Scholarly Research Excellence

Digital Open Science Index

Commenced in January 2007 Frequency: Monthly Edition: International Publications Count: 29022


Select areas to restrict search in scientific publication database:
10009198
Multidimensional Compromise Optimization for Development Ranking of the Gulf Cooperation Council Countries and Turkey
Authors:
Abstract:
In this research, a multidimensional  compromise optimization method is proposed for multidimensional decision making analysis in the development ranking of the Gulf Cooperation Council Countries and Turkey. The proposed approach presents ranking solutions resulting from different multicriteria decision analyses, which yield different ranking orders for the same ranking problem, consisting of a set of alternatives in terms of numerous competing criteria when they are applied with the same numerical data. The multiobjective optimization decision making problem is considered in three sequential steps. In the first step, five different criteria related to the development ranking are gathered from the research field. In the second step, identified evaluation criteria are, objectively, weighted using statistical variance procedure. In the third step, a country selection problem is illustrated with a numerical example as an application of the proposed multidimensional  compromise optimization model. Finally, multidimensional  compromise optimization approach is applied to rank the Gulf Cooperation Council Countries and Turkey.
Digital Object Identifier (DOI):

References:

[1] Schramm, F., and Morais, D.C.(2012). Decision support model for selecting and evaluating suppliers in the construction industry, Pesquisa Operacional (2012) 32(3): 643-662.
[2] Karande, P., Zavadskas,E. K., and Chakraborty,S. (2016). A study on the ranking performance of some MCDM methods for industrial robot selection problems, International Journal of Industrial Engineering Computations 7 (2016) 399–422.
[3] Salminen, P., Hokkanen, J., and Lahdelma, R. (1998). Comparing multi-criteria methods in the context of environmental problems. European Journal of Operations Research, 104(3), 485-496.
[4] Zanakis, S.H., Solomon, A., Wishart, N., and Dublish, S. (1998). Multi-attribute decision making: A simulation comparison of select methods. European Journal of Operational Research, 107(3), 507-529.
[5] Raju, K.S., and Pillai, C.R.S. (1999). Multicriterion decision making in river basin planning and development. European Journal of Operational Research, 112(2), 249-257.
[6] Parkan, C., and Wu, M-L. (2000). Comparison of three modern multicriteria decision-making tools. International Journal of Systems Science, 31(4), 497-517.
[7] Caterino, N., Iervolino, I., Manfredi, G., and Cosenza, E. (2009). Comparative analysis of multi-criteria decision-making methods for seismic structural retrofitting. Computer-Aided Civil and Infrastructure Engineering, 24(4),432-445.
[8] Mela, K., Tiainen, T., and Heinisuo, M. (2012). Comparative study of multiple criteria decision-making methods for building design. Advanced Engineering Informatics, 26(4), 716-726.
[9] Chatterjee, P., and Chakraborty, S. (2012). Material selection using preferential ranking methods.Materials and Design, 35, 384-393.
[10] Anojkumar, L., Ilangkumaran, M., and Sasirekha, V. (2014). Comparative analysis of MCDM methods for pipe material selection in sugar industry. Expert Systems with Applications, 41(6), 2964-2980.
[11] Stanujkic, D., Ðordevic. B., Ðordevic. M. (2013). Comparative analysis of some prominent MCDM methods: a case of ranking Serbian banks. Serbian J Manag 8(2):213–241.
[12] Adali, E. A., and Isik, A. T. (2017). The multi-objective decision making methods based on MULTIMOORA and MOOSRA for the laptop selection problem, J Ind Eng Int (2017) 13:229–237.
[13] Kumar, R., Ray, A. (2015). Selection of material under conflicting situation using simple ratio optimization technique.In: Das et al. (eds) Proceedings of the fourth international conference on soft computing for problem solving, advances in intelligent systems and computing 335: 513–519.
[14] Brauers, W.K.M., Balezentis, A., Balezentis, T. (2011). MULTIMOORA for the EU member states updated with fuzzy number theory.Technol Econ Dev Eco 17(2):259–290.
[15] Stevens, S.P. (2015). Mathematical Decision Making: Predictive Models and Optimization. DVD, James Madison University, USA.
[16] Brauers, W.K.M., and Zavadskas, E.K. (2006).The MOORA method and its application to privatization in a transition economy. Control and Cybernetics, vol. 35 (2006) No. 2, 446-469.
[17] Li, Zhi-Hui (2014). An Extension of the MULTIMOORA Method for Multiple Criteria Group Decision Making based upon Hesitant Fuzzy Sets. Journal of Applied Mathematics, Volume 2014, 1-16.
[18] Lai, Y.J., Liu, T.Y., and Hwang, C.L.(1994). TOPSIS for MODM. European Journal of Operational Research 76 (1994) 486-500.
[19] Yu,P. L.(1973).A Class of Solutions for Group Decision Problems. Management Science (pre-1986); Apr 1973; 19, 8; pg. 936-947.
[20] Yu, P.L., and M. Zeleny, M. (1975). The set of all non-dominated solutions in linear cases and a multicriteria simplex method, Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications 49 (1975) 430-448.
[21] Yu, P.L.(1985). Multiple-Criteria Decision Making: Concepts, Techniques, and Extensions, Plenum, New York, 1985.
[22] Zeleny, M.(1973).Compromise programming, in: J.L. Cochrane and M. Zeleny (eds.), Multiple Criteria Decision Making, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC, 1973, 262-300.
[23] Zeleny, M.(1982). Multiple Criteria Decision Making, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1982.
[24] Hwang, C.L., and Yoon, K.(1981). Multiple Attribute Decision Making: Methods and Applications, Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg, 1981.
[25] Opricovic, S., and Tzeng, G-H. (2004). Compromise solution by MCDM methods: A comparative analysis of VIKOR and TOPSIS. European Journal of Operational Research, 156(2), 445-455.
[26] Opricovic, S., and Tzeng, G.H. (2007). Extended VIKOR Method in Comparison with Outranking Methods, European Journal of Operational Research, 178, 514–529.
[27] Chen, Meifang (2004). Combining Grey Relation and TOPSIS Concepts for Selecting an Expatriate Host Country. Mathematical and Computer Modelling 40 (2004) 1473-1490.
[28] Kracka, M., Brauers, W.K.M., and Zavadskas, E. K. (2010). Ranking Heating Losses in a Building by Applying the MULTIMOORA.Inzinerine Ekonomika-Engineering Economics, 2010, 21(4), 352-359.
[29] Zardari, N.H., Ahmed, K., Shirazi, S.M., Yusop, Z.B. (2015). Weighting Methods and their Effects on Multi-Criteria Decision Making Model Outcomes in Water Resources Management. Springer International Publishing AG.
[30] Gulf Cooperation Council, Accessed in November 2017, http://www.gcc-sg.org
[31] World Development Indicators, Accessed in November 2017, http://www.worldbank.org
[32] Huang, J.J., Tzeng, G.H., Liu, H.H. (2009) A Revised VIKOR Model for Multiple Criteria Decision Making - The Perspective of Regret Theory, Communications in Computer and Information Science, vol. 35, 2009, no.11, pp. 761-768.
[33] Chatterjee, P., Chakraborty, S. (2014) Investigating the Effect of Normalization Norms in Flexible Manufacturing Sytem Selection Using Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Methods, Journal of Engineering Science and Technology Review 7 (3), (2014) 141 – 150.
[34] Chena,Ye., Kilgour, D. Marc, Hipel, Keith W. (2011) An extreme-distance approach to multiple criteria ranking. Mathematical and Computer Modelling 53 (2011) 646–658.
[35] Chatterjee, P., Chakraborty, S.(2016) A comparative analysis of VIKOR method and its variants. Decision Science Letters 5 (2016) 469–486.
Vol:12 No:11 2018Vol:12 No:10 2018Vol:12 No:09 2018Vol:12 No:08 2018Vol:12 No:07 2018Vol:12 No:06 2018Vol:12 No:05 2018Vol:12 No:04 2018Vol:12 No:03 2018Vol:12 No:02 2018Vol:12 No:01 2018
Vol:11 No:12 2017Vol:11 No:11 2017Vol:11 No:10 2017Vol:11 No:09 2017Vol:11 No:08 2017Vol:11 No:07 2017Vol:11 No:06 2017Vol:11 No:05 2017Vol:11 No:04 2017Vol:11 No:03 2017Vol:11 No:02 2017Vol:11 No:01 2017
Vol:10 No:12 2016Vol:10 No:11 2016Vol:10 No:10 2016Vol:10 No:09 2016Vol:10 No:08 2016Vol:10 No:07 2016Vol:10 No:06 2016Vol:10 No:05 2016Vol:10 No:04 2016Vol:10 No:03 2016Vol:10 No:02 2016Vol:10 No:01 2016
Vol:9 No:12 2015Vol:9 No:11 2015Vol:9 No:10 2015Vol:9 No:09 2015Vol:9 No:08 2015Vol:9 No:07 2015Vol:9 No:06 2015Vol:9 No:05 2015Vol:9 No:04 2015Vol:9 No:03 2015Vol:9 No:02 2015Vol:9 No:01 2015
Vol:8 No:12 2014Vol:8 No:11 2014Vol:8 No:10 2014Vol:8 No:09 2014Vol:8 No:08 2014Vol:8 No:07 2014Vol:8 No:06 2014Vol:8 No:05 2014Vol:8 No:04 2014Vol:8 No:03 2014Vol:8 No:02 2014Vol:8 No:01 2014
Vol:7 No:12 2013Vol:7 No:11 2013Vol:7 No:10 2013Vol:7 No:09 2013Vol:7 No:08 2013Vol:7 No:07 2013Vol:7 No:06 2013Vol:7 No:05 2013Vol:7 No:04 2013Vol:7 No:03 2013Vol:7 No:02 2013Vol:7 No:01 2013
Vol:6 No:12 2012Vol:6 No:11 2012Vol:6 No:10 2012Vol:6 No:09 2012Vol:6 No:08 2012Vol:6 No:07 2012Vol:6 No:06 2012Vol:6 No:05 2012Vol:6 No:04 2012Vol:6 No:03 2012Vol:6 No:02 2012Vol:6 No:01 2012
Vol:5 No:12 2011Vol:5 No:11 2011Vol:5 No:10 2011Vol:5 No:09 2011Vol:5 No:08 2011Vol:5 No:07 2011Vol:5 No:06 2011Vol:5 No:05 2011Vol:5 No:04 2011Vol:5 No:03 2011Vol:5 No:02 2011Vol:5 No:01 2011
Vol:4 No:12 2010Vol:4 No:11 2010Vol:4 No:10 2010Vol:4 No:09 2010Vol:4 No:08 2010Vol:4 No:07 2010Vol:4 No:06 2010Vol:4 No:05 2010Vol:4 No:04 2010Vol:4 No:03 2010Vol:4 No:02 2010Vol:4 No:01 2010
Vol:3 No:12 2009Vol:3 No:11 2009Vol:3 No:10 2009Vol:3 No:09 2009Vol:3 No:08 2009Vol:3 No:07 2009Vol:3 No:06 2009Vol:3 No:05 2009Vol:3 No:04 2009Vol:3 No:03 2009Vol:3 No:02 2009Vol:3 No:01 2009
Vol:2 No:12 2008Vol:2 No:11 2008Vol:2 No:10 2008Vol:2 No:09 2008Vol:2 No:08 2008Vol:2 No:07 2008Vol:2 No:06 2008Vol:2 No:05 2008Vol:2 No:04 2008Vol:2 No:03 2008Vol:2 No:02 2008Vol:2 No:01 2008
Vol:1 No:12 2007Vol:1 No:11 2007Vol:1 No:10 2007Vol:1 No:09 2007Vol:1 No:08 2007Vol:1 No:07 2007Vol:1 No:06 2007Vol:1 No:05 2007Vol:1 No:04 2007Vol:1 No:03 2007Vol:1 No:02 2007Vol:1 No:01 2007