Full Chapter Strategic Approach in Multi Criteria Decision Making A Practical Guide For Complex Scenarios 2Nd Nolberto Munier PDF

Strategic Approach in Multi Criteria
Decision Making A Practical Guide for

Complex Scenarios 2nd Nolberto
Munier
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://textbookfull.com/product/strategic-approach-in-multi-criteria-decision-making-a
-practical-guide-for-complex-scenarios-2nd-nolberto-munier/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...
The Multi Criteria Approach for Decision Support An

Introduction with Practical Applications Lotfi Azzabi
https://textbookfull.com/product/the-multi-criteria-approach-for-
decision-support-an-introduction-with-practical-applications-
lotfi-azzabi/
Advanced Studies in Multi Criteria Decision Making 1st

Edition Sarah Ben Amor (Editor)
https://textbookfull.com/product/advanced-studies-in-multi-
criteria-decision-making-1st-edition-sarah-ben-amor-editor/
Biofuels for a More Sustainable Future: Life Cycle

Sustainability Assessment, Multi-Criteria Decision
Making 1st Edition Alessandro Manzardo
https://textbookfull.com/product/biofuels-for-a-more-sustainable-
future-life-cycle-sustainability-assessment-multi-criteria-
decision-making-1st-edition-alessandro-manzardo/
Applications of Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Theories

in Healthcare and Biomedical Engineering 1st Edition
Ilker Ozsahin
https://textbookfull.com/product/applications-of-multi-criteria-
decision-making-theories-in-healthcare-and-biomedical-
engineering-1st-edition-ilker-ozsahin/
Water and Energy Management in India Artificial Neural
Networks and Multi Criteria Decision Making Approaches
1st Edition Mrinmoy Majumder
https://textbookfull.com/product/water-and-energy-management-in-
india-artificial-neural-networks-and-multi-criteria-decision-
making-approaches-1st-edition-mrinmoy-majumder/
Strategic Security Management: A Risk Assessment Guide

for Decision Makers 2nd Edition Karim Vellani
https://textbookfull.com/product/strategic-security-management-a-
risk-assessment-guide-for-decision-makers-2nd-edition-karim-
vellani/
Waste-to-Energy: Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis for

Sustainability Assessment and Ranking 1st Edition
Jingzheng Ren
https://textbookfull.com/product/waste-to-energy-multi-criteria-
decision-analysis-for-sustainability-assessment-and-ranking-1st-
edition-jingzheng-ren/
Multi-criteria Decision Analysis for Supporting the

Selection of Engineering Materials in Product Design,
Second Edition Ali Jahan Ph.D.
https://textbookfull.com/product/multi-criteria-decision-
analysis-for-supporting-the-selection-of-engineering-materials-
in-product-design-second-edition-ali-jahan-ph-d/
New Perspectives in Multiple Criteria Decision Making

Innovative Applications and Case Studies Michalis
Doumpos
https://textbookfull.com/product/new-perspectives-in-multiple-
criteria-decision-making-innovative-applications-and-case-
studies-michalis-doumpos/
International Series in
Operations Research & Management Science
Nolberto Munier
Strategic Approach
in Multi-Criteria
Decision Making
A Practical Guide for Complex Scenarios
Second Edition
International Series in Operations Research &
Management Science
Founding Editor
Frederick S. Hillier, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA
Volume 351
Series Editor
Camille C. Price, Department of Computer Science, Stephen F. Austin State Uni-
versity, Nacogdoches, TX, USA
Associate Editor
Joe Zhu, Business School, Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Worcester, MA, USA
Editorial Board Members

Emanuele Borgonovo, Department of Decision Sciences, Bocconi University,
Milan, Italy
Barry L. Nelson, Department of Industrial Engineering and Management Sciences,
Northwestern University, Evanston, IL, USA
Bruce W. Patty, Veritec Solutions, Mill Valley, CA, USA
Michael Pinedo, Stern School of Business, New York University, New York, NY,
USA
Robert J. Vanderbei, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ, USA
The book series International Series in Operations Research and Management
Science encompasses the various areas of operations research and management
science. Both theoretical and applied books are included. It describes current
advances anywhere in the world that are at the cutting edge of the field. The series
is aimed especially at researchers, advanced graduate students, and sophisticated
practitioners.
The series features three types of books:
• Advanced expository books that extend and unify our understanding of partic-
ular areas.
• Research monographs that make substantial contributions to knowledge.
• Handbooks that define the new state of the art in particular areas. Each
handbook will be edited by a leading authority in the area who will organize a
team of experts on various aspects of the topic to write individual chapters. A
handbook may emphasize expository surveys or completely new advances (either
research or applications) or a combination of both.
The series emphasizes the following four areas:
Mathematical Programming : Including linear programming, integer program-
ming, nonlinear programming, interior point methods, game theory, network opti-
mization models, combinatorics, equilibrium programming, complementarity
theory, multiobjective optimization, dynamic programming, stochastic program-
ming, complexity theory, etc.
Applied Probability: Including queuing theory, simulation, renewal theory,
Brownian motion and diffusion processes, decision analysis, Markov decision
processes, reliability theory, forecasting, other stochastic processes motivated by
applications, etc.
Production and Operations Management: Including inventory theory, produc-
tion scheduling, capacity planning, facility location, supply chain management,
distribution systems, materials requirements planning, just-in-time systems, flexible
manufacturing systems, design of production lines, logistical planning, strategic
issues, etc.
Applications of Operations Research and Management Science: Including
telecommunications, health care, capital budgeting and finance, economics, market-
ing, public policy, military operations research, humanitarian relief and disaster
mitigation, service operations, transportation systems, etc.
This book series is indexed in Scopus.
Nolberto Munier
Strategic Approach
in Multi-Criteria Decision
Making
A Practical Guide for Complex Scenarios
Second Edition
Nolberto Munier
INGENIO, Polytechnic University of Valencia
Valencia, Spain
ISSN 0884-8289 ISSN 2214-7934 (electronic)

International Series in Operations Research & Management Science
ISBN 978-3-031-44452-4 ISBN 978-3-031-44453-1 (eBook)
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-44453-1
© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland
AG 2019, 2024
This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the
material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation,
broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information
storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology
now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication
does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant
protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this
book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or
the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any
errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional
claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
Paper in this product is recyclable.

What do Elon Musk, Albert Einstein, Nicola
Tesla
and Madame Curie have in common?
They all show that it is OK to be
unconventional.
Separateness had helped the innovators be
independent thinkers, freeing them to break
the
rules and ignore the assumptions that
constraint others.
—Melissa A. Schilling
Preface and Road Map
Book Structure
The book is divided into four parts, as follows:

Part 1: Theory and Analysis of MCDM Problems: History of MCDM and how it is
performed (Chaps. 1 and 2)
Part 2: Theory and Analysis of MCDM Problems: What can be done by using the
MCDM process? (Chaps. 3–5)
Part 3: Theory and Analysis of MCDM Problems: Proposes SIMUS as a strategic
procedure to tackle real-world scenarios (Chaps. 6–11)
Part 4: Practice of Problem Solving Using MCDM: Support for Practitioners
(Chaps. 12–14)
vii
Introduction
The decision-making process is a human activity in which the human being, as the
decision maker, can hardly escape from the influence of multiple circumstances that,
in the end, give shape to what will become the winning decision.
With the aim of reaching this winning decision, Multicriteria Decision Making
(MCDM in short) has become one of the most important and fastest growing
subfields of Operations Research and Management Science. It started in the Second
World War with the contribution of Kantorovich and continued with the modern
MCDM, under the influences of the Utility Theory in a first instance and Multiple
Objective Mathematical Programming as a second stream of influence. There is
plenty of literature that examines and analyzes the MCDM timeline as a discipline.
Although there is a clear advance of the MCDM field with the incorporation of
new methods, the discipline that analyzes MCDM processes has evolved in a way
that might indicate that the roots of its own existence have been forgotten, by not
considering some critical aspects that are key in the correct interpretation of a
scenario, and regardless which method is used. The author of this book observed
that under the comfortable “umbrella” of continuity, there is an incessant number of
MCDM methods that are not restricted by any kind of normative or protocol to guide
them, nor to assure the quality of the assessment.
As a result of the above, the author wants to put in evidence an old claim of many
scholars in MCDM who are worried about the issue that, for a same problem,
MCDM methods deliver different results, anomaly that is known as the “Decision-
Making Paradox.” Although, this only represents a technical problem that, of course
deserves attention, it arises other elemental questions like “Are all existing MCDM
methods valid to solve all kind of problems?” However, there is no procedure in the
MCDM field to guide the DM in this quandary.
One wonders whether it is possible to decommission or discontinue this current
pattern, by proposing as an alternative a structured decision process more in line with
actual requirements of MCDM scenarios and especially with reality, some sort of a
framework within which the MCDM techniques have to be applied. Our motivation
for this book derives from this point, in the sense that current MCDM methods seem
ix
x Introduction
to be more concerned with the mathematics behind their application than from an
accurate application of the MCDM principia as a discipline.
Therefore, the objective of this book is twofold: First, to highlight the need for a
larger debate on some critical issues regarding the application of MCDM methods,
and as a second objective it aims at providing the reader a strategic, practical, and
structured guide to deal with multiple and complex scenarios. To address these
significant issues, the book proposes an innovative procedure.
Keeping in mind the previous objectives, this author will not go further in this
direction of current MCDM process. Instead, our line of reasoning focuses on the
immobility that affects the discipline regarding some structural aspects.
Consequently, this author believes that it is necessary to innovate, to look for new
ways to solve the same problems differently and more efficiently.
In this respect, just as almost everyone could agree with this introductory
paragraph, it is highly probable that all scholars of MCDM would also agree with
the fact that, at present, the essence of these methods is governed by mathematical
procedures and subjective assumptions, being the latter something inherent to the
human being, and by ignoring many aspects that are present in a scenario.
The author will come back to this critical point later on. Instead, our main concern
is rooted in the origins of the structural pillars that give coverage to one assumption
that, in many cases, is taken for granted. It refers to the supposed rational reasoning
of the Decision Maker (DM) in the process of defining criteria and weighting them in
order to select alternatives or scenarios, which later can provoke other problems such
as the above mentioned. If the MCDM process is supposed to provide support to the
DM and avoiding subjectivity, then it is worth to provide the DM with techniques or
methods that keep away, as far as possible, the possibility of introducing value
judgments that may not represent reality.
It is not said that the MCDM process is based only on good data and on a
mathematical procedure, and then leaving the DM in a secondary role. This book
considers the DM as the most important element of the MCDM process and aims to
put him/her where is most needed, in time and in form. In the author’s opinion, the
DM is most needed at the end of the process, examining results, analyzing conse-
quences that the best alternative must generate, and providing stakeholders with a
wide spectrum of different possibilities, and especially risks, that may jeopardize the
best selection due to subjective assumptions and uncertain data.
Two main concepts have been explained so far, but not enough highlighted:
It was said that this book is mainly strategic and that MCDM process had to
provide techniques to the DM. Based on these concepts, a question arises: Is it
supposed that the DM must provide useful and strategic information to stakeholders?
The answer to this obvious question is one of the principal contributions of this book
and probably its largest strategic value. This work delivers a free software for
modelling complex scenarios which incorporates an innovative sensitivity analysis
(SA) that to the author’s knowledge has never been developed. The output of this SA
gives strategic answers to the decision-making process.
Related to these complex scenarios, this book does not provide the reader with a
procedure, as the typical manual that explains, step by step, what have to be done to
Introduction xi
solve a problem; instead, it describes what should be done to tackle some classical
problems, and to consider reality which is, in essence, a complex scenario. This is the
main and perhaps more important pillar of the book, and it is performed by building a
frame of reference for the description of the problem and its alternatives, as objective
as possible.
The book acknowledges that decision-making is to a large extent a subjective
affaire. It recognizes that it is very necessary because the different mathematical
methods are only tools and not designed to give solutions, but to support and help the
DM, who can use this tool to make a rational and documented decision. The word
“documented” is key, since acting on results the DM has a solid base on which base
his decisions. This is why we think that the DM’s crucial role is at the end of the
process, not at the beginning, as is normal nowadays.
Linked to this, it cannot be lost in sight the fact that a problem is surrounded by a
series of elements and collateral elements that the DM cannot leave aside when
modelling reality, as well as the reality of the problem. Consequently, we want to
bring up again the need to address scenarios in their full complexity, considering the
circumstances and the collateral elements it is composed of. This book, with
practical foundations, provides the reader with a template as a guidance to reflect,
as much as possible, complex scenarios, and this is one point that we understand is
missing in the present-day MCDM modelling.
As a bottom line, this book highlights the idea of a systemic representation of the
problem if the aim is to keep it as close to the reality as possible. As it was mentioned
above, obtaining different solutions to the same problem is an uneasiness for many
MCDM scholars since its reasons have not been thoroughly explained or under-
stood, and let alone solved, although it is revealed on many occasions. Sometimes,
the different solutions are due to considering different types of weights for criteria or
by ignoring interrelations between criteria, or by parceling out a problem.
This book could be classified as a practical guide because certain concepts or
situations are explained in a simple way and those explanations are accompanied by
numerous examples to be able to support them, but in addition it aims to work with a
new paradigm in MCDM.
The book is structured in three clearly different parts. The first one is devoted to
exploring through the history and development of the discipline and the way it is
performed nowadays. It specifically involves Chaps. 1 and 2. Included in this part,
the book highlights those drawbacks and problems that scholars have identified in
the different MCDM methods and techniques. As indicated above, the motivation to
raise this aspect is to provoke the necessary debate on the validity of the theoretical
pillars that sustain the discipline, considering the generalized absence of representing
reality.
The second part of the book includes Chaps. 3–5 and with the intention of
answering an important question: What should be done to assure a quality MCDM
process? The purpose is to offer a theoretical response to the drawbacks identified in
the first part.
Finally, the third part encompasses Chaps. 6–12 and is devoted to introduce and
explain in a simple language and using graphic aids the Linear Programming concept
xii Introduction
and the SIMUS method, based on Linear Programming, as the new toolkit that is
suggested to deal with MCDM process. In Chap. 8, it is analyzed and wholly
exemplified a new procedure for sensitivity analysis, which is always of the utmost
importance in decision-making. As in most parts of the book, the explained proce-
dure is innovative and based on sound mathematical principles. It provides examples
that sustain what was said above about the kind of information that
stakeholders need.
Chapter 9 is devoted to Group Decision-Making using SIMUS. An actual and
complex example is provided together with a simulation of debate amongst members
of the group. The system is based on a progressive analysis of the scenario by
sequentially addressing each objective, considering potential changes and examining
their applicability or not, measured by quantified values.
Chapter 10 tackles a very important aspect; it is related to selecting the best
strategy and using the very well-known SWOT (Strength, Weakness, Opportunities,
and Threats) technique. It is exemplified by a complex and actual scenario, and the
result quantitatively selects the best strategy, and so doing it is a step forward, since
SWOT finishes by determining the SWOT matrix of strategies, but not selecting the
best one.
Chapter 11 analyzes the reasons for lack of agreement amongst results from
different methods and proposes the use of a proxy method which would allow to
determine the closest solution to the proxy.
Chapter 12 is some sort of tutorial that simulates receiving 101 different queries
and responding them.
Chapter 13 addresses best practices in MCDM.
Chapter 14 details and solves real-life complex scenarios in different fields.
Finally, in the appendix, the theory of linear programming is explained in tabular
format for easy comprehension. It is completed with a very important issue, since it
demonstrates through eight different examples that SIMUS is not subject to rank
reversal.
Prologue to this Second Edition
Springer Nature, considering the interest for this book’s first edition (2019), decided
to launch a second edition revised and considerably expanded.
The first edition is oriented to the theory of MCDM, by analyzing, discussing in
depth, and illustrating every component of this discipline, aiming for the practitioner
to have a clear understanding, and be able to tackle many different problems or
scenarios, examinations of results, and their analysis. In other words, it gives the
knowledge of what to do.
This second edition is in reality a tutorial that explains how to proceed.
It starts with Chap. 12, which is a novelty in technical books, since it simulates
receiving questions and consultations from students, practitioners, and MCDM
professors, about many different aspects of this discipline. There are about
100 questions.
This second edition simulates receiving questions of the most diverse type and
answers them in three stages: (1) Explanation of the meaning and scope of the
question, (2) Real-world application example, and (3) Discussion. In this way, the
requester acquires a complete knowledge.
Not all queries receive the same treatment, mainly due to its relative importance,
and may be a couple of lines, while others take many pages, with tables and graphics
and screen capture of results.
This author is transferring in this chapter 30+ years’ experience in studying and
solving MCDM problems and situations. There is no doubt that people, mainly
students and practitioners, have many questions when they are in need of solving a
problem using MCDM. This is the purpose of Chap. 12; the 100 questions are not
only answered, but also explained, and in many cases, illustrated with the modelling
and solving of complex real-life scenarios. The questions involve all aspects
of MCDM.
Chapter 13 is devoted to modelling, the most important steps in MCDM, while
Chap. 14 heavily draws from more than 60 papers written by this author and
addresses and enlarges capital points on the themes treated in the first 11 chapters
of the book.
xiii
Contents
Part I Theory and Analysis of MCDM Problems: History of MCDM

and How It Is Performed
1 Multi-criteria Decision-Making, Evolution, and Characteristics . . . 3
1.1 History and Evolution of Multi-criteria Decision-Making
Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1.1 Some Background Information on Decision-Making . . 3
1.2 Introduction to Most Common and Used Heuristic Methods . . . 7
1.3 The Decision-Making Paradox . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
1.4 Which Is the Best MCDM Method? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
1.5 Considering and Modelling Reality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
1.6 Is It Possible to Represent Reality Faithfully? . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
1.7 Conclusion of This Chapter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2 The Initial Decision Matrix and Its Relation with Modelling
a Scenario . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
2.1 Basic Components of the Initial MCDM Decision Matrix . . . . 15
2.1.1 Stakeholders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
2.1.2 Decision-Maker or Group of DMs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
2.1.3 Objective/s That the Scenario Must Attain . . . . . . . . 16
2.1.4 Scenario/s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
2.1.5 Alternatives, Projects or Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
2.1.6 Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
2.1.6.1 Areas Included in Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . 17
2.1.6.2 Capacity of Criteria to Evaluate
Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
2.1.6.3 Actions for Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
2.1.6.4 Resources and Restrictions for Criteria . . 23
2.1.7 Performance Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
2.1.8 Decision Matrix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
2.1.9 Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
xv
xvi Contents
2.2 Routines to Perform with Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

2.2.1 Normalization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
2.3 Rank Reversal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
2.3.1 Possible Causes for RR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
2.3.2 Brief Information on Rank Reversal in Different
MCDM Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
2.3.2.1 Rank Reversal in AHP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
2.3.2.2 Rank Reversal in TOPSIS . . . . . . . . . . . 31
2.3.2.3 Rank Reversal in PROMETHEE . . . . . . 31
2.3.2.4 Rank Reversal in ELECTRE . . . . . . . . . 31
2.3.2.5 Rank Reversal in SAW . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
2.4 The Uncertain Best Solution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
2.5 Characteristics of Components of the Initial Decision Matrix . . 32
2.5.1 The MCDM Process as a System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
2.5.2 Alternatives Relationships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
2.5.3 Alternatives Heavily Related: A Case—Selecting
Proposals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
2.5.4 Including and Excluding Alternatives—Conditions
by a Third Party . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
2.5.4.1 Actual Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
2.5.5 Forced Alternatives—An Actual Case: Fulfillment
of Previous Commitments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
2.5.6 Criteria Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
2.5.7 Resources—An Actual Case: Oil Refinery . . . . . . . . 38
2.5.8 Criteria Range . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
2.5.9 Annual Budget Restriction—An Actual Case: Five
Yrs Development Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
2.5.10 Criteria Correlation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
2.5.11 Risk: A Fundamental Criterion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
2.5.12 Examining Differences in Results for the Same
Problem Between Assumed Weights and Weights
from Entropy: Case Study—Electrical Transmission
Line . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
2.5.13 Working with a Variety of Performance Values—An
Actual Case: Environmental Indicators . . . . . . . . . . . 46
2.5.14 The “Z” Method for Determining Some Performance
Values for Qualitative Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
2.5.15 The Z Matrix—CASE STUDY: Determining Risk
Performance Values for Inputting in Risk Criteria . . . 48
2.5.16 Need to Work with Performance Values Derived from
another Data Table . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
2.5.17 Conditioning the Decision Matrix to Obtain a Specified
Number of Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
2.6 Additional Conditions Required for Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
2.7 Sensitivity Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
2.7.1 The Two Types of Sensibility Analysis . . . . . . . . . . 53
Contents xvii
2.7.2 A Critical Analysis of the Way Sensitivity Analysis

Is Performed Nowadays . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
Part II Theory and Analysis of MCDM Problems: What Can Be Done

by Using the MCDM Process?
3 How to Shape Multiple Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
3.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
3.2 Developing the Best Strategy: Case Study—Selecting Projects
for Agribusiness Activities in Different Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . 65
3.3 Solving the Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
4 The Decision-Maker, a Vital Component of the Decision-Making
Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
4.1 Decision-Maker (DM) Functions—Interpretation of Reality . . . 73
4.1.1 First Level: Building the Initial Decision Matrix . . . . 73
4.1.2 Second Level: Selecting a Method to Use . . . . . . . . . 76
4.1.3 Third Level: Following the Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
4.1.4 Fourth Level: Examining the Result . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
4.1.5 Synergy Between the DM and the Method . . . . . . . . 79
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
5 Design of a Decision-Making Method Reality-Wise: How Should
it Be Done? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
5.1 Modelling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
5.2 Interpreting Reality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
5.2.1 Areas Where Reality Is Not in General Interpreted . . . 86
5.2.1.1 Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
5.2.1.2 Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
5.2.1.3 Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
5.2.1.4 Performance Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
5.2.1.5 Results Delivered by MCDM Methods . . 89
5.3 Check List for Aspects to Be Normally Considered When
Modelling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
5.4 Working Template for Modeling a Scenario in MCDM and for
Selecting a Method to Solve it . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
xviii Contents
Part III Theory and Analysis of MCDM Problems: Proposes SIMUS as

a Strategic Procedure to Tackle Real-World Scenarios
6 Linear Programming Fundamentals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
6.1 Basic Mathematical Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
6.2 The Initial Decision Matrix (IDM) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
6.3 Solving the LP Problem Graphically: Case Study—Power Plant
Based on Solar Radiation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104
6.4 The Two Sides of a Coin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
6.5 Description of the Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108
6.6 Graphical Explanation of Correlation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
6.7 Is Rank Reversal Present in Linear Programming? . . . . . . . . . . 115
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116
7 The SIMUS Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
7.1 Background Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118
7.2 How SIMUS Works—Case Study: Power Plant Based on Solar
Radiation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120
7.2.1 Normalization by SIMUS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126
7.3 SIMUS Application Example: Case Study—Power Plant Based
on Solar Radiation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127
7.4 Special Circumstances . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131
7.4.1 Ties in Scores . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131
7.4.2 Need to Use Formulae for Performance Factors . . . . 132
7.4.3 Errors in the Decision Matrix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135
7.4.4 Dealing with Non-linear Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136
7.5 Is SIMUS Affected by Rank Reversal? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138
7.6 Testing SIMUS in Rank Reversal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138
7.6.1 Case 1: Investment in Renewable Sources
of Energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139
7.6.2 Case 2: Rehabilitation of Abandoned Urban Land . . . 142
7.6.3 Case 3: Determining Sustainable Indicators . . . . . . . 143
7.7 Solving Multi Scenarios Simultaneously . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148
7.7.1 Analysis of Global Solution—What to Produce and
where? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148
7.7.2 What Projects Go into Each Scenario . . . . . . . . . . . . 150
7.8 Conclusion of this Chapter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152
8 Sensitivity Analysis by SIMUS: The IOSA Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . 155
8.1.1 Example - Agroindustry for Export . . . . . . . . . . . . 157
8.2 Data that the DM Must Input in IOSA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160
8.3 DM Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162
Contents xix
8.4 Sequence for Sensitivity Analysis by SIMUS/IOSA . . . . . . . . . 164

8.5 Report to Stakeholders: Type of Concerns and Questions
Expressed by the Stakeholders Relative to this Production
Problem and DM Answers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167
9 Group Decision-Making Case Study: Highway Construction . . . . . 169
9.2 Construction of the Decision Matrix: A Case – Construction
of a Highway in China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170
9.3 Loading Data into SIMUS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172
9.4 Step-by-Step Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174
9.5 Detailed Analysis by the Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174
9.5.1 First Objective (Minimize Construction Cost) . . . . . . 174
9.5.2 Second Objective (Minimize Maintenance Cost) . . . . 176
9.5.3 Third Objective (Minimize Delays in Transit) . . . . . . 177
9.5.4 Four Objective (Maximize Safety) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 178
9.5.5 Fifth Objective (Maximize Lighting) . . . . . . . . . . . . 178
9.5.6 Six Objectives (Minimizes Breaking Connectivity
Between Areas Due to the Highway) . . . . . . . . . . . . 179
9.5.7 Seventh Objective (Minimize Construction Time) . . . 180
9.5.8 Eighth Objective (Environmental Impacts) . . . . . . . . 180
9.5.9 Ninth Objective (Minimize Traffic Noise) . . . . . . . . 181
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 184
10 SIMUS Applied to Quantify SWOT Strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185
10.1 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185
10.2 Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 186
10.3 Application Example: Case Study—Strategy for Fabricating
Electric Cars . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189
10.4 Construction of the Numerical SWOT Matrix . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190
10.4.1 Market and Government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190
10.5 Preparing an Excel Matrix with Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194
10.6 Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 196
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198
11 Analysis of Lack of Agreement Between MCDM Methods Related to
the Solution of a Problem: Proposing a Methodology for Comparing
Methods to a Reference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199
11.1 Objective of this Section . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199
11.2 Causes for Discrepancies on Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201
11.3 Subjective Preferences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201
11.3.1 Subjective Weights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201
xx Contents
11.3.2 Objective Weights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 202

11.3.3 Inconsistencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203
11.3.4 Evaluating Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 204
11.3.5 The Proxy Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 204
11.3.6 Selecting a MCDM Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205
11.3.7 The DM Role . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207
11.3.8 What MCDM Method Can Be Chosen as a Proxy? . . 207
11.3.9 Measuring Similitude Between Rankings . . . . . . . . . 209
11.3.10 Example as How Rankings Can Be Compared . . . . . 211
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 214
Part IV Practice of Problem Solving Using MCDM: Support for

Practitioners
12 Support and Guidance to Practitioners by Simulation of Questions
Formulated by Readers and Detailed Answers and Examples . . . . . 219
12.1 Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 224
12.2 Sequence of the MCDM Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 230
12.3 Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 267
12.4 Resources and Limits for Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 281
12.5 Performance Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 282
12.6 Normalization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 289
12.7 Group Decision Making . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 290
12.8 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 291
12.9 SWOT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 299
12.10 Sensitivity Analysis (SA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 300
12.11 Role of the Decision-Maker (DM) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 302
13 Best Practices: Modelling and Sensitivity Analysis in MCDM . . . . . 305
13.1 The SIMUS Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 305
13.2 Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 306
13.2.1 Composite Indexes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 306
13.2.2 Macro Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 308
13.2.3 Strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 308
13.2.4 Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 309
13.2.5 Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 309
13.2.6 Performance Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 310
13.2.7 Attributes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 310
13.2.8 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 311
13.2.9 Weights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 311
13.2.10 Sensitivity Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 311
13.3 Modelling and the Role of Stakeholders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 312
13.4 Areas Where SIMUS Has Been Used . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 312
13.5 Comments and Advices in Black, Examples in Italics . . . . . . . 314
Contents xxi
13.6 Recommendations to Practitioners . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 317

13.7 Complex and Complicated Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 317
13.7.1 Background Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 318
13.7.2 Aspects to Consider by the DM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 320
13.7.2.1 Data Acquisition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 320
13.7.2.2 Criteria Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 320
13.7.2.3 Weights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 323
13.7.2.4 Criteria Units . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 323
13.7.2.5 Criteria Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 325
13.7.2.6 Cardinal Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 325
13.7.2.7 Selecting a Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 325
13.7.2.8 Working with a Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . 326
13.7.2.9 Difficulties than May Be Encountered
in Interpreting a Solution . . . . . . . . . . . . 326
13.7.2.10 Role of Sensitivity Analysis . . . . . . . . . . 328
13.8 Using SIMUS for Decision-Making . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 329
13.9 Analyzing Variations in Criteria Limits (RHS) . . . . . . . . . . . . 333
13.10 Analyzing Variations in Alternatives Scores . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 335
13.11 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 337
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 337
14 Some Complex and Uncommon Cases Solved by SIMUS . . . . . . . . 339
14.1 Case Study: Simultaneous Multiple Contractors’ Selection for a
Large Construction Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 339
14.1.2 The Case: Construction of a Large Power Plant . . . . 341
14.1.3 Conclusion of this Case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 350
14.2 Case Study: Quantitative Evaluation of Government Policies
Regarding Penetration of Advanced Technologies . . . . . . . . . . 350
14.2.2 Process Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 351
14.2.3 The Case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 352
14.2.4 Analysis of Different Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 360
14.2.5 Conclusion of This Case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 361
14.3 Case Study: Selecting Hydroelectric Projects in Central Asia . . 361
14.4 Case Study: Community Infrastructure Upgrading for Villages
in Ghana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 364
14.4.2 Areas and Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 365
14.4.2.1 Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 368
14.4.3 Conclusion for This Case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 369
14.5 Case Study: Urban Development Study for the Extended Urban
Zone of Guadalajara, According to Sustainability Indicators,
Mexico . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 370
xxii Contents

14.5.1.1 Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 371
14.5.1.2 Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 372
14.5.1.3 Project by Municipalities Considering . . . 373
14.5.1.4 Projects that Are Shared for more than One
Municipality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 373
14.5.1.5 Maximum Amounts Available for
Municipality Considering . . . . . . . . . . . . 374
14.5.1.6 Result . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 374
14.6 Case Study: Selection of the Best Route Between an Airport and
the City Downtown . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 376
14.6.2 The Case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 377
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 380
Appendix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 381
The Simplex Algorithm: Its Analysis—Progressive Partial Solutions . . 381
Demonstration of Absence of Rank Reversal in SIMUS . . . . . . . . . . . . 386
Solving a Problem with SIMUS Software . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 387
Adding an Exact Copy of an Existing Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . 388
Adding Project 6 “Worse” than Others . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 389
Adding New Project x7 Keeping Project x6 and
with x3 = x6 = x7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 390
Adding a New Project Identical to Other and Simultaneously
Adding Another Considered the Best . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 391
Deleting Project from the Original . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 391
Summary of Scenarios and Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 392
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 395
Reference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 397
Part I
Theory and Analysis of MCDM
Problems: History of MCDM and
How It Is Performed
Chapter 1
Multi-criteria Decision-Making, Evolution,
and Characteristics
Abstract This chapter deals with the commencement, history, and evolution of
multi-criteria decision-making process. It gives the reader a bird’s-eye glance of the
birth, development, and present-day status of this discipline, which is nowadays
taught in most technical universities around the world. Its purpose is to make the
reader aware of why it was conceived and developed and what can a practitioner
expect from it. It mentions the main actors and their roles, as well as enumerates the
factors or aspects that need to be considered.
1.1 History and Evolution of Multi-criteria

Decision-Making Methods
1.1.1 Some Background Information on Decision-Making
Decision-making is as old as civilization; however, we can identify with the name

the reason for the beginning of the scientific procedure. Benjamin Franklin devised
in the eighteenth century a system of using a list with two entries and then assigning
weights, the latter still largely used today. He wrote, in a letter to Joseph Priestly, on
September 1772:
My way is to divide half a sheet of paper by a line into two columns; writing over the one Pro
and over the other Con. Then during three- or four-days’ consideration, I put down under the
different heads short hints of the different motives, that at different time occur to me, for or
against the measure. When I have thus got them altogether in one view, I endeavor to
estimate their respective weights; and where I find two, one on each side, that seem equal, I
strike them both out. If I judge some two reasons con equal to some three reasons pro, I strike
out five; and thus proceeding, I find where the balance lies; and if after a day or two of further
consideration, nothing new that is of importance occurs on either side, I come to a
determination accordingly.
It is interesting that this scientist used the word “balance,” which precisely is what
MCDM heuristic methods do; that is, instead of optimizing results, which most of
© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2024 3

N. Munier, Strategic Approach in Multi-Criteria Decision Making, International
Series in Operations Research & Management Science 351,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-44453-1_1
4 1 Multi-criteria Decision-Making, Evolution, and Characteristics
the time is impossible, they aim at finding a consensus, agreement or compromise

among all the intervening parties in a project selection.
The series of issues conducted with the actual methods is as follows:
Thurstone introduced the pair-wise comparison system for measurements, which
he referred to as the law of comparative judgment (Wikipedia). This is a fundamental
procedure and is used for most decision-making methods.
In its origins projects were selected using measurements or indicators such as the
net present value (NPV), that is, discounting the after-tax cash flows by the weighted
average cost of capital method, which possibly started in the early 1900s.
Another metric is the internal rate of return (IRR), which is the interest rate at
which the net present value of all the cash flows (both positive and negative) from a
project or investment equals zero, which probably originated at the same time as the
NPV metric.
Another standard is the benefit–cost ratio (B/C), that is, the relationship between
the net present value of the benefits cash flow and the negative cash flow, both at a
certain discount rate.
There are more indicators, but these are the most significant. For instance, another
very important is the payback period (PB), which expresses the time elapsed until the
investment is recovered.
All of them led to an economic and financial analysis and were the only methods
used to select projects by comparing their respective indicators; the higher, the
better.
However, projects involve and are dependent on many more factors than money.
Most important are social issues such as people’s welfare, disposable income, public
health, and education, as well as environment, resources, sustainability, externalities
(i.e., goods and actions that do not have a market value), etc. An example of the last
one is the erosion produced by logging when reforesting does not follow. Erosion
means loss of fertile soil, and it can lead not only to the destruction of the natural
capital of a country but also to catastrophic consequences when heavy rains loosen
rocks and produce large quantities of mud, which can destroy populations along their
way because there are no barriers to stop it. This is an aspect normally not considered
when analyzing forestry projects; the same for air, soil, and water contamination,
mineral depletion, etc.
It goes without saying that no social problems or environmental issues were
considered in the early times.
Probably the most significant scientific approach to decision-making took place
during the WWII. At that time, the most important objective for the Russian
government was to win the war against the Germans that had invaded their territory.
Russia is a country of unaccountable natural wealth in people, science, fuels, and
minerals, as well as utilities like transportation and electricity generation and in
manufacturing (especially war equipment, at that moment), food production, etc., all
of them vital for the war effort. However, there were priorities since some resources
were more important than others, and then it was crucial, since time was of the
essence, to determine which of the resources should be developed with the highest
potential with this objective in mind.
1.1 History and Evolution of Multi-criteria Decision-Making Methods 5
For that reason, the Russian government commissioned Leonid Kantorovich, a

multifaceted Russian engineer, mathematician, and economist, to determine or select
the optimal mix of resources and utilities that should be developed to maximize the
war effort. His work gave birth to linear programming (LP), an algebraic procedure
that could do the job, and it did. After the war in 1975, he and Tjalling Koopmans, an
American economist of Dutch origin, were awarded the Nobel Prize in Economics
for “His theories on the optimal assignment of scarce resources.” Among his books
are Mathematical Methods for Organization and Production (1939), Contribution to
the Theory of Optimal Allocation of Resources (1959), and Optimal Solution in
Economy (1972).
The system worked well and most probably contributed to a large extent to the
Russian Army advance and victory over the German Army by providing food,
clothing, and weapons, but it was exceedingly complex and time-consuming in a
time when computers did not exist.
Both scientists paved the road for the birth of multi-criteria decision-making
(MCDM), where a set of alternatives are subject to compliance with a set of criteria.
The better an alternative matches the criteria requirements, the better. For this
reason, MCDM can be defined as the process of selecting one of several courses
of action, alternatives or options, which must simultaneously satisfy many different
conflicting and even contradictory criteria.
In 1948, the American physicist and mathematician, George Dantzig, created an
algorithm called Simplex, which turned feasible the solution of complex LP prob-
lems in selecting the best and optimal solution. In the early l990s, the American Dan
Fylstra, a pioneer in the early software products, with a main role in the development
of the legendary VISICALC, the first spreadsheet program, developed the software
for the Simplex algorithm, which is since 1991 an add-in of Excel and then available
to everybody with the Microsoft Office loaded in his/her computer.
Probably in the mid-twentieth century, researchers and practitioners working on
project selection and without a doubt also motivated by social organizations such as
the United Nations, the World Bank, and many others began to realize that the
system based on the abovementioned financial technologies completely ignored
social aspects such as people relocation and effects on population due to new
projects, as well as people health related to them, and that no significance was
given to their contamination to air, soil, and water, because they neither considered
aspects such as sustainability and externalities, such as, deforestation and erosion,
nor depletion of aquifers.
They realized that LP, which at that time (and still at present) was heavily used,
could be advantageously utilized for selecting projects considering social, military,
supply, storage, capacities, environmental issues, etc. That is, because of the effect
and benefits that LP and Dantzig algorithm was having in thousands of large
industries such as oil refineries, food production, transportation networks, and
personal assignment, researchers started to see that now they had a tool that could
address projects that were subject to many more objectives than only economics.
Therefore, LP had a boost in popularity. However, LP has a serious drawback
because it can work with as many criteria as wished, maximizing and minimizing
them, but it can manage only one objective at a time; however, projects normally
must deal with different objectives at the same time, which can also be contradictory.
However, LP looks for complete objective data and results, ignoring the subjec-
tive component of the decision-making process, and as a consequence, the position
and expertise of the DM were minimized, to say the least. In this respect, Buchanan
et al. (1998) opine that “The role of the decision-maker is downplayed and the
method is depicted as an objective entity.”
For this reason, researchers tried to develop heuristic1 methods where optimality
was not the goal but to find a compromising solution and thus satisfying stake-
holders, society, and the environment and not only choosing the best alternative but
also generating a ranking of alternatives.
The reader may be wondering why to also select other alternatives in descending
importance once the best alternative is found.
The reason lies in the fact that alternatives chosen are a consequence of data
inputted and a mathematical calculus. However, sometimes, the best alternative is
not the most appropriate bearing in mind factors that cannot be considered in the
modelling, because they are exogenous to the scenario, most probably uncertain, and
very difficult to model. For instance, if a company is manufacturing a series of
products that sells nationally and internationally, there are factors such as govern-
ment policies, competition, and international demand that are exogenous to produc-
tion and marketing.
In this context it could be that the best-selected alternative is very sensitive to
variations of some exogenous variables, such as demand, and then its variation
within certain limits can cause that best alternative is no longer the best, while the
second best alternative, for instance, could not be affected. This is the reason why a
MCDM problem, once a solution is obtained, must be evaluated considering the
sensitivity point of view, using what is called “Sensitivity Analysis.”
This is not new since also in the early days of using financial indicators, a
sensitivity analysis also had to be performed, for instance, to determine how an
increase in bank interest rates could influence a selected project; however, nowadays
it is considered much more complicated because of the different factors that
intervene.
Here, we need to introduce a fundamental component of the MCDM process, the
decision-maker (DM), who oversees stakeholders’ wishes and demands in designing
and preparing a mathematical method with those requirements (called the decision
matrix). He is also responsible for selecting the criteria, choosing the method to be
used to solve it, and interpreting and analyzing the results based on his expertise,
examining the exogenous factors that can affect the best alternative, and then making
his/her recommendations to stakeholders. Naturally, these results and
1
In computer science, artificial intelligence, and mathematical optimization, a heuristic (from Greek
εὑρίσκω “I find, discover”) is a technique designed for solving a problem more quickly when
classic methods are too slow, or for finding an approximate solution when classic methods fail to
find any exact solution. This is achieved by trading optimality, completeness, accuracy, or precision
for speed. In a way, it can be considered a shortcut (Wikipedia).
1.2 Introduction to Most Common and Used Heuristic Methods 7
recommendations must rest on solid grounds, and the DM should be prepared to

answer the questions that without a doubt will formulate stakeholders.
1.2 Introduction to Most Common and Used Heuristic

Methods
In this book, the following expressions are used:

Problem: General name for a set of projects, alternatives, options, and strategies
that an entity wants to pursue. The entity may be a company, a building developer,
the government, the military, health and educational institutions, software compa-
nies, municipal offices, etc., that is, whoever is interested in building or manufactur-
ing something tangible (bridges, buildings, cars, computers, software, etc.) or
intangible (improve disposable income, ameliorate people living conditions, reduce
crime, etc.).
Scenario: It is the generic denomination for a certain problem; however, it
includes all the factors that are related to it.
Model: It refers to building or modelling the initial data in a decision matrix,
which is a mathematical method.
Method: It addresses the different MCDM processes, routines, and techniques
used to solve the method.
The first heuristic method for decision-making was developed in Europe in 1965
by Bernard Roy and called ELECTRE. It is the French acronym for “ELimination Et
Choix Traduisant la Realité,” or in English, “Elimination and Choice Expressing
Reality.” It is widely known as a product of the French school. It belongs to the
outranking category methods in decision-making. By outranking, it is understood
that there is a strong enough argument to support a conclusion that a is at least as
good as b and not a strong argument to the contrary (Belton & Stewart, 2002).
There are several versions aiming at different objectives.
The PROMETHEE method, “Preference Ranking Organization Method for
Enrichment Evaluation,” also originated in Europe, was introduced by Brans and
Mareschal (1986). It also adopted the outranking procedure. It has an interesting
visual feature (GAIA), which is a geometrical analysis for interactive aid.
Fuzzy sets and fuzzy logic were introduced by Zadeh (1965), an engineer,
computer scientist, and mathematician. This theory was further applied to
decision-making; however, this technique, which essentially tries to reduce uncer-
tainty, is not a MCDM method, and therefore it does not solve this kind of problem;
however, it has been widely used in conjunction with many different MCDM
methods.
This author believes that even considering the importance of using fuzzy logic in
MCDM, it is being misused because very often the procedure is inputted with low,
medium, and high values that come from subjective appreciations.
To this respect, use fuzzy logic in railways performance analysis, but they input
the technique with data of low and high values obtained using SIMUS and, conse-
quently, mathematically correct since they are based on reliable data.
Oprocovic (1980) developed VIKOR, an acronym in Serbian for
“VIseKriterijumska Optimizacija I Kompromisno Resenje,” in English,
“Multicriteria Optimization and Compromise Solution.” It also can work with
fuzzy logic.
Hwang and Yoon (1981) developed “The Technique for Order of Preference by
Similarity to Ideal Solution”—TOPSIS. It assumes that there are both an ideal
positive and an ideal negative solution and tries to find a result that has the shortest
geometric distance to the ideal positive and the longest to the negative.
The “Analytical Hierarchy Process,” AHP, introduced by Saaty (1980), is based
on the additive concept established by earlier methods such as MAUT. AHP
generates weights for criteria and for alternatives, the first fundamental to compute
the second. For weights extraction, the method uses the eigenvalue method based on
pair-wise comparisons between criteria. Values in the decision matrix represent DM
preferences.
Fuzzy logic is employed in AHP and in other methods; however, most scholars,
including Saaty, do not sustain this procedure since AHP is fuzzy by itself.
Munier (2011) developed SIMUS “Sequential Interactive Method for Urban
Systems.” The method is grounded on LP and selects alternatives based on oppor-
tunity costs, which are derived from the data. One feature is that it produces two
solutions for the same problem from the same data using two different procedures;
however, both solutions give the same ranking.
It is important to mention that not always a DM builds the decision matrix; in
some scenarios, because of their complexity, there is a group of DMs that after an
agreement produce the necessary data.
1.3 The Decision-Making Paradox
Since the development and implementation of methods in the 1960s to solve multi-
criteria problems, researchers have been puzzled by the fact that different mathe-
matical approaches to solve this kind of scenario produce different results. Probably,
nowadays it can be asserted that this is due to the fact that decision-making is in a
large extent a subjective problem and that explains that starting from the same initial
matrix, using mathematical tools, and looking for the same objective results are
different.
As far as this author’s knowledge, there is not at present a rule or procedure that
can be applied to solve this quandary and maybe never will.
Just to clarify this issue, assume a certain scenario and proceed by:
• Building the decision matrix and using it as the starting point for different
methods,
1.3 The Decision-Making Paradox 9
• Selecting the objective to achieve,

• Assuming that all methods follow mathematical principles,
In so doing it is logical to expect that results or rankings must be very close from
one method to another; however, in checking the results, most probably one will see
that there are different solutions or rankings, even for different versions of the same
method. This has been called “The decision-making paradox” (Triantaphyllou,
2000).
Many researchers and practitioners have commented and detected this paradox;
however, not a uniform response is recorded. This circumstance appears weird
because if all methods start with the same data, use mathematical procedures, and
aim at the same objective, why results are different?
According to this author’s opinion, the reason, among others, is that each method
has a dosage of subjectivity related with DM preferences, and not all DMs are on the
same issue. Consequently, for the same problem, a DM in AHP, for instance, gets
weights for criteria that are a product of his preferences, while weights for a DM
working with PROMETHEE are extracted by other means, for example, using
Monte Carlo, Delphi, or any other method.
In addition, the same DM in AHP quantifies his preferences using a ratio scale
(the Saaty Fundamental Scale) (1980), while the DM in PROMETHEE uses his own
judgment for thresholds and preference functions, which are based on statistics.
Another DM working with ELECTRE IV employs no weights, and one more DM in
TOPSIS draws on a geometric distance of his preference. There are also methods that
generate their own weights based on data and, therefore, objective.
After examining hundreds of published works on a myriad of different scenarios
and using various MCDM methods, and naturally, assuming that mathematics in
several methods is correct, this author believes that discrepancies are produced in
three main areas, namely, modelling, DM subjectivity at several levels, and wrong
use of criteria weights.
Since it is apparent that differences emerge because of subjective judgment, it
appears rational to think that a solution to this problem could be using methods
without subjectivity, for instance, not employing assumed weights for criteria.
However, this might be unrealistic since most probably in a certain problem the
significance or importance of one criterion normally is perceived as different from
another, and this is important.
This book proposes solving MCDM scenarios without weights; however, it does
not mean not considering the criteria’s relative importance. Far from it, the differ-
ence is that weights should be employed only when the DM reckons that they are
necessary in some criteria, and this is done when a first tentative weightless solution
has been reached, that is, at the end of the mathematical process, not at the beginning
as is performed nowadays.
The assignment of these weights will be then based on solid grounds and in the
same conditions for all methods and when the DM, according to his experience,
believes that the importance of a certain criterion has not been considered. Once the
correction is done, the method is run again, and results are compared. It could very
well be that this second run yields the same result, thus meaning that the weighted
criterion is not as significant as thought. This is some sort of trial-and-error process
that can be repeated as many times as necessary, and at the end the DM may be
assured that his corrections are correct.
The difference is radical, since with this procedure the DM is acting and putting
his experience to work on unbiased results. This is also the principle proposed in this
book for group decisions (Chap. 9), with the difference that it is done at the end of
each partial run, that is, during the process and not at its very end.
1.4 Which Is the Best MCDM Method?
There is consensus among researchers that there is no method better than another is,
and consequently all of them are considered good and adequate for selection. In
addition, it is also understood that there is not a universal method that can deal with
any type and size of the problem; unfortunately, not many practitioners are appar-
ently aware of this fact and use the same method for very different problems. For
instance, subjective problems normally employ the pair-wise comparison method
based on DM preferences. This procedure is good for trivial problems and for those
where the decision consequences directly affect the DM or his company. As an
example, assume purchasing a house; if the selected property does not fulfill the DM
expectations, it is he who will suffer because of that, and if a company is selecting
personnel, a good or a wrong decision will affect the company and nobody else.
However, there are projects whose consequences, good or bad, will affect the
proper existence of the company pursuing it, and perhaps the life of hundreds or even
thousands of people, and also hurting the environment. An example could be
selecting a place to install a plant for assembly cars; in these cases, it is obvious
that the DM preferences are no longer valid or even considered.
Is it possible to establish a level of confidence when using a method? No, it is
impossible to know; however, it is frequent to hear that an author often says that
he/she applied a certain method successfully. What he should say is that he reached a
result that satisfies him or his group, but no more than that. His assertion is clearly
inaccurate because if he does not know what the best solution for a real problem is,
he cannot say that his method attained it since he cannot compare it with something
whose value he does not know!
Some researchers suggest comparing results for one problem solved by
method A, with the same problem solved by methods B and C. Apparently it
would be a good approach; however, it appears difficult because, most probably,
the three methods will yield different results. Naturally, if results from the three
methods coincide, there is a high chance that they are “correct.” Nevertheless, one
needs to be careful in extracting conclusions when comparing results in this case.
For instance, if the same problem is solved using AHP, which furnish criteria
weights, and they are then applied to other methods such as PROMETHEE and
TOPSIS (known as hybrid PROMETHHE or Hybrid TOPSIS), it could be that the
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
"No, I can't be let off like that. I wouldn't have done that, though it
helped me to decide, of course. But I took him, because I thought I did love
him, and now, after keeping company just on a year, I know I do not. Now
you're a man that understands things."
"Don't you fancy that. None on God's earth is more puzzled about things
than me. I've had a puzzling life I may tell you."
"I haven't. Till now my life's been as clear as sunshine. But now—now
I'm up against a pretty awful thing, and it's cruel hard to make up my mind.
Was you ever really in love?"
"Never mind me."
"Was you ever in doubt, I mean?"
"Never."
"I don't ask for rudeness, but reason. There's nobody you can ask in my
life, because they be all biased. I'm not thinking of myself—God judge me
if I am. I'm just wondering this: Can I be the right down proper good wife
Johnny deserves to have if I don't love him? And the question that's so hard
is, ought I to marry him not loving him? Not because of my feelings, but
because of his future. Think if you was him, and loved a woman as truly as
he loves me, and you had to say whether you'd marry her and chance the
fact she didn't love you, or, knowing she didn't, would give her up."
"That's not how it is, though. Johnny don't know you don't love him. He
don't know what you're feeling. I judge that by what he says, because he
often drops in and talks openly, finding all on his side."
"What would you do?"
"If I wanted to marry a woman and she'd said 'yes,' but afterwards found
herself mistook, I shouldn't love her no more."
"Then you don't know much about love."
"Very likely I don't."

"It's a selfish thing. If I was in love, I'd be like Johnny—and worse. A
proper tigress I expect."
"Are you in love?"
"No, I swear I'm not. Not with anybody. I've growed up, you see, since I
said 'yes' to John. I was a child, for all my years, when I said it. Growing up
ain't a matter of time; it's a matter of chance. Some people never do grow
up. But I have, and though I don't know what it would be like to fall in love,
I know parlous well I'm not, and never was. And it comes back just to what
I said. Would it be better for Johnny to marry him not loving him, because
I've promised to do so, or would it be better for him if I told him I wasn't
going to? That's the question I've got to decide."
"You'll decide right," he said. "And you don't want other people's views.
You know."
"I know what I'd like to do; but just because my own feeling is strong
for telling him I won't marry him, I dread it. Of course he'll say I'm only
thinking of myself."
"You can't be sure what he'll say."
"Yes, I can: I know him."
"If he knew you didn't love him——"
"He'd only say he'd larn me how to later. But he wouldn't believe it."
"If you was to hold off much longer, he'd chuck you perhaps."
"Never. I'm his life. He says it and he means it."
"But to marry him would be your death?"
She nodded.
"Yes, I think."
"Perhaps you're wrong, however."
"Very likely. My first thought was to tell him how it was with me and
leave it to him. But I know what he'd do. He'd only laugh at me and not take
it serious, or let me off."
"You are thinking for yourself then?"
"I suppose I am."
"It's natural. You've got your life to live."
"Be sporting," she said. "Don't think of me and don't think of him. Put
us out of your mind and just say what you'd do if you was me."
He felt a little moved for her. It is pathetic to see a resolute creature

reduced to irresolution. The manhood in him inclined Lawrence to take her
part against the man. It seemed an awful thing that her life should be ruined,
as it must be if she married one she did not love. He liked Dinah better than
Johnny, for the latter's arrogance and rather smug and superior attitude to
life at large did not attract Maynard.
"It's never right under any circumstances for a woman to marry a man
she does not love," he said.
"You think so?"
"I do—I'm positive."
"Even if she's promised?"
"Your eyes are opened. You promised because you thought you loved
him. Now you know right well you don't. A proper man ought to bend to
that, however much it hurts. And if you still think it's your duty to marry
him, I say duty's not enough to marry on."
"It's hurting me fearfully, and there's something awful wrong about it.
They want me away from here—Mrs. Bamsey and Jane—that's natural too.
Though why I'm confiding in you I don't know. Something have drove me
to do it. But I know you'll be faithful."
"I wish I could help you, miss. I can only say what I think."
"You have helped me I reckon. You've helped me a lot. I was half in a

mind to go and see Enoch Withycombe; but he's old, and the young turn to
the young, don't they?"
"I suppose they do; though I dare say the old know best, along of
experience."
"The old forget a lot. They always begin by telling you they remember
what it was to be young themselves; but they don't. They can't. Their blood
runs slower; they're colder. They've changed through and through since they
were young. They can't remember some things."
"I dare say they can't."
"Will you come for a walk with me one day and show me that stone you
was telling about—the face?"
"You remember that?"
"Yes; you was going to say more about it the last Sunday you was here;
then you shut up rather sudden."
The idea of a walk with Dinah had certainly never entered Maynard's
head. He remained silent.
"D'you think it would be wrong, or d'you only think it would be a

nuisance?" she asked.
"It's a new notion to me. I'd like to pleasure you and it wouldn't be a
nuisance—far from it I'm sure; but as to whether it would be wrong—it
would and it wouldn't I fancy. It couldn't be wrong in itself; but seeing
you're tokened to another man, you're not free to take walks with Dick,
Tom, or Harry. No doubt you see that."
"John wouldn't like it?"
"Certainly he wouldn't. You know that."
"Would you mind my walking with another man if you was engaged to
me?"
"Yes, I should, very much indeed; especially if I was in the same fix that
John Bamsey is."
"Poor John. There's such a thing as liking a man too well to love him,
Mr. Maynard."
"Is there?"
"I'm beginning to feel—there—I've wasted enough of your time. You

won't go for a walk with me?"
"I'd like to go for a walk with you."
"I'll ask you again," she said. "Then, whether I marry John, or don't
marry John, there'll be no reason against."
"I quite understand."
"To see that face on the stone. You'll find Mr. Chaffe in his workshop.
Holidays are naught to him. Good-bye. Truth oughtn't to hurt honest people,
ought it?"
"Nothing hurts like truth can, whether you're honest, or whether you're
not."
He went forward turning over with mild interest the matter of the
conversation. He was little moved that she should have asked him to go for
a walk. From any other young woman such a suggestion had been
impressive; but not from her. He had noticed that she was never illusive and
quite unpractised in the art of lure, or wile. The stone he had mentioned was
a natural face carved by centuries of time, on the granite rocks of Hey Tor,
some miles away. He had mentioned it in answer to a remark from
Benjamin Bamsey, and then, for private but sufficient reasons he had
dropped the subject. His connection with the stone belonged to a time far
past, concerning which he was not disposed to be communicative. That she
should have remembered it surprised him. But perhaps the only thing that
had really interested her was the fact he dropped the subject so suddenly.
He fell to thinking on his own past for a time, then returned to Dinah.
That she could confide in him inclined him to friendship. He admired her
character and was sorry for the plight in which she found herself. He hoped
that she might drop Bamsey and find a man she could love. He was aware
that her position in her step-father's house held difficulties, for the situation
had often been discussed at Falcon Farm. Whether she decided for John, or
against him, it was probably certain she would leave Green Hayes; and that
would mean distress for Benjamin Bamsey. He was sorry for all concerned,
but not inclined to dwell over-much on the subject. His own thoughts were
always enough for him, and his experience had tended somewhat to freeze
the sources of charity and human enthusiasm at the fount. He was not
soured, but he was introspective to the extent that the affairs of his fellow
creatures did not particularly challenge him. Thus it was left for Thomas
Palk to see the truth of the situation at Falcon Farm; Lawrence had never
troubled to realise it for himself. It seemed improbable that he would be
woven into the texture of other lives again. Indeed, he had long since
determined with himself that he would never be.
Arthur Chaffe was making a coffin.
"The dead can wait for no man," he said. "A poor old widow; but I'm
under her command for the moment; and she shall have good work."
Lawrence told the matter of the hurdles and Mr. Chaffe promised to do
what he could.
"Joe treats time with contempt," he declared. "He did ought to have told
me long ago; but I always reckon with the likes of him. I think for a lot of
people and save them from their own slow wits. Not that Stockman's got
slow wits. His wits serve him very well indeed, as no doubt you've found."
"He's a good farmer and a kind-hearted sort of man."

"So he is, so he is. You'll not hear me say a word against him."
"Yet a few do."
"They do. But mind you, when he says he worked as a young man, it's
true. He did work and took a long view, so now you find him as he is. But
he never loved work for itself, same as I do. Work never was meat and
drink to him; and when it had got him what he wanted, he was very well
content to play and let others work for him. And knowing well what work
means, nobody he employs will ever deceive him on the subject."
"He sees that we earn our money. But he's fair."
"Ah! To be fair with your neighbour is a great gift. Few are, and who
shall wonder? Now Joe's a man who takes a generous view of himself. But
'tis better to be hard on yourself and easy with other people—don't you
think?"
"A fine thing, to be hard on yourself, no doubt," admitted Lawrence.
"Yes, and them who are hardest on themselves will often be easiest with
their neighbours. But that's a high position to reach, and few can."
"It's very easy in my opinion not to judge other people. But when life
demands you to judge, then the trouble begins."
"When our own interest comes in, we often make a mess of it and judge
wrong," admitted Mr. Chaffe. "And what I always say to anybody in a fix is
this: to get outside the question and think how it would be if it was all
happening to somebody else. If you've got the sense to do that, you'll often
be surprised to find the light will shine. And you'll often be surprised, also,
to find how much smaller the thing bulks, if you can wriggle out of it
yourself and take a bird's-eye view."
"I expect that's true."
"Oh yes, it's true. I've proved it. A thing happens and you're chin deep in
it. Then you say to yourself, 'Suppose I was dead and looking down on this
job from my heavenly mansion, how would it seem then?' And if you've got
the intellects to do it, then you often get a gleam of sense that you never
will while you're up against the facts and part of 'em. It's like the judge
trying a case, without having any interest in it beyond the will that right
shall be done."
"Men haven't the gift for that."
"They have not; yet even to try to do it stills passion and breeds patience
and helps religion."
"Very good advice, no doubt."
"This coffin will go along early to-morrow morning, and I'll bring half
the hurdles this week in two or three loads; and tell Joe the price be up a
thought since last year. He knows that as well as I do."
Maynard noted the instructions in a little pocket-book and presently

departed. He took a meal of bread and cheese and cider at the inn hard by,
then set out on an extended round, walked to Widecombe, tramped the
Moors, watched the swaleing fires, that now daily burned upon them, and
did not return home until the hour of milking.
CHAPTER XI
NEW BRIDGE
On New Bridge, over Dart, stood Dinah with the sun warm upon her
face, while a first butterfly hovered on the golden broom at water's edge.
She had sent a message to Johnny by his sister that she would meet him
here, and now, while she waited, she speculated on the difference between
the beauty of the May day and the ugliness of what she was about to do. But
she had decided at last, and having done so, she could only wonder why it
had taken her so many weeks to reach a decision. To her direct instincts
delay had been a suffering and produced a condition of mental bad health;
but it was not for her own sake that she had delayed, and she knew now that
her hesitation had been no kindness to Johnny, though endured largely out
of affection for him. She was convinced, beyond possibility of doubt, that
her regard could not be called love and she had determined with herself, as
she was bound to do, that to marry under such circumstances would be no
marriage in any seemly interpretation of the contract. She had the
imagination to know, however, that what was beaten ground to her—a way
exploited a thousand times by day and sleepless night—was no such thing
for him. He had said that he would have nothing more to do with her until
she named the day, and he was coming now under expectation of hearing
her do so. Instead he must learn that the day could never be named.
She was full of sorrow, but no fear. Dinah had long discounted the effect
of the thing she was called to do. She did not expect anybody to be patient,
or even reasonable, save her step-father.
Johnny appeared punctually, with his gun on his shoulder. They had not
met for more than a month, but he ignored the past and greeted her with a
kiss. She suffered it and reflected that this was the last time he would ever
kiss her.
"At last," he said. "I've hated this job, Dinah; and you'll never know
how much I hated it; but what could I do?"
"I don't know, Johnny. You could have wondered a bit more why I held
off perhaps."
"And didn't I wonder? Didn't I puzzle myself daft about it? I don't know
now—such a downright piece as you—I don't know now why you hung
back. It wasn't natural."
"Yes it was—everything's natural that happens. It couldn't happen if it

wasn't natural—old Arthur Chaffe said that once and I remembered it."
"If it was natural, then there was a reason," he answered, "and I'd like to
hear it, Dinah—for curiosity."
"The reason is everything, John. I didn't know the reason myself for a
good bit—the reason why I held away from you; and when I did, I was so
put about that it seemed to alter my whole nature and make me shamed of
being alive."
"That's pretty strong. Better we don't go back then. I'll ask no questions
and forget. We'll begin again by getting married."
"No; the reason you've got to hear, worse luck. The reason why I
behaved so strange was this, John: I'd made a terrible mistake—terrible for
both of us. I thought the love that I had for you, and still have for you, and
always shall, was the love of a woman for the man she's going to wed.
Then, like a cloud, it came over me, denser and denser, that it was not.
Listen—you must listen. I examined into it—give me that credit—I
examined into it with all my senses tingling night and day. I never worked
so hard about anything after I'd got over my first fright. And then I saw I'd
slipped into this, being young and very ignorant about love—much more so
than many girls younger than me; because I never was interested in men in
the way they are. I found that out by talking to girls, and by the things they
said when they knew I was tokened to you. They looked at marriage quite
different from me, and they showed me that love is another thing altogether
seen that way than as I'd seen it. They made me terrible uncomfortable,
because I found they'd got a deep understanding that I had not got about it;
and they laughed at me, when I talked, and said I didn't know what love
meant. And—and—I didn't, Johnny. That's the naked truth."
He was looking at her with a flushed face.
"Get on—get on to the end of it," he said.
"Be patient. I'm bitter sorry. We was boy and girl for so many years, and
I loved you well enough and always shall; but I don't know nothing about
the sort of love you've got for me. The first I heard about it was from Jane.
She knows. She understands far deeper about what love is than I do. I only
know I haven't got it, and what I thought was it didn't belong to that sort of
love at all. Haven't you seen? Haven't you fretted sometimes—many times
—because I couldn't catch fire same as you, when you touched me and put
your arms round me? Didn't it tell you nothing?"
"How the devil should it? Women are different from men."
"Not they—not if they love proper. But how could you know that—you,
who was never in love before? I don't blame you there; but if you'd only
compare notes with other men."
"Men don't compare notes as you call it about sacred things like love."
"Don't they? Then they're finer than us. Women do. Anyway I found
out, to my cruel cost, I was only half-fledged so far as you were
concerned."
"I see. But you needn't lie about it—not to me. You loved me well
enough, and the right way too. You can't shuffle out of it by pretending any
trash about being different from other girls. You loved me well enough, and
if you'd been on-coming like some creatures, I'd have hated you for it. That
was all right, and you knew what you were doing very well indeed. And
you're lying, I say, because it wasn't women have brought you to this. It was
men. A man rather. Be plain, please, for I won't have no humbug about this.
You've found some blasted man you hanker after and think you like better
than me. And it's not the good part in you that have sunk to any such base
beastliness; it's the bad, wicked part in you—the part I never would have
believed was in you. And I've a right to know who it is. And I will know."
"Hear me then, Johnny. May God strike me dead on this bridge, this
instant moment, if there's any man in the world I love—or even care for. I
tell you that I've never known love and most likely never shall. 'Tis long
odds it be left out of me altogether. And I can't marry you for that good
reason. I didn't come to it in a hurry. For one of my nature I waited and
waited an amazing time, and for your sake I hoped and hoped I'd see
different, and I tried hard to see different. I thought only for you, and I'm
thinking only for you now. It would have been far easier for me to go on
with it than break. Can't you see that? But afterwards—you're a quick man
and you're a man that gives all, but wants all back again in exchange for all;
and rightly so. But what when you'd found, as find you must, that I'd not
loved you as you thought? Hell—hell—that's what it would have been for
you."
"You can spin words to hide your thoughts. I can't. You're a godless,
lying traitor—and—no—no—I call that back. You don't know what you're
saying. Have some mercy on a man. You're my all, Dinah. There's nothing
else to life but you! Don't turn me down now—it's too late. You must see
it's gone too far. You can't do it; you can't do it. I'm content to let it be as it
is. If you don't love me now, I'll make you love me. I'll—all—I'll give all
and want nothing again! It's cruel—it's awful—no such thing could happen.
I believe you when you say there's not another man. I believe you with all
my heart. And then—then why not me? Why not keep your solemn oath
and promise? If anything be left out of you, let me put it in. But there's
nothing left out—nothing. You're perfect, and the wenches that made you
think you wasn't ban't worthy to black your boots. For Christ's sake don't go
back on me—you can't—it wouldn't be you if you did."
"Don't make it worse than it is, dear John. I'm proud you could care for
me so well; but don't you see, oh, don't you see that I can't act a lie? I can't
do it. Everything tells me not to do it. I'm in a maze, but I know that much. I
must be fair; I must be straight. I don't love you like that. I thought I did,
because I was a fool and didn't know better. It can't be. I'm fixed about it."
For a moment he was quiet. Then he picked up his gun, which he had
rested against the parapet of the bridge. His face was twisted with passion.
Then she heard him cock the gun. For a moment she believed that he meant
to shoot her. She felt absolutely indifferent and was conscious of her own
indifference, for life seemed a poor possession at that moment.
"You can kill me if you like," she said. "I don't want to go on living—
not now."
He cursed her.
"Lying bitch! Death's a damned sight too good for you. May your life be
hell let loose, and may you come to feel what you've made me feel to-day.
And you will, if there's any right and justice in life. And get out of Lower
Town—d'you hear me? Get out of it and go to the devil, and don't let me see
your face, or hear your voice in my parents' home no more."
A market cart came down the hill and trundled towards them, thus
breaking into the scene at its climax. John Bamsey turned his back and
strode down the river bank; Dinah hid her face from the man and woman in
the cart and looked at the river.
But the old couple, jogging to Poundsgate, had not missed the man's
gestures.
The driver winked at his wife.
"Lovers quarrelling!" he said; "and such a fine marnin' too. The twoads
never know their luck."
With heavy heart sat Johnny by the river under great pines and heard the
rosy ring-doves over his head fluttering busily at their nest; while Dinah
leant upon the parapet of the bridge and dropped big tears into the crystal of
Dart beneath her.
CHAPTER XII
AFTERWARDS
The shock of Orphan Dinah's sudden action fell with severe impact in
some directions, but was discounted among those of wider discernment.
The mother of John had seen it coming; his father had not. In a dozen
homes the incident was debated to Dinah's disadvantage; a few stood up for
her—those who knew her best. In secret certain of John's acquaintance
smiled, and while expressing a sympathy with him, yet felt none, but rather
satisfaction that a man so completely armed at all points, so successful and
superior, should receive his first dose of reality in so potent a shape.
The matter ran up and down on the tongues of those interested. His
mother and sister supported Johnny in this great tribulation, the first with
dignity, the second with virulence, hardly abated when she found herself
more furious than John himself.
For after the first rages and intemperate paroxysms in which Jane
eagerly shared, she fancied Johnny was cooling in his rage; and, such are
the resources of human comedy, that anon her brother actually reproved
Jane for some particularly poignant sentiments on the subject of Dinah. He
had set her a very clear-cut example in the agonised days of his grief; but
presently, to the bewilderment of Jane, who was young and without
experience of disappointment, John began to calm down. He roughly shut
up the girl after some poisonous criticism of Dinah, and a sort of alliance
into which brother and sister had slipped, and into which Jane entered with
full force of love for John and hate for Dinah, threatened to terminate.
Jane lessened nothing of her fervid affection for John, however, and it
remained for another man to explain what seemed to her a mystery. He was
not a very far-seeing, or competent person, but he had reached to the right
understanding of Johnny's present emotion.
With Jerry Withycombe Jane fell in beside a track through the forest,
where he was erecting a woodstack, and since their relations were of the
friendliest and Jane, indeed, began to incline to Jerry, she had no secrets
from him and spoke of her affairs.
"What's come to them I don't know," she said. "Father's plucking up

again, and I can see, though Dinah's trying to get a place and clear out, that
he'll come between and prevent it very likely. Mother's at him behind the
scenes, but God knows what they say to each other when they go to bed.
You'd think Dinah wouldn't have had the face to bide in the house a day
after that wickedness; but there she is—the devil. And John ordered her to
go, too, for he told me he had."
"It's your father," answered Jerry. "My sister was telling about it.
Melindy says that Mr. Bamsey's troubled a lot, and though he knows Dinah
has got to go, he's taking it upon himself to decide about where she shall go
and won't be drove."
"I see through that; mother don't," said Jane. "Father only cares for
Dinah really, and he thinks, in his craft, that very like, given time, things
may calm down and her be forgiven. That's his cowardly view, so as he
shall keep her. But nobody shan't calm down if I can help it. I won't live
with the wretch, and so I tell John. Men ban't like us: they don't feel so
deep. They're poor things in their tempers beside us. A woman can hate a
lot better than a man. Why, even Johnny—you'd never believe it; but you'd
almost think he's cooling a bit if it was possible."
"He is," answered Jerry. "And why not? What the hell's the good of
keeping at boiling point over what can't be helped? Especially if, on second
thoughts, you begin to reckon it can be helped."
"What d'you mean by that?" asked Jane.
"Why, you see John's a very determined sort of customer. He's never
took 'no' for an answer from anybody, and he's got an idea, right or wrong,
that a man's will is stronger than a woman's. I thought so, too, till I got to
know what a rare will you've got. But there it is in a word; not two days
agone I met Johnny, and he said where there was life there was hope."
Jane gasped.
"That's what be in his head then! That's what made him stop me pretty
sharp when I was telling the truth about her?"
Jerry nodded.
"Very likely it might have been. In fact, he ain't down and out yet—in
his own view, anyway. You see, as John said to Lawrence Maynard, and
Maynard told me, 'If Dinah ain't got no other man in sight, she's what you
may call a free woman still.' And I believe that John be coming round to the
opinion that Dinah may yet live to see she was wrong about him."
Jane stared and her thoughts reeled.
"D'you mean to tell me that a man like my brother could sink to think
again of a girl that had jilted him?" she flamed.
"Don't you turn on me," protested Jerry. "It ain't my fault men are like
that. You know John better than I do. But it wouldn't be contrary to nature if
he did want her still. A man in love will stand untold horrors from a
woman; and though it may make you, looking on, very shamed for him—
still, life's life. And I believe, if John thinks he can get Dinah back, he'll
come down off his perch yet and eat as much dirt as she likes to make him."
"It's a beastly thought—a beastly thought!" cried Jane. "But he shan't—

he never shall have her now if I can prevent it. I'd be a miserable woman if I
had to suffer her for a sister-in-law now."
Jerry saw danger in this attitude.
"I always feel just like you feel," he said, "but for God's love, Jenny,
don't you go poking into it. It's a terrible good example of a job where
everybody had best to mind their own business. You let John do what he's
minded to do. Men in love be parlous items, and if he's still that way,
though wounded, then 'tis like a wild tiger a man have fired at and only
hurt. He's awful dangerous now, I shouldn't wonder; and if he wants her still
and counts to get her, God help anybody who came between. He'd break
your neck if you tried to: that I will swear."
But Jerry was more perturbed at the vision he had conjured than Jane.
For his information she was able to give facts concerning the other side.
"If that's what John's after, he's only asking for more misery then," she
said. "I hope you're wrong, Jerry, for I should never feel the same to John if
I thought he could sink to it; but anyway he needn't fox himself that she'll
ever go back on it again. That much I'm positive certain. Cunning as she is,
I can be more cunning than her, and I know all her sorrow about it and
pretended straightness and honesty was put on. She weren't sorry, and she
never was straight, and I've sworn before to you and will again, that she's
got somebody else up her sleeve."
"Who then?" asked Jerry Withycombe.
"I can't tell you. Lord knows I've tried hard enough to find out; but I
haven't—not yet. Only time will show. It's a man not worthy to breathe the
same air with John you may be sure. She was too common and low ever to
understand John, and his high way of thinking; and she'd be frightened to
marry such a man, because she knows she'd always have to sing small and
take a second place. She's a mass of vanity under her pretences."
"We all know you don't like her; and more don't I, because you don't,"
answered Jerry. "But if you are positive sure she'll never come round to
Johnny again, it might be truest kindness to tell him so. Only for the Lord's
sake do it clever. You may be wrong, and if there's a chance of that, you'd
do far better to leave it alone."
"I'm not wrong; but all the same I shall leave it alone," said Jane. "What
mother and me want is for her to get out of the house, so as we can breathe
again. It's up to father, and father's going to have a bad time if he stands
against mother."
"Dinah won't stop, whether your father wants for her to or not,"
prophesied Jerry.
But a few evenings after this meeting, the situation was defined for the
benefit of Jane and her mother and, with Dinah out of the way at
Ponsworthy, her foster-father endeavoured to ameliorate the existing strain.
He had confided his difficulties to Arthur Chaffe and been counselled to
speak plainly. Indeed, at his wish, the carpenter joined his circle and
supported him.
Mr. Bamsey tried to conceal the fact that Arthur had come to help him,
for his friend not seldom dropped in to supper; but on this occasion Faith
felt aware of an approaching challenge and was not surprised when, after
the evening meal, her husband led the conversation to Dinah Waycott.
"Arthur's my second self," he said, "and I know he'll lift no objection to

listening, even if he don't see with our eyes."
"You needn't say 'our eyes,' father," replied Jane, quick to respond. "Me
and mother——"
But her mother stopped her. Mrs. Bamsey was all for law and order.
"Listen, and don't talk till you're axed to," she said.
"Give heed to me," began Ben. "There's been growing up a lot of fog
here, and Arthur, the friend that he be, was the first to mark it. He pointed it
out to me, all well inside Christian charity, and what I want to do is to clear
it off this instant moment, now while Orphan Dinah's out of the way. We
stand like this. When she threw over Johnny, because her eyes were opened
and she found she couldn't love him in a way to wed him, John ordered her
out of Lower Town. Well, who shall blame him? 'Tweren't vitty they should
clash, or he should find her here in his parents' home. She was instant for
going, and though you think I withheld her from doing so, that ain't fair to
me."
"You do withhold her, father," said Faith Bamsey quietly.
"No, I do not. I come to the subject of Dinah from a point you can't
grasp. For why? She was left to me by my dead first as a sacred and solemn
trust. Mind, I'm not letting my affection for Dinah darken my reason. I grant
I'm very fond of her, and I grant what she's done haven't shook my feelings,
because, unlike you, mother, I believe she's done right. My heart's bled for
my own—for your great trouble and for John's. Nothing sadder could have
come to shake John's faith, and for a time I was fearful for John. The devil
always knows the appointed hour when a soul's weakest, and, coward that
he is, 'tis in our worst moments, when life goes wrong and hope's slipping
away, that he times his attacks. We all know that; and you remember it,
Jane. For he forgets neither the young nor the old. But John has justified his
up-bringing; and the mother in him is bringing him back to his true self."
"You may think so; but——" began Jane.
She was, however, silenced.
"Hear me, and if you can throw light after, Jane, we'll hear you,"
continued Mr. Bamsey. "I say what I think and believe. My trouble be still
alive for John; but my fear be dead. So that leaves Dinah. Her wish and will
is to be gone. She's seeking a proper and fitting place—neither too low nor
too high. She'd go into service to-morrow—anywhere; but I won't have
that."
"And why for not, father?" asked Mrs. Bamsey; "your first was in
service once."
"That's different," he answered. "You must see it, mother. The situation
is very tender, and you must remember my duty to the dead. Would Jane go
into service?"
"No, I would not," answered Jane; "not for anybody. I'd go on the street
first."
Mr. Chaffe was shocked.
"Do I hear you, Jane?" he asked.
"God forgive you, Jane," said her father; then he proceeded.
"My foster-daughter is a much more delicate and nice question than my

own daughter; and mother, with her sharp understanding, knows it. From no
love for Dinah I say so. She's a sacred trust, and if she was a bad girl,
instead of a good one, still she'd be a sacred trust. I'm not standing here for
my own sake, or for any selfishness. I've long been schooled to know she
was going, as we all hoped, to Johnny. And go she must—for her own sake
—and her own self-respect. And if anybody's fretting about her biding here,
it's Dinah's self. But the work she must go to is the difficulty, and that work
has not yet been found in my opinion. Her future hangs upon it and I must
be head and obeyed in that matter."
"She's turned down such a lot of things," said Jane.
"She has not," replied Mr. Bamsey. "She'd do anything and take
anything to-morrow. She was at me to let her go for barmaid to the Blue
Lion at Totnes. And I said, 'No, Dinah; you shan't go nowhere as barmaid
while I live.' And I say it again, meaning no disrespect to the Blue Lion,
which is a very good licensed house."
"She's of age, and if she was in earnest, she could have gone, whether
you liked it or not," said Jane.
Mr. Bamsey grew a little flushed and regarded his daughter without
affection.
"You would—not Dinah," he answered. "Dinah looks to me as her

father, and she won't do nothing I don't hold with, or take any step contrary
to my view. That's because she's got a righter idea of what a girl owes her
father than you have, Jane."
"And what is your view, father?" asked Mrs. Bamsey.
"You know, mother. I want for Dinah to go into a nice family, where the
people will receive her as one of themselves, and where she'll take her place
and do her proper work and go on with her life in a Christian manner, and
not feel she's sunk in the world, or an outcast, but just doing her right share
of work, and being treated as the child of a man in my position have a right
to expect to be treated."
"You won't find no such place, father," said Jane.

Full Chapter Strategic Approach in Multi Criteria Decision Making A Practical Guide For Complex Scenarios 2Nd Nolberto Munier PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Full Chapter Strategic Approach in Multi Criteria Decision Making A Practical Guide For Complex Scenarios 2Nd Nolberto Munier PDF

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

Full Chapter Strategic Approach in Multi Criteria Decision Making A Practical Guide For Complex Scenarios 2Nd Nolberto Munier PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Strategic Approach in Multi Criteria

Decision Making A Practical Guide for

The Multi Criteria Approach for Decision Support An

Advanced Studies in Multi Criteria Decision Making 1st

Biofuels for a More Sustainable Future: Life Cycle

Applications of Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Theories

Strategic Security Management: A Risk Assessment Guide

Waste-to-Energy: Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis for

Multi-criteria Decision Analysis for Supporting the

New Perspectives in Multiple Criteria Decision Making

Editorial Board Members

ISSN 0884-8289 ISSN 2214-7934 (electronic)

Paper in this product is recyclable.

The book is divided into four parts, as follows:

Part I Theory and Analysis of MCDM Problems: History of MCDM

2.2 Routines to Perform with Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

2.7.2 A Critical Analysis of the Way Sensitivity Analysis

Part II Theory and Analysis of MCDM Problems: What Can Be Done

Part III Theory and Analysis of MCDM Problems: Proposes SIMUS as

8.4 Sequence for Sensitivity Analysis by SIMUS/IOSA . . . . . . . . . 164

11.3.2 Objective Weights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 202

Part IV Practice of Problem Solving Using MCDM: Support for

13.6 Recommendations to Practitioners . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 317

14.5.1 Background Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 370

1.1 History and Evolution of Multi-criteria

Decision-making is as old as civilization; however, we can identify with the name

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2024 3

the time is impossible, they aim at ﬁnding a consensus, agreement or compromise

For that reason, the Russian government commissioned Leonid Kantorovich, a

recommendations must rest on solid grounds, and the DM should be prepared to

1.2 Introduction to Most Common and Used Heuristic

In this book, the following expressions are used:

1.3 The Decision-Making Paradox

• Selecting the objective to achieve,

1.4 Which Is the Best MCDM Method?

"Never mind me."

"Was you ever in doubt, I mean?"

"What would you do?"

"Then you don't know much about love."

"Very likely I don't."

"Are you in love?"

"You can't be sure what he'll say."

"Yes, I can: I know him."

"If he knew you didn't love him——"

"Never. I'm his life. He says it and he means it."

"But to marry him would be your death?"

"You are thinking for yourself then?"

"I suppose I am."

"It's natural. You've got your life to live."

He felt a little moved for her. It is pathetic to see a resolute creature

"You think so?"

"I do—I'm positive."

"Even if she's promised?"

"You have helped me I reckon. You've helped me a lot. I was half in a

"I dare say they can't."

"You remember that?"

"D'you think it would be wrong, or d'you only think it would be a

"Certainly he wouldn't. You know that."