• Krishnendu MukherjeeEmail author
Part of the Studies in Systems, Decision and Control book series (SSDC, volume 88)


Good decision brings success, peace, and prosperity to our society. The art of decision making is the secret of all success. Extensive literature review shows that multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) is one of the pervasive methods which are commonly used to resolve complex and conflicting issues. In this regard, research papers are gathered from 1980 to 2012 (searched via ScienceDirect, IEEE, etc.) and out of which 73 research papers are analyzed to find salient features of analytic hierarchy process (AHP), types of scale used in AHP, modified AHP, rank reversal problem of AHP, validation of AHP, TOPSIS, normalization methods of TOPSIS, distance functions of TOPSIS, fuzzy hierarchical TOPSIS, rank reversal problem of TOPSIS, and their hybrid methods. The purpose of this chapter is to give thorough idea of MCDA tools, namely AHP, TOPSIS, VIKOR, and their hybrid methods to beginners and professionals.


MCDA AHP TOPSIS Fuzzy hierarchical TOPSIS Normalization methods Rank reversal problem Review 


  1. Aguarón J, Esocbar MT, Jiménez JMM (2003) Consistency stability intervals for a judgement in AHP decision support systems. Eur J Oper Res 145:382–393CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. Akhlaghi E (2011) A rough-set based approach to design an expert system for personnel selection. World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology 78Google Scholar
  3. Ashtiani B, Haghighirad F, Makui A, Montazer GA (2009) Extension of fuzzy TOPSIS method based on interval-valued fuzzy sets. Appl Soft Comput 9:457–461CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baker D, Bridges D, Hunter R, Johnson G, Krupa J, Murphy J, Sorenson K (2002) Guidebook to decision-making methods. WSRC-IM-2002-00002, Department of Energy, USA.
  5. Barzilai J, Lootsma FA (1997) Power relations and group aggregation in the multiplicative AHP and SMART. J Multi-Criteria Decis Anal 6:155–165CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. Behzadian M, Otaghsara SK, Yazdani M, Ignatius J (2012) A state-of the-art survey of TOPSIS applications. Expert Syst Appl 39:13051–13069Google Scholar
  7. Belton V, Gear T (1982) On a shortcoming of Saaty’s method of analytic hierarchies. Omega 11(3):226–230Google Scholar
  8. Beynon M (2002) An analysis of distributions of priority values from alternative comparison scales within AHP. Eur J Oper Res 140:104–117CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. Cascales MSG, Lamata MT (2012) On rank reversal and TOPSIS method. Math Comput Model 56:123–132MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. Chakraborty S, Yeh CH (2009) A simulation comparison of normalization procedures for TOPSIS. IEEE. ISSN: 978-1-4244-4136-5/09Google Scholar
  11. Chen CT (2000) Extensions of the TOPSIS for group decision making under fuzzy environment. Fuzzy Sets Syst 114:1–9CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. Chen TY, Tsao CY (2008) The interval-valued fuzzy TOPSIS method and experimental analysis. Fuzzy Sets Syst 159:1410–1428MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. Choo EU, Wedley WC (2004) A common framework for deriving preference values from pair wise comparison matrices. Comput Oper Res 31:893–908CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. Chu TC, Lin YC (2009) An interval arithmetic based fuzzy TOPSIS model. Expert Syst Appl 36:10870–10876CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Chu MT, Shyu J, Tzeng GH, Khosla R (2007) Comparison among three analytical methods for knowledge communities group-decision analysis. Expert Syst Appl 33(4):1011–1024CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Davidrajuh R (2008) Building a Fuzzy Logic based Tool for E-readiness measurement. Electron Gov Int J 5(1):120–130Google Scholar
  17. De Luca A, Termini S (1972) A definition of a non-probabilistic entropy in the setting of fuzzy sets theory. Inf Control 20:201–312zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. Dodd F, Donegan H (1995) Comparison of prioritization techniques using inter hierarchy mappings. J Oper Res Soc 46:492–498CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. Dong Y, Xu Y, Li H, Dai M (2008) A comparative study of the numerical scales and the prioritization methods in AHP. Eur J Oper Res 186:229–242MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  20. Durbach IN, Stewart TJ (2012) Modeling uncertainty in multi-criteria decision analysis. Eur J Oper Res 223:1–14MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  21. Govindan K, Khodaverdi R, Jafarian A (2012) A fuzzy multi criteria approach for measuring sustainability performance of a supplier based on triple bottom line approach. J Clean Prod. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.04.014 Google Scholar
  22. Guitouni A, Martel JM (1998) Tentative guidelines to help choosing an appropriate MCDA method. Eur J Oper Res 109:501–521CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  23. Guo Z, Zhang Y (2010) The third-party logistics performance evaluation based on the AHP-PCA model. IEEE. ISBN:978-1-4244-7161-4/10Google Scholar
  24. Guo CG, Liu YX, Hou SM, Wang W (2010) Innovative product design based on customer requirement weight calculation model. Int J Autom Comput 7(4):578–583. doi: 10.1007/s11633-010-0543-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Harker P, Vargas L (1987) The theory of ratio scale estimation: Saaty’s analytic hierarchy process. Manage Sci 33:1383–1403MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hwang CL, Yoon K (1981) Multiple attribute decision making. Springer-Verlag, BerlinCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  27. Ishizaka A, Labib A (2011) Review of the main developments in the analytic hierarchy process. Expert Syst Appl 38:14336–14345CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Ishizaka A, Balkenborg D, Kaplan T (2010) Influence of aggregation and measurement scale on ranking a compromise alternative in AHP. J Oper Res Soc 62:700–710CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. May EC, Spottiswoode SJP, James, CL (1994) Shannon entropy: a possible intrinsic target property. J Parapsychology 58Google Scholar
  30. Jousselme A-L, Liu C, Grnecier D, Bossé Ẻ (2005) Measuring ambiguity in the evidence theory. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern Part A Syst Hum. doi: 10.1109/TSMCA.2005.853483
  31. Jr JT, Delhaye C, Kunsch PL (1989) An interactive decision support system (IDSS) for multicriteria decision aid. Math Comput Model 12(10/11):131l–1320Google Scholar
  32. Leung LC, Cao D (2001) On the efficacy of modeling multi-attribute decision problems using AHP and Sinarchy. Eur J Oper Res 132:39–49MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  33. Li TS, Huang HH (2009) Applying TRIZ and Fuzzy AHP to develop innovative design for automated manufacturing systems. Expert Syst Appl 36:8302–8312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lilly DP, Cory J, Hissem B (2009) The use of principal component analysis to integrate blasting into the mining process. In: Proceedings of 2009 Oxford Business & Economics Conference Program. ISBN: 978-09742114-1-9Google Scholar
  35. Lin MC, Wang CC, Chen MS, Chang CA (2008) Using AHP and TOPSIS approaches in customer-driven product design process. Comput Ind 59:17–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Liu P, Wang M (2011) An extended VIKOR method for multiple attribute group decision making based on generalized interval-valued trapezoidal fuzzy numbers. Sci Res Essays 6(4):766–776Google Scholar
  37. Lootsma F (1989) Conflict resolution via pair-wise comparison of concessions. Eur J Oper Res 40:109–116MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Ma D, Zheng X (1991) 9/9-9/1 Scale method of AHP. In: Proceedings of Second International Symposium on AHP, PittsburghGoogle Scholar
  39. Najmi A, Makui A (2010) Providing hierarchical approach for measuring supply chain performance using AHP and DEMATEL methodologies. Int J Ind Eng Comput 1:199–212Google Scholar
  40. Nezhad SS, Damghani KK (2009) Application of a fuzzy TOPSIS method base on modified preference ratio and fuzzy distance measurement in assessment of traffic police centers performance. Appl Soft Comput. doi: 10.1016/j.asoc.2009.08.036 Google Scholar
  41. Olson DL (2004) Comparison of weights in TOPSIS Models. Math Comput Model 40:721–727MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  42. Opricovic S (1998) Multicriteria optimization of civil engineering systems. Faculty of Civil Engineering, BelgradeGoogle Scholar
  43. Opricovic S, Tzeng GH (2004) Compromise solution by MCDM methods: a comparative analysis of VIKOR and TOPSIS. Eur J Oper Res 156:445–455CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  44. Opricovic S, Tzeng GH (2007) Extended VIKOR method in comparison with outranking methods. Eur J Oper Res 178(2):514–529CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  45. Parkan C, Wu ML (1997) On the equivalence of operational performance measurement and multiple attribute decision making. Int J Prod Res 35(11):2963–2988CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  46. Qureshi ME, Harrison SR, Wegener MK (1999) Validation of multicriteria analysis models. Agric Syst 62:105–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Rosenbloom ES (1996) A probabilistic interpretation of the final rankings in AHP. Eur J Oper Res 96:371–378CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  48. Ross TJ (2007) Fuzzy logic with engineering applications. Wiley India EditionGoogle Scholar
  49. Roy B (1985) Mèthodologie Multicritère D’Aide à la Dècision. Ćollection Gestion—Edition Economica, ParisGoogle Scholar
  50. Saaty T (1977) A scaling method for priorities in hierarchical structures’. J Math Psychol 15(3):234–281MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  51. Saaty TL (1990) Eigenvector and logarithmic least squares. Eur J Oper Res 48:156–160CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  52. Saaty TL (1994) Highlights and critical points in the theory and application of the analytic hierarchy process. Eur J Oper Res 74:426–447CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  53. Saaty TL (2004) Decision making—the analytic hierarchy and network process (AHP/ANP). J Syst Sci Syst Eng 13(1):1–34MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Saaty TL, Shih HS (2009) Structures in decision making: on the subjective geometry of hierarchies and networks. Eur J Oper Res 199:867–872MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  55. Saaty TL, Vargas LG (1984) The legitimacy of rank reversal. OMEGA Int J Manag Sci 12(5):513–516CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Saghafian S, Hejazi SR (2005) Multi-criteria group decision making using a modified fuzzy TOPSIS procedure. In: Proceeding 2005 International Conference on Computational Intelligence for Modelling, Control and Automation, and International Conference on Intelligent Agents, Web Technologies and Internet Commerce (CIMCA-IAWTIC’05). ISSN 0-7695-2504-0/05Google Scholar
  57. Salo A, Hamalainen R (1997) On the measurement of preference in the analytic hierarchy process. J Multi-Criteria Decis Anal 6:309–319CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  58. Schoner B, Wedley WC (1989) Ambiguous criteria weights in AHP: consequences and solutions. Decis Sci 20:462–475CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Schoner B, Choo EU, Wedley WC (1997) A comment on ‘rank disagreement: a comparison of multi-criteria methodologies’. J Multi-Criteria Decis Anal 6:197–200CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  60. Shih HS, Shyur HJ, Lee ES (2007) An extension of TOPSIS for group decision making. Math Comput Model 45:801–813CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  61. Shim JP (1989) Bibliographical research on the analytic hierarchy process (AHP). Socio-Econ Plann Sci 23(3):161–167MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Srdjevic B (2005) Combining different prioritization methods in the analytic hierarchy process synthesis. Comput Oper Res 32:1897–1919CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  63. Subramanian N, Ramanathan R (2012) A review of applications of analytic hierarchy process in operations management. Int J Prod Econ 138:215–241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Szmidt E, Kacprzyk J ( 2000) Distance between intuitionistic fuzzy sets. Fuzzy Sets System 114(3):505–518Google Scholar
  65. Taha HA (2006) Operations research—an introduction. Prentice-Hall of India Pvt, LtdzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  66. Taleizadeh AA, Niaki STA, Aryanezhad MB (2009) A hybrid method of Pareto, TOPSIS and genetic algorithm to optimize multi-product multi-constraint inventory control systems with random fuzzy replenishments. Math Comput Model 49:1044–1057MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  67. Tolga E, Demircan ML, Kahraman C (2005) Operating system selection using fuzzy replacement analysis and analytic hierarchy process. Int J Prod Econ 97:89–117Google Scholar
  68. Tsou CS (2008) Multi-objective inventory planning using MOPSO and TOPSIS. Expert Syst Appl 35:136–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Vaidya OS, Kumar S (2006) Analytic hierarchy process: An overview of applications. Eur J Oper Res 169:1–29MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  70. Wang YM, Elhag TMS (2006) An approach to avoiding rank reversal in AHP. Decis Support Syst 42:1474–1480CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Wang YJ, Lee HS (2007) Generalizing TOPSIS for fuzzy multiple-criteria group decision-making. Comput Math Appl 53:1762–1772MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  72. Wang TC, Lee HD (2009) Developing a fuzzy TOPSIS approach based on subjective weights and objective weights. Expert Syst Appl 36:8980–8985CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Wang JW, Cheng CH, Cheng HK (2008) Fuzzy hierarchical TOPSIS for supplier selection. Appl Soft Comput. doi: 10.1016/j.asoc.2008.04.014 Google Scholar
  74. Whitaker R (2007) Validation examples of the analytic hierarchy process and analytic network process. Math Comput Model 46:840–859MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  75. Xia W, Wu Z (2007) Supplier selection with multiple criteria in volume discount Environments. Omega 35:494–504CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Yager RR (1979) On the measure of fuzziness and negation Part 1: membership in unit interval. Int J Gen Syst 5:21–229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Zadeh AA, Izadbaksh HR (2008) A multi-variate/ multi-attribute approach for plant layout design. Int J Ind Eng 15(2):143–154Google Scholar
  78. Zanakis SH, Solomon A, Wishart N, Dublish S (1998) Multi-attribute decision making: a simulation comparison of selection methods. Eur J Oper Res 107:507–529CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  79. Zeleny M (1974) A concept of compromise solutions and the method of the displaced ideal. Comput Oper Res 1:479–496CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer (India) Pvt. Ltd. 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Mechanical EngineeringUniversity of Engineering and ManagementJaipurIndia

Personalised recommendations