TOPSIS-RTCID for range target-based criteria and interval data

[EN] The Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) is receiving considerable attention as an essential decision analysis technique and becoming a leading method. This paper describes a new version of TOPSIS with interval data and capability to deal with all types of criteria. An improved structure of the TOPSIS is presented to deal with high uncertainty in engineering and engineering decision-making. The proposed Range Target-based Criteria and Interval Data model of TOPSIS (TOPSIS-RTCID) achieves the core contribution in decision making theories through a distinct normalization formula for cost and benefits criteria in scale of point and range target-based values. It is important to notice a very interesting property of the proposed normalization formula being opposite to the usual one. This property can explain why the rank reversal problem is limited. The applicability of the proposed TOPSIS-RTCID method is examined with several empirical litreture’s examples with comparisons, sensitivity analysis, and simulation. The authors have developed a new tool with more efficient, reliable and robust outcomes compared to that from other available tools. The complexity of an engineering design decision problem can be resolved through the development of a well-structured decision making method with multiple attributes. Various decision approches developed for engineering design have neglected elements that should have been taken into account. Through this study, engineering design problems can be resolved with greater reliability and confidence.Jahan, A.; Yazdani, M.; Edwards, K. (2021). TOPSIS-RTCID for range target-based criteria and interval data. International Journal of Production Management and Engineering. 9(1):1-14. https://doi.org/10.4995/ijpme.2021.13323OJS11491Ahn, B.S. (2017). The analytic hierarchy process with interval preference statements. Omega, 67, 177-185. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.omega.2016.05.004Alemi-Ardakani, M., Milani, A.S., Yannacopoulos, S., Shokouhi, G. (2016). On the effect of subjective, objective and combinative weighting in multiple criteria decision making: A case study on impact optimization of composites. Expert Systems With Applications, 46, 426-438. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2015.11.003Amiri, M., Nosratian, N.E., Jamshidi, A., Kazemi, A. (2008). Developing a new ELECTRE method with interval data in multiple attribute decision making problems. Journal of Applied Sciences, 8, 4017-4028. https://doi.org/10.3923/jas.2008.4017.4028Bahraminasab, M., Jahan, A. (2011). Material selection for femoral component of total knee replacement using comprehensive VIKOR. Materials & Design, 32, 4471-4477. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2011.03.046Baradaran, V., Azarnia, S. (2013). An Approach to Test Consistency and Generate Weights from Grey Pairwise Matrices in Grey Analytical Hierarchy Process. Journal of Grey System, 25.Behzadian, M., Otaghsara, S.K., Yazdani, M., Ignatius, J. (2012). A state-of the-art survey of TOPSIS applications. Expert Systems with Applications, 39, 13051-13069. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2012.05.056Cables, E., Lamata, M.T., Verdegay, J.L. (2018). FRIM-Fuzzy Reference Ideal Method in Multicriteria Decision Making. In Collan, M. & Kacprzyk, J. (Eds.) Soft Computing Applications for Group Decision-making and Consensus Modeling. Cham, Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-60207-3_19Çakır, S. (2016). An integrated approach to machine selection problem using fuzzy SMART-fuzzy weighted axiomatic design. Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10845-015-1189-3Celen, A. (2014). Comparative analysis of normalization procedures in TOPSIS method: with an application to Turkish deposit banking market. Informatica, 25, 185-208. https://doi.org/10.15388/Informatica.2014.10Celik, E., Erdogan, M., Gumus, A. (2016). An extended fuzzy TOPSIS-GRA method based on different separation measures for green logistics service provider selection. International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology, 13, 1377-1392. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13762-016-0977-4Dymova, L., Sevastjanov, P., Tikhonenko, A. (2013). A direct interval extension of TOPSIS method. Expert Systems With Applications, 40, 4841-4847. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2013.02.022Garca-Cascales, M.S., Lamata, M.T. (2012). On rank reversal and TOPSIS method. Mathematical and Computer Modelling, 56, 123-132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mcm.2011.12.022Hafezalkotob, A., Hafezalkotob, A. (2015). Comprehensive MULTIMOORA method with target-based attributes and integrated significant coefficients for materials selection in biomedical applications. Materials & Design, 87, 949-959. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2015.08.087Hafezalkotob, A., Hafezalkotob, A. (2016). Interval MULTIMOORA method with target values of attributes based on interval distance and preference degree: biomaterials selection. Journal of Industrial Engineering International, 13, 181-198. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40092-016-0176-4Hafezalkotob, A., Hafezalkotob, A. (2017). Interval target-based VIKOR method supported on interval distance and preference degree for machine selection. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence, 57, 184-196. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engappai.2016.10.018Hafezalkotob, A., Hafezalkotob, A., Sayadi, M.K. (2016). Extension of MULTIMOORA method with interval numbers: An application in materials selection. Applied Mathematical Modelling, 40, 1372-1386. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apm.2015.07.019Hajiagha, S.H.R., Hashemi, S.S., Zavadskas, E.K., Akrami, H. (2012). Extensions of LINMAP model for multi criteria decision making with grey numbers. Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 18, 636-650. https://doi.org/10.3846/20294913.2012.740518Hazelrigg, G.A. (2003). Validation of engineering design alternative selection methods. Engineering Optimization, 35, 103-120. https://doi.org/10.1080/0305215031000097059Hu, J., Du, Y., Mo, H., Wei, D., Deng, Y. (2016). A modified weighted TOPSIS to identify influential nodes in complex networks. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, 444, 73-85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physa.2015.09.028Huang, Y., Jiang, W. (2018). Extension of TOPSIS Method and its Application in Investment. Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering, 43, 693-705. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13369-017-2736-3Jahan, A. (2018). Developing WASPAS-RTB method for range target-based criteria: toward selection for robust design. Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 24, 1362-1387. https://doi.org/10.3846/20294913.2017.1295288Jahan, A., Bahraminasab, M., Edwards, K.L. (2012). A target-based normalization technique for materials selection. Materials & Design, 35, 647-654. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2011.09.005Jahan, A., Edwards, K.L. (2013). VIKOR method for material selection problems with interval numbers and target-based criteria. Materials & Design, 47, 759-765. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2012.12.072Jahan, A., Edwards, K.L. (2015). A state-of-the-art survey on the influence of normalization techniques in ranking: Improving the materials selection process in engineering design. Materials & Design, 65, 335-342. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2014.09.022Jahan, A., Edwards, K.L., Bahraminasab, M. (2016). Multi-criteria decision analysis for supporting the selection of engineering materials in product design, Oxford, Butterworth-Heinemann.Jahan, A., Mustapha, F., Ismail, M.Y., Sapuan, S.M., Bahraminasab, M. (2011). A comprehensive VIKOR method for material selection. Materials & Design, 32, 1215-1221. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2010.10.015Jahan, A., Zavadskas, E.K. (2018). ELECTRE-IDAT for design decision-making problems with interval data and target-based criteria. Soft Computing, 23, 129-143. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00500-018-3501-6Jahanshahloo, G.R., Hosseinzadeh Lotfi, F., Davoodi, A.R. (2009). Extension of TOPSIS for decision-making problems with interval data: Interval efficiency. Mathematical and Computer Modelling, 49, 1137-1142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mcm.2008.07.009Jahanshahloo, G.R., Lotfi, F.H., Izadikhah, M. (2006). An algorithmic method to extend TOPSIS for decision-making problems with interval data. Applied Mathematics and Computation, 175, 1375-1384. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amc.2005.08.048Kasirian, M., Yusuff, R. (2013). An integration of a hybrid modified TOPSIS with a PGP model for the supplier selection with interdependent criteria. International Journal of Production Research, 51, 1037-1054. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2012.663107Kuo, T. (2017). A modified TOPSIS with a different ranking index. European Journal of Operational Research, 260, 152-160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2016.11.052Liang, D., Xu, Z. (2017). The new extension of TOPSIS method for multiple criteria decision making with hesitant Pythagorean fuzzy sets. Applied Soft Computing, 60, 167-179. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2017.06.034Liao, H., Wu, X. (2019). DNMA: A double normalization-based multiple aggregation method for multi-expert multi-criteria decision making. Omega, 94. 102058. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.omega.2019.04.001Liu, H.C., You, J.X., Zhen, L., Fan, X.J. (2014). A novel hybrid multiple criteria decision making model for material selection with targetbased criteria. Materials & Design, 60, 380-390. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2014.03.071Maghsoodi, A.I., Maghsoodi, A.I., Poursoltan, P., Antucheviciene, J., Turskis, Z. (2019). Dam construction material selection by implementing the integrated SWARA-CODAS approach with target-based attributes. Archives of Civil and Mechanical Engineering, 19, 1194-1210. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acme.2019.06.010Milani, A.S., Shanian, A., Madoliat, R., Nemes, J.A. (2005). The effect of normalization norms in multiple attribute decision making models: a case study in gear material selection. Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization, 29, 312-318. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00158-004-0473-1Peldschus, F. (2009). The analysis of the quality of the results obtained with the methods of multi-criteria decisions. Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 15, 580-592. https://doi.org/10.3846/1392-8619.2009.15.580-592Peldschus, F. (2018). Recent findings from numerical analysis in multi-criteria decision making. Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 24, 1695-1717. https://doi.org/10.3846/20294913.2017.1356761Perez, E.C., Lamata, M., Verdegay, J. (2016). RIM-Reference Ideal Method in Multicriteria Decision Making. Information Sciences, 337- 338, 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2015.12.011Sayadi, M.K., Heydari, M., Shahanaghi, K. (2009). Extension of VIKOR method for decision making problem with interval numbers. Applied Mathematical Modelling, 33, 2257-2262. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apm.2008.06.002Sen, P., Yang, J.B. (1998). MCDM and the Nature of Decision Making in Design, Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-3020-8_2Sevastianov, P. (2007). Numerical methods for interval and fuzzy number comparison based on the probabilistic approach and Dempster- Shafer theory. Information Sciences, 177, 4645-4661. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2007.05.001Shanian, A., Savadogo, O. (2009). A methodological concept for material selection of highly sensitive components based on multiple criteria decision analysis. Expert Systems With Applications, 36, 1362-1370. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2007.11.052Shen, F., Ma, X., Li, Z., Xu, Z., Cai, D. (2018). An extended intuitionistic fuzzy TOPSIS method based on a new distance measure with an application to credit risk evaluation. Information Sciences, 428, 105-119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2017.10.045Shishank, S., Dekkers, R. (2013). Outsourcing: decision-making methods and criteria during design and engineering. Production Planning & Control, 24, 318-336. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537287.2011.648544Shouzhen, Z., Yao, X. (2018). A method based on TOPSIS and distance measures for hesitant fuzzy multiple attribute decision making. Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 24, 969-983. https://doi.org/10.3846/20294913.2016.1216472Stanujkic, D., Magdalinovic, N., Jovanovic, R., Stojanovic, S. (2012). An objective multi-criteria approach to optimization using MOORA method and interval grey numbers. Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 18, 331-363. https://doi.org/10.3846/20294913.2012.676996Suder, A., Kahraman, C. (2018). Multiattribute evaluation of organic and inorganic agricultural food investments using fuzzy TOPSIS. Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 24, 844-858. https://doi.org/10.3846/20294913.2016.1216905Tilstra, A.H., Backlund, P.B., Seepersad, C.C., Wood, K.L. (2015). Principles for designing products with flexibility for future evolution. International Journal of Mass Customisation, 5, 22-54. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJMASSC.2015.069597Tsaur, R.C. (2011) Decision risk analysis for an interval TOPSIS method. Applied Mathematics and Computation, 218, 4295-4304. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amc.2011.10.001Turskis, Z., Zavadskas, E.K. (2010) A novel method for multiple criteria analysis: grey additive ratio assessment (ARAS-G) method. Informatica, 21, 597-610. https://doi.org/10.15388/Informatica.2010.307Wang, Y.M., Luo, Y. (2009) On rank reversal in decision analysis. Mathematical and Computer Modelling, 49, 1221-1229. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mcm.2008.06.019Ye, J. (2015) An extended TOPSIS method for multiple attribute group decision making based on single valued neutrosophic linguistic numbers. Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems, 28, 247-255. https://doi.org/10.3233/IFS-141295Yue, Z. (2013) Group decision making with multi-attribute interval data. Information Fusion, 14, 551-561. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.inffus.2013.01.00

The interval TOPSIS method for group decision making

Cel – Celem pracy jest przedstawienie nowego podejścia do rankingu wariantów decyzyjnych z danymi przedziałowymi dla grupowego podejmowania decyzji, wykorzystującego metodę TOPSIS. Metodologia badania – W proponowanym podejściu, wszystkie pojedyncze oceny decydentów są brane pod uwagę w wyznaczaniu końcowych ocen wariantów decyzyjnych oraz ich rankingu. Kluczowym jego elementem jest przekształcenie macierzy decyzyjnych dostarczonych przez decydentów, w macierze wariantów decyzyjnych. Wynik – Nowe podejście do grupowego podejmowania decyzji wykorzystujące metodę TOPSIS. Oryginalność/wartość – Proponowane podejście jest nowatorskie oraz łatwe w użyciu.Goal – The purpose of the paper is to present a new approach to the ranking of alternatives with interval data for group decision making using the TOPSIS method. Research methodology – In the proposed approach, all individual assessments of decision makers are taken into account in determining the final assessments of alternatives and their ranking. The key stage of the proposed approach is the transformation of the decision matrices provided by the decision makers into a matrices of alternatives. Score – A new approach for group decision making using the TOPSIS method. Originality/value – The proposed approach is innovative and easy to use.Badania zostały zrealizowane w ramach pracy nr S/WI/1/2016 i sfinansowane ze środków na naukę [email protected]ł Informatyki, Politechnika BiałostockaAbdullah L., Adawiyah C.W.R., 2014, Simple Additive Weighting Methods of Multicriteria Decision Making and Applications: A Decade Review, “International Journal of Information Processing and Management”, vol. 5(1), pp. 39-49.Behzadian M., Otaghsara S.K., Yazdani M., Ignatius J., 2012, A state-of the art survey of TOPSIS applications, “Expert Systems with Applications”, vol. 39, pp. 13051-13069.Boran F.E., Genc S., Kurt M., Akay D., 2009, A multi-criteria intuitionistic fuzzy group decision making for supplier selection with TOPSIS method, “Expert Systems with Applications”, vol. 36, pp. 11363-11368.Chen C.T., 2000, Extensions of the TOPSIS for group decision-making under fuzzy environment, “Fuzzy Sets and Systems”, vol. 114, pp. 1-9.Cloud M. J., Kearfott R.B., Moore R.E., 2009, Introduction to Interval Analysis, SIAM, Philadelphia.Dymova L., Sevastjanova P., Tikhonenko A., 2013, A direct interval extension of TOPSIS method, “Expert Systems with Applications”, vol. 40, pp. 4841-4847.Hu B.Q., Wang S., 2006, A Novel Approach in Uncertain Programming Part I: New Arithmetic and Order Relation for Interval Numbers, “Journal of Industrial and Management Optimization”, vol. 2(4), pp. 351-371.Hwang C.L., Yoon K. 1981 Multiple Attribute Decision Making: Methods and Applications, Springer-Verlag, Berlin.Jahanshahloo G.R., Hosseinzadeh Lotfi F., Izadikhah M., 2006, An Algorithmic Method to Extend TOPSIS for Decision Making Problems with Interval Data, “Applied Mathematics and Computation”, vol. 175, pp. 1375-1384.Kacprzak D., 2017, Objective Weights Based on Ordered Fuzzy Numbers for Fuzzy Multiple Criteria Decision Making Methods, “Entropy”, vol. 19(7), pp. 373.Kacprzak D., 2018, Metoda SAW z przedziałowymi danymi i wagami uzyskanymi za pomocą przedziałowej entropii Shannona, „Studia Ekonomiczne. Zeszyty Naukowe Uniwersytetu Ekonomicznego w Katowicach”, vol. 348, pp. 144-155.Kacprzak D., 2019, A doubly extended TOPSIS method for group decision making based on ordered fuzzy numbers, “Expert Systems with Applications”, vol. 116, pp. 243-254.Roszkowska E., 2009, Application TOPSIS methods for ordering offers in buyer-seller transaction, “OPTIMUM, Studia Ekonomiczne”, vol. 3(43), pp. 117-133.Roszkowska E., 2011, Multi-Criteria Decision Making Models by Applying the TOPSIS Method to Crisp and Interval Data, “Multiple Criteria Decision Making”, vol. 6, pp. 200-230.Roszkowska E., Kacprzak D., 2016, The fuzzy SAW and fuzzy TOPSIS procedures based on ordered fuzzy numbers, “Information Sciences”, vol. 369, pp. 564-584.Rudnik K., Kacprzak D., 2017, Fuzzy TOPSIS method with ordered fuzzy numbers for flow control in a manufacturing system, “Applied Soft Computing”, vol. 52, pp. 1020-1041.Senvar O., Otay İ., Boltürk E., 2016, Hospital site selection via hesitant fuzzy TOPSIS. “IFAC-PapersOnLine”, vol. 49, pp. 1140-1145.Shih H.S., Shyur H.J., Lee E.S., 2007, An extension of TOPSIS for group decision making, “Mathematical and Computer Modelling”, vol. 45, pp. 801-813.Wang T.C., Chang T.H., 2007, Application of TOPSIS in evaluating initial training aircraft under a fuzzy environment, “Expert Systems with Applications”, vol. 33, pp. 870-880.Ye F., Li Y.N., 2009, Group multi-attribute decision model to partner selection in the formation of virtual enterprise under incomplete information, “Expert Systems with Applications”, vol. 36, pp. 9350-9357.Yue Z., 2011, An extended TOPSIS for determining weights of decision makers with interval numbers, “Knowledge-Based Systems”, vol. 24, pp. 146-153.Yue Z., 2012, Developing a straightforward approach for group decision making based on determining weights of decision makers, “Applied Mathematical Modelling”, vol. 36, pp. 4106-4117.4(94)25627

Determining Regencial Road Handling Priority Using Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process (FAHP) and TOPSIS Method (Case Study: Badung Regency - Bali)

. Determining road handling priority is considered as a complicated multicriteria decision making problem. In so doing, the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) has been widely used to weight the importance. Fuzziness and vagueness however, are typical in many decision-making problems, so that fuzzy sets could be integrated with the pairwise comparison as an extension of the AHP. This study uses Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process (FAHP) and TOPSIS method in determining regencial road handling priority for road links under severe circumstances in Badung regency in Bali province. Data are taken from a previous study, which had also been conducted for Badung regencial road handling priority using the AHP and SK.NO.77/KPTS/Db/1990 method. The weights of main and sub criteria are determined using FAHP and subsequently the ranking of road links is determined using TOPSIS method. The AHP method gave somewhat different result to ‘SK.NO.77/KPTS/Db/1990\u27 method. On the other hand, FAHP and TOPSIS method produce the same result to ‘SK.NO.77/KPTS/Db/1990\u27 method. This is probably best explained by the fact that they similarly considered traffic volumes as the most significant factor. FAHP and TOPSIS method however, are preferred to the AHP and SK.NO.77/KPTS/Db/1990 method in determining regencial road handling priority in Badung regency

A comparative study of multiple-criteria decision-making methods under stochastic inputs

This paper presents an application and extension of multiple-criteria decision-making (MCDM) methods to account for stochastic input variables. More in particular, a comparative study is carried out among well-known and widely-applied methods in MCDM, when applied to the reference problem of the selection of wind turbine support structures for a given deployment location. Along with data from industrial experts, six deterministic MCDM methods are studied, so as to determine the best alternative among the available options, assessed against selected criteria with a view toward assigning confidence levels to each option. Following an overview of the literature around MCDM problems, the best practice implementation of each method is presented aiming to assist stakeholders and decision-makers to support decisions in real-world applications, where many and often conflicting criteria are present within uncertain environments. The outcomes of this research highlight that more sophisticated methods, such as technique for the order of preference by similarity to the ideal solution (TOPSIS) and Preference Ranking Organization method for enrichment evaluation (PROMETHEE), better predict the optimum design alternative

Evaluation of e-learning web sites using fuzzy axiomatic design based approach

High quality web site has been generally recognized as a critical enabler to conduct online business. Numerous studies exist in the literature to measure the business performance in relation to web site quality. In this paper, an axiomatic design based approach for fuzzy group decision making is adopted to evaluate the quality of e-learning web sites. Another multi-criteria decision making technique, namely fuzzy TOPSIS, is applied in order to validate the outcome. The methodology proposed in this paper has the advantage of incorporating requirements and enabling reductions in the problem size, as compared to fuzzy TOPSIS. A case study focusing on Turkish e-learning websites is presented, and based on the empirical findings, managerial implications and recommendations for future research are offered

Fuzzy Interval-Valued Multi Criteria Based Decision Making for Ranking Features in Multi-Modal 3D Face Recognition

Soodamani Ramalingam, 'Fuzzy interval-valued multi criteria based decision making for ranking features in multi-modal 3D face recognition', Fuzzy Sets and Systems, In Press version available online 13 June 2017. This is an Open Access paper, made available under the Creative Commons license CC BY 4.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This paper describes an application of multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) for multi-modal fusion of features in a 3D face recognition system. A decision making process is outlined that is based on the performance of multi-modal features in a face recognition task involving a set of 3D face databases. In particular, the fuzzy interval valued MCDM technique called TOPSIS is applied for ranking and deciding on the best choice of multi-modal features at the decision stage. It provides a formal mechanism of benchmarking their performances against a set of criteria. The technique demonstrates its ability in scaling up the multi-modal features.Peer reviewedProo

Decision support model for the selection of asphalt wearing courses in highly trafficked roads

The suitable choice of the materials forming the wearing course of highly trafficked roads is a delicate task because of their direct interaction with vehicles. Furthermore, modern roads must be planned according to sustainable development goals, which is complex because some of these might be in conflict. Under this premise, this paper develops a multi-criteria decision support model based on the analytic hierarchy process and the technique for order of preference by similarity to ideal solution to facilitate the selection of wearing courses in European countries. Variables were modelled using either fuzzy logic or Monte Carlo methods, depending on their nature. The views of a panel of experts on the problem were collected and processed using the generalized reduced gradient algorithm and a distance-based aggregation approach. The results showed a clear preponderance by stone mastic asphalt over the remaining alternatives in different scenarios evaluated through sensitivity analysis. The research leading to these results was framed in the European FP7 Project DURABROADS (No. 605404).The research leading to these results has received funding from the European Union Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007–2013) under Grant Agreement No. 605404