‘MEAN+R’: implementing a web-based, multi-participant decision support system using the prevalent MEAN architecture with R based on a revised intuitionistic-fuzzy multiple attribute decision-making model

  • Zheng-Yun Zhuang
  • Li-Wei Yang
  • Meng-Hung Lee
  • Chung-Yung Wang
Technical Paper


This study proposes the novel idea of implementing a decision support system (DSS) based on both the prevalent MEAN architecture and the R statistical language platform. A ‘MEAN+R’ framework is defined, and the effectiveness of this framework is verified by taking it as the basis for the implementation of a real user-side, web-based, multi-participant DSS supporting a group decision-making process of quasi-senior people, pertaining to the selection of the best and commonly-agreed senior center for co-living after retirement. The ‘model base’ of the DSS is a recent MADM model evaluating the criteria-wise source opinions of the decision makers (DMs) toward alternatives in terms of intuitionistic fuzzy numbers (IFNs), but within the model the original multi-objective decision-making (MODM) phase to determine whether the criteria weight vector (CWV) has been replaced with another well-accepted MADM model, which is the AHP. This ensures not only unified grounds for modelling, but also a coherent implementation basis for the MADM model in R. The outside Node.js programs access the ‘data base’ of the DSS managed using MongoDB and will invoke the R-written ‘model base’ codes while necessary. Then, the R program also interacts with the ‘data base’ to exchange the information relevant to the decision from/to users. An illustrative numerical group decision example supported by this DSS is provided, and an efficiency analysis is made by listing the time spent on both data and model bases separately and clearly, while excluding the other processes of the DSS. A key finding is that the computational time can be controlled when incorporating the vector-based R platform, i.e., it leaps forward to the next level only when the size of the problem increases to a certain extent. Finally, since the realized DSS is intended to face end users of the healthcare system (rather than the business-oriented service providers, e.g., hospitals, physicians, nurses, etc.), it may provide some supplement to healthcare decision support (rather than solving other types of problem, such as clinical decisions).



The funding supports of the study are disclosed as follows: Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan (ROC): MOST106-2410-H-038-001; TMU Research Project, Taipei Medical University: TMU105-AE1-B46.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.


  1. Akaa OU, Abu A, Spearpoint M, Giovinazzi S (2016) A group-AHP decision analysis for the selection of applied fire protection to steel structures. Fire Saf J 86:95–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Azaiez MN, Al Sharif SS (2005) A 0–1 goal programming model for nurse scheduling. Comput Oper Res 32(3):491–507MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. Beisgen B, Kraitchman M (2003) Senior centers: opportunities for successful aging. Springer Publishing Company, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  4. Bian T, Hu J, Deng Y (2017) Identifying influential nodes in complex networks based on AHP. Physica A 479:422–436MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chen S-J, Hwang C-L, Hwang F-P (1992) Fuzzy multiple attribute decision making: methods and applications. Springer, BerlinCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. Dahl R (2011) An introduction to Node.js with Ryan Dahl. InfoQ. Accessed Aug 2017
  7. David S (2014) Mastering MEAN: introducing the MEAN stack: develop modern, full-stack, twenty-first-century web projects from end-to-end. IBM Developer Works. Accessed June 2017
  8. David S (2015) Architecture of the MEAN Stack. O’Reilly Media. Accessed April 2017
  9. Dweiri F, Kumar S, Khan SA, Jain V (2016) Designing an integrated AHP based decision support system for supplier selection in automotive industry. Expert Syst Appl 62:273–283CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Erdogan SA, Šaparauskas J, Turskis Z (2017) Decision making in construction management: AHP and expert choice approach. Proc Eng 172:270–276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gray P, Nunamaker JF (1993) Group decision support systems. In: Sprague R, Watson H (eds) Decision support systems: putting theory into practice. Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle RiverGoogle Scholar
  12. Haviv AQ (2016) MEAN web development—second edition: develop your real-time MEAN application efficiently using a combination of MongoDB, express, angular, and node. Packt Publishing, BirminghamGoogle Scholar
  13. Hillerman T, Souza JCF, Reis ACB, Carvalho RN (2017) Applying clustering and AHP methods for evaluating suspect healthcare claims. J Comput Sci 19:97–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Holsapple C (2008) DSS architecture and types. Handb Decis Support Syst 1:163–189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kersten GE, Noronha SJ (1999) WWW-based negotiation support: design, implementation, and use. Decis Support Syst 25(2):135–154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kokangül A, Polat U, Dağsuyu C (2017) A new approximation for risk assessment using the AHP and Fine Kinney methodologies. Saf Sci 91:24–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Li G, Kou G, Lin C, Xu L, Liao Y (2015) Multi-attribute decision making with generalized fuzzy numbers. J Oper Res Soc 66(11):1793–1803CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Li W, Yu S, Pei H, Zhao C, Tian B (2017) A hybrid approach based on fuzzy AHP and 2-tuple fuzzy linguistic method for evaluation in-flight service quality. J Air Transp Manag 60:49–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. LINDO Systems, Inc (2013) R/LINGO resource page. LINDO Systems, Inc. Accessed Feb 2017
  20. Lith A, Mattsson J (2010) Investigating storage solutions for large data. Department of Computer Science and Engineering, Chalmers University of Technology, GöteborgGoogle Scholar
  21. Rajalakshmi K, Mohan SC, Babu SD (2011) Decision support system in healthcare industry. Int J Comput Appl 26(9):42–44Google Scholar
  22. Research Center of Industry Innovation for the Senior Citizens (2012) CGURP-UARPD-3A0101: final term report. Chang Gung University. Accessed Dec 2014
  23. Saaty TL (1977) A scaling method for priorities in hierarchical structures. J Math Psychol 15:59–62MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  24. Samuel OW, Asogbon GM, Sangaiah AK, Fang P, Li G (2017) An integrated decision support system based on ANN and Fuzzy AHP for heart failure risk prediction. Expert Syst Appl 68:163–172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Schrage L (2002) LINGO release 8.0 user’s manual. LINDO Systems, Inc, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  26. Sindhu S, Nehra V, Luthra S (2017) Investigation of feasibility study of solar farms deployment using hybrid AHP-TOPSIS analysis: case study of India. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 73:496–511CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Szulecka J, Zalazar EM (2017) Forest plantations in paraguay: historical developments and a critical diagnosis in a SWOT-AHP framework. Land Use Policy 60:384–394CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. R Core Team (2017). An Introduction to R (for R version 3.4.1, 2017-6-30). The Comprehensive R Archive Network (CRAN). Accessed Aug 2017
  29. Tseng C-H (2015) From LAMP to MEAN (translated from traditional Chinese). Accessed July 2017
  30. Tzeng G-H, Huang J-J (2011) Multiple attribute decision making: methods and applications. CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group, Boca RatonMATHGoogle Scholar
  31. Wang S-P, Hsieh Y-K, Zhuang Z-Y, Ou N-C (2014) Solving an outpatient nurse scheduling problem by binary goal programming. J Ind Prod Eng 31(1):41–50Google Scholar
  32. Wikipedia (2017) R (programming language). Wikipedia. Accessed Aug 2017
  33. Wise D (2001) An international perspective on policies for an aging society (no. w8103). National Bureau of Economic Research, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  34. Yang J-B, Madan GS (1994) An evidential reasoning approach for multiple-attribute decision making with uncertainty. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern 24(1):1–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Ye J (2013) Multiple attribute group decision-making methods with unknown weights in intuitionistic fuzzy setting and interval valued intuitionistic fuzzy setting. Int J Gen Syst 42(5):489–502MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  36. Zhuang Z-Y, Yang L-W, Lee M-H, Wang C-Y (2017) Supporting the group decision problem of senior center selection by implementing a DSS using the prevalent MEAN architecture with R based on an IFN Model. In: Proceedings of the 2017 international conference on innovation, communication and engineering (ICICE 2017), 5–11 Nov, 2017, Kunming, People’s Republic of China, p 168Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Graduate Institute of Data Science, College of ManagementTaipei Medical UniversityTaipeiTaiwan, ROC
  2. 2.Department of Logistics Management, Management CollegeNational Defense University (ROC)TaoyuanTaiwan, ROC
  3. 3.Research Center of Biostatistics, College of ManagementTaipei Medical UniversityTaipeiTaiwan, ROC

Personalised recommendations