 14th International Symposium on Operational Research, Bled, Slovenia, September 27–29, 2017, Slovenian Society Informatika, Section for Operational Research, Ljubljana 2017, 174–179.
• GÓRECKA D., Bipolar Mix – a method for mixed evaluations and its application to the ranking of European projects, Mult. Crit. Dec. Making, 2017, 12, 36–48.
• GÓRECKA D., Multi-criteria support for selecting European projects, TNOiK, Toruń 2009 (in Polish).
• GRECO S., ISHIZAKA A., TASIOU M., TORRISI G., On the methodological framework of composite indices. A review of the issues of weighting, aggregation, and robustness, Soc. Ind. Res., 2019, 141, 61–94.
• HELLWIG Z., Application of the taxonomic method to the typological division of countries due to the level of their development and the structure of qualified personnel, Stat. Rev., 1968, 4, 307–327, (in Polish).
• HELLWIG Z., On the optimal choice of predictors, [In:] Z. Gostkowski (Ed.), Towards a System of Human Capital Resources Indicators for Less Developed Countries, Papers Prepared for a UNESCO Research Project, Ossolineum, Polish Academy of Sciences, Wrocław 1972, 115–134.
• HUANG I.B., KEISLER J., LINKOV I., Multi‐criteria decision analysis in environmental sciences. Ten years of applications and trends, Sci. Total Environ., 2011, 409, 3578–3594.
• HWANG C.L., YOON K., Multiple Attribute Decision Making Methods and Applications, Springer, Berlin 1981.
• ISHIZAKA A., NEMERY P., Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis. Methods and Software, Wiley, 2013.
• KONARZEWSKA-GUBAŁA E., Multicriteria decision analysis with bipolar reference system. Theoretical model and computer implementation, Arch. Aut. Telemech., 1987, 32 (4), 289–300.
• KONARZEWSKA-GUBAŁA E., Multiple criteria company benchmarking using the bipolar method, [In:] T. Trzaskalik, J. Michnik (Eds.), Multiple objective and goal programming. Recent developments, Springer, Heidelberg 2002, 338–350.
• KONARZEWSKA-GUBAŁA E., Bipolar. Multiple Criteria Decision Aid Using Bipolar Reference System, LAMSADE, Cahier et Documents, 56, Paris 2009.
• MAGGINO F., Complexity in Society. From Indicators Construction to Their Synthesis, Springer, 2017.
• MAZZIOTTA M., PARETO A., Synthesis of indicators. The composite indicators approach, [In:] F. Maggino (Ed.), Complexity in Society. From Indicators Construction to Their Synthesis, Soc. Ind. Res. Ser., 70, Springer, 2017, 159–191.
• MELAMED C., BERGH G., Sustainable Development Goals and Targets. Options for Differentiating between Countries, Overseas Development Institute, London 2014, https://www.odi.org/sites/odi.org.uk/files/odi-assets/publications-opinion-files/9047.pdf
• MIOLA A., SCHILTZ F., Measuring sustainable development goals performance. How to monitor policy action in the 2030 Agenda implementation?, Ecol. Econ., 2019, 164, 106373.
• OECD, Measuring Distance to the SDG Targets 2019. An Assessment of Where OECD Countries Stand, OECD Publishing, Paris 2019, https.//doi.org/10.1787/a8caf3fa-en
• OPRICOVIC S., TZENG G.H., Compromise solution by MCDM methods. A comparative analysis of VIKOR and TOPSIS, Eur. J. Oper. Res., 2004, 156 (2), 445–455.
• PAWLAS I., Economic picture of the enlarged European Union in the light of taxonomic research, Proc. MAC-EMM 2016, 5–6 August, Prague 2016.
• REIFF M., SURMANOVÁ K., BALCERZAK A.P., PIETRZAK M.B., Multiple criteria analysis of European Union agriculture, J. Int. Studies, 2016, 9 (3), 62–74.
• ROSZKOWSKA E., FILIPOWICZ-CHOMKO M., Measuring sustainable development in the education area using multi-criteria methods. A case study, Centr. Eur. J. Oper. Res., 2019, 28, 1219–1241.
• ROSZKOWSKA E., WACHOWICZ T., Application of fuzzy TOPSIS to scoring the negotiation offers in ill-structured negotiation problems, Eur. J. Oper. Res., 2015, 242, 920–932.
• ROSZKOWSKA E., WACHOWICZ T., Scoring the negotiation offers from the outside of the feasible negotiation space, Research Papers of Wroclaw University of Economics, 2016, 385, 201–209 (in Polish).
• ROY B., Multicriteria Methodology for Decision Aiding, Kluwer Academic Publisher, 1996.
• SIMON H.A., Models of Man, Macmillan, New York 1957.
• TALUKDER W., HIPEL K.W., VAN LOON G.W., Developing composite indicators for agricultural sustainability assessment. Effect of normalization and aggregation techniques, Resources, 2017, 6 (4), 66.
• Multi-criteria decision support. Methods and applications, T. Trzaskalik (Ed.), PWE, Warsaw 2014 (in Polish).
• TRZASKALIK T., SITARZ S., DOMINIAK C., Bipolar method and its modifications, Centr. Eur. J. Oper. Res., 2019, 27 (3), 625–651.
• TZENG G.H., HUANG J.J., Multiple Attribute Decision Making. Methods and applications, Chapman and Hall, CRC, 2011.
• United Nations, Transforming our World. The 2030 agenda for sustainable development, 2015, A/RES/70/1https.//sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/21252030%20Agenda%20for% 20Sustainable%20Development%20web.pdf (accessed 20 November 2019).
• WACHOWICZ T., BRZOSTOWSKI J., ROSZKOWSKA E., Reference points-based methods in supporting the evaluation of negotiation offers, Oper. Res. Dec., 2012, 4, 121–137.
• WANG Y.M., LUO Y., On rank reversal in decision analysis, Math. Comp. Model., 2009, 49 (5–6), 1221–1229.
• WIERZBICKI A.P., The use of reference objectives in multiobjective optimization, Lect. Notes Econ. Math. Syst., 1980, 177, 468–486.
• YAZDANI M., GRAEML F.R., VIKOR and its applications. A state-of-the-art survey, Int. J. Strat. Dec. Sci., 2014, 5 (2), 56–83.
• ROSZKOWSKA E., FILIPOWICZ-CHOMKO M., Measuring sustainable development using an extended Hellwig method. A case study of education, Soc. Ind. Res., 2020, https.//doi.org/10.1007/s11205-020- 02491

Identifiers

DOI

10.37190/ord200305