BazEkon - Biblioteka Główna Uniwersytetu Ekonomicznego w Krakowie

BazEkon home page

Meny główne

Autor
Kobryń Andrzej (Bialystok University of Technology, Poland)
Tytuł
DEMATEL as a Weighting Method in Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis
Źródło
Multiple Criteria Decision Making / University of Economics in Katowice, 2017, vol. 12, s. 153-167, rys., tab., bibliogr. 41 poz.
Słowa kluczowe
Metoda DEMATEL, Wielokryterialne podejmowanie decyzji, Podejmowanie decyzji
DEcision MAking Trial and Evaluation Laboratory method, Multiple-criteria decision making, Decision making
Uwagi
summ.
Abstrakt
Modelling of a decision-maker's preferences in multi-criteria decision analysis is performed using weights that reflect the relative importance of the given decision criteria. The determination of accurate values of the weights is therefore of considerable importance. Numerous means and methods are used for this purpose, such as: the entropy method (i.e., the method of objective weights), the Simos method, the SWARA method, the ANP or AHP methods, and many others. This paper analyses the DEMATEL method, frequently used to identify cause-and-effect relationships. Nowadays, it is often used in multi-criteria decision analyses. In the opinion of some authors, DEMATEL may be useful also to determine the weights of criteria. However, the approach presented by these authors has certain drawbacks. The present paper proposes a different approach to the weighting procedure using DEMATEL. Using numerical examples, it also presents weights determined by this method and compared to those obtained using the AHP method.(original abstract)
Dostępne w
Biblioteka Główna Uniwersytetu Ekonomicznego w Krakowie
Pełny tekst
Pokaż
Bibliografia
Pokaż
  1. De Almeida et al. (2016), A New Method for Elicitation of Criteria Weights in Additive Models: Flexible and Interactive Tradeoff, European Journal of Operational Research, 250, 179-191.
  2. Barron F.H., Barret B.E. (1996), Decision Quality Using Ranked Attribute Weights, Management Science, 42, 1515-1523.
  3. Baykasoglu A., Kaplanoglu V., Durmusoglu Z.D.U., Sahin C. (2013), Integrating Fuzzy DEMATEL and Fuzzy Hierarchical TOPSIS Methods for Truck Selection, Expert Systems with Applications, 40, 899-907.
  4. Chen C.H., Tzeng G.H. (2011), Creating the Aspired Intelligent Assessment Systems for Teaching Materials, Expert Systems with Applications, 38, 12168-12179.
  5. Chen Y.C., Lien H.P., Tzeng G.H (2010), Measures and Evaluation for Environment Watershed Plans Using a Novel Hybrid MCDM Model, Expert Systems and Applications, 37, 926-938.
  6. Chiu W.Y., Tzeng G.H., Li H.L. (2013), A New Hybrid MCDM Model Combining DANP with VIKOR to Improve e-store Business, Knowledge-Based Systems, 37, 48-61.
  7. Dalalah D., Hajaneh M., Batieha F. (2011), A Fuzzy Multi-criteria Decision Making Model for Supplier Selection, Expert Systems with Applications, 38, 8384-8391.
  8. Deng H., Yeh C.H., Willis R.J. (2000), Inter-company Comparison Using Modified TOPSIS with Objective Weights, Computers & Operations Research, 27, 963-973.
  9. Dytczak M. (2010), Wybrane metody rozwiązywania wielokryterialnych problemów decyzyjnych w budownictwie, Wydawnictwa Politechniki Opolskiej, Opole.
  10. Edwards W., Barron F.H. (1994), SMARTS and SMARTER: Improved Simple Methods for Multiattribute Utility Measurement, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 60, 306-325.
  11. Figueira J., Roy B. (2002), Determining the Weights of Criteria in the ELECTRE type Methods with a Revised Simos' Procedure, European Journal of Operational Research, 139, 317-326.
  12. Fontela E., Gabus A. (1974), DEMATEL, Innovative Methods, Rep. No. 2, Structural Analysis of the World Problematique (Methods), Battelle Institute, Geneva Research Center, Geneva.
  13. Gabus A., Fontela E. (1972), World Problems an Invitation to Further thought within the Framework of DEMATEL, Batelle Institute, Geneva Research Center, Geneva.
  14. Hsu C.W., Kuo T.C., Chen S.H., Hu A.H. (2013), Using DEMATEL to Develop a Carbon Management Model of Supplier Selection in Green Supply Chain Management, Journal of Cleaner Production, 56, 164-172.
  15. Ignasiak E., red. (2001), Badania operacyjne, PWE, Warszawa.
  16. Kabak M., Burmaoglu S., Kazancoglu Y. (2012), A Fuzzy Hybrid MCDM Approach for Professional Selection, Expert Systems with Applications, 39, 3516-3525.
  17. Keršuliene V., Zavadskas E.K., Turskis Z. (2010), Selection of Rational Dispute Resolution Method by Applying New Step-wise Weight Assessment Ratio Analysis (SWARA), Journal of Business Economics and Management, 11(2), 243-258.
  18. Kobryń A. (2014), Wielokryterialne wspomaganie decyzji w gospodarowaniu przestrzenią, Wydawnictwo DIFIN, Warszawa.
  19. Lee H.S., Tzeng G.H., Yeih W., Wang Y.J., Yang S.C. (2013), Revised DEMATEL: Resolving the Infeasibility of DEMATEL, Applied Mathematical Modelling, 37, 6746-6757.
  20. Lin C.J., Wu W.W. (2008), A Causal Analytical Method for Group Decision-making under Fuzzy Environment, Expert Systems and Applications, 34, 205-213.
  21. Lin Y.T., Lin C.L., Yu H.C., Tzeng G.H. (2010), A Novel Hybrid MDCM Approach for Outsourcing Vendor Selection: A Case Study for a Semiconductor Company in Taiwan, Expert Systems and Applications, 37, 4796-4804.
  22. Liou Y. (2007), Water Quality Analysis Model Based on DEMATEL and ANP, 22nd European Conference on Operational Research EURO XII. Book of Abstracts, Praha.
  23. Michnik J. (2013), Wielokryterialne metody wspomagania decyzji w procesie innowacji, Prace Naukowe Uniwersytetu Ekonomicznego, Katowice.
  24. Patil S.K., Kant R. (2014), A Hybrid Approach Based on Fuzzy DEMATEL and FMCDM to Predict Success of Knowledge Management Adoption in Supply Chain, Applied Soft Computing, 18, 126-135.
  25. Roy R., Mousseau V. (1996), A Theoretical Framework for Analyzing the Notion of Relative Importance of Criteria, Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis, 5, 145-159.
  26. Saaty T.L. (1980), The Analytic Hierarchy Process: Planning, Priority Setting, Resource Allocation, McGraw-Hill, New York.
  27. Shannon C.E., Weaver W. (1963), The Mathematical Theory of Communication, University of Illinois Press, Urbana and Chicago.
  28. Shen Y.C., Lin G.T., Tzeng G.H. (2011), Combined DEMATEL Techniques with Novel MCDM for the Organic Light Emitting Diode Technology Selection, Expert Systems with Applications, 38, 1468-1481.
  29. Shieh J.I., Wu H.H., Huang K.H. (2010), A DEMATEL Method in Identifying Key Success Factors of Hospital Service Quality, Knowledge-Based Systems, 23, 277-282.
  30. Simos J. (1990), L'évaluation environnementale: Un processus cognitive négocié, Thèse de doctorat, DGF-EPFL, Lausanne.
  31. Solymosi T., Dombi J. (1986), A Method for Determining the Weights of Criteria: The Centralized Weights, European Journal of Operational Research, 26, 35-41.
  32. Tamura H., Akazawa K. (2005a), Structural Modeling and Systems Analysis of Uneasy Factors for Realizing Safe, Secure and Reliable Society, Journal of Telecommunications and Information Technology, 3, 64-72.
  33. Tamura H., Akazawa K. (2005b), Stochastic DEMATEL for Structural Modeling of a Complex Problematique for Realizing Safe, Secure and Reliable Society, Journal of Telecommunications and Information Technology, 4, 139-146.
  34. Tamura H., Akazawa K. (2006), Decision Support for Extracting and Dissolving Consumers' Uneasiness over Foods Using Stochastic DEMATEL, Journal of Telecommunications and Information Technology, 4, 91-95.
  35. Tzeng G.H., Chiang C.H., Li C.W. (2007), Evaluating Intertwined Effects in e-learning Programs: A Novel Hybrid MCDM Model Based on Factor Analysis and DEMATEL, Expert Systems with Applications, 32(4), 1028-1044.
  36. Tzeng G.H., Huang J.J. (2011), Multiple Attribute Decision Making: Methods and Applications, CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group.
  37. Wang J., Zionts S. (2006), Random-weight Generation in Multiple Criteria Decision Models, MCDM' 2006, Chania, Greece, June 19-23.
  38. Wu W.W., Lee Y.T. (2007), Developing Global Managers' Competencies Using the Fuzzy DEMATEL Method, Expert Systems with Applications, 32, 499-507.
  39. Wu H.H, Tsai Y.N. (2011), A DEMATEL Method to Evaluate the Causal Relations among the Criteria in Auto Spare Parts Industry, Applied Mathematics and Computation, 218, 2334-2342.
  40. Yang J., Tzeng G.H. (2011), An Integrated MCDM Technique Combined with DEMATEL for a Novel Cluster-weighted with ANP Method, Expert Systems and Applications, 38, 1417-1424.
  41. Zolfani S.H., Aghdaie M.H., Derakthi A., Zavadskas E.K., Varzandeh M.H.M. (2013), Decision Making on Business Issues with Foresight Perspective: An Application of New Hybrid MCDM Model in Shopping Mall Locating, Expert Systems and Applications, 40, 7111-7121.
Cytowane przez
Pokaż
ISSN
2084-1531
Język
eng
URI / DOI
http://dx.doi.org/10.22367/mcdm.2017.12.11
Udostępnij na Facebooku Udostępnij na Twitterze Udostępnij na Google+ Udostępnij na Pinterest Udostępnij na LinkedIn Wyślij znajomemu