Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Dynamic fuzzy OWA model for group multiple criteria decision making

  • Published:
Soft Computing Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Obtaining relative weights in MCDM problems is a very important issue. The Ordered Weighted Averaging (OWA) aggregation operators have been extensively adopted to assign the relative weights of numerous criteria. However, previous aggregation operators (including OWA) are independent of aggregation situations. To solve the problem, this study proposes a new aggregation model – dynamic fuzzy OWA based on situation model, which can modify the associated dynamic weight based on the aggregation situation and can work like a “magnifying lens” to enlarge the most important attribute dependent on minimal information, or can obtain equal attribute weights based on maximal information. Two examples are adopted in this paper for comparison and showing the effects under different weights.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Borcherding K, Epple T, Winterfeldt DV (1991) Comparison of weighting judgments in multi-attribute utility measurement. Manage Sci 37(12):1603–1619

    Google Scholar 

  2. Chen SM (2001) Fuzzy group decision making for evaluating the rate of aggregative risk in software development. Fuzzy Sets Syst 118:75–88

    Google Scholar 

  3. Chen YC (2002) An application of fuzzy set theory to the external performance evaluation of distribution centers in logistics. Soft Comput 6:64–70

    Google Scholar 

  4. Choi DY (1999) A new aggregation method in a fuzzy environment. Decis Support Syst 25:39–51

    Google Scholar 

  5. Choo EU, Wedley WC (1985) Optimal criteria weights in repetitive multicriteria decision making. J Oper Res Soc 37:527–541

    Google Scholar 

  6. Darmon RY, Rouzies D (1991) Internal validity assessment of conjoint estimated attribute importance weights. J Acad Marketing Sci 19(4):315–322

    Google Scholar 

  7. Dyer JS, Sarin RK (1979) Measurable multiattribute functions. Oper Res 27:810–822

    Google Scholar 

  8. Fuller R, Majlender P (2001) An analytic approach for obtaining maximal entropy OWA operator weights. Fuzzy Sets Syst 124:53–57

    Google Scholar 

  9. Jaynes ET (1989) Cleaning up mysteries: the original goal, maximum entropy and Bayesian methods. Kluwer, Dordrecht

  10. Jaynes ET, Rosen krantz RD (1983) Papers on probability, statistics and statistical physics. D. Reidel, Dordrecht

  11. Klir GJ (1988) Fuzzy sets, uncertainly and information. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs

  12. Klir GJ, Wierman MJ (1999) Uncertainty-based information, 2nd edn. Physica-Verlag, Germany

  13. Lee HM (1996) Group decision making using fuzzy sets theory for evaluating the rate of aggregative risk in software development. Fuzzy Sets Syst 80:261–271

    Google Scholar 

  14. Mendel JM (2000) Uncertain rule-based fuzzy logic systems: introduction and new directions. Prentice Hall PTR, Upper Saddle River

  15. Mesiar R, Saminger S (2004) Domination of ordered weighted averaging operators over t-norms. Soft Comput 8:562–570

    Google Scholar 

  16. Moshkovich HM, Schellenberger RE, Olson DL (1998) Data influences the result more than preferences: some lessons from implementation of multiattribute techniques in a real decision task. Decis Support Syst 22:73–84

    Google Scholar 

  17. Nutt PC (1980) Comparing methods for weighting decision criteria. OMEGA 8:163–172

    Google Scholar 

  18. O'Hagan M (1988) Aggregating template or rule antecedents in real-time expert systems with fuzzy set logic. In: Proceedings of 22nd Annual IEEE Asilomar conference on signals, systems, computers, Pacific Grove, pp 681–689

  19. Pekelman D, Sen S (1974) Mathematical programming models for determination of attribute weights. Manage Sci 20(8):1217–1229

    Google Scholar 

  20. Ribeiro RA, Pereira RAM (2003) Generalized mixture operators using weighting functions: a comparative study with WA and OWA. Eur J Oper Res 145:329–342

    Google Scholar 

  21. Shannon CE (1948) A mathematical theory of communication. Bell Syst Tech J 27:379–423

  22. Shoemaker PJH, Carter WC (1982) An experimental comparison of different approaches to determining weights in additive utility models. Manage Sci 28:182–196

    Google Scholar 

  23. Smolikova R, Wachowiak MP (2002) Aggregation operators for selection problems. Fuzzy Sets Syst 131:23–34

    Google Scholar 

  24. Solymosi T, Dombi J (1986) A method for determining the weights of criteria: the centralized weights. Eur J Oper Res 26:35–41

    Google Scholar 

  25. Weber M, Eisenfhr F, von Winterfeldt D (1988) The effects of splitting attributes on weights in multiattribute utility measurement. Manage Sci 34:431–445

    Google Scholar 

  26. Yager RR (1980) On a general class of fuzzy connectives. Fuzzy Sets Syst 4:235–242

    Google Scholar 

  27. Yager RR (1988) Ordered weighted averaging aggregation operators in multi-criteria decision making. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern 18:183–190

    Google Scholar 

  28. Yager RR (1991) Connectives and quantifiers in fuzzy sets. Fuzzy Sets Syst 40:39–75

    Google Scholar 

  29. Yager RR, Kacprzyk J (1997) The ordered weighted averaging operators. Kluwer, Boston

  30. Zadeh LA (1965) Fuzzy sets. Inf Control 8:338–353

    Google Scholar 

  31. Zhang D, Yu PL, Wang PZ (1992) State-dependent weights in multicriteria value functions. J Optimization Theory Appl 74(1):1–21

    Google Scholar 

  32. Zimmermann HJ, Zysno P (1980) Latent connectives in human decision making. Fuzzy Sets Syst (North-Holland) 4:37–51

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Information Managements, National Yunlin University of Science and Technology, 123 University Road, section 3, Touliu, Yunlin, 640, Taiwan

    J.-R. Chang & C.-H. Cheng

  2. Graduate Institute of Management, National Yunlin University of Science and Technology, 123 University Road, section 3, Touliu, Yunlin, 640, Taiwan

    J.-R. Chang

  3. Institute of Information Management, National Chiao Tung University, 1001 Ta Hsueh Road, Hsinchu, 300, Taiwan

    T.-H. Ho & A.-P. Chen

  4. Department of Information Management, Nan Jeon Institute of Technology, 178, Zhao-Qin Road, Yenshui, Tainan, Taiwan

    T.-H. Ho

Authors
  1. J.-R. Chang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. T.-H. Ho
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. C.-H. Cheng
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. A.-P. Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to J.-R. Chang.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Chang, JR., Ho, TH., Cheng, CH. et al. Dynamic fuzzy OWA model for group multiple criteria decision making. Soft Comput 10, 543–554 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00500-005-0484-x

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00500-005-0484-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation