A Modified Hybrid Objective Model to Calculate the Weights of Cause and Effect Criteria in a System: DEMATEL and DEVELOPED SWARA (D-DS) Based Model

• Autorzy: Ebrahimi Seyed Hossain

Identyfikatory

DOI

10.2478/fcds-2023-0006

• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

Criteria weighting is a widely used and also an important feature of multi criteria decision making problems specially in engineering, computer science and management investigations. In particular in many studies related to complex systems there would be usually two main groups of cause and effect criteria. In this research it is intended to make an hybrid objective model comprising DEMATEL and SWARA techniques to assign classified weights to the subgroup of cause and effect criteria. As a main goal, the proposed hybrid model in this presented paper can afford to assign greater values for criteria who belong to cause group. In this regard we apply the objective information which derived from the parameters of (R, equal to sum of direct and indirect influence of a criteria), (R/C, named as net influence power of a criteria) and (R-C, named as net effect of a criteria) related to the final total influence matrix T in DEMATEL methodology. The main contribution in this work lies in utilizing the SWARA methodology and making us of its revision where the relatively Comparative Importance Sj, applied in SWARA technique is reconfigured by some aggregation operators including max, Einstein and Hamacher operators for obtaining more uniformed weights of cause and effect criteria relatively to SWARA basic methodology. Finally results shows that the (R/C) and (R-C)would transfer more clear and refined data and numeric information achieving better and highly reliable weights of criteria categorized into two groups of cause and effect group.

Słowa kluczowe

EN

DEMATEL method; SWARA method; cause and effect criteria; criteria weights; mathematical model

• Wydawca: Wydawnictwo Politechniki Poznańskiej
• Czasopismo: Foundations of Computing and Decision Sciences
• Rocznik: 2023
• Tom: Vol. 48, No. 2
• Strony: 101--152
• Opis fizyczny: Bibliogr. 69 poz., rys., tab.

Twórcy

autor

Ebrahimi Seyed Hossain

• Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences University of Mazandaran Babolsar, Iran

Bibliografia

• [1] Aghdaie M. H., Zolfani S. H., Zavadskas E. K., Decision making in machine tool selection: an integrated approach with SWARA and COPRAS-G methods, InzinerineEkonomika-Eng. Econ, 24, 2013, 5–17.
• [2] Agrawal N., Kant S., Integrated Fuzzy-Dematel, Fuzzy-Topsis Approach for Supplier Selection: A Case Study. Advanced Research in Electrical and Electronic Engineering. Volume 5, Issue 2, April-June, 2018, pp. 129-133.
• [3] Ahmadi H., Nilashi M., O. Ibrahim., Organizational decision to adopt hospital information system: an empirical investigation in the case of Malaysian public hospitals, Int. J. Med. Inform, 84, 2015, 166-188.
• [4] Ahmadi H., Rad M. S., Nilashi M., Ibrahim O., A. Almaee., Ranking the Microlevel critical factors of electronic medical records adoption using TOPSIS method, Health Inf, 4, 2013.
• [5] Alimardani M., Hashemkhani Zolfani S., Aghdaie M. H., Tamošaitiené J., A novel hybrid SWARA and VIKOR methodology for supplier selection in an agile environment, Technol. Econ. Dev. Econ, 19, 2013, 533-548.
• [6] Asad M. M., Mohajerani N., Nourseresh M., Prioritizing factors affecting customer satisfaction in the internet banking system based on cause and effect relationships, Proc Econ Finance, 36, 2016, 210-219.
• [7] Aydin F., Gümüs B., Comparative analysis of multi-criteria decision making methods for the assessment of optimal SVC location, Bulletin of The Polish Academy of Sciences Technical Sciences, Vol. 70(2), 2022.
• [8] Cebi S., Determining importance degrees of website design parameters based on interactions and types of websites, Decision Support Systems, vol. 54, no. 2, 2013, pp.1030-1043.
• [9] Chauhan A., Singh A., Jharkharia S., An interpretive structural modeling (ISM) and decision-making trail and evaluation laboratory (DEMATEL) method approach for the analysis of barriers of waste recycling in India. J. Air Waste Manag. Assoc. 2018, 68, 100-110.
• [10] Chaurasiya R., Jain D., Hybrid MCDM method on pythagorean fuzzy set and its application, Decision Making: Applications in Management and Engineering, 4(2), 2022, 76-105.
• [11] Chiang K., Weight Determination for Consistently Ranking Alternatives in Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis, Applied Mathematical Modeling, 34(7), 2009, 1779-1787.
• [12] Diakoulaki D., Mavrotas G., Papayannakis L., Determining objective weights in multiple criteria problems: the CRITIC method, Computers and Operations Research, 22, 1995, 763-770.
• [13] Dhurkari R.K., MCDM methods: practical difficulties and future directions for improvement, RAIRO-Oper. Res. 56 2022, https://doi.org/10.1051/ro/2022060.
• [14] Edwards W., Barron H., SMARTS and SMARTER: Improved Simple Methods for Multi attribute Utility Measurement. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 60(3), 1994, 306-325.
• [15] Ergun A. T., Kuruoglu E., Visual program application for supplier selection using fuzzy DEMATEL and fuzzy AHP. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Computer Science and Engineering (UBMK 2017), Antalya, Turkey, 5-8 October, 2017; pp. 1055-1060.
• [16] Fontela E., Gabus A., The DEMATEL observer, DEMATEL 1976 report. Switzerland Geneva: Battelle Geneva Research Center, 1976.
• [17] Ginevicius R., Podvezko V., Objective and subjective approaches to determining the criterion weight in multi criteria models. Proceedings of International Conference RelStat, Transport and Telecommunication, 6(1), 2005, 133-137
• [18] Heidarzade F., Varzandeh M. H. M., Rahbari O., Zavadskas E. K., Vafaeipour M., Placement of wind farms based on a hybrid multi criteria decision making for Iran, In Proceedings of the 4th World Sustainability Forum, 4, 2014, 1-20.
• [19] Hsuan-Shih Lee., Gwo-Hshiung Tzeng., Weichung Yeih., Yu-Jie Wang., Shing-ChihYang., Revised DEMATEL: Resolving the Infeasibility of DEMATEL. Applied Mathematical Modeling, Volume 37, 2013, pp. 6746-6757.
• [20] Huang C. Y., Shyu J. Z., Tzeng G. H., Reconfiguring the innovation policy portfolios for Taiwan's SIP mall industry, Technovation, vol. 27, no. 12, 2007, pp. 744-765.
• [21] Hung Y. H., Huang T. L., Hsieh J. C., Tsuei H. J., Cheng C. C., Tzeng G. H., Online reputation management for improving marketing by using a hybrid MCDM model, Knowl. Based Syst, 35, 2012, 87-93.
• [22] Jamshidi A., Rahimi S. A., Ait-kadi D., Ruiz A., A comprehensive fuzzy risk-based maintenance framework for prioritization of medical devices, Appl. Soft Comput, 32, 2015, 322-334.
• [23] Jing Li., Chi-Hui Wu L., Chien-Wen Chen., Yi-Fen Huang., Ching-Torng Lin., Apply Fuzzy DEMATEL to Explore the Decisive Factors of the Auto Lighting Aftermarket Industry in Taiwan. Mathematics, 8, 1187, 2020, doi:10.3390/math8071187.
• [24] Karabasevic D., Stanujkic D., Urosevic S., The MCDM model for personnel selection based on SWARA and ARAS methods. Management, 77, 2015, 43-52. DOI:10.7595/management.fon.2015.0029.
• [25] Karabasevic D., Stanujkic D., Urosevic S., Maksimovic M., Selection of candidates in the mining industry based on the application of the SWARA and the MULTIMOORA methods. Acta Montanistica Slovaca, 20(2), 2015, 116-124.
• [26] Karabasevic D., Stanujkic D., Urosevic S., Maksimovic M., An approach to personnel selection based on Swara and Waspas methods. Bizinfo (Blace), 7(1), 2016, 1-11. DOI:10.5937/bizinfo1601001K.
• [27] Keeney R. L., Raiffa H., Decisions with Multiple Objectives. Wiley, New York, 1976.
• [28] Keršulienė V., Turskis Z., Integrated fuzzy multiple criteria decision making model for architect selection, Technol. Econ. Dev. Econ, 17, 2011, 645-666.
• [29] Keršulienė V., Zavadskas E. K., Turskis Z., Selection of rational dispute resolution method by applying new step-wise weight assessment ratio analysis (SWARA), J. Bus. Econ. Manage, 11, 2010, 243-258.
• [30] Khalili-Damghani K., Aminzadeh-Goharrizi B., Rastegar S., Aminzadeh-Goharrizi B., Solving land-use suitability analysis and planning problem by a hybrid meta-heuristic algorithm, International Journal of Geographical Information Science, vol. 28, no. 12, 2014, pp. 2390-2416.
• [31] Khazai B., Merz M., Schulz C., Borst D., An integrated indicator framework for spatial assessment of industrial and social vulnerability to indirect disaster losses, Natural Hazards, vol. 67, no. 2, 2013, pp. 145-167.
• [32] Kijewska K., Torbacki W., Iwan S., Application of AHP and DEMATEL Methods in Choosing and Analysing the Measures for the Distribution of Goods in Szczecin Region. Sustainability, 2018, 10, 2365, doi:10.3390/su10072365.
• [33] Kulak O., Goren H. G., Supciller A. A., A new multi criteria decision making approach for medical imaging systems considering risk factors, Appl. Soft Comput, 35, 2015, 931-941.
• [34] Li M., Jin L., Wang J., A new MCDM method combining QFD with TOPSIS for knowledge management system selection from the user’s perspective in intuitionistic fuzzy environment, Appl. Soft Comput, 21, 2014, 28-37.
• [35] Ma J., Fan Z. P., Huangc L. H., A subjective and objective integrated approach to determine attribute weights. European Journal of Operations Research, 112, 397-404, 1999.
• [36] MacCrimmon K. R., Decision making Among Multiple-attribute Alternatives: a Survey and Consolidated Approach, In, DTIC Document, 1968.
• [37] Madanchian M., Taherdoost H., Multi-Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) Methods and Concepts, Encyclopedia, 2023, 3, 77-87. https://doi.org/10.3390/encyclopedia3010006.
• [38] Mardani A., Nilashi M., Zakuan N., Loganathan N., Soheilirad S., Saman M. Z. M., Ibrahim O., A systematic review and meta-Analysis of SWARA and WASPAS methods: Theory and applications with recent fuzzy developments, Applied SoftComputing, 57, 265-292. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2017.03.045.
• [39] Mardani A., Jusoh A., Zavadskas E. K., Zakuan N., Valipour A., Kazemilari M., Proposing a new hierarchical framework for the evaluation of quality management practices: a new combined fuzzy hybrid MCDM approach, J. Bus. Econ. Manage. 17(2016), 1-16.
• [40] Narges Taati S., Esmaili-Dooki A., A hybrid method of Fuzzy DEMATEL/AHP/VIKOR approach to rank and select the best hospital nurses of a Years: A case study. J. Appl. Res. Ind. Eng. 4(2), 2017, 116-132.
• [41] Odu G. O., Weighting Methods for Multi-Criteria Decision Making Technique, J. Appl. Sci. Environ. Manage. Vol. 23(8), 2019, 1449-1457. https://dx.doi.org/10.4314/jasem.v23i8.7.
• [42] Osintsev N., Rakhmangulov A., Baginova V., Evaluation of logisticflows in green supply chains based on the combined DEMATEL ANP method, Mechanical Engineering Vol. 19, No 3, Special Issue, 2021, pp. 473-498. https://doi.org/10.22190/FUME210505061O.
• [43] Pamučar D., Stević Ž., Sremac S., A New Model for Determining Weight Coefficients of Criteria in MCDM Models: Full Consistency Method (FUCOM),Symmetry, 10(9), 2018, 393. https://doi.org/10.3390/sym10090393.
• [44] Pamučar D., Mihajlović M., Obradović R., Atanasković P., Novel approach to group multi-criteria decision making based on interval rough numbers: Hybrid DEMATEL-ANP-MAIRCA model, Expert Systems with Applications, 88, 2017, 58-80.
• [45] Patil S. K., Kant R., A hybrid approach based on fuzzy DEMATEL and FMCDM to predict success of knowledge management adoption in supply chain, Appl. Soft Comput, 18, 2014, 126-135.
• [46] Pan J. N., Ngnyen H. T. N., Achieving customer satisfaction through product-service systems. Eur J Oper Res, 247, 2015, 179-190.
• [47] Peng Y., Wang G., Wang H., User preferences based software defect detection algorithms selection using MCDM, Inf. Sci. 191, 2012, 3-13.
• [48] Peng Y., Kou G., Wang G., Shi Y., FAMCDM. A fusion approach of MCDM methods to rank multiclass classification algorithms, Omega, 39, 2011, 677-689.
• [49] Perry C., Liu Y., Huai-Wei Lo., James J. H. Liou., A Combination of DEMATEL and BWM-Based ANP Methods for Exploring the Green Building Rating System in Taiwan. Sustainability, 2020, 12, 3216, doi:10.3390/su12083216.
• [50] Quang N. H., Yu V. F., Lin A. C., Dat L. Q., Chou S. Y., Parting curve selection and evaluation using an extension of fuzzy MCDM approach, Appl. Soft Comput, 13, 2013, 1952-1959.
• [51] Rezaei J., Best-worst Multi-criteria Decision-making Method, Omega, 53, 2015, 49-57.
• [52] Roberts R., Goodwin P., Weight approximations in multi-attribute decision models, Journal of Multi criteria Decision Analysis, 2002, 11, 291-303, https://doi.org/10.1002/mcda.320.
• [53] Ruzgys A., Volvačiovas R., Ignatavičius Č.,Turskis Z., Integrated evaluation of external wallinsulation in residential buildings using SWARA-TODIM MCDM method. Journal of Civil Engineering and Management, 20(1), 2014, 103-110, DOI:10.3846/13923730.2013.843585.
• [54] Saaty T. L., Analytic hierarchy process. McGraw-Hill, New York, 1980.
• [55] Shannon C. E., Weaver W., The mathematical theory of communication. Urbana: The University of Illinois Press, 1947.
• [56] Sheng-Li Si., Xiao-Yue You., Hu-Chen Liu., Ping Zhang., DEMATEL Technique: A Systematic Review of the State-of-the-Art Literature on Methodologies and Applications. Mathematical Problems in Engineering, Volume 2018, Article ID3696457, 33 pages https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/3696457.
• [57] Shieh J. I., Wu H. H., Huang K. K., A DEMATEL method in identifying key success factors of hospital service, Knowl.-Based Syst, 23, 3, 2010, 277-282.
• [58] Shukla S., Mishra P. K., Jain R., Yadav H. C., An integrated decision making approach for ERP system selection using SWARA and PROMETHEE method. International Journal of Intelligent Enterprise, 3(2), 2016, 120-147. DOI:10.1504/IJIE.2016.076041.
• [59] Stanujkic D., Karabasevic D., Zavadskas E. K., A framework for the Selection of a packaging design based on the SWARA method. Inzinerine Ekonomika - Engineering Economics, 26(2), 2015, 181-187. DOI: 10.5755/j01.ee.26.2.8820.
• [60] Tzeng M. L., Using hybrid MCDM to evaluate the service quality expectation in linguistic preference, Applied Soft Computing, vol. 11, no. 8, 2011, pp. 4551-4562.
• [61] Von Winterfeldt D., Edwards W., Decision analysis and behavioral research, Cambridge University Press, 1986.
• [62] Wang Z., Mathiyazhagan K., Xu L., Diabat A., A decision making trial and evaluation laboratory approach to analyze the barriers to Green Supply Chain Management adoption in a food packaging company, J Clean Prod, 117, 2016, 19-28.
• [63] Watróbski J. et al., Generalised framework for multi-criteria method selection, Omega, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.omega.2018.07.004.
• [64] Yazdani-Chamzini A., Shariati S., Yakhchali S. H., Zavadskas E. K., Proposing a new methodology for prioritising the investment strategies in the private sector of Iran, Economic Research-Ekonomska Istrazivanja, vol. 27, no. 1, 2014, pp. 320-345.
• [65] Zhang L., Sun X., Xue H., Identifying critical risks in Sponge City PPP projects using DEMATEL method: A case study of China, J. Clean. Prod. 226, 2019, 949-958.
• [66] Žižović M., Pamucar D., New model for determining criteria weights: Level Based Weight Assessment (LBWA) model. Decision Making, Applications in Management and Engineering, 2(2), 2019, 126-137.
• [67] Zolfani S. H., Esfahani M. H., Bitarafan M., Zavadskas E. K., Arefi S. L., Developing a new hybrid MCDM method for selection of the optimal alternative of mechanical longitudinal ventilation of tunnel pollutants during automobile accidents, Transport, 28, 2013, 89-96.
• [68] Zolfani S. H., Saparauskas J., New application of SWARA method in prioritizing sustainability assessment indicators of energy system, Eng. Econ, 24, 2013, 408-414
• [69] Zolfani S. H., Zavadskas E. K., Turskis Z., Design of products with both International and Local perspectives based on Yin-Yang balance theory and SWARA method. Ekonomskaistraživanja - Economic Research, 26(2), 2013, 153-166. DOI:10.1080/1331677X.2013.11517613.

Uwagi

Opracowanie rekordu ze środków MEiN, umowa nr SONP/SP/546092/2022 w ramach programu "Społeczna odpowiedzialność nauki" - moduł: Popularyzacja nauki i promocja sportu (2022-2023).