Have a personal or library account? Click to login
Comparison of Multi-Criteria Decision Making Methods Using The Same Data Standardization Method Cover

Comparison of Multi-Criteria Decision Making Methods Using The Same Data Standardization Method

Strojnícky časopis - Journal of Mechanical Engineering
Volume 72 (2022): Issue 2 (November 2022)
By: Hoang Tien Dung,  Duc Trung Do and  Van Thien Nguyen  
Open Access
|Nov 2022

References

  1. [1] Kusumadewi, S., Hartati, S., Harjoko, A., Wardoyo, R. “Fuzzy Multi-Attribute Decision Making (FUZZY MADM)”, Yogyakarta: Penerbit Graha Ilmu, 2006.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  2. [2] Maniya, K., Bhatt, M. G. “A selection of material using a novel type decision-making method: Preference selection index method”, Materials and Design, 31, pp. 1785–1789, 2010, DOI: 10.1016/j.matdes.2009.11.020
    Open DOISearch in Google ScholarBack to article
  3. [3] Trung, D. D. “Application of EDAS, MARCOS, TOPSIS, MOORA and PIV Methods for Multi-Criteria Decision Making in Milling Process”, Strojnícky časopis – Journal of Mechanical Engineering 71(2), pp. 69 – 84, 2021. DOI: 10.2478/scjme-2021-0019
    Open DOISearch in Google ScholarBack to article
  4. [4] Mehdi, K. G., Edmundas, K. Z., Zenonas, T., Jurgita, A. “A new combinative distance-based assessment (CODAS) method for multi-criteria decision-making”, Economic Computation and Economic Cybernetics Studies and Research, 50(3), pp. 25 – 44, 2016.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  5. [5] Opricovic, S., Tzeng, G. -H. “Compromise solution by MCDM methods: A comparative analysis of VIKOR and TOPSIS”, European Journal of Operational Research 156 (2), pp. 445 – 455, 2004. DOI: 10.1016/S0377-2217(03)00020-1
    Open DOISearch in Google ScholarBack to article
  6. [6] Dragan, P., Goran, C. “The selection of transport and handling resources in logistics centers using Multi-Attributive Border Approximation area Comparison (MABAC)”, Expert Systems with Applications 42, pp. 3016 – 3028, 2015. DOI: 10.1016/j.eswa.2014.11.057
    Open DOISearch in Google ScholarBack to article
  7. [7] Morteza, Y., Pascale, Z., Edmundas, K. Z., Zenonas, T. “A Combined Compromise Solution (CoCoSo) method for multi-criteria decision-making problems”, Management Decision 57(9), pp. 2501 – 2519, 2019. DOI: 10.1108/MD-05-2017-0458
    Open DOISearch in Google ScholarBack to article
  8. [8] Pamuca, D. S., Tarle, S. P., Parezanovi, T. “New hybrid multi-criteria decision-making DEMATEL -MAIRCA model: sustainable selection of a location for the development of multimodal logistics centre”, Economic Research-Ekonomska Istrazivanja 31(1), pp. 1641 – 1665, 2018. DOI: 10.1080/1331677X.2018.1506706
    Open DOISearch in Google ScholarBack to article
  9. [9] Yakowitz, D. S., Lane, L. J., Szidarovszky, F. “Multi-attribute Decision Making: Dominance with Respect to an Importance Order of the Attributes”, Applied mathematics and computation 54(2), pp. 167 – 181, 1993, DOI: 10.1016/0096-3003(93)90057-L
    Open DOISearch in Google ScholarBack to article
  10. [10] Sameera, M., Muzakkir, S. M. “A New Multi-Criterion Decision Making (MCDM) Method Based on Proximity Indexed Value for Minimizing Rank Reversals”, Computers & Industrial Engineering 2018, 1 – 39, 2018. DOI: 10.1016/j.cie.2018.03.045
    Open DOISearch in Google ScholarBack to article
  11. [11] Hwang, C. –L., Lai, Y. –J., Liu, T. Y. “A new approach for multiple objective decision making”, Computers & Operations Research 20(8), pp. 889 – 899, 1993. DOI: 10.1016/0305-0548(93)90109-V
    Open DOISearch in Google ScholarBack to article
  12. [12] Triantaphyllou, Evangelos, “Multi-criteria Decision Making Methods: A Comparative Study”, Springer – Science + Busines media, 2020.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  13. [13] Zhi, W., Huchang, L., Edmundas Kazimieras, Z. “MACONT: Mixed Aggregation by Comprehensive Normalization Technique for Multi-Criteria Analysis”, Informatica 31(4), pp. 857 – 880, 2020. DOI: 10.15388/20-INFOR417
    Open DOISearch in Google ScholarBack to article
  14. [14] Ardil, C. “Aircraft Selection Process Using Preference Analysis for Reference Ideal Solution (PARIS)”, International Journal of Aerospace and Mechanical Engineering, 14(3), pp. 80 – 90, 2020.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  15. [15] Aytekin, A. “Comparative Analysis of the Normalization Techniques in the Context of MCDM Problems”, Decision Making: Applications in Management and Engineering 4(2), pp. 1 – 27, 2021. DOI: 10.31181/dmame210402001a
    Open DOISearch in Google ScholarBack to article
  16. [16] Aytekin, A. “The distances and references based solution approach for multi-criteria decision problems”, PhD thesis, Anadolu University, Graduatc School of Social Sciences, 2020.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  17. [17] Radojko, L. “Application of MABAC Method in Evaluation of Sector Efficiency in Serbia”, Review of International Comparative Management 22(3), pp. 400 – 418, 2021.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  18. [18] Merita, B., Darko, B., Aleksandar, M. “Multicriteria decision-making related to flood protection of Arilje city”, 7th International scientific professional conference security and crisis management – theory and practice – safety for the future, Serbia, 2021.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  19. [19] Ankur, C., Suresh, K. J., Sachin, K. M. “Socio-technological framework for selecting suppliers of pharmaceuticals in a pandemic environment”, Journal of Enterprise Information Management, ahead-of-print (ahead-of-print), 2022. DOI: 10.1108/JEIM-02-2021-0081
    Open DOISearch in Google ScholarBack to article
  20. [20] Zeljko, S., Dragan, P., Edmundas, K. Z., Goran, C., Olegas, P. “The Selection of Wagons for the Internal Transport of a Logistics Company: A Novel Approach Based on Rough BWM and Rough SAW Methods”, Symmetry 9(11), pp. 1 – 25, 2017. DOI: 10.3390/sym9110264
    Open DOISearch in Google ScholarBack to article
  21. [21] Pijush, K. D. P., Sanjib, B., Saurabh, P., Dragan, M., Prasenjit, C. “A Comparative Analysis of Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Methods for Resource Selection in Mobile Crowd Computing”, Symmetry 13(9), pp. 1 – 51, 2021. DOI: 10.3390/sym13091713
    Open DOISearch in Google ScholarBack to article
  22. [22] Kajal, C., Edmundas, K. Z., Jolanta, T., Krishnendu, A., Samarjit, K. “A Hybrid MCDM Technique for Risk Management in Construction Projects”, Symmetry 10(2), pp. 1-28, 2018. DOI: 10.3390/sym10020046
    Open DOISearch in Google ScholarBack to article
  23. [23] Milan, M., Marko, B., Goran, T. “Selection of the railroad container terminal in Serbia based on multi criteria decision making methods”, Decision Making: Applicatons in Management and Engineering, 1(2), pp. 1 – 15, 2018. DOI: 10.31181/dmame1802001m
    Open DOISearch in Google ScholarBack to article
  24. [24] Ayse, T. “Financial performance analysis of electricity generation companies with multi-criteria decision making: Entropy-based Cocoso method”, Business & Management Studies: An International Journal 9(2), pp.532–546, 2021. DOI: 10.15295/bmij.v9i2.1794
    Open DOISearch in Google ScholarBack to article
  25. [25] Alptekin, U., Figen, B., Lutfu, S., Darjan, K., Dragisa, S., Gabrijela, P. “Selection of insulation materials with PSI-CRITIC based CoCoSo method”, Journal of Construction 20(2), pp. 382 – 392, 2021. DOI: 10.7764/RDLC.20.2.382
    Open DOISearch in Google ScholarBack to article
  26. [26] Erfan, B. T., Ali, E. T. “A Cluster-based Stratified Hybrid Decision Support Model under Uncertainty: Sustainable Healthcare Landfill Location Selection”, Applied Intelligence 2022, 1 – 10, 2022. DOI: 10.1007/s10489-022-03335-4
    Open DOISearch in Google ScholarBack to article
  27. [27] Zhi, W., Huchang, L., Audrius, B., Zenonas, T. “A grey combined compromise solution (CoCoSo-G) method for supplier selection in construction management”, Journal of Civil Engineering and Management 25(8), pp. 858–874, 2019. DOI: 10.3846/jcem.2019.11309
    Open DOISearch in Google ScholarBack to article
  28. [28] Haihui, H. “Fuzzy decision making method based on CoCoSo with critic for financial risk evaluation”, Technological and Economic Development of Economy 26(4), pp. 695 – 724, 2020. DOI: 10.3846/tede.2020.11920
    Open DOISearch in Google ScholarBack to article
  29. [29] Gabrijela, P., Pavle, R., Dragisa, S., Darjan, K. “A new hybrid fuzzy PSI-Piprecia-Cocoso MCDM based approach to solving the transportation company selection problem”, Technological and Economic Development of Economy 27(5), pp. 1227 – 1249, 2021. DOI: 10.3846/tede.2021.15058
    Open DOISearch in Google ScholarBack to article
  30. [30] Esra, A. “An analysis on turkey’s merger and acquisition activities: MAIRCA method”, Gümüşhane Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Elektronik Dergisi 12(1), pp. 1 – 11, 2021.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  31. [31] Sema, K. K. “Evaluation of the Effect of COVID-19 on Countries’ Sustainable Development Level: A comparative MCDM framework”, Operational Research in Engineering Sciences: Theory and Applications 3(3), pp. 101 – 122, 2020. DOI: 10.31181/oresta20303101k
    Open DOISearch in Google ScholarBack to article
  32. [32] Sarfaraz, H. Z., Fatih, E., Dragan, P., Saulius, R. “Neighborhood selection for a newcomer via a novel BWM-based revised MAIRCA integrated model: a case from the Coquimbo-La Serena conurbation, Chile”, International Journal of Strategic Property Management 24(2), pp. 102 – 118, 2020. DOI: 10.3846/ijspm.2020.11543
    Open DOISearch in Google ScholarBack to article
  33. [33] Huu-Quang, N., Van-Tung, N., Dang-Phong, P., Quoc-Hoang, T., Ngoc-Pi, V. “Multi-Criteria Decision Making in the PMEDM Process by Using MARCOS, TOPSIS, and MAIRCA Methods”, Applied sciences 12(8), pp. 1 – 11, 2022. DOI: 10.3390/app12083720
    Open DOISearch in Google ScholarBack to article
  34. [34] Trung, D. D., Thinh, H. X. “A multi-criteria decision-making in turning process using the MAIRCA, EAMR, MARCOS and TOPSIS methods: A comparative study”, Advances in Production Engineering & Management 16(4), pp. 443 – 456, 2021. DOI: 10.14743/apem2021.4.412
    Open DOISearch in Google ScholarBack to article
  35. [35] Trung, D, D. “A combination method for multi-criteria decision making problem in turning process”, Manufacturing review 8(26), pp. 1 – 17, 2021. DOI: 10.1051/mfreview/2021024
    Open DOISearch in Google ScholarBack to article
  36. [36] Thien, N. V, Dung, H. T., Trung, D. D., Nhu-Tung, N. “Multi-objective optimization of turning process using a combination of Taguchi and VIKOR methods”, Journal of Applied Engineering Science 19(4), pp. 868 – 873, 2021. DOI: 10.5937/jaes0-29654
    Open DOISearch in Google ScholarBack to article
  37. [37] Shankar, C., Prasenjit, C. “Selection of materials using multi-criteria decision-making methods with minimum data”, Decision Science Letters 2, pp. 135 – 148, 2013. DOI: 10.5267/j.dsl.2013.03.005
    Open DOISearch in Google ScholarBack to article
  38. [38] Aysegul, T. I., Esra, A. A. “The Decision-Making Approach Based on the Combination of Entropy and Rov Methods for the Apple Selection Problem”, European Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies 3(3), pp. 80 – 86, 2017.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  39. [39] Naveen, J., Gyanendrakumar, S., Singh, A. R. “An integrated MCDM methodology for green supplier selection in GSCM”, International Journal of Pure and Applied Mathematics 118(20), pp. 461 – 467, 2018.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  40. [40] Josy, G., Francis Xavier, J. “A Hybrid MCDM Model Combining Entropy Weight Method with Range of Value (ROV) Method and Evaluation Based on Distance from Average Solution (EDAS) Method for Supplier Selection in Supply Chain Management”, Operations Management and Data Analytics Modelling, CRC Press, 2021. DOI: 10.1201/9781003181644
    Open DOISearch in Google ScholarBack to article
  41. [41] Milos, M., Miroslav, R., Miodrag, M. “Application of the ROV method for the selection of cutting fluids”, Decision Science Letters 5, pp. 245 – 254, 2016. DOI: 10.5267/j.dsl.2015.12.001
    Open DOISearch in Google ScholarBack to article
  42. [42] Saif, W., Sedat, B., Nasir Bashir, M., Shafi, A. “Selection of sustainable material for the manufacturing of complex automotive products using a new hybrid Goal Programming Model for Best Worst Method–Proximity Indexed Value method”, Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part L: Journal of Materials: Design and Applications 0(0), pp. 1 – 15, 2020. DOI: 10.1177/1464420720966347
    Open DOISearch in Google ScholarBack to article
  43. [43] K. L., Srinivas, K. “Sensitive Analysis on Selection of Piston Material Using MADM Techniques”, Strojnícky časopis – Journal of Mechanical Engineering 69(4), pp. 45 – 56, 2019. DOI: 10.2478/scjme-2019-0042
    Open DOISearch in Google ScholarBack to article
  44. [44] Einhorn, H. J., McCoach, W. “A Symble Multiattribute Utility Procedure for Evaluation”, Behavioral Scicence 22(4), pp. 270 – 282, 1997. DOI: 10.1002/bs.3830220405
    Open DOISearch in Google ScholarBack to article
  45. [45] Trung, D. D., Nhu-Tung, N., Duc, D. V. “Study on multi-objective optimization of the turning process of EN 10503 steel by combination of Taguchi method and Moora technique”, EUREKA: Physics and Engineering 2021(2), pp. 52 – 65, 2021. DOI: 10.21303/2461-4262.2020.001414
    Open DOISearch in Google ScholarBack to article
  46. [46] Trung, D. D. “Multi-criteria decision making under the MARCOS method and the weighting methods: applied to milling, grinding and turning processes”, Manufacturing Review 9(3), pp. 1 – 13, 2022. DOI: 10.1051/mfreview/2022003
    Open DOISearch in Google ScholarBack to article
  47. [47] Enrique, B., Perez-Gladish, B., Garcia-Bernabeu, A. “A Multi-Criteria Decision Making Approach”, International Series in Operations Research and Management Science. Springer, Cham, 2015.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  48. [48] Mehdi, K. G., Edmundas, K. Z., Zenonas, T., Jurgita, A. “A new combinative distance-based assessment (CODAS) method for multi-criteria decision-making”, Economic Computation and Economic Cybernetics Studies and Research 50(3), pp. 25 – 44, 2016.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/scjme-2022-0016 | Journal eISSN: 2450-5471 | Journal ISSN: 0039-2472
Journal RSS Feed
Language: English
Page range: 57 - 72
Published on: Nov 7, 2022
Published by: Slovak University of Technology in Bratislava
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
Publication frequency: 2 issues per year
Keywords:
MCDM,
MABAC,
COCOSO,
MAIRCA,
VIKOR,
ROV,
Data normalization
Related subjects:
Engineering,
Mechanical engineering,
Fundamentals of mechanical engineering,
Mechanics

© 2022 Hoang Tien Dung, Duc Trung Do, Van Thien Nguyen, published by Slovak University of Technology in Bratislava
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License.

Previous articleVolume 72 (2022): Issue 2 (November 2022)Next article