4
D. Uzun Ozsahin et al.
The VIKOR and TOPSIS methods are based on distance calculation, but the
compromise conclusion in VIKOR is guided by mutual concessions, while in TOPSIS
the best conclusion is guided by the minimum distance from PIS and the farthest
distance from NIS (negative ideal solution). PIS is considered to be a type that
consists of the best ratings between all considered criteria or attributes. On the other
hand, NIS is considered a candidate that contain the worst ratings between all the
criteria considered (Lee and Yang 2017).
The Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) was developed by Saati in 1980. AHP is
an additive weighting method. It has been reviewed and used in many fields, and its
implementation is maintained by several commercially available, user-friendly software packages. It is generally difficult for people who accept conclusions to literally
qualify weights of total importance for a set of characteristics at the same time. As
the number of characters’ increases, the best results are obtained when the problem
is transformed into one of a series of matched analogs. AHP formalizes a change
in the difficulty of weighting characteristics into a more manageable problem of
making a series of pairwise comparison between competing characters. AHP summarizes the results of matched analogs in the “matrix of paired comparisons”. For
any pair of attributes, the person accepting the conclusion reveals the outcome
of”How much more important is one species (example) than another.” Any pairwise
comparison urgently asks the person to accept the conclusion to answer the question: “How much characteristic A can be more important, than characteristic B, of a
comparatively common goal?” (Kahraman 2008).
ELimination Et Choice Translating Reality (ELECTRE) is another MCDM
technique. The fundamental concept of the ELECTRE method is how to overcome with a leading relationship, using paired comparisons between candidates for
any aspect individually. Differences in the two or many choices, significant as Ai ´
l Aj,
indicate that the 2 candidates i and j do not mathematically prevail over each other,
the person accepting the conclusion perceives the risk of considering Ai as better than
Aj. A candidacy is considered to be dominant if another candidacy overtakes it, at
least in 1 aspect, and is equated in the remaining aspects. The ELECTRE method of
application is a pairwise comparison of choice based on the degree to which the evaluation of alternatives and the authority of preference recognizes or contradict pair
matching with the presence of a predominance between candidates. The decisionmaker has the opportunity to say, in fact, that he/she has a strong, weak or indifferent
predilection, or even has the ability to be unable to express his preference between
the 2 compared candidates (Kahraman 2008).
In comparison to other MCDM methods, PROMETHEE is an efficient technique
that provides more preference functions to decision makers for creating the priority
to alternatives based on each criteria. The advantages of PROMETHEE include
that it is a user-friendly method that can be perfectly applied to real-life problem
structures. Both PROMETHEE I and II as whole enable the ranking of the alternatives
respectively, while still providing simplicity (Ozsahin et al. 2019).
The PROMETHEE II method arranges objects from the best (more precisely, from
the most preferred) to the worst (to the least preferred). To do this, the differences,
Phi = Phi – Phi −, are calculated for each object and then ordered in descending
D. Uzun Ozsahin et al.
The VIKOR and TOPSIS methods are based on distance calculation, but the
compromise conclusion in VIKOR is guided by mutual concessions, while in TOPSIS
the best conclusion is guided by the minimum distance from PIS and the farthest
distance from NIS (negative ideal solution). PIS is considered to be a type that
consists of the best ratings between all considered criteria or attributes. On the other
hand, NIS is considered a candidate that contain the worst ratings between all the
criteria considered (Lee and Yang 2017).
The Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) was developed by Saati in 1980. AHP is
an additive weighting method. It has been reviewed and used in many fields, and its
implementation is maintained by several commercially available, user-friendly software packages. It is generally difficult for people who accept conclusions to literally
qualify weights of total importance for a set of characteristics at the same time. As
the number of characters’ increases, the best results are obtained when the problem
is transformed into one of a series of matched analogs. AHP formalizes a change
in the difficulty of weighting characteristics into a more manageable problem of
making a series of pairwise comparison between competing characters. AHP summarizes the results of matched analogs in the “matrix of paired comparisons”. For
any pair of attributes, the person accepting the conclusion reveals the outcome
of”How much more important is one species (example) than another.” Any pairwise
comparison urgently asks the person to accept the conclusion to answer the question: “How much characteristic A can be more important, than characteristic B, of a
comparatively common goal?” (Kahraman 2008).
ELimination Et Choice Translating Reality (ELECTRE) is another MCDM
technique. The fundamental concept of the ELECTRE method is how to overcome with a leading relationship, using paired comparisons between candidates for
any aspect individually. Differences in the two or many choices, significant as Ai ´
l Aj,
indicate that the 2 candidates i and j do not mathematically prevail over each other,
the person accepting the conclusion perceives the risk of considering Ai as better than
Aj. A candidacy is considered to be dominant if another candidacy overtakes it, at
least in 1 aspect, and is equated in the remaining aspects. The ELECTRE method of
application is a pairwise comparison of choice based on the degree to which the evaluation of alternatives and the authority of preference recognizes or contradict pair
matching with the presence of a predominance between candidates. The decisionmaker has the opportunity to say, in fact, that he/she has a strong, weak or indifferent
predilection, or even has the ability to be unable to express his preference between
the 2 compared candidates (Kahraman 2008).
In comparison to other MCDM methods, PROMETHEE is an efficient technique
that provides more preference functions to decision makers for creating the priority
to alternatives based on each criteria. The advantages of PROMETHEE include
that it is a user-friendly method that can be perfectly applied to real-life problem
structures. Both PROMETHEE I and II as whole enable the ranking of the alternatives
respectively, while still providing simplicity (Ozsahin et al. 2019).
The PROMETHEE II method arranges objects from the best (more precisely, from
the most preferred) to the worst (to the least preferred). To do this, the differences,
Phi = Phi – Phi −, are calculated for each object and then ordered in descending