581 research outputs found

    Comparison of different Multiple-criteria decision analysis methods in the context of conceptual design: application to the development of a solar collector structure

    Get PDF
    At each stage of the product development process, the designers are facing an important task which consists of decision making. Two cases are observed: the problem of concept selection in conceptual design phases and, the problem of pre-dimensioning once concept choices are made. Making decisions in conceptual design phases on a sound basis is one of the most difficult challenges in engineering design, especially when innovative concepts are introduced. On the one hand, designers deal with imprecise data about design alternatives. On the other hand, design objectives and requirements are usually not clear in these phases. The greatest opportunities to reduce product life cycle costs usually occur during the first conceptual design phases. The need for reliable multi-criteria decision aid (MCDA) methods is thus greatest at early conceptual design phases. Various MCDA methods are proposed in the literature. The main criticism of these methods is that they usually yield different results for the same problem. In this work, an analysis of six MCDA methods (weighed sum, weighted product, Kim & Lin, compromise programming, TOPSIS, and ELECTRE I) was conducted. Our analysis was performed via an industrial case of solar collector structure development. The objective is to define the most appropriate MCDA methods in term of three criteria: (i) the consistency of the results, (ii) the ease of understanding and, (iii) the adaptation of the decision type. The results show that TOPSIS is the most consistent MCDA method in our case

    Critical review of multi-criteria decision aid methods in conceptual design phases: application to the development of a solar collector structure

    Get PDF
    At each stage of the product development process, the designers are facing an important task which consists of decision making. Two cases are observed: the problem of concept selection in conceptual design phases and, the problem of pre-dimensioning once concept choices are made. Making decisions in conceptual design phases on a sound basis is one of the most difficult challenges in engineering design, especially when innovative concepts are introduced. On the one hand, designers deal with imprecise data about design alternatives. On the other hand, design objectives and requirements are usually not clear in these phases. The greatest opportunities to reduce product life cycle costs usually occur during the first conceptual design phases. The need for reliable multi-criteria decision aid (MCDA) methods is thus greatest at early conceptual design phases. Various MCDA methods are proposed in the literature. The main criticism of these methods is that they usually yield different results for the same problem [22,23,25]. In this work, an analysis of six MCDA methods (weighed sum, weighted product, Kim & Lin, compromise programming, TOPSIS, and ELECTRE I) was conducted. Our analysis was performed via an industrial case of solar collector structure development. The objective is to define the most appropriate MCDA methods in term of three criteria: (i) the consistency of the results, (ii) the ease of understanding and, (iii) the adaptation of the decision type. The results show that TOPSIS is the most consistent MCDA method in our case

    Public initiatives of settlement transformation. A theoretical-methodological approach to selecting tools of multi-criteria decision analysis

    Get PDF
    In Europe, the operating context in which initiatives of settlement transformation are currently initiated is characterized by a complex, elaborate combination of technical, regulatory and governance-related factors. A similar set of considerations makes it necessary to address the complex decision-making problems to be resolved through multidisciplinary, comparative approaches designed to rationalize the process and treat the elements to be considered in systematic fashion with respect to the range of alternatives available as solutions. Within a context defined in this manner, decision-making processes must often be used to obtain multidisciplinary and multidimensional analyses to support the choices made by the decision-makers. Such analyses are carried out using multi-criteria tools designed to arrive at syntheses of the numerous forms of input data needed to describe decision-making problems of similar complexity, so that one or more outcomes of the synthesis make possible informed, well thought-out, strategic decisions. The technical literature on the topic proposes numerous tools of multi-criteria analysis for application in different decision-making contexts. Still, no specific contributions have been drawn up to date on the approach to take in selecting the tool best suited to providing adequate responses to the queries of evaluation that arise most frequently in the various fields of application, and especially in the settlement sector. The objective of this paper is to propose, by formulating a taxonomy of the endogenous and exogenous variables of tools of multi-criteria analysis, a methodology capable of selecting the tool best suited to the queries of evaluation which arise regarding the chief categories of decision-making problems, and particularly in the settlement sector

    Does AHP help us make a choice? - An experimental evaluation

    Get PDF
    In this paper, we use experimental economics methods to test how well Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) fares as a choice support system in a real decision problem. AHP provides a ranking that we statistically compare with three additional rankings given by the subjects in the experiment: one at the beginning, one after providing AHP with the necessary pair-wise comparisons and one after learning the ranking provided by AHP. While the rankings vary widely across subjects, we observe that for each individual all four rankings are similar. Hence, subjects are consistent and AHP is, for the most part, able to replicate their rankings. Furthermore, while the rankings are similar, we do find that the AHP ranking helps the decision-makers reformulate their choices by taking into account suggestions made by AHP.Decision analysis, Multiple Criteria Decision Aid, Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP)

    A Methodology for the Selection of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis Methods in Real Estate and Land Management Processes

    Get PDF
    Real estate and land management are characterised by a complex, elaborate combination of technical, regulatory and governmental factors. In Europe, Public Administrators must address the complex decision-making problems that need to be resolved, while also acting in consideration of the expectations of the different stakeholders involved in settlement transformation. In complex situations (e.g., with different aspects to be considered and multilevel actors involved), decision-making processes are often used to solve multidisciplinary and multidimensional analyses, which support the choices of those who are making the decision. Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) methods are included among the examination and evaluation techniques considered useful by the European Community. Such analyses and techniques are performed using methods, which aim to reach a synthesis of the various forms of input data needed to define decision-making problems of a similar complexity. Thus, one or more of the conclusions reached allow for informed, well thought-out, strategic decisions. According to the technical literature on MCDA, numerous methods are applicable in different decision-making situations, however, advice for selecting the most appropriate for the specific field of application and problem have not been thoroughly investigated. In land and real estate management, numerous queries regarding evaluations often arise. In brief, the objective of this paper is to outline a procedure with which to select the method best suited to the specific queries of evaluation, which commonly arise while addressing decision-making problems. In particular issues of land and real estate management, representing the so-called “settlement sector”. The procedure will follow a theoretical-methodological approach by formulating a taxonomy of the endogenous and exogenous variables of the multi-criteria analysis method

    Social Multi-Criteria Evaluation (SMCE)

    Get PDF
    The main argument developed here is the proposal of the concept of “Social Multi-Criteria Evaluation” (SMCE) as a possible useful framework for the application of social choice to the difficult policy problems of our Millennium, where, as stated by Funtowicz and Ravetz, “facts are uncertain, values in dispute, stakes high and decisions urgent”. This paper starts from the following main questions: 1. Why “Social” Multi-criteria Evaluation? 2. How such an approach should be developed? The foundations of SMCE are set up by referring to concepts coming from complex system theory and philosophy, such as reflexive complexity, post-normal science and incommensurability. To give some operational guidelines on the application of SMCE basic questions to be answered are: 1. How is it possible to deal with technical incommensurability? 2. How can we deal with the issue of social incommensurability? To answer these questions, by using theoretical considerations and lessons learned from realworld case studies, is the main objective of the present article.Multi-Criteria Analysis, Economics, Complexity Theory, Environment, Social Choice, Post-Normal Science, Incommensurability, Ethics

    Comparative analysis of multicriteria decision making methods

    Get PDF
    Dissertação para obtenção do Grau de Mestre em Engenharia Electrotécnica e de ComputadoresThe main objective of this dissertation is to perform a Comparative Analysis of different Multicriteria Decision Making Methods applied to real-world problems, in order to produce relevant information to enable the incorporation of those methods on computational platforms. The current document presents a simple case study concerning a decision support application targeted for a real problem regarding retrofitting alternatives of a building with energy efficiency impact. The application process was started with the selection of two Multicriteria Decision Making Methods guided by a preexisting framework, and resulted in the choice of AHP and PROMETHEE II methodologies. These two methods were then combined with three different decision maker profiles (Conservative, Moderate and Aggressive) created by means of risk assessment profiling techniques for portfolio allocation. Afterwards, the chosen decision criteria were disposed in a Risk Pyramid according to their inherent level of risk regarding project evaluation. A match was then performed between the decision maker profiles and each criterion, so as to define a proper set of weights for the decision criteria and preference functions, with corresponding preference and indifference thresholds. Finally, three different sets of results (one for each decision maker profile) were produced using appropriate software, and a Sensitivity Analysis was performed over the criteria to understand their influence on the solution. The general conclusion of this Comparative Analysis is that the increase in the preference modelling ability of the methods brings up the least expected alternatives as recommendations for the decision maker. Besides, we have concluded that the decision profiles that allocate bigger weights to the riskiest criteria are the ones that produce the more dispersed set of results within each method application and within each decision maker profile
    • …
    corecore