Prospective MADM and Sensitivity Analysis of the Experts Based on Causal Layered Analysis (CLA)

Simple item page
dc.contributor.authorHashemkhani Zolfani, Sarfaraz
dc.contributor.authorYazdani, Morteza
dc.contributor.authorZavadskas, Edmundas Kazimieras
dc.contributor.authorHasheminasab, Hamidreza
dc.contributor.otherEkonomická fakultacs
dc.date.accessioned2020-09-02T09:42:32Z
dc.date.available2020-09-02T09:42:32Z
dc.description.abstract“Multiple Attribute Decision Making (MADM)” is an expert based field which is working based on real data and experts’ opinions. So many studies have been doing based on MADM methods which they usually use qualitative data based on experts’ ideas. Decisions based on the experts’ opinion shall be carefully designed to cope the real problems uncertainty. This uncertainty will be even more intricate if combining the problem with the ambiguity of the future study. Prospective MADM is a future based type of MADM field which is concentrating on decision making and policy making about the future. Prospective MADM (PMADM) can have both explorative and descriptive paradigms in the studies but it will more useful to be applied for strategic planning. In this regard, experts’ role would be even more challenging because one/some possible future/futures will be partially designed based on their opinions. Future and prediction always complicates the decision environment, especially methodologies founded on experts’ judgement. Considering experts’ preferences, attitude, and background, they may be a major source of inaccurate results. Causal Layered Analysis (CLA) is well-known “Futures Studies” method which is qualitative and usually is supporting other methods such as “Backcasting” and “Scenario Planning”. CLA has a deep point of view to the subjects to support a future with all those changes which are necessary for the main goal/goals. In this study, this idea will be proposed that CLA can be added to PMADM outline to decrease the risk of unsuitable decisions for the future and for this aim a case study about energy and CO2 consumption in policy making level proposed and a hybrid MADM method based on BWM-CoCoSo applied in the PMADM outline for the procedure.en
dc.formattext
dc.identifier.doi10.15240/tul/001/2020-3-013
dc.identifier.eissn2336-5604
dc.identifier.issn1212-3609
dc.identifier.urihttps://dspace.tul.cz/handle/15240/157489
dc.language.isoen
dc.publisherTechnická Univerzita v Libercics
dc.publisherTechnical university of Liberec, Czech Republicen
dc.publisher.abbreviationTUL
dc.relation.isbasedonArms, H., Wiecher, M., & Kleiderman, V. (2012). Dynamic models for managing big decisions. Strategy & Leadership, 40(5), 39–46. https://doi.org/10.1108/10878571211257177
dc.relation.isbasedonBaradaran Ghahfarokhi, M., Mohaghar, A., & Saghafi, F. (2018). The futures of the University of Tehran using causal layered analysis. Foresight, 20(4), 393–415. https://doi.org/10.1108/FS-01-2018-0001
dc.relation.isbasedonDurbach, I. N., & Stewart, T. J. (2012). Modeling uncertainty in multi-criteria decision analysis. European Journal of Operational Research, 223(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2012.04.038
dc.relation.isbasedonGinevičius, R. (2011). A New Determining Method for the Criteria Weights in Multi-Criteria Evaluation. International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making, 10(6), 1067–1095. https://doi.org/10.1142/S0219622011004713
dc.relation.isbasedonGonzález-Prida, V., Viveros, P., Barberá, L., & Crespo Márquez, A. (2014). Dynamic analytic hierarchy process: AHP method adapted to a changing environment. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, 25(4), 457–475. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMTM-03-2013-0030
dc.relation.isbasedonHashemkhani Zolfani, S. (2018). Futures Studies Based on Decision Making Methods (Doctoral dissertation – in Persian). Tehran: Amirkabir University of Technology.
dc.relation.isbasedonHashemkhani Zolfani, S., Aghdaie, M. H., Derakhti, A., Zavadskas, E. K., & Morshed Varzandeh, M. H. (2013). Decision making on business issues with foresight perspective; an application of new hybrid MCDM model in shopping mall locating. Expert Systems with Applications, 40(17), 7111–7121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2013.06.040
dc.relation.isbasedonHashemkhani Zolfani, S., Maknoon, R., & Zavadskas, E. K. (2016a). Multiple attribute decision making (MADM) based scenarios. International Journal of Strategic Property Management, 20(1), 101–111. https://doi.org/10.3846/1648715X.2015.1132487
dc.relation.isbasedonHashemkhani Zolfani, S., Maknoon, R., & Zavadskas, E. K. (2016b). An introduction to Prospective Multiple Attribute Decision Making (PMADM). Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 22(2), 309–326. https://doi.org/10.3846/20294913.2016.1150363
dc.relation.isbasedonHashemkhani Zolfani, S., Maknoon, R., & Zavadskas, E. K. (2016c). MADM and Futures Studies; A necessity. In Proceedings of the 9th International Scientific Conference “Business and Management 2016” (pp. 1–7). http://dx.doi.org/10.3846/bm.2016.62
dc.relation.isbasedonHashemkhani Zolfani, S., & Masaeli, R. (2019). From Past to Present and into the Sustainable Future: PMADM Approach in Shaping Regulatory Policies of Medical Device Industry in the New Sanction Period. In P. Chatterjee, M. Yazdani, & S. Chakraborty (Eds.), Sustainability Modeling in Engineering; A multi-Criteria Perspective (pp. 73–95). Singapore: Word Scientific. https://doi.org/10.1142/9789813276338_0003
dc.relation.isbasedonHashemkhani Zolfani, S., Yazdani, M., & Zavadskas, E. K. (2018a). An extended stepwise weight assessment ratio analysis (SWARA) method for improving criteria prioritization process. Soft Computing, 22(22), 7399–7405. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00500-018-3092-2
dc.relation.isbasedonHashemkhani Zolfani, S., Zavadskas, E. K., Khazaelpour, P., & Cavallaro, F. (2018b). The Multi-Aspect Criterion in the PMADM Outline and Its Possible Application to Sustainability Assessment. Sustainability, 10(12), 4451. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10124451
dc.relation.isbasedonHeinonen, S., Minkkinen, M., Karjalainen, J., & Inayatullah, S. (2017). Testing transformative energy scenarios through causal layered analysis gaming. Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 124, 101–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2016.10.011
dc.relation.isbasedonInayatullah, S. (1998). Causal Layered Analysis. Futures, 30(8), 815–829. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0016-3287(98)00086-X
dc.relation.isbasedonJassbi, J. J., Ribeiro, R. A., & Varela, L. R. (2014). Dynamic MCDM with future knowledge for supplier selection. Journal of Decision Systems, 23(3), 232–248. https://doi.org/10.1080/12460125.2014.886850
dc.relation.isbasedonKetonen-Oksi, S. (2018). Creating a shared narrative: the use of causal layered analysis to explore value co-creation in a novel service ecosystem. European Journal of Futures Research, 6, 5, https://doi.org/10.1186/s40309-018-0135-y
dc.relation.isbasedonMilojević, I. (2015). Conclusion. In S. Inayatullah & I. Milojević (Eds.), CLA 2.0 transformative research in theory and practice (pp. 535–557). New Taipei City: Tamkang University.
dc.relation.isbasedonMilojević, I. & Inayatullah, S. (2015). Narrative foresight. Futures, 73, 151–162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2015.08.007
dc.relation.isbasedonMukhametzyanov, I., & Pamučar, D. (2018). A sensitivity analysis in MCDM problems: A statistical Approach. Decision Making: Applications in Management and Engineering, 1(2), 51–80. https://doi.org/10.31181/dmame1802050m
dc.relation.isbasedonOndrus, J., Bui, T., & Pigneur, Y. (2015). A foresight support system using MCDM methods. Group Decision and Negotiation, 24(2), 333–358. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-014-9392-8
dc.relation.isbasedonPamučar, D., Stević, Z., & Sremac, S. (2018). A New Model for Determining Weight Coefficients of Criteria in MCDM Models: Full Consistency Method (FUCOM). Symmetry, 10(9), 393. https://doi.org/10.3390/sym10090393
dc.relation.isbasedonPamučar, D., Božanić, D., & Ranđelović, A. (2017). Multi-Criteria Decision Making: An example of sensitivity analysis. Serbian Journal of Management, 12(1), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.5937/sjm12-9464
dc.relation.isbasedonRamos, J. M. (2003). From critique to cultural recovery: critical futures studies and causal layered analysis. (Monograph Series 2003 No. 2). Melbourne: Australian Foresight Institute Swinbourne University.
dc.relation.isbasedonRezaei, J. (2015). Best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method. Omega, 53, 49–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.omega.2014.11.009
dc.relation.isbasedonSaaty, T. L. (1980). The Analytical Hierarchy Process. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
dc.relation.isbasedonSaaty, T. L. (1996). Decision Making in Complex Environments, The Analytical Hierarchy Process for Decision Making with Dependence and Dependence and Feedback. Pittsburgh, PA: RWS Publications.
dc.relation.isbasedonSaaty, T. L. (1999). Fundamentals of analytic network process. In Proceedings of the International Symposium on the Analytic Hierarchy Process, 12–14 August 1999 (pp. 348–379). Kobe, Japan.
dc.relation.isbasedonSiddiqi, A., Ereiqat, F., & Anadon, L. D. (2016). Formulating Expectations for Future Water Availability through Infrastructure Development Decisions in Arid Regions. Systems Engineering, 19(2), 101–110. https://doi.org/10.1002/sys.21337
dc.relation.isbasedonTadić, S. R., Zečević, S. M., & Krstić, M. D. (2014). Ranking of logistics system scenarios for central business district. Promet – Traffic & Transportation, 26(2), 159–167. https://doi.org/10.7307/ptt.v26i2.1349
dc.relation.isbasedonToloie Eshlaghy, A., Rastkhiz Paydar, N., Joda, K., & Rastkhiz Paydar, N. (2009). Sensitivity analysis for criteria values in decision making matrix of SAW method. International Journal of Industrial Mathematics, 1(1), 69–75.
dc.relation.isbasedonTriantaphyllou, E., & Sánchez, A. (1997). A Sensitivity Analysis Approach for Some Deterministic Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Methods. Decision Sciences, 28(1), 151–194. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5915.1997.tb01306.x
dc.relation.isbasedonTrutnevyte, E., Stauffacher, M., & Scholz, R. W. (2012). Linking stakeholder visions with resource allocation scenarios and multi-criteria assessment. European Journal of Operational Research, 219(3), 762–772. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2012.01.009
dc.relation.isbasedonWang, Y., Shi, X., Sun, J., & Qian, W. (2014). A grey interval relational degree-based dynamic multi-attribute decision making method and its application in investment decision making. Mathematical Problems in Engineering, 1, 1–6. http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2014/607016
dc.relation.isbasedonYazdani, M., Zavadskas, E. K., Ignatius, J., & Doval Abad, M. (2016). Sensitivity Analysis in MADM Methods: Application of Material Selection. Inzinerine Ekonomika-Engineering Economics, 27(4), 382–391. https://doi.org/10.5755/j01.ee.27.4.14005
dc.relation.isbasedonYazdani, M., Zarate, P., Zavadskas, E. K., & Turskis, Z. (2019). A Combined Compromise Solution (CoCoSo) method for multi-criteria decision-making problems. Management Decision, 57(9), 2501–2519. https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-05-2017-0458
dc.relation.isbasedonZavadskas, E. K., Turskis, Z., Dejus, T., & Viteikienė, M. (2007). Sensitivity analysis of a simple additive weight method, International Journal of Management and Decision Making, 8(5/6), 555–574. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJMDM.2007.013418
dc.relation.isbasedonZhang, Z. (2012). An approach to dynamic multi-attribute decision making for choosing green supplier. Journal of Convergence Information Technology, 7(21), 261–269. https://doi.org/10.4156/jcit.vol7.issue21.33.
dc.relation.ispartofEkonomie a Managementcs
dc.relation.ispartofEconomics and Managementen
dc.relation.isrefereedtrue
dc.rightsCC BY-NC
dc.subjectProspective Multiple Attribute Decision Making (PMADM)en
dc.subjectsensitivity analysisen
dc.subjectexpertsen
dc.subjectCausal Layered Analysis (CLA)en
dc.subjectBest Worst Method (BWM)en
dc.subjectCOmbined COmpromise SOlution (CoCoSo)en
dc.subject.classificationQ48
dc.subject.classificationQ56
dc.subject.classificationC91
dc.titleProspective MADM and Sensitivity Analysis of the Experts Based on Causal Layered Analysis (CLA)en
dc.typeArticleen
local.accessopen
local.citation.epage223
local.citation.spage208
local.facultyFaculty of Economics
local.filenameEM_3_2020_13
local.fulltextyes
local.relation.abbreviationE+Mcs
local.relation.abbreviationE&Men
local.relation.issue23
local.relation.volume3
Files
Original bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Thumbnail Image
Name:
EM_3_2020_13.pdf
Size:
905.21 KB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Description:
článek
Download
Collections
Číslo 3