Exploring the Mechanism of Compromise in Novel ICRA Method: An In-depth Analysis

Multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) has become increasingly significant due to its impact on various domains. This rapid development has led to the creation of numerous MCDA methods, each enhancing specific aspects of decision-making. This study investigates the Iterative Compromise Ranking Analysis (ICRA) procedure, which aims to compromise solutions provided by multiple MCDA methods. In this study, we conduct a simulation to examine the ICRA compromise mechanism across different similarity of initial rankings, considering both preference values and ranking-based compromise seeking. Additionally, we analyze the impact of the ICRA weighting mechanism on the final compromise ranking. A detailed theoretical example is provided to enhance comprehension of the research. The primary contributions of this article include an in-depth analysis of the compromise shaping in the ICRA method concerning the similarity of decision-maker rankings, the comparison of using preference values versus rankings in achieving a final compromise, and an analysis of the ICRA decision-maker weighting mechanism. Our findings demonstrate the ICRA procedure’s significant potential, allowing the compromise process to be tailored to the decision-maker’s expectations. Preference values are identified as the preferred initial assessment method in the compromise process, as rankings can lead to a partial loss of information.