Multiplecriteria decisionmaking (MCDM) or multiplecriteria decision analysis (MCDA) is a subdiscipline of operations research that explicitly evaluates multiple conflicting criteria in decision making (both in daily life and in settings such as business, government and medicine). Conflicting criteria are typical in evaluating options: cost or price is usually one of the main criteria, and some measure of quality is typically another criterion, easily in conflict with the cost. In purchasing a car, cost, comfort, safety, and fuel economy may be some of the main criteria we consider – it is unusual that the cheapest car is the most comfortable and the safest one. In portfolio management, managers are interested in getting high returns while simultaneously reducing risks; however, the stocks that have the potential of bringing high returns typically carry high risk of losing money. In a service industry, customer satisfaction and the cost of providing service are fundamental conflicting criteria.
In their daily lives, people usually weigh multiple criteria implicitly and may be comfortable with the consequences of such decisions that are made based on only intuition.[1] On the other hand, when stakes are high, it is important to properly structure the problem and explicitly evaluate multiple criteria.[2] In making the decision of whether to build a nuclear power plant or not, and where to build it, there are not only very complex issues involving multiple criteria, but there are also multiple parties who are deeply affected by the consequences.
Structuring complex problems well and considering multiple criteria explicitly leads to more informed and better decisions. There have been important advances in this field since the start of the modern multiplecriteria decisionmaking discipline in the early 1960s. A variety of approaches and methods, many implemented by specialized decisionmaking software,[3][4] have been developed for their application in an array of disciplines, ranging from politics and business to the environment and energy.[5]
Foundations, concepts, definitions
MCDM or MCDA are wellknown acronyms for multiplecriteria decisionmaking and multiplecriteria decision analysis; Stanley Zionts helped popularizing the acronym with his 1979 article "MCDM – If not a Roman Numeral, then What?", intended for an entrepreneurial audience.
MCDM is concerned with structuring and solving decision and planning problems involving multiple criteria. The purpose is to support decisionmakers facing such problems. Typically, there does not exist a unique optimal solution for such problems and it is necessary to use decisionmaker's preferences to differentiate between solutions.
"Solving" can be interpreted in different ways. It could correspond to choosing the "best" alternative from a set of available alternatives (where "best" can be interpreted as "the most preferred alternative" of a decisionmaker). Another interpretation of "solving" could be choosing a small set of good alternatives, or grouping alternatives into different preference sets. An extreme interpretation could be to find all "efficient" or "nondominated" alternatives (which we will define shortly).
The difficulty of the problem originates from the presence of more than one criterion. There is no longer a unique optimal solution to an MCDM problem that can be obtained without incorporating preference information. The concept of an optimal solution is often replaced by the set of nondominated solutions. A nondominated solution has the property that it is not possible to move away from it to any other solution without sacrificing in at least one criterion. Therefore, it makes sense for the decisionmaker to choose a solution from the nondominated set. Otherwise, she/he could do better in terms of some or all of the criteria, and not do worse in any of them. Generally, however, the set of nondominated solutions is too large to be presented to the decisionmaker for the final choice. Hence we need tools that help the decisionmaker focus on the preferred solutions (or alternatives). Normally one has to "tradeoff" certain criteria for others.
MCDM has been an active area of research since the 1970s. There are several MCDMrelated organizations including the International Society on Multicriteria Decision Making,[6] Euro Working Group on MCDA,[7] and INFORMS Section on MCDM.[8] For a history see: Köksalan, Wallenius and Zionts (2011).[9] MCDM draws upon knowledge in many fields including:
Mathematics
Decision analysis
Economics
Computer technology
Software engineering
Information systems
A typology
There are different classifications of MCDM problems and methods. A major distinction between MCDM problems is based on whether the solutions are explicitly or implicitly defined.
Multiplecriteria evaluation problems: These problems consist of a finite number of alternatives, explicitly known in the beginning of the solution process. Each alternative is represented by its performance in multiple criteria. The problem may be defined as finding the best alternative for a decisionmaker (DM), or finding a set of good alternatives. One may also be interested in "sorting" or "classifying" alternatives. Sorting refers to placing alternatives in a set of preferenceordered classes (such as assigning creditratings to countries), and classifying refers to assigning alternatives to nonordered sets (such as diagnosing patients based on their symptoms). Some of the MCDM methods in this category have been studied in a comparative manner in the book by Triantaphyllou on this subject, 2000.[10]
Multiplecriteria design problems (multiple objective mathematical programming problems): In these problems, the alternatives are not explicitly known. An alternative (solution) can be found by solving a mathematical model. The number of alternatives is either infinite and not countable (when some variables are continuous) or typically very large if countable (when all variables are discrete).
Whether it is an evaluation problem or a design problem, preference information of DMs is required in order to differentiate between solutions. The solution methods for MCDM problems are commonly classified based on the timing of preference information obtained from the DM.
There are methods that require the DM's preference information at the start of the process, transforming the problem into essentially a single criterion problem. These methods are said to operate by "prior articulation of preferences". Methods based on estimating a value function or using the concept of "outranking relations", analytical hierarchy process, and some decision rulebased methods try to solve multiple criteria evaluation problems utilizing prior articulation of preferences. Similarly, there are methods developed to solve multiplecriteria design problems using prior articulation of preferences by constructing a value function. Perhaps the most wellknown of these methods is goal programming. Once the value function is constructed, the resulting single objective mathematical program is solved to obtain a preferred solution.
Some methods require preference information from the DM throughout the solution process. These are referred to as interactive methods or methods that require "progressive articulation of preferences". These methods have been welldeveloped for both the multiple criteria evaluation (see for example Geoffrion, Dyer and Feinberg, 1972,[11] and Köksalan and Sagala, 1995[12] ) and design problems (see Steuer, 1986[13]).
Multiplecriteria design problems typically require the solution of a series of mathematical programming models in order to reveal implicitly defined solutions. For these problems, a representation or approximation of "efficient solutions" may also be of interest. This category is referred to as "posterior articulation of preferences", implying that the DM's involvement starts posterior to the explicit revelation of "interesting" solutions (see for example Karasakal and Köksalan, 2009[14]).
When the mathematical programming models contain integer variables, the design problems become harder to solve. Multiobjective Combinatorial Optimization (MOCO) constitutes a special category of such problems posing substantial computational difficulty (see Ehrgott and Gandibleux,[15] 2002, for a review).
Representations and definitions
The MCDM problem can be represented in the criterion space or the decision space. Alternatively, if different criteria are combined by a weighted linear function, it is also possible to represent the problem in the weight space. Below are the demonstrations of the criterion and weight spaces as well as some formal definitions.
Criterion space representation
Let us assume that we evaluate solutions in a specific problem situation using several criteria. Let us further assume that more is better in each criterion. Then, among all possible solutions, we are ideally interested in those solutions that perform well in all considered criteria. However, it is unlikely to have a single solution that performs well in all considered criteria. Typically, some solutions perform well in some criteria and some perform well in others. Finding a way of trading off between criteria is one of the main endeavors in the MCDM literature.
Mathematically, the MCDM problem corresponding to the above arguments can be represented as
"max" q
subject to
q ∈ Q
where q is the vector of k criterion functions (objective functions) and Q is the feasible set, Q ⊆ Rk.
If Q is defined explicitly (by a set of alternatives), the resulting problem is called a multiplecriteria evaluation problem.
If Q is defined implicitly (by a set of constraints), the resulting problem is called a multiplecriteria design problem.
The quotation marks are used to indicate that the maximization of a vector is not a welldefined mathematical operation. This corresponds to the argument that we will have to find a way to resolve the tradeoff between criteria (typically based on the preferences of a decision maker) when a solution that performs well in all criteria does not exist.
Decision space representation
The decision space corresponds to the set of possible decisions that are available to us. The criteria values will be consequences of the decisions we make. Hence, we can define a corresponding problem in the decision space. For example, in designing a product, we decide on the design parameters (decision variables) each of which affects the performance measures (criteria) with which we evaluate our product.
Mathematically, a multiplecriteria design problem can be represented in the decision space as follows:
\( {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}\max q&=f(x)=f(x_{1},\ldots ,x_{n})\\{\text{subject to}}\\q\in Q&=\{f(x):x\in X,\,X\subseteq \mathbb {R} ^{n}\}\end{aligned}}} \)
where X is the feasible set and x is the decision variable vector of size n.
A welldeveloped special case is obtained when X is a polyhedron defined by linear inequalities and equalities. If all the objective functions are linear in terms of the decision variables, this variation leads to multiple objective linear programming (MOLP), an important subclass of MCDM problems.
There are several definitions that are central in MCDM. Two closely related definitions are those of nondominance (defined based on the criterion space representation) and efficiency (defined based on the decision variable representation).
Definition 1. q* ∈ Q is nondominated if there does not exist another q ∈ Q such that q ≥ q* and q ≠ q*.
Roughly speaking, a solution is nondominated so long as it is not inferior to any other available solution in all the considered criteria.
Definition 2. x* ∈ X is efficient if there does not exist another x ∈ X such that f(x) ≥ f(x*) and f(x) ≠ f(x*).
If an MCDM problem represents a decision situation well, then the most preferred solution of a DM has to be an efficient solution in the decision space, and its image is a nondominated point in the criterion space. Following definitions are also important.
Definition 3. q* ∈ Q is weakly nondominated if there does not exist another q ∈ Q such that q > q*.
Definition 4. x* ∈ X is weakly efficient if there does not exist another x ∈ X such that f(x) > f(x*).
Weakly nondominated points include all nondominated points and some special dominated points. The importance of these special dominated points comes from the fact that they commonly appear in practice and special care is necessary to distinguish them from nondominated points. If, for example, we maximize a single objective, we may end up with a weakly nondominated point that is dominated. The dominated points of the weakly nondominated set are located either on vertical or horizontal planes (hyperplanes) in the criterion space.
Ideal point: (in criterion space) represents the best (the maximum for maximization problems and the minimum for minimization problems) of each objective function and typically corresponds to an infeasible solution.
Nadir point: (in criterion space) represents the worst (the minimum for maximization problems and the maximum for minimization problems) of each objective function among the points in the nondominated set and is typically a dominated point.
The ideal point and the nadir point are useful to the DM to get the "feel" of the range of solutions (although it is not straightforward to find the nadir point for design problems having more than two criteria).
Illustrations of the decision and criterion spaces
The following twovariable MOLP problem in the decision variable space will help demonstrate some of the key concepts graphically.
Figure 1. Demonstration of the decision space
\( {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}\max f_{1}(\mathbf {x} )&=x_{1}+2x_{2}\\\max f_{2}(\mathbf {x} )&=2x_{1}x_{2}\\{\text{subject to}}\\x_{1}&\leq 4\\x_{2}&\leq 4\\x_{1}+x_{2}&\leq 7\\x_{1}+x_{2}&\leq 3\\x_{1}x_{2}&\leq 3\\x_{1},x_{2}&\geq 0\end{aligned}}} \)
In Figure 1, the extreme points "e" and "b" maximize the first and second objectives, respectively. The red boundary between those two extreme points represents the efficient set. It can be seen from the figure that, for any feasible solution outside the efficient set, it is possible to improve both objectives by some points on the efficient set. Conversely, for any point on the efficient set, it is not possible to improve both objectives by moving to any other feasible solution. At these solutions, one has to sacrifice from one of the objectives in order to improve the other objective.
Due to its simplicity, the above problem can be represented in criterion space by replacing the x's with the f 's as follows:
Figure 2. Demonstration of the solutions in the criterion space

 Max f_{1}

 Max f_{2}

 subject to


 f_{1} + 2f_{2} ≤ 12



 2f_{1} + f_{2} ≤ 12



 f_{1} + f_{2} ≤ 7



 f_{1} – f_{2} ≤ 9



 −f_{1} + f_{2} ≤ 9



 f_{1} + 2f_{2} ≥ 0



 2f_{1} + f_{2} ≥ 0

We present the criterion space graphically in Figure 2. It is easier to detect the nondominated points (corresponding to efficient solutions in the decision space) in the criterion space. The northeast region of the feasible space constitutes the set of nondominated points (for maximization problems).
Generating nondominated solutions
There are several ways to generate nondominated solutions. We will discuss two of these. The first approach can generate a special class of nondominated solutions whereas the second approach can generate any nondominated solution.
Weighted sums (Gass & Saaty, 1955[16])
If we combine the multiple criteria into a single criterion by multiplying each criterion with a positive weight and summing up the weighted criteria, then the solution to the resulting single criterion problem is a special efficient solution. These special efficient solutions appear at corner points of the set of available solutions. Efficient solutions that are not at corner points have special characteristics and this method is not capable of finding such points. Mathematically, we can represent this situation as

 max w^{T}.q = w^{T}.f(x), w> 0

 subject to


 x ∈ X

By varying the weights, weighted sums can be used for generating efficient extreme point solutions for design problems, and supported (convex nondominated) points for evaluation problems.
Achievement scalarizing function (Wierzbicki, 1980[17])
Figure 3. Projecting points onto the nondominated set with an Achievement Scalarizing Function
Achievement scalarizing functions also combine multiple criteria into a single criterion by weighting them in a very special way. They create rectangular contours going away from a reference point towards the available efficient solutions. This special structure empower achievement scalarizing functions to reach any efficient solution. This is a powerful property that makes these functions very useful for MCDM problems.
Mathematically, we can represent the corresponding problem as

 Min s(g, q, w, ρ) = Min {max_{i} [(g_{i} − q_{i})/w_{i} ] + ρ ∑_{i} (g_{i} − q_{i})},

 subject to


 q ∈ Q

The achievement scalarizing function can be used to project any point (feasible or infeasible) on the efficient frontier. Any point (supported or not) can be reached. The second term in the objective function is required to avoid generating inefficient solutions. Figure 3 demonstrates how a feasible point, g1, and an infeasible point, g2, are projected onto the nondominated points, q1 and q2, respectively, along the direction w using an achievement scalarizing function. The dashed and solid contours correspond to the objective function contours with and without the second term of the objective function, respectively.
Solving MCDM problems
Different schools of thought have developed for solving MCDM problems (both of the design and evaluation type). For a bibliometric study showing their development over time, see Bragge, Korhonen, H. Wallenius and J. Wallenius [2010].[18]
Multiple objective mathematical programming school
(1) Vector maximization: The purpose of vector maximization is to approximate the nondominated set; originally developed for Multiple Objective Linear Programming problems (Evans and Steuer, 1973;[19] Yu and Zeleny, 1975[20]).
(2) Interactive programming: Phases of computation alternate with phases of decisionmaking (Benayoun et al., 1971;[21] Geoffrion, Dyer and Feinberg, 1972;[22] Zionts and Wallenius, 1976;[23] Korhonen and Wallenius, 1988[24]). No explicit knowledge of the DM's value function is assumed.
Goal programming school
The purpose is to set apriori target values for goals, and to minimize weighted deviations from these goals. Both importance weights as well as lexicographic preemptive weights have been used (Charnes and Cooper, 1961[25]).
Fuzzyset theorists
Fuzzy sets were introduced by Zadeh (1965)[26] as an extension of the classical notion of sets. This idea is used in many MCDM algorithms to model and solve fuzzy problems.
Multiattribute utility theorists
Multiattribute utility or value functions are elicited and used to identify the most preferred alternative or to rank order the alternatives. Elaborate interview techniques, which exist for eliciting linear additive utility functions and multiplicative nonlinear utility functions, are used (Keeney and Raiffa, 1976[27]).
French school
The French school focuses on decision aiding, in particular the ELECTRE family of outranking methods that originated in France during the mid1960s. The method was first proposed by Bernard Roy (Roy, 1968[28]).
Evolutionary multiobjective optimization school (EMO)
EMO algorithms start with an initial population, and update it by using processes designed to mimic natural survivalofthefittest principles and genetic variation operators to improve the average population from one generation to the next. The goal is to converge to a population of solutions which represent the nondominated set (Schaffer, 1984;[29] Srinivas and Deb, 1994[30]). More recently, there are efforts to incorporate preference information into the solution process of EMO algorithms (see Deb and Köksalan, 2010[31]).
Grey system theory based methods
In the 1980s, Deng Julong proposed Grey System Theory (GST) and its first multipleattribute decisionmaking model, called Deng's Grey relational analysis (GRA) model. Later, the grey systems scholars proposed many GST based methods like Liu Sifeng's Absolute GRA model,[32] Grey Target Decision Making (GTDM)[33] and Grey Absolute Decision Analysis (GADA).[34]
Analytic hierarchy process (AHP)
The AHP first decomposes the decision problem into a hierarchy of subproblems. Then the decisionmaker evaluates the relative importance of its various elements by pairwise comparisons. The AHP converts these evaluations to numerical values (weights or priorities), which are used to calculate a score for each alternative (Saaty, 1980[35]). A consistency index measures the extent to which the decisionmaker has been consistent in her responses. AHP is one of the more controversial techniques listed here, with some researchers in the MCDA community believing it to be flawed . The underlying mathematics is also more complicated[vague], though it has gained some popularity as a result of commercially available software.
Several papers reviewed the application of MCDM techniques in various disciplines such as fuzzy MCDM,[36] classic MCDM,[37] sustainable and renewable energy,[38] VIKOR technique,[39] transportation systems,[40] service quality,[41] TOPSIS method,[42] energy management problems,[43] elearning,[44] tourism and hospitality,[45] SWARA and WASPAS methods.[46]
MCDM methods
The following MCDM methods are available, many of which are implemented by specialized decisionmaking software:[3][4]
Aggregated Indices Randomization Method (AIRM)
Analytic hierarchy process (AHP)
Analytic network process (ANP)
Balance Beam process
Basecriterion method (BCM)[47]
Best worst method (BWM)[48][49]
Brown–Gibson model
Characteristic Objects METhod (COMET)[50][51]
Choosing By Advantages (CBA)
Data envelopment analysis
Decision EXpert (DEX)
Disaggregation – Aggregation Approaches (UTA*, UTAII, UTADIS)
Rough set (Rough set approach)
Dominancebased rough set approach (DRSA)
ELECTRE (Outranking)
Evaluation Based on Distance from Average Solution (EDAS)[52]
Evidential reasoning approach (ER)
Goal programming (GP)
Grey relational analysis (GRA)
Inner product of vectors (IPV)
Measuring Attractiveness by a categorical Based Evaluation Technique (MACBETH)
Simple MultiAttribute Rating Technique (SMART) [53]
Stratified Multi Criteria Decision Making (SMCDM)
MultiAttribute Global Inference of Quality (MAGIQ)
Multiattribute utility theory (MAUT)
Multiattribute value theory (MAVT)
Markovian Multi Criteria Decision Making
New Approach to Appraisal (NATA)
Nonstructural Fuzzy Decision Support System (NSFDSS)
Potentially All Pairwise RanKings of all possible Alternatives (PAPRIKA)
PROMETHEE (Outranking)
Ranking based on optimal points (RBOP)[54]
Stochastic Multicriteria Acceptability Analysis (SMAA)
Superiority and inferiority ranking method (SIR method)
Technique for the Order of Prioritisation by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS)
Value analysis (VA)
Value engineering (VE)
VIKOR method[55]
Weighted product model (WPM)
Weighted sum model (WSM)
Modelo Integrado de Valor para Estructuras Sostenibles (MIVES)[56][57]
See also
Architecture tradeoff analysis method
Decisionmaking
Decisionmaking software
Decisionmaking paradox
Decisional balance sheet
Multicriteria classification problems
Rank reversals in decisionmaking
Superiority and inferiority ranking method
References
Rew, L. (1988). "Intuition in Decision‐making". Journal of Nursing Scholarship. 20 (3): 150–154. doi:10.1111/j.15475069.1988.tb00056.x. PMID 3169833.
Franco, L.A.; Montibeller, G. (2010). "Problem structuring for multicriteria decision analysis interventions". Wiley Encyclopedia of Operations Research and Management Science. doi:10.1002/9780470400531.eorms0683. ISBN 9780470400531.
Weistroffer, H. R., Smith, C. H., and Narula, S. C., "Multiple criteria decision support software", Ch 24 in: Figueira, J., Greco, S., and Ehrgott, M., eds, Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis: State of the Art Surveys Series, Springer: New York, 2005.
McGinley, P. (2012), "Decision analysis software survey", OR/MS Today, 39, archived from the original on 28 March 2013.
Kylili, Angeliki; Christoforou, Elias; Fokaides, Paris A.; Polycarpou, Polycarpos (2016). "Multicriteria analysis for the selection of the most appropriate energy crops: the case of Cyprus". Angeliki Kylili, Elias Christoforou, Paris A. Fokaides, Polycarpos Polycarpou. 35 (1): 47–58. Bibcode:2016IJSE...35...47K. doi:10.1080/14786451.2014.898640. S2CID 108512639.
"Multiple Criteria Decision Making – International Society on MCDM". www.mcdmsociety.org. Archived from the original on 3 October 2017. Retrieved 26 April 2018.
"Welcome to EWGMCDA website". www.cs.put.poznan.pl. Archived from the original on 7 October 2017. Retrieved 26 April 2018.
"Archived copy". Archived from the original on 11 August 2011. Retrieved 7 August 2011.
Köksalan, M., Wallenius, J., and Zionts, S. (2011). Multiple Criteria Decision Making: From Early History to the 21st Century. Singapore: World Scientific. ISBN 9789814335591.
Triantaphyllou, E. (2000). MultiCriteria Decision Making: A Comparative Study. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers (now Springer). p. 320. ISBN 9780792366072. Archived from the original on 24 June 2010.
An Interactive Approach for MultiCriterion Optimization, with an Application to the Operation of an Academic Department, A. M. Geoffrion, J. S. Dyer and A. Feinberg, Management Science, Vol. 19, No. 4, Application Series, Part 1 (Dec., 1972), pp. 357–368 Published by: INFORMS
Köksalan, M.M. and Sagala, P.N.S., M. M.; Sagala, P. N. S. (1995). "Interactive Approaches for Discrete Alternative Multiple Criteria Decision Making with Monotone Utility Functions". Management Science. 41 (7): 1158–1171. doi:10.1287/mnsc.41.7.1158.
Steuer, R.E. (1986). Multiple Criteria Optimization: Theory, Computation and Application. New York: John Wiley.
Karasakal, E. K. and Köksalan, M., E.; Koksalan, M. (2009). "Generating a Representative Subset of the Efficient Frontier in Multiple Criteria Decision Making". Operations Research. 57: 187–199. doi:10.1287/opre.1080.0581.
Ehrgott, M. & Gandibleux, X. (2002). "Multiobjective Combinatorial Optimization". Multiple Criteria Optimization, State of the Art Annotated Bibliographic Surveys: 369–444.
Gass, S.; Saaty, T. (1955). "Parametric Objective Function Part II". Operations Research. 2 (3): 316–319. doi:10.1287/opre.2.3.316.
Wierzbicki, A. (1980). "The Use of Reference Objectives in Multiobjective Optimization". Multiple Criteria Decision Making Theory and Application. Lecture Notes in Economics and Mathematical Systems. Springer, Berlin. 177. pp. 468–486. doi:10.1007/9783642487828_32. ISBN 9783540099635.
Bragge, J.; Korhonen, P.; Wallenius, H.; Wallenius, J. (2010). Bibliometric Analysis of Multiple Criteria Decision Making/Multiattribute Utility Theory. IXX International MCDM Conference Proceedings, (Eds.) M. Ehrgott, B. Naujoks, T. Stewart, and J. Wallenius. Springer, Berlin. 634. pp. 259–268. doi:10.1007/9783642040450_22. ISBN 9783642040443.
Evans, J.; Steuer, R. (1973). "A Revised Simplex Method for Linear Multiple Objective Programs". Mathematical Programming. 5: 54–72. doi:10.1007/BF01580111. S2CID 32037123.
Yu, P.L.; Zeleny, M. (1975). "The Set of All NonDominated Solutions in Linear Cases and a Multicriteria Simplex Method". Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications. 49 (2): 430–468. doi:10.1016/0022247X(75)901894.
Benayoun, R.; deMontgolfier, J.; Tergny, J.; Larichev, O. (1971). "Linear Programming with Multiple Objective Functions: Stepmethod (STEM)". Mathematical Programming. 1: 366–375. doi:10.1007/bf01584098. S2CID 29348836.
Geoffrion, A.; Dyer, J.; Feinberg, A. (1972). "An Interactive Approach for Multicriterion Optimization with an Application to the Operation of an Academic Department". Management Science. 19 (4–Part–1): 357–368. doi:10.1287/mnsc.19.4.357.
Zionts, S.; Wallenius, J. (1976). "An Interactive Programming Method for Solving the Multiple Criteria Problem". Management Science. 22 (6): 652–663. doi:10.1287/mnsc.22.6.652.
Korhonen, P.; Wallenius, J. (1988). "A Pareto Race". Naval Research Logistics. 35 (6): 615–623. doi:10.1002/15206750(198812)35:6<615::AIDNAV3220350608>3.0.CO;2K.
Charnes, A. and Cooper, W.W. (1961). Management Models and Industrial Applications of Linear Programming. New York: Wiley.
Zadeh, L. (1965). "Fuzzy Sets". Information and Control. 8 (3): 338–353. doi:10.1016/S00199958(65)90241X.
Keeney, R. & Raiffa, H. (1976). Decisions with Multiple Objectives: Preferences and Value Tradeoffs. New York: Wiley.
Roy, B. (1968). "La méthode ELECTRE". Revue d'Informatique et de Recherche Opérationelle (RIRO). 8: 57–75.
Shaffer, J.D. (1984). Some Experiments in Machine Learning Using Vector Evaluated Genetic Algorithms, PhD thesis. Nashville: Vanderbilt University.
Srinivas, N.; Deb, K. (1994). "Multiobjective Optimization Using Nondominated Sorting in Genetic Algorithms". Evolutionary Computation. 2 (3): 221–248. doi:10.1162/evco.1994.2.3.221. S2CID 13997318.
Deb, K.; Köksalan, M. (2010). "Guest Editorial Special Issue on PreferenceBased Multiobjective Evolutionary Algorithms". IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation. 14 (5): 669–670. doi:10.1109/TEVC.2010.2070371.
Liu, Sifeng (2017). Grey Data Analysis  Methods, Models and Applications. Singapore: Springer. pp. 67–104. ISBN 9789811018411.
Liu, Sifeng (2013). "On Uniform Effect Measure Functions and a Weighted Multiattribute Grey Target Decision Model". The Journal of Grey System. Research Information Ltd. (UK). 25 (1): 1–11. doi:10.1007/s40815020008278. S2CID 219090787.
Javed, S. A. (2020). "Grey Absolute Decision Analysis (GADA) Method for Multiple Criteria Group DecisionMaking Under Uncertainty". International Journal of Fuzzy Systems. Springer. 22 (4): 1073–1090. doi:10.1007/s40815020008278. S2CID 219090787.
Saaty, T.L. (1980). The Analytic Hierarchy Process: Planning, Priority Setting, Resource Allocation. New York: McGrawHill.
Mardani, Abbas; Jusoh, Ahmad; Zavadskas, Edmundas Kazimieras (15 May 2015). "Fuzzy multiple criteria decisionmaking techniques and applications – Two decades review from 1994 to 2014". Expert Systems with Applications. 42 (8): 4126–4148. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2015.01.003.
Mardani, Abbas; Jusoh, Ahmad; Nor, Khalil MD; Khalifah, Zainab; Zakwan, Norhayati; Valipour, Alireza (1 January 2015). "Multiple criteria decisionmaking techniques and their applications – a review of the literature from 2000 to 2014". Economic ResearchEkonomska Istraživanja. 28 (1): 516–571. doi:10.1080/1331677X.2015.1075139. ISSN 1331677X.
Mardani, Abbas; Jusoh, Ahmad; Zavadskas, Edmundas Kazimieras; Cavallaro, Fausto; Khalifah, Zainab (19 October 2015). "Sustainable and Renewable Energy: An Overview of the Application of Multiple Criteria Decision Making Techniques and Approaches". Sustainability. 7 (10): 13947–13984. doi:10.3390/su71013947.
Mardani, Abbas; Zavadskas, Edmundas Kazimieras; Govindan, Kannan; Amat Senin, Aslan; Jusoh, Ahmad (4 January 2016). "VIKOR Technique: A Systematic Review of the State of the Art Literature on Methodologies and Applications". Sustainability. 8 (1): 37. doi:10.3390/su8010037.
Mardani, Abbas; Zavadskas, Edmundas Kazimieras; Khalifah, Zainab; Jusoh, Ahmad; Nor, Khalil MD (2 July 2016). "Multiple criteria decisionmaking techniques in transportation systems: a systematic review of the state of the art literature". Transport. 31 (3): 359–385. doi:10.3846/16484142.2015.1121517. ISSN 16484142.
Mardani, Abbas; Jusoh, Ahmad; Zavadskas, Edmundas Kazimieras; Khalifah, Zainab; Nor, Khalil MD (3 September 2015). "Application of multiplecriteria decisionmaking techniques and approaches to evaluating of service quality: a systematic review of the literature". Journal of Business Economics and Management. 16 (5): 1034–1068. doi:10.3846/16111699.2015.1095233. ISSN 16111699.
Zavadskas, Edmundas Kazimieras; Mardani, Abbas; Turskis, Zenonas; Jusoh, Ahmad; Nor, Khalil MD (1 May 2016). "Development of TOPSIS Method to Solve Complicated DecisionMaking Problems — An Overview on Developments from 2000 to 2015". International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making. 15 (3): 645–682. doi:10.1142/S0219622016300019. ISSN 02196220.
Mardani, Abbas; Zavadskas, Edmundas Kazimieras; Khalifah, Zainab; Zakuan, Norhayati; Jusoh, Ahmad; Nor, Khalil Md; Khoshnoudi, Masoumeh (1 May 2017). "A review of multicriteria decisionmaking applications to solve energy management problems: Two decades from 1995 to 2015". Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. 71: 216–256. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2016.12.053.
Zare, Mojtaba; Pahl, Christina; Rahnama, Hamed; Nilashi, Mehrbakhsh; Mardani, Abbas; Ibrahim, Othman; Ahmadi, Hossein (1 August 2016). "Multicriteria decision making approach in Elearning: A systematic review and classification". Applied Soft Computing. 45: 108–128. doi:10.1016/j.asoc.2016.04.020.
Diedonis, Antanas. "Transformations in Business & Economics – Vol. 15, No 1 (37), 2016 – Article". www.transformations.knf.vu.lt. Archived from the original on 29 August 2017. Retrieved 29 August 2017.
Mardani, Abbas; Nilashi, Mehrbakhsh; Zakuan, Norhayati; Loganathan, Nanthakumar; Soheilirad, Somayeh; Saman, Muhamad Zameri Mat; Ibrahim, Othman (1 August 2017). "A systematic review and metaAnalysis of SWARA and WASPAS methods: Theory and applications with recent fuzzy developments". Applied Soft Computing. 57: 265–292. doi:10.1016/j.asoc.2017.03.045.
Haseli, G., Sheikh, R., & Sana, S. S. (2019). Basecriterion on multicriteria decisionmaking method and its applications. International Journal of Management Science and Engineering Management, 110. https://doi.org/10.1080/17509653.2019.1633964
Rezaei, Jafar (2015). "Bestworst multicriteria decisionmaking method". Omega. 53: 49–57. doi:10.1016/j.omega.2014.11.009.
Rezaei, Jafar (2016). "Bestworst multicriteria decisionmaking method: Some properties and a linear model". Omega. 64: 126–130. doi:10.1016/j.omega.2015.12.001.
Sałabun, W. (2015). The Characteristic Objects Method: A New Distance‐based Approach to Multicriteria Decision‐making Problems. Journal of Multi‐Criteria Decision Analysis, 22(12), 3750.
Sałabun, W., Piegat, A. (2016). Comparative analysis of MCDM methods for the assessment of mortality in patients with acute coronary syndrome. Artificial Intelligence Review. First Online: 3 September 2016.
Keshavarz Ghorabaee, M. et al. (2015) "MultiCriteria Inventory Classification Using a New Method of Evaluation Based on Distance from Average Solution (EDAS) Archived 2 September 2016 at the Wayback Machine", Informatica, 26(3), 435451.
Edwards, W.; Baron, F.H. (1994). "Improved simple methods for multiattribute utility measurement". Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. 60: 306–325. doi:10.1006/obhd.1994.1087.
Zakeri, S. (2018). Ranking based on optimal points multicriteria decisionmaking method. Grey Systems: Theory and Application. doi:10.1108/GS0920180040
Serafim, Opricovic; GwoHshiung, Tzeng (2007). "Extended VIKOR Method in Comparison with Outranking Methods". European Journal of Operational Research. 178 (2): 514–529. doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2006.01.020.
Joglekar, Saurabh N.; Kharkar, Rhushikesh A.; Mandavgane, Sachin A.; Kulkarni, Bhaskar D. (February 2018). "Sustainability assessment of brick work for lowcost housing: A comparison between waste based bricks and burnt clay bricks". Sustainable Cities and Society. 37: 396–406. doi:10.1016/j.scs.2017.11.025.
Alarcon, Bibiana; Aguado, Antonio; Manga, Resmundo; Josa, Alejandro (24 December 2010). "A Value Function for Assessing Sustainability: Application to Industrial Buildings". Sustainability. 3 (1): 35–50. doi:10.3390/su3010035.
Further reading
Maliene, V. (2011). "Specialised property valuation: Multiple criteria decision analysis". Journal of Retail & Leisure Property. 9 (5): 443–50. doi:10.1057/rlp.2011.7.
Mulliner E, Smallbone K, Maliene V (2013). "An assessment of sustainable housing affordability using a multiple criteria decision making method" (PDF). Omega. 41 (2): 270–79. doi:10.1016/j.omega.2012.05.002.
Maliene, V.; et al. (2002). "Application of a new multiple criteria analysis method in the valuation of property" (PDF). FIG XXII International Congress: 19–26.
A Brief History prepared by Steuer and Zionts
Malakooti, B. (2013). Operations and Production Systems with Multiple Objectives. John Wiley & Sons.
^{}
Undergraduate Texts in Mathematics
Graduate Studies in Mathematics
Hellenica World  Scientific Library
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/"
All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License