International Journal of Fuzzy Systems

, Volume 21, Issue 8, pp 2421–2434 | Cite as

A Hybrid Decision Making Framework for Personnel Selection Using BWM, MABAC and PROMETHEE

  • Sui-zhi Luo
  • Li-ning XingEmail author


Personnel selection plays a vital role in the sustainable development of a company. Generally, both quantitative and qualitative criteria are considered in the personnel selection process. Hence, this research introduces crisp numbers and linguistic neutrosophic numbers (LNNs) simultaneously to express hybrid evaluation information. Then, the multi-attributive border approximation area comparison (MABAC) method is recommended to select ideal personnel because of its simplicity and precision. Some criteria have the feature of non-compensation in real personnel selection, but they are presumed to be compensatory in MABAC. To overcome this limitation, the idea of preference ranking organization method for enrichment evaluations (PROMETHEE) is integrated into MABAC. Besides, the traditional best–worst method (BWM) is modified with linguistic values to obtain the criteria weights more appropriately. As a result, a hybrid decision making framework is constructed to tackle personnel selection issues. Finally, an illustrative example of personnel selection in an IT company is given to show the procedures of the proposed method after the assessment criteria system is built. Moreover, some comparative analyses are made to justify the practicability and strengths of our method. Results demonstrate that the hybrid decision making framework is eligible and helpful for personnel selection in enterprises.


Personnel selection Best–worst method (BWM) Multi-attributive border approximation area comparison (MABAC) Preference ranking organization method for enrichment evaluations (PROMETHEE) Linguistic neutrosophic numbers (LNNs) 



This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 61773120).

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interests

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest regarding the publication of this paper.


  1. 1.
    Karabasevic, D., Zavadskas, E.K., Stanujkic, D., Popovic, G., Brzakovic, M.: An approach to personnel selection in the IT industry based on the EDAS method. Transform. Bus. Econ. 17(2), 54–65 (2018)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Sang, X., Liu, X., Qin, J.: An analytical solution to fuzzy TOPSIS and its application in personnel selection for knowledge-intensive enterprise. Appl. Soft Comput. 30(1), 190–204 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Wen, T.C., Chang, K.H., Lai, H.H.: Improving personnel selection by combining the minimal variance OWA operator and IPA. J. Intell. Fuzzy Syst. 35(6), 6229–6239 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Albadan, J., Gaona, P., Montenegro, C., Gonzalez-Crespo, R., Herrera-Viedma, E.: Fuzzy logic models for non-programmed decision-making in personnel selection processes based on gamification. Informatica 29(1), 1–20 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Samanlioglu, F., Taskaya, Y.E., Gulen, U.C., Cokcan, O.: A fuzzy AHP-TOPSIS-based group decision-making approach to IT personnel selection. Int. J. Fuzzy Syst. 20(5), 1576–1591 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Luo, S.Z., Liang, W.Z., Xing, L.N.: Selection of mine development scheme based on similarity measure under fuzzy environment. Neural Comput. Appl. (2019). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Fang, Z.B., Ye, J.: Multiple attribute group decision-making method based on linguistic neutrosophic numbers. Symmetry (2017). MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Pamučar, D., Ćirović, G.: The selection of transport and handling resources in logistics centers using multi-attributive border approximation area comparison (MABAC). Expert Syst. Appl. 42(6), 3016–3028 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Peng, X.D., Yang, Y.: Pythagorean fuzzy Choquet integral based MABAC method for multiple attribute group decision making. Int. J. Intell. Syst. 31(10), 989–1020 (2016)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Adar, T., Delice, E.K.: New integrated approaches based on MC-HFLTS for healthcare waste treatment technology selection. J. Enterp. Inf. Manage. 32(4), 688–711 (2019)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Brans, J.P., Vincke, P.: A preference ranking organization method: (the PROMETHEE method for multiple criteria decision-making). Manage. Sci. 31(6), 647–656 (1985)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Krishankumar, R., Ravichandran, K.S., Saeid, A.B.: A new extension to PROMETHEE under intuitionistic fuzzy environment for solving supplier selection problem with linguistic preferences. Appl. Soft Comput. 60, 564–576 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Yu, S.M., Wang, J., Wang, J.Q.: An interval type-2 fuzzy likelihood-based MABAC approach and its application in selecting hotels on a tourism website. Int. J. Fuzzy Syst. 19(1), 47–61 (2017)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Pamučar, D., Petrović, I., Ćirović, G.: Modification of the best-worst and MABAC methods: a novel approach based on interval-valued fuzzy-rough numbers. Expert Syst. Appl. 91, 89–106 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Yazdani, M., Pamucar, D., Chatterjee, P., Chakraborty, S.: Development of a decision support framework for sustainable freight transport system evaluation using rough numbers. Int. J. Prod. Res. (2019). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Rezaei, J.: Best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method. Omega 53, 49–57 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Tian, Z.P., Wang, J.Q., Zhang, H.Y.: An integrated approach for failure mode and effects analysis based on fuzzy best-worst, relative entropy, and VIKOR methods. Appl. Soft Comput. 72, 636–646 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Heidary Dahooie, J., Beheshti Jazan Abadi, E., Vanaki, A.S., Firoozfar, H.R.: Competency-based IT personnel selection using a hybrid SWARA and ARAS-G methodology. Hum. Factors Ergon. Manuf. Serv. Ind. 28(1), 5–16 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Efe, B., Kurt, M.: A systematic approach for an application of personnel selection in assembly line balancing problem. Int. Trans. Oper. Res. 25(3), 1001–1025 (2018)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    He, X.: Group decision making based on Dombi operators and its application to personnel evaluation. Int. J. Intell. Syst. 34(7), 1718–1731 (2019)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Nabeeh, N.A., Smarandache, F., Abdel-Basset, M., El-Ghareeb, H.A., Aboelfetouh, A.: An integrated neutrosophic-topsis approach and its application to personnel selection: a new trend in brain processing and analysis. IEEE Access 7, 29734–29744 (2019)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Yalçın, N., Yapıcı Pehlivan, N.: Application of the fuzzy codas method based on fuzzy envelopes for hesitant fuzzy linguistic term sets: a case study on a personnel selection problem. Symmetry 11(4), 493 (2019). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Garg, H., Nancy, : Linguistic single-valued neutrosophic prioritized aggregation operators and their applications to multiple-attribute group decision-making. J. Ambient Intell. Humaniz. Comput. 9(6), 1975–1997 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Liang, W.Z., Zhao, G.Y., Hong, C.S.: Performance assessment of circular economy for phosphorus chemical firms based on VIKOR-QUALIFLEX method. J. Clean. Prod. 196, 1365–1378 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Liu, P.D., Mahmood, T., Khan, Q.: Group decision making based on power Heronian aggregation operators under linguistic neutrosophic environment. Int. J. Fuzzy Syst. 20(3), 970–985 (2018)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Liang, W.Z., Zhao, G.Y., Wu, H.: Evaluating investment risks of metallic mines using an extended TOPSIS method with linguistic neutrosophic numbers. Symmetry (2017). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Liu, P.D., You, X.L.: Some linguistic neutrosophic Hamy mean operators and their application to multi-attribute group decision making. PLoS ONE (2018). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Liang, W.Z., Zhao, G.Y., Hong, C.S.: Selecting the optimal mining method with extended multi-objective optimization by ratio analysis plus the full multiplicative form (MULTIMOORA) approach. Neural Comput. Appl. (2018). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Fan, C., Feng, S., Hu, K.: Linguistic neutrosophic numbers einstein operator and its application in decision making. Mathematics 7(5), 389 (2019). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Li, Y.Y., Wang, J.Q., Wang, T.L.: A linguistic neutrosophic multi-criteria group decision-making approach with EDAS method. Arab. J. Sci. Eng. 44(3), 2737–2749 (2019)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Wang, X., Geng, Y., Yao, P., Yang, M.: Multiple attribute group decision making approach based on extended VIKOR and linguistic neutrosophic set. J. Intell. Fuzzy Syst. 36(1), 149–160 (2019)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Luo, S.Z., Liang, W.Z.: Optimization of roadway support schemes with likelihood-based MABAC method. Appl. Soft Comput. 80, 80–92 (2019)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Peng, X.D., Dai, J.G.: Hesitant fuzzy soft decision making methods based on WASPAS, MABAC and COPRAS with combined weights. J. Intell. Fuzzy Syst. 33(2), 1313–1325 (2017)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Wang, L., Peng, J.J., Wang, J.Q.: A multi-criteria decision-making framework for risk ranking of energy performance contracting project under picture fuzzy environment. J. Clean. Prod. 191, 105–118 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Sun, R.X., Hu, J.H., Zhou, J., Chen, X.H.: A hesitant fuzzy linguistic projection-based MABAC method for patients’ prioritization. Int. J. Fuzzy Syst. 20(7), 2144–2160 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Liang, W.Z., Zhao, G.Y., Wu, H., Dai, B.: Risk assessment of rockburst via an extended MABAC method under fuzzy environment. Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol. 83, 533–544 (2019)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Mahmoudi, A., Sadi-Nezhad, S., Makui, A.: A hybrid fuzzy-intelligent system for group multi-attribute decision making. Int. J. Fuzzy Syst. 18(6), 1117–1130 (2016)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Wu, Y.N., Xua, C.B., Ke, Y.M., Chen, K.F., Sun, X.K.: An intuitionistic fuzzy multi-criteria framework for large-scale rooftop PV project portfolio selection: case study in Zhejiang, China. Energy 143, 295–309 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Ziemba, P.: Neat F-PROMETHEE-a new fuzzy multiple criteria decision making method based on the adjustment of mapping trapezoidal fuzzy numbers. Expert Syst. Appl. 110, 363–380 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Liao, H.C., Wu, D., Huang, Y., Ren, P., Xu, Z.S., Verma, M.: Green logistic provider selection with a hesitant fuzzy linguistic thermodynamic method integrating cumulative prospect theory and PROMETHEE. Sustainability 10(4), 1291 (2018). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Zhao, J., Zhu, H., Li, H.: 2-dimension linguistic PROMETHEE methods for multiple attribute decision making. Expert Syst. Appl. 127, 97–108 (2019)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Lolli, F., Balugani, E., Ishizaka, A., Gamberini, R., Butturi, M.A., Marinello, S., Rimini, B.: On the elicitation of criteria weights in PROMETHEE-based ranking methods for a mobile application. Expert Syst. Appl. 120, 217–227 (2019)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Liu, P.D., Cheng, S.F., Zhang, Y.M.: An extended multi-criteria group decision-making PROMETHEE method based on probability multi-valued neutrosophic sets. Int. J. Fuzzy Syst. 21(2), 388–406 (2019)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Liang, W., Zhao, G., Wang, X., Zhao, J., Ma, C.: Assessing the rockburst risk for deep shafts via distance-based multi-criteria decision making approaches with hesitant fuzzy information. Eng. Geol. (2019). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Luo, S.Z., Zhang, H.Y., Wang, J.Q., Li, L.: Group decision-making approach for evaluating the sustainability of constructed wetlands with probabilistic linguistic preference relations. J. Oper. Res. Soc. (2019). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Guo, S., Zhao, H.: Fuzzy best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method and its applications. Knowl. Based Syst. 121, 23–31 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Mahdiraji, H.A., Arzaghi, S., Stauskis, G., Zavadskas, E.K.: A hybrid fuzzy BWM-COPRAS method for analyzing key factors of sustainable architecture. Sustainability (2018). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Aboutorab, H., Saberi, M., Asadabadi, M.R., Hussain, O., Chang, E.: ZBWM: the Z-number extension of best worst method and its application for supplier development. Expert Syst. Appl. 107, 115–125 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Li, J., Wang, J.Q., Hu, J.H.: Multi-criteria decision-making method based on dominance degree and BWM with probabilistic hesitant fuzzy information. Int. J. Mach. Learn. Cybern. (2018). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Pamucar, D., Chatterjee, K., Zavadskas, E.K.: Assessment of third-party logistics provider using multi-criteria decision-making approach based on interval rough numbers. Comput. Ind. Eng. 127, 383–407 (2019)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Mi, X., Liao, H.: An integrated approach to multiple criteria decision making based on the average solution and normalized weights of criteria deduced by the hesitant fuzzy best worst method. Comput. Ind. Eng. 133, 83–94 (2019)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Jahan, A., Ismail, M.Y., Shuib, S., Norfazidah, D., Edwards, K.L.: An aggregation technique for optimal decision-making in materials selection. Mater. Design 32(10), 4918–4924 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Parkan, C., Wu, M.L.: Decision-making and performance measurement models with applications to robot selection. Comput. Ind. Eng. 36(3), 503–523 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Taiwan Fuzzy Systems Association 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.College of Systems EngineeringNational University of Defense TechnologyChangshaPeople’s Republic of China

Personalised recommendations