Ranking using PROMETHEE when weights and thresholds are imprecise: a data envelopment analysis approach

References

• Allen, R., Athanassopoulos, A., Dyson, R. G., & Thanassoulis, E. (1997). Weights restrictions and value judgements in Data Envelopment Analysis: Evolution, development and future directions. Annals of Operations Research, 73, 13–34. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1018968909638
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Andersen, P., & Petersen, N. C. (1993). A procedure for ranking efficient units in data envelopment analysis. Management Science, 39(10), 1261–1294. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.39.10.1261
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bagherikahvarin, M., & De Smet, Y. (2017). Determining new possible weight values in PROMETHEE: A procedure based on data envelopment analysis. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 68(5), 484–495. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41274-016-0107-1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Behzadian, M., Kazemzadeh, R. B., Albadvi, A., & Aghdasi, M. (2010). PROMETHEE: A comprehensive literature review on methodologies and applications. European Journal of Operational Research, 200(1), 198–215. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2009.01.021
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Belton, V., & Vickers, S. P. (1993). Demystifying DEA - A visual interactive approach based on multiple criteria analysis. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 44(9), 883–896.
   Google Scholar
• Brans, J. P., & Vincke, P. (1985). A preference ranking organization method: The PROMETHEE method for multi criteria decision making. Management Science, 31(6), 647–656. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.31.6.647
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carrillo, M., & Jorge, J. M. (2016). A multiobjective DEA approach to ranking alternatives. Expert Systems with Applications, 50, 130–139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2015.12.022
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Charnes, A., & Cooper, W. W. (1962). Programming with linear fractional functionals. Naval Research Logistics Quarterly, 9, 181–186.
   Google Scholar
• Charnes, A., Cooper, W. W., & Rhodes, E. (1978). Measuring the efficiency of decision-making units. European Journal of Operational Research, 2(6), 429–444. https://doi.org/10.1016/0377-2217(78)90138-8
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cooper, W. W., Ruiz, J. L., & Sirvent, I. (2011). Choices and uses of DEA weights. In W. W. Cooper, L. W. Seiford, & J. Zhu (Eds.), Handbook on data envelopment analysis (pp. 93–126). Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Corrente, S., Figueira, J. R., Greco, S., & Słowiński, R. (2017). A robust ranking method extending ELECTRE III to hierarchy of interacting criteria, imprecise weights and stochastic analysis. Omega, 73, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.omega.2016.11.008
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Danielson, M., Ekenberg, L., Larsson, A., & Riabacke, M. (2014). Weighting under ambiguous preferences and imprecise differences in a cardinal rank ordering process. International Journal of Computational Intelligence Systems, 7, 105–112. https://doi.org/10.1080/18756891.2014.853954
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De Almeida Filho, A. T., Clemente, T. R., Morais, D. C., & de Almeida, A. T. (2018). Preference modeling experiments with surrogate weighting procedures for the PROMETHEE method. European Journal of Operational Research, 264(2), 453–461. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2017.08.006
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dias, L. C., & Clímaco, J. (2002). Exploring the consequences of imprecise information in choice problems using ELECTRE. In D. Bouyssou, E. Jacquet-Lagrèze, P. Perny, R. Słowiński, D. Vanderpooten, & P. Vincke (Eds.), Aiding decisions with multiple criteria. International series in operations research & management science (vol. 44). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-0843-4_8
   Google Scholar
• Doyle, J. R., & Green, R. (1994). Efficiency and cross-efficiency in data envelopment analysis: Derivatives, meanings and uses. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 45(5), 567–578. https://doi.org/10.1057/jors.1994.84
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eppe, S., & De Smet, Y. (2014). An adaptive questioning procedure for eliciting PROMETHEE II’s weight parameters. International Journal of Multicriteria Decision Making, 4(1), 1. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJMCDM.2014.059961
   Google Scholar
• Financial Times. (n.d.). Business school rankings from the Financial Times - FT.com: Business Education. http://rankings.ft.com/businessschoolrankings/
   Google Scholar
• Govindan, K., Kadziński, M., & Sivakumar, R. (2017). Application of a novel PROMETHEE-based method for construction of a group compromise ranking to prioritization of green suppliers in food supply chain. Omega, 71, 129–145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.omega.2016.10.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Halme, M., Joro, T., Korhonen, P., Salo, S., & Wallenius, J. (1999). A value efficiency approach to incorporating preference information in Data Envelopment Analysis. Management Science, 45(1), 103–115. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.45.1.103
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jack, A., & Moules, J. (2021, February 7). FT Global MBA ranking 2021: Europe tops table but US dominates. https://www.ft.com/content/8ff04e7e-f95c-46a3-96c8-df7054c408ec
   Google Scholar
• Joro, T., Korhonen, P., & Wallenius, J. (1998). Structural comparison of multiple objective linear programming with data envelopment analysis. Management Science, 44(7), 962–970. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.44.7.962
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Joro, T., Korhonen, P., & Zionts, S. (2003). An interactive approach to improve estimates of value efficiency in data envelopment analysis. European Journal of Operational Research, 149(3), 688–699. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0377-2217(02)00458-7
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kao, C. (2010). Weight determination for consistently ranking alternatives in multiple criteria decision analysis. Applied Mathematical Modelling, 34(7), 1779–1787. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apm.2009.09.022
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Karasakal, E., & Aker, P. (2017). A multicriteria sorting approach based on data envelopment analysis for R&D project selection problem. Omega, 73, 79–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.omega.2016.12.006
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liu, J. S., Lu, L. Y. Y., Lu, W. M., & Lin, B. J. Y. (2013). Data envelopment analysis 1978–2010: A citation-based literature survey. Omega, 41(1), 3–15. 2010.12.006. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.omega
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liu, S. T. (2018). A DEA ranking method based on cross-efficiency intervals and signal-to-noise ratio. Annals of Operations Research, 261(1–2), 207–232. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-017-2562-8
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maghrabie, H. F., Beauregard, Y., & Schiffauerova, A. (2019). Multi-criteria decision making problems with unknown weight information under uncertain evaluations. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 133, 131–138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2019.05.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mateos, A., Ríos-Insua, S., & Jiménez, A. (2007). Dominance, potential optimality and alternative ranking in imprecise multi-attribute decision making. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 58(3), 326–336. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jors.2602158
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mavrotas, G., & Trifillis, P. (2006). Multicriteria decision analysis with minimum information: Combining DEA with MAVT. Computers & Operations Research, 33(8), 2083–2098. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cor.2004.11.023
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oukil, A., & Amin, G. R. (2015). Maximum appreciative cross-efficiency in DEA: A new ranking method. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 81, 14–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2014.12.020
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Özerol, G., & Karasakal, E. (2008). Interactive outranking approaches for multicriteria decision making problems with imprecise information. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 59(9), 1253–1268. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jors.2602458
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rakhshan, S. A. (2017). Efficiency ranking of decision making units in data envelopment analysis by using TOPSIS-DEA method. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 68(8), 906–918. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41274-017-0237-0
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rakhshan, S. A., Kamyad, A. V., & Effati, S. (2015). Ranking decision-making units by using combination of analytical hierarchical process method and Tchebycheff model in data envelopment analysis. Annals of Operations Research, 226(1), 505–525. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-014-1728-x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ramanathan, R. (2006). Data envelopment analysis for weight derivation and aggregation in the analytic hierarchy process. Computers & Operations Research, 33(5), 1289–1307. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cor.2004.09.020
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rezaeiani, M. J., & Foroughi, A. A. (2018). Ranking efficient decision making units in data envelopment analysis based on reference frontier share. European Journal of Operational Research, 264(2), 665–674. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2017.06.064
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ruiz, J. L., & Sirvent, I. (2016). Common benchmarking and ranking of units with DEA. Omega, 65, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.omega.2015.11.007
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sarkis, J. (2000). A comparative analysis of DEA as a discrete alternative multiple criteria decision tool. European Journal of Operational Research, 123(3), 543–557. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0377-2217(99)00099-5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stewart, T. J. (1996). Relationships between data envelopment analysis and multicriteria decision analysis. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 47(5), 654–665. https://doi.org/10.1057/jors.1996.77
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thanassoulis, E., Portela, M. C. S., & Allen, R. (2004). Incorporating value judgements in DEA. In W. W. Cooper, L. W. Seiford, and J. Zhu (Eds.), Handbook on data envelopment analysis (pp. 99–138). Kluwer Academic Publishers.
   Google Scholar