IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/baq/taprar/v2y2024i2p52-62.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Testing the suitability of vector normalization procedure in topsis method: application to wheel loader selection

Author

Listed:
  • Mohamed Bouhedja

    (University of Badji Mokhtar)

  • Samir Bouhedja

    (University of Sciences and Technology – Houari Boumediene)

  • Aissa Benselhoub

    (Environment, Modeling and Climate Change Division)

Abstract

The object of the research consists of testing the suitability of the vector normalization procedure (NP) in the Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to the Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) method.One of the most problematic steps of the Multi-Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) process is related to the application of NPs by default to transform different measurement units of criteria into a comparable unit. This is because of the absence of a universal agreement that defines which NP is the most suitable for a given MCDM method. In the literature, there are thirty-one available NPs, each one of them has its strengths and weaknesses and, accordingly, can efficiently be applied to an MCDM method and even worst to another. Let’s note that many NPs (e. g., NPs of sum, max-min, vector, and max) have been used by default (i. e., without suitability study) in the TOPSIS method. Consequently, outcomes of multi-criteria evaluation and rankings of alternatives considered in the decision problems could have led to inconsistent solutions, and, therefore, decision-makers could have made irrational or inappropriate decisions. That’s why suitability studies of NPs become indispensable.Moreover, a description of the methodology, proposed in this research, is outlined as follows:1) method of weighting based on an ordinal ranking of criteria and Lagrange multiplier (for determining criteria weights);2) TOPSIS method (for ranking considered alternatives);3) a statistical approach with 3-estimate (for comparing effects generated by the used NPs).In the research, twelve different NPs are compared to each other in the TOPSIS method via a numerical example, which deals with the wheel loader selection problem.The results of the comparison indicate that, amongst the twelve different NPs analyzed in this suitability study, vector NP has the lesser effect on the considered alternatives’ evaluation outcomes, when used with the TOPSIS method.The vector NP-TOPSIS approach can therefore be applied to solve multi-criteria decision problems. Its application further allows the decision-makers and users to better select efficient solutions and, consequently, to make conclusive decisions.

Suggested Citation

  • Mohamed Bouhedja & Samir Bouhedja & Aissa Benselhoub, 2024. "Testing the suitability of vector normalization procedure in topsis method: application to wheel loader selection," Technology audit and production reserves, PC TECHNOLOGY CENTER, vol. 2(2(76)), pages 52-62, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:baq:taprar:v:2:y:2024:i:2:p:52-62
    DOI: 10.15587/2706-5448.2024.301207
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.uran.ua/tarp/article/download/301207/294794
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.15587/2706-5448.2024.301207?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bauer, Paul W. & Berger, Allen N. & Ferrier, Gary D. & Humphrey, David B., 1998. "Consistency Conditions for Regulatory Analysis of Financial Institutions: A Comparison of Frontier Efficiency Methods," Journal of Economics and Business, Elsevier, vol. 50(2), pages 85-114, March.
    2. Nazanin Vafaei & Rita A. Ribeiro & Luis M. Camarinha-Matos, 2018. "Data normalisation techniques in decision making: case study with TOPSIS method," International Journal of Information and Decision Sciences, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 10(1), pages 19-38.
    3. Maysam Eftekhary & Peyman Gholami & Saeed Safari & Mohammad Shojaee, 2012. "Ranking Normalization Methods for Improving the Accuracy of SVM Algorithm by DEA Method," Modern Applied Science, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 6(10), pages 1-26, October.
    4. Thomas L. Saaty & Daji Ergu, 2015. "When is a Decision-Making Method Trustworthy? Criteria for Evaluating Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Methods," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 14(06), pages 1171-1187, November.
    5. Opricovic, Serafim & Tzeng, Gwo-Hshiung, 2004. "Compromise solution by MCDM methods: A comparative analysis of VIKOR and TOPSIS," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 156(2), pages 445-455, July.
    6. Chris Tofallis, 2014. "Add or Multiply? A Tutorial on Ranking and Choosing with Multiple Criteria," INFORMS Transactions on Education, INFORMS, vol. 14(3), pages 109-119, May.
    7. Tzeng, Gwo-Hshiung & Chen, Ting-Yu & Wang, Jih-Chang, 1998. "A weight-assessing method with habitual domains," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 110(2), pages 342-367, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Zheng Yuan & Baohua Wen & Cheng He & Jin Zhou & Zhonghua Zhou & Feng Xu, 2022. "Application of Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Analysis to Rural Spatial Sustainability Evaluation: A Systematic Review," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(11), pages 1-31, May.
    2. Roman Vavrek, 2019. "Evaluation of the Impact of Selected Weighting Methods on the Results of the TOPSIS Technique," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 18(06), pages 1821-1843, November.
    3. Karatas, Mumtaz & Sulukan, Egemen & Karacan, Ilknur, 2018. "Assessment of Turkey's energy management performance via a hybrid multi-criteria decision-making methodology," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 153(C), pages 890-912.
    4. Francesco Ciardiello & Andrea Genovese, 2023. "A comparison between TOPSIS and SAW methods," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 325(2), pages 967-994, June.
    5. Wątróbski, Jarosław & Jankowski, Jarosław & Ziemba, Paweł & Karczmarczyk, Artur & Zioło, Magdalena, 2019. "Generalised framework for multi-criteria method selection," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 107-124.
    6. Małgorzata Trojanowska & Krzysztof Nęcka, 2020. "Selection of the Multiple-Criiater Decision-Making Method for Evaluation of Sustainable Energy Development: A Case Study of Poland," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(23), pages 1-24, November.
    7. Seyed Hossein Razavi Hajiagha & Jalil Heidary-Dahooie & Ieva Meidutė-Kavaliauskienė & Kannan Govindan, 2022. "A new dynamic multi-attribute decision making method based on Markov chain and linear assignment," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 315(1), pages 159-191, August.
    8. Eduardo Fernandez & Jorge Navarro & Rafael Olmedo, 2018. "Characterization of the Effectiveness of Several Outranking-Based Multi-Criteria Sorting Methods," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 17(04), pages 1047-1084, July.
    9. Alberto Garre & Geraldine Boué & Pablo S. Fernández & Jeanne‐Marie Membré & Jose A. Egea, 2020. "Evaluation of Multicriteria Decision Analysis Algorithms in Food Safety: A Case Study on Emerging Zoonoses Prioritization," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(2), pages 336-351, February.
    10. Sheldon, Tamara L. & Dua, Rubal, 2018. "Gasoline savings from clean vehicle adoption," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 418-424.
    11. Yongming Song & Jun Hu, 2017. "Vector similarity measures of hesitant fuzzy linguistic term sets and their applications," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(12), pages 1-13, December.
    12. Yi Peng, 2015. "Regional earthquake vulnerability assessment using a combination of MCDM methods," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 234(1), pages 95-110, November.
    13. Kwan, Simon H., 2006. "The X-efficiency of commercial banks in Hong Kong," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 30(4), pages 1127-1147, April.
    14. Barros, Carlos Pestana & Williams, Jonathan, 2013. "The random parameters stochastic frontier cost function and the effectiveness of public policy: Evidence from bank restructuring in Mexico," International Review of Financial Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 30(C), pages 98-108.
    15. Helmi Hammami & Thanh Ngo & David Tripe & Dinh-Tri Vo, 2022. "Ranking with a Euclidean common set of weights in data envelopment analysis: with application to the Eurozone banking sector," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 311(2), pages 675-694, April.
    16. Santiago Carbó Valverde & David Humphrey & Rafael López del Paso, 2007. "Opening the black box: Finding the source of cost inefficiency," Journal of Productivity Analysis, Springer, vol. 27(3), pages 209-220, June.
    17. Agnieszka Kurdyś-Kujawska & Agnieszka Sompolska-Rzechuła & Joanna Pawłowska-Tyszko & Michał Soliwoda, 2021. "Crop Insurance, Land Productivity and the Environment: A Way forward to a Better Understanding," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 11(11), pages 1-17, November.
    18. Zheng, Guozhong & Wang, Xiao, 2020. "The comprehensive evaluation of renewable energy system schemes in tourist resorts based on VIKOR method," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 193(C).
    19. Lin, Sheng-Hau & Zhao, Xiaofeng & Wu, Jiuxing & Liang, Fachao & Li, Jia-Hsuan & Lai, Ren-Ji & Hsieh, Jing-Chzi & Tzeng, Gwo-Hshiung, 2021. "An evaluation framework for developing green infrastructure by using a new hybrid multiple attribute decision-making model for promoting environmental sustainability," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 75(C).
    20. Milad Zamanifar & Seyed Mohammad Seyedhoseyni, 2017. "Recovery planning model for roadways network after natural hazards," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 87(2), pages 699-716, June.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:baq:taprar:v:2:y:2024:i:2:p:52-62. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Iryna Prudius (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.uran.ua/tarp/issue/archive .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.