Title: Comparison of multi-criteria decision methods through a ranking stability index

Authors: Mbarka Selmi; Tarek Kormi; Nizar Bel Hadj Ali

Addresses: Civil Engineering Department, National Engineering School of Gabes, University of Gabes, Omar Ibn-Elkhattab Street, 6029, Gabes, Tunisia; Civil Engineering Laboratory (L.G.C.) National Engineering School of Tunis, Tunisia, BP 37, Le Belvedere 1002 Tunis, Tunisia ' Civil Engineering Department, National Engineering School of Gabes, University of Gabes, Omar Ibn-Elkhattab Street, 6029, Gabes, Tunisia; Systems and Applied Mechanics Laboratory (LASMAP), Ecole Polytechnique de Tunis, BP 743-2078 La Marsa, Tunisia ' Civil Engineering Department, National Engineering School of Gabes, University of Gabes, Omar Ibn-Elkhattab Street, 6029, Gabes, Tunisia; Systems and Applied Mechanics Laboratory (LASMAP), Ecole Polytechnique de Tunis, BP 743-2078 La Marsa, Tunisia

Abstract: Various multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) procedures have been developed over the last few decades to help decision-making in complex and seemingly intractable decision tasks. A major criticism of various MCDM methods is that they may yield different results when applied to the same problem. A comparative study is proposed here to identify similarities and divergences between the most used MCDM methods. Compared approaches include: ELECTRE III, PROMETHEE I and II, TOPSIS, AHP and PEG. Two multi-criteria case studies are presented. Studied methods are employed to establish an arrangement of a number of alternatives based on two and eight conflicting criteria, respectively. A Gini index is used to quantify rankings dispersion of Pareto optima obtained through studied MCDM methods. Results highlight the sensitivity of the Pareto-compromise design and ranking to the applied MCDM method.

Keywords: multicriteria decision making; MCDM; Pareto compromise design; ranking dispersion; Gini index; ranking stability; ELECTRE III; PROMETHEE; TOPSIS; AHP; analytical hierarchy process; PEG; Pareto-Edgeworth-Grierson.

DOI: 10.1504/IJOR.2016.078462

International Journal of Operational Research, 2016 Vol.27 No.1/2, pp.165 - 183

Available online: 02 Aug 2016 *

Full-text access for editors Access for subscribers Purchase this article Comment on this article