Dear Ahmet

I don't understand why you say that you need to define multiple values for defining thrsholds for each criterion

Could you pls. explain what does it mean or even better, proposing an example of what you want to do?

I can define two thresholds, normally minimum and maximum per criterion without problem, but I don't uncderstand why you need several

Dear Ahmet

You can model easily what you propose, using Linear Programming or SIMUS, because in both, criteria are inequalities not equalities.

In your example, criterion 'Current ratio' must be >= 1

At the same time, it must be

Regarding your second sentence I fully agree with you that the nature of a problem defines which method to use, but I disagree that we need the DM preferences, not on engineering at least.

You don't decide by preferences if the structural beams in a 6 floors building must the in wood on in steel. There are many coniditions that determine that selection, and they are not precisely by preferences. Using preferences is in my opinion, a very naive and simplistic procedure, however, you can have a large amount of people preferences, obtained by a poll and statistics, not by a |DM or a group of DMs.

It is true that a method can't possible solve all kinds of problems, however , you speak of method's limitations, but what limitations?

In my opinion, the most important limitation, if not the unique, is the capacity for a method to model reality, and from this point of view MCDM, has not advanced.

I suggested you a procedure in my former letter and I did not get any answedr from you

Using pair-wise comparisons and extracting weights just by intuition, does not resist the most minimal mathematial and logical analysis, it does not matter the kind of MCDM method used.

Dear Ahmet

You said that are points on which you disagree with me - as is your right - but you don't tell me which those points are. I am very interested in discussing them with you, so please, do so.

Your question: 'is it possible to tackle every optimization problem as an MCDM problem? '

My answer is negative, because if you have to maximize benefits and at the same time minimize costs, it will be one or the other, and this is the reason that we adopt a compromise concept. I guess that this answer also applies to your second question.

I asked the International Society for Decision Making, from which I am a member, to establish some parameters about solving problem by using MCDM, to no avail.

Practitioners still don't want to recognize, or understand, that the way in which MCDM are addressed by the different methods, is wrong.

As an example, we are still 'solving' problems that are mostly a rudimentary version of the original problem, because the CAN'T MODEL and solve them properly.

I was very happy to read your last paragraph because I feel that finally somebody else shares my opinion.

Perhaps your country, that is very active in MCDM problems could organize such a meeting, even in a remote way.

Years ago I wrote Dr. Murat Köksalan, that was the last president of the Society until 2019, about the necessity to regulate the activity, but unfortunately I did not get any answer.

They have the power to establish quality norms, as in mosdt activities today, for practitioners in addressing MCDM scenarios. Perhaps you can help

Dear Ahmet

Regarding Dr. Blaix question, I answered it in my comments to you on July 14.

I will apologize to this colleague for not answering his answer directly to him.

Regarding the meeting concerning an analysis of MCDM procerdures, I remind you that I suggested that issue on my answer to you on July 16, six days ago. Consequently, I am in complete agreement on what you say, except that the no possibility of getting leader scientists; I believe that it would be possible, if here in RG, we can get support to this idea.

If the International MCDM Society does not act in despite of my request, that I materialized in a letter to Dr. Koksalan, when he still was its president, there is nothing else I can do, but if we collect a number of scientists, perhaps there is the possibility that a remote meeting-conference to discuss the implementation of quality control on papers published, can be a reality, by establishing ISO quality standards, as is done since decades in most areas of human activities.

We need to stop published papers where the author say for instance, that his solution is validated (when we know that that is impossible), or by using methods to solve a problem that are not fit for that, or ignoring (for convenience), some characteristics of a problem. Unfortunately, some colleagues acting as reviewers, and since they are not framed by any regulation, accept papers where there are flagrant violations of mathematics, or even igoring some restrictions that a MCDM method has. I have plenty of examples.

I we do nothing, we must acceopt that in general, our contribution to solve problems in MCDM will continue to be poor, and worse, misleading.

Dear Cian

I answered your question on July 14, but it was in a response to Ahmet Aytekin.

For this reason I apologize for not answering directly to you. This is a copy of my answer to Ahmed related to your question:

"You can model easily what you propose, using Linear Programming or SIMUS, because in both, criteria are inequalities not equalities.

In your example, criterion 'Current ratio' must be >= 1

At the same time, it must be

Dear Ahmet and Nolberto,

Thank you for your responses. I ended up modifying the formula of a TOPSIS analysis to integrate upper and lower preference thresholds, but I will look at your answers and see if they better fulfil my requirements.

All the best

Dear Cian

I will be happy to help if needed

Suggest reviewing this paper for MCDM methods:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S092583881732827X