A REVIEW AND CRITIQUE OF MADM METHODS AND APPLICATIONS IN BUSINESS AND MANAGEMENT

##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.main##

##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.sidebar##

Published Nov 24, 2014
Jiri Franek Katerina Kashi

Abstract

Since its introduction the MADM techniques had witnessed a great development and popularity among scholars. Their application range from very basic towards more sophisticated using MOLP and fuzzy operations. However, many scholars and authors have researched various possibilities of MADM practical use but it seems the real business hasn’t caught up with the same enthusiasm. Hierarchical and network thinking is very important for any strategists and entrepreneurs. The most frequent plea is that the speed and efficiency should prevail when the real business environment is much more dynamic and turbulent. So entrepreneurs and managers have difficulties in filling in the questionnaires for comparing the criteria and alternatives. The lack of agreement in the criterion evaluation and compromise thus limits the application of MADM techniques. Another problem is associated with a large number of evaluation criteria that is often needed and the network of interdependencies. This paper deals with a review of applications that can be considered as useful in real business and based on empirical research proposes a suggestion of specific tasks that could be used and accepted in real business. The paper consists of summary of relevant literature then follows short description of applied methods, description and results of empirical research and concludes with proposal of several business tasks that could be facilitated by selected MADM methods.

http://dx.doi.org/10.13033/ijahp.v6i2.254

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.
Abstract 2119 | PDF () Downloads 43

##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.details##

Keywords

AHP, ANP, DEMATEL, TOPSIS, VIKOR, decision making, management

References
Behzadian, M., Otaghsara S.K., Morteza Y., Ignatius, J. (2012). A state-of the-art survey
of TOPSIS applications. Expert Systems with Applications, 39(17), 13051-13069.
Fontela, E., & Gabus, A. (1976). The DEMATEL observer. Battelle Institute, Geneva
Research Center.
Gholami, M.H. & Seyyed-Esfahani, M. (2012). An integrated framework for competitive
market strategy selection by using Fuzzy AHP. Tehnicki vjesnik / Technical Gazette,
19(4), 769-780.
Görener, A. (2012). Comparing AHP and ANP: An application of strategic decisions
making in a manufacturing company. International Journal of Business & Social Science,
3(11), 194-208.
Hashemkhani Z.S., Rezaeiniya, N., Aghdaie, M., & Zavadskas, E. (2012). Quality control
manager selection based on AHP-COPRAS-G methods: A case in Iran. Ekonomska
Istrazivanja/Economic Research, 25(1), 88-104.
Henig, M. I., & Buchanan, J. T. (1996). Response to comments. Journal Of MultiCriteria
Decision Analysis, 5(1), 19-21.
Hsiao-Chi, C., & Ya-Wen, Y. (2008). Using a strategic approach to analysis the location
selection for high-tech firms in Taiwan. Management Research News, 31(4), 228-244.
Hwang, C.L. & Yoon, K. (1981). Multiple attribute decision making. In: Lecture Notes in
Economics and Mathematical Systems, 186. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
Ishizaka, A. & Labib, A. (2011). Review of the main developments in the analytic
hierarchy process. Expert Systems with Applications. 38(11), 14336-14345.
Jerry Ho, W., Tsai, C., Tzeng, G., & Fang, S. (2011). Combined DEMATEL technique
with a novel MCDM model for exploring portfolio selection based on CAPM. Expert
Systems With Applications, 38(1), 16-25.
Keeney R.L. & Raiffa H. (1976). Decisions with multiple objectives. New York: John
Wiley.
Lee, H., Tzeng, G., Yeih, W., Wang, Y., & Yang, S. (2013). Revised DEMATEL:
resolving the infeasibility of DEMATEL. Applied Mathematical Modelling, 37(10/11),
6746-6757.
Lotfi, F., & Fallahnejad, R. (2010). Imprecise Shannon's entropy and multi attribute
decision making. Entropy, 12(1), 53-62.
Mu, E. (2006). A unified framework for site selection and business forecasting using
ANP. Journal of Systems Science and Systems Engineering, 15(2), 178–188.
Opricovic, S. & Tzeng, G-H. (2004). Compromise solution by MCDM methods: A
comparative analysis of VIKOR and TOPSIS, European Journal of Operational
Research, 156(2), 445-455.
Opricovic, S. & Tzeng, G-H. (2007). Extended VIKOR method in comparison with
outranking methods, European Journal of Operational Research, 178(2), 514-529.
Opricovic, S. (1998). Multicriteria optimization of civil engineering systems. Belgrade:
Faculty of Civil Engineering.
Pan, F.C. (2006). Escalate BSC power by AHP: Innovative approach for strategy
implementation. International Journal of Management and Decision Making. 7(2-3),
337-351.
Porter, M., E. (1980). Competitive strategy: Techniques for analyzing industries and
competitors. New York: Free Press.
Porter, M., E. (1985). Competitive sdvantage: Creating and sustaining superior
performance. New York: Free Press.
Poveda-Bautista, R., Babtista, D.C. & Garcia-Melon, M. (2011). ANP approach for
competitiveness analysis in business sectors: The case of Venezuela. Proceedings of the
International Symposium on the Analytic Hierarchy Process.
Saaty, T.L. (1977). A scaling method for priorities in hierarchical structures. Journal of
Mathematical Psychology, 15(3), 234-281.
Saaty, T. L. (1986). Axiomatic foundation of the Analytic Hierarchy Process.
Management Science, 32(7), 841-855.
Saaty, T. L. (1994). Highlights and critical points in the theory and application of the
Analytic Hierarchy Process. European Journal Of Operational Research, 74(3), 426-447.
Saaty, T.L. (1996). Decision making with dependence and feedback: The Analytic
Network Process. Pittsburgh, PA: RWS Publications.
Saaty, T.L. &Vargas, L.G. (2006). Decision making with the Analytic Network Process
economic, political, social And technological applications with benefits, opportunities,
costs and risks. Pittsburgh, PA: Springer.
Saaty, T.L., & Peniwati, K. (2007). Group decision-making: Drawing out and
reconciling differences. Pittsburgh, PA: RWS Publications.
Saaty, T.L., & Shang, J.S. (2007). Group decision-making: Head-count versus intensity
of preference. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, 41, 22–37.
Tsai, W., Yang, C., Leu, J., Lee, Y., & Yang, C. (2013). An integrated group decision
making support model for corporate financing decisions. Group Decision & Negotiation,
22(6), 1103-1127.
Tzeng, G.H. & Huang, J.J. (2011). Multiple attribute decision making: methods and
applications. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
Vaidya, O. S., & Kumar, S. (2006). Analytic hierarchy process: An overview of
applications. European Journal Of Operational Research, 169(1), 1-29.
Varma, S., Wadhwa, S. and Deshmukh, S.G. (2008). Evaluating petroleum supply chain
performance: Application of Analytical Hierarchy Process to Balanced Scorecard. Asia
Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, 20(3), 343-356.
Wang, T., & Lee, H. (2009). Developing a fuzzy TOPSIS approach based on subjective
weights and objective weights. Expert Systems With Applications, 36(5), 8980-8985.
Yang, J. B., Dale, B. G., & Siow, C. R. (2001). Self-assessment of excellence: an
application of the evidential reasoning approach. International Journal Of Production
Research, 39(16), 3789-3812.
Yuksel, I.Dag?deviren, M. (2007). Using the analytic network process (ANP) in a SWOT
analysis – A case study for a textile firm. Information Sciences, 177, 3364–3382.
Zmeskal, Z. & Franek, J. (2013). A model of strategic decision making using
decomposition SWOT-ANP method. Financial Management of Firms and Financial
Institutions 9th International Scientific Conference Proceedings (Part I-III), 172-180.
Section
Articles