National Journal of System and Information Technology

Open Access Open Access  Restricted Access Subscription Access
Open Access Open Access Open Access  Restricted Access Restricted Access Subscription Access

Reducing the Gap between Two MADM Models


Affiliations
1 Industrial Management, Islamic Azad University, Science and Research Branch, Tehran, Iran, Islamic Republic of
     

   Subscribe/Renew Journal


Several methods have been proposed for solving Multi-Attribute Decision-Making problems (MADM). A major criticism of MADM is that different techniques may yield different results when applied to the same problem. In this paper, we investigate the performance of two well-known MADM models: 1. AHP, and 2. TOPSIS. Although, there is no exact way to know which model gives the right answer. But, AHP was selected as the basis to which to compare the other methods, because it extremely popular in practice. Then, by changing the separation measures in TOPSIS model from P=2 (Euclidean distance) to another values (P≠2; i.e. 1.1, 1.2, etc., based on Birnbaum, 1998, p. 185), result are investigated.

Keywords

MADM, AHP, TOPSIS, Separation Measures, Euclidean Distance.
Subscription Login to verify subscription
User
Notifications
Font Size


  • Alinezhad A. and A. Amini, (2011), "sensitivity analysis of Topsis technique: the results of changes in the weight of one attribute on the final ranking of alternatives", Journal of Optimization in Industrial Engineering 7 (2011), 23-28

  • Birnbaum M. H. (1998), "Measurement, judgment and decision making", Academic Press.

  • Gelderman J. and O. Rentz, (2000)," Bridging the gap between American and European MADM approaches", presented at the 51st meeting of the European working group "multi criteria aid for decisions" in Madrid, 30-31.03.2000.

  • Hwang C. L. and K. Yoon, (1981), "multiple attribute decision making; methods and applications", Springer – Verlag.

  • Lin et al., (2008)," multi attribute group decision making model under the condition of uncertain information", Automation in Construction 17(2008), 792-797.

  • Mianabadi H. A. and A. Afshar, (2008)," Multi-attribute Decision-making to Rank Urban Water Supply Schemes", Ab va Fazelab, No. 66, 2008, 34-45, in Iran.

  • Olson D. L., (2004),"comparison of weights in Topsis method", Mathematical and Computer Modeling, Pergamon.

  • Pawar S. S. and D. S. Verma, (2013)," digital camera evaluation base on AHP and Topsis", International Journal of Engineering Research, No. 2, Issue No. 2, 51-53.

  • Saaty T. L., (2000),"Fundamentals of decision making and priority theory", Vol. VI of the AHP series, RWS Publication.

  • Sennaroglu B. and S. Sen, (2012), "Integrated AHP and Topsis approach for supplier selection", 2nd international conference manufacturing engineering and management, 2012, 19-22.

  • Triantaphyllou E. and S. H. Mann, (1995)," using the Analytic Hierarchy Process for decision making in engineering applications: some challenges," International Journal of Industrial Engineering: application and practice, Vol. 2, No. 1, 35-44.

  • Ustinovichius et al., (2007)," Application of a quantitative multiple criteria decision making (MCDM-1) approach to the analysis of investments in construction", Control and Cybernetics, Vol. 36 (2007), No.1.

  • Voogd J. H., (1982)," multiple criteria evaluation for urban and regional planning", Research Project: Dutch national physical planning agency (RPD), Delft, Netherlands.

  • Zanakis et al., (1998)," A simulation comparisons of select method", European Journal of Operational Research 107 (1998), 507-529.


Abstract Views: 306

PDF Views: 2




  • Reducing the Gap between Two MADM Models

Abstract Views: 306  |  PDF Views: 2

Authors

Mohammad Azadfallah
Industrial Management, Islamic Azad University, Science and Research Branch, Tehran, Iran, Islamic Republic of

Abstract


Several methods have been proposed for solving Multi-Attribute Decision-Making problems (MADM). A major criticism of MADM is that different techniques may yield different results when applied to the same problem. In this paper, we investigate the performance of two well-known MADM models: 1. AHP, and 2. TOPSIS. Although, there is no exact way to know which model gives the right answer. But, AHP was selected as the basis to which to compare the other methods, because it extremely popular in practice. Then, by changing the separation measures in TOPSIS model from P=2 (Euclidean distance) to another values (P≠2; i.e. 1.1, 1.2, etc., based on Birnbaum, 1998, p. 185), result are investigated.

Keywords


MADM, AHP, TOPSIS, Separation Measures, Euclidean Distance.

References