Using multi criteria decision making in analysis of alternatives for selection of enabling technology

Systems Engineering

Volumn 16, Issue 3, 2013, Pages 287-303

  Georgiadis, Daniel R ^a   Mazzuchi, Thomas A ^a   Sarkani, Shahram ^a  

^a George Washington University   (United States)

Author keywords

analysis of alternatives; AoA; enabling technology; multi criteria decision making; TOPSIS

Indexed keywords

ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES; AOA; ENABLING TECHNOLOGIES; MULTI CRITERIA DECISION MAKING; TOPSIS;

TECHNOLOGY;

DECISION MAKING;

EID: 84881049739     PISSN: 10981241     EISSN: 15206858     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/sys.21233     Document Type: Article

References (86)

1. L. Affuso, J. Masson, and, D. Newberry, Comparing investments in new transport infrastructure: Roads versus railways? Fiscal Stud 24 (3) (2003), 275-315.
2. A. Afshari, M. Mojahed, and, R.M. Yusuff, Simple additive weighting approach to personnel selection problem, Int J Innovation Management Technol 1 (5) (2010), 511-514.
3. V.P. Agrawal, V. Kohli, and, S. Gupta, Computer aided robot selection: The multiple attribute decision making approach, Int J Prod Res, 29, (8) (1991), 1629-1644
4. S. Balli, and, S. Korukolu, Operating system selection using fuzzy AHP and TOPSIS methods, Math Comput Appl 14 (2) (2009), 119-130.
5. C.A. Bana, E Costa, and, J.C. Vansnick, Applications of the MACBETH approach in the framework of an additive aggregation model, J Multi Criteria Decision Anal 6 (1997), 107-114.
6. J. Barzilai, and, B. Golany, AHP rank reversal normalization and aggregation rules, INFOR 32 (2) (1994), 57-64.
7. V. Belton, and, T. Gear, On a shortcoming of Saaty's method of analytic hierarchies, Int J Management Sci 11 (3) (1983), 228-230.
8. R. Benayoun, J.D. Montgolfier, and, J. Tergny, Linear programming with multiple objective functions: Step Method (STEM), Math Program 1 (1971), 366-375.
9. P.P. Bhangale, V.P. Agrawal, and, S.K. Saha, Attribute based specification, comparison and selection of a robot, Mechanism Machine Theory 39 (2004), 1345-1366.
10. B.S. Blanchard, Logistics engineering and management, Pearson Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, 2003.
11. K. Borcherding, and, M. Weber, Behavioral influences on weight judgments in multi-Attribute decision making, Eur J Oper Res 67 (1) (1993), 1-12.
12. J.P. Brans, and, P. Vincke, A preference ranking organization method: The PROMETHEE method for MCDM, Management Sci 31 (1985), 647-656.
13. J.P. Brans, P. Vincke, and, B. Mareschal, How to select and how to rank projects: The PROMETHEE method, Eur J Oper Res 24 (2) (1986), 228-238.
14. W.K. Brauers, and, E.K. Zavadskas, The MOORA method and its application to privatization in a transition economy, Control Cybernet 35 (2) (2006), 443-468.
15. D.M. Buede, and, D.T. Maxwell, Rank disagreement: A comparison of multi-criteria methodologies, J Multi-Criteria Decision Anal 4 (1995), 1-21.
16. J.C. Butler, A.N. Chebeskov, J.S. Dyer, T.A. Edmunds, J. Jia, and, V. Oussanov, The use of multi-Attribute utility theory for the evaluation of plutonium disposition options in the United States and Russia. Interfaces 35 (1) (2005), 88-101.
17. A. Charnes, W.W. Cooper, and, E. Rhodes, Measuring the efficiency of decision making units, Eur J Oper Res 2 (1978), 429-444.
18. O.L. Chau, and, C. Parkan, Selection of a manufacturing process with multiple attributes: A case study, J Eng Technol Management 12 (1995), 219-237.
19. A.M. Davis, Software requirements, Pearson Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, 1993.
20. H. Deng, C.H. Yeh, and, R.J. Willis, Inter-company comparison using modified TOPSIS with objective weights, Comput Oper Res 27 (10) (2000), 963-974.
21. G. DeSanctis, and, G.R. Brent, A foundation for the study of group decision support systems, Management Sci 33 (5) (1987), 589-609.
22. DoD, Department of Defense Instruction, Operation of the Defense Acquisition System, USD (AT&L), DoDI 5000.02, U.S. Department of Defense, Washington, DC, 2008, https://acc.dau.mil/CommunityBrowser.aspx?id=250027, Retrieved October 10, 2011.
23. DoD, DoD Technology Readiness Assessment Guidance, prepared by the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering [ASD(R&E)], U.S. Department of Defense, Washington, DC, 2011, https://acc.dau.mil/ CommunityBrowser.aspx?id=461216, retrieved October 12, 2011.
24. C.M. Feng, and, R.T. Wang, Considering the financial ratios on the performance evaluation of highway bus industry, Transport Rev 21 (4) (2001), 49-467.
25. J. Figueira, S. Greco, and, M. Ehrgott, Multiple criteria decision analysis, State of the Art Surveys, Springer, New York, 2005
26. P.C. Fishburn, Analysis of decisions with incomplete knowledge of probabilities, Oper Res 13 (1965), 217-237.
27. P.C. Fishburn, Additivity in utility theory with denumerable product sets, Econometrica 34 (2) (1966), 500-503.
28. P.C. Fishburn, Additive utilities with incomplete product sets: Application to priorities and assignments, Oper Res 15 (1967), 537-542.
29. P.C. Fishburn, Utility theory, Management Sci 14 (5) (1968), 335-378.
30. E. Forman, M.A. Selly, Decision by Objectives: How to convince others that you are right, World Scientific, River Edge, NJ, 2001.
31. J. Fülöp, Introduction to decision making methods, Laboratory of Operations Research and Decision Systems: Computer and Automation Institute, Hungarian Academy of Sciences 1, Budapest, 2005.
32. D.R. Georgiadis, T.A. Mazuchi, and, S. Sarkani, Using multi criteria decision making for analysis of alternatives in system design, Natl Defense Indust Assoc (NDIA) Expeditionary Warfare Conf 2700, Panama City, FL, 2011.
33. S. Greco, B. Matarazzo, and, R. Slowinski, Rough sets theory for multi criteria decision analysis, Eur J Oper Res 129 (2001), 1-47.
34. C.H. Hanks, E.I. Axelband, and, S. Linsay, Reexamining military acquisition reform: Are we there yet? RAND, Santa Monica, CA, 2005.
35. P. Hansen, and, F. Ombler, A new method for scoring additive multi-Attribute value models using pairwise rankings of alternatives, J Multi-Criteria Decision Anal 15 (2009), 87-107.
36. H. Heerkens, Assessing the importance of factors determining decision-making by actors involved in innovation processes, Creativity Innovation Management 15 (4) (2006), 385-399.
37. R.D. Holder, Some comments on the analytic hierarchy process, J Oper Res Soc 41 (11) (1990), 1073-1076.
38. C.J. Hopfe, Uncertainty and sensitivity analysis in building performance simulation for decision support and design optimization, Issue 133, Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven, The Netherlands, 2009, http://alexandria. tue.nl/extra2/200911580.pdf, retrieved November 1, 2011.
39. C.L. Hwang, and, K. Yoon, Multiple attribute decision making-methods and applications, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1981.
40. N.R. Jennings, P. Faratin, A.R. Lomuscio, S. Parsons, and, M. Wooldridge, Automated negotiation: Prospects, methods, and challenges, Group Decision Negotiation 10 (2001), 199-215.
41. D. Kalibatas, and, K. Turskis, Multi criteria evaluation of inner climate by using MOORA method, Inform Technol Control 37 (1) (2008), 79-83.
42. E.E. Karsak, and, S.S. Ahiska, Improved common weight MCDM model for technology selection, Int J Prod Res 46 (24) (2008), 6933-6944.
43. E.E. Karsak, S. Sozer, and, S.E. Alptekin, Product planning in quality function deployment using a combined analytic network process and goal programming approach, Comput Indust Eng 44 (2002), 171-190.
44. R.L. Keeney, A group preference axiomatization with cardinal utility, Management Sci 23 (1975), 140-145.
45. R.L. Keeney, and, H. Raiffa, Decisions with multiple objectives: Performances and value trade-offs, Cambridge University Press, New York, 1993.
46. S.H. Kim, S.H. Choi, and J.K. Kim, An interactive procedure for multiple attribute group decision making with incomplete information: Range-based approach, Eur J Oper Res 118 (1999), 139-152.
47. A. Kolios, M. Collu, A. Chahardehi, B.P. Brennan, and, M.H. Patel, A multi-criteria decision making method to compare support structures for offshore wind turbines, Eur Wind Energy Conf Exhibition, Warsaw, Poland, 2010.
48. W. Kotowski, K. Dembczynski, S. Greco, and, R. Sowinski, Stochastic dominance-based rough set model for ordinal classification, 2008, http://www.cs.put.poznan.pl/wkotlowski/research/stochastic-drsa-report.pdf, retrieved November 26, 2011.
49. C.Y. Kung, and, W.L. Wen, Applying grey relational analysis and grey decision making to evaluate the relationship between company attributes and its financial performance-A case study of venture capital enterprises in Taiwan, Decision Support Syst 43 (2007), 842-852.
50. J.W. Lee, and, S.H. Kim, Using analytic network process and goal programming for interdependent information system project selection, Comput Oper Res 27 (2000), 367-382.
51. C.W. Li, and, G.H. Tzeng, Identification of a threshold value for the DEMATEL method using the maximum mean de-entropy algorithm to find critical services provided by a semiconductor intellectual property mall, Expert Syst Appl 36 (2009), 9891-9898.
52. F.H. Lofti, R. Fallahnejad, and, N. Navidi, Ranking efficient units in DEA by using TOPSIS method, Appl Math Sci 5 (17) (2011), 805-815.
53. R.L. Nydick, and, R.P. Hill, Using the analytic hierarchy process to structure the supplier selection procedure, Int J Purchasing Mater Management 28 (2) (1992), 31-36.
54. D.L. Olson, Comparison of weights in TOPSIS models, Math Comput Model 40 (7-8) (2004), 721-727.
55. S. Opricovic, and, G.H. Tzeng, Compromise solution by MCDM methods: A comparative analysis of VIKOR and TOPSIS, Eur J Oper Res 156 (2004), 445-455.
56. D.J. Pannell, Sensitivity analysis of normative economic models: Theoretical framework and practical strategies, Agric Econ 16 (1997), 139-152.
57. H. Raiffa, Preferences for multi-Attributed alternatives, Multi-Criteria Decision Anal 14 (2006), 115-157.
58. B. Roy, The outranking approach and the foundations of ELECTRE methods, Theory Decision 31 (1) (1991), 49-73.
59. B. Roy, and, D. Vanderpooten, The European school of MCDA: Emergence, basic features and current works, J Multi-Criteria Decision Anal 5 (1) (1996), 22-38.
60. T.L. Saaty, The analytic hierarchy process, McGraw-Hill International, New York, 1980.
61. T.L. Saaty, Decision making with dependence and feedback: Analytic network process, RWS Publications, Pittsburgh, PA, 1996.
62. T.L. Saaty, Fundamentals of the analytic network process: Dependence and feedback in decision-making with a single network, J Syst Sci Syst Eng 13 (2) (2004), 129-157.
63. T.L. Saaty, Decision making with the analytic hierarchy process, Int J Serv Sci 1 (1) (2008), 83-98.
64. A.G. Sanfey, Social decision-making: Insights from game theory and neuroscience, Science 318 (2007), 598-602.
65. S.P. Shepherd, P.M. Timms, and, A.D. May, Modeling requirements for local transport plans in the UK, Transport Policy 13 (2006), 307-317.
66. L.M. Shillito, and, D.J. De Marle, Value: Its measurement, design, and management, Wiley, Toronto, 1992.
67. R. Simanaviciene, and, L. Ustinovichius, Sensitivity analysis for quantitative decision making methods: TOPSIS and SAW, Procedia Soc Behav Sci 2 (6) (2010), 7743-7744.
68. M. Tamiz, D. Jones, and, C. Romero, Goal programming for decision making: An overview of the current state-of-the-Art, Eur J Oper Res 111 (1998), 569-581.
69. P. Tanadtang, and, D. Park, Applying evidential reasoning for evaluating transportation demand management schemes: A case study of Bangkok, J Eastern Asia Soc Transportation Stud 5 (2003), 1781-1801.
70. J. Thakkar, S.G. Deshmukh, A.D. Gupta, and, R. Shankar, Development of a balanced scorecard: An integrated approach of Interpretive Structural Modeling (ISM) and Analytic Network Process (ANP), Int J Prod Performance Management 56 (1) (2006), 25-59.
71. E. Triantaphyllou, and, S.H. Mann, An examination of the effectiveness of multi-dimensional decision-making methods: A decision-making paradox, Int J Decision Support Syst 5 (3) (1989), 303-312.
72. E. Triantaphyllou, and, A. Sanchez, A sensitivity analysis approach for some deterministic multi-criteria decision making methods, Decision Sci 28 (1) (1997), 151-194.
73. E. Triantaphyllou, B. Shu, S.N. Sanchez, and, T. Ray, Multi-criteria decision making: An operations research approach, Encycl Elect Electron Eng 15 (1998), 175-186.
74. G.H. Tzeng, C.H. Chiang, and, C.W. Li, Evaluating intertwined effects in e-learning programs: a novel hybrid MCDM model based on factor analysis and DEMATEL, Expert Syst Appl 32 (4) (2007), 1028-1044.
75. U.S. Government Accountability Office, Many analyses of alternatives have not provided a robust assessment of weapon system options, Publication GAO-09-665, GAO, Washington, DC, 2009, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-665, retrieved October 10, 2011.
76. L. Ustinovichius, E.K. Zavadskas, and, V. Podvezko, Application of a quantitative Multiple Criteria Decision Making (MCDM-1) approach to the analysis of investments in construction, Control Cybernet 36 (1) (2007), 252-268.
77. P. Vincke, Multi-criteria decision-Aid, Wiley, Chichester, UK, 2010.
78. V.V. Vladimirovich, Randomization aggregate indices method and its continuous modification, Social Science Research Network, St. Petersburg, Russian Federation, 2010, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract-id= 1649571, retrieved October 8, 2011.
79. R.T. Wang, Performance evaluation method-Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS), 2011, researcher.nsc.gov.tw/public/ caroljoe/Data/02182133671.ppt, retrieved November 7, 2011.
80. X. Xu, The SIR method: A superiority and inferiority ranking method for multiple criteria decision making, Eur J Oper Res 131 (3) (2001), 587-602.
81. J.B. Yang, and, M.G. Singh, An evidential reasoning approach for multiple attribute decision making with uncertainty, IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybernet 24 (1) (1994), 1-18.
82. Y., P Yang, H.M. Shieh, J.D. Leu, and, G.H. Tzeng, A novel hybrid MCDM model combined with DEMATEL and ANP with applications, Int J Oper Res 5 (3) (2008), 160-168.
83. K. Yoon, System selection by multiple attribute decision making, Ph.D. Dissertation, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS, 1980.
84. K. Yoon, The propagation of errors in multiple-Attribute decision analysis: A practical approach, Oper Res Soc 40 (7) (1989), 681-686.
85. E.K. Zavadskas, A. Kaklauskas, and, T. Vilutiene, Multi criteria evaluation of apartment blocks maintenance contractors: Lithuanian case study, Int J Strategic Property Management 13 (2009), 319-338.
86. E.K. Zavadskas, R. Liias, and, Z. Turskis, Multi attribute decision making methods for assessment of quality in bridges and road construction: State of the art surveys, Baltic J Road Bridge Eng 13 (3) (2008), 152-160.