1 Introduction
-
1. The satisfaction functions are employed in the decision-making process whereby the IRPA method is more reasonable and efficient in addressing the reference sets of the alternatives in terms of all criteria. In this way, it is aimed to adapt the nonlinear relationship approach of the satisfaction function to MCDM. The similarity of the reference set approach in MCDM methods and the threshold value approaches in the satisfaction function are discussed. It is assumed that the satisfaction level of the decision-maker increases non-linearly after the threshold values. The reference set approach is essential for maximising the level of utility that the decision-maker can obtain. The decision-maker will obtain more realistic solutions to the decision-making problems in daily life with the reference set approach.
-
2. The decision-maker can specify any value between the maximum and minimum values as the reference set. Two versions of the IRPA method are employed by changing the reference set of the criteria. On one of them, the averages are taken as the reference set. Conversely, the reference set is determined as maximum or minimum values according to the criteria characteristics. In this way, it is aimed to show the effects of reference set changes in alternative rankings. Different reference set versions are compared with other methods. In addition, different versions of the methods with the reference set approach in the literature are compared with the IRPA method. In this way, the superiority of the reference set approach of the IRPA method is analysed.
-
3. The number of decision problems of different sizes generated through simulation to compare methods is relatively high. To the best of our knowledge, this study is the first in the MCDM literature to assess the applicability of the proposed method to such a large number of decision problems. There are studies in the literature comparing MCDM methods. The number of decision matrices created by simulation will be an example for similar studies. Comparisons with a large number of decision problems are more generalisable than compared with a small number of decision problems. In this way, the advantages of the methods can be compared better. The results of the simulation application show the similarity of the IRPA method with other methods and the superiority of the reference set approach.
-
4. This study is a powerful alternative to traditional decision-making methods to solve decision problems more effectively. Decision-makers can make more appropriate decisions for themselves with the reference set approach. Decision-makers can model that they can benefit more from values close to the reference set values with the IRPA method. Decision-makers can think of reference values as threshold values. The benefit of values greater or less than the reference values will not be linear; however, the methods with reference set approach in the literature deal with this relationship linearly. Obtaining the reference value is the primary goal of the decision-maker. For the benefit criterion, the same amount of increase or decrease of the reference value will not be the same benefit or cost to the decision maker. In other words, reaching the reference value is more important for the decision-maker than the amount exceeding the reference value. This approach is mathematically modelled for the decision-maker with the IRPA method.
2 Integrative Reference Point Approach
2.1 Satisfaction Function
Table 1
Method(s) | Brief description about studies |
Taguchi method | Process performance optimization with multiple quality responses (Al-Refaie, 2014), machine performance optimization with fuzzy inference system (Abhishek et al., 2017), weld variables optimization (Bandhu et al., 2021), alloy materials optimization (Sharma et al., 2022). |
Goal programming | Portfolio management (Mansour et al., 2007), quality control system design (Cherif et al., 2008), modelling the decision-maker preferences (Aouni et al., 2009), location selection for fire and emergency service facilities (Kanoun et al., 2010), risk management and optimal portfolio diversification (Maggis and La Torre, 2012), reproduction planning (Mezghani and Loukil, 2012), planning the investments for the sustainability targets of the sectors (Jayaraman et al., 2015), sustainable development management (Nechi et al., 2020; Ali et al., 2021), lake pollution control (Cheng et al., 2022), evaluation of patient flow and reducing waiting time (Ltaif et al., 2022). |
Stochastic goal programming | Modelling decision-maker preferences (Aouni et al., 2005), solutions to media selection and planning problems (Aouni et al., 2012), making a venture capital investment decision (Aouni et al., 2013), strategic planning for sustainable development decisions (Jayaraman et al., 2017). |
Other methods | Ordering fuzzy values (Lee et al., 1994), taking into account the decision-maker preferences with fuzzy goal programming (Martel and Aouni, 1996), solution of scheduling flow problem with compromise programming (Allouche et al., 2009), minimizing the waiting time for flow shop scheduling problems with genetic algorithm (Keskin and Engin, 2021), inventory classification with scatter search algorithm with multi-objective optimization (Saracoglu, 2022). |
2.2 Application Steps of Integrative Reference Point Approach Method
(2)
\[ X=\left[\begin{array}{c@{\hskip4.0pt}c@{\hskip4.0pt}c}{x_{11}}& \cdots & {x_{1n}}\\ {} \vdots & \ddots & \vdots \\ {} {x_{m1}}& \cdots & {x_{mn}}\end{array}\right],\hspace{1em}(i=1,2,3,\dots ,m;\hspace{2.5pt}j=1,2,\dots ,n),\](3)
\[ RP={[r{p_{j}}]_{1\times n}}=\left[\begin{array}{c@{\hskip4.0pt}c@{\hskip4.0pt}c@{\hskip4.0pt}c}r{p_{1}}& r{p_{2}}& \cdots & r{p_{n}}\end{array}\right].\](4)
\[ N={[{n_{ij}}]_{m\times n}}=\left[\begin{array}{c@{\hskip4.0pt}c@{\hskip4.0pt}c}{n_{11}}& \cdots & {n_{1n}}\\ {} \vdots & \ddots & \vdots \\ {} {n_{m1}}& \cdots & {n_{mn}}\end{array}\right],\](6)
\[ \textit{NRP}={[nr{p_{j}}]_{1\times n}}=\left[\begin{array}{c@{\hskip4.0pt}c@{\hskip4.0pt}c@{\hskip4.0pt}c}nr{p_{1}}& nr{p_{2}}& \cdots & nr{p_{1n}}\end{array}\right],\](8)
\[ DF={[d{f_{ij}}]_{m\times n}}=\left[\begin{array}{c@{\hskip4.0pt}c@{\hskip4.0pt}c}d{f_{11}}& \cdots & d{f_{1n}}\\ {} \vdots & \ddots & \vdots \\ {} d{f_{m1}}& \cdots & d{f_{mn}}\end{array}\right],\](10)
\[\begin{aligned}{}& D{F^{+}}={\big[d{f_{ij}^{+}}\big]_{m\times n}}=\left[\begin{array}{c@{\hskip4.0pt}c@{\hskip4.0pt}c}d{f_{11}^{+}}& \cdots & d{f_{1n}^{+}}\\ {} \vdots & \ddots & \vdots \\ {} d{f_{m1}^{+}}& \cdots & d{f_{mn}^{+}}\end{array}\right],\end{aligned}\](11)
\[\begin{aligned}{}& d{f_{ij}^{+}}=\left\{\begin{array}{l@{\hskip4.0pt}l}\frac{d{f_{ij}}}{nr{p_{j}}},\hspace{1em}& d{f_{ij}}\gt 0,\\ {} 0,\hspace{1em}& d{f_{ij}}\leqslant 0,\end{array}\right.\end{aligned}\](12)
\[\begin{aligned}{}& d{f_{ij}^{+}}=\left\{\begin{array}{l@{\hskip4.0pt}l}0,\hspace{1em}& d{f_{ij}}\geqslant 0,\\ {} \Big|\frac{d{f_{ij}}}{nr{p_{j}}}\Big|,\hspace{1em}& d{f_{ij}}\lt 0,\end{array}\right.\end{aligned}\](13)
\[\begin{aligned}{}& D{F^{-}}={\big[d{f_{ij}^{-}}\big]_{m\times n}}=\left[\begin{array}{c@{\hskip4.0pt}c@{\hskip4.0pt}c}d{f_{11}^{-}}& \cdots & d{f_{1n}^{-}}\\ {} \vdots & \ddots & \vdots \\ {} d{f_{m1}^{-}}& \cdots & d{f_{mn}^{-}}\end{array}\right],\end{aligned}\](16)
\[\begin{aligned}{}& {\textit{WDF}^{+}}={\big[wd{f_{ij}^{+}}\big]_{m\times n}}=\left[\begin{array}{c@{\hskip4.0pt}c@{\hskip4.0pt}c}wd{f_{11}^{+}}& \cdots & wd{f_{1n}^{+}}\\ {} \vdots & \ddots & \vdots \\ {} wd{f_{m1}^{+}}& \cdots & wd{f_{mn}^{+}}\end{array}\right],\end{aligned}\](17)
\[\begin{aligned}{}& wd{f_{ij}^{+}}={\big({w_{j}}\times D{F^{+}}\big)^{(1-{w_{j}})}},\end{aligned}\](20)
\[\begin{aligned}{}& PD={[p{d_{i}}]_{m\times 1}}=\left[\begin{array}{c}p{d_{1}}\\ {} p{d_{2}}\\ {} \vdots \\ {} p{d_{m}}\end{array}\right],\end{aligned}\](24)
\[ RV={[r{v_{i}}]_{m\times 1}}=\left[\begin{array}{c}r{v_{1}}\\ {} r{v_{2}}\\ {} \vdots \\ {} r{v_{m}}\end{array}\right],\]3 Numerical Applications
-
• An example taken from the literature is solved with the IRPA method.
-
• Decision problems of different sizes are generated by simulation analysis, and the performance of the IRPA method is tested.
-
• The computer selection problem encountered daily is addressed, and a solution is sought with the IRPA method.
3.1 Case Study Adopted From Literature
Table 2
Alternatives | Criteria | ||||||
C1 | C2 | C3 | C4 | C5 | C6 | C7 | |
A1 | 23 | 264 | 2.37 | 0.05 | 167 | 8900 | 8.71 |
A2 | 20 | 220 | 2.2 | 0.04 | 171 | 9100 | 8.23 |
A3 | 17 | 231 | 1.98 | 0.15 | 192 | 10800 | 9.91 |
A4 | 12 | 210 | 1.73 | 0.2 | 195 | 12300 | 10.21 |
A5 | 15 | 243 | 2 | 0.14 | 187 | 12600 | 9.34 |
A6 | 14 | 222 | 1.89 | 0.13 | 180 | 13200 | 9.22 |
A7 | 21 | 262 | 2.43 | 0.06 | 160 | 10300 | 8.93 |
A8 | 20 | 256 | 2.6 | 0.07 | 163 | 11400 | 8.44 |
A9 | 19 | 266 | 2.1 | 0.06 | 157 | 11200 | 9.04 |
A10 | 8 | 218 | 1.94 | 0.11 | 190 | 13400 | 10.11 |
Table 3
Weight sets | Criteria weights | ||||||
C1 | C2 | C3 | C4 | C5 | C6 | C7 | |
Set 1 | 0.25 | 0.214 | 0.179 | 0.143 | 0.107 | 0.071 | 0.036 |
Set 2 | 0.182 | 0.212 | 0.182 | 0.152 | 0.121 | 0.091 | 0.061 |
Set 3 | 0.139 | 0.167 | 0.194 | 0.167 | 0.139 | 0.111 | 0.083 |
Set 4 | 0.108 | 0.135 | 0.162 | 0.189 | 0.162 | 0.135 | 0.108 |
Set 5 | 0.083 | 0.111 | 0.139 | 0.167 | 0.194 | 0.167 | 0.139 |
Set 6 | 0.061 | 0.091 | 0.121 | 0.152 | 0.182 | 0.212 | 0.182 |
Set 7 | 0.036 | 0.071 | 0.107 | 0.143 | 0.179 | 0.214 | 0.25 |
Set 8 | 0.143 | 0.143 | 0.143 | 0.143 | 0.143 | 0.143 | 0.143 |
-
• In ARAS, GRA, MOORA-II, and DNBMA methods, the reference sets are determined as the maximum and minimum values of the benefit and cost criteria, respectively.
-
• In the GRA method, the xi value (ξ) is 0.5.
-
• In the TODIM method, the theta value (θ) is 1.
-
• In the VIKOR method, the v value is 0.5.
-
• In the WASPAS method, the lambda value (λ) is 0.5.
-
• In the RIM method, reference set ranges have been tested as 5%, 10%, and 20%. The 10% range value is chosen as the reference set range since it gives the highest correlation with other methods. Accordingly, the maximum and 90% of the maximum values are used as reference set ranges for the benefit criteria, and the minimum and 110% of the minimum values are used as reference set ranges for the cost criteria.
-
• In the CODAS method, the threshold value (τ) is 0.02.
-
• In the DNBMA method, the phi coefficient (ϕ) is 0.5.
-
• In the IRPA method, the reference sets are taken as averages and shown as “IRPA (Avg)”. Secondly, the reference sets are taken as the maximum and minimum values, and this version is similarly named “IRPA (Min/Max)” in the current study.
Table 4
Alternatives | Weight sets | |||||||
Set1 | Set2 | Set3 | Set4 | Set5 | Set6 | Set7 | Set8 | |
A1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
A2 | 5 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 3 |
A3 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 |
A4 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 |
A5 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 8 | 7 |
A6 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 7 | 8 |
A7 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 2 |
A8 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 |
A9 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 |
A10 | 9 | 9 | 9 | 9 | 9 | 9 | 9 | 9 |
Table 5
Alternatives | Weight sets | |||||||
Set1 | Set2 | Set3 | Set4 | Set5 | Set6 | Set7 | Set8 | |
A1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 |
A2 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 |
A3 | 7 | 9 | 9 | 9 | 9 | 9 | 9 | 9 |
A4 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 |
A5 | 6 | 6 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 7 |
A6 | 8 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 6 | 6 |
A7 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 |
A8 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 4 | 4 |
A9 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 5 | 5 |
A10 | 9 | 8 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 7 | 8 |
Table 6
Method | Correlation means | Sensitivity | Method | Correlation means | Sensitivity |
MOORA II | 0.9437 | Highest | IRPA (Avg) | 0.9896 | Middle |
VIKOR | 0.9619 | Very High | MOORA I | 0.9913 | Low |
RIM | 0.9654 | Very High | EDAS | 0.9913 | Low |
DNBMA | 0.9688 | Very High | SAW | 0.9931 | Low |
GRA | 0.9688 | Very High | CODAS | 0.9948 | Very Low |
TOPSIS | 0.9706 | High | WASPAS | 0.9948 | Very Low |
IRPA (Min/Max) | 0.9758 | High | ARAS | 0.9965 | Lowest |
MAIRCA | 0.981 | Middle | TODIM | 0.9965 | Lowest |
COPRAS | 0.9879 | Middle | – | – | – |
Table 7
Method | Mean | Ranking | Method | Mean | Ranking |
ARAS | 0.9524 | 8 | IRPA (Min/Max) | 0.8978 | 17 |
CODAS | 0.9466 | 10 | IRPA (Avg) | 0.959 | 3 |
COPRAS | 0.9586 | 4 | RIM | 0.9387 | 13 |
DNBMA | 0.9433 | 12 | SAW | 0.9535 | 7 |
EDAS | 0.9621 | 2 | TODIM | 0.955 | 5 |
GRA | 0.9498 | 9 | TOPSIS | 0.9144 | 15 |
MAIRCA | 0.9449 | 11 | VIKOR | 0.9324 | 14 |
MOORA I | 0.9626 | 1 | WASPAS | 0.9541 | 6 |
MOORA II | 0.9013 | 16 | – | – | – |
3.1.1 Rank Reversal Problem
-
• In the first approach, alternatives are sequentially excluded from the analysis. The rankings of the remaining alternatives are compared with the previous ranking.
-
• In the second approach, each alternative is removed from the analysis respectively, and the rankings of the remaining nine alternatives are obtained.
Table 8
Alternatives | Extracted alternative | ||||||||
All | ${A_{1}}$ | ${A_{2}}$ | ${A_{3}}$ | ${A_{4}}$ | ${A_{5}}$ | ${A_{6}}$ | ${A_{7}}$ | ${A_{8}}$ | |
${A_{1}}$ | 1 | ||||||||
${A_{2}}$ | 3 | 2 | |||||||
${A_{3}}$ | 6 | 5 | 4 | ||||||
${A_{4}}$ | 10 | 9 | 8 | 7 | |||||
${A_{5}}$ | 7 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 4 | ||||
${A_{6}}$ | 8 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 5 | 4 | |||
${A_{7}}$ | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||
${A_{8}}$ | 4 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | |
${A_{9}}$ | 5 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 1 |
${A_{10}}$ | 9 | 8 | 7 | 6 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 |
Table 9
Alternatives | Extracted alternative | ||||||||||
All | ${A_{1}}$ | ${A_{2}}$ | ${A_{3}}$ | ${A_{4}}$ | ${A_{5}}$ | ${A_{6}}$ | ${A_{7}}$ | ${A_{8}}$ | ${A_{9}}$ | ${A_{10}}$ | |
${A_{1}}$ | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |
${A_{2}}$ | 3 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 3 | |
${A_{3}}$ | 6 | 5 | 5 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 6 | |
${A_{4}}$ | 10 | 9 | 9 | 9 | 9 | 9 | 9 | 9 | 9 | 9 | |
${A_{5}}$ | 7 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 7 | 7 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 7 | |
${A_{6}}$ | 8 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 8 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 8 | |
${A_{7}}$ | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | |
${A_{8}}$ | 4 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 4 | 4 | |
${A_{9}}$ | 5 | 4 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 4 | 4 | 5 | |
${A_{10}}$ | 9 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 9 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 |
3.2 Simulation
3.2.1 Comparative Analysis with the Spearman Correlation Coefficient
Table 10
Method | Mean | Ranking | Method | Mean | Ranking |
ARAS | 0.7102 | 14 | IRPA (Min/Max) | 0.4432 | 17 |
CODAS | 0.7193 | 13 | IRPA (Avg) | 0.826 | 2 |
COPRAS | 0.8147 | 5 | RIM | 0.8003 | 8 |
DNBMA | 0.8004 | 7 | SAW | 0.7561 | 11 |
EDAS | 0.8255 | 3 | TODIM | 0.4687 | 16 |
GRA | 0.7925 | 9 | TOPSIS | 0.8021 | 6 |
MAIRCA | 0.8201 | 4 | VIKOR | 0.7333 | 12 |
MOORA I | 0.8288 | 1 | WASPAS | 0.783 | 10 |
MOORA II | 0.4884 | 15 | – | – | – |
Table 11
Method | Similarity | |
The most | The least | |
ARAS | WASPAS, SAW & CODAS | TODIM, IRPA (Min/Max) & MOORA II |
CODAS | SAW, WASPAS & ARAS | TODIM, MOORA II & IRPA (Min/Max) |
COPRAS | EDAS, MOORA I & IRPA (Avg) | TODIM, IRPA (Min/Max) & MOORA II |
DNBMA | MAIRCA, RIM & MOORA I | MOORA II, IRPA (Min/Max) & TODIM |
EDAS | MOORA I, IRPA (Avg) & COPRAS | MOORA II, IRPA (Min/Max) & TODIM |
GRA | MAIRCA, MOORA I & IRPA (Avg) | TODIM, IRPA (Min/Max) & MOORA II |
MAIRCA | MOORA I, IRPA (Avg) & EDAS | TODIM, MOORA II & IRPA (Min/Max) |
MOORA I | EDAS, IRPA (Avg) & MAIRCA | MOORA II, TODIM & IRPA (Min/Max) |
MOORA II | VIKOR, DNBMA & TOPSIS | ARAS, IRPA (Min/Max) & TODIM |
IRPA (Min/Max) | EDAS, MOORA I & COPRAS | CODAS, MOORA II & TODIM |
IRPA (Avg) | EDAS, MOORA I & COPRAS | MOORA II, IRPA (Min/Max) & TODIM |
RIM | DNBMA, TOPSIS & IRPA (Avg) | MOORA II, IRPA (Min/Max) & TODIM |
SAW | WASPAS, CODAS & ARAS | TODIM, MOORA II & IRPA (Min/Max) |
TODIM | WASPAS, SAW & MAIRCA | VIKOR, IRPA (Min/Max) & MOORA II |
TOPSIS | IRPA(Avg), EDAS & MOORA I | MOORA II, IRPA (Min/Max) & TODIM |
VIKOR | DNBMA, RIM & MAIRCA | ARAS, IRPA (Min/Max) & TODIM |
WASPAS | SAW, CODAS & ARAS | TODIM, MOORA II & IRPA (Min/Max) |
3.2.2 Comparative Analysis with the Pearson Correlation Coefficients
Table 12
Method | Mean | Ranking | Method | Mean | Ranking |
ARAS | 0.4699 | 14 | IRPA (Min/Max) | 0.2942 | 17 |
CODAS | 0.6198 | 13 | IRPA (Avg) | 0.7911 | 1 |
COPRAS | 0.7858 | 5 | RIM | 0.7783 | 6 |
DNBMA | 0.7498 | 9 | SAW | 0.6957 | 11 |
EDAS | 0.7905 | 3 | TODIM | 0.3902 | 15 |
GRA | 0.7688 | 8 | TOPSIS | 0.7776 | 7 |
MAIRCA | 0.7900 | 4 | VIKOR | 0.6890 | 12 |
MOORA I | 0.7909 | 2 | WASPAS | 0.7363 | 10 |
MOORA II | 0.3435 | 16 | – | – | – |
3.3 Computer Selection Problem
-
• Goswami et al. (2022): Processor, RAM, Screen Size, Storage Capacity, Brand, Operating System, Color;
-
• Doğan and Borat (2021): Processor Speed, Ram Capacity, Warranty Period, Hard Disk Capacity, Cost, and the Number of Service Networks;
-
• Sönmez Çakır and Pekkaya (2020): Price, Processor Speed, RAM Speed, Card Speed, RAM Capacity, HDD/SDD Capacity, Graphics Card-Memory, Processor-cache, Resolution, Size, Touch Screen, Other, Ports, Weight, Battery Properties, Drivers, Service Quality, Design, Eco-friendly, Hardware Quality, Durability;
-
• Mitra and Goswami (2019): Processor, Brand, Screen Size, Hard Disk Capacity, RAM;
-
• Aytaç Adalı and Tuş Işık (2017): Processor Speed, Cache Memory, Storage/Hard Drive, Display Card Memory, RAM, Screen Resolution, Screen Size, Brand Reliability, Weight, Cost;
-
• Lakshmi et al. (2015): Cost, Specification, Warranty, Size, Battery Life, With or Without OS, Weight, Keyboard and Touchpad, WiFi;
-
• Pekkaya and Aktogan (2014): Processor Type, Processor Speed, Hard Drive Speed, Part Quality, Design, Technical Service, Hard Drive, RAM, Graphics Card, Resolution, Sizes, Card Reader, Battery, CD/DVD, Camera, Weight, USB Port, Cost;
-
• Srichetta and Thurachon (2012): Hard Disk Capacity, RAM Capacity, CPU Speed, Monitor Resolution, Weight, Price, Durability, Beauty;
-
• Kasim et al. (2011): Processor, Hard Drive, Price, Memory, Size, Weight;
-
• Sumi and Kabir (2010): Memory Capacity, Graphics Capacity, Size and Weight, Price.
Table 13
Author | Method | Weighting |
Goswami et al. (2022) | ARAS, COPRAS | SMART1, SWARA2 |
Doğan and Borat (2021) | TOPSIS | AHP3 |
Sönmez Çakır and Pekkaya (2020) | – | DEMATEL, AHP & Fuzzy AHP |
Mitra and Goswami (2019) | TOPSIS | AHP |
Aytaç Adalı and Tuş Işık (2017) | MOOSRA4, MULTIMOORA5 | AHP |
Lakshmi et al. (2015) | TOPSIS | – |
Pekkaya and Aktogan (2014) | DEA6, TOPSIS, VIKOR | AHP, AHP-DEA |
Srichetta and Thurachon (2012) | Fuzzy AHP | Fuzzy AHP |
Kasim et al. (2011) | SAW | ROC7 |
Sumi and Kabir (2010) | AHP | AHP |
Table 14
Alternative | Criteria | |||||
C1 | C2 | C3 | C4 | C5 | C6 | |
A1 | 6864.35 | 1.8 | 8 | 256 | 2 | 14 |
A2 | 9298.99 | 2.2 | 16 | 512 | 6 | 17.3 |
A3 | 9796.62 | 1.8 | 16 | 512 | 2 | 13.3 |
A4 | 9583.66 | 1.8 | 16 | 1024 | 2 | 14 |
A5 | 7299 | 1.8 | 8 | 512 | 2 | 14 |
A6 | 7699 | 2.6 | 8 | 256 | 4 | 15.6 |
A7 | 8558.15 | 1.8 | 16 | 256 | 2 | 13.3 |
A8 | 9999 | 2.6 | 16 | 512 | 6 | 15.6 |
A9 | 8899 | 1.8 | 8 | 512 | 2 | 13.3 |
A10 | 8023.87 | 2.6 | 8 | 256 | 4 | 15.6 |
A11 | 8331.94 | 2.2 | 8 | 256 | 4 | 15.6 |
A12 | 7047.69 | 1.8 | 8 | 256 | 2 | 14 |
A13 | 7651.86 | 2.2 | 8 | 1024 | 4 | 17.3 |
A14 | 9735.88 | 1.8 | 16 | 512 | 2 | 14 |
3.3.1 Comparative Analysis of Computer Selection Problem with All Methods
Table 15
Alternative | Method | ||||||||||||||||
ARAS | CODAS | COPRAS | DNBMA | EDAS | GRA | MAIRCA | MOORA I | MOORA II | IRPA (Min/Max) | IRPA (Avg) | RIM | SAW | TODIM | TOPSIS | VIKOR | WASPAS | |
A1 | 13 | 12 | 13 | 12 | 13 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 11.5 | 12 | 13 | 12.5 | 12 | 13 | 13 | 12 | 13 |
A2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2.5 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 |
A3 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 10 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 8 | 6 | 9 | 9 | 11 | 8 | 10 | 6 | 10 | 8 |
A4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 6 | 4 | 4 | 6 | 4 | 6 | 4 | 4 | 7 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 6 | 4 |
A5 | 10 | 11 | 10 | 11 | 10 | 13 | 11 | 10 | 6 | 11 | 10 | 10 | 11 | 9 | 11 | 11 | 10 |
A6 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 4 | 5 | 11.5 | 5 | 5 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 7 | 4 | 5 |
A7 | 11 | 9 | 11 | 9 | 11 | 8 | 9 | 11 | 11.5 | 10 | 11 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 10 | 9 | 11 |
A8 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2.5 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 2 |
A9 | 12 | 14 | 12 | 14 | 12 | 14 | 14 | 12 | 6 | 14 | 12 | 14 | 13 | 12 | 12 | 14 | 12 |
A10 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 5 | 6 | 6 | 5 | 6 | 11.5 | 6 | 6 | 5 | 6 | 6 | 8 | 5 | 6 |
A11 | 9 | 10 | 9 | 7 | 9 | 10 | 7 | 9 | 11.5 | 7 | 8 | 6 | 9 | 7 | 9 | 7 | 9 |
A12 | 14 | 13 | 14 | 13 | 14 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 11.5 | 13 | 14 | 12.5 | 14 | 14 | 14 | 13 | 14 |
A13 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 3 |
A14 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 8 | 7 | 7 | 8 | 7 | 6 | 8 | 7 | 8 | 7 | 8 | 5 | 8 | 7 |
Table 16
Method | Mean | Ranking | Method | Mean | Ranking |
ARAS | 0.9486 | 6.5 | IRPA (Min/Max) | 0.9439 | 8 |
CODAS | 0.9392 | 9 | IRPA (Avg) | 0.9516 | 1 |
COPRAS | 0.9486 | 6.5 | RIM | 0.8993 | 16 |
DNBMA | 0.9278 | 12 | SAW | 0.9500 | 5 |
EDAS | 0.9509 | 3 | TODIM | 0.9386 | 10 |
GRA | 0.9123 | 14 | TOPSIS | 0.9050 | 15 |
MAIRCA | 0.9278 | 12 | VIKOR | 0.9278 | 12 |
MOORA I | 0.9509 | 3 | WASPAS | 0.9509 | 3 |
MOORA II | 0.6129 | 17 | – | – | – |
3.3.2 Comparative Analysis of Computer Selection Problem with Methods Considering Reference Set Approach
Table 17
Method | ARAS | DNBMA | GRA | MOORA – II | IRPA | RIM | |||||||
Reference set | A | B | A | B | A | B | A | B | A | B | C | A | B |
A1 | 13 | 13 | 12 | 3 | 11 | 11 | 11.5 | 7.5 | 12 | 13 | 11 | 12.5 | 1.5 |
A2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 11 | 1 | 8 | 2.5 | 11.5 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 13.5 |
A3 | 8 | 8 | 10 | 9 | 9 | 7 | 6 | 3.5 | 9 | 9 | 6 | 11 | 9 |
A4 | 4 | 4 | 6 | 13 | 4 | 14 | 6 | 13.5 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 7 | 9 |
A5 | 10 | 10 | 11 | 5 | 13 | 3 | 6 | 1.5 | 11 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 3 |
A6 | 5 | 5 | 4 | 10 | 5 | 9 | 11.5 | 7.5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 4 | 6.5 |
A7 | 11 | 11 | 9 | 6 | 8 | 4 | 11.5 | 7.5 | 10 | 11 | 7 | 9 | 4.5 |
A8 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 14 | 2 | 13 | 2.5 | 11.5 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 13.5 |
A9 | 12 | 12 | 14 | 4 | 14 | 2 | 6 | 1.5 | 14 | 12 | 14 | 14 | 4.5 |
A10 | 6 | 6 | 5 | 8 | 6 | 6 | 11.5 | 7.5 | 6 | 6 | 8 | 5 | 6.5 |
A11 | 9 | 9 | 7 | 2 | 10 | 1 | 11.5 | 7.5 | 7 | 8 | 12 | 6 | 12 |
A12 | 14 | 14 | 13 | 1 | 12 | 10 | 11.5 | 7.5 | 13 | 14 | 13 | 12.5 | 1.5 |
A13 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 12 | 3 | 12 | 1 | 13.5 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 2 | 11 |
A14 | 7 | 7 | 8 | 7 | 7 | 5 | 6 | 3.5 | 8 | 7 | 9 | 8 | 9 |
-
• In the ARAS method, there is no change in the rankings as the reference set varies.
-
• The rankings of DNBMA and RIM methods showed extreme variability, and the correlation values between the different versions of the methods are −0.7843 and −0.7312, respectively.
-
• The rankings between different versions of GRA and MOORA – II methods are varied at a high level, and the correlation values of these methods are −0.5743 and −0.1447, respectively.
-
• The IRPA is the method in which the different reference sets have the lowest effects on the rankings. The maximum correlation value between different versions of IRPA method is 0.8644.