VIKOR method

Last updated

The VIKOR method is a multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) method. It was originally developed by Serafim Opricovic in 1979 to solve decision problems with conflicting and noncommensurable (different units) criteria. It assumes that compromise is acceptable for conflict resolution and that the decision maker wants a solution that is the closest to the ideal, so the alternatives are evaluated according to all established criteria. VIKOR then ranks alternatives and determines the solution named compromise that is the closest to the ideal.

Contents

History

The idea of compromise solution was introduced in MCDM by Po-Lung Yu in 1973, [1] and by Milan Zeleny. [2]

S. Opricovic had developed the basic ideas of VIKOR in his Ph.D. dissertation in 1979, and an application was published in 1980. [3] The name VIKOR appeared in 1990 [4] from Serbian: VIseKriterijumska Optimizacija I Kompromisno Resenje, that means: Multicriteria Optimization and Compromise Solution, with pronunciation: vikor. The real applications were presented in 1998. [5] The paper in 2004 contributed to the international recognition of the VIKOR method. [6] (The most cited paper in the field of Economics, Science Watch, Apr.2009).

Statement

The MCDM problem is stated as follows: Determine the best (compromise) solution in multicriteria sense from the set of J feasible alternatives , evaluated according to the set of n criterion functions. The input data are the elements of the performance (decision) matrix, where is the value of the i-th criterion function for the alternative .

VIKOR method steps

The VIKOR procedure has the following steps:

Step 1. Determine the best fi* and the worst fi^ values of all criterion functions, i = 1,2,...,n; fi* = max (fij,j=1,...,J), fi^ = min (fij,j=1,...,J), if the i-th function is benefit; fi* = min (fij,j=1,...,J), fi^ = max (fij,j=1,...,J), if the i-th function is cost.

Step 2. Compute the values Sj and Rj, j=1,2,...,J, by the relations: Sj=sum[wi(fi* - fij)/(fi*-fi^),i=1,...,n], weighted and normalized Manhattan distance; Rj=max[wi(fi* - fij)/(fi*-fi^),i=1,...,n], weighted and normalized Chebyshev distance; where wi are the weights of criteria, expressing the DM's preference as the relative importance of the criteria.

Step 3. Compute the values Qj, j=1,2,...,J, by the relation Qj = v(Sj – S*)/(S^ - S*) + (1-v)(Rj-R*)/(R^-R*) where S* = min (Sj, j=1,...,J), S^ = max (Sj, j=1,...,J), R* = min (Rj, j=1,...,J), R^ = max (Rj, j=1,...,J),; and is introduced as a weight for the strategy of maximum group utility, whereas 1-v is the weight of the individual regret. These strategies could be compromised by v = 0.5, and here v is modified as = (n + 1)/ 2n (from v + 0.5(n-1)/n = 1) since the criterion (1 of n) related to R is included in S, too.

Step 4. Rank the alternatives, sorting by the values S, R and Q, from the minimum value. The results are three ranking lists.

Step 5. Propose as a compromise solution the alternative A(1) which is the best ranked by the measure Q (minimum) if the following two conditions are satisfied: C1. “Acceptable Advantage”: Q(A(2) – Q(A(1)) >= DQ where: A(2) is the alternative with second position in the ranking list by Q; DQ = 1/(J-1). C2. “Acceptable Stability in decision making”: The alternative A(1) must also be the best ranked by S or/and R. This compromise solution is stable within a decision making process, which could be the strategy of maximum group utility (when v > 0.5 is needed), or “by consensus” v about 0.5, or “with veto” v < 0.5). If one of the conditions is not satisfied, then a set of compromise solutions is proposed, which consists of: - Alternatives A(1) and A(2) if only the condition C2 is not satisfied, or - Alternatives A(1), A(2),..., A(M) if the condition C1 is not satisfied; A(M) is determined by the relation Q(A(M)) – Q(A(1)) < DQ for maximum M (the positions of these alternatives are “in closeness”).

The obtained compromise solution could be accepted by the decision makers because it provides a maximum utility of the majority (represented by min S), and a minimum individual regret of the opponent (represented by min R). The measures S and R are integrated into Q for compromise solution, the base for an agreement established by mutual concessions.

Comparative analysis

A comparative analysis of MCDM methods VIKOR, TOPSIS, ELECTRE and PROMETHEE is presented in the paper in 2007, through the discussion of their distinctive features and their application results. [7] Sayadi et al. extended the VIKOR method for decision making with interval data. [8] Heydari et al. extended this method for solving Multiple Objective Large-Scale Nonlinear Programming problems. [9]

Fuzzy VIKOR method

The Fuzzy VIKOR method has been developed to solve problem in a fuzzy environment where both criteria and weights could be fuzzy sets. The triangular fuzzy numbers are used to handle imprecise numerical quantities. Fuzzy VIKOR is based on the aggregating fuzzy merit that represents distance of an alternative to the ideal solution. The fuzzy operations and procedures for ranking fuzzy numbers are used in developing the fuzzy VIKOR algorithm. [10]

See also

Related Research Articles

To compromise is to make a deal between different parties where each party gives up part of their demand. In arguments, compromise means finding agreement through communication, through a mutual acceptance of terms—often involving variations from an original goal or desires. Defining and finding the best possible compromise is an important problem in fields like game theory and the voting system.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Multiple-criteria decision analysis</span> Operations research that evaluates multiple conflicting criteria in decision making

Multiple-criteria decision-making (MCDM) or multiple-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) is a sub-discipline of operations research that explicitly evaluates multiple conflicting criteria in decision making. It is also known as multiple attribute utility theory, multiple attribute value theory, multiple attribute preference theory, and multi-objective decision analysis.

Multi-objective optimization or Pareto optimization is an area of multiple-criteria decision making that is concerned with mathematical optimization problems involving more than one objective function to be optimized simultaneously. Multi-objective is a type of vector optimization that has been applied in many fields of science, including engineering, economics and logistics where optimal decisions need to be taken in the presence of trade-offs between two or more conflicting objectives. Minimizing cost while maximizing comfort while buying a car, and maximizing performance whilst minimizing fuel consumption and emission of pollutants of a vehicle are examples of multi-objective optimization problems involving two and three objectives, respectively. In practical problems, there can be more than three objectives.

Group method of data handling (GMDH) is a family of inductive algorithms for computer-based mathematical modeling of multi-parametric datasets that features fully automatic structural and parametric optimization of models.

The dominance-based rough set approach (DRSA) is an extension of rough set theory for multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA), introduced by Greco, Matarazzo and Słowiński. The main change compared to the classical rough sets is the substitution for the indiscernibility relation by a dominance relation, which permits one to deal with inconsistencies typical to consideration of criteria and preference-ordered decision classes.

In applied mathematics and decision making, the aggregated indices randomization method (AIRM) is a modification of a well-known aggregated indices method, targeting complex objects subjected to multi-criteria estimation under uncertainty. AIRM was first developed by the Russian naval applied mathematician Aleksey Krylov around 1908.

Decision-making software is software for computer applications that help individuals and organisations make choices and take decisions, typically by ranking, prioritizing or choosing from a number of options.

The weighted product model (WPM) is a popular multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) / multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) method. It is similar to the weighted sum model (WSM). The main difference is that instead of addition in the main mathematical operation, there is multiplication.

The decision-making paradox is a phenomenon related to decision-making and the quest for determining reliable decision-making methods. It was first described by Triantaphyllou, and has been recognized in the related literature as a fundamental paradox in multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA), multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) and decision analysis since then.

The Preference Ranking Organization METHod for Enrichment of Evaluations and its descriptive complement geometrical analysis for interactive aid are better known as the Promethee and Gaia methods.

In multiple criteria decision aiding (MCDA), multicriteria classification involves problems where a finite set of alternative actions should be assigned into a predefined set of preferentially ordered categories (classes). For example, credit analysts classify loan applications into risk categories, customers rate products and classify them into attractiveness groups, candidates for a job position are evaluated and their applications are approved or rejected, technical systems are prioritized for inspection on the basis of their failure risk, clinicians classify patients according to the extent to which they have a complex disease or not, etc.

The Technique for Order of Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) is a multi-criteria decision analysis method, which was originally developed by Ching-Lai Hwang and Yoon in 1981 with further developments by Yoon in 1987, and Hwang, Lai and Liu in 1993. TOPSIS is based on the concept that the chosen alternative should have the shortest geometric distance from the positive ideal solution (PIS) and the longest geometric distance from the negative ideal solution (NIS). A dedicated book in the fuzzy context was published in 2021

Hiview3 is decision-making software that is based on multi-criteria decision making (MCDM).

This is an incomplete list of selected academic publications by Milan Zeleny, sorted by different disciplines and research areas.

Stochastic multicriteria acceptability analysis (SMAA) is a multiple-criteria decision analysis method for problems with missing or incomplete information.

Best Worst Method (BWM) is a multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) method that was proposed by Dr. Jafar Rezaei in 2015. The method is used to evaluate a set of alternatives with respect to a set of decision criteria. The BWM is based on pairwise comparisons of the decision criteria. That is, after identifying the decision criteria by the decision-maker (DM), two criteria are selected by the DM: the best criterion and the worst criterion. The best criterion is the one that has the most important role in making the decision, while the worst criterion has the opposite role. The DM then gives his/her preferences of the best criterion over all the other criteria and also his/her preferences of all the criteria over the worst criterion using a number from a predefined scale. These two sets of pairwise comparisons are used as input for an optimization problem, the optimal results of which are the weights of the criteria. The salient feature of the BWM is that it uses a structured way to generate pairwise comparisons which leads to reliable results.

Valerie Belton, commonly known as Val Belton, is a retired professor of management science at University of Strathclyde. She is a researcher who has worked on the design and application of multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) approaches for over 30 years. She co-authored a book on this field Multicriteria Decision Analysis: An Integrated Approach, that was released in 2002. She has attempted to incorporate multi-criteria decision analysis with problem structuring techniques, system dynamics, and other analytical approaches. She has a number of scholarly articles to her name and served as the editor of the journal Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis.

A sensitivity analysis may reveal surprising insights in multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) studies aimed to select the best alternative among a number of competing alternatives.

In mathematics, leximin order is a total preorder on finite-dimensional vectors. A more accurate, but less common term is leximin preorder. The leximin order is particularly important in social choice theory and fair division.

Ordinal priority approach (OPA) is a multiple-criteria decision analysis method that aids in solving the group decision-making problems based on preference relations.

References

  1. ↑ Po Lung Yu (1973) "A Class of Solutions for Group Decision Problems", Management Science, 19(8), 936–946.
  2. ↑ Milan Zelrny (1973) "Compromise Programming", in Cochrane J.L. and M.Zeleny (Eds.), Multiple Criteria Decision Making, University of South Carolina Press, Columbia.
  3. ↑ Lucien Duckstein and Serafim Opricovic (1980) "Multiobjective Optimization in River Basin Development", Water Resources Research, 16(1), 14–20.
  4. ↑ Serafim Opricović., (1990) "Programski paket VIKOR za visekriterijumsko kompromisno rangiranje", SYM-OP-IS
  5. ↑ Serafim Opricovic (1998) “Multicriteria Optimization in Civil Engineering" (in Serbian), Faculty of Civil Engineering, Belgrade, 302 p. ISBN   86-80049-82-4.
  6. ↑ Serafim Opricovic and Gwo-Hshiung Tzeng (2004) "The Compromise solution by MCDM methods: A comparative analysis of VIKOR and TOPSIS", European Journal of Operational Research, 156(2), 445–455.
  7. ↑ Serafim Opricovic and Gwo-Hshiung Tzeng (2007) "Extended VIKOR Method in Comparison with Outranking Methods", European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 178, No 2, pp. 514–529.
  8. ↑ Sayadi, Mohammad Kazem; Heydari, Majeed; Shahanaghi, Kamran (2009). "Extension of VIKOR method for decision making problem with interval numbers". Applied Mathematical Modelling. 33 (5): 2257–2262. doi: 10.1016/j.apm.2008.06.002 .
  9. ↑ Heydari, Majeed; Kazem Sayadi, Mohammad; Shahanaghi, Kamran (2010). "Extended VIKOR as a new method for solving Multiple Objective Large-Scale Nonlinear Programming problems" (PDF). Rairo - Operations Research. 44 (2): 139–152. doi:10.1051/ro/2010011.
  10. ↑ Serafim Opricovic (2011) "Fuzzy VIKOR with an application to water resources planning", Expert Systems with Applications 38, pp. 12983–12990.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.