{"title":"COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF MULTIMOORA, WASPAS AND WISP METHODS: THE CASE OF CANDIDATE SELECTION","authors":"Maja Stanujkic","doi":"10.5937/jpmnt11-47703","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article conducts a comparative examination of three Multi-Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) methods: Multi-Objective Optimization by Ratio Analysis plus Full Multiplicative Form (MULTIMOORA), Weighted Aggregates Sum Product Assessment (WASPAS), and Simple Weighted Sum Product (WISP). The analysis is carried out within the context of a personnel selection problem, focusing exclusively on income attributes in the MCDM framework. The results obtained from the analysis, specifically the formulated ranking lists, reveal a consensus in selecting the same alternative as the most suitable across all three MCDM methods. However, there are partial discrepancies in the ranking lists of alternatives, highlighting variations in their assessments.","PeriodicalId":340365,"journal":{"name":"Journal of process management and new technologies","volume":"14 ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of process management and new technologies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5937/jpmnt11-47703","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
This article conducts a comparative examination of three Multi-Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) methods: Multi-Objective Optimization by Ratio Analysis plus Full Multiplicative Form (MULTIMOORA), Weighted Aggregates Sum Product Assessment (WASPAS), and Simple Weighted Sum Product (WISP). The analysis is carried out within the context of a personnel selection problem, focusing exclusively on income attributes in the MCDM framework. The results obtained from the analysis, specifically the formulated ranking lists, reveal a consensus in selecting the same alternative as the most suitable across all three MCDM methods. However, there are partial discrepancies in the ranking lists of alternatives, highlighting variations in their assessments.
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
分享
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
扫码关注我们
