Commenced in January 2007
Frequency: Monthly
Edition: International
Paper Count: 32138
Comparison of Composite Programming and Compromise Programming for Aircraft Selection Problem Using Multiple Criteria Decision Making Analysis Method

Authors: C. Ardil

Abstract:

In this paper, the comparison of composite programming and compromise programming for the aircraft selection problem is discussed using the multiple criteria decision analysis method. The decision making process requires the prior definition and fulfillment of certain factors, especially when it comes to complex areas such as aircraft selection problems. The proposed technique gives more efficient results by extending the composite programming and compromise programming, which are widely used in modeling multiple criteria decisions. The proposed model is applied to a practical decision problem for evaluating and selecting aircraft problems.A selection of aircraft was made based on the proposed approach developed in the field of multiple criteria decision making. The model presented is solved by using the following methods: composite programming, and compromise programming. The importance values of the weight coefficients of the criteria are calculated using the mean weight method. The evaluation and ranking of aircraft are carried out using the composite programming and compromise programming methods. In order to determine the stability of the model and the ability to apply the developed composite programming and compromise programming approach, the paper analyzes its sensitivity, which involves changing the value of the coefficient λ and q in the first part. The second part of the sensitivity analysis relates to the application of different multiple criteria decision making methods, composite programming and compromise programming. In addition, in the third part of the sensitivity analysis, the Spearman correlation coefficient of the ranks obtained was calculated which confirms the applicability of all the proposed approaches.

Keywords: composite programming, compromise programming, additive weighted model, multiplicative weighted model, multiple criteria decision making analysis, MCDMA, aircraft selection

Procedia APA BibTeX Chicago EndNote Harvard JSON MLA RIS XML ISO 690 PDF Downloads 389

References:


[1] Ardil, C. (2020). A Comparative Analysis of Multiple Criteria Decision Making Analysis Methods for Strategic, Tactical, and Operational Decisions in Military Fighter Aircraft Selection. International Journal of Aerospace and Mechanical Engineering, 14(7), 275 - 288.
[2] Ardil, C. (2020). Aircraft Selection Process Using Preference Analysis for Reference Ideal Solution (PARIS). International Journal of Aerospace and Mechanical Engineering, 14(3), 80 - 93.
[3] Ardil, C. (2020). Regional Aircraft Selection Using Preference Analysis for Reference Ideal Solution (PARIS). International Journal of Transport and Vehicle Engineering, 14(9), 378 - 388.
[4] Ardil, C. (2020). Trainer Aircraft Selection Using Preference Analysis for Reference Ideal Solution (PARIS). International Journal of Aerospace and Mechanical Engineering, 14(5), 195 - 209.
[5] Saaty, T. L. (1990). How to make a decision: The Analytic Hierarchy Process. European Journal of Operational Research, 48(1), 9-26. doi: 10.1016/0377-2217(90)90057-I
[6] Saaty, T. L. (2008). Decision making with the analytic hierarchy process. International Journal of Services Sciences, 1(1), 83-98. doi: 10.1504/IJSSCI.2008.017590
[7] Saaty, T.L. (1980). Analytic Hierarchy Process: Planning, Priority Setting, Resource Allocation. McGraw-Hill, New York.
[8] Opricovic, S. (1998). Multicriteria Optimization of Civil Engineering Systems. PhD Thesis, Faculty of Civil Engineering, Belgrade (in Serbian).
[9] Opricovic, S. (2007). A fuzzy compromise solution for multicriteria problems. International Journal of Uncertainty, Fuzziness and Knowledge-Based Systems, 15(3), 363–380.
[10] Opricovic, S., Tzeng, G.-H. (2004). Compromise solution by MCDM methods: A comparative analysis of VIKOR and TOPSIS. European Journal of Operational Research, 156(2), 445–455.
[11] Brans JP., Mareschal B. (2005). Promethee Methods. In: Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis: State of the Art Surveys. International Series in Operations Research & Management Science, vol 78, pp 163-186. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/0-387-23081-5_5.
[12] Brans, J., Ph. Vincke. (1985). A Preference Ranking Organisation Method: (The PROMETHEE Method for Multiple Criteria Decision-Making). Management Science, 31(6), 647-656.
[13] Brans, J.P., Macharis, C., Kunsch, P.L., Chevalier, A., Schwaninger, M., (1998). Combining multicriteria decision aid and system dynamics for the control of socio-economic processes. An iterative real-time procedure. European Journal of Operational Research 109, 428-441.
[14] Brans, J.P., Vincke, Ph., Mareschal, B., (1986). How to select and how to rank projects: the PROMETHEE method. European Journal of Operational Research, 24, 228-238.
[15] Hwang, C.L.; Yoon, K. (1981). Multiple Attribute Decision Making: Methods and Applications. New York: Springer-Verlag.
[16] Chu, T.C. (2002. Facility location selection using fuzzy TOPSIS under group decisions”, International Journal of Uncertainty, Fuzziness and Knowledge-Based Systems, Vol. 10 No. 6, pp. 687-701.
[17] Choudhary, D. and Shankar, R. (2012. A STEEP-fuzzy AHP-TOPSIS framework for evaluation and selection of thermal power plant location: a case study from India”, Energy, Vol. 42 No. 1, pp. 510-521.
[18] Zavadskas, E.K., Mardani, A., Turskis, Z., Jusoh, A., Nor, K.M. (2016) Development of TOPSIS method to solve complicated decision-making problems: An overview on developments from 2000 to 2015. International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making, 15, 645-682.
[19] Roy, B. (1991). The outranking approach and the foundation of ELECTRE methods. Theory and Decision, 31(1), 49–73.
[20] Fei, L., Xia, J., Feng, Y., Liu, L. (2019) An ELECTRE-Based Multiple Criteria Decision Making Method for Supplier Selection Using Dempster-Shafer Theory. IEEE Access, 7, 84701-84716.
[21] Zadeh L.A., (1965). Fuzzy Sets. Information and Control, 8, 338-353.
[22] Bellman, R.E., Zadeh, L.A. (1970). Decision-making in a fuzzy environment. Management Science, 17(4), 141–164.
[23] Modarres, M., Sadi-Nezhad, S. (2005). Fuzzy simple additive weighting method by preference ratio, Intelligent Automation and Soft Computing, 235-244.
[24] Kaur, P., Kumar, S. (2013). An Intuitionistic Fuzzy Simple Additive Weighting Method for selection of vendor. ISOR Journal Business and Management, 78-81.
[25] Sagar, M.K., Jayaswal, P., Kushwah, K. (2013). Exploring Fuzzy SAW Method for Maintenance strategy selection problem of Material Handling Equipment, (2013), ISSN 22 77 – 4106.
[26] Wang,Y.J. (2015). A fuzzy multi-criteria decision making model based on additive weighting method and preference relation, Applied Soft Computing, 30,412-420.
[27] Roszkowska, E., Kacprzak, D. (2016). The fuzzy saw and fuzzy TOPSIS procedures based on ordered fuzzy numbers. Inf. Sci., 369, 564-584.
[28] Atanassov K. (1986). Intuitionistic Fuzzy Sets, Fuzzy Sets and Systems, Vol. 20(1), 87-96.
[29] Smarandache, F. (2019). Neutrosophic Set is a Generalization of Intuitionistic Fuzzy Set, Inconsistent Intuitionistic Fuzzy Set (Picture Fuzzy Set, Ternary Fuzzy Set), Pythagorean Fuzzy Set, Spherical Fuzzy Set, and q-Rung Orthopair Fuzzy Set, while Neutrosophication is a Generalization of Regret Theory, Grey System Theory, and Three-Ways Decision (revisited) . Journal of New Theory, (29), 1-31.
[30] Ardil, C. (2019). Fighter Aircraft Selection Using Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution with Multiple Criteria Decision Making Analysis. International Journal of Transport and Vehicle Engineering, 13(10), 649 - 657.
[31] Ardil, C. , Pashaev, A. , Sadiqov, R. , Abdullayev, P. (2019). Multiple Criteria Decision Making Analysis for Selecting and Evaluating Fighter Aircraft. International Journal of Transport and Vehicle Engineering, 13(11), 683 - 694.
[32] Ardil, C. (2019). Aircraft Selection Using Multiple Criteria Decision Making Analysis Method with Different Data Normalization Techniques. International Journal of Industrial and Systems Engineering, 13(12), 744 - 756.
[33] Ardil, C. (2019). Military Fighter Aircraft Selection Using Multiplicative Multiple Criteria Decision Making Analysis Method. International Journal of Mathematical and Computational Sciences, 13(9), 184 - 193.
[34] C.Ardil, C. (2021). Neutrosophic Multiple Criteria Decision Making Analysis Method for Selecting Stealth Fighter Aircraft. International Journal of Aerospace and Mechanical Engineering, 15(10), 459 - 463.
[35] Bárdossy, A., Duckstein, L. (1992). Analysis of a karstic aquifer management problem by fuzzy composite programming. Journal of The American Water Resources Association, 28, 63-73.
[36] Jones, D.C., Barnes, E.M. (2000). Fuzzy composite programming to combine remote sensing and crop models for decision support in precision crop management. Agricultural Systems, 65, 137-158.
[37] Yu, P.L. (1973). A class of solutions for group decision problems, Management Science 19 (1973) 936–946.292 .
[38] Zeleny, M. (1973). Compromise programming, in: J.L. Cochrane, M. Zeleny (Eds.), Multiple-Criteria Decision Making, University of South293 Carolina Press, Columbia, South Carolina, 1973, pp. 262–301.294.
[39] Zeleny, M. (1974). A concept of compromise solutions and the method of the displaced ideal, Computers and Operations Research 1 (1974)295 479–496.296.
[40] Freimer, M., Yu, P.L. (1976). Some new results on compromise solutions for group decision problems, Management Science 22 (1976) 688–297 693.298.
[41] Yu, P.L. (1985). Multiple-Criteria Decision Making: Concepts, Techniques, and Extensions, Plenum Press, New York, 1985, New York.