Suggestion of Weighted Utopian Approach for Combining Weighting Methods and Utopian Approach

가중치 산정기법과 Utopian Approach를 결합한 Weighted Utopian Approach의 제안

  • 유도근 (고려대학교 공과대학 건축.사회환경공학부) ;
  • 전환돈 (서울산업대학교 건설공학부) ;
  • 정동휘 (고려대학교 공과대학 건축.사회환경공학부) ;
  • 김중훈 (고려대학교 공과대학 건축.사회환경공학부)
  • Received : 2009.11.27
  • Accepted : 2010.07.19
  • Published : 2010.08.31

Abstract

The most important part in the decision making is to decide the weight of attributes which indicate the relative importance of the properties to be estimated with different criteria respectively. In this study, the new MCDM method which consider typical preexisting methods all together is proposed. For doing those, Weighted Utopian Approach is newly suggested by combining typical 7 weighting methods and distance-based Utopian Approach which is one of the MCDM methods. The suggested method has the advantage of accomplishing representativeness and universality of the MCDM methods because it incorporates multiple weighting methods of diverse characteristics. It also yields not only the one final result but also the results calculated from each weighting method, broadening the options of the choice to the alternatives. The application of the new model to virtual engineering problems show that we can perform the decision making and the assessment of priority order more objectively with it and that it has high applicability to the practice, giving us simple calculation process.

의사결정 및 우선순위 결정에 있어 가장 중요한 점은 서로 다른 평가 기준에 따라 판단해야 할 속성의 상대적 중요성을 나타내는 가중치의 결정에 있다. 본 연구에서는 대표적인 기존의 가중치 결정 방법들을 동시에 고려하는 새로운 기법을 제안하였다. 이를 위하여 대표적인 7가지 가중치 산정방법과 다기준의사결정 기법의 하나인 거리척도 기반의 Utopian Approach를 결합한 Weighted Utopian Approach를 제안하였다. 제안된 기법은 다양한 특성을 가진 가중치 도출 기법을 고려하여 다기준 의사결정기법의 대표성과 보편성을 동시에 달성할 수 있는 장점을 가진다. 또한 최종 의사결정자들에게 최종 결과 뿐 만 아니라, 각 가중치 산정 방법별 결과를 제시하여 상황에 따른 대안 선택의 폭을 넓힐 수 있다. 본 모형을 가상의 공학문제에 적용한 결과, 보다 객관적인 의사결정 및 우선순위를 산정할 수 있었으며, 계산과정이 단순하여 실무 적용성이 우수하다고 판단되었다.

Keywords

References

  1. Anderson, N.H. and Zalinski, J. (1988) Functional Measurement Approach to Self-Estimation in Multiattribute. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, Vol. 1, pp.191-221. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.3960010402
  2. Ashton, R.H. (1980) Sensitivity of Multiattribute Decision Models to Alternative Specifications of Weighting Parameters. Journal of Business Research, Vol. 8, No. 3, pp.341-359. https://doi.org/10.1016/0148-2963(80)90041-7
  3. Barron, F.H. and Barrett, B. E. (1996) Sensitivity Analysis of Additive Multiattribute Value Model. Operations Research, Vol. 36, No. 1, pp.122-127.
  4. Brans, J.P. and Vincke, PH. (1985) A preference ranking organisation method. Management Science, Vol. 31, No. 6, pp.647-656. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.31.6.647
  5. Borda, J.C. (1781) Memoire sur les Elections au Scrutin, Histoire de l'Acad. Royale Sci., Paris.
  6. Canada, J.R. and Sullivan, W.G. (1989) Economic and Multiattribute Evaluation of Advanced Manufacturing Systesms, Prentice Hall, NJ.
  7. Charnes, A., Copper, W.W. and Rhodes, E.L. (1978) Measuring the Efficiency of Decision Making Units. European Journal of Operation Research, Vol. 2, No. 6. pp.429-444. https://doi.org/10.1016/0377-2217(78)90138-8
  8. Eckenrode, R.T. (1965) Weighting Multiple Criteria. Management Science, Vol. 12, No. 3, pp.180-192. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.12.3.180
  9. Kemeny, J.G. and Snell, L.J. (1962) Preference Ranking : An Axiomatic Approach, Mathematical Models in the Social Sciences, Ginn, New York, pp.9-23.
  10. Knoll, A.L. and Engelberg, A. (1978) Weighting Multiple Objectives- The Churchman-Ackoff Techniques Revisited. Computer and Operations Research, Vol. 5, No. 3, pp.165-177. https://doi.org/10.1016/0305-0548(78)90022-9
  11. Ning, S.K. and Chang, N.B. (2002) Multi-Objective Decision-Based Assessment of a Water Quality Monitoring Network in a River System. Journal of Environmental Monitoring, Vol. 4, pp.121-126. https://doi.org/10.1039/b107041j
  12. Roy, B. (1991) The Outranking approach and the foundations of ELECTRE methods., Theory and Decision, Vol. 31. pp.49-73.
  13. Saaty, T.L (1980) The Analytic Hierarchy Process, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
  14. Saaty, T.L (1990) Multicriteria Decision Making : The Analytic Hierarchy Process, RWS Publications, Pittsburgh, PA.
  15. Saaty, T.L. (1994) Fundamentals of Decision Making and Priority Theory with the Analytic Hierarchy Process, RWS Publications, Pittsburgh, PA.
  16. Tkach, R.J and Simonovic, S.P (1997) A new approach to multi-criteria decision making in water resources. Journal of Geographic Information and Decision Analysis, Vol. 1, pp.25-44.
  17. Xanthopulos, Z., Melachrinoudis, E. Solomon, M.M. (2000) Interactive Multiobjective Group Decision Making with Interval Parameters. Management Science, Vol. 46, No. 12, pp.1721-1732.
  18. Zeleny, M. (1982) Multiple Criteria Decision Making, McGraw- Hill, New York, New York, pp.315-325.