Dr. Y. İlker TOPCUDecision Making Intentional and reflective choice in response to perceived needs (Kleindorfer et al., 1993) Dr. Y. İlker Topcu () & Dr. Özgür Kabak ([email protected])

Dr. Y. İlker TOPCU

www.ilkertopcu.net www.ilkertopcu.org www.ilkertopcu.info

facebook.com/yitopcu twitter.com/yitopcu

instagram.com/yitopcu

Dr. Özgür KABAKweb.itu.edu.tr/kabak/

http://www.ilkertopcu.net/

http://www.ilkertopcu.org/

http://www.ilkertopcu.info/

http://www.facebook.com/yitopcu

https://twitter.com/yitopcu

instagram.com/yitopcu

http://web.itu.edu.tr/kabak/

Decision Making Intentional and reflective choice in response to

perceived needs (Kleindorfer et al., 1993)

Dr. Y. İlker Topcu (www.ilkertopcu.net) & Dr. Özgür Kabak ([email protected]) 2


mailto:[email protected]

Decision Making Decision maker’s (DM’s) choice of one alternative

or a subset of alternatives among all possiblealternatives with respect to her/his goal or goals(Evren and Ülengin, 1992)

Solving a problem by choosing, ranking, orclassifying over the available alternatives that arecharacterized by multiple criteria (Topcu, 1999)




Multicriteria Decision Making A single DM is to choose among a countable (usually

finite) or uncountable set of alternatives that s/he evaluates on the basis of two or more (multiple) criteria (Korhonen et al., 1992; Dyer et al., 1992)

MCDM consists of constructing a global preference relation for a set of alternatives evaluated using several criteria (Vansnick, 1986)

The aim of any MCDM technique is to provide help and guidance to the DM in discovering his or her most desired solution to the problem (Stewart, 1992)




Multicriteria Decision Making Multiple criteria:

each problem has multiple criteria (objectives or attributes)

Conflicts among criteria:

multiple criteria conflict with each other

Incommensurable:

criteria may have different units of measurement

Design/selection:

solutions to an MCDM problem are either to design the best alternative(s) or to select the best one among previouslyspecified finite alternatives

5Dr. Y. İlker Topcu (www.ilkertopcu.net) & Dr. Özgür Kabak ([email protected])



MADM – MODMA differentiation can be made w.r.t. number of

alternatives:

Multi Attribute Decision Making – MADM Cases in which the set of decision alternatives is defined explicitly by a finite list of alternative actions – Discrete alternatives

Multi Objective Decision Making – MODM Those in which a is defined implicitly by a mathematical programming structure –Continuous alternatives




Multi Attribute Decision Making MADM is making preference decisions (selecting,

ranking, classifying, screening, prioritizing) over the available alternatives (finite number) that are characterized by attributes (multiple, conflicting,weighted, and incommensurable) (Yoon & Hwang, 1995)




MADM Problem Statements

Problématiques:

Choice (a)

Classification/Sorting (b)

Ranking (g)




Choice

Isolate the smallest subset liable to justify the elimination of all other actions

Selecting a subset, as restricted as possible, containing the most satisfactory alternative as a compromise solution




Classification

Sorting alternatives and assigning each of them into prespecified / predefined categories




Ranking

Building a partial or complete pre-order as rich as possible

Ranking (all or some of) alternatives by decreasing order of preference




Decision Making Process1. Structuring the Problem

Exploring the issue and determining whether or not MADM is an appropriate tool: If so, then alternatives for evaluation and relevant criteria can be expected to emerge

2. Constructing the Decision ModelElicitation of preferences, performance values, and (if necessary) importance

3. Analyzing (Solving) the ProblemUsing a solution method to synthesize and explore results (through sensitivity and robustness analyses)




MADM MethodsElementary Methods

Value Based Methods

Multi Attribute Value Theory

Simple Additive Weighting

Weighted Product

TOPSIS

Outranking Methods

AHP/ANP




Documents

Dr. Y. İlker TOPCUDecision Making Intentional and reflective choice in response to perceived needs (Kleindorfer et al., 1993) Dr. Y. İlker Topcu () & Dr. Özgür Kabak ([email protected])