Decision Support
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history:
Received 27 February 2012
Accepted 2 February 2013
Available online 13 February 2013
Keywords:
Composite Importance
DEMATEL
Interrelations
Multiple criteria decision analysis (MCDA)
Structural modeling
WINGS
a b s t r a c t
The WINGS method has been derived from DEMATEL and can be widely used as a structural model for
analysis of intertwined factors and causal relations between them. Its novelty comes from an idea of
including in one mathematical mechanism both strength (importance) and inuence of the system components. In particular, WINGS can be applied as the MCDA method for evaluating alternatives when interrelations between criteria cannot be neglected. For the problem with independent criteria, WINGS
reproduces the additive aggregation of preferences, a classical method in MCDA.
2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
There are plenty of approaches and methods that emerge from
two various research elds: system (structural) analysis and modeling and operational research (OR). In many cases, they met together to develop methods for solving complex problems which
led to Soft OR. The problem structuring methods (PSMs) emerged
in response to some of the constraints and limitations experienced
by managers and researchers using the existing quantitative OR
methods (Ackermann, 2012). To the popular approaches in PSM
belong Soft Systems Methodology (SSM) and multimethodology
(Mingers and White, 2010). When making the right decision is
one of the key problems, the support from systems thinking approach integrated with more formal modeling can be invaluable.
This paper presents an attempt to build a method that is general
enough to be helpful in the analysis of complex situations, while
also including the quantitative tool for more precise assessments.
Quite a long time ago, in the seventies, DEMATEL appeared as a
result of the project conducted in Geneva Research Center of the
Batelle Memorial Institute (Gabus and Fontela, 1973; Fontela and
Gabus, 1976). Originally, DEMATEL was aimed at the fragmented
and antagonistic phenomena of world societies and as a search
for integrated solutions. Its main idea was to build and analyze a
structural model. This model was to mirror the causal interrela-
q
Research partly supported by Polish Ministry of Science and Higher Education,
Research Grant No. NN111 438637.
Tel.: +48 322577470; fax: +48 322577471.
E-mail address: jerzy.michnik@ue.katowice.pl
0377-2217/$ - see front matter 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2013.02.007
tions between its elements. The tabular and graphical form of the
output was designed to illuminate the complex relationships in a
system. The universality and simplicity of DEMATEL allows it to
be applied in a wide range of various problems in social sciences.
In recent years, thanks to its universality, DEMATEL has been revived in Asia, especially in Japan and Taiwan. A growing number of
applications have been observed since the beginning of 21st century. While numerous articles utilizing DEMATEL and its various
variants to a wide range of problems were published during the
last 15 years, only a limited number are mentioned below.
DEMATEL has been found to be helpful in designing human
interface for supervisory control systems (Hori and Shimizu,
1999). The Composite Importance, a revised version of DEMATEL
has been used to nd the effective factors to resolve issues in order
to create safe, secure and reliable future society (Tamura and
Akazawa, 2005b). The similar problem (Tamura and Akazawa,
2005a) and modeling of uneasy factors over foods (Tamura et al.,
2006) has been analyzed with the stochastic versions of DEMATEL
and Composite Importance. Fuzzy variant of DEMATEL has been
proposed for developing the global managers competencies (Wu
and Lee, 2007). DEMATEL has served as a tool for identication
of building repair policy choice criteria roles (Dytczak and Ginda,
2009). It has also been used in an interesting and atypical situation
of identifying affective factors in visual arts, including government,
technology, arts sponsors and the social conditions (Jasbi and
Frmanfarmaee, 2010).
The numerous group of articles apply DEMATEL or its variants,
very often combining it with other methods, to solving problems in
multiple criteria decision analysis (MCDA). There are a few
examples from the last few years: combined ANP and DEMATEL
approach used for the best vendor selection (Yang and Tzeng,
2011); causal modeling of web-advertising effects using SEM modied by DEMATEL technique (Wei et al., 2010); fuzzy DEMATEL
with ANP for evaluation a rm environmental knowledge management in uncertainty (Tseng, 2011); fuzzy Delphi + DEMATEL + ANP
employed to construct a technology selection model regarding the
economic and industrial prospects (Shen et al., 2011).
This article introduces Weighted Inuence Non-linear Gauge
System (WINGS) a kind of structural model that extends the ability of DEMATEL and similarly can be used as an aid in an analysis of
various systems of interrelated components.
The acronym of WINGS reects its salient features. Weighted
means that the measures of internal strength (importance) of the
components modify (weigh) the intensity of inuence. Inuence
stresses the crucial role of interrelations between the components.
The mathematical processing of input data brings the non-linearity
into the model. Gauge System is self-explanatory.
WINGS, as a descendant of DEMATEL, inherits all merits of its
predecessor: it can handle complex problems of reacting factors,
and its mathematical operations are clear and simple. Yet, it also
has its own unique features. First of all, WINGS evaluates both
the strength of the acting factor and the intensity of its inuence,
while DEMATEL takes into consideration only the latter. In addition, a special form of WINGS can serve as the MCDA method for
evaluating alternatives when interrelations between criteria cannot be neglected. It has been shown that, when the criteria are
independent, WINGS reduces to the additive aggregation, commonly used in MCDA.
The remainder of the article is organized as following. Section
2 contains a short presentation of DEMATEL and Composite
Importance. The method WINGS is introduced in Section 3. This
is a main part of the article and comprises also a series of examples illustrating the main features of WINGS. A comparison between WINGS and the similar methods from structural
modeling and MCDA is presented at the end of Section 3. Summary and remarks on future directions of study are placed in
Section 4 (Conlusions).
2. DEMATEL and Composite Importance
A;
(
)
n
n
X
X
max
aij ;
aij :
i;j1;...;n
j1
i1
X B B2 B3
B
;
IB
If 9k j1 akj < 1, the power series of normalized matrix converges to zero matrix and the total-inuence matrix X is well
dened.1 It comprises the direct inuence between elements (B)
and all indirect inuences (B2, B3, . . .) as follows:
z yr Xyr I Xyr :
This section shortly presents the essence of the DEMATEL method. It is followed by the description of the Composite Importance, a
concept that sprang up from DEMATEL.
537
Pn
v is given by
2
538
the interrelations between many intertwined elements. Lets assume that we are going to modernize the production line and,
among others, we consider two important criteria: uncertainty
of project results and technological competencies. They are not
independent the latter has some inuence on the former. The
inuence of technological competencies on uncertainty of project
results should combine the importance of criterion technological
competencies in the studied system and how strong it acts on
uncertainty of project results. The other example refers to introducing a new product. It is obvious that a nancial risk is inuenced by the competitors reaction. But an aggregated effect of
weak reaction of big (strong, important, more inuential) competitor can be more important than strong reaction of less inuential
one. One more example comes from market behavior. Lets consider a particular change of a price of some product which is purchased by two different groups of customers. One group is
numerous (strong, important), the other comparably small (weak).
If members of both groups react to the price change similarly, the
change in a total demand of the numerous group will be much bigger than that of the weaker one. In general, we can say that the nal effect of the interactions in the system depends on a
combination of strength of an acting factor and intensity of an
action.
Tamura and Akazawa (2005a,b) introduced in their model the
importance of the element itself, but they neglected the role of that
importance in the interactions between elements. Similarly to original DEMATEL, they separately calculate the total inuence matrix
and then use it to modify the initial importance vector.
Above considerations lead to the idea that both strength (internal power or importance of the factor) and inuence (intensity of
affecting) are intertwined together and need to cooperate in the
model to adequately reect the interactions of elements in a compound system. The procedure WINGS introduced in this article
was designed to fulll this requirement.
The basic assumptions of WINGS grow from the philosophy of
structural modeling in social sciences and are settled on the paradigm that the system behavior and its important features can be
studied with the model of interrelations between systems components. We assume that:
Two basic features of the system components are responsible
for the interrelations: internal strength and inuence.
The objective mechanism of interactions should include
direct and also all possible indirect relations between components which is a result of the transitivity of interactions.
The more complex interactions, involving more than two
components, can be characterized with enough approximation by two-component interactions.
However the objective measurement is not possible, the
experienced specialist can make rational assessments (also
expressed in numbers) of the strength (importance) of the
components and inuences between them.
Fig. 1. (A) An initial directed graph of the system with ve components and arrows
representing the non-zero inuences. (B) The same system with numerical
assignments for strengths and inuences (the internal strength of component C4
is zero).
539
1
D;
s
n X
n
X
dij :
i1 j1
Remarks:
1. This way of a calibration ensures the existence of the total
strengthinuence matrix T dened in Eq. (7) if there are at
least two positive elements in matrix D and both are not in
the same row. An opposite situation may be excluded from
the analysis, as it actually does not represent any system.
2. This calibration, alike that used in DEMATEL, ensures that
the results are invariant under the positive homothetic
0
transformation dij ! dij adij ; a > 0, for i, j = 1, . . . , n. This
is in an agreement with the remark about meaningfulness
made in Step 2.
Step 5: Calculate the total strengthinuence matrix T from the
formula:
T C C2 C3
C
:
IC
ri
n
X
t ij ;
j1
cj
n
X
t ij ;
i1
3
4 1 4
6
7
D1 4 3 2 2 5;
2 3 2
where the input data for three components: C1, C2, and C3
are placed consecutively into matrix rows.
Step 4: Calibrated matrix for this example is given by
2
The calibrated matrix, with at least one row sum of its elements less than 1, is like
the sub-matrix of transient states of the matrix representing absorbing Markov chain
(Grinstead and Snell, 2006, chap. 11).
3
0:174 0:043 0:174
6
7
C1 4 0:130 0:087 0:087 5:
0:087 0:130 0:087
10
540
The verbal values for importance for both criteria, after translation into numbers, are inserted into strengthinuence matrix (d11
and d22). Then, the user estimates verbally the inuence of each
alternative on each criterion. Equivalently, it means answering to
the question: how far given alternative fullls the objective represented by given criterion? Again, the numerical estimates are inserted into strengthinuence matrix (d31 and d32 for rst
alternative, d41 and d42 for the second).
After calibration (Step 4) the matrix C will have the following
form:
2
Step 5: The total importanceinuence matrix T is as follows:
11
0 0
w1
6 0
6
C2a 6
4 a11
w2
a12
0 07
7
7;
0 05
a21
a22
0 0
12
where w1 and w2 represent the relative importance of rst and second criterion, respectively. a11 and a12 (a21 and a22) represent the
inuence of the rst (second) alternative on rst and second criterion, respectively. This notation facilitate the distinction between
criteria and alternatives. As a result of calibration, all non-zero elements of matrix C2a are less than 1 (in particular w1 + w2 6 1).
For this example the total importanceinuence matrix is
2
T2a
w1
1w
a21
1w1
w2
1w2
a12
1w2
a22
1w2
1
6
6 0
6
6 a11
6 1w
1
4
0 0
7
0 07
7
7:
0 07
5
13
0 0
The total engagements for the rst and second alternatives are
r cai rai ai1 =1 w1 ai2 =1 w2 , where i = 1,2. It is seen
that for the decision problem with independent criteria, the total
engagement will be always equal to the total impact. This effect
is caused by the special structure of the initial (and calibrated) matrix (the column of zeros for each alternative).
The above result can be easily generalized to the arbitrary numbers of criteria and alternatives. With nc the number of criteria,
WINGS will lead to the following formula for the total engagement
of ith alternative:
r cai
nc
X
j1
aij
:
1 wj
14
Table 1
Example 1 comparison of the results of WINGS, DEMATEL and Composite Importance.
r
C1
C2
C3
r+c
rc
CI
0.594
0.462
0.456
5.000
5.000
5.000
0.591
0.390
0.531
4.919
4.351
5.730
1.185
0.851
0.986
9.919
9.351
10.730
0.003
0.072
0.075
0.081
0.649
0.730
4.216
3.892
3.851
541
criteria (C1 into C3 and C4, C2 into C5 and C6). Three alternatives
make the bottom level.
After the calibration, initial strengths of criteria and subcriteria
become the weights (w1 w6). Then, the user assesses all (nonzero) inuences represented by arrows in Fig. 4. After the calibration they also appear in matrix C3, as it is shown in the following
equation:
Fig. 3. (A) The graph of the multiple criteria decision problem discussed in Example
2a (independent criteria). (B) The graph of the same problem as in (A) but with
dependent criteria (Example 2b).
r cai
ai1
ai2
ai1 w21
1 w1 1 w2 1 w1 1 w2
15
for i = 1, 2.
Eq. (15) differs from Eq. (14) by the third term that represents
the indirect inuence of alternative i on the rst criterion through
the second criterion.
We continue this example with a numerical illustration. Lets
assume that the 04 scale is used. The importance of rst criterion
is very high (w1 = 4) and that of the second medium (w2 = 2). The
values of inuence on criteria for the rst alternative are: a11 = 4,
a12 = 1; for the second: a21 = 1, a22 = 4. At the moment, there are
not interdependencies between criteria. With this data the initial
strengthinuence matrix has the form
D2b
4
60
6
6
44
1
0 0 0
2 0 07
7
7;
1 0 05
16
4 0 0
The numerical values of total engagement for alternatives, calculated from nal matrix, are: r ca1 0:405; r ca2 0:369.
It means that rst alternative is evaluated as better then the
second. Now if the second criterion inuences the rst, it can be
easily calculated, that for medium inuence (d21 = 2) both
alternatives will be evaluated equally r a1 ra2 0:357. For high
inuence (d21 = 3) the second alternative will prevail the rst
ra1 0:337; ra2 0:349. This result is in agreement with the
intuitive reasoning. Without interrelations between criteria, the
second alternative having better score for second less important
criterion, has placed as worse. But the inuence exerted by the
second criterion on the rst raises the evaluation of the second
alternative.
At the end, lets add the inuence of rst criterion on the second
with d12 > 0. Obviously the formulas for tij become more complicated. The total engagement of alternative is given by
r cai
1
ai1 1 w2 w12 ai2 1 w1 w21 ;
W
w1
6 0
6
6c
6 31
6
6 c41
6
C3 6
6 0
6 0
6
6
6 0
6
4 0
0
0
w2
0
0
c52
c62
0
0
0
0
0
w3
0
0
0
a13
a23
a33
0
0
0
w4
0
0
a14
a24
a34
0
0
0
0
w5
0
a15
a25
a35
0
0
0
0
0
w6
a16
a26
a36
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
07
7
07
7
7
07
7
07
7:
07
7
7
07
7
05
0
18
In the above matrix, similarly to Example 2a, the specic notation is used to help the distinction between criteria and alternatives and make the nal result more readable (see Fig. 4). cij
stands for the inuence of subcriterion i on its parent criterion
j; aij stands for the inuence of alternative i on subcriterion j.
The non-zero elements of the matrix T, relating to alternatives,
appear in rows 79 and are given by the following formulas:
ai;3 c31
ai;4 c41
;
1 w1 1 w3 1 w1 1 w4
ai;5 c52
ai;6 c62
;
1 w2 1 w5 1 w2 1 w6
t i6;1
t i6;2
ti6;3
ai;3
;
1 w3
ti6;4
19
ai;4
ai;5
ai;6
; t i6;5
; t i6;6
;
1 w4
1 w5
1 w6
20
where i = 1, 2, 3.
To assess the value of each alternative Ai, we calculate its index
r cai rai (similarly to the Example 2a, 2b, cai 0 for each alternative). It is a sum of all elements in i + 6 row of matrix T, from
which the only non-zero elements are shown on the right hand
sides of Eqs. (19) and (20). The values from Eq. (20) represent the
direct impact of alternative Ai on sub-criteria C3C6. In Eq. (19)
there are the indirect impacts of alternative Ai on criteria C1 and
C2. In both cases this indirect impact consists of two components
that represent the indirect impact via two subcriteria.
To compare the above result with other methods, we will replace all 1/(1 wj) by w0j . The total engagement of i alternative will
become
r cai
6
X
w0k ai;k w01 w03 ai;3 c31 w01 w04 ai;4 c41
k3
21
17
Fig. 4. Graph for the multiple criteria problem with hierarchical structure (for
clarity only a part of inuence factors is shown).
542
22
23
where l() 2 [0, 1] is the fuzzy measure and represents the weight of
a given subset of the set of criteria; the indices of criteria have to be
permuted so that ai,1 6 ai,2.
To compare formulas of WINGS and Choquet integral, lets take
the rst three terms in the expansion for matrix T from Eq. (7):
24
of questions (Saaty, 2005, chap. 2): (1) Which of the two elements
is more dominant with respect to a criterion? (2) Which of the two
elements inuences the third element more with respect to a criterion? In WINGS, all the initial assessments can be assumed to
be made in respect to a whole system.
In the ANP, importance is represented by the weight of the cluster and serves to normalize the initial supermatrix into the stochastic supermatrix. When there is no inuence between
clusters, the corresponding weight is zero. That may be not clear
to the user. In contrast, WINGS assigns importance directly to each
component, independently of its connections.
Both methods apply the limiting process to their normalized
(calibrated) matrix. However, in the case of the ANP, an analysis
is much more complicated since the nal result depends on reducibility, primitivity and cyclicity of the stochastic matrix and, in
many cases, some additional manipulations are needed (Saaty,
2005, chap. 2).
4. Conclusions
The method WINGS (Weighted Inuence Non-linear Gauge System) has been designed as a quantitative tool to analyze and solve
the problems of compound systems with the interrelated components. It can serve as an aid in exploring various issues in the eld
of social sciences. The numerical outcome of WINGS helps to elucidate the causal relationships between components and to rank
their importance/position in the system.
In WINGS, two basic features of system components strength
and inuence make the foundations for system analysis. The components can be homogeneous or can have different nature and can
play a different role in a system. To reveal the overall strength and
position of the component, WINGS
combines both the internal importance of the component
and its external inuence on the other components,
derives the indirect inuences (higher order terms) from
two-component interactions,
sums up the direct inuence and indirect inuences of all
orders to obtain the total relations between components.
Information required for WINGS operations is qualitatively and
quantitatively nondemanding and can be easily elicited from the
user. The method also gives high exibility to the user allowing
the choice of verbal scale and its numerical representation. WINGS
does not need any specialized software as it employs only elementary matrix algebra. Thanks to the above features, WINGS can become a valuable alternative to other methods in the structural
modeling and MCDA.
Though WINGS borrows a lot from DEMATEL, it brings one new
important feature. In contrast to DEMATEL which counts only the
inuences of components, WINGS joins together internal strength
(importance of the component) and its inuence (intensity of
affecting). Due to this aspect, WINGS can be considered as a complete method that can be used alone or can be a part of more complex models.
The special form of WINGS can be applied in the eld of MCDA
as a model of problems with interrelation between criteria. When
there are no inuences between criteria, WINGS reduces to
weighted sum aggregation. WINGS is able to deal also with hierarchical problems, however its nal formula for ranking of alternatives differs from that of weighted sum and AHP.
Several theoretical and practical questions arise and these suggest areas for further research. First of all, as this work is formulated more in terms of procedure to follow and illustrative
examples, it should be followed by more precise analysis of formal
543
544
Wu, W.-W., Lee, Y.-T., 2007. Developing global managers competencies using the
fuzzy DEMATEL method. Expert Systems with Applications 32 (2), 499507.
Yang, J., Tzeng, G., 2011. An integrated MCDM technique combined with DEMATEL
for a novel cluster-weighted with ANP method. Expert Systems with
Applications 38 (3), 14171424.