Monday , September 21 2020

A Modified Weighted Sum Method Based on the Decision-
maker’s Preferred Levels of Performances

Dragisa STANUJKIC1,*, Edmundas Kazimieras ZAVADSKAS2
1 Faculty of Management Zajecar, Megatrend University Belgrade,
Park Suma “Kraljevica” bb, 19000 Zajecar, Serbia
2 Research Institute of Smart Building Technologies,
Vilnius Gediminas, Technical University,
Sauletekio al. 11, 10223, Vilnius, Lithuania

* Corresponding author

Abstract: This paper proposes a modified version of the Weighted Sum method that takes into account decision-maker preferences and provides a possibility of higher interactivity in the selection of the most suitable alternative. The proposed approach uses a specific normalization procedure, which takes into account decision-maker preferences and also introduces a compensation coefficient that enables the decision-maker to make choices between alternatives with higher overall performance ratings and alternatives that better match the decision-maker preferences.

Keywords: MCDM, Multiple Criteria Decision Making, preferred performance ratings, Weighted Sum Method, normalization procedures, ideal point approach.

>>Full text<<
Dragisa STANUJKIC, Edmundas Kazimieras ZAVADSKAS, A Modified Weighted Sum Method Based on the Decision-maker’s Preferred Levels of Performances, Studies in Informatics and Control, ISSN 1220-1766, vol. 24 (4), pp. 461-470, 2015.

 1. Introduction

Multiple Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) is one of the most important and the fastest growing subfields of the management science. As a result of its rapid development, many MCDM methods have also been proposed, such as: SAW [1, 2] or WS [3], AHP [4], TOPSIS [5], PROMETHEE [6], ELECTRE [7], COPRAS [8] and VIKOR [9].

In order to ensure their usage for solving various complex decision-making problems, these methods are often adapted or extended to apply fuzzy or grey numbers. For example, the ELECTRE method has several variants, namely ELECTRE I, ELECTRE II, ELECTRE III, ELECTRE TRE and ELCTRE IV [10, 11].

In addition, the introduction and the usage of new MCDM methods, such as ARAS [12], MULTIMOORA [13] and WASPAS [14, 15], as well as their extensions, are also noticeable.

The proposed MCDM methods are used to solve a wide variety of decision-making problems, such as: evaluation of environmental impact [16], selecting software and hardware infrastructure for cyber security centre [17], evaluating performances of a fish farm [18], selecting a contractor [15, 19].

A great number of papers considered the use of different MCDM methods for solving decision-making problems, such as [19, 20, 21].

The Weighted Sum (WS) method, more often referred to as the Simple Additive Weighted (SAW) method, is probably the best-known and the earlier, widely used, MADM method [5, 14].

Although the use of the WS method is significantly substituted by other MCMD methods, it is still topical, as has been evidenced in some recent researches, such as the following ones: Chou et all. [22] used the fuzzy SAW for solving the facility location selection problem; Zavadskas et al. [19] applied grey extensions of the SAW and the TOPSIS methods for solving the contractor selection problem; Rădulescu and Rahoveanu [18] used framework based on SAW and AHP method for evaluating performances of a fish farm; Cheng [23] conducted a comparative study about the use of interval-valued fuzzy extensions of the SAW and the TOPSIS methods and noticed that significant similarities existed between the interval-valued fuzzy SAW and TOPSIS rankings; Rikhtegar et al. [19] used fuzzy SAW to evaluate environmental impacts of construction projects; Dogan et al. [24] combined the SAW method and a mixture design to determine the optimum cocoa combination of hot chocolate beverage; Wang [25] applied a fuzzy extension of the SAW method for solving the distribution centre location selection problem, and Stejskal et al. [26] used the WS method to evaluate the effects arising from the existence of the regional innovation system of the regions of the Czech Republic.

Based on the WS method and the new normalization procedure, Stanujkic et al. [27] suggested an approach that to a greater extent takes into account decision-maker preferences. In the above mentioned approach for each criterion, target levels of performances, called preferred performance ratings, were introduced. The aim of the decision maker is to obtain a range of alternatives that takes into account the preferred performance ratings.

In this paper, this approach is further improved, thus providing decision-makers with a possibility of higher interactivity in the selection of the most suitable alternative. The rest of this paper is, therefore, structured as follows: In Section 2 of the paper, the Weighted Sum method is presented, while in Section 3, the normalization procedure based on distances from decision-maker’s preferences is considered. Section 4 proposes a new approach. An illustrative example is discussed, with the aim to explain the proposed approach, in Section 5. Finally, the conclusions are given.


  1. CHURCHMAN, C.W., R. L. ACKOFF, An Approximate Measure of Value, Journal of the Operations Research Society of America, 2, no. 2, 1954, pp. 172-187.
  2. MacCRIMON, K. R., Decision Marking Among Multiple-Attribute Alternatives: a Survey and Consolidated Approach, RAND memorandum, RM-4823-ARPA,
  3. Fishburn, C., Additive Utilities with Incomplete Product Set: Applications to Priorities and Assignments, Operations Research, vol. 15 no. 3, 1967, pp. 537-542.
  4. Saaty, T. L., The Analytic Hierarchy Process: Planning, Priority Setting, Resource Allocation. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1980.
  5. HWANG, C. L., K YOON, Multiple Attribute Decision Making – Methods and Applications, Springer, New York, 1981.
  1. BRANS, J. P., P. VINCKE, A Preference Ranking Organization Method: The PROMETHEE Method for MCDM, Management Science, 31, no. 6, 1985, pp. 647-656.
  2. Roy, B. The Outranking Approach and the Foundation of ELECTRE Methods, Theory and Decision, 31, no. 1, 1991, pp. 49-73.
  3. ZAVADSKAS, E. K., A. KAKLAUSKAS, V. SARKA, The New Method of Multicriteria Complex Proportional Assessment of Projects, Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 1, no. 3, 1994, pp. 131-139.
  4. Opricovic, S. Multicriteria Optimization of Civil Engineering Systems, Faculty of Civil Engineering, Belgrade, 1998. (In Serbian)
  5. Hersh, M., Mathematical Modelling for Sustainable Development, Springer Science & Business Media, Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg, 2006, pp. 557
  6. TAM, C. M., K. L. THOMAS, H. ZHANG, Decision Making and Operations Research Techniques for Construction Management, City University of HK Press, 2007, pp. 328.
  7. ZAVADSKAS, E. K., Z. TURSKIS, A New Additive Ratio Assessment (ARAS) Method in Multicriteria Decision-Making, Technological and Economic Development of Economy, vol. 16, no 2, 2010, pp. 159-172.
  8. BRAUERS, W. K. M., E. K. ZAVADSKAS, Project Management by MULTIMOORA as an Instrument for Transition Economies, Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 16, no. 1, 2010, pp. 5-24.
  9. ZAVADSKAS, E. K., Z. TURSKIS, J. ANTUCHEVICIENE, A. ZAKAREVICIUS, Optimization of Weighted Aggregated Sum Product Assessment, Elektronika ir elektrotechnika, vol. 122(6), 2012, pp. 3-
  10. ZAVADSKAS, E. K., Z. TURSKIS, J. ANTUCHEVICIENE, Selecting a Contractor by Using a Novel Method for Multiple Attribute Analysis: Weighted Aggregated Sum Product Assessment with Grey Values (WASPAS-G), Studies in Informatics and Control, vol. 24, no 2, 2015, pp. 141-150.
  11. RIKHTEGAR, N., N. MANSOURI, A. AHADI OROUMIEH, A. YAZDANI-CHAMZINI, E. KAZIMIERAS ZAVADSKAS, S. KILDIENĖ, Environmental Impact Assessment based on Group Decision-making Methods in Mining Projects, Economic Research – Ekonomska Istraživanja, vol 27, no 1, 2014, pp. 378-392.
  12. RESTEANU, C., E. MITAN, M. ANDREICA, G. PACURAR, Optimal Infrastructure for Acquiring and Processing of Data Related to Anthropic Computer Incidents, Studies in Informatics and Control, vol. 24, no 1, 2015, pp. 51-60.
  13. RĂDULESCU, C. Z., M. T. RAHOVEANU, A Multi-criteria Evaluation Framework for Fish Farms, Studies in Informatics and Control, vol. 20, no. 2, 2011, pp.181-186.
  14. ZAVADSKAS, E. K., T. VILUTIENE, Z. TURSKIS, J. TAMOSAITIENE, Contractor Selection for Construction Works by Applying SAW-G and TOPSIS Grey Techniques, Journal of Business Economics and Management, 11, no. 1, 2010, pp. 34-55.
  15. ZAVADSKAS, E. K., Z. TURSKIS, R. VOLVAČIOVAS, S. KILDIENE, Multi-criteria Assessment Model of Technologies, Studies in Informatics and Control, vol. 22, no 4, 2013, pp. 249-258.
  16. USTINOVICHIUS, L., E. K. ZAVADSKAS, V. PODVEZKO, Application of a Quantitative Multiple Criteria Decision Making (MCDM-1) Approach to the Analysis of Investments in Construction, Control and Cybernetics, vol. 36, no. 1, 2007, pp. 251-268.
  17. CHOU, S. Y., Y. H. CHANG, C. Y. SHEN, A Fuzzy Simple Additive Weighting System under Group Decision-making for Facility Location Selection with Objective/Subjective Attributes, European Journal of Operational Research, 189, no. 1, 2008, pp. 132-145.
  18. Chen, T. Y., Comparative Analysis of SAW and TOPSIS based on Interval-valued Fuzzy Sets: Discussions on Score Functions and Weight Constraints, Expert Systems with Applications, 39, no. 2, 2012, pp. 1848-1861.
  19. DOGAN, M., T. AKTAR, O. S. TOKER, N. B. TATLISU, Combination of the Simple Additive (SAW) Approach and Mixture Design to Determine Optimum Cocoa Combination of the Hot Chocolate Beverage, Intl. J. of Food Properties, 18(8), 2015, pp. 1677-1692.
  20. Wang, Y. J., A Fuzzy Multi-criteria Decision-making Model based on Simple Additive Weighting Method and Relative Preference Relation, Applied Soft Computing, 30, 2015, pp. 412-420.
  21. STEJSKAL, J., K. NEKOLOVA, A. ROUAG, The Use of the Weighted Sum Method to Determine the Level of Development in Regional Innovation Systems-using Czech Regions as Examples 1, Economicky Casopis, 63, no. 3, 2015, pp. 239-258.
  22. STANUJKIC, D., N. MAGDALINOVIC, R. JOVANOVIC, A Multi-Attribute Decision Making Model Based on Distance from Decision Maker’s Preferences, Informatica, 24 no. 1, 2013, pp. 103-118.
  23. TRIANTAPHYLLOU, E., S. H. MANN, An Examination of the Effectiveness of Multi-dimensional Decision-making Methods: A Decision-making Maradox, Decision Support Systems, 5, no. 3, 1989, pp. 303-312.
  24. ZAVADSKAS, E. K., Z. TURSKIS, A New Logarithmic Normalization Method in Games Theory, Informatica, vol.19, no. 2, 2008, pp. 303-
  25. CELEN, A., Comparative Analysis of Normalization Procedures in TOPSIS Method: with an Application to Turkish Deposit Banking Market, Informatica, vol. 25, no. 2, 2014, pp. 185-
  26. CHAKRABORTY, S., C. YEH, A Simulation based Comparative Study of Normalization Procedures in Multiattribute Decision Making, In: Proceedings of the 6th WSEAS International Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Knowledge Engineering and Data Bases, Corfu Island, Greece, February 16-19, 2007.
  27. STANUJKIC, D., B. DJORDJEVIC, M. DJORDJEVIC, Comparative Analysis of Some Prominent MCDM Methods: A Case of Ranking Serbian Banks, Serbian J. of Man., vol. 8(2), 2013a, pp. 213-
  28. Weitendorf, D., Beitrag zur Optimierung der raumlichen Struktur eines Gebaude. Dissertation A, Hochschule fur Architektur und Bauwesen, Weimar, 1976.
  29. Juttler, H., Untersuchungen zur Fragen der Operationsforschung und ihrer Anwendungsmoglichkeiten auf okonomische Problemstellungen unter besonderer Berucksichtigung der Spieltheorie, Dissertation A an der Wirtschaftswissenschaftlichen Fakultat der Humboldt – Universitat, Berlin, 1966.