The subject of municipal substructure care and operation has received considerable attending from both state-of-art and state-of-practice point of views during recent old ages. The volume of clip, forces and fiscal resources that are required for operation and care of substructure is big, and the substructure ‘s consequence on the environment and society is significant. This has made this field of survey interesting for research workers, applied scientists, directors and other stakeholders involved in the activities.
Based on the theoretical account developed by the writers ( 2012 ) , the operation, care, and rehabilitation ( O/M/R ) of substructure system has three chief elements:
“ Current State: The current province of the substructure system and its features, based on the rating of all available and suited indexs.
Event: An O/M/R Event, or some type of action that is performed on an substructure system, which needs external resources
Future State: The future province of an substructure system after an Event and its new features based on the predicted hereafter public presentation. ”
In order to depict the ‘current province ‘ of substructure, the writers showed that a sustainability ‘score ‘ will be defined in order to demo the province of substructure system, with respects to different sustainability ‘indicators ‘ . They besides stated that happening this ‘score ‘ can be transferred to a format of Multiple Criteria Decision Making ( MCDM ) method to analyze the informations and happen the mark.
The inquiry that arises here is that conditions this method of analyzing the operation/ care event is the most suited manner to near the model from determination doing point of view. In the old work, writers confine themselves to a particular group of determination devising attack, as we see subsequently in this study. However, many other different methods of multiple standards determination devising ( MCDM ) are available in research and pattern attacks. The inquiry is: ‘which MDCM method is suited to be used in these analyses? ‘
The of import point to reference here in the context of our research is the description of Multiple Criteria Decision Analyses ( MCDA ) and its difference from MCDM. In the position of MCDA, we do non add the concluding determination doing procedure to work and therefore do non execute the function of “ decision-maker ” . Rather we have the function of “ Analyst ” and construct the determination doing theoretical account and give the consequences to the chief determination shapers. Throughout this research it was assumed that the research worker is in the place of a ‘decision analyst ‘ , non a ‘decision shaper ‘ . Therefore, the undertaking is non to happen the determination in respect with the substructure system. But instead the undertaking is to happen a suited attack for depicting the job sphere, which is the substructure system and demoing a suited DM method to determination doing group. So what we truly will concentrate on is ‘MCDA ‘ , although for convenience and comparison with old researches ; in the undermentioned subdivision we will lodge to the term ‘MCDM ‘ .
The other cardinal common maxim that is suggested among many differences, irrespective of methods used for MCDM ; is the fact that there is no 1 ‘best ‘ , ‘optimal ‘ or ‘ideal ‘ reply to the job sphere of determination devising. This maxim is more highlighted when covering with existent job sphere in pattern and many different standards are involved. In this instance, struggle between different standards is ineluctable. Therefore, there are some come-at-able consequences, based on utilizing different methods of MCDM and different methods are seeking to happen these come-at-able 1s. Therefore the research is about happening a method that is appropriate comparatively adequate for determination devising, instead than happening the ‘best ‘ option ( Roy ( 2005 ) ) .
This research will look at the history of MDCM, sorting different methods into related classs and happening suited methods to execute analyses, their comparative pros and cons, and make up one’s minding on utilizing the appropriate attack at the decision.
Looking at the job of multiple standards determination devising ( MCDM ) in the old simple manner ; the job is approximately two or more options for actions and the determination that has to be made in order to better state of affairss of the given determination sphere with certain set of standards. However, this is non the instance for any existent MCDM jobs, and for more practical existent instance jobs, the determination procedure is more about first happening the jobs available in the sphere, or tracking some low quality visual aspects in features of the sphere, so structuring the determination devising job, happening restrictions to a set of alternate actions ; and eventually make up one’s mind on which action to take.
The tendency of utilizing different MCDM methods has been increased within different field related to determination devising in practical jobs. For illustration, Ivy Huang et Al. ( 2011 ) , showed that for different researches and analyses related to environmental scientific disciplines within 1990 t0 2010, documents related to MCDM increased from 2 in 1990 to 200 in 2010, or from 0.25 % of entire documents to 1.66 % of entire documents in the field. This clearly shows the increasing tendency of utilizing MCDM method in survey and pattern.
With the description of determination devising jobs mentioned before, our ain job, i.e. the job of sustainable appraisal of substructure system ; is clearly categorized in this theoretical account. This means that the job sphere is the substructure system, and we want to see which action should be taken in order to better the sustainability quality of the job sphere. The focal point of the research is on happening the ‘current province ‘ on substructure system and the determination doing theoretical account should hold the capableness to execute this. Therefore the job is to develop this MCDM job sphere.
The job should be broken down into a set of stairss in order to be solved consistently. As Belton & A ; Stewart ( 2002 ) have suggested, MCDM job resolution can be broken down into three chief stairss, which are as follows:
“ Designation and structuring the job ” : The really first measure is to clearly place the job sphere and the of import standards that should be counted in the determination devising.
“ Constructing the theoretical account ” : Different theoretical accounts and MCDM attack have been developed as described before. In this measure standards and the job sphere will be fitted in the appropriate selected method to construct the MCDM theoretical account for the job.
“ Development of an action program ” : Different options for action program will be developed and a determination will be made based on the theoretical account that has been built for different standards.
As said in the old subdivision, the research will be on analyzing the determination procedure as ‘analyst ‘ . Therefore the focal point of ‘Analyst ‘ will non be on the concluding phase of the 3rd measure, which is doing determination between different actions programs. We will utilize this dislocation of phases, in order to look at different literature reappraisals on MCDM and besides to our ain job sphere.
Designation and structuring the job
The really first measure that was researched into MCDM literature is to how to place and construction the job of determination devising. There are several mentions that have looked deep into the thought of how to place and construction a job from operational research point of view. The chief two mentions that were used here to construction the job were the work by Van Gundy ( 1981 ) named “ Techniques of Structured Problem Solving ” , and the book by Keeney ( 1992 ) named “ Value focused believing ” .
As mentioned in these mentions and other historical literature, MCDM can get down with specifying what you want as the consequence of your MCDM activities and so specifying how you want to acquire it. Thinking in another manner and from another point of view, MCDM can get down with depicting what options you have and so which one is the best. The first attack is what Keeney ( 1992 ) called “ value-focused thought ” compared to the 2nd attack which named “ alternative-focused thought ” . As we will see subsequently, these different thoughts of designation the theoretical account are the chief foundation of how we construction our job. We stick to the first attack here, as we will demo subsequently here that for specific job here, the first attack is more appropriate.
Concentrating on the first attack, i.e. “ value-focused thought ” , the cardinal inquiry to be asked is: ‘what we want from our MCDA ‘ or stating in other words: ‘what is valuable to us ‘ . It is clear that end and hence the inquiry for our ain particular job is about the quality of the job sphere, which is substructure system ; and the chance for bettering this quality by class of actions. So the chief inquiry is: “ How can we better the sustainable province of the system with allocated resources? ” This will be the first measure of structuring our MCDM theoretical account.
Here we have a complex job sphere, which is the substructure system ; with a insistent determination to be made on how to better the quality of the system over clip. Therefore, the chief focal point here is to develop a procedure instead than happening consequences, in order to do a determination on O/M/R event on a regular footing. So utilizing the first attack, which was ‘value-focused thought ‘ attack, is more preferred to the 2nd attack. We will concentrate on development of a MCDM procedure that can reply the inquiry on a regular footing.
The following measure is to breakdown the determination doing procedure into constituents. A utile dislocation of construction has been given by Belton & A ; Stewart ( 2002 ) which is abbreviated as the word “ CAUSE ” . Each of the letters means: C for Criteria, A for Alternatives, U for Uncertainty, S for Stakeholders ; and eventually E for External factors. A complete construction of MCDM should incorporate all these parametric quantities to be completed.
Standards and Indexs in MCDM
As can be understood from “ CAUSE ” , the first constituent of MDCM is ‘criteria ‘ . These are a set of properties related to job sphere that determination devising procedure and set of action on the job sphere will alter their state of affairs. The cardinal aim is to better all the standards, nevertheless ; in existent pattern job of MCDM this is non possible. For a simple determination devising job, the standards are clear and can be listed straightforward to construction the theoretical account. However, this is non the instance for bigger more complex job sphere, like substructure system. Therefore, choice of standards becomes a first sub-step in the theoretical account.
Keeney ( 1992 ) mentioned that by holding the chief cardinal aims, they are two attacks to interrupt this nonsubjective into a set of smaller aims, which we call standards here. These attacks are “ hierarchies of aims ” and “ nonsubjective web ” . Using the first method means that as we go down the hierarchy, the properties becomes more solid and quantifiable compared to more qualitative 1s on the top. From 2nd attack point of view all of the properties have the same degree of preciseness. Looking at first attack we can specify different footings for structuring the theoretical account. Three typical footings will be driven here by looking at the construction of determination devising job, ‘fundamental aim ‘ , ‘criteria ‘ ; and ‘indicators ‘ .
The first term, i.e. ‘fundamental aim ‘ has been discussed antecedently as the chief ground to execute determination doing analysis. The term ‘criteria ‘ for job sphere of substructure system would be translated to some general subjective properties to depict sustainability of substructure system. In order to be more specific in structuring the theoretical account, the term ‘indicator ‘ will be used here as the bottom degree in the hierarchy of aims. This is in order to stress on the specific mensurable properties of substructure system, instead than general footings that is of import in the determination doing theoretical account. The term ‘indicators ‘ has been suggested by many old literatures, but the chief mention related to job sphere of substructure system is the work by NRC.NRTSI ( 2009 ) . The undermentioned chart in Figure 1 clarifies this hierarchy of the footings Fundamental Objective, Criteria, and Indexs with general description in MCDM and specific description related to the job sphere of substructure system.
Figure the hierarchy of term for MCDM
Therefore, utilizing bottom-up attack in structuring the job, indexs should be found from different mentions and beginnings. In choosing indexs for the theoretical account, the guideline for choice given by Belton & A ; Stewart ( 2002 ) has been used to pull out them from a set of different mentions. This guideline mentioned that the undermentioned features are needed for any index in order to be selected for MCDM analysis:
“ Value relevancy ” : They have to be related to the cardinal aim. Therefore indexs related to bettering the quality of substructure system and traveling towards better overall sustainability should be selected from the mention
“ Comprehensibility ” : Indexs should be apprehensible to the analyst and to the determination shaper, and they know the significance of each of them
“ Quantifiability ” : They should be measured and reported in numerical units. In world it is non wholly applicable for all the indexs, and hence there should be a procedure to quantify qualitative indexs
“ Judgmental independency ” : The tradeoff between indexs should be wholly independent from their existent value or as we name it, their informations.
One point to sketch here is the job that is occurred with the quantifiability of a individual index. Suppose that for illustration we have a determination devising job and three options. Within these three options, we have the measuring of Lashkar-e-Taiba ‘s state 20, 30 and 40 for a specific index. It is really of import to foreground here that the lone consequences we can acquire from this Numberss are that alternate one is better than alternate two, and alternate two is better than alternate three. This does non intend that the difference between alternate one and alternate two is the same as the difference between alternate two and alternate three. This may look obvious, but when it comes to look at multiple indexs, and tradeoff between them, this non-linearity within each index become a important component, and it will depend on the method chosen for MDCM analysis. More treatment on this will come in the following subdivision.
Based on above guideline, and the available state-of-art and state-of-practice hunt, a set of 133 indexs have been gathered by the writers ( 2012 ) .The list can of these indexs can be found in the appendix. This is interpreted as the ‘pool ‘ of indexs and subsequently in the research we will depict how to choose the 1s that we want to execute the MDCM method on them.
These indexs have been extracted from different national and international beginnings as described in the work by writer ( 2012 ) . Harmonizing to the Canada West Foundation ( CWF ) , the top 10 states in care and development of substructure from the International institute for direction are as follows: United States, Switzerland, Finland, Sweden, Australia, Canada, Germany, Iceland, Japan, and Denmark ( Vander Ploegh, 2003 ) . From these states, three prominent counties have been chosen for the rating of their indexs of H2O systems as the illustration for job sphere of MCDM. This choice was based on their superior places and besides handiness to information about the related indexs. These states are: United States, Australia ; and Canada.
In decision for this subdivision, a entire figure of 133 indexs have been found by researching the huge information on state-of-art and state-of-practice literature reappraisal. This is the base for the first portion of ‘CAUSE ‘ , the standards of MCDM job sphere.
The 2nd constituent to construction the determination devising job are options available that determination devising job sphere has. Problem of determination devising can dwell of finite figure of options or infinite Numberss. In most usual determination doing jobs options are known to some extent at the start of determination devising procedure. However, for some other jobs, options are non known ab initio. They are so located in the possible sphere of solution to the determination devising jobs and will be defined subsequently. This two specific format of job will be defined subsequently in subdivision related to constructing the theoretical account.
Looking at job sphere of substructure system, it can be seen that options of actions to be made on substructure system are non a finite set of clear 1s. Rather there is infinite scope of actions that should be investigated to happen the best solution. As mentioned before, the research focal point is non on happening the appropriate reply for the job sphere. It is about developing the determination devising procedure. Therefore, the focal point of research will non be on the options constituent of MDCM.
The 3rd constituent of determination devising job is uncertainness associated with the job sphere. The consequence that options will hold on the job sphere in bettering the quality of job sphere, is non solid and certain and many ambiguity resulted from inadvertent event can happen which will ensue in different consequences other than what was expected.
As described in the old subdivision, if we focus merely on the first portion of determination devising theoretical account for job sphere, which was looking at the current province of the substructure system, we do non look at what will happened after executing options on the substructure system, and hence at this research uncertainness will non be discussed, the same as options.
However, an of import point to reference here is that the factor of uncertainness does non belong merely to what happens to indexs after a certain alternate set of action has happened. It besides can mention to the informations related to each set of indexs within the current province. This gives another point of view to the theoretical account, and raises the of import inquiries of: how accurate are the information and information that we have from the substructure system? The reply to this inquiry will clear up how much uncertainness we have related to informations in the current province. But it besides raises another inquiry: How much are we willing to pay to acquire more accurate informations for our indexs? This is what normally highlighted in the literature as the ‘cost of information ‘ . Further treatment on cost of information and covering with uncertainness will be discussed during taking the method subdivision.
The other constituent of any MCDM is the stakeholders involved in the determination devising job sphere. When looking at stakeholders affected from determination doing activities as highlighted by Van Gundy ( 1981 ) , the clear apprehension and outlook is that they should interact with each other to first specify the job of MCDM, sharing thought and sentiments about it ; and construction the job after that. Different thought coevals techniques have been suggested such as different direct and indirect connexions ; workshop with different stakeholders ‘ group, “ Post-Its ” Sessionss ; and other methods of communicating has been suggested in the literature.
However, the cost of garnering such events financially and labor hr was out of the range of the initial stairss of this research and puting different stakeholders ‘ panel and treatment group was non possible. Therefore for the initial test of MCDM system on the job sphere ; to move pragmatically on this state of affairs, the attack that was taken by the writer was to seek different beginnings of available state-of-art and state-of-practice to happen different indexs from different point of views, as was described in criteria subdivision. This is one of the attacks that were besides suggested by Buede ( 1986 ) . In his work, he mentioned that in order to construction a value job related to MCDM, we can either look at relevant literature to the job sphere, execute an analytical illustration ; or as mentioned above have communicating and utilize empirical attacks. We use the first beginning to construction our job sphere, which means we use the work that has been done in the pertinent literature.
The concluding constituent of determination devising job is about the external factors impacting the job sphere and restrict the determination doing attack. For any type of direction survey for any sort of job sphere, it is known that the job can non be solved by insulating the job sphere from the outside planetary sphere and it is ever affected by some characteristics, which normally called external factors. For MCDM, the same as other types of direction surveies ; these factors should be identified and the consequence on the sphere should be investigated to accomplish better quality determination devising.
For the sphere of substructure system, there are ever many external factors impacting the determination devising procedure, because substructure systems have an of import function and place in the society. The factors can be varied from environmental alterations in the part, unanticipated natural jeopardies, to political force per unit area related to specific class of action and so on. Decision analysts have to pattern these factors in their MCDM and see the consequence they have on other constituents of determination devising, particularly on options.
This will sum up the first measure of developing MCDM theoretical account for substructure system, which was designation and structuring the job. We discussed different constituents of determination devising and relates to the research job sphere. In the following phase we discussed the 2nd measure, which was constructing the theoretical account
Constructing the theoretical account
The following measure is constructing the theoretical account of MCDM. There are many different methods available in literature, which have to be extracted from state-of-art and state-of-practice for determination devising, and the suited method would be chosen to construct the determination doing theoretical accounts based on the research ‘s job sphere. However, in order to seek more consistently into methods available for constructing the theoretical account, it would be better to sort these methods into a set of chief group of determination devising methods, so look into that which one is more suitable into the job sphere of substructure system and so happen a method within that specific categorization group.
Looking at the different historical literatures ( Bellman and Zadeh ( 1970 ) , Lee ( 1972 ) , Keeney & A ; Raiffa ( 1976 ) , Roy ( 1996 ) , Belton & A ; Stewart ( 2002 ) , Figueira et Al ( 2005 ) ) ; they are different types of categorization when looking at the job of MCDM. These categorizations are based on the manner determination shapers look at the job, or the manner they construction work outing method.
The undermentioned subdivisions describe different types of sorting the MCDM job found from literature reappraisal. They have been explained briefly, followed by looking at the research job sphere to happen which class, or classs ; in each categorization is acceptable the research job.
MADM and MODM
The methods of MCDM have by and large categorized into two chief sub-categories within literature, which depend on the type of the determination job it is dealt with. It means that this initial categorization depends on the nature of the job itself, non how methods of MCDM solve job:
Multi Attribute Decision Making ( MADM ) attack: When the job is defined in a distinct design infinite and the end is to happen the best option from a figure of preset 1s. Therefore the job is in the format of ‘evaluation ‘ job. Therefore options related to determination devising job have been defined and are a set of finite Numberss of options.
Multi Objective Decision Making ( MODM ) attack: When the job does non concentrate on merely a defined limited infinite but instead on the uninterrupted design infinite and the job is designed to happen a set of assuring replies sing the limited resources available, hence this type of job is more in the format of ‘design ‘ job. In this instance, normally options are non known or there are infinite Numberss of options available for job sphere ( Hwang & A ; Yoon 1981 ) .
MADM has been developed from late seventeenth centuries until recent old ages with more elaborate mathematical attack with the aid of IT technologies in topographic point. On the other manus MODM has been developed more late from mid-20th century ( Tzeng & A ; Huang 2011 ) . Different attacks have been developed through these old ages.
In world the existent job of MCDM is a combination of a elaborate initial ‘design ‘ phase followed by clear ‘evaluation ‘ procedure. It means that MODM focuses on a to set-up short list of limited options, from possibly infinite figure of options. Then MADM will look at the standards that are available and choice from that limited short list made in the old subdivision. This possibly a individual set of design and rating, but it can be iterative attack that farther design would be needed after the first unit of ammunition of rating, to restrict a set of options for re-evaluation of them.
The job sphere of substructure system can be interpreted the same manner. An initial design stage of the job is to happen a set of options, which is followed by looking at rating of these options and happening the suited 1 for the model. As mentioned in the old subdivision, the focal point of this research is on looking at the standards and the current province of the substructure system. Hence, it is non looking at setting-up a set of options for work outing the job and the determination devising job is in the format of rating. It concludes that methods related to MADM should be investigated and performed here.
Looking more elaborate into categorization of MDCM job based on the nature of the job ; Roy ( 1996 ) divided MCDM jobs into four separate classs and named them as different types of “ problematique ” . This was a farther dislocation of MCDM jobs compared to old categorization of MADM and MODM. These problematique are as follows:
“ Choice problematique ” : When the job is about taking a preferable pick from a set of options
“ Ranking problematique ” : To set-up a penchant telling to a set of different options for MCDM job sphere
“ Screening problematique ” : To sort different options into a set of classs, for illustration: “ fulfilling ” group, “ marginally acceptable ” group, and so on
“ Description problematique ” : To depict each option of a set of actions comprehensively and extensively to the group of determination shapers
It can be seen that for Roy categorizations of MDCM, all four groups of problematique focal points on a set of options, and non on the procedure of determination devising based on standards available. For research ‘s job sphere and the focal point of the research, which is current province of substructure system, it can be seen that none of the problematique classs can be ab initio performed, and they are utile when alternate set for operation, care or rehabilitation has been defined.
MCDM School of idea
The old categorizations were focused on the job nature of MCDM, non on how to work out the job of MCDM. Traveling back to the “ CAUSE ” definition, which was the constituents of any MCDM job ; the most celebrated categorization that focal point on how to work out the job, is the categorization known as “ MCDM school of idea ” or “ MCDM theories ” . This means that concentrating on the cardinal aim, standards to make nonsubjective and their values, point of view of involved groups ; and options for actions to make up one’s mind ; theories vary from each other based on their focal point.
Overall, there are three chief theories or schools of idea that have been developed in old literature. These theories have been described and practiced by a set of different methods available in historical literature on MCDM. These chief schools of idea are ( Hyde 2006 ) :
Value measuring theoretical account: In this school, an order of penchant between options is presented by agencies of giving a numerical mark to the system based on standards
Goal Model: The most desirable and accomplishable degree of each standard is set-up and so the option which is the closest to this most desirable degree of standards, is chosen. Some literature call this school of idea as the “ aspiration degree ” theory
Outranking theoretical account: In this theoretical account, different options are compared pairwise for each standard and so combination of all standards to happen the suited option.
Now based on these chief theories, the following measure is to first make up one’s mind which theory best fitted the research job and which MCDM method within that theory would accommodate better for research. This manner we can consistently happen which method best fitted to our job and take the best alternate method of MCDM. It can be seen that there is a determination devising attack here every bit good to choose the most suited MCDM! This means that the same as all other job of MCDM there is non a “ best ” or “ ideal ” reply ; instead there is the “ acceptable ” one.
In the first measure, we will see which school of idea or theory best fit the job sphere of sustainability appraisal of substructure system. Looking at old researches, these schools of idea have been described in more inside informations here:
Value measuring theory ( Belton & A ; Stewart ( 2002 ) ) : These types of methods will set-up an attack to give a measure figure to each available alternate and compare these Numberss together to happen the most suited options. This figure is called ‘Score ‘ in literature reappraisal, and is based on standards that are defined for the job sphere and point of view of stakeholders. Therefore, this school of idea for MCDM focuses more about the thought procedure on standards for MCDM instead than acquiring the consequences and taking options at the terminal.
The of import point about this theory is that if the standards can be described in quantitative values and a standardisation attack is performed on their comparative informations, the MCDM method can be performed without looking at any option of actions. This is because of the fact that qualitative standards will depend on set of options available and are more judgemental.
Let ‘s state X ( I ) is the value map assigned from a set of index to the alternate ‘i ‘ . Looking at a job with merely one index, Xj ( I ) show the value map of alternate I for the index J. The Difference between different MCDM methods within the value measuring theory is the difference on how they reach from a set of Xj ( I ) values for different indexs to the value of X ( I ) for the job sphere.
The importance of different indexs is given by ‘weight ‘ to them. Weights are changeless factors assigned to each index demoing the willing of stakeholders to trade-offs the specific index within MCDM. The manner weights applied to indexs will depend on the value measuring method chosen for MCDM procedure, and every bit said before ; it will be one of the chief differences of different methods within value measuring theory. However, for all the methods, these weights will give a format of ‘trade-off ‘ between different indexs, which is the base construct of this theory and methods within this theory.
The most common method in collection indexs for acquiring value map is utilizing the linear procedure. This is called Multi-attribute Value map ( MAVF ) method or Multi-attribute Value Theory ( MAVT ) . This means that for alternate I and looking at n indexs, the value map of X ( I ) is:
Ten ( one ) =
The other common initial signifier of value map is in the format of multiplicative format. Using the same note that has been described above, for this value map we have:
Ten ( one ) =
The linear attack has been used more in different methods, as it has more kernel of aggregating indexs. It is due to the fact that collection of indexs in linear format seems more logical for stakeholders involved compared to multiplicative format.
In order to give value to a standard, an old attack in pattern is to give value of nothing to the worst instance scenario of the standards and 1 for the best instance scenario and other possible measure of index would acquire value between 0 and 1. This is particularly suited if the index is qualitative one, and hence this attack can be performed to alter the index ‘s value map to quantitative value.
There are many research and old literature reviews on this school of ideas, which has been published in operational research and direction related magazines and publications. Geoffrion, Dyer and Feinberg ( 1972 ) developed an synergistic tradeoff attack for optimisation of MCDM procedure based on this theory. Zionts and Wallenius ( 1983 ) developed an algorithm based on this theory concentrating on computational portion of the theory. A full flow chart of advancement related to this theory can be found in the mention book by Tzeng & A ; Huang ( 2011 ) .
General manner to specify value measuring theory is by utilizing more developed mathematical and probabilistic attack to specify the job and more specifically specifying comparative ‘weights ‘ to standards. This method is called Multi attribute public-service corporation theory ( MAUT ) . MAUT is either in the format of ‘direct appraisal ‘ , where public-service corporation map of U is given by a map of all n standards ; or it can be in the format of ‘decomposed appraisal ‘ , where overall public-service corporation map is a map of n partial public-service corporation map related to each standard. It can be seen that MAVF is a simplified attack of ‘direct appraisal ‘ format of MAUT.
Having merely two standards in determination devising job as ( I, J ) ; public-service corporation map is used to specify weight assigned to these two standards with the undermentioned procedure. If ( i- , j- ) are the worst possible instance for two standards ; and ( i+ , j+ ) are the best 1 ; the weight Wisconsin for standard I can be found from the undermentioned indifference chance equation. This method of delegating weight is called ‘lottery weights ‘ method:
As can be seen, MAUT is once more utilizing judgmental factor about at with point the user is apathetic between two sets of the equation to happen weights related to different indexs. Assuming holding n indexs, lottery weight method should be taken times to happen all related weights for the indexs, utilizing this method of MAUT. There are other ways of delegating weights in MAUT, which can be found in Keeney and Raiffa ( 1976 ) .
Goal Model theory ( Wierzbicki ( 1982 ) , Lahdelma et Al. ( 2005 ) ) : This school of idea is believed to be the oldest theory in nearing the MCDM jobs. In this school of idea and methods related to this theory, the focal point is more into the standards ( or what we called indexs here ) . The basic thought behind all the methods related to this theory is that during the determination devising procedure, a group of determination shapers prioritizes their standards, happening the satisfactory degree of the standards, and set-up the end for each standard. Then they look at the first most of import standards and extinguish some options based on this standard that have non reached the degree of satisfactory. Then they move to the following of import standard and execute the same method for all standards, until they reach to the concluding staying options. Based on this definition, this school of idea is besides called the fulfilling degree theory in some literatures.
The theory is non every bit simple and straightforward as it sounds, and normally the attack is in the format of dynamic attack. This means that if the determination shapers have gone through all the standards and they were still some options left, they have to be more demanding on the standards, and frailty versa. The determination doing procedure will be performed once more and once more in an iterative procedure until, it reach the concluding options.
As it is clear above, the chief advantage of this school of idea is simpleness, and avoiding in-depth computation and measuring like the first school of idea. This may originate from the deficiency of informations related to different indexs or major importance of one index to the others, which dictates taking some options ab initio via this theory. In pattern, when it comes to a everyday determination doing procedure with skilled squad of determination devising, this school of idea is more of involvement for the determination shapers, as they have the experience that which indexs are more important and which alternative can give better consequences for those specific indexs.
One of the major methods in this school of idea is introduced by Wierzbicki ( 1980 ) which is named “ mention point ” attack, which was concentrating more on the moral force of the job and changing in the satisfactory degree described ab initio. In another work by Wierzbicki ( 1982 ) , the end programming method based on mention point was developed more in mathematical attack in order to make to indicator satisfaction degree in a systematic manner. He developed mathematical algorithm so that the method has quantitative informations, apprehensible and more justifiable determination devising is excluded from the determination doing attack. They are other different methods related to this school of idea in literature of determination devising. For illustration the work by Stewart ( 1991 ) , ocular mention point attack by Korhonen ( 1988 ) ; and many other plants available in past literature.
Traveling back to cite point attack, there are three chief degrees for each index that will be defined, when looking into fulfilling degree of each index:
Minimal degree: The minimal degree of index which has to be attained at the terminal of determination devising procedure. This is the obligatory degree of the specific index.
Maximal degree: The maximal degree of index which can be attained at the terminal of determination devising procedure. This is the optimistic degree of the specific index.
Desirable degree: The desirable degree of index which is the optimum degree that could be attained at the terminal of determination devising procedure. This is the practical degree of the specific index.
Having necessary information related to the index under survey, we can happen the first two fulfilling degree, nevertheless happening the 3rd one, which is between first and 2nd degree ; is non an easy undertaking to execute for determination analyst. This is because that the first two degrees can be found independent of other indexs and external factors impacting the job sphere, but the 3rd degree is the 1 that is really desired to be achieved. It will necessitate farther old experience on the country related to job sphere and therefore it is difficult to construction the job.
Goal programming hence is normally used as the initial measure for doing a short list of options from a chief list of excessively many options, based on the ranking of indexs. This means that determination shapers or determination analysts with moderately adequate expertness related to job sphere, will look at initial list of options, and by holding sense of three chief degrees of end scheduling, i.e. upper limit, lower limit and desirable degree of indexs ; they can take some options from the initial list. However, doing more precise determination on the staying 1s and besides affecting other unskilled stakeholders in determination devising procedure is non an easy undertaking with this theory.
Outranking theory ( Bisdorff ( 2002 ) , Roy ( 1996 ) ) : This school of idea is besides called the European School of idea in literature. In this school of thought different methods focal point on the concluding options of the determination procedure, instead than indexs or the procedure itself. Suppose that two options ‘a ‘ & As ; ‘b ‘ have been selected. Based on this attack, if value map of Xi ( a ) and Xi ( B ) for all set of indexs of I is such that Xi ( a ) a‰? Xi ( B ) and for at least for one index like J, Xj ( a ) & gt ; Xj ( B ) , so alternative a will outranks alternate B and hence alternate B will be eliminated. In the more general signifier, this school of idea and approaches following its basic definition will utilize information that is available to fulfill outranking of one option to another 1.
Finding outranking relationship between two options is non normally straightforward and hence in mentions related to this attack ( Roy ( 1996 ) ) , the construct of weak penchant and rigorous penchant have been introduced. This manner once more an iterative attack will be constructed by related methods of outranking theory to eventually happening the good options. This means that this theory will non give the optimal alternate, but instead highlight the good option from set of options.
Two chief outranking methods in the literature are named ELECTRE ( Roy ( 1996 ) ) , and PROMETHEE ( Brans ( 1984 ) ) . Different options of the job are compared one by one together based on limited figure of options to happen the ratio between two options. The difference between different methods of ELECTRE during clip and besides on PROMETHEE method is the manner they are covering with indexs. In earlier methods for both of the chief methods, indexs were weighted the same. Adding weight to indexs was in ulterior ELECTRE methods and besides on PROMETHEE 1s. After that, more advanced methods of ELECTRE and PROMETHEE was presented based on the thought of developing penchant map for indexs ( Tzeng & A ; Huang 2011 ) .
Choosing theory related to research ‘s job sphere
Different school of idea and their chief methods have been described in the old subdivision. As seen, ‘Value measuring theory ‘ focal points on the procedure of determination devising by looking at tradeoff between different indexs and delegating comparative weight to them. The focal point of ‘Goal programming theory ‘ was on indexs and their hearty degree and different attack on how to make these degrees for different indexs. The concluding theory, ‘outranking theory ‘ , was concentrating on the options, comparing them and happening the most come-at-able option from a list of actions. A comprehensive advancement history of these theories can be found in the book by Tzeng & A ; Huang ( 2011 ) .
We now seek to happen the most suited and appropriate school of idea to utilize in our job sphere from the three theories. We will look into pros and cons of each of the theories in this subdivision in order to make up one’s mind which one to take. It can be by utilizing one theory for whole of the determination doing procedure or utilizing different theories at each phase of the job sphere, as will be described in the undermentioned subdivisions.
Value Measurement Theory: Looking at the value measuring theory, the first of import pro of this theory is the independency from the options. As mentioned before happening the value map does non depend on the options, if the indexs have been defined based on the outlined feature. This will be a chief pro for utilizing this theory in the research job sphere, as they are no initial options for substructure system, and understanding the current province utilizing this theory will non necessitate any options.
Value measuring theory construct up a mathematical signifier of penchant and form the job to the apprehension of stakeholders. When a job is covering with multiple indexs, the fact of ratio between significance of each index becomes the of import factors and methods that can demo this ratio have better credence from stakeholders. This pro is besides good for research job sphere, as they are many stakeholders involved like the governments of substructure and public utilizing the system. They better can see the reflect of their sentiment in the theoretical account.
The chief con for value measuring is that in world human head can non maintain consistent with giving ratios between different indexs. This normally does non ensue in holding transitive value map. This means that if value map or public-service corporation map of index I has been weighted twice as weight related to indicator J, and weight of index J twice as index K ; so index I should hold weight 4 times indicator k. It is non needfully go oning for existent instance determination job patterns. This is particularly the instance when the job sphere trades with different stakeholders. The non-transitivity of indexs ‘ weights will do confusion in the theoretical account description of determination devising job.
The other con for different methods following value measuring theory is the fact that acquiring measure for mensurating importance of indexs is non an easy straightforward undertaking to make from determination shapers and other groups of stakeholders. This is due to the fact that by and large people tend to speak about comparative importance of their standards with their ain account. For illustration, stating this standard is “ truly more of import ” than the other one, or this one is “ non that much of import ” compared to the other 1. Geting numerical measure to be assigned as weight of different standards will do existent job to the procedure for determination analysts.
Finally, for value measuring theory, determination analysts should be cognizant of the ‘cost of information ‘ construct. Collection of informations related to each index, normalising procedure for collection and eventually acquiring weight for each separate index will take clip and related cost to the clip spent. The procedure besides become more hard to execute compared to the other two schools of idea. Therefore, the truth that is given by agencies of related method for value measuring theory should hold the benefit that is acceptable by the related cost. This con becomes more important when covering with the job sphere of substructure system, which consists of monolithic sum of informations information. The cost of roll uping this information will hold consequence on truth of the informations, which cause the determination theoretical account to be less valuable.
Goal Model theory: The chief pro about methods utilizing this school of idea is that they normally follow the same format of a human head, which means fulfilling each index in the ranking that the individual has prior to traveling to the following index. Therefore the chief pro of this theory is that they are easy to understand and acquire the kernel of the procedure of determination devising. For determination shapers that do non cognize the order of penchant between indexs, but do cognize to some extent that what they from each index at the terminal of determination devising procedure, i.e. their ends for each index ; this theory will be better suited compared to other 1s.
Looking at the job of substructure system, the method that group of determination shaper uses for their determination analysis normally follow this theory. This means that based on their expertness they chose to prioritise options related to substructure system, and they use end programming theory in empirical attacks to fulfill the indexs based on indexs precedence. For substructure system, the precedence of indexs for determination shapers starts with looking at physical status of substructure system and indexs related to that, followed by economical indexs and so on. Other indexs holding lower precedences serves as criterions like wellness and safety criterions more than indexs with the same precedence degree with physical status and economical 1s.
The chief benefit of end theoretical account theory is when the job sphere has rather extended figure of options for determination devising job. By utilizing simple methods related to end theoretical account theory, some of options can be removed and build a short list of staying options to take from. At this phase, there is a possibility to execute other types of theories, if chosen by determination shapers. This will foreground the fact that end theoretical account theory can be used as initial measure followed by more precise methods from other school of idea.
Goal scheduling every bit mentioned before, if used by some anterior cognition and experience of the related field can be really utile. This can be emphasized for insistent determination devising and the job sphere of this sort. After some few initial determination devising experience, determination shaper understand that with what degree for each indexs they can be satisfied and this can be used for farther determination doing analysis of the job sphere. This can be seen in determination devising related to substructure system that has the repetitiousness feature.
Looking at the cons of end theoretical account theory, the first chief Con for this theory and utilizing fulfilling techniques is pretermiting the direct consequence of stakeholders ‘ point of view on determination devising job. The job sphere of substructure system is a MCDM sphere with many stakeholders involved. The manner indexs are prioritized is different for different group of stakeholders, and hence the method of fulfilling one index before traveling to the following 1 is non likely with many point of views in-stake.
The other job, as mentioned earlier is the fact that taking satisfaction degree for ends of different indexs, may go forth some options left in the procedure of determination devising, while taking other alternate in pre-mature determination devising. This arise from the fact that there is no clear tradeoff between indexs on this theory and methods related, so the qualitative opinion of the ranking of indexs will consequences to disregarding better options at the terminal.
Outranking theory: Lapp as end theoretical account theory, methods utilizing outranking theory follow the same format of what determination shapers think in comparatively smaller graduated table job spheres. They look at the options that are available for their job sphere and make up one’s mind to follow one of them. Therefore the chief pro of this theory, the same as old one is that they are easy to follow during the procedure of determination devising.
Different outranking methods like different version of ELECTRE methods are easy to follow, in qualitative manner, which is in a manner besides the chief con for the theory, if more elaborate quantitative consequences is needed to be extracted from the determination devising procedure.
The chief con of outranking methods is its dependableness on options. This means that the determination doing procedure can merely be developed one time the job sphere know the concluding list of options available for analyses. Without holding options available, determination analyst can non execute determination doing utilizing any of the outranking school of idea methods.
Based on above treatments, adverting pros and cons of different school of idea, it can be seen that ‘Value measuring theory ‘ is the most suited theory or school of idea that can be executed on job sphere of substructure system. The chief ground is initial development procedure of this theory is independent from options, hence for substructure system it can be performed without ab initio cognizing the possible set of solutions as options. By holding indexs that have been found in the old subdivision ; the current province of substructure system can be reported in the format of ‘score ‘ to demo sustainability position of substructure system. Now the inquiry is which method within value measurement school of idea should be used to happen the ‘score ‘ for the job sphere.
Methods for MCDM
In the old subdivisions we looked at different categorizations that were available in old literature and state-of-art for multiple standards determination devising. It was mentioned that the nature of the job is in the format of ‘evaluation ‘ or ‘Multiple Attribute Decision Making ( MADM ) ‘ . Looking at different school of idea, it was concluded that the suited theory that can be fitted good into the job sphere of substructure system is the ‘Value measuring theory ‘ . Now in this subdivision, we foremost investigates the methods that belongs to above categorizations, so discourse their pros and cons, to happen the appropriate method to be performed in job sphere of substructure system.
Important Characteristic of method for the job
Based on description of the job in the old subdivision, we now discuss that what characteristic should the MCDM method have in order to to the full cover the job sphere and best fitted to the demand of the attack to happen Mark from indexs and their comparative informations.
In any types of MCDM methods, there are two chief subdivisions that need to be addressed in the method ; these subdivisions are ( Belton & A ; Stewart ( 2002 ) ) :
Specifying penchant for each index individually. This means that if the method focuses on each one of the standard ; how the penchant will be given to each options based on the specific index.
Accretion of indexs. Once we have the first stage of penchant within each standard, how we accumulate these penchants and happen the penchants for our options.
Harmonizing to the indexs ‘ feature and the criterions that have been taken into history while choosing them from old plants, these indexs have the feature of quantifiability. Therefore, the first subdivision of MCDM method suggested above will be satisfied, and specifying penchant for each index will be straight linked to its measure.
The focal point of research therefore will so switch to the 2nd subdivision mentioned above. It is clear here that the by specifying a term of ‘Score ‘ in our job we want to hold a format of a evaluation system that should be capable of taking history of all different of import ‘indicators ‘ , i.e. fulfilling the 2nd subdivision of MCDM. This MCDM system is non a one-off determination between different options. It should be developed in a manner that can be used on a regular footing for different determination doing state of affairss on options, therefore the specific function of MCDM here is to specify a process to be followed for each O/M/R event determination devising.
What becomes of import here is the description of the features that the MDCM method should hold in order to choose suited method from different method that is available in the literature. Some of the feature are the same as characteristic that have been assigned to indexs in the old subdivisions, while others are specific to the MCDM method itself.
The of import feature here is that the attack should be integrated of all possible indexs so that it can be used at any given state of affairs and DM job, instead than concentrating on lone few indexs. This will fulfill the 2nd status mentioned above. The integrating means that all possible indexs that have been used in any available similar job sphere, but non in the chief job sphere, should be taken into history, so that the MCDM will be utile for any hereafter usage.
The other of import factor for taking the MCDM method here is that the theoretical account should number for all of import stakeholders point of view and non refering approximately merely specific group of stakeholders. As the job sphere is related to substructure system that many stakeholders, particularly public stakeholders are involved with, therefore the analysts can non merely concentrate on determination shapers ‘ thoughts and penchants and should include other stakeholders as good. This necessitates another feature to the MCDM theoretical account, which is comprehensibility. The theoretical account chosen for MCDM should be apprehensible in order that all the stakeholders that want to be involved in the determination doing procedure can understand the theoretical account that has been developed and gain the significance of the consequences which is the mark in this job sphere. The of import point of focal point is that at the terminal, the value theoretical account extracted for job sphere of determination devising should follow the mentality of stakeholders involved.
Involving both public sector and the authorities in this MDCM method rise another characteristic that should be in the determination doing theoretical account, which is the transparence of the method. Equally long as, any fiscal resources to execute O/M/R action comes from taxpayers, in consequences the theoretical account should depict that the resource that has been spent has a direct consequence on a set of indexs which consequences in increasing mark of the substructure system. Tracking this system should be transparent so that it can be seen that what benefits stakeholders will acquire with the cost incurred to them for the event.
Another of import factor for taking the MCDM method is that the method should hold the capableness of ensuing values that are mensurable, although this characteristic may non be directly frontward. It is really possible and apprehensible for informations related to non-engineering side of substructure that they turn out to be qualitative. Therefore some efforts need to be made in order to alter qualitative informations into quantitative informations. However, the theoretical account itself should non enforce any more qualitative factor to the determination devising procedure and has quantifiability feature.
Finally the selected theoretical account for MCDM should hold operationality. This means that utilizing the method should be for the benefit of determination shapers, non against clip and money they are apportioning for their determination devising on the job sphere, i.e. substructure system. One major factor that affects the operationality of the MDCM is taking the method itself. Analysts can travel for existent complex theoretical account in order to increase the truth of MCDM attack, but on the other manus loses the utility of the method bit by bit. Making balance between truth and operationality is really important facet of choosing MCDM method.
Now with these definitions, the job of MCDM can be structured. We want to happen a best suited MCDM method in order to utilize Datas that we have for each Sustainability Indicator and happen the overall Mark of the current province of substructure system. This will be the end of MCDM method that we use here.
Survey on available methods
As a sum-up to the old subdivision, the method of MCDM chosen here has the undermentioned feature:
The method should hold the capacity to be used on several determination devising instances, non merely one on-off determination devising job
The method should utilize incorporate attack to aggregate all different selected indexs.
The method should be apprehensible for all stakeholders affected in the determination devising procedure.
The method should hold transparence so that all the determination doing concluding can be tracked in the method
The method should give mensurable consequences of determination devising activities on different options
The method should hold the feature of operationality from clip and cost point of view
Traveling back to the old subdivision of surveies on different categorizations of MCDM, it was concluded that the chosen method will be MADM method belonging to value measuring theory. Now, different methods from literature reappraisal within these categorizations will be discussed here, to happen the appropriate method to be used in determination analyst procedure. These methods are as follows with their related pros and cons described and compared.
Weighted Sum Model ( WSM ) :
This method is the simplest format of value measuring theory, used for comparing different options based on choice of standards. If standards have the same unit, this method can be used. This is on the land that indexs have either same unit, or of ratio value. This means that for alternate I and looking at n standards, is:
In which is the comparative value for standard J. As mentioned before, this method is merely utile when standards have the same unit, or they have been normalized to be unit less.
In a more general format as described before, this method is the simple format of linear format of Multi-attribute Value map ( MAVF ) method or Multi-attribute Value Theory ( MAVT ) .This means that for alternate I and looking at n indexs, the value map of X ( I ) is:
Ten ( one ) =
Traveling back to the job sphere of substructure system and besides the characteristic mentioned above, it can be seen that utilizing this method, has many advantages. It can be used as a insistent measuring for the action of operation/ care and fix on substructure system, and the consequence it has on bettering mark of substructure system. It is besides an incorporate attack, apprehensible to stakeholders, and transparent. The chief of import advantage of the method is simpleness of the method, as it wholly on the same way with human thought of giving weight to indexs and adding them for determination devising pattern.
The major drawback on this method is operationality of the procedure and quantifiability of the consequences. This means that indexs are from different related issues of substructure system, like environmental, societal and other facet of the system. Finding a manner to normalise indexs to add them in the summing up shown supra is non easy to be performed. In other words, Finding for 133 indexs is non an easy undertaking to be carried out for these indexs.
Another hard procedure within this method is ciphering weights related to each index. Finding weights for few Numberss of indexs possibly an easy head procedure, but when it comes to immense figure of indexs, like 133 in the research job sphere ; it becomes intelligibly an impossible undertaking.
Leaden Product Model ( WPM ) :
Again, as described before ; the other common method within value map theory is in the format of multiplicative format. This method is called leaden merchandise theoretical account method ( WPM ) . It was mentioned that the value map would be calculated from the undermentioned expression:
Ten ( one ) =
Advantages and disadvantages of this method is the same as linear format of MAVF method described above. There is besides another disadvantage for this method when utilizing on job sphere of substructure system, which is comprehensibility of the method to general stakeholders. As described above, the mentality of normal human being, when make up one’s minding on the state of affairs of different indexs ; is on adding indexs together based on their comparative weights. Therefore utilizing WPM method on the job sphere will non be advantageous for point of view of stakeholders.
As mentioned in old literature research ( Triantaphyllou ( 1989 ) ) , this method is really apprehensible and utile, when comparing two options together. This means that if comparative ratio between X ( i1 ) / X ( i2 ) is more than 1, so alternate i1 would be desirable than alternate i2. This is apprehensible because, when it comes to comparing two options, the mentality of human being will switch towards doing relation between them and happening the greater one. It can be concluded that the WSM focused on the relation between indexs, whereas WPM focused on the relation between options, which is non the job sphere of the current research. Therefore, this method will non be considered in the comparing subdivision.