Yoon, K. A Reconciliation Among Discrete Compromise Solutions

A Reconciliation among Discrete Compromise Solutions
Author(s): Kwangsun Yoon

Source: The Journal of the Operational Research Society, Vol. 38, No. 3 (Mar., 1987), pp. 277-286
Published by: Palgrave Macmillan Journals on behalf of the Operational Research Society
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2581948
Accessed: 24-01-2016 15:11 UTC
REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/2581948?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Operational Research Society and Palgrave Macmillan Journals are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend
access to The Journal of the Operational Research Society.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 198.91.37.2 on Sun, 24 Jan 2016 15:11:32 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
J. Opl Res. Soc. Vol. 38, No. 3, pp. 277-286, 1987 0160-5682/87 $3.00 + 0.00
Printed in Great Britain. All rights reserved Copyright ? 1987 Operational Research Society Ltd
A Reconciliation Among Discrete

Compromise Solutions
KWANGSUN YOON
Department of Industrial Engineering, Fairleigh Dickinson University, Teaneck, N.J., USA
The application of compromise solutions to discrete multi-objective problems brings about some technical
flexibilities, such as the selection of distance function for computing both normalized attribute ratings and
distances between two alternatives, and the choice between the ideal and negative-ideal alternatives for
implementing the axiom of choice. These flexibilities are undesirable, since the method may yield
conflicting preference-alternative rankings, depending on parameter choice. This paper introduces a
credibility measurement of distance function and takes a broader concept of the axiom of choice in order
to reconcile disagreement among compromise solutions.
Key words: axiom of choice, compromise solution, distance functions, multi-criteria decision-making,
preference ranking, value functions
Decision-makers (DM) are confronted with a situation in which they must choose from multiple
alternatives. Although it is very useful to use cost or profit as a measure of desirability, the DM
often discovers equal or more important goals, objectives or attributes. For example, the job one
chooses may depend upon its prestige, location, salary, advancement opportunities, working
conditions and so on. The car one buys may be characterized in terms of price, gas mileage, style,
safety, comfort and other considerations. Automobile manufacturers want to design a model which
maximizes fuel efficiency and riding comfort and minimizes production cost. Multiple objectives
usually conflict. In designing a car, for example, the goal of higher gas-mileage might degrade the
passenger-comfort rating because of resulting reduced passenger-space. A car is non-dominated if
there is no car which excels it in all attributes considered. Most cars on the market are in this class.
Hence a DM might experience non-trivial evaluation problems among the non-dominated
alternatives.
Multiple attribute decision-making (MADM) methods are management decision aids used in
evaluating m non-dominated alternatives which are characterized by n attributes. Let xi represent
the rating of alternative Ai with respect to attribute Xj. The elements xij can be integrated into an
(m x n) decision matrix whose rows indicate job performance of alternative Ai:
Xi = (Xil IX Xi2, X X ., XiJ) i = 1, . I M.m(1
Our human cognitive power is limited such that most MADM methods have tried to reduce
attribute dimensions as much as possible. One popular approach is to transform n-dimensional
vector performance into a scalar performance. That is,
Vi= V(Ai) = V(xi, w) i = 1, ..., m, (2)
where V is the value function, and w = (wl, . . . , w, wJ) is the weight assigned to each attribute
which is assessed by a DM with the help of a decision analyst. Once a DM obtains a valid value
function (not an easy job), the DM should give the highest preference to an alternative whose value
is the maximum.
Technology has taught that it is impossible to manufacture the ideal car, that is an automobile
which possesses the best level or rating in all attributes considered. To be as close as possible to
such an ideal car is the rationale of human choice. Based on this axiom of choice,' Zeleny2'3
introduced the concept of compromise solutions for the resolution of conflicting objective-
functions. A compromise set contains alternatives which are closest to the ideal, as determined by
some measure of distance. Since compromise solutions form a greatly reduced non-dominated set,
they are very useful in multi-objective programming.4'5The principle of compromise solution is
equally applicable to MADM (or discrete multi-objective) problems.6'7In the MADM setting, the
277
Journal of the Operational Research Society Vol. 38, No. 3
flexibility of choosing between distance measures is considered an inexcusable weakness, since it

renders conflicting preference-rankings. The employment of compromise solutions in MADM
problems exposes two other undesirable flexibilities: selection among normalization equations for
incommensurable attribute-units and implementation of the axiom of choice, whether 'closest to
the ideal' or 'farthest from the negative-ideal' (sometimes called 'anti-ideal'). We attempt to resolve
these problems of choice by introducing the credibility of distance measurement and the similarity
to the ideal solution.
First, we formulate a general normalization equation for incommensurable attribute-units (e.g.
second in time, metre in length). Second, we review three kinds of MADM solutions based on the
axiom of choice. Third, we make a reconciliation between conflicting compromise solutions.
Finally, a numerical example is followed by concluding remarks.
NORMALIZATION OF ATTRIBUTE RATINGS

The purpose of normalization is to obtain a comparable scale from the various units of
measurement that each attribute possesses, because most MADM methods require inter-attribute
as well as intra-attribute comparisons. Different normalization equations have appeared without
presenting the proper logic.3'7'8We combine them into one equation, using the Minkowski lp
metrics. The 4pmetric defines the distance between two points, x' and x2, in n-dimension space as
r sZ )~~II/p
dp= Z IXXiP p p> 1. (3)
One physical property of dpmeasurement is well known: when p increases, distance dpdecreases,
i.e. d > dp> ,59 and greater emphasis is given to the largest deviation in forming the total.
Ultimately, for p oo, the largest deviation completely dominates the distance determination, i.e.
dc = max { x) - x]
Distances with p = 1, 2 and so are especially operationally important: distances d, (the Manhattan
distance) and d2 (the Euclidean distance) are the longest and shortest distances in the geometrical
sense; distance do (the Tchebycheff distance) is the shortest distance in the numerical sense.
If we define the normalized rating as the ratio between individual and combined distance from
the origin 0 = (0, 0, . .. , 0), then the comparable rating of x1iis given as
rij(p) = (Xij- 0)/{ Ex1j - OiP}
M
m ) I/p
= Xj/l { XiiP} p = 1, 2
r1j(oo)=xjx/max{Ix1j1, i=1,2,...,m}. (4)
The above normalization equation has the property that when p increases, the effect of interference
among alternatives decreases. Finally, when p = oo, each attribute is compared by only its largest
attribute rating.
For non-monotonic attributes (e.g. blood pressure, and the sugar content in a cup of coffee,
where the most favourable value is located somewhere in the middle of an attribute range), they
become monotonic by taking the statistical z-score, i.e. (x,1- xJ)/5j, where x; is the most favourable
value, and aj is the standard deviation of alternative ratings with respect to attribute x;, respectively.
Then the comparable rating ri1(p) is obtained by using equation (4).
THREE SETS OF DISCRETE COMPROMISE SOLUTIONS

Zeleny's compromise solutions are those which are the closest by some distance measure dpto
the ideal point (alternative). Since it is not easy to quantify the ideal level, we introduce the
278
K. Yoon A Reconciliation Among Discrete Compromise Solutions
perceived ideal as one which has all the best attribute ratings attainable. The distance between an
alternative Ai and the perceived ideal alternative A * is given as
n II/p
dp*(i)= {Z wjr-rij- riP =, i =1,2,..., m; p=1,2

tji J
d X(i) = maxj{wjrl* - rjI, j =1, 2, ..., n}, (5)
where r * is the most favourable normalized rating for attribute x;. Then a set of discrete
compromise solutions is
C*= min{d*(i),i= 1,2,...,m}, p= 1,2,oo. (6)
The composite of the best attribute ratings attainable is the (positive) ideal alternative,
whereas the negative-ideal alternative is defined as that which is comprised of the worst
ratings only. The negative-ideal alternative is imagined to be opposite the ideal alternative.
Can we then use the anti-ideal as another reference point in the decision-making process? Yes.
Actually, we may have used the negative-ideal more often than the ideal since it is not easy to
set the proper ideal-level. For instance, we may try to make a new car (sub-ideal) which has
further distance from the existing car (negative-ideal) by increasing gas mileage and decreasing
the production cost, and so on. The counterpositive statements of the axiom of choice, alternatives
that are further from the negative-ideal are preferred to those that are closer, logically supports the
use of the negative-ideal. The distance between an alternative Ai and the anti-ideal alternative A -
is given as
( it I/P
d;(i)={ w'PIr1- rijP} , i= 1,2,..., m; p = 1,2, oo, (7)
where r is the least favourable normalized rating for x;. Then another set of discrete compromise
solutions based on the anti-ideal is
Cp =max{d; (i),i = 1,2,. ..,m}, p = 1,2, oo. (8)
Sometimes the compromise solution based on the ideal is not identical to that which is based
on the anti-ideal. For example, when we use d2 distance in evaluating the two alternatives Al
and A2 in Figure 1, AI is the choice based on A *; A2 is based on A -. This conflict can be resolved
IAn d
FIG. 1. Two solutions based on ideal and negative-ideal.
279
by considering dp*and d- simultaneously. Hwang and Yoon's TOPSIS (Technique for Order
Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution)7',0defines the similarity to the ideal of alternative Ai as
Dp(i) = d; (i)/{dp*(i) + d7 (i)}, i = 1,2, . .. , m; p = 1,2, oo. (9)

TOPSIS selects an alternative which has the maximum similarity to the ideal solution. The set of
TOPSIS solutions is
Tp= max{Dp(i), =1,2,..., m}, p = 1,2, oo. (10)
It is clear that 0 < Tp< 1, where Tp= 1, if Ai= A*; Tp= 0 if Ai=A-.
The family of TOPSIS solutions may be difficult to illustrate graphically because they involve the
ratio of two distances, but the choice behaviour through such solutions can be explained by way
of indifference (value) curves.11'12A DM is assumed to give equal preference or value to any alter-
natives located on the same indifference curve. TOPSIS has the value function of d - /(d * + d -) = c,
where c is a given value. The value function can be rewritten as cd* - (1 - c)d- = 0. When the
d2distance measurement is employed, this expression indicates a variation of hyperbola where the
difference of two weighted [c and (1 - c)] distances from two fixed points (i.e. ideal and
negative-ideal points) is zero. Figure 2 shows some typical indifference curves from the TOPSIS.
Any curves with c > 0.5 are convex to the preference origin (i.e. ideal point), which indicates the
property of the diminishing marginal rate of substitution observed in most indifference curves;
whereas indifference curves with c < 0.5 are concave to the preference origin. This is an unusual
case, but it may be interpreted as a risk-prone attitude resulting from a pessimistic situation: when
a DM recognizes one's solution is closer to the negative-ideal than to the ideal, the DM is inclined
to take an alternative which consists of the best and worst attributes rather than one with two worse
attributes. For example, we might want to get one A grade and one F grade rather than two D
grades. This set of indifferencecurves also supports Zeleny's conjecture of the discriminatory power
of reference points: as alternatives deviate farther from a reference point (say, A *), the
discriminatory power of the reference point diminishes, and finally another reference (say, A -) is
needed.3 Shapes of indifference curves with c > 0.5 (convex to A *) show that they are using A *
as a reference. Also, indifference curves with c < 0.5 (convex to A -) reveal that they are under the
control of A -. When we use d, distance, the indifference curves are a set of straight lines with the
slope of -1. Figure 3 shows a set of indifference curves with dc, distance.
r2 1
A~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~A
FIG. 2. Indifferencecurves in TOPSIS with d2 distance.
280
.9
A C=.1
FIG. 3. Indifference curves in TOPSIS with dl, distance.
RECONCILING COMPROMISE SOLUTIONS

The concept of similarity to A * in TOPSIS solves the reference-selection problem between A *
and A -. Yet TOPSIS may yield up to nine different solutions, depending on choice of distance
function dpin computing rij(p) and Dp(i). Which one is the legitimate solution? Or which solution
is more credible? The relationship between distance function and human choice behaviour has not
been formulated yet."3We like to measure the credibility of dpfrom its physical property. We have
seen that the amount of dpdecreases when parameter p increases. Another property of dpcan be
revealed by considering indifference (distance) curves. Any point on the same indifference curve
has equal distance from the given origin. The loci of points c units from the origin of a
two-dimensional space with p = 1, 2, so are given in Figure 3. We notice that the locus appears
further from the origin as p increases. This convexity is necessary to maintain equal distance,
because d1> dp>, do. Consequently, the length of locus 4pincreases; that is, 11< lp A Then more
points can be contained in the locus with the larger p; or more points are expressed by the same
distance with the largerp. In other words, the distance function becomes less specific or less credible
as parameter p increases.
Two measurement systems (functions) are equally credible (specific) when they classify a
population into an equal number of classes. Then we observe that a measurement system is
more credible when it has more classes. Applicable examples are plentiful. In college grading-
systems, professors can claim that a system of 9 levels (A +, A, B +, B, C +, C, D, E, F)
is more specific than that of 6 levels (A, B, C, D, E, F) because the former classifies a popu-
lation into a larger number of classes. Suppose we use only integer numbers in measuring
temperatures. Then the Fahrenheit scale can be said to be more credible than the centigrade
scale because the former divides the temperature range between freezing and boiling into 180
degrees (classes). The centigrade system, however, divided this range into 100 degrees. Note
that a temperature which is expressed by 20'C can be further divided into 670F, 680F or
690F. Consequently, we can see that the more credible measuring system has smaller class-
size. In weight-measuring systems, as long as we carry the same decimal point, the g-unit is
1000 times more credible than the kg-unit since the former has a 1/1000 times smaller
class-size than that of the latter. A class consists of only homogeneous elements with respect
to its concern. An indifference curve contains only homogeneous elements as far as the
amount of distance is involved. Hence the length of an indifference curve can be viewed as a
class size. We have observed that the length of indifference curves (now class size) increases when
281
X2
FIG. 4. Indifference distance curves with different dp.
parameter p increases. Then the credibility of a distance function dp decreases when parameter p
increases.
The credibility of a distance function is shown to be inversely related to the length of indifference
(distance) curve or the area of indifference hypersurface when there are more than two dimensions
in forming the distance. When there are no restrictions on the range of dimension, the ratio of class
sizes among distance functions is independent of the amount of distance. For instance, we compute
the class-size ratio of each distance by setting dp= c in Figure 4: 1= (li, 12, loo) = (4 2c;, 2itc, 8c)
= (2.83, 3.14, 4). But attribute ratings are populated within the finite range. Especially, normalized
attribute-ratings are located in the range of [0, 1]. Suppose we impose such constraints on the
dimension range as 0 < r1< 1 and 0 < r2< 1 in Figure 5. The class-size ratio is (2.83, 3.14, 4) with
1 .5 =_ ____________________ _ 1
_Feasible region \
0.6 Iil t 2"""\\ 0
0 0.6 1.0 1.5
FIG. 5. Indifference curves with d = 0.6 and dp=1.5 under range constraints.
282
K. Yoon-A Reconciliation Among Discrete Compromise Solutions
c = 0.60; it is (0.71, 0, 0) with c = 1.5. The class-size ratio under the dimension constraint renders
a local ratio which is dependent on the amount of c.
We may consider two criteria which have the global (unchangeable) ratio and play the role
of the combined individual class-sizes. One is the range of dp, which is the sum of various class-
sizes. The mean of dp, E(dp) becomes another criterion because the distance dp is expressed as
the larger amount with the smaller class-size. We take E(dp) to quantify the credibility of dp
because E(dp) is more sensitive to the number of dimensions than to the range. Since the credibility
of dp is proportional to E(dp), the relative--credibilityof each dp under the three-distance system
is written as
1p{=E(dp)/{E(d1)+E(d2)+E(d)} p = 1,2,(X. (11)

The Monte-Carlo simulation technique is used to obtain values of E(dp). After 10,000 trials, we
obtained the result which is independent of trial numbers. Table 1 shows the results based on 30,000
random numbers, whose range is [0, 1]. As we expected, the credibility of d, is always higher than
that of d2 or dO. The credibility of d, increases very rapidly when the number of dimensions
increases. We recommend the use of d, for obtaining the most credible compromise solution from
the purely mathematical viewpoint. But if we should consider three distances simultaneously, the
unified distance function can be made by taking Apas their weights in the linear combination form:
d =Ajdj+ 2dA+ iood,,. (12)
Note that the distance function was utilized in the denominator of normalization equations.
Consequently, normalized attribute ratings get less specific when parameter p increases. Similarly,
the unified normalization equation is
i= Irj(1) + 22rij(2) + 4o ri(cx). (13)
A NUMERICAL EXAMPLE
A customer wants to purchase a family car and is faced with the problem of choosing between
eight automobiles. The ratings based on 16 attributes are given in Table 2. The data is adopted
from Fleischer's text.14
Table 3 shows three sets of preference rankings based on d2 measurement in computing both
attribute-rating normalization and distance between two alternatives. The ranking based on d*,
R* differs from that which is based on d7-, R -. This disagreement can be resolved taking the D2
value, which becomes a TOPSIS ranking. It is interesting that the discriminatory power of the
TABLE 1. The relative credibility of each distance

function
Dimensions Al A2 A'
1 0.3333 0.3333 0.3333

2 0.4113 0.3147 0.2741
3 0.4673 0.2992 0.2335
4 0.5098 0.2861 0.2041
5 0.5437 0.2747 0.1816
6 0.5717 0.2647 0.1636
7 0.5951 0.2559 0.1490
8 0.6154 0.2479 0.1367
9 0.6328 0.2407 0.1265
10 0.6479 0.2342 0.1179
11 0.6615 0.2281 0.1103
12 0.6738 0.2225 0.1036
13 0.6845 0.2175 0.0979
14 0.6946 0.2128 0.0926
15 0.7037 0.2083 0.0880
16 0.7121 0.2042 0.0837
17 0.7196 0.2004 0.0800
18 0.7268 0.1I967 0.0765
19 0.7335 0.1932 0.0733
20 0.7395 0.1900 0.0705
49 0.8302 0.1I366 0.0332

50 0.8318 0.1I356 0.0326
283
s: O
=~~~~~~~~~~v
O'-O> v0-OOm r-
C>C
>t8$4O<^
C--00C
U
.~0 It
~0.1t0 -\0
, 0W o o
o00
CI
? m C$ > <
r- C> C>I'
a
U _
0
0
0 t r OO\ -
0
- ) C
$0i0$ C - t m >0 r
s 0.
C, > O C> 'ICD'I C

Ot m-
U
0 U_
0 > _ =
C'
0 U 0U
00 000\0m000m-t 0 Uc
.,30
m O-
0
0 C
'IO 00 oot -N " Cq CI CI
06 $ ~ ~ ~ r-n ~a4oN ~oo-
00
~ o
~ * .
Q
CDI CD CDC0CDD CD CD , CD C>
D$$<
C'
U)- rlw0 C V0 r0 0 06 06 - Cl 00000t6
CdC'wis E
Cd
_0 C0 Nm st ms a o d 0 0 m v-C
0
284:4 C'S
TABLE 3. Three sets of preference rankings using d2 distance

d2* d- D2
Automobiles Value Rank Value Rank Value Rank

Al 0.0300 2 0.1092 1 0.7848 2
A2 0.0431 3 0.0946 3 0.6869 3
A3 0.0540 5 0.0901 5 0.6254 5
A4 0.0628 6 0.0735 6 0.5392 6
A5 0.1086 8 0.0302 7 0.2176 7
A6 0.0261 1 0.1027 2 0.7975 1
A7 0.0435 4 0.0937 4 0.6830 4
A8 0.1045 7 0.0186 8 0.1508 8
reference point is revealed by those rankings: TOPSIS ranking is identical to R2 if D2 > 0.5, and
to R- if D2<0.5.
Instead of making eight other preference rankings, we try to obtain the unified TOPSIS solution
by way of the credibility of distance function. First, the unified normalized ratings are obtained
using
ri1= (0.6154) rij(l) + (0.2479) rij(2)+ (0.1367) rij(co) (14)

since ratings are normalized with eight alternatives. These coefficients come from Table 1. The
unified distance measurements are obtained using
d = (0.7121) d1+ (0.2042) d2+ (0.0837) d<, (15)
because each alternative has 16 attributes. Table 4 shows the reconciliation of the TOPSIS
solutions. This time, three rankings based on d*, d- and D are identical. Further discussion of
the results of Table 4 is given in the next section.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUDING REMARKS

This paper reviews MADM methods based on the axiom of choice, and discovers some
undesirable technical flexibilities, including the selection of distance function for measuring both
the normalized attribute ratings and distance between alternatives, and the choice between the ideal
and negative-ideal points for implementing the axiom of choice. Compromise solution has the
shortest distance from the ideal point or the longest distance from the negative-ideal point, whereas
TOPSIS considers the distances from both the ideal and the negative-ideal points simultaneously
by taking the similarity to the ideal solution. Therefore, a DM does not need to worry about the
situational decision ability to choose either ideal or negative-ideal as its reference point. Also, the
similarity to the ideal solution of TOPSIS employs an interval scale which is similar to that of
MAUT (Multiple Attribute Utility Technique).11That is, the similarity to ideal is expressed in the
range of [0, 1], and the larger value indicates greater preference.
Though we still have some difficulty in matching distance function d1 with human decision
behaviour, some physical relationships are noted. First, when we normalize attribute ratings,
parameterp affects the degree of mutual interdependency among alternatives for given attributes.
When p increases, the mutual effect among alternatives decreases. This is especially so when p = co;
a normalized attribute rating is independent of the others, except the best rating. This negligence
of considering other alternative ratings is revealed by the lower credibility of doe in Table 1.
Second, when we obtain the distance between two alternatives, parameterp plays the role of mutual
TABLE 4. The final TOPSIS solution with the unified distance measurement
d* d- D
Automobiles Value Ranking Value Ranking Value Ranking
A1 0.0429 2 0.1226 2 0.7407 2
A2 0.0606 3 0.1045 3 0.6327 3
A3 0.0657 5 0.1007 5 0.6051 5
A4 0.0947 6 0.0700 6 0.4252 6
A5 0.1224 7 0.0430 7 0.2599 7
A6 0.0371 1 0.1257 1 0.7722 1
A7 0.0635 4 0.1016 4 0.6155 4
Ax 0. 1328 8 0.0289 8 0. 1787 8
285
interdependency between attributes which form an alternative. Again, the mutual effect among
attributes decreases as the parameter p increases. Particularly with p = 1, where there exists the
maximum dependency between attributes, the distance between A * and A - is always constant.
That is,
d* (i) + d (i) = constant, i = 1, 2,. . , m. (16)
Therefore, the minimization of d* is equivalent to the maximization of d-. Assuming that
A- = (0, 0, ... , 0) without losing generality, then the distance from the negative-ideal can be
written as
n
d- (i)= wjrij, i = 1, 2, . .. IM. (17)

i= 1
This is the simple additive (or weighted linear-average) form of MAUT.11'15This may explain why
the simple additive form of MAUT strictly requires independent relationships between attributes.
From the simulation result in Table 1, we notice that the credibility of d1 increases greatly when
the number of dimensions increases. This means that when a problem has a large number of
attributes, the unified TOPSIS solution is similar to that of the simple additive form of MAUT.
We have seen that the automobile evaluation problem, which has 16 attributes, yields three
identical preference rankings in Table 4. This finding supports Edwards'16 conclusion on simple
additive MAUT: theory, simulation computations and experience all suggest that weighted linear
averages yield extremely close approximations to very much more complicated non-linear and
interactive 'true' utility functions, while remaining far easier to elicit and understand. But how large
is a large number of attributes?
Further behavioural interpretations of dl on compromise solutions are found in Dukstein and
Opricovic17 and Yu. 8 They agree that each dc has its own beauty, but they fail to suggest which
dpwe should use in specific situations. The unified distance measurement is recommended until a
better relationship between dp and human behaviour is found.
Acknowledgements-The author expresses his gratitude to an anonymous referee, who made useful suggestions on the
original draft of this paper. This material is based upon the work supported by Fairleigh Dickinson University under
"Grant-in-Aid".
REFERENCES
1. C. H. COOMBS(1958) On the use of inconsistency of preferences in psychological measurement. J. exp. Psychol. 55,
1-7.
2. M. ZELENY(1973) Compromise programming. In Multiple Criteria Decision Making (J. L. COCHRANEand M. ZELENY,
Eds), pp. 262-301. University of South Carolina Press, Columbia, S.C.
3. M. ZELENY(1982) Multiple Criteria Decision Making. McGraw-Hill, New York.
4. C. L. HWANG and A. S. M. MASUD in collaboration with S. R. PAIDY and K. YOON (1979) Multiple ObjectiveDecision
Making. Lecture Notes in Economics and Mathematical Systems, Vol. 164. Springer, Berlin.
5. J. L. COHON(1978) Multiobjective Programming and Planning. Academic Press, New York.
6. K. R. MACCRIMMON(1968) Decision Making Among Multiattribute Alternatives:A Survey and ConsolidatedApproach.
RAND Memorandum, RM-4823-ARPA, The Rand Corporation, Santa Monica, Calif.
7. C. L. HWANG and K. YOON(1981) Multiple Attribute Decision Making. Lecture Notes in Economics and Mathematical
Systems, Vol. 186. Springer, Berlin.
8. P. NIJKAMPand A. VAN DELFT (1977) Multi-Criteria Analysis and Regional Decision-Making. Martinus Nijhoff Social
Sciences Division, Leiden, The Netherlands.
9. E. BECKENBACHand R. BELLMAN(1961) An Introduction to Inequalities. Random House, New York.
10. K. YOON and C. L. HWANG (1985) Manufacturing plant location analysis by multiple attribute decision making: Part
I-single plant strategy. Int. J. Prod. Res. 23, 345-359.
11. R. L. KEENEYand H. RAIFFA (1976) Decisions with Multiple Objectives. Wiley, New York.
12. K. R. MACCRIMMONand M. TODA (1969) The experimental determination of indifference curves. Rev. Econ. Stud. 36,
433-450.
13. V. CHANKONG,Y. Y. HAImEs and J. THADATHI (1985) Multiple criteria optimization: a state of the art survey. In
Decision Making with Multiple Objectives (Y. Y. HAImEs and V. CHANKONG, Eds), pp. 36-90. Lecture Notes in
Economics and Mathematical Systems, Vol. 242. Springer, Berlin.
14. G. A. FLEISCHER(1984) Engineering Economy. PWS Engineering, Boston, Mass.
15. P. C. FISHBURN(1965) Independence in utility theory with whole product sets. Opns Res. 13, 28-45.
16. W. EDWARDS(1977) Use of multiattribute utility measurement for social decision making. In Conflicting Objectives in
Decisions (D. E. BELL et al., Eds), pp. 247-276. Wiley, New York.
17. L. DUCKSTEINand S. OPRICOVIC (1980) Multiobjective optimization in river basin development. Wat. Resour. Res. 16,
14-20.
18. P. L. Yu (1973) A class of solutions for group decision problems. Mgmt Sci. 19, 936-946.
286

Yoon, K. A Reconciliation Among Discrete Compromise Solutions

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Yoon, K. A Reconciliation Among Discrete Compromise Solutions

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Yoon, K. A Reconciliation Among Discrete Compromise Solutions

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Reconciliation among Discrete Compromise Solutions

Author(s): Kwangsun Yoon

You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.

A Reconciliation Among Discrete

Xi = (Xil IX Xi2, X X ., XiJ) i = 1, . I M.m(1

flexibility of choosing between distance measures is considered an inexcusable weakness, since it

NORMALIZATION OF ATTRIBUTE RATINGS

rij(p) = (Xij- 0)/{ Ex1j - OiP}

r1j(oo)=xjx/max{Ix1j1, i=1,2,...,m}. (4)

THREE SETS OF DISCRETE COMPROMISE SOLUTIONS

dp*(i)= {Z wjr-rij- riP =, i =1,2,..., m; p=1,2

d X(i) = maxj{wjrl* - rjI, j =1, 2, ..., n}, (5)

FIG. 1. Two solutions based on ideal and negative-ideal.

Dp(i) = d; (i)/{dp*(i) + d7 (i)}, i = 1,2, . .. , m; p = 1,2, oo. (9)

Tp= max{Dp(i), =1,2,..., m}, p = 1,2, oo. (10)

FIG. 2. Indifferencecurves in TOPSIS with d2 distance.

FIG. 3. Indifference curves in TOPSIS with dl, distance.

RECONCILING COMPROMISE SOLUTIONS

FIG. 4. Indifference distance curves with different dp.

0.6 Iil t 2"""\\ 0

0 0.6 1.0 1.5

1p{=E(dp)/{E(d1)+E(d2)+E(d)} p = 1,2,(X. (11)

TABLE 1. The relative credibility of each distance

1 0.3333 0.3333 0.3333

49 0.8302 0.1I366 0.0332

C, > O C> 'ICD'I C

TABLE 3. Three sets of preference rankings using d2 distance

Automobiles Value Rank Value Rank Value Rank

ri1= (0.6154) rij(l) + (0.2479) rij(2)+ (0.1367) rij(co) (14)

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUDING REMARKS

d- (i)= wjrij, i = 1, 2, . .. IM. (17)

You might also like