IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/igg/jsds00/v11y2020i3p18-51.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Comparative Analysis of CE-Topsis and CE-Maut Methods

Author

Listed:
  • Hakan Altin

    (University of Aksaray, Turkey)

Abstract

The key objective of this study is to conduct a comparative analysis of performance ranking results of the two multi-criteria decision-making methods, namely TOPSIS and MAUT. In this study, the CRITIC and ENTROPY methods were utilized as objective weighting techniques. In the application part of this study, three salient findings were attained. The first finding was that of the close relationship between TOPSIS ranking conducted by CRITIC and ENTROPY methods. The second finding was that of the close relationship between the MAUT ranking conducted by the CRITIC and ENTROPY methods. The third finding was that of the mutual and significant relationship in a positive direction between the performance ranking results obtained by TOPSIS and MAUT methods. In other words, TOPSIS and MAUT methods give the same performance ranking results. The results found are statistically significant.

Suggested Citation

  • Hakan Altin, 2020. "A Comparative Analysis of CE-Topsis and CE-Maut Methods," International Journal of Strategic Decision Sciences (IJSDS), IGI Global, vol. 11(3), pages 18-51, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:igg:jsds00:v:11:y:2020:i:3:p:18-51
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://services.igi-global.com/resolvedoi/resolve.aspx?doi=10.4018/IJSDS.2020070102
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Hakan Altin, 2022. "The Comparison of Edas, Copras, and EFI Methods in the Decision-Making Process," International Journal of Operations Research and Information Systems (IJORIS), IGI Global, vol. 13(1), pages 1-19, January.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:igg:jsds00:v:11:y:2020:i:3:p:18-51. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Journal Editor (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.igi-global.com .

    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.