Presentation Uni Toulouse1. MCDA_pz.pptx

Decision Making theories & MCDA
Seminar
Dr. Morteza Yazdani
Universidad Autónoma de Madrid

Headlines
Decision-making definition &
theory
Decision making classification,
methods
CoCoSo method
Multi attribute decision making
(MADM)
Advances & progress

Decision & Decision Making
• A decision is a choice made between two or more
available alternatives.
• Decision making is the process of choosing the best
alternative for reaching objectives.

Decision making steps:
Each decision-making problem contain these 7 steps:
 Identifying the main problem, what to solve?
 Finding the related and possible solutions, choices (alternatives)
 Determining relevant objectives (variables)
 Gathering information about alternatives & variables
 Analyzing data with predetermined algorithms
 Check the results and make a compromise

Decision Making Process
Identifying the Problem
Analyzing the Problem

Analyzing the Problem
Qualitative Analysis: based on manager's judgment and
experiences.
Quantitative Analysis: based on mathematical and
statistical tools

Introduction to multiple-criteria decision
making
 Multiple-criteria decision-making, popularly known as MCDM, is
concerned with those situations where a decision maker has to
choose the best alternative from a finite set of alternatives while
considering a set of conflicting criteria.
 The aim of decision support is to assist decision makers to make
decisions that are consistent with their goals and preferences.
Daily life important questions
What option
What model
What hotel
What destination
Who is the best candidate
Which one fits our requirements
…
Examples
. Finding the best Laptop model
• Selecting the best investment proposal
• Analyzing Energy systems
• Locating a Hospital or an Airport
• & Thousands other cases

What is multi-criteria decision analysis
Multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) is a formal, structured and transparent
decision-making methodology. Its aim is to assist groups or individual decision
makers to explore their decisions in the case of complex situations with multiple
criteria.
• MCDA does not provide the ‘right’ answer.
• MCDA does not provide an objective analysis.
• MCDA does not relieve decision makers of the responsibility of making difficult
judgments.
MCDA assists the decision maker in confidently reaching a decision by:
• enabling decision makers to gain a better understanding of the problem faced;
• organizing and synthesizing the entire range of information;
• making explicit and managing the decision maker’s subjectivity;
• ensuring that all criteria and decision factors have been taken properly into
account.

Common elements in MCDM methods
Criteria/
Attributes
Multi-criteria Decision-
making
(MCDM)
Alternatives
Weights/
Relative
importance
Measures of
performance of the
alternatives
Modelling process
(interfaces)
Aggregation
(calculation)
Construction Exploitation
MCAP OUTPUT
INPUT
Information
(data)
Recommendation
(Result)

MCDM requirement
• What type of problem is? Ranking, weighting criteria, sorting, classifying?
• How many alternatives and criterion we have
• Is that a group decision making?
• Are we using quantitative data or qualitative?
• Do we know the weight (importance) of each criterion?
• Type of decision criteria; beneficia, cost, or target based.

Different MCDM tools
• Simple Additive weighting (SAW)
• Best – Worst Method (BWM)
• Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP)
• TOPSIS (Technique for Order of Preference by Similarity to Ideal
Solution)
• ELECTREv (ELimination and Choice Expressing REality)
• MABAC, EDAS, CODAS, TODIM, MOORA, WASPAS, COPRAS.
• Combined compromise solution (CoCoSo)

A typical decision-making process (multiple attributes)
Problem identification
Problem exploration and
information processing
Data collection
Development of
decision matrix
Aggregation
(calculation)
Results
Modelling process
(normalization)
Screening
Make
recommendation
Sensitivity
analysis
Further
analysis
required ?
No
Yes

Combined Compromise Solution
(CoCoSo)
Decision making methods

• Developed by Yazdani et al. (2019)*
• Method for ranking decision alternatives and selecting the best one when the
decision maker has multiple criteria (variables)
• Based on combined techniques
• Comparability of options
• Possibility of sensitivity analysis
• Easily implemented & extended
Overview of CoCoSo
*Yazdani, M., Zarate, P., Kazimieras Zavadskas, E. and Turskis, Z. (2019), "A combined
compromise solution (CoCoSo) method for multi-criteria decision-making problems",
Management Decision, 57(9), pp. 2501-2519. https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-05-2017-0458

.
...,
,
2
,
1
;
...,
,
2
,
1
;
...
2
1
...
...
...
...
2
...
22
21
1
...
12
11
n
j
m
i
mn
x
m
x
m
x
n
x
x
x
n
x
x
x
ij
x 
















The algorithm for CoCoSo
1. Making initial decision Matrix
2. Normalization process
criterion;
benefit
for
;
min
max
min
ij
x
i
ij
x
i
ij
x
i
ij
x
ij
r


 criterion
cost
for
;
min
max
max
ij
x
i
ij
x
i
ij
x
ij
x
i
ij
r




The algorithm for CoCoSo
3. Obtain the total of the weighted normalized matrix and the power weighted normalized
matrix for alternatives:
4. Compute relative weights of the alternatives using the following aggregation
strategies, Kia, Kib, Kic
.
)
(
1



n
j
ij
j
i r
w
S 


n
j
w
ij
i
j
r
P
1
)
(
 




 m
i
i
i
i
i
ia
S
P
S
P
k
1
i
i
i
i
i
i
ib
P
P
S
S
k
min
min

 .
1
0
;
)
max
)
1
(
max
(
)
)(
1
(
)
(






 




i
i
i
i
i
i
ic
P
S
P
S
k
5. Obtain the total final ranking score:
   
ic
ib
ia
ic
ib
ia
i k
k
k
k
k
k
k 


 3
1
3
1

A multiple attribute problem
Problem: Olive harvester machines selection
Alternatives : 1) Hand-held comb harvesters, 2) Side-pass comb
harvesters: 3) Straddle harvesters, 4) Side-by-side shakers, 5) Umbrella
shakers, & 6) Tractor-mounted shakers
Criteria: C1 Cost (Euro/kg), C2 Vibration (Hertz), C3 Efficiency, C4
Suitability, C5 Damage, C6 Automation (qualitative), C7 Work Capacity
Hectare/hour, C8 Ergonomics, and C9 Safety
Weight of 9 criterion 0.163 0.065 0.109 0.047 0.109 0.020 0.081
0.163 0.244
Evaluation (performance matrix)

Solution
Ka rank Kb rank Kc rank K Overal Rank
A1 0,1247 6 2,1305 6 0,5894 6 1,4871 6
A2 0,1764 2 2,7417 4 0,834 2 1,9896 4
A3 0,1683 3 3,0788 2 0,7958 3 2,092 2
A4 0,2115 1 3,5814 1 1 1 2,5092 1
A5 0,1682 4 3,0246 3 0,7951 4 2,0688 3
A6 0,1509 5 2,2344 5 0,7134 5 1,6548 5
**The results were tested by sensitivity analysis and compared to other methods

• Pamucar, D., Deveci, M., Gokasar, I., Işık, M., & Zizovic, M. (2021). Circular economy concepts in urban
mobility alternatives using integrated DIBR method and fuzzy Dombi CoCoSo model. Journal of Cleaner
Production, 323, 129096.
• Zavadskas, E. K., Turskis, Z., Šliogerienė, J., & Vilutienė, T. (2021). An integrated assessment of the
municipal buildings’ use including sustainability criteria. Sustainable Cities and Society, 67, 102708.
• Wang, C. N., Nguyen, N. A. T., & Dang, T. T. (2022). Offshore wind power station (OWPS) site selection
using a two-stage MCDM-based spherical fuzzy set approach. Scientific reports, Nature 12(1), 1-21.
• Alrasheedi, M., Mardani, A., Mishra, A. R., Streimikiene, D., Liao, H., & Al nefaie, A. H. (2021).
‐
Evaluating the green growth indicators to achieve sustainable development: A novel extended interval‐
valued intuitionistic fuzzy combined compromise solution approach.
‐ Sustainable Development, 29(1),
120-142.
• Ali, S. S., Kaur, R., & Khan, S. (2022). Evaluating sustainability initiatives in warehouse for measuring
sustainability performance: an emerging economy perspective. Annals of Operations Research, 1-40.
• Cui, Y., Liu, W., Rani, P., & Alrasheedi, M. (2021). Internet of Things (IoT) adoption barriers for the
circular economy using Pythagorean fuzzy SWARA-CoCoSo decision-making approach in the
manufacturing sector. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 171, 120951.
• Maghsoodi, A. I., Soudian, S., Martínez, L., Herrera-Viedma, E., & Zavadskas, E. K. (2020). A phase
change material selection using the interval-valued target-based BWM-CoCoMULTIMOORA approach: A
case-study on interior building applications. Applied Soft Computing, 95, 106508.
Some recent publication!

Summary
• Ranking by CoCoSo gives opportunity to release initial report on decision alternatives, It does not
offer absolute solution. The results must be discussed and interpreted.
• Rank reversal is an effect the has been observed less in CoCoSo
• It offers possibility to check the consistency (by changing value)
• It can be extended easily and adopted to fuzzy evaluation
• Various K values in ranking score can be discussed for proof.
• For higher number of alternatives ( >= 10), it generates more accurate results than other MCDM
tools
• It has received more than 220 citations in G.scholar and 133 in Web of Science for 3 years
𝜆

Invitation to submit
• Serie Book: Disruptive Technologies and Digital
Transformations for Society 5.0:
https://www.springer.com/series/16676
• Serie Book: SUSTAINABLE COMPUTING AND OPTIMIZATION,
SCRIVENER:
https://scrivenerpublishing.com/series.php?id=Sustai
nable%20Computing%20and%20Optimization

Presentation Uni Toulouse1. MCDA_pz.pptx

More Related Content

Similar to Presentation Uni Toulouse1. MCDA_pz.pptx

More from MortezaYazdani7

Recently uploaded

Presentation Uni Toulouse1. MCDA_pz.pptx