Modification of the CRITIC method using fuzzy rough numbers

  • Dragan Pamucar Faculty of Organizational Sciences, University of Belgrade, Belgrade, Serbia
  • Mališa Žižović University of Kragujevac, Kragujevac, Serbia
  • Dragan Đuričić University of Kragujevac, Kragujevac, Serbia
Keywords: MCDM, fuzzy sets, rough sets, fuzzy rough numbers, CRITIC

Abstract

This paper presents a new approach in the modification of the CRiteria Importance Through Intercriteria Correlation (CRITIC) method using fuzzy rough numbers. In the modified CRITIC method (CRITIC-M), the normalization procedure of the home matrix elements was improved and the aggregation function for information processing in the normalized home matrix was improved. By introducing a new way of normalization, smaller deviations between normalized elements are obtained, which affects smaller values of standard deviation. Thus, the relationships between the data in the initial decision matrix are presented in a more objective way. The introduction of a new way of aggregating the values of weights in the CRITIC-M method enables a more comprehensive view of information in the initial decision matrix, which leads to obtaining more objective values of weights. A new concept of fuzzy rough numbers was used to address uncertainties in the CRITIC-M methodology.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Bana e Costa, C., & Vansnick, J.C. (1994). MACBETH: An interactive path towards the construction of cardinal value functions, International Transactions in Operational Research, 1(4), 489–500. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0969-6016(94)90010-8

Costa, J.P., & Climaco, J.C. (1999). Relating reference points and weights in MOLP. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis, 8, 281-290. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-1360(199909)8:5<281::AID-MCDA254>3.0.CO;2-B

Graham, A. (1987). Nonnegative matrices and applicable topics in linear algebra, Ellis Horwood, Chichester, UK.

Green, P.E., & Srinivasan, V. (1990). Conjoint analysis in marketing: New developments with implications for research and practice. Journal of Marketing, 54, 3-19.

Keeney, R.L., & Raiffa, H. (1976). Decisions with multiple objectives. Wiley, New York.

Mikhailov, L. (2000). A fuzzy programming method for deriving priorities in the analytic hierarchy process, Journal of Operational Research Society, 51, 341–349. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jors.2600899

Mousseau, V., Slowinski, R., & Zielniewicz, P. (2000). A user-oriented implementation of the ELECTRE-TRI method integrating preference elicitation support. Computers and Operations Research, 27, 757-777. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0305-0548(99)00117-3

Pamučar D, Stević, Ž., & Sremac, S. (2018). A New Model for Determining Weight Coefficients of Criteria in MCDM Models: Full Consistency Method (FUCOM). Symmetry, 10(9), 393.

Poyhonen, M., & Hamalainen, R. (2001). On the convergence of multiattribute weighting methods, European Journal of Operational Research, 129, 569–585. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0377-2217(99)00467-1

Rezaei, J. (2015). Best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method. Omega, 53, 49-57. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.omega.2014.11.009

Rogers, M., & Bruen, M. (1998). A new system for weighting environmental criteria for use within ELECTRE III, European Journal of Operational Research, 107(3), 552–563. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0377-2217(97)00154-9

Saaty, T.L. (1980). Analytic hierarchy process. McGraw-Hill, New York.

Shannon, C.E., & Weaver, W. (1947). The mathematical theory of communication. Urbana: The University of Illinois Press.

Srđević, B., Medeiros, Y.D.P., Faria, A.S., & Schaer M. (2003). Objektivno vrednovanje kriterijuma performanse sistema akumulacija. Vodoprivreda, 35, 163-176. (Only in Serbian)

Valipour, A., Yahaya, N., Md Noor, N., Antuchevičienė, J., & Tamošaitienė, J. (2017). Hybrid SWARA-COPRAS method for risk assessment in deep foundation excavation project: An Iranian case study. Journal of Civil Engineering and Management, 23(4), 524-532. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3846/13923730.2017.1281842

Weber, M., & Borcherding, K. (1993). Behavioral influences on weight judgments in multiattribute decision making, European Journal of Operational Research, 67, 1–12. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0377-2217(93)90318-H

Weber, M., Eisenfuhr, F., & von Winterfeldt, D. (1988). The Effects of Splitting Attributes on Weights in Multiattribute Utility Measurement. Management Science, 34(2), 431-445. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.34.4.431

Zhu, G.N., Hu, J., Qi, J., Gu, C.C., & Peng, J.H. (2015). An integrated AHP and VIKOR for design concept evaluation based on rough number, Advanced Engineering Informatics, 29, 408–418. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aei.2015.01.010

Žižović, M., Miljković, B., & Marinković, D. (2020). Objective methods for determining criteria weight coefficients: A modification of the CRITIC method. Decision Making: Applications in Management and Engineering, 3(2), 149-161. DOI: https://doi.org/10.31181/dmame2003149z

Published
2022-10-16
How to Cite
Pamucar, D., Žižović, M., & Đuričić, D. (2022). Modification of the CRITIC method using fuzzy rough numbers. Decision Making: Applications in Management and Engineering, 5(2), 362-371. https://doi.org/10.31181/dmame0316102022p