Ordering of innovation projects by multi-criteria decision-making methods – a comparison

• Authors: Martin Mizla , Denisa Šefčíková , Jozef Gajdoš

Title variants

Uporządkowanie projektów innowacyjnych przez wielokryterialne metody podejmowania decyzji – porównanie

Abstracts

PL

W przypadku procesu integracji barierą są różnice ekonomiczne i społeczne pomiędzy jednostkami gospodarczymi. Wiele organów administracyjnych podejmuje rozsądne i aktywne wysiłki, aby ograniczyć istniejące nierówności. W praktyce często trzeba uporządkować różne kwestie i argumenty i na tej podstawie podjąć decyzję. Podejmowanie decyzji może być intuicyjne lub odwrotnie, oparte na różnych metodach ilościowych. W artykule omówiono metody ilościowe podejmowania decyzji wielokryterialnych (MCDM), a mianowicie: Analitical Hierarchy Process (AHP), Technique for Preference by Clarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) oraz Weighted Linear Combination (WLC) i ich wykorzystanie w projektach innowacyjnych. Autonomiczne oceny obiektów (projektów) wykonywane są na tym samym podstawowym zbiorze danych wspomnianymi metodami i są ze sobą porównywane. Do wzajemnych porównań wykorzystano współczynnik korelacji Spearmana. Wyniki testów wykazały, że badane metody nie dają wyników o ścisłej zależności, co oznacza, że kolejność tworzonych obiektów (projektów) zależy od zastosowanej metody.

EN

In the case of the integration process, economic and social differences between economic units represent a barrier. There are reasonable and active efforts of many administrative bodies to transfer the existing inequalities to equalities. In practical life, it is often necessary to order different objects and take a decision based on it. Decision-making can be intuitive or, conversely, based on various quantitative methods. The paper discusses some quantitative methods of multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM), namely Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP), Technique for Order of Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS), and Weighted Linear Combination (WLC); and their use for innovation projects. Autonomous orders of objects (projects) are performed on the same basic data set by the above-mentioned methods, and they are compared with each other. The Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient was used for mutual comparison. The test results showed that the investigated methods do not provide results with a close dependence, which means that the order of objects (projects) created depends on the method used.

Keywords

PL

analiza wielokryterialna; AHP; TOPSIS; WLC; korelacja

EN

multi-criteria analysis; AHP; TOPSIS; WLC; correlation

• Publisher: Uniwersytet Rzeszowski. Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Rzeszowskiego
• Journal: Nierówności społeczne a wzrost gospodarczy
• Year: 2021
• Issue: 67
• Pages: 84-94

Dates

published

2021

Contributors

author

Martin Mizla

• Department of Management, Faculty of Business Economics in Košice University of Economics Bratislava, Slovak Republic

• https://orcid.org/0000000304170931

author

Denisa Šefčíková

• Department of Management, Faculty of Business Economics in Košice University of Economics Bratislava, Slovak Republic

• https://orcid.org/0000000314886108

author

Jozef Gajdoš

• Department of Management, Faculty of Business Economics in Košice University of Economics Bratislava, Slovak Republic

• https://orcid.org/0000000258125485

References

• Al Garni, H. Z, Awasthi, A. (2018). Solar PV Power Plants Site Selection: A Review. In: I. Yahyaoui (Ed.), Advances in Renewable Energies and Power Technologies. Volume 1: Solar and Wind Energies (pp. 57–75). Elsevier. DOI: 10.1016/B978-0-12-812959-3.00002-2.
• Anderson, D. R., Sweeney, D. J., Williams T. A., Camm, J. D., Cochran, J. J. (2016). Quantitative Methods for Business, 13th Edition, CENGAGE Learning.
• Beroggi, G. (1999). Decision Modeling in Policy Management: An Introduction to the Analytic Concepts. New York: Springer Science + Business Media. DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4615-5599-5.
• Blachowski, J. (2015). Methodology for assessment of the accessibility of a brown coal deposit with Analytical Hierarchy Process and Weighted Linear Combination. Environmental Earth Sciences, 74, 4119–4131. DOI: 10.1007/s12665-015-4461-0.
• Cubukcu, A. (2018). A New Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Approach in the Evaluation of Innovative Ideas. 12th International NCM Conference: Challenges in Industrial Engineering & Operation Management. DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.3299917.
• El Jazouli, A., Barakat, A., Khellouk, R. (2019). GIS-multicriteria evaluation using AHP for landslide susceptibility mapping in Oum Er Rbia high basin (Morocco). Geoenviron Disasters, 6(3), 1–12. DOI: 10.1186/s40677-019-0119-7.
• European Commision. (2014). Regional policy. Retrieved from: https:// ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sk/policy/how/principles/ (2021.02.01).
• Hwang, C. L., Yoon, K. (1981). Multiple Attribute Decision Making. Berlin: Springer--Verlag.
• Kumru, M., Kumru, P. Y. (2014). Analytic hierarchy process application in selecting the mode of transport for a logistics company. Journal of Advanced Transportation, 48(8), 974–999. DOI: 10.1002/atr.1240.
• Macharis, C., Bernardini, A. (2015). Reviewing the use of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis for the evaluation of transport projects: Time for a multi-actor approach. Transport Policy, 37(10), 177–186. DOI: 10.1016/j.tranpol.2014.11.002.
• Neves, A. J. S., Camanho, R. (2015). The Use of AHP for IT Project Priorization – A Case Study for Oil & Gas Company. Procedia Computer Science, 55, 1097–1105. DOI: 10.1016/j.procs.2015.07.076.
• Saaty, T. L. (1980). The Analytic Hierarchy Process. New York: McGraw-Hill.
• Santana, E. A. (1996). Múltiplos critérios: uma alternativa, apesar das fragilidades das soluçőes. IInd International Congress of Industrial Engineering (Proceedings CD ROM). Piracicaba (Brazil): Universidade Metodista de Piracicaba.
• Zak, J. (2005). Multiple Criteria Decision Aiding in Road Transportation. Poznan: Poznan University of Technology Publishing House.
• Zanakis, S. H., Solomon, A., Wishart, N., Dublish, S. (1998). Multi-attribute decision making: a simulation comparison of select methods. European Journal of Operational Research, 107, 507– 529. DOI: 10.1016/S0377-2217(97)00147-1.

Identifiers

DOI

10.15584/nsawg.2021.3.7

Biblioteka Nauki

1913781