A Possibility Priority Degree Analyzing Process for Multiple Attributes Decision Making Problems
European Business & Management
Volume 4, Issue 2, March 2018, Pages: 44-54
Received: Dec. 6, 2017;
Accepted: Jan. 4, 2018;
Published: Jan. 19, 2018
Views 1205 Downloads 119
Mingming Hu, College of Mathematics and Information Science, Guangxi University, Nanning, China
Xinmiao Ye, College of Mathematics and Information Science, Guangxi University, Nanning, China
Jibin Lan, College of Mathematics and Information Science, Guangxi University, Nanning, China
Fang Liu, College of Mathematics and Information Science, Guangxi University, Nanning, China
A multiple attributes decision making model is wildly used and studied. The goal of multiple attributes decision making problems is to select a perfect alternative. The existed methods pay attention to rank the alternatives and suggest a best alternative to decision makers. However, there is risk hiding on the priority order. When accepting the order, decision makers undertake the risk at the same time. It is unknown for decision makers. To show the advantages and disadvantages for each alternative, and the risk of a selection, we propose a possibility priority degree analyzing model. With this model, decision makers can be aware of the possibility of priority degree, similar degree and the priority risk, and then make decision. It will effectively reduce the decision risk and improve the decision efficiency.
A Possibility Priority Degree Analyzing Process for Multiple Attributes Decision Making Problems, European Business & Management.
Vol. 4, No. 2,
2018, pp. 44-54.
Copyright © 2018 Authors retain the copyright of this article.
This article is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
) which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Mac Crimmon, K. R. (1968). Decision making among multiple-attribute alternatives: a survey and consolidated approach (No. RM-4823-ARPA). RAND CORP SANTA MONICA CA.
Fishburn, P. C. (1965). Independence in utility theory with whole product sets. Operations Research, 13 (1), 28-45.
Terry, H. (1963). Comparative evaluation of performance using multiple criteria. Management Science, 9 (3), 431-442.
Papandreou, A. G. (1957). A test of a stochastic theory of choice (Vol. 16). University of California Press.
Churchman, C. W., Ackoff, R. L., & Arnoff, E. L. (1957). Introduction to operations research.
Aumann, R. J., & Kruskal, J. B. (1958). The coefficients in an allocation problem. Naval Research Logistics Quarterly, 5 (2), 111-123.
Wohlstetter, A. (1964). Analysis and design of conflict systems. Analysis for military decisions, 103-148.
Simon, H. A. (1955). A behavioral model of rational choice. The quarterly journal of economics, 99-118.
Fishburn, P. C. (1964). Decision and value theory (No. 511.65 F5).
Shepard, R. N. (1962). The analysis of proximities: Multidimensional scaling with an unknown distance function. I. Psychometrika, 27 (2), 125-140.
Hwang, C. L., Yoon, K. (1981). Multiple Attribute Decision Making, Springer-Verlag, Berlin.
Milani, A. S., Shanian, A., Madoliat, R., & Nemes, J. A. (2005). The effect of normalization norms in multiple attribute decision making models: a case study in gear material selection. Structural and multidisciplinary optimization, 29 (4), 312-318.
Yoon, K. P., & Hwang, C. L. (1995). Multiple attribute decision making: an introduction (Vol. 104). Sage publications.
Wang, T. C., & Lee, H. D. (2009). Developing a fuzzy TOPSIS approach based on subjective weights and objective weights. Expert Systems with Applications, 36 (5), 8980-8985.
Saaty, T. L. (1988). What is the analytic hierarchy process?. In Mathematical models for decision support (pp. 109-121). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
Zeleny, M., & Cochrane, J. L. (1973). Multiple criteria decision making. University of South Carolina Press.
Liu, S., Chan, F. T., & Ran, W. (2016). Decision making for the selection of cloud vendor: An improved approach under group decision-making with integrated weights and objective/subjective attributes. Expert Systems with Applications, 55, 37-47.
Durrett, R. (1996). Probability: theory and examples. Cambridge U Press, 39 (5), 320-353.