A New Model for Determining Weight Coefficients of Criteria in MCDM Models: Full Consistency Method (FUCOM)
By Dragan Pamucar, Željko Stević, Sinisa Sremac. Symmetry, 2018
753 citations recorded by the source corpus.
In this paper, a new multi-criteria problem solving method—the Full Consistency Method (FUCOM)—is proposed. The model implies the definition of two groups of constraints that need to satisfy the optimal values of weight coefficients. The first group of constraints is the condition that the relations of the weight coefficients of criteria should be equal to the comparative priorities of the criteria. The second group of constraints is defined on the basis of the conditions of mathematical transitivity. After defining the constraints and solving the model, in addition to optimal weight values, a deviation from full consistency (DFC) is obtained. The degree of DFC is the deviation value of the obtained weight coefficients from the estimated comparative priorities of the criteria. In addition, DFC is also the reliability confirmation of the obtained weights of criteria. In order to illustrate the proposed model and evaluate its performance, FUCOM was tested on several numerical examples from the literature. The model validation was performed by comparing it with the other subjective models (the Best Worst Method (BWM) and Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP)), based on the pairwise comparisons of the criteria and the validation of the results by using DFC. The results show that FUCOM provides better results than the BWM and AHP methods, when the relation between consistency and the required number of the comparisons of the criteria are taken into consideration. The main advantages of FUCOM in relation to the existing multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) methods are as follows: (1) a significantly smaller number of pairwise comparisons (only n − 1), (2) a consistent pairwise comparison of criteria, and (3) the calculation of the reliable values of criteria weight coefficients, which contribute to rational judgment.
Subfields: Control and Systems Engineering, Management Science and Operations Research, Strategy and Management
View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/847198ba367d81425f637ad29b05427c64aeaa9e
How researchers see this paper
The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.
In Control and Systems Engineering
In Management Science and Operations Research
In Strategy and Management
Citations in the corpus
- Weighting methods for multi-criteria decision making technique (2019, methodology): “Several researchers have come up with different methods of determining the criteria weights of a multicriteria decision making problem (Ginevicius and Podvezko 2005; Diakoulaki et al, 1995, Aldian and Taylor 2005; Dragan et al., 2018).”
- Specific character of objective methods for determining weights of criteria in MCDM problems: Entropy, CRITIC and SD (2021, methodology): “These are such methods as the direct ranking method (DR) (Goodwin & Wright, 1998; Roberts & Goodwin, 2002; Von Winterfeldt & Edwards, 1986), the point allocation (PA) method (Doyle et al., 1997; Roberts & Goodwin, 2002), the ranking method (Ahn & Park, 2008; Barron, 1992, 1996; Roberts & Goodwin, 20”