A novel three-stage distance-based consensus ranking method

Journal of Industrial Engineering International

دوره 16، شماره 1، خرداد 2020، صفحه 17-24   

نویسندگان

Nazila Aghayi¹؛ Madjid Tavana^{* 2، 3}

¹Department of Mathematics, Ardabil Branch, Islamic Azad University, Ardabil, Iran

²Business Systems and Analytics Department, Lindback Distinguished Chair of Information Systems and Decision Sciences, La Salle University, Philadelphia, PA, 19141, USA

³Business Information Systems Department, Faculty of Business Administration and Economics, University of Paderborn, 33098, Paderborn, Germany

چکیده

In this study, we propose a three-stage weighted sum method for identifying the group ranks of alternatives. In the first stage, a rank matrix, similar to the cross-efficiency matrix, is obtained by computing the individual rank position of each alternative based on importance weights. In the second stage, a secondary goal is defined to limit the vector of weights since the vector of weights obtained in the first stage is not unique. Finally, in the third stage, the group rank position of alternatives is obtained based on a distance of individual rank positions. The third stage determines a consensus solution for the group so that the ranks obtained have a minimum distance from the ranks acquired by each alternative in the previous stage. A numerical example is presented to demonstrate the applicability and exhibit the efficacy of the proposed method and algorithms.

کلیدواژه‌ها

Data envelopment analysis . Multi؛ criteria decision making . Individual rank . Group rank . Cross؛ evaluation . Voting

مراجع

Andersen P, Petersen NC (1993) A procedure for ranking efficient units in data envelopment analysis. Manage Sci
39(10):1261–1294
Beck MP, Lin BW (1983) Some heuristics for the consensus ranking problem. Comput Oper Res 10(1):1–7
Contreras I (2010) A distance-based consensus model with flexible choice of rank-position weights. Group Decis Negot 19:441–456
Contreras I (2011) A DEA-inspired procedure for the aggregation of preferences. Expert Syst Appl 38:564–570
Contreras I (2012) Optimizing the rank position of the DMU as secondary goal in DEA cross-evaluation. Appl Math Model
36(6):2642–2648
Contreras I, Hinojosa MA, Ma´rmol AM (2005) A class of flexible weight indices for ranking alternatives. IMA J Manag Math 16(1):71–85
Cook WD, Kress M (1985) Ordinal ranking with intensity of preference. Manage Sci 31(1):26–32
Cook WD, Kress M (1990) A data envelopment model for aggregating preference rankings. Manage Sci 36:1302–1310
Cook WD, Kress M (1996) An extreme-point approach for obtaining weighted ratings in qualitative multi criteria decision making. Nav Res Logist 43(4):519–531
Ding SH, Kamaruddin S (2015) Assessment of distance-based multiattribute group decision-making methods from a maintenance strategy perspective. J Ind Eng Int 11(1):73–85
Doyle J, Green R (1994) Efficiency and cross-efficiency in DEA: derivations, meanings and uses. J Oper Res Soc 45:567–578
Doyle J, Green RH (1995) Cross-evaluation in DEA: improving discrimination among DMUs. INFOR 33:205–222
Ebrahimnejad A, Tavana M, Santos-Arteaga FJ (2016) An integrated data envelopment analysis and simulation method for group consensus ranking. Math Comput Simul 119:1–17
Foroughi AA, Tamiz M (2005) An effective total ranking model for a ranked voting system. Omega 33:491–496
Gong ZW, Xu XX, Zhang HH, Ozturk UA, Herrera-Viedma E, Xu C (2015) The consensus models with interval preference opinions and their economic interpretation. Omega 55:81–90
Gong Z, Zhang N, Li KW, Martı´nez L, Zhao W (2018) Consensus decision models for preferential voting with abstentions. Comput Ind Eng 115:670–682
Green RH, Doyle JR, Cook WD (1996) Preference voting and project ranking using DEA and cross-evaluation. Eur J Oper Res 90(3):461–472
Hafezalkotob A, Hafezalkotob A (2017) Interval MULTIMOORA method with target values of attributes based on interval distance and preference degree: biomaterials selection. J Ind Eng Int 13(2):181–198
Hashimoto A (1996) DEA selection system for selection examinations. J Oper Res Soc Jpn 39(4):475–485

Hashimoto A (1997) A ranked voting system using a DEA/AR exclusion model, a note. Eur J Oper Res 97:600–604
Hashimoto H, Ishikawa H (1993) Using DEA to evaluate the state of society as measured by multiple social indicators. Socioecon Plann Sci 27(4):257–268
Hosseinzadeh Lotfi F, Rostamy-Malkhalifeh M, Aghayi N, Gelej Beigi Z, Gholami K (2013) An improved method for ranking
alternatives in multiple criteria decision analysis. Appl Math Model 37(1–2):25–33
Jahanshahloo GR, Hosseinzadeh Lotfi F, Shoja N, Tohidi G, Razavian S (2004) Ranking by using L1-norm in data envelopment analysis. Appl Math Comput 153:215–224
Liamazares B, Pena T (2009) Preference aggregation and DEA: an analysis of the methods proposed to discriminate efficient candidates. Eur J Oper Res 197:714–721
Lianga L, Wua J, Cook WD, Zhu J (2008) Alternative secondary goals in DEA cross-efficiency evaluation. Int J Prod Econ
113:1025–1030
Liu Y, Liang C, Chiclana F, Wu J (2017) A trust induced recommendation mechanism for reaching consensus in group
decision making. Knowl-Based Syst 119:221–231
Noguchi H, Ogawa M, Ishii H (2002) The appropriate total ranking method using DEA for multiple categorized purposes. J Comput Appl Math 146:155–166
Obata T, Ishii H (2003) A method for discriminating efficient candidates with ranked voting data. Eur J Oper Res 151:233–237

Sexton TR, Silkman RH, Hogan AJ (1986) Data envelopment analysis: Critique and extensions. In: Silkman RH (ed) Measuring efficiency: an assessment of data envelopment analysis, vol 32. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, pp 73–105
Soltanifar M, Hosseinzadeh Lotfi F (2011) The voting analytic hierarchy process method for discriminating among efficient
decision making units in data envelopment analysis. Comput Ind Eng 60:585–592
Tavana M, LoPinto F, Smither JW (2007) A hybrid distance-based ideal-seeking consensus ranking model. J Appl Math Decis Sci 11:1–18
Tavana M, LoPinto F, Smither JW (2008) Examination of the similarity between a new sigmoid function-based consensus
ranking method and four commonly-used algorithms. Int J Oper Res 3(4):384–398
Thompson RG Jr, Singleton FD, Trall RM, Smith BA (1986) Comparative site evaluations for locating a high-energy physics
lab in Texas. Interfaces 16(6):35–49
Tohidi G, Razavyan S (2012) An L1-norm method for generating all of efficient solutions of multi-objective integer linear programming problem. J Ind Eng Int 8(1):17
Wang YM, Chin KS (2007) Discriminating DEA efficient candidates by considering their least relative total scores. J Comput Appl Math 206:209–215
Wang NS, Yia RH, Liu D (2008) A solution method to the problem proposed by Wang in voting systems. J Comput Appl Math 221:106–113
Wu J, Dai L, Chiclana F, Fujita H, Herrera-Viedma E (2018) A minimum adjustment cost feedback mechanism-based consensus model for group decision making under social network with distributed linguistic trust. Inf Fusion 41:232–242
Zerafat Angiz L, Emrouznejad M, Mustafa A, Rashidi Komijan A (2009) Selecting the most preferable alternatives in a group decision making problem using DEA. Expert Syst Appl 36:9599–9602
Zhang N, Gong ZW, Chiclana F (2017) Minimum cost consensus models based on random opinions. Expert Syst Appl 89:149–159
Ziari S (2016) An alternative transformation in ranking using l1-norm in data envelopment analysis. J Ind Eng Int 12(3):401–405 
Ziari S, Raissi S (2016) Ranking efficient DMUs using minimizing distance in DEA. J Ind Eng Int 12(2):237–242