Comparison of multi-criteria decision-making methods with the same normalization procedure based on real-life applications

• Autorzy: Ersoy Nazlı , Keleş Nuh

Identyfikatory

DOI

10.37190/ord240305

• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

The ranking of a set of objects defined by a single data set may vary due to differences in multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) procedures. One of these procedural differences is normalization, which is an important step in data analysis and MCDM methods. In terms of demonstrating the impact of the normalization process on the results, this study aims to compare MCDM methods with a linear normalization process. This study works on eight ranking methods (WASPAS, SECA, SAW, OWA, CODAS, MARCOS, PSI, and WPM), and three weighting methods (Entropy, EW, LOPCOW) based on three reallife applications. The study primarily explains the differences in rankings by the MCDM methods. Additionally, it is also important to demonstrate the impact of different weights on the results. The study found that the MCDM rankings obtained with the same normalization process differed, and it also observed that different criterion weights had an impact on the ranking results. This study contributes to the literature as it is the first to compare MCDM methods using linear normalization processes based on real-life applications.

Słowa kluczowe

EN

MCDM; normalization; linear normalization; decision making; comparative analysis

• Wydawca: Oficyna Wydawnicza Politechniki Wrocławskiej
• Czasopismo: Operations Research and Decisions
• Rocznik: 2024
• Tom: Vol. 34, No. 3
• Strony: 87--100
• Opis fizyczny: bibliogr. 36 poz., tab.

Twórcy

autor

Ersoy Nazlı

• Department of Business Administration, Osmaniye Korkut Ata University, Osmaniye, Turkey

• https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0011-2216

autor

Keleş Nuh

• Department of Customs Management, Faculty of Applied Sciences, Tarsus University, Mersin, Turkey

• https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6768-728X

Bibliografia

• [1] Arsu, T., and Ayçin, E. Evaluation of OECD countries with multicriteria decision-making methods in terms of economic, social and environmental aspects. Operational Research in Engineering Sciences: Theory and Applications 4, 2 (2021) 55-78.
• [2] Aytekin, A. Measurement of effectiveness, diversity and performance of leading companies in Turkey. Anadolu Üniversitesi ˙Iktisadi ve Idari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi 21, 4 (2020), 19–35 (in Turkish).
• [3] Aytekin, A. Comparative analysis of normalization techniques in the context of MCDM problems. Decision making: Applications in Management and Engineering 4, 2 (2021), 1–25.
• [4] Bouraima, M. B., Tengecha, N. A., Stević, Ž., Simić, V., and Qiu, Y. An integrated fuzzy MCDM model for prioritizing strategies for successful implementation and operation of the bus rapid transit system. Annals of Operations Research (2023), 1–32.
• [5] Budiman, E., and Hairah, U. Comparison of linear and vector data normalization techniques in decision making for learning quota assistance. Journal of Information Technology and Its Utilization 4, 1 (2021), 23–28.
• [6] Chatterjee, P., and Chakraborty, S. Investigating the effect of normalization norms in flexible manufacturing system selection using multi-criteria decision-making methods. Journal of Engineering Science & Technology Review 7, 3 (2014), 141–150.
• [7] Chen, L., and Gou, X. The application of probabilistic linguistic codas method based on new score function in multi-criteria decision-making. Computational and Applied Mathematics 41, 1 (2022), 11.
• [8] Chodha, V., Dubey, R., Kumar, R., Singh, S., and Kaur,S. Selection of industrial arc welding robot with TOPSIS and Entropy MCDM techniques. Materials Today: Proceedings 50, 5 (2022), 709–715.
• [9] Dindam, T., Srisomboon, K., and Lee, W. Investigation of MCDM on multi-parent selection for RPL protocol. In 2022 37th International Technical Conference on Circuits/Systems, Computers and Communications (ITC-CSCC) (Phuket, Thailand, 2022), IEEE, pp. 1–4.
• [10] Do, D. T., Tran V. D., Duong V. D., and Nguyen, N.-T. Investigation of the appropriate data normalization method for combination with preference selection index method in MCDM. Operational Research in Engineering Sciences: Theory and Applications 6, 1 (2023), 44–64.
• [11] Dung, H. T., Do, D. T., and Nguyen N. T. Comparison of multi-criteria decision making methods using the same data standardization method. Strojnícky ˇcasopis-Journal of Mechanical Engineering 72, 2 (2022), 57–72.
• [12] Ecer, F. A consolidated MCDM framework for performance assessment of battery electric vehicles based on ranking strategies. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 143 (2021), 110916.
• [13] Emovon, I., and Oghenenyerovwho, O. S. Application of MCDM method in material selection for optimal design: A review. Results in Materials 7 (2020), 100115.
• [14] Ersoy, N. The influence of statistical normalization techniques on performance ranking results: The application of MCDM method proposed by Biswas and Saha. International Journal of Business Analytics (IJBAN) 9, 5 (2022), 1–21.
• [15] Goswami, S. S., Mohanty, S. K., and Behera, D. K. Selection of a green renewable energy source in India with the help of MEREC integrated PIV MCDM tool. Materials Today: Proceedings 52, part 3, (2022), 1153–1160.
• [16] Ivanović, B., Saha, A., Stević, Ž., Puška, A., and Zavadskas, E. K. Selection of truck mixer concrete pump using novel MEREC DNMARCOS model. Archives of Civil and Mechanical Engineering 22, 4 (2022), 173.
• [17] Jahan, A., and Edwards, K. L. A state-of-the-art survey on the influence of normalization techniques in ranking: Improving the materials selection process in engineering design. Materials & Design (1980-2015) 65 (2015), 335–342.
• [18] Keshavarz-Ghorabaee, M., Amiri, M., Zavadskas, E. K., Turskis, Z., and Antucheviciene, J. Simultaneous evaluation of criteria and alternatives (SECA) for multi-criteria decision-making. Informatica 29, 2 (2018), 265–280.
• [19] Keshavarz Ghorabaee, M., Zavadskas, E. K., Turskis, Z., and Antucheviciene, J. A new COmbinative Distancebased ASsessment (CODAS) method for multi-criteria decision-making. Economic Computation and Economic Cybernetics Studies and Research 50, 3 (2016), 25–44.
• [20] Kosareva, N., Krylovas, A., and Zavadskas, E. K. Statistical analysis of MCDM data normalization methods using Monte Carlo approach. The case of ternary estimates matrix. Economic Computation and Economic Cybernetics Studies and Research 52, 4 (2018), 159–175.
• [21] Lee, H.-C., and Chang, C.-T. Comparative analysis of MCDM methods for ranking renewable energy sources in Taiwan. Renewable and sustainable energy reviews 92 (2018), 883–896.
• [22] Liu, Y., and Ye, M. Application and validity analysis of IoT in smart city based on entropy method. Applied Artificial Intelligence 37, 1 (2023), 2166234.
• [23] Maniya, K. D., and Bhatt, M. G. An alternative multiple attribute decision making methodology for solving optimal facility layout design selection problems. Computers & Industrial Engineering 61, 3 (2011), 542–549.
• [24] Mhlanga, S. T., and Lall, M. Influence of normalization techniques on multi-criteria decision-making methods. In Journal of Physics: Conference Series 2224 (2022), 012076.
• [25] Paradowski, B., Kizielewicz, B., Shekhovtsov, A., and Sałabun, W. The Iterative Compromise Ranking Analysis (ICRA) -the new approach to make reliable decisions. In Special Sessions in the Advances in Information Systems and Technologies Track of the Conference on Computer Science and Intelligence Systems (Cham, 2022), E. Ziemba, W. Chmielarz and J. Wątróbski, Eds., vol. 471 of Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing, Springer, pp. 151–170.
• [26] Prabhu, S. R., Ilangkumaran, M., and Mohanraj, T. 3D printing of automobile spoilers using MCDM techniques. Materials Testing 62, 11 (2020), 1121–1125.
• [27] Puška, A., Nedeljković, M., Šarkoćević, Ž., Golubović, Z., Ristić, V., and Stojanović, I. Evaluation of agricultural machinery using multi-criteria analysis methods. Sustainability 14, 14 (2022), 8675.
• [28] Sałabun, W., and Urbaniak, K. A new coefficient of rankings similarity in decision-making problems. In Computational Science–ICCS 2020: 20th International Conference, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, June 3–5, 2020, Proceedings, Part II (2020), V. V. Krzhizhanovskaya, G. Závodszky, M. H. Lees, J. J. Dongarra, P. M. A. Sloot, S. Brissos and J. Teixeira, Eds., Springer, pp. 632–645.
• [29] Sarraf, R., and McGuire, M. P. Effect of normalization on TOPSIS and Fuzzy TOPSIS. Proceedings of the Conference on Information Systems Applied Research 14 (2021), 5551.
• [30] Triantaphyllou, E., and Sánchez, A. A sensitivity analysis approach for some deterministic multi-criteria decision-making methods. Decision Sciences 28, 1 (1997), 151–194.
• [31] Trung, D. Expanding data normalization method to CODAS method for multi-criteria decision making. Applied Engineering Letters 7, 2 (2022), 54–66.
• [32] Trung, D. D., and 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 (2021), 443–456.
• [33] Tuş, A., and Aytaç Adalı, E. The new combination with CRITIC and WASPAS methods for the time and attendance software selection problem. Opsearch 56 (2019), 528–538.
• [34] Vafaei, N., Ribeiro, R. A., and Camarinha-Matos, L. M. Selecting normalization techniques for the analytical hierarchy process. In Technological Innovation for Life Improvement: 11th IFIP WG 5.5/SOCOLNET Advanced Doctoral Conference on Computing, Electrical and Industrial Systems, DoCEIS 2020 (Cham, 2020), L. M. Camarinha-Matos, N. Farhadi, F. Lopes and H. Pereira, Eds., vol. 577 of IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology, Springer, pp. 43–52.
• [35] Zavadskas, E. K., and Turskis, Z. Multiple criteria decision making (MCDM) methods in economics: an overview. Technological and Economic Development of Economy 17, 2 (2011), 397–427.
• [36] Zavadskas, E. K., Turskis, Z., Antucheviciene, J., and Zakarevicius, A. Optimization of weighted aggregated sum product assessment. Elektronika ir Elektrotechnika 122, 6 (2012), 3–6.

Uwagi

Opracowanie rekordu ze środków MNiSW, umowa nr POPUL/SP/0154/2024/02 w ramach programu "Społeczna odpowiedzialność nauki II" - moduł: Popularyzacja nauki (2025).