Comparative Study Of Decision Making Techniques For Multi-Attribute Decision Making Problems

ISSN No. 0976-5697

Volume 5, No. 5, May-June 2014

International Journal of Advanced Research in Computer Science
REVIEW ARTILCE
Available Online at www.ijarcs.info

Comparative Study Of Decision Making Techniques For Multi-Attribute Decision
Making Problems
Tb. Ai Munandar

Azhari, SN

Information Tech. Faculty – Informatics Eng. Dept
Universitas Serang Raya (UNSERA)
Banten Province – INDONESIA

Faculty of Math. & Natural Sciences
Universitas Gajah Mada (UGM)
Yogyakarta - INDONESIA

Abstract: The selection of the method of decision-making in order to determine the expected outcomes of the solution of the case of multi attributes is difficult because faced with the problems associated with the subjectivity and inconsistency of the results of the calculation.
Therefore, scientists continue to develop a variety of approaches in order to produce the proper method with a minimal degree of subjectivity from the decision maker. This article discusses the literature review three methods of decision making by utilizing the weighting of the criteria in determining the outcome of the decision process. They are Analytical hierarchy process (AHP), TOPSIS and PROMETHEE. The discussion in this article is not intended to discredit one or several existing methods, however, because the presence of these three methods has provided significant benefits in the process of determining an alternative to the concept of decision support systems, and in certain cases subjectivity is required in the absence of mathematical procedures specific to describe human creative process in assessing something.
Keywords: decision-making, subjectivity, inconsistency, AHP, TOPSIS, PROMETHEE

I.

INTRODUCTION

The primary purpose of decision support systems are able to support and improve the decision making process to be performed by the decision makers, although in one hand, it is difficult to measure the outcomes of the decisions related to the quality and

References: Edition, Prentice Hall of India, New Delhi, 2007. Computers & Operations Research 31 (2004) 893–908. International Journal of Uncertainty,Fuzziness and KnowledgeBased Systems Vol. 14, No. 4 (2006), pp. 445−459 e Costa, Carlos A 187 (2008) 1422–1428, ELSEVIER Nan, Jiangxia and Maojun Zhang, "Extension of the TOPSIS for 11:5, 2014, pp. 1635 – 1645 Jahanshahloo, G.R., F and Computation, 2006, pp. 1544 – 1551. Science Ltd, 2004. 2, Issue : 6, 2013, pp. 27 – 34 Maadi, Mansoureh and Marzieh Soltanolkottabi, "Extention of Management, Vol. 6, No. 7, 2005, pp. 808 – 819 Zoran, Despodov., Mitic Sasa and Peltecki Dragi, "Application 19 (2011), pp. 93-99. Environment Advances in Biomedical Engineering, Vol.7, 2012. IOSR Journal of Engineering (IOSRJEN), Volume 2, Issue 10 (October 2012), pp 43-50. [17] Asadzadeh, Asad., Sujit Kumar Sikder, Farzin Mahmoudi and [21] Ishizaka, Alessio and Ashraf Labib, 2011, "Review of the main 3, No. 1, 2014. Systems With The Use Of A Hybrid IFS-TOPSIS Method", Journal of Intelligent Decision Technologies 7 (2013), pp developments in the Analytic Hierarchy Process", Expert Systems with Applications, 38(11), 14336-14345, 2011