![Page 1: MCDM Multi-Criteria Decision Making by: Mehrdad ghafoori Saber seyyed ali](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022081416/56649eb35503460f94bba041/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
MCDM
Multi-Criteria Decision Making
by:
Mehrdad ghafoori Saber seyyed ali
![Page 2: MCDM Multi-Criteria Decision Making by: Mehrdad ghafoori Saber seyyed ali](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022081416/56649eb35503460f94bba041/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
PRESENTATION CONTENT:
2
MCDM definition
Problem solving steps
Criteria specifications
Weighting the criteria
Standardizing the raw scores
Problem solving techniques
![Page 3: MCDM Multi-Criteria Decision Making by: Mehrdad ghafoori Saber seyyed ali](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022081416/56649eb35503460f94bba041/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
MCDM definitions
3
- consists of constructing a global preference relation for a set of alternatives evaluated using several criteria
- selection of the best actions from a set of alternatives, each of which is evaluated against multiple,and often conflicting criteria.
![Page 4: MCDM Multi-Criteria Decision Making by: Mehrdad ghafoori Saber seyyed ali](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022081416/56649eb35503460f94bba041/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
MCDM consists of two related paradigms:
4
MADM: these problems are assumed to have a predetermined , limited number of decision alternatives.
MODM: the decision alternatives are not given. instead the set of decision alternatives is explicitly defined by constraints using multiple objective programming. the number of potential decision alternatives may be large.
![Page 5: MCDM Multi-Criteria Decision Making by: Mehrdad ghafoori Saber seyyed ali](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022081416/56649eb35503460f94bba041/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
MCDM problem has four elements:
5
Goal
Objectives
Criteria
Alternatives
![Page 6: MCDM Multi-Criteria Decision Making by: Mehrdad ghafoori Saber seyyed ali](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022081416/56649eb35503460f94bba041/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Examples of Multi-Criteria Problems
6
In determining an electric route for power transmission in a city, several criteria could be considered:
Cost Health Reliability Importance of areas
![Page 7: MCDM Multi-Criteria Decision Making by: Mehrdad ghafoori Saber seyyed ali](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022081416/56649eb35503460f94bba041/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Examples of Multi-Criteria Problems
7
Locating a nuclear power plant involves criteria such as:
SafetyHealthEnvironmentCost
![Page 8: MCDM Multi-Criteria Decision Making by: Mehrdad ghafoori Saber seyyed ali](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022081416/56649eb35503460f94bba041/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Problem solving steps:
8
1) Establish the decision context, the decision
objectives (goals), and identify the decision maker(s).
2) Identify the alternatives.
3) Identify the criteria (attributes) that are relevant to the
decision problem.
![Page 9: MCDM Multi-Criteria Decision Making by: Mehrdad ghafoori Saber seyyed ali](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022081416/56649eb35503460f94bba041/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
9
4) For each of the criteria, assign scores to measure the performance of the alternatives against each of these and construct an evaluation matrix (often called an options matrix or a decision table).
Problem solving steps:
![Page 10: MCDM Multi-Criteria Decision Making by: Mehrdad ghafoori Saber seyyed ali](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022081416/56649eb35503460f94bba041/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Problem solving steps:
10
5) Standardize the raw scores to generate a priority
scores matrix or decision table.
6) Determine a weight for each criterion to reflect how
important it is to the overall decision.
![Page 11: MCDM Multi-Criteria Decision Making by: Mehrdad ghafoori Saber seyyed ali](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022081416/56649eb35503460f94bba041/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
11
7) Use aggregation functions (also called decision rules) to
compute an overall assessment measure for each decision
alternative by combining the weights and priority scores.
8) Perform a sensitivity analysis to assess the robustness of
the preference ranking to changes in the criteria scores
and/or the assigned weights.
Problem solving steps:
![Page 12: MCDM Multi-Criteria Decision Making by: Mehrdad ghafoori Saber seyyed ali](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022081416/56649eb35503460f94bba041/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
Criteria characteristics
12
Completeness: It is important to ensure that all of the important criteria are included.
Redundancy: In principle, criteria that have been judged relatively unimportant or to be duplicates should be removed at a very early stage.
Operationality: It is important that each alternative can be judged against each criterion.
![Page 13: MCDM Multi-Criteria Decision Making by: Mehrdad ghafoori Saber seyyed ali](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022081416/56649eb35503460f94bba041/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
13
Mutual independence of criteria:
Straightforward applications of MCDM require that preferences associated with the consequences of the alternatives are independent of each other from one criterion to the next.
Number of criteria: An excessive number of criteria leads to extra analytical effort in assessing input data and can make communication of the results of the analysis more difficult.
Criteria characteristics
![Page 14: MCDM Multi-Criteria Decision Making by: Mehrdad ghafoori Saber seyyed ali](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022081416/56649eb35503460f94bba041/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
Weighting the criteria:
14
Direct Determination Rating, Point allocation, CategorizationRankingSwingTrade-offRatio (Eigenvector prioritization)
Indirect Determination CentralityRegression – Conjoint analysisInteractive
![Page 15: MCDM Multi-Criteria Decision Making by: Mehrdad ghafoori Saber seyyed ali](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022081416/56649eb35503460f94bba041/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
Weighting the criteria:
15
-The ranking method: In this method, the criteria are simply ranked in perceived order Of importance by decision- makers: c1 > c2 > c3 > … > ci . The method assumes that the weights are non-negative and sum to 1.
- Rating method: The point allocation approach is based on allocating points ranging from 0 to 100, where 0 indicates that the criterion can be ignored, and 100 represents the situation where only one criterion need to be considered. In ratio estimation procedure which is a modification of the point allocation method. A score of 100 is assigned to the most important criterion and proportionally smaller weights are given to criteria lower in the order. The score assigned for the least important attribute is used to calculate the ratios.
![Page 16: MCDM Multi-Criteria Decision Making by: Mehrdad ghafoori Saber seyyed ali](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022081416/56649eb35503460f94bba041/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
Weighting the criteria:
16
- Pair wise comparison method: involves pair wise comparisons to create a ratio matrix. It uses scale table for pair wise comparisons and then computes the weights.
![Page 17: MCDM Multi-Criteria Decision Making by: Mehrdad ghafoori Saber seyyed ali](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022081416/56649eb35503460f94bba041/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
Standardizing the raw scores
17
Because usually the various criteria are measured in different units, the scores in the evaluation matrix S have to be transformed to a normalized scale. some methods are :
![Page 18: MCDM Multi-Criteria Decision Making by: Mehrdad ghafoori Saber seyyed ali](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022081416/56649eb35503460f94bba041/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
Problem solving techniques
18
Some problem solving techniques are :
• SAW (Simple Additive Weighting)• TOPSIS (Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to
the Ideal Solution)• ELECTRE (Elimination et Choice Translating Reality)• BAYESIAN NETWORK BASED FRAMEWORK• AHP (The Analytical Hierarchy Process)• SMART (The Simple Multi Attribute Rating Technique )• ANP (Analytic network process)
![Page 19: MCDM Multi-Criteria Decision Making by: Mehrdad ghafoori Saber seyyed ali](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022081416/56649eb35503460f94bba041/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
19
The selection of the models are based on the following evaluation criteria suggested by Dodgson et al. (2001):
• internal consistency and logical soundness;
• transparency;
• ease of use;
• data requirements are consistent with the importance of the issue being considered;
• realistic time and manpower resource requirements for the analytical process;
• ability to provide an audit trail; and
• software availability, where needed.
![Page 20: MCDM Multi-Criteria Decision Making by: Mehrdad ghafoori Saber seyyed ali](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022081416/56649eb35503460f94bba041/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
SAW (Simple Additive Weighting):
20
Multiplies the normalized value of the criteria for the alternatives with the importance of the criteria .the alternative with the highest score is selected as the preferred one.
![Page 21: MCDM Multi-Criteria Decision Making by: Mehrdad ghafoori Saber seyyed ali](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022081416/56649eb35503460f94bba041/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
SAW (Simple Additive Weighting):
21
![Page 22: MCDM Multi-Criteria Decision Making by: Mehrdad ghafoori Saber seyyed ali](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022081416/56649eb35503460f94bba041/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
A simple example of using SAW method
22
ObjectiveSelecting a car
CriteriaStyle, Reliability, Fuel-economy
AlternativesCivic Coupe, Saturn Coupe, Ford Escort, Mazda
Miata
![Page 23: MCDM Multi-Criteria Decision Making by: Mehrdad ghafoori Saber seyyed ali](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022081416/56649eb35503460f94bba041/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
Weights and Scores
23
Weight 0.3 0.4 0.3 Si
CivicSaturn
Ford
Mazda
7 9 9Style Reliability Fuel Eco.
8 7 8
9 6 8
6 7 8
8.4
7.6
7.5
7.0
![Page 24: MCDM Multi-Criteria Decision Making by: Mehrdad ghafoori Saber seyyed ali](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022081416/56649eb35503460f94bba041/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
TOPSIS (Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to the Ideal Solution)
24
In this method two artificial alternatives are hypothesized:
Ideal alternative: the one which has the best level for all attributes considered.
Negative ideal alternative: the one which has the worst attribute values.
TOPSIS selects the alternative that is the closest to the ideal solution and farthest from negative ideal alternative.
![Page 25: MCDM Multi-Criteria Decision Making by: Mehrdad ghafoori Saber seyyed ali](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022081416/56649eb35503460f94bba041/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
Input to TOPSIS
25
TOPSIS assumes that we have m alternatives (options) and n attributes/criteria and we have the score of each option with respect to each criterion.
Let xij score of option i with respect to criterion j
We have a matrix X = (xij) mn matrix. Let J be the set of benefit attributes or criteria
(more is better) Let J' be the set of negative attributes or criteria
(less is better)
![Page 26: MCDM Multi-Criteria Decision Making by: Mehrdad ghafoori Saber seyyed ali](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022081416/56649eb35503460f94bba041/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
Steps of TOPSIS
26
Step 1: Construct normalized decision matrix. This step transforms various attribute dimensions into
non-dimensional attributes, which allows comparisons across criteria.
Normalize scores or data as follows:
rij = xij/ √(x2ij) for i = 1, …, m; j = 1, …, n
i
![Page 27: MCDM Multi-Criteria Decision Making by: Mehrdad ghafoori Saber seyyed ali](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022081416/56649eb35503460f94bba041/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
Steps of TOPSIS
27
Step 2: Construct the weighted normalized decision matrix.
Assume we have a set of weights for each criteria wj for j = 1,…n.
Multiply each column of the normalized decision matrix by its associated weight.
An element of the new matrix is:
vij = wj rij
![Page 28: MCDM Multi-Criteria Decision Making by: Mehrdad ghafoori Saber seyyed ali](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022081416/56649eb35503460f94bba041/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
Steps of TOPSIS
28
Step 3: Determine the ideal and negative ideal solutions.
Ideal solution. A* = { v1
* , …, vn
*}, where vj
* ={ max (vij) if j J ; min (vij) if j J' }
i i
Negative ideal solution.
A' = { v1' , …, vn' }, wherev' = { min (vij) if j J ; max (vij) if j J' }
i i
![Page 29: MCDM Multi-Criteria Decision Making by: Mehrdad ghafoori Saber seyyed ali](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022081416/56649eb35503460f94bba041/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
Steps of TOPSIS
29
Step 4: Calculate the separation measures for each alternative.
The separation from the ideal alternative is:
Si * = [ (vj
*– vij)2 ] ½ i = 1, …, m j
Similarly, the separation from the negative ideal alternative is:
S'i = [ (vj' – vij)2 ] ½ i = 1, …, m j
![Page 30: MCDM Multi-Criteria Decision Making by: Mehrdad ghafoori Saber seyyed ali](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022081416/56649eb35503460f94bba041/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
Steps of TOPSIS
30
Step 5: Calculate the relative closeness to the ideal solution Ci
*
Ci*
= S'i / (Si* +S'i ) , 0 Ci* 1
Select the Alternative with Ci* closest to 1.
![Page 31: MCDM Multi-Criteria Decision Making by: Mehrdad ghafoori Saber seyyed ali](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022081416/56649eb35503460f94bba041/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
An example of using TOPSIS method
31
Weight 0.1 0.4 0.3 0.2
Civic
Saturn
Ford
Mazda
7 9 9 8
8 7 8 7
9 6 8 9
6 7 86
Style Reliability Fuel Eco. Cost
![Page 32: MCDM Multi-Criteria Decision Making by: Mehrdad ghafoori Saber seyyed ali](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022081416/56649eb35503460f94bba041/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
Steps of TOPSIS
32
Step 1: calculate (x2ij )1/2 for each column and
divide each column by that to get rij
Civic
Saturn
Ford
Mazda
0.46 0.61 0.54 0.53
0.53 0.48 0.48 0.46
0.59 0.41 0.48 0.59
0.40 0.48 0.48 0.40
Style Rel. Fuel Cost
![Page 33: MCDM Multi-Criteria Decision Making by: Mehrdad ghafoori Saber seyyed ali](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022081416/56649eb35503460f94bba041/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
Steps of TOPSIS
33
Step 2 : multiply each column by wj to get vij.
Saturn
Ford
Civic
Mazda
Style Rel. Fuel Cost0.046 0.244 0.162 0.106
0.053 0.192 0.144 0.092
0.059 0.164 0.144 0.118
0.040 0.192 0.144 0.080
![Page 34: MCDM Multi-Criteria Decision Making by: Mehrdad ghafoori Saber seyyed ali](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022081416/56649eb35503460f94bba041/html5/thumbnails/34.jpg)
Steps of TOPSIS
34
Step 3 (a): determine ideal solution A*.
A* = {0.059, 0.244, 0.162, 0.080}
Style Rel. Fuel
Saturn
Ford
Civic
Mazda
Cost
0.046 0.244 0.162 0.106
0.053 0.192 0.144 0.092
0.059 0.164 0.144 0.118
0.040 0.192 0.144 0.080
![Page 35: MCDM Multi-Criteria Decision Making by: Mehrdad ghafoori Saber seyyed ali](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022081416/56649eb35503460f94bba041/html5/thumbnails/35.jpg)
Steps of TOPSIS
35
Step 3 (b): find negative ideal solution A'.
A' = {0.040, 0.164, 0.144, 0.118}
Style Rel. Fuel
Saturn
Ford
0.046 0.244 0.162 0.106
0.053 0.192 0.144 0.092
0.059 0.164 0.144 0.118
Civic
Mazda
0.040 0.192 0.144 0.080
Cost
![Page 36: MCDM Multi-Criteria Decision Making by: Mehrdad ghafoori Saber seyyed ali](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022081416/56649eb35503460f94bba041/html5/thumbnails/36.jpg)
Steps of TOPSIS
36
Step 4 (a): determine separation from ideal solution A* = {0.059, 0.244, 0.162, 0.080}
Si*
= [ (vj*– vij)2 ] ½ for each row j
Style Rel. Fuel
Saturn
Ford
(.046-.059)2 (.244-.244)2 (0)2 (.026)2 Civic
Mazda
Cost
(.053-.059)2 (.192-.244)2 (-.018)2 (.012)2
(.053-.059)2 (.164-.244)2 (-.018)2 (.038)2
(.053-.059)2 (.192-.244)2 (-.018)2 (.0)2
![Page 37: MCDM Multi-Criteria Decision Making by: Mehrdad ghafoori Saber seyyed ali](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022081416/56649eb35503460f94bba041/html5/thumbnails/37.jpg)
Steps of TOPSIS
37
Step 4 (a): determine separation from ideal solution Si*
Saturn
Ford
0.000845 0.029
0.003208 0.057
0.008186 0.090
Civic
Mazda 0.003389 0.058
(vj*–vij)2 Si* = [ (vj
*– vij)2 ] ½
![Page 38: MCDM Multi-Criteria Decision Making by: Mehrdad ghafoori Saber seyyed ali](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022081416/56649eb35503460f94bba041/html5/thumbnails/38.jpg)
Steps of TOPSIS
38
Step 4: determine separation from negative ideal solution Si'
(vj'–vij)2 Si' = [ (vj'– vij)2 ] ½
Saturn
Ford
0.006904 0.083
0.001629 0.040
0.000361 0.019
Civic
Mazda 0.002228 0.047
![Page 39: MCDM Multi-Criteria Decision Making by: Mehrdad ghafoori Saber seyyed ali](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022081416/56649eb35503460f94bba041/html5/thumbnails/39.jpg)
Steps of TOPSIS
39
Step 5: Calculate the relative closeness to the ideal solution Ci* = S'i / (Si
* +S'i )
S'i /(Si*+S'i) Ci*
Saturn
Ford
0.083/0.112 0.74 BEST
0.040/0.097 0.41
0.019/0.109 0.17
Civic
Mazda 0.047/0.105 0.45
![Page 40: MCDM Multi-Criteria Decision Making by: Mehrdad ghafoori Saber seyyed ali](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022081416/56649eb35503460f94bba041/html5/thumbnails/40.jpg)
AHP (The Analytical Hierarchy Process)
40
AHP uses a hierarchical structure and pairwise comparisons.
An AHP hierarchy has at least three levels:
1) the main objective of the problem at the top.
2) multiple criteria that define alternatives in the middle.(m)
3) competing alternatives at the bottom.(n)
![Page 41: MCDM Multi-Criteria Decision Making by: Mehrdad ghafoori Saber seyyed ali](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022081416/56649eb35503460f94bba041/html5/thumbnails/41.jpg)
An example of hierarchical value tree:
41
![Page 42: MCDM Multi-Criteria Decision Making by: Mehrdad ghafoori Saber seyyed ali](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022081416/56649eb35503460f94bba041/html5/thumbnails/42.jpg)
Steps of AHP
42
1) Criteria weighting must be determined using
(m*(m-1))/2 pair wise comparisons.
2) Alternatives scoring using m*((n*(n-1))/2) pair
wise comparisons between alternatives for each
criteria.
3) After completing pair wise comparisons AHP is
just the hierarchical application of SAW.
![Page 43: MCDM Multi-Criteria Decision Making by: Mehrdad ghafoori Saber seyyed ali](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022081416/56649eb35503460f94bba041/html5/thumbnails/43.jpg)
An example of using AHP method selecting a new hub airport
43
![Page 44: MCDM Multi-Criteria Decision Making by: Mehrdad ghafoori Saber seyyed ali](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022081416/56649eb35503460f94bba041/html5/thumbnails/44.jpg)
Scale of relative importance table
44
![Page 45: MCDM Multi-Criteria Decision Making by: Mehrdad ghafoori Saber seyyed ali](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022081416/56649eb35503460f94bba041/html5/thumbnails/45.jpg)
45
![Page 46: MCDM Multi-Criteria Decision Making by: Mehrdad ghafoori Saber seyyed ali](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022081416/56649eb35503460f94bba041/html5/thumbnails/46.jpg)
46
![Page 47: MCDM Multi-Criteria Decision Making by: Mehrdad ghafoori Saber seyyed ali](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022081416/56649eb35503460f94bba041/html5/thumbnails/47.jpg)
47
![Page 48: MCDM Multi-Criteria Decision Making by: Mehrdad ghafoori Saber seyyed ali](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022081416/56649eb35503460f94bba041/html5/thumbnails/48.jpg)
48
![Page 49: MCDM Multi-Criteria Decision Making by: Mehrdad ghafoori Saber seyyed ali](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022081416/56649eb35503460f94bba041/html5/thumbnails/49.jpg)
Some AHP method shortcomings
49
Comparison inconsistencies:
decision-makers using AHP often make inconsistent pair wise comparisons.
Rank reversals
changing of relative alternative rankings due to the addition and deletion of alternatives.
Large number of comparisons
where there are either a large number of attributes and/or alternatives to be evaluated.
![Page 50: MCDM Multi-Criteria Decision Making by: Mehrdad ghafoori Saber seyyed ali](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022081416/56649eb35503460f94bba041/html5/thumbnails/50.jpg)
SMART(The Simple Multi Attribute Rating Technique )
50
In a general sense, SMART is somewhat like AHP in that a hierarchical structure is created to assist in defining a problem and to organize criteria. However, there are some significant differences between two techniques:
1) SMART uses a different terminology. For example, in SMART the lowest level of criteria in the value tree (or objective hierarchy) are called attributes rather than sub-criteria and the values of the standardized scores assigned to the attributes derived from value functions are called ratings.
![Page 51: MCDM Multi-Criteria Decision Making by: Mehrdad ghafoori Saber seyyed ali](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022081416/56649eb35503460f94bba041/html5/thumbnails/51.jpg)
51
2) The difference between a value tree in SMART and a hierarchy in AHP is that the value tree has a true tree structure, allowing one attribute or sub-criterion to be connected to only one higher level criterion.
3) SMART does not use a relative method for standardizing raw scores to a normalized scale. Instead, a value function explicitly defines how each value is transformed to the common model scale. The value function mathematically transforms ratings into a consistent internal scale with lower limit 0, and upper limit 1.
![Page 52: MCDM Multi-Criteria Decision Making by: Mehrdad ghafoori Saber seyyed ali](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022081416/56649eb35503460f94bba041/html5/thumbnails/52.jpg)
References:
52
Milan Janic and Aura Reggiani, OTB Research Institute; An Application of the Multiple Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) Analysis to the Selection of a New Hub Airport
Frederick University of Cyprus, Limassol, Cyprus and CEO, Transmart Consulting, Athens, Greece; Examining the use and application of Multi-Criteria Decision Making Techniques in Safety Assessment
HAROLD VAUGHN JACKSON JR.; A STRUCTURED APPROACH FOR CLASSIFYING AND PRIORITIZING
PRODUCT REQUIREMENTS