) (

.
.
.

.

Multi Attribute Decision analysis with Compound

Alternatives
Mohammad Saeed Jabal Ameli, Mohammad Mohammadpour Omran,Ahmad Jafarzadeh Afshari

ABSTRACT
In some multiple criteria (attribute) decision making, decision alternatives have a special structure and
interrelationship among their structure. This paper investigates one special type of these structures called
compound alternatives. And develop a new method called assignment method to analysis decision problems
with this structure within their alternatives. This analysis is based on some theorems and their proofs. Using
interrelationships information of alternatives lead to simplification in preference information acquisition
from decision maker . Also we show possibility of large size problem handling and prevention of suboptimal
solution acceptance.
Keywords
Multi Attribute Decision Making, Decision problem Structuring, Compound Alternatives, Preference
Information Acquisition

ms_jabalameli@iust.ac.ir . 1
mohammadpour@shomal.ac.ir . 2
afshari@shomal.ac.ir . 3

 -
] [ ] .[
] [ ] .[
.
) ( ] [ ] [ .
.
.
] [
.
. .

.
.

.
.
.

.

.
.
] .[ .
.
. m

nj ,

.
.
) (] [
. .
) (] [
..
) (] [

.
. .

. Compound alternatives

 .
.
... .
.
.

.
:

) C 2 (w2 ) . C n ( wn

) C1 ( w1

a1n

a12

a11

a21

a22

a2n

a3n

a 32

a31

A
A
A

a m1

am 2

amn

} C j { j = 1,2,3,..., n

} Ai {i = 1,2,3,..., m
}A {i = 1,...,m ; j = 1, ...,n
}w {k = 1,..., n
ij i j .
k

.
.
:A1 20.000 .
:A2 40.000 .
:A3 70.000 .
C .
:
:A4 40.000
.
.
A4 A1 A3 .
} {20.000, 40.000,70.000 } { .

} { . .

} {10.000, 20.000, 30.000, , 100.000 {1, 2, 3, ,

} 10.
} { .
. . = .

.

 = ,
.
.
.
:

n2

nm

n1
n3
:
m j nj j = 1,2,..., m.
k

(. 1 k

. 1 2 ... . !) ( n1 n2 ...nm

N
) ( k = 1, L , N x } x = {x k | k = 1,2, L , N
.
xs N .
xs .

 N .
f .:

f : x R+

.
.
.
. j
Oj .
:1 n .

} n = {1,2,3,..., n J
J

:- n .
O j j
.

O j : j n J
j j .
j .:

) < O j ( j ) < O j ( Uj
. f
.
)(

X sk+ i

S
i =1

3 X 3ki + ... +

2 X 2ki +

i =1

i =1

X 1ki +

= ) f (X k

i =1

X 1 X 2 ) ( X 1 X 2 X 1
f ( x 2 ) = m + 4, f ( x1 ) = m : .
: X R :
)(

)XRXv f(X)= f(xv

R : .
:
R R . :

. Order function
. Degeneracy Relation

1
2

)XvRX & XRX f(Xv)= f(x) & f(X)= f(x

) (4

f(Xv)= f(x) XvRX

R X .
: } L = {l1 , l 2 ,..., l P f lp f p p
.
: fp < S- .

!)( f p 1
!)( f p m)!( m 1

= l p fp p }S = Min{ni | i = 1,2,..., m

m nj

). (

j =1

:
F .R
fp f .

: ) ( f m . m m .
.
f = a1 + a2 + + am

) (
m
...

f p (m 1) = f p m + 1 .
. :

. Reflexive
. Symmetric
3 . Transitive
4 . Equivalence class
5 . partitioning
6 . spectrumset
7 . degeneracy order
8 . dimmension
9 . cell
1
2

...

||

|||

fp . lp
.
ai bi
. m :
b1 + b2 + + bm = fp -m

)(

ai .
|

||||

||

fp m .
fp m m . fp m (fp m ) + (m 1)
) (m 1 .
)(

m
f p 1
k = 1,..., nj m + 1
=
( f p m)!( m 1)! m 1
j =1

!)( f p 1

= lp

- .
nj . O :
)(

O: {nj } m

S- S+

S- , S1, S2, ,Sm-2 , S+

)(
.
: S- < fp < S1

)(

f p S 1 i

m i 1

f p S

i =1

f p 1

lk =

m 1

. Bose Einstein Statistic

 : .
) ( . S-
. S-+1 .
S-+2 fp S-
.
i ) (

) (fp m) (S-+1

f p s 1 i
m 1 . :
m i 1

.
: Lp .

m +1
: Lp P .
.

P = n

Max

Lm

: Lp P .:

= nj k
j =1

. M +K

: Fp .

m +1

P = n

m ) m
) (-
. ) (
.
Max

Lp Lp . P

+m

= FPm . d

- FP < m + s

FPm . d

FPm . d

nj :

ms + + m m +
)= ( s + 1
2
2

+m

s
=

FPm . d

m +
( s + 1) < m + s ms + 2s < m
2
Lp .

max FPm .d < m + s

!)( FP 1
!)( FP m)!(m 1

FPm . d 1

j =1

LPmed = n j 2

: .
. : )( :
:

.
:

= 9 , s+ = 3

9+3
=6
2

m = 3 , s = 3 ,

= 3 FP 9 , FPm . d

!)(3 1
=1
!)(3 3)!(3 1

= F1 = 3 L1

!)(4 1
=3
!)( 4 3)!(3 1

= F1 = 4 L1

!)(5 1
=6
!)(5 3)!(3 1

= F1 = 5 L1

!)( FP 1
!)P =3 ( FP m)!( m 1
5

F4 = FPm.d = 6 L4 = n j 2
j =1

L4 = 27 2(1 + 3 + 6) = 7
F5 = 7 L5 = L3 = 6
F6 = 8 L6 = L2 = 3
F7 = 9 L7 = L1 = 1

Lp
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
P

0
7

.

.

.
.

. .

.
.

[1 ] Mintzberg, H., Raisinghani , D. and Theoret, A. "The Structure of Unstructured Decision Processes", Administrative Science
Quarterly, pp. 246-275,1976.
[2] Perry, W. and Moffat, J. "Developing models of decision making", Journal of Operational Research Society, pp. 457470,1977.
[3] Kasanen, E., Wallenius, H., Wallenius, J. and Zionts, S. "A study of high-level managerial decision processes" with implications
for MCDM research, European Journal of Operational Research, pp. 496-510,2000.
[4] Nutt, P. C. "Surprising but true: Half of the decisions in organizations fail". Academy of Management Executive, pp. 75-90,1999.
[5] Saaty, T. L. The Analytic Hierarchy Process, McGraw-Hill, USA, 1980.
[6] Keeney, R. L. and Raiffa, H. Decisions with Multiple Objectives: Preferences and Value Tradeoffs, John Wiley & Sons, New
York, USA,1976.
[7] Keefer, D. L., Kirkwood, C. W. and Corner, J. L. "Summary of Decision Analysis Applications in the Operations Research
Literature 1990-2001", Technical Report, Department of Supply Chain Management, Arizona State University, Tempe,
Arizona,2002.
[8] Lahdelma,R.,Salminen,P., Hokkanen,J., " Using Multicriteria Methods in Environmental

Planning and Management", Environmental Management Vol. 26, No. 6, pp. 595 605,2000.
[9] Triantaphyllou, E., Multi-Criteria Decision Making Methods: A Comparative Study, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht,
2000.
[10] Annika Kangas, Jyrki Kangas and Jouni Pyklinen, "Outranking Methods As Tools in strategic Natural Resources Planning",
Silva Fennica research articles, vol35, no. 2, 2001.