Weighted product model

As with all MCDA / MCDM methods, given is a finite set of decision alternatives described in terms of a number of decision criteria. Each decision alternative is compared with the others by multiplying a number of ratios, one for each decision criterion. Each ratio is raised to the power equivalent to the relative weight of the corresponding criterion. Suppose that a given MCDA problem is defined on m alternatives and n decision criteria. Furthermore, let us assume that all the criteria are benefit criteria. That is, the higher the values are, the better it is. Next suppose that wj denotes the relative weight of importance of the criterion Cj and aij is the performance value of alternative Ai when it is evaluated in terms of criterion Cj. Then, if one wishes to compare the two alternatives AK and AL (where m ≥ K, L ≥ 1) then, the following product has to be calculated: Therefore, the WPM can be used in single- and multi-dimensional MCDA / MCDM problems. That is, on decision problems where the alternatives are described in terms that use different units of measurement. An advantage of this method is that instead of the actual values it can use relative ones. The following is a simple numerical example which illustrates how the calculations for this method can be carried out. As data we use the same numerical values as in the numerical example described for the weighted sum model. These numerical data are repeated next for easier reference. ==Example==

This simple decision problem is based on three alternatives denoted as A1, A2, and A3 each described in terms of four criteria C1, C2, C3 and C4. Next, let the numerical data for this problem be as in the following decision matrix: The above table specifies that the relative weight of the first criterion is 0.20, the relative weight for the second criterion is 0.15 and so on. Similarly, the value of the first alternative (i.e., A1) in terms of the first criterion is equal to 25, the value of the same alternative in terms of the second criterion is equal to 20 and so on. However, now the restriction to express all criteria in terms of the same measurement unit is not needed. That is, the numbers under each criterion may be expressed in different units. When the WPM is applied on the previous data, then the following values are derived: :: P( A_1 / A_2 ) = (25/10) ^{0.20} \times (20/30) ^{0.15} \times (15/20) ^{0.40} \times (30/30) ^{0.25} = 1.007 > 1. Similarly, we also get: ::P( A_1 / A_3) = 1.067 > 1,\text{ and } P( A_2 / A_3) = 1.059 > 1. \, Therefore, the best alternative is A1, since it is superior to all the other alternatives. Furthermore, the following ranking of all three alternatives is as follows: A1 > A2 > A3 (where the symbol ">" stands for "better than"). An alternative approach with the WPM method is for the decision maker to use only products without the previous ratios. ==Choosing the weights==

The choice of values for the weights is usually difficult. The simple default of equal weighting is sometimes used. Scoring methods such as WSM and WPM may be used for rankings (universities, countries, consumer products etc.), and the weights will determine the order in which these entities are placed. There is often much argument about the appropriateness of the chosen weights, and whether they are biased or display favouritism. One approach for overcoming this issue is to automatically generate the weights from the data. This has the advantage of avoiding personal input and so is more objective. The so-called Automatic Democratic Method for weight generation has two key steps: (1) For each alternative, identify the weights which will maximize its score, subject to the condition that these weights do not lead to any of the alternatives exceeding a score of 100%. (2) Fit an equation to these optimal scores using regression so that the regression equation predicts these scores as closely as possible using the criteria data as explanatory variables. The regression coefficients then provide the final weights. ==History==

Some of the first references to this method are due to Bridgman and Miller and Starr. The tutorial article by Tofallis describes its advantages over the weighted sum approach. ==See also==