Title

多準則決策模式之比較分析 - 以個案為例探討

Translated Titles

A comparative Study of Multiple Criteria Decision Making Techniques on Two Cases

DOI

10.6838/YZU.2013.00162

Authors

鄒沛成

Key Words

多準則決策 ; 模糊德爾菲法 ; 模糊理論 ; VIKOR ; PROMETHEE ; Multiple criteria decision making ; fuzzy Delphi ; VIKOR ; PROMETHEE ; fuzzy theory ; Evamix

PublicationName

元智大學工業工程與管理學系學位論文

Volume or Term/Year and Month of Publication

2013年

Academic Degree Category

碩士

Advisor

徐旭昇

Content Language

繁體中文

Chinese Abstract

決策分析在現今科技發達的時代越來越重要,在產業競爭、公共政策等問題處處可見,多準則決策模式更是經常使用的解決問題之工具:例如層級分析法、網路程序法、簡易多屬性排序技術、資料包絡分析法等等。本研究之主旨在於探討一些決策模式之特性,文中使用兩個案來比較分析這些方法。   一個案源自於已發表論文-水資源系統之評選,對此問題本研究將原論文中之8種方案,採用與文中相同層級準則結構與評選資料,應用VIKOR、PROMETHEE、Evamix以及Fuzzy VIKOR四種方法來對方案排序,其中Fuzzy VIKOR主要是探討相同數據與語意評估下,與明確值模式所產生結果之差異。另一個案為本研究所提出,利用某電子科技公司所發展之智慧型自動販賣機進行大型賣場樓層設置最佳化決策。此個案尋找一群專家及決策者,利用雙三角模糊數德爾菲法,來建立評選層級準則結構,並使用VIKOR及Fuzzy VIKOR將所有方案排序並做比較分析。   就個案一而言,本研究發現應用PROMETHEE時,由於其兩兩方案凌駕函數定義只計算贏的差值,對於負值的狀況,無論其值之大小皆以0計算,所計算得出之數值誤差較輸贏淨值計算方式為大,在Evamix方法中,其特色為將質化及量化數據分開計算。由於本研究個案二之數據由專家及顧客問卷所得均為質化之數據,故採用VIKOR與Fuzzy VIKOR方法來處理。研究結果顯示此兩種方法之數據具有相當高之一致性,亦即有相同方案排序。 關鍵詞:多準則決策、模糊德爾菲法、模糊理論、VIKOR、PROMETHEE

English Abstract

Multiple criteria decision analysis (MCDA) provides management a framework for evaluating decision options against multiple criteria. The paper investigates the features of two or more of the following four decision making techniques: VIKOR, PROMETHEE II, Evamix, and Fuzzy VIKOR, with applications to two practical cases: (1) selection of water resource system and (2) selection of location for intelligent and multi-functional vending machines in a large shopping mall. The first case is taken from the article by Abrishamchi et al. (2005), where AHP was applied to determine the hierarchical structure and the attribute weights, and compromising programming and PROMETTHEE II were applied to select one of the 8 urban water supply systems. We propose the aforementioned four methods to solve and compare the same case problem, and discuss the specific features of the four methods. The PROMETHEE generates results based on the maximum of group utility, whereas the VIKOR method integrates group utility and minimal individual regret. The characteristic of Evamix is that it treats ordinal and cardinal data separately. The objective of the second case study is to rank several location alternatives for a fashion and multi-function model of intelligent vending machines in a large shopping center with the objective of promoting marketing sales. A hybrid multiple criteria decision making technique including three-step procedures are used: (1) fuzzy Delphi method to establish hierarchical attribute structure, (2) AHP method to determine the weight of each attribute, and (3) VIKOR and fuzzy VIKOR to rank the location alternatives. The results indicate that the ranking using the two evaluation methods in (3) are highly consistent. Keywords: Multiple criteria decision making, fuzzy Delphi, VIKOR, PROMETHEE, Evamix, fuzzy theory

Topic Category 工程學院 > 工業工程與管理學系
工程學 > 工程學總論
社會科學 > 管理學
Reference
  1. 1. Abrishamchi, A., Ebrahimian, A., Tajrishi, M., Marino, M.A., Asce, H.M. (2005) “Case study: Application of multicriteria decision making to urban water supply”, Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management, Vol. 131, No. 4, pp. 326-335
    連結:
  2. 3. Ashtiani, B., Haghighirad, F., Makui, A., aliMontazer, G. (2009) “Extension of fuzzy TOPSIS method based n interval-valued fuzzy sets”, Applied Soft Computing, Vol. 9, pp. 457-461.
    連結:
  3. 5. Bobylev, N. (2011) “Comparative analysis of environmental of selected underground construction technologies using the analytic network process”, Automation in Construction, Vol. 20, pp. 1030-1040
    連結:
  4. 7. Brans, J.P., Vincke, P.H., Marshal, B., (1986) “How to select and how to rank projects: The PROMETHEE method”, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 24, pp. 228-238
    連結:
  5. 8. Chang, P.T., Huang, L.C., Lin, H.J. (1995) “ An efficient approach for large scale project planning based on fuzzy Delphi method, Fuzzy Sets and system 76, pp. 277-288.
    連結:
  6. 9. Chen, C.T., Lin, C.T., Huang, S.F. (2006) “A fuzzy approach for supplier evaluation and selection in supply chain management”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 102, pp. 289-301
    連結:
  7. 10. Chen, L.Y., Wang, T.C., (2009) “Optimizing partners’ choice in IS/IT outsourcing projects: The strategy decision of fuzzy VIKOR”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 120, pp. 233-242.
    連結:
  8. 11. Chen, M.F., Tzeng, G.H., (2004) “Combining grey relation and TOPSIS concepts for selecting an expatriate host country”, Mathematical and Computer Modelling, Vol. 40, No. 13, pp. 1473-1490
    連結:
  9. 12. Chen, S.M., (1996) “Evaluating weapon systems using fuzzy arithmetic operations”, Fuzzy Sets and Systems, Vol. 77, pp. 265-276
    連結:
  10. 13. Chien, C.F., Chen, S., Lin, Y. (2002) Using Bayesian network for fault location on distribution feeder of electrical power delivery systems”, IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery, Vol. 17, No. 13, pp. 785-793
    連結:
  11. 14. Chou, S.Y., Chang, Y.H. (2008) “A decision support system for supplier selection based on a strategy-aligned fuzzy SMART approach”, Expert Systems with Applications, Vol. 34, pp. 2241-2253
    連結:
  12. 15. Clemen, R.T., Reilly, T. (2001) Making Hard Decisions: with Decision Tools, Duxbury, CA, USA
    連結:
  13. 17. Ebrahimnejad, S., Mousavi, S.M., Seyrafianpour, H., (2010) “Risk identification and assessment for build-operate-transfer projects: A fuzzy multi-attribute decision making model”, Expert Systems with Applications, Vol. 37, No. 1, pp. 575-586.
    連結:
  14. 18. Edwards, W. (1977) “How to use multi-attribute utility measurement for social decision making”, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, SMC-7, pp. 326-340
    連結:
  15. 19. Edwards, W. and Barron, F.H. (1994) “SMART and SMARTER: Improved simple methods for multi-attribute utility measurement”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Process, Vol. 60, No. 3, pp. 306-325.
    連結:
  16. 21. Hajkowicz, S., Higgins, A. (2008) “A comparison of multiple criteria analysis techniques for water resource management”, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol.184, pp. 255-265
    連結:
  17. 22. Hsu, P.F. (2012) “Selection model based on ANP and GRA for independent media agencies”, Quality and Quantity, Vol. 46, pp. 1-17
    連結:
  18. 23. Hwang, C.L., Yoon, K.S. (1981) “Multiple Attribute Decision Making”, Lecture Notes in Economics and Mathematical Systems Volume 186
    連結:
  19. 24. Ishikawa, A., Amagasa, T., Tamizawa, G., Totsuta, R., Mieno, H. (1993) “ The Max-Min Delphi Method Via Fuzzy Integration”, Fuzzy Sets and Systems 55, pp.241-253.
    連結:
  20. 25. Kaya, T., Kahraman, C. (2010) “Multicriteria renewable energy planning using an integrated fuzzy VIKOR & AHP methodology: The case of Istanbul”, Energy, Vol. 35, pp. 2517-2527
    連結:
  21. 26. Kaya, T., Kahraman, C. (2011) “Fuzzy multiple criteria forestry decision making based on an integrated VIKOR and AHP approach”, Expert Systems with Applications, Vol. 38, pp. 7326-7333
    連結:
  22. 27. Liou, J.H., Chuang, Y.T. (2010) “Developing a hybrid multi-criteria model for selection of outsourcing providers”, Expert Systems with Application, Vol. 37, pp. 3755-3761
    連結:
  23. 29. Meade, L.M. and Presley, A. (2002) “R&D project selection using the analytic network process”, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, Vol. 49, No. 1, pp. 59-66
    連結:
  24. 31. Opricovic, S. (2011) “Fuzzy VIKOR with an application to water resources planning”, Expert Systems with Applications, Vol. 38, pp. 12983-12990
    連結:
  25. 33. Opricovic, S., Tzeng G.H. (2007) “Extend VIKOR method in comparison with outranking methods”, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol.178, pp. 514-529
    連結:
  26. 34. Opricovic, S., Tzeng, G.H., (2004) “Compromise solution by MCDM methods: A comparative analysis by VIKOR and TOPSIS”, European Journal of Operational Research, Nov. 156, pp. 445-455
    連結:
  27. 35. Pereira, P., Veloso, F.M. “R&D activity selection process: Building a strategy-aligned R&D portfolio for government and nonprofit organizations”, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, Vol. 56, No. 1, pp. 95-105
    連結:
  28. 36. Saaty, T.L. (1980) The Analytic Hierarchy Process, New York: McGraw Hill. International
    連結:
  29. 37. Sadi-Nezhad, S., Damghani, K.K. (2010) “Application of a fuzzy TOPSIS method base on modified preference ratio and fuzzy distance measurement in assessment of traffic police centers performance”, Applied Soft Computing, Vol. 10,pp 1028-1039
    連結:
  30. 38. Sanayei, A., Farid Mousavi, S., Yazdankhah, A. (2010) “Group decision making process for supplier selection with VIKOR under fuzzy environment”, Expert Systems with Applications, Vol. 37, pp. 24-30
    連結:
  31. 39. Sanayei, A., Mousavi, F., Yazdahkhah, A. (2010) “Group decision making process for supplier selection with VIKOR under fuzzy environment”, Expert Systems with Applications, Vol. 37, No. 1, pp. 24-30
    連結:
  32. 41. Shemshadi, A. Shirazi, H., Toreihi, M., Tarokh, M.J. (2011) “A fuzzy VIKOR method for supplier selection based on entropy measure for objective weighting”, Expert Systems with Applications, Vol. 38, pp. 12160-12167
    連結:
  33. 42. Simanaviciene, R., Ustinovichius, L. (2010) “Sensitivity analysis for multiple criteria decision making methods: TOPSIS and SAW”, Social and Behavior Sciences, Vol. 2, pp. 7743-7744
    連結:
  34. 43. Tam, M.C.Y. RaoTummala, V.M. (2001) “An application of the AHP in vendor selection of a telecommunications system”, OMEGA, Vol. 29, pp. 171-182
    連結:
  35. 45. Voogd, H. (1982) “Multi-criterion evaluation with mixed qualitative and quantitative data”, Environment and Planning Bulletin, Vol. 9, pp. 221-236
    連結:
  36. 46. Voogd, H. (1983) Multicriteria evaluation for urban and regional planning, Pion, London
    連結:
  37. 47. Zeleny, M. (1982) Multiple Criteria Decision Making, McGraw-Hill, New York
    連結:
  38. 48. 魏萬里 (2007),「應用分析網路程序法選擇最佳產品設計方案之決策分析模式」,國立臺灣科技大學,博士論文。
    連結:
  39. 2. Aghajani, H., Sedaghat, M., Dargahi, H., Pourhossein, M., (2012) “Applying VIKOR, TOPSIS, and SAW in fuzzy environment for ranking suppliers in supply chain: A case study”, American Journal of Scientific Research, Issue 48, pp. 10-19
  40. 4. Benayoun, R., Roy, B., Sussman, N. (1966) “Manual de Reference du ProgrammeElectre”, Note de Syntheseet Formation, No. 25, Direction Scientifque SEMA, Paris, France
  41. 6. Brans, J.P. Mareschal, B. (2005) “PROMETHEE methods”, In: Figueira, J., Salvatore, G., Ehrgott, M. (Eds.), Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis: State of the Art Survey, Springer, New York, pp. 163-195.
  42. 16. Delbecq, A.L., VandeVen, A.H., Gustafason, D.H. (1975) Group Techniques for Program Planning, Scott, Foresman and Company, Illinois
  43. 20. Fryback, D.G., Chinnis, Jr., J.O., Ulvila, J.W. (2001) “Bayesian Cost-effectiveness analysis”, International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, Vol. 17, No. 1, pp. 83-97
  44. 28. Martel, J.M., Matarazzo, B. (2005) “Other outranking approaches”, In: Figueira, J., Salvatore, G., Ehrgott, M. (Eds.). Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis: State of the Art Surveys, Springer, NY, pp. 197-262
  45. 30. Nijkamp, P., Rietveld, P., Voogd, H. (1990) Multicriteria evaluation in physical planning, North Holland, Amsterdam, pp. 65-100
  46. 32. Opricovic, S., (1998) Multicriteria optimization of civil engineering systems, Faculty of Civil Engineering, Belgrade
  47. 40. Satty, T.L. (1996) Decision Making with Dependence and Feedback: The Analytic Network Process, RWS Publication, Pittsburgh, PA.
  48. 44. Vahdani, B., Hadipour, H., Sadaghiani, J.S., Amiri, M. (2010) “Extension of VIKOR method based on interval-valued fuzzy sets”, International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, Vol. 47, pp. 1231-1239
  49. 49. 張紹勳 (2012),模糊多準則評估法及統計,五南圖書,臺北。
  50. 50. 簡禎富 (2005),決策分析與管理,雙葉書廊,臺北。
Times Cited
  1. 宋明秀(2017)。智慧城市示範計畫之多準則評估。臺灣大學建築與城鄉研究所學位論文。2017。1-273。