4.7 Article

Elicitation of criteria importance weights through the Simos method: A robustness concern

Journal

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF OPERATIONAL RESEARCH
Volume 246, Issue 2, Pages 543-553

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejor.2015.04.037

Keywords

Multiple criteria; Decision analysis; Criteria weights; Robustness analysis; Simos method

Funding

  1. Ministry of Education, Religious Affairs, Culture and Sports of Greece
  2. European Social Fund, under grant THALIS [MIS 377350]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In the field of multicriteria decision aid, the Simos method is considered as an effective tool to assess the criteria importance weights. Nevertheless, the method's input data do not lead to a single weighting vector, but infinite ones, which often exhibit great diversification and threaten the stability and acceptability of the results. This paper proves that the feasible weighting solutions, of both the original and the revised Simos procedures, are vectors of a non-empty convex polyhedral set, hence the reason it proposes a set of complementary robustness analysis rules and measures, integrated in a Robust Simos Method. This framework supports analysts and decision makers in gaining insight into the degree of variation of the multiple acceptable sets of weights, and their impact on the stability of the final results. In addition, the proposed measures determine if, and what actions should be implemented, prior to reaching an acceptable set of criteria weights and forming a final decision. Two numerical examples are provided, to illustrate the paper's evidence, and demonstrate the significance of consistently analyzing the robustness of the Simos method results, in both the original and the revised method's versions. (C) 2015 Elsevier B.V. and Association of European Operational Research Societies (EURO) within the International Federation of Operational Research Societies (IFORS). All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available