Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Further Development of MADM-Approaches in China and in Germany

  • Conference paper
Operations Research Proceedings 2002

Part of the book series: Operations Research Proceedings 2002 ((ORP,volume 2002))

  • 440 Accesses

Abstract

This paper seeks to give an overview and compare the main stream of thought in Multi Attribute Decision Making (MADM) theory and practice in China and Germany. MADM approaches are suitable for evaluation of a set of discrete alternatives. Widely applied approaches, including Multi Attribute Utility Theory (MAUT), Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) and the outranking methods ELECTRE, PROMETHEE, TOPSIS, find applications in the strategic production planning, site selection or technique assessment under economic, ecological and technical attributes. In China, MAUT and AHP are predominantly applied, while in Germany outranking methods are more popular. As further development,the integration of Fuzzy theory and artificial intelligence in MADM are discussed,thus imprecise information can be considered.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Belton V, Stewart TJ (2001) Multiple criteria decision analysis: An integrated approach. Kluwer Academic Publishers, London

    Google Scholar 

  2. Buckley JJ, Feuring T, Hayashi Y (2001) Fuzzy hierarchical analysis revisited. European Journal of Operational Research 129:48–64

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Chwolka A, Raith MG (2001) Group preference aggregation with the AHP - Implications for multiple-issue agendas. European Journal of Operational Research 132:176–186

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Du XM, Yu YL (1999) Intelligent multi-attribute decision making. Journal of Armament 20:90–93

    Google Scholar 

  5. Dyckhoff H, Ahn H (1998) Integrierte Alternativen-Generierung und -Bewertung. Die Betriebswirtschaft 58:49–63

    Google Scholar 

  6. Eickemeier S (2001) Bestimmung der Gewichte bei Mehrzielentscheidungen. Eine vergleichende Analyse ausgewahlter Verfahren. In: Chamoni P, Leisten R, Martin A, Minnemann J, Stadtler H (eds) Operations Research Proceedings, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 389–396

    Google Scholar 

  7. Esser J (2001) Vollstiindigkeit, Konsistenz und Kompatibilitat von Praferenzrelationen. R Spectrum 23:183–201

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Fan ZP, Zhang Q (1998) A linear programming method for uncertain multiple attribute decision making. Journal of North-Eastern University 19:419–421

    Google Scholar 

  9. Geldermann J, Zhang KJ, Rentz O (2002) Entwicklung eines integrierten multikriteriellen Gruppenentscheidungsunterstiitzungssystems (MGDSS). In: Fichtner W, Geldermann J (eds) Einsatz von OR-Verfahren zur Techno-okonomischen Analyse von Produktionssystemen, Verlag Peter Lang, Frankfurt, 169–186

    Google Scholar 

  10. Geldermann J, Spengler T, Rentz O (2000) Fuzzy outranking for environmental assessment case study: Iron and steel making industry. Fuzzy Sets and Systems 115:45–65

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Geldermann J, Rentz O (2001) Integrierte Technikbewertung bei unvollstiindigen Informationen als Unterstiitzung flir die Bestimmung von Besten Verfiigbaren Techniken (BVT). OR Spectrum 23:137–157

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Lai VS, Wong BK, Cheung W (2002) Group decision making in a multiple attribute environment: A case using the AHP in software selection. European Journal of Operational Research 137:134–144

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Leung LC, Cao D (2000) On consistency and ranking of alternatives in fuzzy AHP.European Journal of Operational Research 142:102–133

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Leung LC, Cao D (2001) On the efficacy of modelling multi-attribute decision problems using AHP and Sinarchy. European Journal of Operational Research 132:39–49

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Liu SL, Qiu YH (1998) Studies on the basic theories for MCDM. Theory and Practice of System Engineering 1:38–43

    Google Scholar 

  16. Liu SL, Qiu YH (1998) Generalization for the double base points ordering method for MADM. Theory and Practice of System Engineering 2:23–25

    Google Scholar 

  17. Ma J, Fan ZP, Huang LH (1998) A subjective and objective integrated approach to determine attribute weights. European Journal of Operational Research 112:397404

    Google Scholar 

  18. Ossadnik W (1996) AHP-based synergy allocation to the partners in a merger. European Journal of Operational Research 88:42–49

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Ossadnik W, Lange O (1999) AHP-based evaluation of AHP-software. European Journal Of Operational Research 118:578–588

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Pudenz S, Briiggemann R, Voigt K, Welzl G (2002) Nachhaltige Entwicklung von Managementstrategien - Multikriterielle Bewertungs-und EntscheidungshilfeInstrumente. Umweltwissenschaften und Schadstoff-Forschung 14(1) 52–57

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Qiao LH, Ma T, Wang SC (1999) An approach to multiattribute evaluation in manufacturability analysis for blank selection. Chinese Journal of Mechanical Engineering 35(4):42–46

    Google Scholar 

  22. Rauschmayer F (2001) Reflections on ethics and MCA in environmental decisions. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis 10(2):65–74

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Rommelfanger HJ, Eickemeier SH (2002) Entscheidungstheorie - Klassische Konzepte und Fuzzy Erweiterungen. Springer-Verlag, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  24. Wang P, Wang LL, Tian H, Luo BY (1999) Study of qualitative quantitative normalization of targets in multi-objective evaluation. Journal of Wuhan Automotive Polytechnic University 21(6): 37–40

    Google Scholar 

  25. Wei QL, Han H, Ma J, Fan ZP (2000) A compromise weight for multi-attribute group decision making with individual preference. Journal of the Operational Research Society 51:625–634

    Google Scholar 

  26. Wei QL, Ma J, Fan ZP (2000) A parameter analysis method for the weight-set to satisfy preference orders of alternatives in additive multi-attribute value models. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis 9(5):181–190

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Wu YH, Fu YJ, Zhou JR (1998) Research on Fuzzy multiobjective method for the evaluation of CIMS. Theory and Practice of System Engineering 9:55–60

    Google Scholar 

  28. Xu XZ (2001) The SIR method: A superiority and inferiority ranking method for multiple attribute decision making. European Journal of Operational Research 131:587–602

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Xu XZ Martel JM, Lamond BF (2001) A multiple criteria ranking procedure based on distance between partial preorders. European Journal of Operational Research 133:69–80

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Xu Z (2000) On consistency of the weighted geometric mean complex judgement matrix in AHP. European Journal of Operational Research 126:83–687

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Xu ZS, Wei CP (1999) A consistency improving method in the analytic hierarchy process. European Journal of Operational Research 116:443–449

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Yue CY, Li H (1998) Multi-attribute evaluation for environment, resource and sustainable development. Monitoring and Assessment 12:28–30

    Google Scholar 

  33. Zhang F, Fan ZP, Pan DH (1999) A ranking approach with possibilities for multi attribute decision making problems with intervals. Control and Decision 14(6):703–706

    Google Scholar 

  34. Zhu KJ, Jing Y, Chang DY (1999) A discussion on Extent Analysis Method and applications of fuzzy AHP. European Journal of Operational Research 116:450–456

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Karlsruhe, Karlsruhe

    Jutta Geldermann, Kejing Zhang & Otto Rentz

Authors
  1. Jutta Geldermann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kejing Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Otto Rentz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Institut für Statistik und Operations Research, Universität Graz, Universitätsstraße 15/E3, 8010, Graz, Austria

    Ulrike Leopold-Wildburger

  2. Institut für Mathematik, Universität Klagenfurt, 9020, Klagenfurt, Austria

    Franz Rendl

  3. Fakultät für Wirtschaftswissenschaften BWL VIII: Management Science, Otto-von-Guericke-Universität Magdeburg, 39016, Postfach 4120, Magdeburg, Germany

    Gerhard Wäscher

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2003 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Geldermann, J., Zhang, K., Rentz, O. (2003). Further Development of MADM-Approaches in China and in Germany. In: Leopold-Wildburger, U., Rendl, F., Wäscher, G. (eds) Operations Research Proceedings 2002. Operations Research Proceedings 2002, vol 2002. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-55537-4_85

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-55537-4_85

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-00387-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-642-55537-4

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation