American Journal of Information Systems, 2013, Vol. 1, No.

1, 31-43
Available online at http://pubs.sciepub.com/ajis/1/1/5
© Science and Education Publishing
DOI:10.12691/ajis-1-1-5

A Survey on Multi Criteria Decision Making Methods

and Its Applications
Martin Aruldoss1,*, T. Miranda Lakshmi2, V. Prasanna Venkatesan1

Department of Banking Technology, Pondicherry University, Puducherry, India

1

2
Department of Computer Science, Research and Development Centre, Bharathiyar University, Coimbatore, India
*Corresponding author: jayamartin@yahoo.com, cudmartin@gmail.com

Received January 08, 2013; Revised July 15, 2013; Accepted December 15, 2013

Abstract Multi Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) provides strong decision making in domains where
selection of best alternative is highly complex. This survey paper reviews the main streams of consideration in
multi criteria decision making theory and practice in detail. The main purpose is to identify various applications
and the approaches, and to suggest approaches which are most robustly and effectively useable to identify best
alternative. This survey work also addresses the problem in fuzzy multi criteria decision making techniques.
Multi criteria decision making have been applied in many domains. MCDM method helps to choose the best
alternatives where many criteria have come into existence, the best one can be obtained by analyzing the different
scope for the criteria, weights for the criteria and the choose the optimum ones using any multi criteria decision
making techniques. This survey provides the comprehensive developments of various methods of FMCDM and
its applications.

Keywords: multi criteria decision making, fuzzy, MCDM, TOPSIS, best choice, decision making
Cite This Article: Martin Aruldoss, T. Miranda Lakshmi, and V. Prasanna Venkatesan, “A Survey on Multi
Criteria Decision Making Methods and Its Applications.” American Journal of Information Systems 1, no. 1
32 American Journal of Information Systems

(2013): 31-43. doi: 10.12691/ajis-1-1-5. 2. Prior Research

In spite of incomplete information fuzzy logic allows
decision making with estimated values. It should be noted
1. Introduction that a decision may be incorrect and can be later improved
when additional information is available. Of course, a
In our day today life, so many decisions are being made
complete lack of information will not support any
from various criteria’s, so the decision can be made by
decision making using any form of logic. For complex
providing weights to different criteria’s and all the
problems, conventional methods (non-fuzzy) are usually
weights are obtain from expert groups. It is important to
depend on mathematical approximations (E.g.
determine the structure of the problem and explicitly
linearization of nonlinear problems), which leads to poor
evaluate multi criteria. For example, in building a nuclear
performance and very expensive. Under such
power plant, certain decisions have been taken based on
circumstances, fuzzy systems often outperform
different criteria. There are not only very complex issues
conventional MCDM methods. Many works have been
involving multi criteria, some criteria may have effect
done in various fields like banking, general purpose,
toward some problem, but over all to have an optimum
student and teacher performances, water resource location
solution, all the alternatives must have common criteria
and many. In this case the alternatives and criteria have
which clearly lead to more informed and better decisions.
been collected and the evaluation of the criteria has been
Multi Criteria Decision Making is pertaining to done to choose the best alternatives. MCDM structures
structure and solve decision and planning problems complex problems by considering multi criteria explicitly,
involving multiple criteria. The main objective of this which leads to more informed and better decisions.
survey is to support decision makers where there are huge
choices exist for a problem to be solved. Typically, it is
necessary to use decision maker’s desire to differentiate
between solutions [1] where there is no unique optimal
solution for these problems. Solving the problem can be
interpreted in different ways. It could correspond to
choose the “best” alternative from a set of alternatives
(where “best” can be interpreted as “the most preferred
alternative” of a decision maker). Another interpretation
of “solving” is to choose a small set of good alternatives,
or grouping alternatives into different preference sets. An
extreme interpretation is used to find all “efficient” or
“non-dominated” alternatives.
The problem becomes more complex when many
criteria exist for the alternatives. A unique optimal
solution for an MCDM problem can be obtained without
the desired information incorporation. An optimal
solution’s idea is often put back by the set of
nondominated solutions. A non-dominated solution has
the property that without sacrificing at least one criterion
it is not possible to move away from it to any other
solution. Therefore, the decision maker can easily able to
choose a solution from the non-dominated set. Otherwise,
the decision maker could not do worse in any of them and
could do better in terms of all the criteria. However, the
set of non-dominated solutions is too large to present to
the decision maker for their final choice.
This survey on multi criteria decision understands the
need of MCDM, many works have been proposed in
determining the best optimal solution for a problem using
different methods in it, and each of the MCDM method
has its uniqueness. Many applications uses MCDM in
determining the flaws in the system, these flaws can be
managed by using appropriate method for solving the
problem.
The rest of the paper organized as follows, in section 2
discuss about the prior research on MCDM methods and
its applications and section 3describes the research
opportunities and section 4 concludes the paper.
 American Journal of Information Systems 33

2.1. Methods of MCDM alternative. The Figure 1 depicts the hierarchical view of
MCDM methods have been applied to different MCDM methods and its types. The widely used MCDM
applications and find the best solution to choose the best methods have been described in following headings.

Figure 1. Hierarchical structure of MCDM Methods

34 American Journal of Information Systems

2.1.1. Analytic Hierarchy Process 2.1.4. ELECTRE

The basic idea of AHP is to capture experts’ knowledge ELECTRE (Elimination EtChoix Traduisant la REalite
of phenomena under study. Using the concepts of fuzzy ´) is one of the MCDM methods and this method allows
set theory and hierarchical structure analysis a systematic decision makers to select the best choice with utmost
approach is followed for alternative selection and advantage and least conflict in the function of various
justification problem. Decision-makers usually find that it criteria. The ELECTRE method is used for choosing the
is more confident to give interval judgments than fixed best action from a given set of actions and was later
value judgments. When a user preference is not defined referred to as ELECTRE I. Different versions of
explicitly due to fuzzy nature this method can be applied. ELECTRE have been developed including ELECTRE I,
AHP includes the opinions of experts and multi criteria II, III, IV and TRI. All methods are based on the same
evaluation; it is not capable of reflecting human’s vague fundamental concepts but differ both operationally and
thoughts. The classical AHP considers the definite according to the type of the decision problem [5].
judgments of decision makers, thus the fuzzy set theory Specifically, ELECTRE I is intended for selection
makes the comparison process more flexible and capable problems, ELECTRE TRI for assignment problems and
to explain experts’ preferences. The Analytic Hierarchy ELECTRE II, III and IV for ranking problems. The main
Process (AHP) decomposes a difficult MCDM problem idea is the proper utilization of “outranking relations”.
into a systematic hierarchy procedure [2]. The final step in ELECTRE creates the possibility to model a decision
the AHP method deals with the structure of an m*n matrix process by using coordination indices. These indices are
(where m is the number of alternatives and n is the number concordance and discordance matrices. The decision
of criteria’s). Using the relative importance of the maker uses concordance and discordance indices to
alternatives a matrix is constructed in terms of each analyze outranking relations among different alternatives
criterion. Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) is based on and to choose the best alternative using the crisp data.
priority theory. It deals with the complex problems which
involve the consideration of multi criteria/alternatives 2.1.5. Grey Theory
simultaneously. Grey Theory has a high mathematical analysis of the
systems which are partly known and partly unknown and
2.1.2. Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process is defined as “insufficient data” and “weak knowledge”.
Fuzzification of Analytic Hierarchy Process (Fuzzy When the decision-making process is not obvious Grey
AHP) is used in conventional market surveys, etc. AHP, Theory examines the interactional analysis, there exist a
several products and alternatives are evaluated, by means great number of input data and it is distinct and
of pairwise comparisons, the weight of each item insufficient. In the recent years, many decision making
evaluation and the evaluation values for each product and problems uses Grey Theory methodology in a successful
alternatives are found for each item evaluation, but the manner [6].
result of pairwise comparisons are not 0,1, but rather the Above listed MCDM methods have been applied widely
degree is given by a numerical value [3]. In fuzzy AHP, to find best alternative when choices and criteria are high.
the weight is expressed by necessary measure or These methods have been selected according to nature of
possibility measure, and in addition, the conventional the decision making. For selection of best ELECTRE have
condition that the total of various weights 1 can be been applied, for ranking TOPSIS have been applied
relaxed. which chooses the best and Grey theory have been applied
to chose the best where complete data is not available. The
2.1.3. TOPSIS next section discusses about applications of these Fuzzy
The TOPSIS method assumes that each criterion has a MCDM methods.
tendency of monotonically increasing or decreasing utility
which leads to easily define the positive and the negative
ideal solutions. To evaluate the relative closeness of the
alternatives to the ideal solution Euclidean distance
approach is proposed. A series of comparisons of these
relative distances will provide the preference order of the
alternatives. The TOPSIS method first converts the
various criteria dimensions into non-dimensional criteria
similar to ELECTRE method [4] The concept of TOPSIS
is that the chosen alternative should have the shortest
distance from the positive ideal solution (PIS) and the
farthest from the negative ideal solution (NIS). This
method is used for ranking purpose and to get the best
performance in multi criteria decision making. FUZZY
TOPSIS method is used to evaluate the criteria in each
region and then all the criteria have been ranked based on
the region.
 American Journal of Information Systems 35

Apart from the MCDM methods which are listed, many

other MCDM methods are available which have been
listed below with its purpose, advantages and
disadvantages. The suitability of each method and problem
in which it can be applied has been described in Table 1.
The merits and demerits of various MCDM methods have
been described in Table 1 as follows.
Table 1. MCDM methods with its merits and demerits
Sl. MCDM Description Advantages Disadvantages
No Methods
1. Flexible, intuitive and checks 1. Irregularities in ranking
It also includes pair wise inconsistencies 2. Additive aggregation is
Analytic
comparison of different 2. Since problem is constructed into a used. So important information may
1. hierarchy
alternatives for different hierarchical structure, the importance of each be lost. 3. More number of pair wise
process (AHP)
criterion. element becomes clear. 3. No bias in decision comparisons are needed
making
AHP builds the decision
problem from arrangement of 1. Independence among elements is
Analytic 1. Time consuming
different goals, criteria and not required.
2 Network 2. Uncertainty – not supported
alternatives and pair wise 2. Prediction is accurate because
Process(ANP) 3. Hard to convince decision making
comparison of the criteria to priorities are improved by feedback.
obtain the best alternative
DAE is a method where it is 1. Multiple inputs and outputs can be 1.Measurement error can cause
used to find the efficiency of handled. significant problems
combination of multi inputs and 2. Relation between inputs and outputs 2. Absolute efficiency cannot
Data
multi outputs of the problem. are not necessary. be measured.
3. envelopment 3. Statistical tests are not
3. Comparisons are directly against
analysis (DAE) applicable.
peers 4.Inputs and outputs can have very
different units 4. Large problems can be
demanding.
Aggregated This method solves the 1. Non-numeric, non-exact and non-
Indices complex problem where complete expert information can be used to
It aims only at complex objects
Randomization uncertainty occurs which has solve multi criteria decision making problems.
4. 2. Transparent mathematical multicriteria estimation under
method (AIRM) incomplete information for the uncertainty.
problem to be solved. foundation assures exactness and reliability of
results.
Weighted Alternatives are being 1. Can remove any unit of measure.
Product compared with the other by the 2. Relative values are used rather than
5. No solution with equal weight of DMs
model(WPM) weights and ratio of one for actual ones.
each criterion.
It is used for evaluating a
number of alternatives in
Weighted Sum Difficulty emerges on multidimensional
6. accordance to the different Strong in a single dimensional problems
Model (WSM) problems
criteria which are expressed in
the same unit.
Goal programming is a division
where it has more than one
1. Setting of appropriate
objective which conflicts with 1. Handles large numbers of
Goal weights.
7. each other, and by arranging the variables, constraints and objectives.
Programming 2. Solutions are not pair to
goals or target have to be 2. Simplicity and ease of use
efficient.
achieved by minimizing the
irrelevant information.
It is used to select the best
choice with maximum
8. ELECTRE Outranking is used Time consuming
advantage and least conflict in
the function of various criteria
This methods deal with all
incomplete data and to
9. Grey analysis Perfect information has a unique solution Does not provide optimal solution.
overcome the deficiencies of
other methods.
36 American Journal of Information Systems

trade-off between these tangible and intangible factors

Table 1 has described advantages and disadvantages of some of which may conflict. The process of determining
each of the MCDM method. The next section describes the suitable suppliers, who are capable of providing the
various applications of Fuzzy MCDM methods from the right quality product or services at the right price at the
literature. right time and in the right quantities to the buyers, is one
of the most critical activities for establishing an effective
2.2. Applications of FMCDM supply chain. To solve this various FMCDM methods such
as TOPSIS, ELECTRE and AHP have been applied.
FMCDM is used in various domains such as banking,
ELECTRE is used to reach close to the positive and get
performance elevation, decision making in different
move off from negative points.
organization, safety assessment, multi choice general
Safety issues are really at the core of marine
purpose problems, and etc. This section discuss about the
engineering. In marine engineering the safety comes on,
various FMCDMS methods and its application domains.
how the crew members understand the urge of risk and
2.2.1. Fuzzy MCDM Applications how the members effectively manage it is very important
[8]. For this purpose fuzzy techniques such as TOPSIS,
Fuzzy occurs in various business organizations when
ELECTRE, and AHP have been applied to find best safety
multiple choices are available to take the best decision.
measures. Fuzzy MCDM methods also have been applied
For example for supplier selection for an organization is
in areas such as location planning [9], revision of OWA
one of the multi criteria decision making problem which
operator problems [10] etc., which are described in Table
includes both quantitative and qualitative factors [7]. In
2.
order to choose the best supplier it is essential to make a
 American Journal of Information Systems 37

Table 2. FMCDM applications in business domain

Application Alternatives Criteria Problem Techniques Best alternative

1.Accessibility Location planning for

Location 2.Security urban distribution
3 Different
planning for 3.Connectivity to multimodal transport centers is vital in saving
Areas
urban 4. Costs distribution costs and A1 >A3 >A2.
A1 TOPSIS
distribution 5.Environmental impact minimizing traffic A1 is the best area
A2
centers under 6. Proximity to customers congestion arising from
A3
uncertainty [9] 7. Proximity to suppliers goods movement in
8. Resource availability urban areas.
1. Sahand
2. Shahri
ar
3. Kalgha
n FSROWA
4.Germichai 1.Allocation of water to prior Fuzzy-
5. Givi usages 2.Number of beneficiaries
Stochastic-
Revising the 3.Supporting other
6. Talegh In finding the most Revised
OWA operator projects Germ chai project
an robust alternative Ordered
problems under 4.Benefit/cost is the most
7. Talvar 5.Range of environmental among these seven Weighted
uncertainty (A preferred project
8. Galaba impacts criteria Averaging
case study) [11]
r 6.Publicparticipation (FSROWA)
9. Sanghs 7.Jobcreation method is
iah applied.
10. Soral
11. Siazak
h
12. Bijar
To find the best supplier
for mold and die
Enhancing manufacturing concern,
information P1, P2, P3, 1. partner’s price range the product price range,
delivery in P4, P5 2. partner’s interest to the information FMCDS P2
extended (information information receiver’s interest and
enterprise receivers) 3. partner’s product range the product range are
networks [27] often considered by
enterprises.
Fuzzy multi criteria
Evaluating 1. Dragon decision support
1. basic capability Fuzzy multi
antiarmor weapon 2. Milan procedure is applied to
2. fight capability attribute
using ranking and non-quantitative factors Sword
fuzzy numbers 3.logisticmaintenance decision
3. Sword where decision making
[28] 4. electronic system making
(weapon systems) is complex.
1.Urgent delivery
2.On time delivery
1.Suppiler 1 Supplier selection, the
3.Ordering cost
process of determining
4.Warranty period
2.Suppiler 2 the suitable suppliers
5.Product price
Evaluation who are able to provide
6.Financial stability
suppliers in 3.Suppiler 3 the buyer with the right
7.Delivery lead time TOPSIS Supplier 3
supply chain quality products and/or
8.Accessibility
management [7] 4.Suppiler 4 services at the right
9.Reliability
price, at the right time
10.Transportation cost
5.Suppiler 5 and in the right
11.Rejection of defective product
quantities.
12.Cost of support service
13.Testability

A fuzzy 1.Saudi 1.unit price and payment terms For the selection of cans 1.Modified SAPIN
multicriteria Arabian for 2.delivery terms supplier/Suppliers at fuzzy
decision making Packaging 3.supplier factory capacity 4.shipping Nitrides Factory in DEMATEL
model for supplier Industry method Amman-Jordan to model, 2.A
selection (SAPIN), 5.lead time 6.location of can supplier demonstrate the proposed modified
[12] 2.Arabian Can 7.technical specifications model. TOPSIS model
Industry 8.Services and communications with the
(ACI), supplier
3. ZA 9.compensationfor waste
Turkish 10,major customers with the same
Supplier business 11.certificate of
4. Al- Supplier
Watonga for
Containers
Manufacturing
 38 American Journal of Information Systems

(CMC)
1.Cost-control
Examine the use 3 2.Detailed information about the
and application of DIFFERENT crewmembers and their behavior To enhance safety by
1.TOPSIS
MCDM COMPNANY 3.availability of presenting data per ship mitigating risks and
2.ELECTRE C2
techniques in 1.C1 4.comparsion with industry increasing the reliability
3.AHP
safety assessment 2.C2 5. Planning, preview and scenarios of risk of a system.
[29] 3.C3 management.

To solve the large scale

Multi-criteria garment matching
decision making problem where Size The product which
65 trousers
approach based on fitting problem is a main co-evolutionary satisfies the
with the same
immune waist girth (W), hip immune “CUSTOMER
color, style obstacle to large scale
coevolutionary girth (H), and algorithm for SATISFACTION
and material garment sales and online
algorithm with trousers length (L) the MCDM and SERVICE
for female are sales because it is
application to model QUALITY “ the
studied difficult to find the fit
garment matching most
garments by the general
problem [13] size information
A case study on agro
meteorological disasters
An incident that occurred in China
information between 1997 and 2001.
management 1.Beijing 1.Percentage of areas covered to total areas TOWA
This case study
framework based 2.Tianjin 2. Percentage of areas affected to total operator,
demonstrates that the
on data 3.Hebei areas (Drought cluster analysis,
Flood combination of data Chongqing
integration, data 4.Chongqing grey relational
mining, and multi- Hailstorm mining and MCDM analysis, and
5.Xinjiang( 31
criteria decision Frost) methods can provide TOPSIS
provinces)
making objective and
[14] comprehensive
assessments of incident
risks.
The objective of this
research is to propose
Assessment of multi-criteria decision
health-care waste fuzzy MCDM
1.Incineration making techniques for
1.Economic methodology,
treatment 2. Steam conducting an analysis
2.Environmental hierarchical
alternatives using sterilization based on multi-level Landfill
3.Technical distance-based
fuzzy multicriteria 3.Microwave hierarchical structure and
4.Social fuzzy MCDM
decision making 4. Landfill fuzzy logic for the
algorithm
approaches [15] evaluation of
HCW treatment
alternatives.
1. War
Comparative ehouse
analysis of A 1.Unit price
multicriteria 2. War 2.Stock holding To compare the MCDM
decision making ehouse capacity AHP,
methodologies methods and
B 3.Average TOPSIS,
and implementation of a WAREHOUSE
3. War Distance to shops ELECTRE and
implementation of 4.Average distance to main warehouse location
ehouse Grey Theory
a warehouse suppliers 5.Movement selection problem
C
location selection 4. War Flexibility
problem [6] ehouse
D
Health- Safety Power plant
and 1. loca
Environmental tion 1
Risk Assessment To find the best location
2. loca 1.environment of the power plant,
of for the implementation of
tion 2 2.health-safety risks, 3.technological risks, AHP Location 3
Refineries Using the power plant using the
3. loca 4.the affected environment risks
of Multi Criteria AHP
tion 3
Decision Making
4. loca
Method [16]
tion 4
 American Journal of Information Systems 39

1.Professional
manpower on
industrial &
semi-
industrial scale
2.Professional
manpower on
laboratory
scale 1. Power density
Mathematical 3.Know-how 2. Efficiency system of fuel cells
analysis of fuel on industrial & 3. Fuel type (Including the effect
cell strategic semi- on fuel cells operation, The analysis of fuel cell
industrial scale Professional
technologies process stages, availability, cost, safety strategic technology in
4.Know-how TOPSIS manpower on
development and environment considerations) the automotive industry
on laboratory laboratory scale
solutions in the 4. Life time and preserving fuel using TOPSIS
automotive scale cells 5. Operational heat, start-up period,
industry [17] 5.Hardware on reaction period and response of fuel cells
industrial & 6. Security and confidence
semi-
industrial
scale
6.Hardware on
laboratory
scale

*[12] - Unit price and payment terms (C1), delivery terms (C2), supplier factory capacity (C3), shipping method (C4), lead time (C5), location of can
supplier (C6), technical specifications (C7), certifications (Regular and International) (C8), services and communications with the supplier (C9),
compensation for waste (C10), printing complies to design and color (C11), easy open and spoon leveling (C12), testing methods for packaging
materials and available tests from supplier (C13), variation of dimensions (C14), stretch wrapping and clean separators, pallet size and height (C15),
major customers with the same business (C16), certificate of supplier materials (C17), SAPIN - Saudi Arabian Packaging Industry, ACI - Arabian Can
Industry, CMC - Containers Manufacturing.
*[14] - Incident information management framework consists of three major components. The first component is a high-level data integration module in
which heterogeneous data sources are integrated and presented in a uniform format. The second component is a data mining module that uses data
mining methods to identify useful patterns and presents a process to provide differentiated services for pre-incident and post-incident information
management. The third component is a multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) module that utilizes MCDM methods to assess the current situation,
find the satisfactory solutions, and take appropriate responses in a timely manner
*[15] -Sub criteria: Economic: Capital cost, Operating cost, Environmental: Solid residuals and environmental impacts, Water residuals and
environmental impacts, Air residuals and environmental impacts, Release with health effects. Technical: Reliability, Volume reduction, Need for skilled
operators, Occupational hazards occurrence impact, Treatment effectiveness, Level of automation, Occupational hazards occurrence frequency. Social:
Adaptability to environmental policy, Land requirement, Public acceptance obstacles
 40 American Journal of Information Systems

Table 2 describes some the application of Fuzzy detect variance and extract useful knowledge. Different
MCDM in various disciplines. In some applications services to satisfy the requirements of different incident
uncertainty in decision making arises, so fuzzy multi management phases. Multi-criteria decision-making assess
criteria decision making is chosen to solve this issue. The the current situation, finds the satisfactory solutions, and
criteria used in urban distribution centers such as security, takes appropriate responses in a timely manner [14].To
accessibility, cost, and environment [9]. The sensitivity compare the performance of different MCDM methods
analysis is performed to determine the influence of criteria such as AHP, TOPSIS, ELECTRE (I, II, IS, III, IV and
and weights on location planning is applied to find the A), Grey theory a case study on warehouse selection have
suitable locations. The selection of location for placing the been selected and different characteristic of each method
Application Alternatives Criteria Problem Techniques Best alternative
Three banks To rank the The three MCDM
banking analytical tools of
Banking 1. Finance
1.C Bank, performance and 1. SAW,
performance based 2. Customer
improve the gaps ‘‘U Bank”
on Balanced 3.Internal Process
Scorecard.[18] 2.S Bank, and with three banks as 2. TOPSIS,
4. Learning and Growth
an empirical
3.U Bank example. 3. VIKOR
Financial criteria:
1. Asset quality
The largest five 2. Capital
Fuzzy commercial banks of adequacy To maintain the
performance
Turkish Banking 3. Liquidity
evaluation in performance of the 1.Fuzzy sets and Customer satisfaction and
Turkish Banking sector are examined 4. Profitability
banking system fuzzy numbers Service quality have been
Sector using and these banks are 5. Income and
since the economy 2.FAHP evaluated for commercial
Analytic Hierarchy evaluated in terms expenditure
is changing 3.TOPSIS banks.
of several financial Non Financial criteria:
Process and rapidly.
and non-financial 1.Pricing
TOPSIS.[19]
indicators 2.Marketing
3.Productivity
4.Delivery services
1. Human New information
resource readiness technologies and
The impact of 3D e- 2. Top emerging business
1. organizational
readiness on management forces have
ereadiness 2.
ebanking readiness triggered a new Top management readiness
industry e- Fuzzy AHP
development in 3. Strategy and strategy readiness
3. macro environmental wave of financial
Iran: A fuzzy AHP readiness 4.
e-readiness innovation–
Analysis. [30] Structure readiness
5. Technology electronic banking
readiness (e-banking).
watershed which is using the new method FSROWA is is discussed [6].
introduced to combine the Fuzzy and Stochastic features AHP method is used in the analysis of the health -
into a revised OWA operator, for choosing the effective safety and environmental risk assessment of refineries for
place for the location of the water shed [10]. To search the the location of the power plant, the risk factor such as
best place for urban Centre distribution all the places are health-safety risk, technology risk, etc., have been
ranked based on criteria. considered [16]. To select best strategic technology for the
The co-evolutionary immune algorithm for the fuel cell in the automotive industry TOPSIS have been
multicriteria decision making (MCDM) model, is used for applied [17].
the model to solve the large scale garment matching From all these works, different methods have been used
problem. Size fitting problem is a main obstacle to large for different applications where each of the method has its
scale garment sales and online sales because it is difficult own characteristics in finding the best alternatives. The
to find the fit garments by the general size information. applications which are developed to solve multi choice
This study regards the fit garment matching problem as a problems and FMCDS methods which are chosen provides
MCDM model with the constraints of size satisfaction. An better performance in cases such as supplier chain
immune co-evolutionary algorithm is used to search the fit management in business applications, safety assessment in
garments from the candidate garments in the stock [33]. marine engineering, watershed location and urban
Health-care waste (HCW) management is a high priority distribution centers in public sectors.
environmental, public and health concern in developing 2.2.2. FMCDM in Banking
countries. The management and treatment of HCW are To process the mortgage or loan applications banks
gaining more attention with the rising awareness. The have a fixed set of criteria. After going through the criteria
proposed decision approaches enable the decision-makers the decisions are made rigidly by the bank officers. This
to use linguistic terms, and thus, reduce their cognitive process can be made easier and more efficient using fuzzy
burden in the evaluation process. By using MCDM, the logic. Nowadays, banks are increasingly turning to
evaluation of multi-level hierarchical structure and fuzzy intelligent banking solutions like artificial intelligence to
logic for HCW treatment can be obtained [15]. screen out many loan applications to make the final
An effective incident information management system recommendation and approval. Banks can save valuable
deals with several challenges. Decision makers have to man-hours and dedicate the resources to other productive

Table 3. FMCDM applications in banking domain

 American Journal of Information Systems 41

one by means of using these approaches. Therefore, it operating cost for the bank. Table 3 describes some of the
improves the bank processes efficiency and lowers the bank applications which describe FMCDS.
42 American Journal of Information Systems

Table 3 describes the various applications of Fuzzy method the performance of a teacher has been computed.
MCDM in banking sector. However, intelligent banking This method is adapted to utilize numerical scores in the
systems has seen its usefulness enhanced with form of interval marking. Common methodologies
breakthroughs in technology such as fuzzy logic, there is reported in past research can handle quantitative
still a need of human interpretation that must be used in numerical score. These methods cannot consider interval
dealing with sensitive transactions. It is a still a long way making assigned to a particular item whereas COPRAS-G
before intelligent banking system can do away with method overcomes this drawback [24].
human interaction at all levels. Fuzzy logic allows a In Evaluation of training performance of administrative
computer to reach a decision based on a myriad of factors instructors fuzzy set theory is applied to measurement the
with different levels of importance [21]. Rather than a yes
or no answer, fuzzy logic application reaches a decision
based on the weight given to the factors. The artificial
intelligence in the application will compare all the
potential results both positive and negative before coming
to a final conclusion. Fuzzy logic applications using
artificial intelligence often make use of neural networks to
process the task.
Banking is the sector where fuzzy may occur many
times, to overcome this fuzzy MCDM is applied. The
fuzzy multi criteria decision making is very much useful
in banking application and the performance evaluation of
banks has important results for creditors, investors and
stakeholder’s since it determines banks’ capabilities to
compete in the sector and has a critical importance for the
development of the sector [19].
The threat for E-Banking is identifying any phishing
websites in real-time is really a complex and dynamic
problem involving many factors and criteria [22]. The
banking and financial industry is transforming itself in
unpredictable ways powered in an important way by
advances in information technology. Methods like
TOPSIS, AHP, FAHP, FBCC and FSBM have been
applied in e-banking.
In credit limit allocation model for banks all the criteria
have been identified and each criteria assign weight by the
experts group, and then criteria have been grouped in
region wise [23]. The FUZZY TOPSIS method is used to
evaluate the criteria in each region and then all the criteria
have been ranked. Liner programming assigns credit risk
concentration limits to the regional heads such that the
total value of capital from all location (TVCA) becomes
maximum.
The studied works gives an overview of applications of
FMCDM where the different methods have been applied
and used. Fuzzy is a technique which is widely used
where uncertainty occurs, where the judgment of the
result is not clear and optimal, the fuzzy weights have
been assigned to each criterion and they have been
evaluated. In banking sector FMCDM is used to overcome
the uncertainty which was the drawback of the system. It
is also being used in E- Banking where users often tend to
have problem or dilemma in selecting the links where
there is a threat of hacking the passwords through spam
mails and hence fuzzy have been applied to identify the
phishing web sites and links. The below sections explains
about the performance evaluation of MCDM applications.

2.2.3. Fuzzy MCDM in Performance Evaluation

Not only general domains, the Fuzzy MCDM methods
also applied to evaluate the performance of organization.
Table 4 describes FMCDM methods to evaluate the
performance of organizations. By applying COPRAS-G
 American Journal of Information Systems 43

performance. AHP is applied to obtain criteria weight and

for ranking TOPSIS is applied. To evaluate decision
alternatives involving subjective judgments made by a
group of decision makers, fuzzy MCDM approach is used.
A linguistic rating method is used for making absolute
judgments and a pair-wise comparison process is used to
help individual decision makers to make comparative
judgments [4].

Table 4. FMCDM in Performance evaluation

Application Alternatives Criteria Problem Techniques Best alternative

5 teachers’ 1.Interaction with students To find the best

2.Time taken for Problem teachers using
Application of MCDM T1 solving (decision making) MCDM technique.
approaches on teachers’ T2 3.Depth of knowledge in own The performance COPRAS-G T3
performance evaluation and T3 field and appraisal of each
appraisal 4.Dedication, Punctuality and
T4 teacher are done
involvement
T5 separately.
5.Pedagogy of teaching
Training Performance 4 Instructor 1.Teaching style, 2.Individual To find the best
Evaluation of Administration Instructor A features and social relation, trainee and the
Sciences Instructors by Fuzzy Instructor B 3.Knowledge level, performance of the FMCDM Instructor A
MCDM Approach [4] Instructor C 4. Observance of educational administrative
Instructor D regulations 5.Educational tools. science instructors
A1, To investigate
Power customer satisfaction A2 cost, reliability, availability, appropriate tools Analytic
and profitability analysis using A3 maintainability and power (MCDM) aiding Hierarchy Process A2
MCDM [26] A4 quality decision makers to (AHP)
achieve their goals.
1. A car To find the best
company; 2. company for
Multi-criteria decision-making A food 1.The risk analysis; investment of money
interval-valued
method based on company; 3. 2. The growth analysis; in the 4 company
intuitionist fuzzy A2 >A4 >A3 >A1
intervalvalued intuitionist A computer 3. The environmental using the interval
information
fuzzy sets. [27] company; 4. impact analysis valued intuitionist
An arms fuzzy sets.
company.
*[26] - Alternative 1 (A1): Corresponds to the actual state of the electric power system under study, Alternative 2 (A2): Faults detectors are installed at
each substation; consequently the time to fault research is reduced. Alternative 3 (A3): To alternative 2 (A2), are added remote control switches on
outgoing MV lines to reduce the number of customers concerned by a failure. Alternative 4 (A4): Some overhead circuits are undergrounded and sections
of the aging cables are replaced by new ones (are concerned the sections with a number of joints exceeding the threshold value).
44 American Journal of Information Systems

The performance evaluation is used to measure the 3.1 MCDM is the Powerful Technique for
performance of the employee in the organization. Decision Making
Evaluations are utilized to determine whether the
employee meets the certain criteria and to recommend The MCDM is used in many application such as
appropriate follow-up actions. During the evaluation of performance evaluation, warehouse location, supplier
performance uncertainty occurs, so MCDM approach is selection, supply chain management, Assessment of
applied to measure the performance issues. In Teachers health-care waste treatment, Banking performance,
performance evolution many alternatives and criteria are ebanking, teachers’ performance and in various multi
applied to analyze the performance of teachers and best choice selection process. The decision making in all these
teacher is identified using COPRAS-G. In the same way to application is efficient and best alternative have been
analyze the training administrative instructor’s found. Table 5 describes about various applications of
performance various criteria such as the knowledge level, MCDM techniques.
problem solving skills and cognitive abilities have been The performance of the MCDM is very high in the
considered [4]. business organization which is used to solve the
Consumer demands for electrical energy are complexity of the problem. MCDM is used in all real
increasingly growing, because this energy is present in all world application such as warehouse location,
the fields of human activity. The alternatives are technical environment assessment. The performance of the
and the organizational measures often taken in planning organization is developed by better solution which can be
and operation phases of electrical power systems is to obtained by MCDM. In the business, the collections of
investigate appropriate tools (multi-criteria decision relevant information have been done, to provide the better
making methods) aiding decision makers to achieve the solution for the problem. The relevant information is very
goals like customer satisfaction and profit making [26]. useful in the making the decision in the complex problem
Multi-criteria decision-making method based on which occurs in the organization. The methods of MCDM
intervalvalued intuitionist fuzzy sets which is used for are unique in there characteristic, which can be used in the
determining the best company(a car company, a food certain problem that suits there characteristic. For
company, a computer company, an arms company) to example, the TOPSIS method, that has chosen the best
invest the money to obtain more profit [16]. alternative based on a maximization of the distance from
the negative ideal point and minimization of the distance
3. Findings of Survey from the
Multi criteria decision making and its applications have positive ideal point. Grey theory methods, examines the
been discussed in this survey. The multi criteria decision interactional analysis when the decision-making process is
making is one of the powerful tool for obtaining the best not clear, there are a great number of input data and it is
choice for a complex decision making situations using discrete and insufficient data.

Table 6. Domain Vs. FMCDS application

various methods such as Fuzzy AHP, ELECTRE, 3.2. Fuzzy MCDM Application and Fuzzy
TOPSIS, Grey theory etc. The evaluation of the criteria MCDM Methods
and ranking the criteria to find the best alternative have
been found using MCDM techniques. The outcome of this The fuzzy multi criteria techniques have been applied in
survey has been described below. various fields such as Banking sectors, issues such as
urban distribution centers, water shed allocation, safety
assessment, and performance evolution of business
organizations. The statistical report for the some of the
areas in which multi criteria decision making is used is
described in Table 6.

MCDM Applications

Banking performance Performance mgmt. Selection process

Business performance Partner selection Risk mgmt.
Automotive industry Environment assessment Mold and Die Industry
Education Health care Marine egg.
Financial investment decisions Financial ratios and business performance Manufacturing systems
Demand forecasting Material selection Bioinformatics
 American Journal of Information Systems 45

Table 6 describes the analysis report of the multi criteria 3.3. Comparison of AHP and Fuzzy AHP
techniques which is widely used in various applications. Analytic hierarchy process AHP is a method used for
Table 6, also describes the clear essence of the domains in ranking purpose in selecting the best one when the
which MCDM is applied. Most of the multi criteria based decision maker has multiple criteria. This method helps the
problems fuzzy MCDM approach is applied due to its decision makers to select a better alternative from all by
capability of solving uncertainty issues and it gives the satisfying the minimal score to rank each decision
best determination for the decision makers, so that MCDM alternative based on how well each alternative meets them.
method is used in many domains. Each MCDM method is Fuzzy AHP, where it helps the human to make quantitative
chosen according to difficulty of the problem. Table 7 predictions as they are not well versed, but they are equally
describes about most widely applied methods in multi better in making quantitative forecasting. The uncertainty
criteria decision making and these methods are ranked occurs during the judgments where in turn in consistency
based on its applicability and usage in various domains. arises in between the alternatives.
Table 7. MCDM Methods and its usage
S. No MCDM Methods Contributions Fuzzy pair wise comparisons states that there are many
1 FMCDM 5 criteria’s but if any criteria has a less important among all
2 TOPSIS 9 then it can be weighed as zero unlike other methods.
3 FAHP 6 Though that criterion is handled for the decision making
4 VIKOR 2 process, if it has no importance when compared to all
5 ELECTRE 5 others. In the classic AHP method, deterministic values
6 Others 3
and operations do not permits such a situation “having zero
A graph is plotted to indicate the usage of MCDM weighed”, but if a criterion is evaluated as less than all of
methods in the various applications in the survey work.
the others, then the numerical weight of the criteria will be
Most widely applied methods in decision making problem near to zero. Fuzzy AHP can merely ignore the criteria that
such as TOPSIS, ELECTRE, FAHP, FMCDM, VIKOR
have less importance whereas the classic AHP where it
and there are others methods such fuzzy DEMATEL, From
FSROWA, Fuzzy BCC, Fuzzy SBM etc have been applied in few works.

Figure 2. MCDM methods and its contributions

the Figure 2 it known that TOPSIS method is applied will be given with so weight. This can also be an
mostly in many applications. The next is FMCDM method advantage for fuzzy-AHP presenting additional
that has been used in the fuzzy application for solving the information for decision maker that there is no difference
uncertainty. A Fuzzy MCDM is an approach for evaluating between the existence and nonexistence of such a criterion.
decision alternatives involving subjective judgments made Therefore, the decision maker can focus on more important
by a group of decision makers. A pairwise comparison criteria.
process is used to help individual decision makers to make Classical and fuzzy methods are not the rivals with each
comparative judgments, and a linguistic rating method is other at same conditions. The important point is that if the
used for making absolute judgments. The other methods information / evaluations are certain, classical method
are Fuzzy BCC, Fuzzy SBM, FSROWA and COPRAS-G. should be chosen; if the information / evaluations are not
This survey outlines research opportunities in MCDM, the certain, fuzzy method should be chosen. In recent years,
features of MCMD can be applied to any domain when because of the uniqueness of information and decision
multiple choices are available for decision making. The makers, probable deviation should be integrated to the
next sub section discuss the difference between fuzzy AHP decision making processes, and because of that for each
methods, decision making method, a fuzzy version is developed.
Fuzzy AHP method is a natural result of this necessity.
46 American Journal of Information Systems

Linguistic and subjective evaluations take place in

questionnaire form. Each linguistic variable has its own
+
{ } {
s = v1j,v2 j,v3j ,vmj = maxv forij ∀ ∈j n (3) s } −

numerical value in the predefined scale. In classical AHP

these numerical values are exact numbers whereas in fuzzy
AHP method they are intervals between two numbers.
{ } {
= v1j,v2 j,v3j ,vmj = minv1j for∀ ∈j n (4) }
Step 4: For all the criteria, every alternatives distance to
3.4. Comparison of ELECTRE, TOPSIS and +
the best alternatives ( Di ) using (3) and worst alternative
GREY THEORY −
( Di ) using (4)
TOPSIS method selects the best alternative by
minimizing the distance from the positive ideal point and n
maximizing the distance from the negative ideal point, was + i (vij − s +j ) 2
not only applied to areas such as performance evaluation
D = ∑
j =1
for i =1,2,...m (5)
but also applied to problems such as selection of
n
production processes and flexible manufacturing systems,
i (vij − s −j 2
within the operation management scope. Similarly, D =
−
∑
j =1 ) for i =1,2,..m (6)
ELECTRE methods (ELECTRE I, IS, II, III, IV, A) selects
the best alternative by means of all alternatives pairwise
comparison; within the decision problems, especially has Step 5: The positive ideal solution ( Ci ) is calculated using
been applied to solve the issues present in environmental (5) and (6).
valuation and environmental management.
Grey Theory has a high mathematical analysis of the
systems which are partly known and partly unknown and is Di D+i− i =1,2,...m and 0 ≤ ≤Ci 1
defined as “insufficient data” and “weak knowledge”.
When the decision-making process is not obvious Grey
Ci = − Di+
Theory examines the interactional analysis, there exist a
great number of input data and it is distinct and
insufficient. In the recent years [6], many decision making The biggest (Ci ) value is chosen as best selection and
problems such as financial performance evaluation, solution for the MDCM problem is obtained through
supplier selection facility layout selection, demand TOPSIS.
forecasting and material selection uses Grey Theory ELECTRE:
methodology in a successful manner. While ELECTRE I and ELECTRE II methods are
differs from the other methods through the determination
3.4.1. The Main Process of concordance and discordance matrices for each criterion
Using different calculation methods, decision making and alternative pair. ELECTRE III method differs from the
methodologies are separated from each others. The steps other methods and it is based on the principle of fuzzy
required separating from other decision making methods logic and uses the preference and indifference thresholds
and the important solution algorithm are named as the while determining the concordance and discordance
core process [6]. indexes. The algorithm for the ELECTRE I method is
TOPSIS: given as,
In TOPSIS methodology, the distance calculation from The first two steps are same as TOPSIS. The weighed
the positive ideal and the negative ideal solutions of each normalized values are calculated using the equation (1)
alternative draws attention. The algorithm for TOPSIS and (2).
method is as follows, The Ckl concordance matrix elements is calculated,
Step 1: By using the alternatives m and criteria n we
calculate the normalized values ( Rij )
Ckl = j∈∑CklWj .
Aij
Rij = m i =1,2,3... ,m j =1,2,...n (1)
The Dkl discordance matrix element is calculated,

∑ Ai2j
i=1 Dkl = max Vkj −Vij { } j∈Dkl Concordance threshold

Step 2: The normalized values can be obtained by giving

weights to the criteria (Vij )
{
max Vkj −Vij } j∈V j

(Cavr ) and discordance threshold ( Davr ) is calculated.

Vij =Wj * A iij, =1,2,3... ,m j =1,2,...n (2)
The last step, according to the condition Ckl ≥ Cavr and
+ +
Step 3: The best performance ( s ) and worst perform ( s Dkl ≥ Davr is calculated and the best alternative is selected.
) for every ideal alternative is determined. GREY THEORY:
 American Journal of Information Systems 47

Step 1: The data set are created based on the criteria C0 3.4.2. Number of Outranking Relationship and its Type
={C C1 2 3, ,C ,} Many number of pair wise comparison matrix exist
which leads to a disadvantage of AHP and the opportunity
Step 2: Ci ={Ci1,Ci2,Ci3,} comparison data is of carrying out the methodology is prevented when the
determined which shows the performance values of each number of alternative and criteria are huge. ELECTRE I
alternatives against the criteria, where i=1,2,3..k, where k and TOPSIS methodologies needless input is compared
defines the alternative number. with AHP and the necessity of pairwise comparison is
The maximum performance indicator of the criteria is eliminated.
calculated as follows,
3.4.3. The Consistency Control
One of the most important advantages of AHP is the
Vi(l) = maxViV(li)(−l)min− minViV(li)(l) (7) limitation of consistency. In methods like TOPSIS,
ELECTRE I and ELECTRE II the consistency is not
controlled. Furthermore, since it is necessary to make
The minimum performance indicator of the criteria is pairwise comparisons in all the levels of hierarchy, as the
calculated. number of alternatives and criteria gets increased, it gets
harder to perform AHP for more complex problems. On
the other hand, AHP can be easily performed without
Vi(l) = (8) regarding the applied data evaluation of alternatives based
The optimum value performance indicator of the on criteria either is qualitative or quantitative. Based on its
criteria is calculated simplicity in perception and its usage TOPSIS method gets
attention. For a problem with huge number of alternatives
and criteria’s, TOPSIS and ELECTRE methods can be
performed easily.
V i(l) = −1maxVVi(li)(−l)iU−Ui (9)

4. Research Directions in MCDM

The normalized data is calculated from equations (7), To provide the decision-maker with the ability to look
(8) and (9). into the future, and to make the best possible decision
Step 3: The distance between data sets are calculated using based on past and present information and future
predictions is the true goal in integrated decision-making
(
∆i = d01−di1 , d02−di2 ....... d0m−dim ) with global system. In the case of sustainable development, to predict
in advance the risk and vulnerability of populations and
maximum ( ∆max ) and global minimum ( ∆min ). infrastructure to hazards, both natural and man-induced.
This requires that data be transformed into knowledge, and
Step 4: Each data point in difference set is changed into
the consequences of information use, as well as decision-
Grey Relational Coefficient. Grey Relational Coefficient
making and participatory processes, be analyzed carefully.
of the data point “j” in difference set “i” is calculated using
The use of fuzzy will give only an approximate solution
the formula:
for problem is the conclusion obtained from the survey
works. The use of fuzzy is to analyze the quantitative and
qualitative data for any application. The different methods
Ci iγ ( j) =
under FMCDM help us to perform may subtasks between
where evaluation and ranking are done by different
∆i j( ) , ∆i is the j. value in the difference set. Coefficient
methods. Each method has its own uniqueness. This is how
n is a value between 0 and 1, and is used to decrease the fuzzy in analyzing an application. In previous works the
mapping of information has been done where what
information is needed for which users, for e.g.,
effect of ∆max , which is the extreme value in the data set. Government needs a lots of information when compared to
other users like customers, management etc, so the further
This coefficient is taken as 0.5 in most problems. Step 6: work can be enhanced by sending information to the users
The grey relational grade of alternative (i) is calculated: via correct medium and right time. The work to be done is
m to customize the correct information, where a student as a
customer can get enough information regarding the
ri =∑(γi(n)*w n( )) educational loans. The visualization is mainly used to
attract the users to get accessed often.
n=1 Fuzzy MCDM methods can be applied for information
The criteria are ranked according to their grey relational delivery in banking sector. In banking, loads of
grade, the priority ranking is obtained and best alternative information’s are obtained for various users like
is selected. customers, government, management etc. so it’s essential
to deliver the correct information to the users in the way
they want, each users might have they own perception of
48 American Journal of Information Systems

information to be delivered to them, so in banking the evaluation suppliers in supply chain management”, African Journal
of Mathematics and Computer Science Research Vol. 4 (3),
various needs of the users can be obtained by having many
pp.100-106.
interviews from different users, making them to fill certain
[8] Schinas O.(2007) “Examining the use and application of
applications and questionnaire where they might able to Multi Criteria DecisionMaking Techniques in Safety Assessment”,
capture the needs of each individual type of users, by this International Symposium on Maritime Safety, Security &
way the need of information delivery in banking can be Environmental Protection, Athens.
improved to provide a better performance to them by [9] Anjali Awasthia, S.S. Chauhanb, S.K. Goyalb(2000). “A
multicriteria decision making approach for location planning for
customizing the information. Here comes the uncertainty
urban distribution centers under uncertainty” CIISE, Montreal,
in the information delivery for the user. For each user the Canada.
information varies and content of the information also [10] T.C. Chu, (2002) “Facility location selection using fuzzy
varies. Finding the best user and delivering right TOPSIS under group decisions”, International Journal of
information and in user preferred channel should be Uncertainty, Fuzziness and Knowledge-Based Systems Vol. 10
(6), pp. 687701.
delivered. The level of information also varies where
different users need different information and the level of [11] MahdiZarghami, FerencSzidarovszky(2011) “Revising the
OWA operator for multi criteria decision making problems under
security also varies. This uncertainty problem can be uncertainty a Faculty of Civil Engineering ”, Tabriz 51666-16471,
solved by using FMCDM methods, which is used to Iran.
provide the right information to right user in right time. [12] DoraidDalalah, Mohammed Hayajneh, FarhanBatieha,
(2011) .“A fuzzy multi-criteria decision making model for supplier
selection”, Expert Systems with Applications Vol. 38, pp. 8384-
8391.
5. Conclusion [13] Yong-Sheng Ding, Zhi-HuaHu, Wen-Bin Zhang,(2011). “
Multicriteria decision making approach based on immune
This survey finds opportunities in multi criteria decision
coevolutionary algorithm with application to garment matching
making where decision making involves multiple choices. problem”, Expert Systems with Applications Vol. 38,
Fuzzy multi criteria decision making is used in many pp.1037710383.
applications like Banking, performance evaluation, safety [14] Yi Peng, Yong Zhang, Yu Tang, Shiming Li, (2011). “An
assessment and other multi criteria domains. FMCDM is incident information management framework based on data
integration, datamining, and multi-criteria decision making ”,
applied to domains in which we need to evaluate more
Decision Support Systems Vol. 51, pp.316-327.
alternatives and multiple criteria and from that select the
[15] MehtapDursun, E. ErtugrulKarsak,MelisAlmulaKaradayi,
best alternative. According to the problem and its domain (2011). “Assessment of health-care waste treatment alternatives
the MCDM methods have been selected. Very limited using fuzzymulti-criteria decision making approaches”, Expert
work has been applied using multi criteria decision Systems with Applications Vol. 38, pp.10377-10383.
making. This survey is concerned for banking where [16] SaharRezaiana, Seyed Ali Joziba,(2012) “Health- Safety and
uncertainty occurs often in decision making. Fuzzy based Environmental Risk Assessment of Refineries Using of Multi
Criteria Decision Making Method”, APCBEE Procedia Vol.3 ,
MCDM is suitable for approximate problem spaces. Thus pp. 235-238.
FMCDM can be applied to analyze quantitative and [17] KeivanSadeghzadeh, Mohammad BagherSalehi (2011).
qualitative data of any application to arrive the solution. “Mathematical analysis of fuel cell strategic technologies
As it is known already there are many methods under development solutions in the automotive industry by the TOPSIS
MCDM each having its own scope of performance, the multi-criteria decision making method” , International journal of
hydrogen energy Vol. 3 6, pp.13272-13280.
method have to be chosen in such a way for different
[18] Hung-Yi Wua, Gwo-HshiungTzenga,b, Yi-Hsuan Chen
problems that have to be solved. c(2011). “A fuzzy MCDM approach for evaluating banking
performance based on Balanced Scorecard”, Taiwan.
[19] Nese YalcınSecme, Ali Bayrakdaroglu, CengizKahramanb,
References (2007).
“Fuzzy performance evaluation in Turkish Banking Sector using
[1] Albayrak, E., Erensal, Y. C. (2005). “A study bank selection AnalyticHierarchy Process and TOPSIS”. Expert Systems with
decision in Turkey using the extended fuzzy AHP method”. Applications, Vol. 36, pp.11699-11709.
Proceeding of 35th International conference on computers and [20] Ashton, C. (1998). “Balanced scorecard benefits Nat West
industrial engineering, Istanbul, Turkey. Bank”. International Journal of Retail and Distribution
[2] Aldlaigan, A.,Buttle, F.A.(2002). “A new measure of bank Management, Vol. 26(10), pp.400-407.
service quality”. International Journal of Service Industry [21] Tsai, W. H., Yang, C. C., Leu, J. D., Lee, Y. F., & Yang, C.
Management, Vol. 13, pp. 38-362. H. (2001). “An Integrated Group Decision Making Support Model
[3] Business Credits (2006). “Non-financial data can predict for Corporate Financing Decisions”. Group Decision and
future profitability”. BusinessCredits, Vol 108, Nbr. (4), pp.57. Negotiation, 1-25.C.T. Chen, A fuzzy approach to select the
[4] Nikoomaram.H, M.Mohammadi, M. JavadTaghipouria and Y. location of the distribution center, Fuzzy Sets and Systems ,Vol.
Taghipourian(2009). “Training Performance Evaluation of 118 , pp. 65-73.
Administration Sciences Instructors by Fuzzy MCDM Approach”. [22] S.Y. Chou, Y.H. Chang, C.Y. Shen, (2008). “A fuzzy simple
Tehran, Iran. additive weighting system under group decision making for
[5] Yusuf TanselIç, (2012) “Development of a credit limit facility location selection with objective/subjective attributes”,
allocation model for banks using an integrated Fuzzy TOPSIS and European Journal of Operational Research Vol. 189 (1) 132-145.
linear programming”. Expert System with Applications. Vol.
39(5), pp. 5309-5316.
[6] TuncayOzcan, NumanCelebi,(2011) “Comparative analysis of [23] Avijit Mazumdar (2010) “Application of multi-criteria
multi-criteria decision making methodologies and implementation decision Making (MCDM) approaches on teachers Performance
of a warehouse location selection problem”. Vol. 38, pp.97739779. evaluation and appraisal”.
[7] Mohammad SaeedZaeri, Amir Sadeghi, Amir Naderi,etal.,
(2011). “Application of multi criteria decision making technique to
 American Journal of Information Systems 49

[24] Chen, C.W.E.,( 2000). “Extensions of the TOPSIS for group TOPSIS”. Expert Systems with Applications Vol. 37(1), pp.
decision-making under fuzzy environment”. Fuzzy Sets and 567574.
Systems vol. 114, pp.1-9.
[25] RabahMedjoudj, DjamilAissan, Klaus Dieter Haim, (2013).”
Power customer satisfaction and profitability analysis using
multicriteria decision making methods”,Electrical Power and
Energy Systems Vol. 45 , pp.331-339.
[26] V. Lakshmana Gomathi Nayagam, S. Murali krishnan ,
Geetha Sivaraman,(2011). “Multi-criteria decision-making method
based on interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy sets”, pp.1464-1467.
[27] H.C.W. Lau, Christina W.Y. Wong,, P.K.H. Lau, K.F. Pun, B.
Jiang, K.S. Chin (2003) “A fuzzy multi-criteria decision support
procedure for enhancing information delivery in extended
enterprise networks.”,Vol.16,pp.1-9.
[28] Shu-Hsien Liao, and Kuo-Chung Lu (2002), “Evaluating
AntiArmor Weapon Using Ranking Fuzzy Numbers”, Vol. 11(1),
pp.33-48.
[29] Mahammad Haghighi, Ali Divandari, Masoud Keimasi(2010)
“The impact of 3D e-readiness on e-banking development in Iran:
A fuzzy AHP analysis.” Vol. (37), Issue 6, pp.4084-4093.
[30] Anderson, W., Jr., Cox, J. E. P., &Fulcher, D. (1976). “Bank
selection decisions and marketing segmentation”. Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 40(1), pp. 40-45.
[31] Arshadi, N., Lawrence, E. C. (1987). “An empirical
investigation of new bank performance”. Journal of Banking and
Finance, Vol. 11(1), pp.33-48.
[32] Ashton, C. (1998). “Balanced scorecard benefits Nat West
Bank”. International Journal of Retail and Distribution
Management, Vol. 26(10), pp.400-407.
[33] Athanassopoulos, Giokas, D. (2000). “On-going use of data
envelopment analysis in banking institutions”. Evidence from the
Commercial Bank of Greece. Interfaces, Vol. 30(2), pp.81-95.
[34] Bauer, P. W., Berger, A. N., Ferrier, G. D., & Humphrey, D.
B. (1998). “Consistency conditions for regulatory analysis of
financial institutions”: A comparison of frontier efficiency
methods. Journal of Economic and Business, Vol. 50(2), pp.85114.
[35] Beccalli, A. (2007). “Does IT investment improve bank
performance? Evidence from Europe”. Journal of Banking &
Finance, Vol. 31, pp.2205-2230.
[36] Caballero, R., Cerda, E., Munoz, M.M., Rey, L., (2004).
“Stochastic approach versus multi objective approach for obtaining
efficient solutions in stochastic multi objective programming
problems”. European Journal of Operational Research 158,
pp.633-648.
[37] Changchit, C., Terrell, M.P., (1993).“A multi-objective
reservoir operation model with stochastic inflows”. Computers and
Industrial Engineering Vol. 24 (2), pp.303-313.
[38] Chen, S.J., Hwang, C.L., (1991). “Fuzzy Multiple Attribute
Decision making”. Springer- Verlag, Berlin.
[39] MaherAburrous, M.A. Hossain, Keshav
Dahal,
FadiThabtah(2008). “Intelligent phishing detection system for
ebanking using fuzzy data mining “. Jordan.
[40] Kuo-Liang Lee, Shu-Chen Lin, (2008) “A fuzzy quantified
SWOT procedure for environmental evaluation of an international
distribution centre”, Information Sciences Vol. 178 (2),
pp.531549.
[41] J.J. Buckley, (1985). “Ranking alternatives using fuzzy
numbers”, Fuzzy Sets Systems Vol. 15 (1), pp. 21-31.
[42] Torra, V., Godo, L., (1997). “Averaging continuous
distributions with the WOWA operator”. EFDAN’ 97, Germany.
[43] Torra, V., Narukawa, Y., (2007). “Modelling Decisions:
Information Fusion and Aggregation Operators”. Springer, Berlin.
[44] Yusuf TanselIç, (2012) “Development of a credit limit
allocation model for banks using an integrated Fuzzy TOPSIS and
linear programming”. Expert System with Applications. Vol.
39(5), pp. 5309-5316.
[45] ErgünEraslan, Yusuf TanselIç, (2011). “A Multi-Criteria
Approach for Determination of Investment Regions: Turkish
Case”. Industrial Management and Data Systems Vol. 111(6).
[46] Yusuf TanselIç, Mustafa Yurdakul,(2010). “Development of a
quick credibility scoring decision support system using fuzzy