IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/annopr/v325y2023i2d10.1007_s10479-023-05339-w.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A comparison between TOPSIS and SAW methods

Author

Listed:
  • Francesco Ciardiello

    (University of Salerno)

  • Andrea Genovese

    (The University of Sheffield)

Abstract

The Technique for Order of Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) and Simple Additive Weighting (SAW) are among the most employed approaches for aggregating performances in Multi-Criteria Decision-Making (MCDM). TOPSIS and SAW are two MCDM methods based on the value function approach and are often used in combination with other MCDM methods in order to produce rankings of alternatives. In this paper, first, we analyse some common features of these two MCDM methods with a specific reference to the additive properties of the value function and to the sensitivity of the value function to trade-off weights. Based on such methodological insights, an experimental comparison of the results provided by these two aggregation methods across a computational test is performed. Specifically, similarities in rankings of alternatives produced by TOPSIS and SAW are evaluated under three different Minkowski distances (namely, the Euclidean, Manhattan and Tchebichev ones). Similarities are measured trough a set of statistical indices. Results show that TOPSIS, when used in combination with a Manhattan distance, produces rankings which are extremely similar to the ones resulting from SAW. Similarities are also Experimental results confirm that rankings produced by TOPSIS methods are closer to SAW ones when similar formal properties are satisfied.

Suggested Citation

  • Francesco Ciardiello & Andrea Genovese, 2023. "A comparison between TOPSIS and SAW methods," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 325(2), pages 967-994, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:annopr:v:325:y:2023:i:2:d:10.1007_s10479-023-05339-w
    DOI: 10.1007/s10479-023-05339-w
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10479-023-05339-w
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10479-023-05339-w?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Sarita Gajbhiye Meshram & Ehsan Alvandi & Chandrashekhar Meshram & Ercan Kahya & Ayad M. Fadhil Al-Quraishi, 2020. "Application of SAW and TOPSIS in Prioritizing Watersheds," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 34(2), pages 715-732, January.
    2. 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.
    3. Kuo, Ting, 2017. "A modified TOPSIS with a different ranking index," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 260(1), pages 152-160.
    4. Deng-Feng Li, 2009. "Relative Ratio Method For Multiple Attribute Decision Making Problems," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 8(02), pages 289-311.
    5. Nomeda Dobrovolskienė & Anastasija Pozniak, 2021. "Simple Additive Weighting versus Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to an Ideal Solution: which method is better suited for assessing the sustainability of a real estate project," Entrepreneurship and Sustainability Issues, VsI Entrepreneurship and Sustainability Center, vol. 8(4), pages 180-196, June.
    6. Hajkowicz, Stefan & Higgins, Andrew, 2008. "A comparison of multiple criteria analysis techniques for water resource management," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 184(1), pages 255-265, January.
    7. Yakup Çelikbilek & Fatih Tüysüz, 2020. "An in-depth review of theory of the TOPSIS method: An experimental analysis," Journal of Management Analytics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 7(2), pages 281-300, April.
    8. Opricovic, Serafim & Tzeng, Gwo-Hshiung, 2007. "Extended VIKOR method in comparison with outranking methods," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 178(2), pages 514-529, April.
    9. F. Hutton Barron & Bruce E. Barrett, 1996. "Decision Quality Using Ranked Attribute Weights," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 42(11), pages 1515-1523, November.
    10. Athanasios Kolios & Varvara Mytilinou & Estivaliz Lozano-Minguez & Konstantinos Salonitis, 2016. "A Comparative Study of Multiple-Criteria Decision-Making Methods under Stochastic Inputs," Energies, MDPI, vol. 9(7), pages 1-21, July.
    11. Samira Vakilipour & Abolghasem Sadeghi-Niaraki & Mostafa Ghodousi & Soo-Mi Choi, 2021. "Comparison between Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Methods and Evaluating the Quality of Life at Different Spatial Levels," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(7), pages 1-36, April.
    12. Lai, Young-Jou & Liu, Ting-Yun & Hwang, Ching-Lai, 1994. "TOPSIS for MODM," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 76(3), pages 486-500, August.
    13. Greco, Salvatore & Matarazzo, Benedetto & Slowinski, Roman, 2001. "Rough sets theory for multicriteria decision analysis," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 129(1), pages 1-47, February.
    14. Sureeyatanapas, Panitas & Sriwattananusart, Kawinpob & Niyamosoth, Thanawath & Sessomboon, Weerapat & Arunyanart, Sirawadee, 2018. "Supplier selection towards uncertain and unavailable information: An extension of TOPSIS method," Operations Research Perspectives, Elsevier, vol. 5(C), pages 69-79.
    15. 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.
    16. Kadziński, Miłosz & Greco, Salvatore & Słowiński, Roman, 2013. "RUTA: A framework for assessing and selecting additive value functions on the basis of rank related requirements," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 41(4), pages 735-751.
    17. Lisa Scholten & Max Maurer & Judit Lienert, 2017. "Comparing multi-criteria decision analysis and integrated assessment to support long-term water supply planning," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(5), pages 1-30, May.
    18. 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.
    19. Hu, Jiantao & Du, Yuxian & Mo, Hongming & Wei, Daijun & Deng, Yong, 2016. "A modified weighted TOPSIS to identify influential nodes in complex networks," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 444(C), pages 73-85.
    20. Santosh Vitthal Bhaskar & Hari Narayan Kudal, 2019. "Multi-criteria decision-making approach to material selection in tribological application," International Journal of Operational Research, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 36(1), pages 92-122.
    21. Mbarka Selmi & Tarek Kormi & Nizar Bel Hadj Ali, 2016. "Comparison of multi-criteria decision methods through a ranking stability index," International Journal of Operational Research, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 27(1/2), pages 165-183.
    22. Zanakis, Stelios H. & Solomon, Anthony & Wishart, Nicole & Dublish, Sandipa, 1998. "Multi-attribute decision making: A simulation comparison of select methods," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 107(3), pages 507-529, June.
    23. Zamani-Sabzi, Hamed & King, James Phillip & Gard, Charlotte C. & Abudu, Shalamu, 2016. "Statistical and analytical comparison of multi-criteria decision-making techniques under fuzzy environment," Operations Research Perspectives, Elsevier, vol. 3(C), pages 92-117.
    24. Gershon, Mark, 1984. "The role of weights and scales in the application of multiobjective decision making," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 15(2), pages 244-250, February.
    25. Cinelli, Marco & Kadziński, Miłosz & Gonzalez, Michael & Słowiński, Roman, 2020. "How to support the application of multiple criteria decision analysis? Let us start with a comprehensive taxonomy," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 96(C).
    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. 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.
    2. Kuo, Ting, 2017. "A modified TOPSIS with a different ranking index," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 260(1), pages 152-160.
    3. Cinelli, Marco & Kadziński, Miłosz & Miebs, Grzegorz & Gonzalez, Michael & Słowiński, Roman, 2022. "Recommending multiple criteria decision analysis methods with a new taxonomy-based decision support system," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 302(2), pages 633-651.
    4. Mimica R. Milošević & Dušan M. Milošević & Ana D. Stanojević & Dragan M. Stević & Dušan J. Simjanović, 2021. "Fuzzy and Interval AHP Approaches in Sustainable Management for the Architectural Heritage in Smart Cities," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 9(4), pages 1-29, February.
    5. Bartłomiej Kizielewicz & Jarosław Wątróbski & Wojciech Sałabun, 2020. "Identification of Relevant Criteria Set in the MCDA Process—Wind Farm Location Case Study," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(24), pages 1-40, December.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. Susmaga, Robert & Szczȩch, Izabela & Zielniewicz, Piotr & Brzezinski, Dariusz, 2023. "MSD-space: Visualizing the inner-workings of TOPSIS aggregations," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 308(1), pages 229-242.
    9. Katerina Kabassi, 2021. "Comparing Multi-Criteria Decision Making Models for Evaluating Environmental Education Programs," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(20), pages 1-17, October.
    10. Rezaei, Jafar, 2015. "Best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 49-57.
    11. Kokaraki, Nikoleta & Hopfe, Christina J. & Robinson, Elaine & Nikolaidou, Elli, 2019. "Testing the reliability of deterministic multi-criteria decision-making methods using building performance simulation," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 112(C), pages 991-1007.
    12. Sarita Gajbhiye Meshram & Vijay P. Singh & Ercan Kahya & Ehsan Alvandi & Chandrashekhar Meshram & Shailesh Kumar Sharma, 2020. "The Feasibility of Multi-Criteria Decision Making Approach for Prioritization of Sensitive Area at Risk of Water Erosion," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 34(15), pages 4665-4685, December.
    13. 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.
    14. Hassan Hashemi & Jalal Bazargan & S. Mousavi, 2013. "A Compromise Ratio Method with an Application to Water Resources Management: An Intuitionistic Fuzzy Set," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 27(7), pages 2029-2051, May.
    15. Roszkowska Ewa & Wachowicz Tomasz, 2019. "The Impact of Decision-Making Profiles on the Consistency of Rankings Obtained by Means of Selected Multiple Criteria Decision-Aiding Methods," Econometrics. Advances in Applied Data Analysis, Sciendo, vol. 23(2), pages 1-14, June.
    16. Eduardo Guzman & Beatriz Andres & Raul Poler, 2022. "A Decision-Making Tool for Algorithm Selection Based on a Fuzzy TOPSIS Approach to Solve Replenishment, Production and Distribution Planning Problems," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-28, May.
    17. Mulliner, Emma & Malys, Naglis & Maliene, Vida, 2016. "Comparative analysis of MCDM methods for the assessment of sustainable housing affordability," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 59(PB), pages 146-156.
    18. Nastaran Chitsaz & Mohammad Banihabib, 2015. "Comparison of Different Multi Criteria Decision-Making Models in Prioritizing Flood Management Alternatives," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 29(8), pages 2503-2525, June.
    19. Soheil Azizi & Milad Mohammadi, 2023. "Strategy selection for multi-objective redundancy allocation problem in a k-out-of-n system considering the mean time to failure," OPSEARCH, Springer;Operational Research Society of India, vol. 60(2), pages 1021-1044, June.
    20. Bilbao-Terol, Amelia & Arenas-Parra, Mar & Cañal-Fernández, Verónica & Antomil-Ibias, José, 2014. "Using TOPSIS for assessing the sustainability of government bond funds," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 1-17.

    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:spr:annopr:v:325:y:2023:i:2:d:10.1007_s10479-023-05339-w. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.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.