Two New Approaches (RAMS-RATMI) in Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Tactics

Abdulaal, Reda M. S.; Bafail, Omer A.

doi:https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/6725318

Journal of Mathematics

On this page

Abstract Introduction Literature Review Conclusion Data Availability Conflicts of Interest References Copyright Related Articles

Research Article | Open Access

Volume 2022 | Article ID 6725318 | https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/6725318

Two New Approaches (RAMS-RATMI) in Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Tactics

Reda M. S. Abdulaal¹and Omer A. Bafail¹

Academic Editor: Ghous Ali

Received14 Jul 2022

Revised22 Aug 2022

Accepted01 Sept 2022

Published27 Sept 2022

Abstract

When a decision must be made, a tool called multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) is used to assess and select alternatives among numerous criteria. For a wide variety of complex problems, MCDM methods have demonstrated usefulness in finding the optimal solutions. Despite the abundance of MCDM methods available today, there has been slow progress in developing new methodologies in MCDM in the past decade. In this context, this paper presents new MCDM tools which ranks alternatives based on median similarity (RAMS) between optimal alternatives and other alternatives. RAMS is an extension to the most recently developed technique that used perimeter similarity (RAPS). This paper also introduces a further tool that combines the RAMS method with the multiple criteria ranking by alternative trace (MCRAT) methodology using a majority index and the concept of the VlseKriterijumska Optimizacija I Kompromisno Resenje (VIKOR) method. This tool is ranking the alternatives based on the trace to median index (RATMI). An illustration of the use of RAMS and RATMI is given through a case study of ranking different materials for the selection of break booster valve body in a vehicle. The validity of the new two techniques was tested against seven well-known MCDM techniques (ARAS, SAW, TOPSIS, COPRAS, VIKOR, WASPAS, and MOORA) using fifteen real problems data taken from the literature. The RATMI technique was more promising than RAPS and RAMS for 87% and 93% of the fifteen difficulties, respectively, according to the results of the correlation coefficient tests between the developed techniques and the selected seven techniques.

1. Introduction

Different aspects denote the progression of the multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) technique from old to new methods. MCDM is a tool that can be used to support decision-making in different spheres of business and science [1]. The use of MCDM facilitates the selection process and ensures that the decision will be based on reliable solutions as it generates progressive solutions to a variety of decisions. In order for the approach to be applied, the inclusion of various alternatives and selection from predefined criteria is essential [2]. The approach is used in the presence of conflicting criteria that require either maximizing or minimizing values. Hence, the approach is helpful in finding the optimal solution and the most appropriate settlement among the various alternatives available [3].

There is a large amount of literature in relation to the scientific background of MCDM methods, including descriptions of their distinctions, classifications, and applications, and there is even more written every day, especially in relation to their use within a professional setting. The development of MCDM has been examined from a historical perspective, and its techniques have attracted high adaption magnitude. MCDM was firstly introduced and become evident in the early eighteenth century, and the decision-making systems have been advancing to take the modern shape in the early 1970s by Howard Raiffa [4]. Despite the fact that the MCDM concept has roots in the eighteenth century, and possibly even before, however, the most widely MCDM methods that are now used are ÉLimination et Choix Traduisant la REalité (ELECTRE), the analytic hierarchy process (AHP), the technique for order of preference by similarity to ideal solution (TOPSIS), and preference ranking organization method for enrichment evaluations (PROMETHEE) [5]. Numerous observed case studies indicate that selecting the appropriate MCDM method for a given problem is a recurring issue because of the large number of MCDM methods available. Methods can be selected according to how they fit a specific situation; there are no good or bad methods [5, 6].

A significant outlook of validating the development of MCDM techniques is the description and analysis of their peculiarities and potential applications. The main characteristic of MCDM is dealing with uncertainty when it comes to providing the most effective and optimal solution founded on the rational decision [7]. From an exploration study that determines the objectives characteristics relative to MCDM approaches, its findings reveal the methods to assist in exhibiting patterns or tendencies of the dual verification mechanism [8]. This assertion manifests that the potential of MCDM techniques is evident in terms of demonstrating capabilities in evaluating as well as comparing different results. The most notable categories encompass selection between alternatives, alternative rating, alternatives classification, and identifying alternatives [9].

In the past decade, there has been slow progress in developing new methodologies in MCDM [5]. One aspect to help explain the slow progress is the degree of stakeholder involvement. The development of new MCDM methods by scholars does not seem to be the most prevalent research direction at present, and a large number of existing MCDM methods available may be a factor contributing to the lack of interest among researchers. Within this scope, one of the new methods that have been developed in the last decade and have been the most popular and used are weighted aggregated sum product assessment (WASPAS) and (total area based on orthogonal vectors) TOV, as well as two very recent methods, ranking the alternatives by perimeter similarity (RAPS) and multiple criteria ranking by alternative trace (MCRAT).

Competitiveness in MCRAT and RAPS as recent additional MCDM processes ascertain reasons for their adoption as well as their advantages. A paper confirms that these novel approaches have demonstrated their effectiveness in decision-making owing to their optimal design [5]. The MCRAT and RAPS are an extension of solving a problem using categories of ranking and problem choice. The deviation in their resolving of an issue using a decision-making model could be obvious in the criteria considered to reach an optimal solution.

A major advantage of the two recently added methods RAPS and MCRAT is their simplicity, logic, justification, generality, and validity. However, as RAPS and MCRAT are considered modern methods, both methods were only tested and validated in a mining engineering setting only. For this reason, this paper aims at developing and expanding the two methods, RAPS and MCRAT, to include their uses in all settings rather than the mining setting only. So, this paper answers the question “How can the two RAPS and MCRAT approaches be modified for use in a variety of situations, such as education, banking sector, construction industry, housing, business, …etc.?”

The rest of this paper is organized as follows: Section 2 provides additional background relating to the history of MCDM. Section 3 describes the new proposed methodologies. An illustrative numerical example of the proposed methods appears in Section 4. In tabular and graphical forms, Section 5 compares the proposed techniques to other seven alternative techniques as well as the original one RAPS using 15 different problems. The conclusion comprises in Section 6.

2. Literature Review

A literature analysis assists in validating different MCDM methods and concepts behind their innovation. The development history of some of the most commonly MCDM techniques utilized is listed based on their development history from oldest to newest. Firstly, ELECTRE, the technique was first introduced in 1965 by a research team affiliated to the European consultancy firm [10]. The intention of this initiation was clear as a decision-making approach to formulating solutions characterized by multi-criteria problems. Its expansion is evident displayed in the development from ELECTRE I to ELECTRE II. According to Akram et al. [11], ELECTRE I is a model introduced with the consideration of incorporating a set of different concepts to enhance the sets of Pythagorean fuzzy concordance and discordance from the perspective of outranking when exposed to various alternatives. The application of ELECTRE I has extended from staff selection and intuitionistic fuzzy environment [11]. The justification for this application is flexibility while making a decision involving comparative analysis. For the other extensions, the literature provides the ELECTRE II, ELECTRE III, ELECTRE IV, ELECTRE IS, and ELECTRE TRI as the other models [12]. These details establish this approach to decision-making framework to respond to situations, especially situations that are relative to a complex algorithm. The limitation cited is insufficient performance on a single criterion, which may disregard some of the alternatives [5]. Based on this limitation, it was certain that other models with multi-criteria consideration were to be initiated.

In MCDM, AHP is an old but popular technique that was developed in the 1980s by L. Saaty [13]. This framework quantifies the criteria and alternative possibilities for a necessary decision and links them to its overall purpose. AHP generates weights from pairwise comparison metrics based on mathematically defined structures [14]. The process of evaluating alternatives involves evaluating relative values, judging relative importance, grouping judgments, and analyzing inconsistencies between judgments [15]. Following the calculation of the criteria’s weights, alternatives’ priorities, and sensitivity analysis results, decision-makers select optimal alternatives [16].

TOPSIS is represented from the viewpoint of its procedures and validation. Hwang and Yoon are credited to the proposal of this method and its use in 1981, although Yoon is accredited for its extension in 1987 [17]. The concept that is mostly associated with this approach is provision of most viable solution amongst a set of alternatives. Specificity is noted in the form of delivering the positive ideal solution, which is a hypothetical alternative with maximum benefit coupled with maximization of cost criteria [17]. This description implies that this method has strengths and drawbacks. Its advantages include clear logic through the demarcation of best and worst possible alternatives and the representation of performance evaluations with a minimum of two dimensions. These aspects of the model do not eliminate its weaknesses. These disadvantages encompass the failure to account correlation of attributes and deviation from ideal solution, which could be interpreted as a high probability to alter final outcomes [5].

A multianalysis decision framework that accounted for qualitative and quantitative data was fundamental in extending solving of complex problems. Preference ranking organization method for enrichment evaluation (PROMETHEE) was developed in 1986 [5]. Functionality of the method is in its exceptionality in guiding a multi-criteria analysis designating characteristics of simplicity and clarity not forgetting stability as well as value in outranking [18]. The idea of maximal utilization of data cannot be forgotten in affirming efficiency in the course of its operation. The results associated with the PROMETHEE are its possibility to report great outcomes as a necessary standard portraying the improvement it has made accounting additional set of alternatives [19]. The usefulness of PROMETHEE in different fields attributed to its efficiency could have proved other novelties in the subsequent 21st century.

During the twenty-first century, a series of multi-criteria models have been developed and their concepts expanded as a demonstration of their ineffectiveness or building prototypes with additional features. Of great mention in this category is the multiobjective optimization on the basis of ration analysis (MOORA) and the complex proportional assessment (COPRAS). MOORA was developed in 2006 as a robust method and consisting of independent attributed, and MOORA is a relatively simple process but with a complex calculation procedure [5]. Another vital element of this technique is its wider application, especially in the production environment, and other processes assumed to be having conflicting objectives [20]. These applications contrast the practicality of the COPRAS method despite their successful use in solving problems comprising multiobjective criteria and needing optimization. The peculiar concept of COPRAS is its utilization to rank safe regions and its preference for deterministic data [21]. COPRAS is crucial given the period of its invention. COPRAS was introduced in 2007 as a suitable method for evaluating single alternative, although this use denotes its limitation of lower stability in the context of data variation and its sensitivity to data variations eve at the slightest change [5].

In the literature, there are numerous numbers of MCDM methods. For instance, the MCDM method simple additive weighting (SAW) aims to evaluate the effectiveness of various solutions [22]. Decision-makers are crucial to the implementation of SAW since they must select the preferred weights for each criterion.

MCDM includes, also, stepwise weight assessment ratio analysis (SWARA). The SWARA method gives decision-makers the chance to select the optimum course of action based on many circumstances. The criteria needs are ranked in order of significance when employing the SWARA approach. The given criteria will be ranked by experts according to their importance [23]. For example, the most important criterion will be listed first, and the least important criterion will be included last. The SWARA technique mostly relies on experts.

Rezaei [24] introduced the MCDM technique known as the best worst method (BWM). The BWM approach has been applied by several researchers in a wide range of industries and fields [25]. It can be used to evaluate alternatives in light of the criteria and examine the applicability of the criteria that are applied when coming up with a solution to reach the main goal(s) of the problem. In comparison to other MCDM techniques, the BWM uses fewer paired comparisons and fewer data points, and it is distinguished by its reference pairwise comparison.

Another MCDM technique is called VlseKriterijuska Optimizacija I Komoromisno Resenje (VIKOR). The VIKOR method’s name, which is Serbian, can be roughly translated as “multi-criteria optimization and compromise solution” [26]. The development of this methodology was a response to Yu’s [27] first public appeal for the creation of tools for reaching a compromise solution. By outlining in detail how near each alternative is to the “ideal” hypothetical solution, the strategy implies weighing and selecting alternatives based on competing criteria.

Deng [28] developed the grey relational analysis (GRA) method for issues that needed to be resolved in a situation with a lot of uncertainty. GRA demonstrated its effectiveness in systems with insufficient information when compared to other strategies [29]. Similar to VIKOR, GRA evaluates both positive and negative ideal solutions, comparing them to various alternatives based on their “degree of grey connection” [30]. The major benefits of GRA are their reliance on actual data and their ease of use in computations [29]. The method offers a versatile procedure that could be combined with other MCDM methods.

To sum up, MCDM techniques are employed to solve complex real-world problems because of its ability to examine various alternatives and choose the best option. For instance, Kalita et al. [31] presented a comprehensive literature review on the applications of MCDM techniques for parametric optimization of nontraditional machining (NTM) processes. Kalita et al. [32] applied six popular MCDM techniques to identify the most appropriate combination of milling parameters, leading to a compromise solution with a higher material removal rate and a lower average surface roughness. Using the combined compromise solution (CoCoSo) method and the MCDM tool, Panchagnula et al. [33] investigated the ideal combination of drilling parameters by employing MCDM tool. To assess the benchmarking process of active queue management (AQM) methods of internet network congestion control, Albahri et al. [34] presented an extension of the MCDM approach called fuzzy decision by opinion score (FDOSM). An integrated MCDM tool was created by Krishnan et al. [35] for benchmarking and assessing smart e-tourism data management solutions. The integrated tool used VIKOR approach and interval type 2 trapezoidal-fuzzy weighted with zero inconsistency (IT2TR-FWZIC). The sensitivity analysis of ranking the management of e-tourism data was evaluated using 12 intelligent criteria and 31 scenarios of modifying the weight of the criterion. The researchers were interested in more current studies of how to use MCDM approaches to attack COVID-19. Comprehensive review of the integration of MCDM applications for coronavirus disease 2019 was presented by Alsalem et al. [36]. They divided the examined studies into development- and evaluation-based categories. The bulk of studies in the assessment category were medical in nature, whereas studies in the development category were more concerned with developing fresh approaches to dealing with COVID-19-related decision-making problems that were either patient- or service-based. They also discussed the shortcomings of the recent studies and their recommendations for improvements in future research. In this context, Albahri et al. [37] have extended two MCDM methods the fuzzy-weighted zero-inconsistency (FWZIC) method and fuzzy decision by opinion score method (FDOSM) under the fuzzy environment. The intriguing case study of the COVID-19 vaccination dose distribution was used to test the proposed extension of these two approaches. Albahri et al. [38] provide another extended two MCDM methods for a case study of sign language. The two methods, Pythagorean mm-polar fuzzy-weighted zero-inconsistency (Pm-PFWZIC) and Pythagorean mm-polar fuzzy decision by opinion score (Pm-PFDOSM), are designed to weigh the assessment of sign language criteria and to determine alternate rankings in a progressive manner.

3. The Proposed Methodologies

This paper proposes an extension to the two most recent MCDM techniques, MCRAT and RAPS [5]. The first proposed technique is associated with the RAPS methodology. Instead of ranking the alternatives based on the perimeter similarity that represents the ratio between the perimeter of each alternative and the optimal alternative as is the case with RAPS, the newly proposed method uses the median similarity. Thus, the proposed extension to RAPS will be named RAMS. The letter “M” refers to the word median instead of letter “P” that referred to word perimeter. RAMS scrutinizes the search space preciously towards the best rankings. Following that, the properties of both RAMS and MCRAT approaches will then be combined using the strategy index notion that is employed in VIKOR methodology. As a result, the second newly proposed technique uses the trace to median index to rank the alternatives and will be named RATMI. Figure 1 illustrates the RAMS and RATMI steps, which are further detailed as follows:

Step 1: Preparation of problem data

Construct the problem data in the form of decision-making matrix : where is a given set of alternatives and m is the total number of alternatives, is a given set of criteria and n is the total number of criteria, and is the assessment of alternative with respect to a set of criteria.

Some of the criteria should be maximized, while some should be minimized.

Step 2: Normalization of problem data

The problem data is multidimensional since each criterion is described by its dimension. Making judgments in this situation is incredibly challenging. To avoid such complications, the multidimensional decision space must be transformed into a nondimensional decision space. For the max criteria, determine the normalization in the following way: while for the min criteria where: is a set of criteria that should be maximized and is a set of criteria that should be minimized.

As a result, the normalized decision matrix will have the following form:

Step 3: Weighted normalization

Do the weighted normalization as follows for each normalized assessment : where is a weight of criterion that can be determined either from a group of experts or from using one of the MCDM tools such as the AHP technique. The sum of the weights must equal one: .

Then, the weighted normalization matrix can be formed as follows:

Step 4: Determination of optimal alternative

Determine each component of the optimal alternative as follows:

The optimal alternative is represented by the following set:

Step 5: Decomposition of the optimal alternative

Decompose the optimal alternative in the two sets or two components. where represents the total number of criteria that should be maximized and represents the total number of criteria that should be minimized.

Step 6: Decomposition of the alternative

Similarly, to step 5, decompose each alternative.

Step 7: Magnitude of component

For each component of the optimal alternative, calculate the magnitude defined by

The same approach is applied for each alternative.

From this point, the following two methods were developed to create the rank of alternatives:

Step 7.1: Ranking by alternatives trace (MCRAT)

Create the matrix composed of optimal alternative components:

Create the matrix composed of alternative components:

Create the matrix as follows:

Then, the trace of the matrix is as follows:

Alternatives are now ranked according to the descending order of .

Step 7.2: Ranking by alternatives perimeter similarity (RAPS)

Perimeter of the optimal alternative is expressed as the perimeter of the right angle. Components and represent the base and perpendicular side of this triangle, respectively.

Perimeter of each alternative is calculated the same way

Perimeter similarity represents the ratio between the perimeter of each alternative and the optimal alternative:

Alternatives are now ranked according to the descending order of .

Step 8: Ranking by alternatives median similarity (RAMS)

The median of the optimal alternative is expressed as the median of the right angle used for the RAPS technique, as portrayed in Figure 2.

Median of each alternative is calculated the same way.

Median similarity represents the ratio between the perimeter of each alternative and the optimal alternative:

Alternatives are now ranked according to the descending order of .

Step 9: Ranking the alternatives using the trace to median index (RATMI)

If is the weight of MCRAT’s strategy and the is the weight of RAMS’s strategy, then, the majority index between the two strategies is as follows: where where is a value from 0 to 1. Here,

4. Illustrative Numerical Example

This section applied the two proposed RAMS and RATMI methods using the data-driven by Moradian et al. [39] for material selection of break booster valve body in a vehicle. The criteria of selecting the materials were C1 (tensile strength), C2 (deflection temperature of the material), C3 (material’s density), and C4 (cost of the product). Table 1 shows the input decision matrix, while Tables 2 and 3 show the normalized and weighted normalized input data based on steps 1, 2, and 3, respectively, and Equations (2)–(6).

Step 4 determined the optimal alternative by applying Equations (7) and (8). Followed this step, steps 5 and 6 defined the decomposition of the optimal alternative and the decomposition of each of the alternatives by using Equations (9)–(12). The decomposition results are shown in Tables 4 and 5.

Step 6 calculates the magnitude of the optimal alternative and other alternatives using Equations (13)–(16). Values obtained within this step are shown in Table 6. The steps 7.1 and 7.2 ranked the alternatives by applying MCRAT and RAPS techniques using the Equations (17)–(23). Tables 7 and 8 show the ranking by the trace of the matrix (MCRAT) and perimeter similarity (RAPS) methods.

The two new methods RAMS and RATMI were illustrated in steps 8 and 9, respectively. From step 8, the alternatives are ranked based on the median similarity between the optimal alternatives and other alternatives by applying Equations (24)–(26). This is followed by step 9, which focuses on the majority index between MCRAT and RAMS methods by using Equation (27) with . The results of these two steps are shown in Tables 9 and 10.

5. Testing the Validity of the RAMS and RATMI Methods

For the same numerical example, Table 11 demonstrates the ranking by a variety of other MCDM methods. Figure 3 illustrates the correlation coefficient between the RAMS and RATMI methods and other methods in heat map format. From the figure, it can be concluded that the best correlation of the RAMS method is 99.7% with the RAPS method and over 96.5% with other methods. The best correlation of the RATMI method is 99.1% with each of the TOPSIS, COPRAS, and WASPAS methods, while it is over 98.5% with other methods. The correlation between RAMS and RAPS is 99.7%, and the correlation between RATMI and both MCRAT and RAMS are 98.8% and 99.1%, respectively. Figure 4 shows a comparison between the two new methods RAMS and RATMI with RAPS method. RATMI method has a strong correlation degree over the other methods, RAPS and RAMS.

Validity tests were conducted using data taken from 15 additional problems in the literature. Some details of these problems are demonstrated in Table 12. The number of criteria () ranged from 4 to 20, and the number of alternatives () ranged from 4 to 26. Table 13 compares the correlation coefficient degrees between the original RAPS methodology, the two new methods RAMS and RATMI, and seven other MCDM techniques. The following findings obtained from this comparison are as follows:

5.1. Comparison between RAMS and RAPS

(i)For problem 1, the correlection coefficient degrees between RAMS and the other seven MCDM techniques were better to RAPS correlation coefficient degrees by, on average, 0.039(ii)For problems 3-5 and 7-13, RAMS and RAPS showed identical correlation coefficient degrees with the other seven techniques(iii)For problems 2, 6, 14, and 15, the correlection coefficient degrees between RAMS and the other seven techniques were, on average, lower than RAPS correlection coefficient degrees by 0.171, 0.010, 0.071, and 0.015, respectively(iv)To sum up, in 11 out of 15 problems (73%), the correlection coefficient degrees of RAMS with the other seven MCDM approaches were superior to or equal to the correlection coefficient degrees of RAPS

5.2. Comparison between RATMI and RAMS

(i)For problems 2, 10, 14, and 15, the correlection coefficient degrees between RATMI and the other seven MCDM techniques were superior to RAMS correlection coefficient degrees by, on average, 0.171, 0.012, 0.067, and 0.013, respectively(ii)For problems 3–9 and 11–13, the RATMI and RAMS exhibited identical correlection coefficient degrees with the other seven techniques(iii)For problem 1, RAMS outperformed RATMI with an average correlection coefficient degree of 0.001(iv)To sum up, in 14 out of 15 problems (93%), the correlection coefficient degrees of RATMI with the other seven approaches were superior to or on par with the correlection coefficient degrees of RAMS

5.3. Comparison between RATMI and RAPS

(i)For problems 1 and 10, the correlection coefficient degrees between RATMI and the other seven MCDM techniques were, on average, better than RAPS correlection coefficient degrees by 0.040 and 0.005, respectively(ii)For problems 2-5, 7-9, and 11-14, the RATMI and RAPS displayed identical correlection coefficient degrees with the other seven MCDM approaches(iii)For problems 6 and 15, the correlection coefficient degrees between RAPS and the other seven MCDM techniques were, on average, better than RATMI correlection coefficient degrees by 0.010 and 0.004, respectively(iv)To sum up, in 13 out of 15 problems (87%), the correlation coefficient degrees between RATMI and the other seven approaches were superior to or on par with the correlation coefficient degrees of RAPS

Table 14 summarizes the comparison results, reported in the previous points, between the two new techniques RAMS and RATMI and the original technique RAPS. Table 14 makes it obvious that the RATMI approach is a strong rival to RAPS and RAMS. Figure 5 shows comparative results for problems 1, 2, 10, 14, and 15 in a graphical form.

6. Conclusion

The practice of using multiple criteria decision-making (MCDM) as a supporting tool is common in many branches of science and business. In real-world scenarios, the goal of MCDM tools is to assist decision-makers in selecting or ranking alternatives based on assessing and contrasting criteria. Ranking alternatives by perimeter similarity (RAPS) and multiple criteria ranking by alternative trace (MCRAT) are two current MCDM methods that are tested and used in the mining engineering industry. In addition to this, the development of new MCDM techniques is progressing slowly. Therefore, the objectives of this paper were as follows: (1) add two new MCDM techniques called RAMS and RATMI, and (2) these techniques can be applied to a variety of contexts, including education, the financial industry, construction, housing, and business.

The RAMS technique ranks alternatives based on median similarity, as an extension of RAPS. Another method was proposed by integrating the RAMS technique with the MRCAT methodology developed by Urošević et al. [5], employing a majority index and the VIKOR method’s premise. This process is known as RATMI or ranking the alternatives based on the trace to median index.

Both methodologies (RAMS and RATMI) were fully presented using a numerical example from a real-world situation of evaluating materials for the body of a break booster valve. In addition to 9 more MCDM techniques, these techniques were evaluated alongside the original RAPS and MCRAT procedures. It may be said that the best correlation between the RAMS technique and the RAPS method was 99.7%, and that it was better than 96.5% with other approaches. The best correlation of the RATMI method was 99.1% with each of the TOPSIS, COPRAS, and WASPAS methods, while it was over 98.5% with other methods. There was a 99.7% correlation between RAMS and RAPS, and 98.8% and 99.1% correlations between MCRAT and RAMS and RATMI, respectively.

The effectiveness of the proposed techniques RAMS and RATMI was compared to the other seven well-known MCDM tools, including additive ratio assessment (ARAS), simple additive weighting (SAW), technique for order of preference by similarity to ideal solution (TOPSIS), complex proportional assessment (CORPAS), VlseKriterijumska Optimizacija I Kompromisno Resenje (VIKOR), weighted aggregates sum product assessment (WASPAS), and multiobjective optimization on the basis of ratio analysis )MOORA(as well as a more recent one RAPS using fifteen tested MCDM problems taken from the literature with a number of criteria ranging from 4 to 20 and number of alternatives ranging from 4 to 26. Results revealed that for 13.3 percent and 26.7 percent of the total 15 problems, respectively, RATMI is more efficient than RAPS and RAMS. As a general remark, the proposed technique RATMI had an equivalent or better correlation coefficient degree with the RAMS technique for 93% of the investigated problems. Future research could focus on the sensitivity analysis of RATMI within different problem sizes (). The techniques can be related, in future studies, by increasing the uncertainty of problem data.

Data Availability

The data supporting the findings of this study are available within the manuscript.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

R. M. S. Abdulaal and O. A. Bafail, “A Comparative Study between GLP and GBWM,” Mathematical Problems in Engineering, vol. 2021, Article ID 5555933, 9 pages, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Ishak and B. Nainggolan, “Integration of fuzzy AHP-VIKOR methods in multi criteria decision making: literature review,” IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering, vol. 1003, no. 1, p. 012160, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Yazdani, P. Zarate, E. K. Zavadskas, and Z. Turskis, “A combined compromise solution (CoCoSo) method for multi-criteria decision-making problems,” Management Decision, vol. 57, no. 9, pp. 2501–2519, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. A. Malik, Y. Yusof, and K. M. Na’im Ku Khalif, “A view of MCDM application in education,” Journal of Physics: Conference Series, vol. 1988, no. 1, p. 12063, 2021.
View at: Google Scholar
K. Urošević, Z. Gligorić, I. Miljanović, C. Beljić, and M. Gligorić, “Novel methods in multiple criteria decision-making process (Mcrat and raps)—application in the mining industry,” Mathematics, vol. 9, no. 16, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
P. Wang, Z. Zhu, and Y. Wang, “A novel hybrid MCDM model combining the SAW, TOPSIS and GRA methods based on experimental design,” Information Sciences, vol. 345, pp. 27–45, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Z. Qu, C. Wan, Z. Yang, and P. T.-W. Lee, “A discourse of multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) approaches,” Multi-Criteria Decision Making in Maritime Studies and Logistics, Springer, pp. 7–29, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Baydaş and D. Pamučar, “Determining objective characteristics of MCDM methods under uncertainty: an exploration study with financial data,” Mathematics, vol. 10, no. 7, p. 1115, 2022.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
H. M. Arslan, “Current classification of multi criteria decision analysis methods and public sector implementations,” Current Debates in Public Finance Public Administration and Environmental Studies, vol. 13, no. 13, p. 242, 2018.
View at: Google Scholar
M. G. Yücel and A. Görener, “Decision making for company acquisition by ELECTRE method,” International Journal of Supply Chain Management, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 75–83, 2016.
View at: Google Scholar
M. Akram, H. Garg, and K. Zahid, “Extensions of ELECTRE-I and TOPSIS methods for group decision-making under complex Pythagorean fuzzy environment,” Iranian Journal of Fuzzy Systems, vol. 17, no. 5, pp. 147–164, 2020.
View at: Google Scholar
M. Akram, F. Ilyas, and H. Garg, “Multi-criteria group decision making based on ELECTRE I method in Pythagorean fuzzy information,” Soft Computing, vol. 24, no. 5, pp. 3425–3453, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
T. L. Saaty, The Analytic Hierarchy Process: Decision Making in Complex Environments BT - Quantitative Assessment in Arms Control: Mathematical Modeling and Simulation in the Analysis of Arms Control Problems, Springer US, Boston, MA, 1984.
M. S. Pakkar, “A hierarchical aggregation approach for indicators based on data envelopment analysis and analytic hierarchy process,” Systems, vol. 4, no. 1, p. 6, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
F. Sari, İ. Kandemir, D. A. Ceylan, and A. Gül, “Using AHP and PROMETHEE multi-criteria decision making methods to define suitable apiary locations,” Journal of Apicultural Research, vol. 59, no. 4, pp. 546–557, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
U. Issa, F. Saeed, Y. Miky, M. Alqurashi, and E. Osman, “Hybrid AHP-fuzzy TOPSIS approach for selecting deep excavation support system,” Buildings, vol. 12, no. 3, p. 295, 2022.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. F. de Farias Aires and L. Ferreira, “A new approach to avoid rank reversal cases in the TOPSIS method,” Computers and Industrial Engineering, vol. 132, pp. 84–97, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Ahmadi and D. Herdiawan, “The implementation of BORDA and PROMETHEE for decision making of Naval base selection,” Decision Science Letters, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 129–138, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. U. Ozsahin, B. Uzun, M. S. Musa, and I. Ozsahin, “Evaluating X-ray based medical imaging devices with fuzzy preference ranking organization method for enrichment evaluations,” International Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Applications, vol. 9, no. 3, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. D. Trung, N.-T. Nguyen, and D. Van Duc, “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, no. 2, pp. 52–65, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Hezer, E. Gelmez, and E. Özceylan, “Comparative analysis of TOPSIS, VIKOR and COPRAS methods for the COVID-19 regional safety assessment,” Journal of Infection and Public Health, vol. 14, no. 6, pp. 775–786, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
B. S. B. Sembiring, M. Zarlis, A. Agusnady, and T. Qowidho, “Comparison of SMART and SAW methods in decision making,” Journal of Physics: Conference Series, vol. 1255, no. 1, p. 12095, 2019.
View at: Google Scholar
S. Shahsavar, A. Jafari Rad, P. Afzal, N. Nezafati, and M. Akhavan Aghdam, “Prospecting for polymetallic mineralization using step-wise weight assessment ratio analysis (SWARA) and fractal modeling in Aghkand Area, NW Iran,” Arabian Journal of Geosciences, vol. 12, no. 7, pp. 1–10, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. Rezaei, “Best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method,” Omega, vol. 53, pp. 49–57, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. A. Khan, U. Ojiako, A. Marshall et al., “The critical risk factors that influence production-oriented projects in the United Arab Emirates: a ‘best-worst method’ (BWM) analysis,” Engineering Management Journal, pp. 1–17, 2022.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Akram, A. N. Al-Kenani, and J. C. R. Alcantud, “Group decision-making based on the VIKOR method with trapezoidal bipolar fuzzy information,” Symmetry, vol. 11, no. 10, p. 1313, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
P.-L. Yu, “A class of solutions for group decision problems,” Management Science, vol. 19, no. 8, pp. 936–946, 1973.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. Julong, “Introduction to grey system theory,” The Journal of Grey System, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 1–24, 1989.
View at: Google Scholar
A. A. Supçiller and S. Bayramoğlu, Wind Farm Location Selection with Interval Grey Numbers Based I-GRA and Grey EDAS Methods, Gazi University, 2020.
A. Ishak and V. Akmaliah, “Analytical hierarchy process and PROMETHEE as decision making tool: a review,” IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering, vol. 505, no. 1, p. 012085, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
K. Kalita, S. Chakraborty, R. K. Ghadai, and S. Chakraborty, “Parametric optimization of non-traditional machining processes using multi-criteria decision making techniques: literature review and future directions,” Multiscale and Multidisciplinary Modeling, Experiments and Design, pp. 1–40, 2022.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
K. Kalita, S. Madhu, M. Ramachandran, S. Chakraborty, and R. K. Ghadai, “Experimental investigation and parametric optimization of a milling process using multi-criteria decision making methods: a comparative analysis,” International Journal on Interactive Design and Manufacturing, pp. 1–15, 2022.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
K. K. Panchagnula, J. P. Sharma, K. Kalita, and S. Chakraborty, “CoCoSo method-based optimization of cryogenic drilling on multi-walled carbon nanotubes reinforced composites,” International Journal on Interactive Design and Manufacturing, pp. 1–19, 2022.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
O. S. Albahri, A. A. Zaidan, M. M. Salih et al., “Multidimensional benchmarking of the active queue management methods of network congestion control based on extension of fuzzy decision by opinion score method,” International Journal of Intelligence Systems, vol. 36, no. 2, pp. 796–831, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
E. Krishnan, R. Mohammed, A. Alnoor et al., “Interval type 2 trapezoidal-fuzzy weighted with zero inconsistency combined with VIKOR for evaluating smart e-tourism applications,” International Journal of Intelligence Systems, vol. 36, no. 9, pp. 4723–4774, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. A. Alsalem, A. H. Alamoodi, O. S. Albahri et al., “Multi-criteria decision-making for coronavirus disease 2019 applications: a theoretical analysis review,” Artificial Intelligence Review, vol. 55, no. 6, pp. 4979–5062, 2022.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. S. Albahri, O. S. Albahri, A. A. Zaidan et al., “Integration of fuzzy-weighted zero-inconsistency and fuzzy decision by opinion score methods under a q-rung orthopair environment: a distribution case study of COVID-19 vaccine doses,” Computer Standards & Interfaces, vol. 80, article 103572, 2022.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
O. S. Albahri, H. A. AlSattar, S. Garfan et al., “Combination of fuzzy-weighted zero-inconsistency and fuzzy decision by opinion score methods in pythagorean m-polar fuzzy environment: a case study of sing language recognition systems,” International Journal of Information Technology and Decision Making, pp. 1–29, 2022.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Moradian, V. Modanloo, and S. Aghaiee, “Comparative analysis of multi criteria decision making techniques for material selection of brake booster valve body,” Journal of Traffic and Transportation Engineering (English Edition), vol. 6, no. 5, pp. 526–534, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
E. K. Zavadskas and Z. Turskis, “A new additive ratio assessment (ARAS) method in multi-criteria decision‐making / NAUJAS ADITYVINIS KRITERIJŲ SANTYKIŲ ĮVERTINIMO METODAS (ARAS) DAUGIAKRITERINIAMS UŽDAVINIAMS SPRĘSTI,” Technological and Economic Development of Economy, vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 159–172, 2010.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. Stanujkic, B. Djordjevic, and M. Djordjevic, “Comparative analysis of some prominent MCDM methods: a case of ranking Serbian banks,” Serbian journal of management, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 213–241, 2013.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
G. Kecek and C. Söylemez, “Course selection in postgraduate studies through analytic hierarchy process and topsis methods,” British Journal of Economics, Finance and Management Sciences, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 142–157, 2016.
View at: Google Scholar
E. Mulliner, N. Malys, and V. Maliene, “Comparative analysis of MCDM methods for the assessment of sustainable housing affordability,” Omega, vol. 59, pp. 146–156, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Y. J. Parrangan, M. Mesran, S. Gaurifa et al., “The implementation of VIKOR method to improve the effectiveness of Sidi learning graduation,” International Journal of Engineering & Technology, vol. 7, no. 3, p. 4, 2018.
View at: Google Scholar
S. Zolfani, M. Yazdani, D. Pamucar, and P. Zarate, “A VIKOR and TOPSIS focused reanalysis of the MADM methods based on logarithmic normalization,” 2020, https://arxiv.org/abs/2006.08150.
View at: Google Scholar
K. Eyüboğlu, “Comparison the financial performances of developing countries’banking sectors with topsis method,” Sosyal Bilimler Arastirmalari Dergisi, no. 14, 2016.
View at: Google Scholar
M. Khezrian, W. M. N. W. Kadir, S. Ibrahim, and A. Kalantari, “A hybrid approach for web service selection,” International Journal of Computational Engineering Research, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 190–198, 2012.
View at: Google Scholar
J. Wątróbski, A. Bączkiewicz, E. Ziemba, and W. Sałabun, “Sustainable cities and communities assessment using the DARIA-TOPSIS method,” Sustainable Cities and Society, vol. 83, article 103926, 2022.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar

Copyright

Copyright © 2022 Reda M. S. Abdulaal and Omer A. Bafail. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

PDF Download Citation

Download other formats

Order printed copies

Views

1635

Downloads

797

Citations