AHP

See
discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/259933820
MCDM Methodologies and Applications: A

Literature Review from 1999 to 2009
Data · January 2011
CITATIONS READS
6 1,501
2 authors, including:
Abbas Toloie Eshlaghy

Islamic Azad University Tehran Science and Research Branch
98 PUBLICATIONS 98 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by Abbas Toloie Eshlaghy on 30 January 2014.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. All in-text references underlined in blue are added to the original document
and are linked to publications on ResearchGate, letting you access and read them immediately.
MCDM Methodologies and Applications:
A Literature Review from 1999 to 2009
Abbas Toloie-Eshlaghy
Industrial management Department, Science and Research Branch
Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran
E-mail: toloie@gmail.com; toloie@srbiay.ac.ir
Mahdi Homayonfar
Industrial management Department, Science and Research Branch
Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran
E-mail: homayoonfar_m@yahoo.com
Abstract
In recent decades, several mathematical methods have been developed for selecting the
most preferable alternatives. Among them, the MCDM (Multiple Criteria Decision
Making) methods as disciplines aimed at supporting DMs faced with numerous and
sometimes conflicting evaluations. Theses methods have attracted much attention from
academics and practitioners. This paper aims to bring together ‘state-of-the-art' reviews and
the most recent advances by leading experts on the fundamental theories, methodologies
and applications of MCDM. In this paper, in order to classify the current researches on
MCDM; 628 scholarly papers from 20 journals (journals with higher published papers in
Science Direct) are studied. Section 2 describes research methodology. Section 3
categorized 786 methods applied in all papers, into the 12 application areas and a non-
application area, regarding to their fuzzy or crisp nature. Sections 4 and 5, categorized
papers into the application area; includes 386 papers (61.5%), categorized into twelve sub-
areas and non-application area includes 242 papers (38.5%). Section 6 classified scholarly
papers by distribution of applied papers by year of publication, journal of publication,
fuzzy or crisp nature of their methods and authors’ nationality. Section 7 is conclusion.
Keywords: Multiple Criteria Decision Making (MCDM), Fuzzy set theory, Application
area, Classification, Literature Review
1. Introduction
Rapid technological and economic growth over the last fifty years has changed human lives and made
modern society face complex decision making problems .Multiple criteria decision making (MCDM) is
an important part of modern decision science, aimed at supporting decision makers faced with multiple
decision criteria and multiple decision alternatives. The development of MCDM methods has been
motivated not only by a variety of real-life problems requiring the consideration of multiple criteria,
but also by practitioners’ desire to propose enhanced decision making techniques using recent
advancements in mathematical optimization, scientific computing, and computer technology. The
impact that the MCDM paradigm makes on business, engineering, and science is being reflected in the
large number of articles with MCDM-type studies and analyses which are presented at professional
meetings in various disciplines (Wiecek et al., 2008). We review published papers in various journals
between 1999 and 2009 that reports on the state-of-the-art of MCDM theory, methodology, and
© Research Journal of Internatıonal Studıes - Issue 21 (October, 2011) 86
applications. In this paper, we develop a classifying approach based on literature review of MCDM
methods
2. Research Methodology
A literature review, based on the study of 20 scholarly journals, was conducted as a research
methodology to develop a framework for MCDM research. To identify those journal papers that
describe methodologies and applications in MCDM, an extensive search using library databases was
carried out. The literature review was undertaken to identify the articles in high-ranking journals.
Hence, conference proceeding papers, master’s theses, doctoral dissertations and textbooks were
excluded from the literature review.
In this review, 1999 was chosen as a starting date for search. Based on the search in the library
databases, 628 papers from 20 scholarly journals appeared on the subject of MCDM or ‘Multi Criteria
Decision Making’ in Title, Abstract and Keywords. The MCDM papers in scholarly journals were
identified, analyzed, classified and recorded under a classification scheme, which is shown in Table 1.
As each paper was reviewed, it was classified by several categories: applied method(s), application
area, and year of publication, authors’ nationality and fuzzy or crisp nature of papers.
Table 1: The classification scheme for the literature review on MCDM (Behzadian et al., 2009)
Application Journal of Year of Authors’

N Method(s) Fuzzy /Crisp
area publication publication Nationality
1
2
628
Although this review covers a proportion of MCDM publications on methodologies and

applications, is a useful source for MCDM researchers.
3. Analysis of Applied MCDM Methods

A keyword search in Science Direct engine, based on the subject of ‘MCDM’ or ‘Multi* Criteria
Decision Making’ in Title, Abstract and Keywords field between 1999 to 2009, found 1128 papers in
more than 200 Journals. Many of these journals have only one paper on MCDM. Thus, twenty journals
that have significant difference with others were selected. Among Six hundred and twenty eight papers
published on MCDM in these journals, 386 papers (61.5%) have application and 242 papers (38.5%)
have not. We divided applicable papers into 12 specific areas as Environment Management, Water
Management, Business and Financial Management, Transportation and Logistics, Manufacturing and
Assembly, Energy Management, Agricultural and Forestry Management, Managerial and Strategic
Planning, Project Management and Evaluation, Social service, Military Service and Other Topics.
MCDM methods have been studied in both application and not application areas. Some papers
included more than one method, moreover five papers was erratum or descriptive. We find 786 applied
methods in all papers, summarized as Table 2. Notice that numbers in gray rows include iteration of
each fuzzy method in relevant application area and numbers in white rows include iteration of each
crisp method in relevant application area. For example, number 3 in AHP (method) and Environment
Management (application area) crossing point, indicates that 3 papers used AHP method in
Environment Management area. Similarly, number 1 in their crossing point indicates that 1 paper used
fuzzy AHP method in Environment Management area.

Table 2: Classification of the MCDM methods
Group MCDM
MAUT/MAVT
Programming
(Fuzzy/Crisp)
PROMETHE
Compromise
Method
DEMATEL
Algorithms
ELECTRE
rough sets
Fuzzy set
FMCDM
Heuristic
Methods
Decision
SMART
TOPSIS
multiple
choquet
analysis
VIKOR
integral
Making
criteria
Theory
SMAA
Group
theory
Other
OWA
MOP
Total
Total
SAW
DEA
AHP
ANP
DSS
LA
GP
E
Application
Environment 3 1 1 3 1 1 2 1 2 1 9 2 27 32
Management 1 3 1 5
5 1 1 2 1 3 3 2 3 1 2 1 3 28 29
Water Management
1 1
Business and Financial 9 4 1 5 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7 39 65
Management 5 2 2 8 1 1 5 2 26
Transportation and 14 11 8 6 7 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 2 2 5 12 79 118
Logistics 9 5 1 2 4 1 1 4 2 8 2 39
Manufacturing and 4 1 1 1 5 1 1 1 1 3 2 8 5 34 48
Assembly 4 1 1 1 4 1 2 14
5 2 3 3 1 1 1 5 21 24
Energy Management
2 1 3
Agricultural and 1 2 1 3 2 3 12 12
Forestry Management 0
Managerial and 9 6 3 1 1 2 4 1 4 2 1 1 1 2 1 8 47 58
Strategic Planning 3 1 1 5 1 11
Project Management 11 4 4 3 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 9 40 51
and Evaluation 6 1 1 3 11
1 2 1 1 3 3 11 12
Social Service
1 1
2 1 1 1 1 1 3 10 13
Military Service
1 1 1 3
7 3 1 4 4 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 8 39 50
Other topics
3 1 1 4 2 11
38 3 2 10 7 15 16 3 1 3 1 1 4 7 1 8 6 12 8 6 2 4 72 230 274
Non application Papers 1
2 5 3 2 12 9 44
1
4 1
Total 142 37 5 54 15 1 37 53 8 5 22 5 7 15 11 9 11 8 44 17 10 3 33 18 155 786 786
4 7

4. Analysis of MCDM Application Areas
As a part of this review, 386 papers (61.5%) were considered applicable. The applications of MCDM
methods were abundant and various; therefore it was difficult to find the relevant topics. After a
detailed study on the applications in order to show similarities and differences, 386 papers were
categorized into twelve areas, some of them were presented by (Behzadian et al., 2009): Transportation
and Logistics 78 papers (20.2%), Business and Financial Management 50 papers (13%), Managerial
and Strategic Planning 43 papers (11.1%), Project Management and Evaluation 38 papers (9.8%),
Other topics 35 papers (9.1%), Manufacturing and Assembly 35 papers (9.0%), Environment
Management 34 papers (8.8%), Water Management 22 papers (5.7%), Energy Management 20 papers
(5.2%), Agricultural and Forestry Management 12 papers (3.1%), Social service 11 papers (2.8%) and
Military Service 8 papers (2.1%). Other Topics covered the papers published in several fields:
Chemistry, Sport, Physics and so on. In addition, In 1999; 12 papers, 2000; 14 papers, 2001; 17 papers,
2002; 20 papers, 2003; 14 papers, 2004; 33 papers, 2005; 27 papers, 2006; 32 papers, 2007; 43 papers,
2008; 56 papers and 2009; 118 papers have been published in 12 application areas. Table 3 categorized
applicable papers as follow:
Table 3: Distribution of applied papers between 1999 to 2009
Area
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Total
Year
Environment
2 5 4 2 2 4 1 2 2 4 6 34
Management
Water Management 2 0 0 1 0 3 4 1 4 4 3 22
Business and Financial
1 0 2 3 1 4 3 5 2 4 25 50
Management
Transportation and
2 0 2 1 2 3 6 7 10 21 24 78
Logistics
Manufacturing and
2 3 2 0 1 4 1 6 3 1 12 35
Assembly
Energy Management 0 1 0 1 2 2 1 0 4 3 6 2
Agricultural and Forestry
0 0 0 2 2 1 0 2 2 2 1 12
Management
Managerial and Strategic
0 0 2 3 0 1 5 2 6 7 17 43
Planning
Project Management and
1 1 3 1 1 4 3 5 5 6 8 38
Evaluation
Social service 0 0 0 2 1 1 1 0 1 1 4 11
Military Service 1 0 0 2 1 0 0 1 1 0 2 8
Other Topics 1 4 2 2 1 6 2 1 3 3 10 35
Total 12 14 17 20 14 33 27 32 43 56 118 386
Figure 1: Frequency of papers by application area

Figure 1: Frequency of papers by application area - continued
Business and Financial Management
Military Service
Manufacturing and Assembly
Transportation and Logistics
Agricultural and Forestry Management
Project Management and Evaluation

Energy Management
Transportation and Logistics
Social service
Other Topics
Managerial and Strategic
Environment Management
Figure 2: Frequency of applied papers by year
The following sections review 386 scholarly papers based on their application areas. First, a
small number of the papers are briefly mentioned in each section, and then the whole of papers in each
topic are summarized in the specific tables. In order to offer a brief overview on MCDM applications
published in each topic, the papers are arranged in alphabetical order by author.
4.1. Environment Management

Environment Management is considered as a popular topic in MCDM applications and a large amount
of the papers are related to this topic. Environment Management has covered several specific areas
such as waste management, Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA),
land-use planning and natural resources (Behzadian et al., 2009). In the context of environment
management, 34 papers were published. Balteiro and Romero (2004) utilized a sustainability
aggregating model in search an index to natural systems sustainability. Basson and Petrie (2007)
utilized Multivariate statistical analysis for the consideration of uncertainty in decision making
supported by Life Cycle Assessment. Chen et al. (2009) utilized fuzzy MCDM approach and fuzzy
AHP for selecting the best environment-watershed plan in Taiwan. Georgopoulou et al. (2003) utilized
ELECTRE Tri in defining national priorities for greenhouse gases emissions reduction in the energy
sector in Greece. Laukkanen et al. (2002) employed Applying voting theory and group decision
making in natural resource management in Finland. Zhang and Lu (2009) utilized AHP for evaluation
of ecosystem services for the Ruoergai Plateau Marshes in southwest China and, Zhu and Dale (2001)
developed JAVA AHP as a web-based decision analysis tool for natural resource and environmental
management. Table 4 summarizes the papers on the topic of Environment Management.

Table 4: The applied papers on the topic of ‘Environment Management’
Author(s) Application Area Tools / Methodologies used

Balteiro and Romero (2004) Natural systems sustainability Sustainability aggregating model
Basson and Petrie (2007) Life Cycle Assessment Multivariate statistical analysis
UNEP (United Nations Environmental
Borges and Villavicencio (2004) Environment (Green house Gases)
Program)
Brown et al. (2001) Marine protected area management Trade-off analysis
Grey compromise programming-Voting
Chang and Tseng (1999) Air quality monitoring
theory
Landfill sitting in a fast-growing urban
Chang et al. *(2008) FMCDM-spatial DSS
region
Chen et al. *** (2009) Watershed management FAHP-FMCDM
El-Gayar and Leung (2001) Regional aquaculture development Multiple objective programming
Gamboa (2006) Environmental impact assessment SMCE (Social Multi Criteria Evaluation)
Environmental assessment in steel making
Geldermann et al. (2000) PROMETHEE
industry
Greenhouse gases emissions reduction in
Georgopoulou et al. (2003) ELECTRE Tri
the energy sector
Hajkowicz (2008) Stakeholder environmental decisions Multiple criteria analysis
Technology competition for cleaning
Hokkanen et al. (2000) SMAA 2
polluted soil
Life cycle assessment and decision-making
Khan et al. (2002) FMCDM-GreenPro-I
methodology for process plant design
Laukkanen et al. (2002) Natural resource management Voting theory-Group Decision Making
Liu and Stewart **(2004) Natural resource management Object-oriented DSS
Mackay and Robinson (2000) Testing integrated environmental models Multiple criteria DSS
Makowski (2000) European air quality DSS
Intergovernmental negotiations to
Makowski (2005) DSS
improving air quality
Environmental impact of an aluminum die
Neto et al. (2008) MIKADO
casting plant
Ranking of copper concentrates according
Nikolić et al. (2009) PROMETHEE-GAIA
to their quality
Wildlife translocations into communal
Paterson et al. (2008) Fuzzy DSS
conservancies
Accounting human opinion, in ecosystem AHP- EUM (expected utility method)-
Pavlikakis and Tsihrintzis (2003)
management compromise programming
Prato (1999) Ecosystem management DSS
Ruiz and Fernández (2009) Environmental assessment in construction Spatial DSS
Post-emergency management of
Salt and Dunsmore (2000) Spatial DSS
radioactively contaminated land
Scholz and Schnabel (2006) Soil remediation Multi-criteria utility functions
Simão et al. (2009) Strategic planning of wind farm sites Multi-Criteria Spatial DSS
Organic amendments used to transform an
Tarrasón et al. (2007) unproductive shrub land into a Multi-criteria DSS
Mediterranean dehesa
Vaillancourt and Waaub (2004) Greenhouse gases PROMETHEE II
Lifecycle assessment for commercial
Wang et al. (2009) Group MCDM
building
Westmacott (2001) Coastal management in the tropics DSS
Zhang and Lu** (2009) Evaluation of ecosystem services AHP
Natural resource and environmental
Zhu and Dale (2001) JAVA AHP
management
4.2. Hydrology and Water Management

Most of the papers on the topic of hydrology and Water Management are about the sustainable water
resources planning, water management strategies assessment, and irrigation planning (Behzadian et al.,
2009). In the context of water management, 22 papers were published. Ballestero et al. (2002) utilized
Compromise programming for establishing politically feasible water markets in Spain. Khalil et al.
(2005) utilized PROMETHEE and GAIA method for Selection of hydrothermal pre-treatment
conditions of waste sludge destruction. Raju and Pillai (1999) utilize MAUT in performance evaluation
of an irrigation system in India. Raju and Pillai (1999) utilized an integrated method (ELECTRE-2 –
PROMETHEE II- AHP - Compromise Programming) in river basin planning and development in
India, and Zeng et al. (2007) utilize grey relational analysis and AHP to optimization of wastewater
treatment alternative. The papers published on the topic of Water Management are summarized in
Table 5.
Table 5: The applied papers on the topic of ‘Water Management’

Ballestero et al. (2002) Water allocation Compromise programming
Brouwer and Ek (2004) Flood control policies Multi-criteria analysis
Prioritization of water management for
Chung and Lee (2009) AHP
sustainability
Fu (2008) Reservoir flood control operation Fuzzy optimization method
Gomez-Limon and Martınez (2006) Irrigation water market MAUT
PROMETHEE II-Compromise
Hajkowicz and Higgins (2008) Water resource management
Programming
Distance-based uncertainty analysis
Hyde et al. (2005) Water resource decision making
approach
Kenyon (2007) Flood risk management Multi-criteria analysis
Selection of hydrothermal conditions of
Khalil et al. (2005) PROMETHEE-GAIA
waste sludge destruction
Marinoni et al. (2009) Assessing different water supply options MCAT (multiple criteria analysis tool)
Mysiak et al. (2005) Water resource management DSS
Olenick et al. (2004) Brush management Sub-basin scale prioritization method
Peniwati and Brenner (2008) Water Enterprise Association AHP
Qin et al. (2008) Water resources management SAW-ELECTRE-TOPSIS
Raju and Pillai (1999) Irrigation system MAUT
ELECTRE-2 - PROMETHEE-2- AHP -
Raju and Pillai (1999) River basin planning Compromise Programming (CP) -
EXPROM-2
Sadiq and Tesfamariam (2007) Water quality indices OWA operators
Srdjevic (2007) Water management AHP-Social choice methods
Starkl and Brunner (2004) Urban water management Multi-criteria DSS
Xevi and Khan (2005) Water management GP
FSROWA (Fuzzy-Stochastic-Revised
Zarghami and Szidarovszky (2009) Water resource project
OWA)
Zeng et al. (2007) Optimization of waste water treatment AHP-GRA (grey relational analysis)
4.3. Business and Financial Management

The publications on the topic of Business and Financial Management are quite rich, focusing mainly on
the key aspects of general management, performance measurement, portfolio management, and
investment analysis (Behzadian et al., 2009). In the context of environment management, 50 papers
were published. Albadvi et al. (2007) utilized PROMETHEE method to Decision making in stock
trading in Iran. Ayağ and Özdemir (2009) utilized DEA and TOPSIS methods for portfolio risk
evaluation in the turkey FOREX spot market. Chu and Khosla (2009) employed fuzzy MCDM to Index
evaluations and business strategies in Australia. Ding and Liang (2005) developed fuzzy MCDM,
entropy weighting method and graded mean integration to select partners of strategic alliances for liner
shipping in Taiwan. Wang and Lin (2009) utilized fuzzy set theory for Accurately predicting the
success of B2B e-commerce in small and medium enterprises in Taiwan, and Wu et al. (2009) utilized
some methods (Fuzzy AHP-SAW-TOPSIS-VIKOR) to evaluating banking performance based on
Balanced Scorecard in Taiwan. A list of MCDM papers on the topic of Business and Financial
Management is presented in Table 6.

Table 6: The applied papers on the topic of ‘Business and Financial Management’

Albadvi et al. (2007) Stock trading PROMETHEE
Ayağ and Özdemir (2009) Concept selection in new product development FANP
Büyüközkan and Feyzioglu
New product development FAHP- FWA (fuzzy weighted average)
(2004)
Chamodrakas et al. (2009) Customer evaluation TOPSIS
Chang et al. (2008) Sales forecasting in print circuit board industries Fuzzy Case-Based Reasoning-(Fuzzy NN)
Chang et al. (2009) Evaluating the competing mutual funds TOPSIS
Chou et al. (2006) IT/IS investments FMCDM
Chu and Khosla (2009) Index evaluations and business strategies FMCDM
Crone et al. (2006) Marketing Data Mining
ANP-AGP (Archimedean Goal
Demirtas and Ustun (2009) Purchasing decisions
Programming)
Denguir-Rekik et al. (2009) Marketing activities in E-Commerce VAM
Dimova et al. (2008) Investment projects assessment AHP-FMCDM
FMCDM-entropy weighting method-graded
Ding and Liang (2005) To select partners of strategic alliances
mean integration
Ehrgott et al. (2004) Portfolio optimization MAUT
Gupta et al. (2008) Portfolio optimization MOP-Fuzzy mathematical programming
Kahraman et al. (2004) Comparison of catering service companies FAHP
Karacapilidis and Moraïtis (2001) Electronic commerce system Interactive MCDM
Finding the most preferred alliance structure
Korhonen and Voutilainen (2006) AHP
between Bank-Insurance companies
Korhonen et al. (2006) Financial alliances AHP
Kwak et al. (2005) Advertising products of a manufacturing AHP- integer GP
Lee et al. (2009) Stock selection ANP
Lee et al.(2009) Service development ANP
Levary and Wan (1999) Foreign direct investment AHP
Identification of interrelationship of key
Li and Tzeng (2009) DEMATEL
customers’ needs
Lin and Ko (2009) Portfolio value-at-risk forecasting GA-EVT (extreme value theory)
Marketing expert decision process for private
Lin et al.(2009) FANP
Hotels
Lowe et al. (2002) Investment analysis Pair wise stochastic comparison
Mikhailov (2002) partnership selection AHP-Fuzzy programming
Mikhailov and Tsvetinov (2004) Evaluation of services FAHP
MDA (multiple discriminate analysis)-
Nwogugu (2007) Bankruptcy/recovery prediction
LOGIT/PROBIT method
Feasibility test model for new telecom service
Oh et al. (2009) ANP
development
Seçme et al. (2009) Performance evaluation in Bank FAHP-TOPSIS
Sevastjanov and Dymova (2009) Stock screening Multiple criteria optimization
Shipley et al. (2001) product/service introduction FMCDM
Steuer and Na (2003) Finance categorized bibliographic study Bibliographic study
Multiple experts’ negotiation-Attribute
Sun and Li (2009) Financial distress early warning
weighting
Evaluating the competitive advantages of
Sun and Lin (2009) Fuzzy TOPSIS
shopping websites
Tiryaki and Ahlatcioglu (2005) Stock exchange FMCDM
Tseng et al. (2009) Measuring business performance in the high- AHP-DEA-FMCDM
tech manufacturing industry
Wang (2008) Evaluate financial performance of domestic Fuzzy TOPSIS
airlines
Wang (2009) Evaluate financial performance FMCGDM (Fuzzy multi-criteria GDM)
Wang and Lin** (2009) Select merger strategy for commercial banks AHP
Wang and Lin* (2009) predicting the success of B2B e-commerce Fuzzy set theory
Wu et al.(2009) Selecting the preferable bank assurance AHP-TOPSIS
alliance strategic
Wu et al. (2009) Evaluating banking performance FAHP-SAW-TOPSIS-VIKOR
Xidonas et al. (2009) Equity portfolio selection ELECTRE Tri
Xu et al (2006) Business innovation self assessment Evidential reasoning-IDS (Intelligent
Decision System)
Yun et al. (2009) Financial-credit scoring FMCDM

Table 6: The applied papers on the topic of ‘Business and Financial Management’ - continued
Zhai et al. (2009) Design concept evaluation in product Rough sets-grey relation analysis
development
Zopounidis and Doumpos Finance A new method to multi-group
(2002) discrimination
4.4. Transportation and Logistics

Transportation and Logistic is also one of the most important topics which can be found in the
literature of MCDM. The topic often discusses some specific areas such as location problems,
outsourcing, supplier selection and transportation (Behzadian et al., 2009). In the context of
Transportation and Logistic, 78 papers were published. Amid et al. (2006) utilized a fuzzy multi
objective programming (Fuzzy MOP) model for the supplier selection problem under price breaks in a
supply Chain. Chen et al. (2006) developed fuzzy TOPSIS and fuzzy MOP methods for supplier
evaluation and selection in supply chain management in Taiwan. Kahraman et al. (2003) employed
fuzzy group decision-making for facility location selection, and Liou and Chuang (2009) utilized
DEMATEL, ANP and VIKOR methods for selection of outsourcing providers. Table 7 summarizes the
papers on the topic of Transportation and Logistic.
Table 7: The applied papers on the topic of ‘Transportation and Logistics’

Amid et al. (2006) Supplier selection Fuzzy MOP
Amid et al. (2009) Supplier selection in SCM Fuzzy MOP
Anagnostopoulos et al. (2008) Location site selection Fuzzy set theory-TOPSIS
Araz et al. (2007) Outsourcer/supplier selection PROMETHEE-FGP
Boran et al. (2009) Supplier selection Fuzzy TOPSIS
Bottani and Rizzi (2008) Suppliers and products selection FAHP-Cluster analysis
Büyüközkan et al. (2008) Selection of partner in logistics value chain FAHP-Fuzzy TOPSIS
Evaluation of 4PL (Fourth party logistics)
Büyüközkan et al. (2009) 2-additive Choquet integral
operating models
Cakir and Canbolat (2008) Inventory classification FAHP
Çelebi and Bayraktar (2008) Supplier evaluation DEA-NN
Evaluation model for docking facilities in
Celik et al. (2009) FAD (Fuzzy axiomatic design)
shipbuilding industry
Proposing competitive strategies on Turkish
Celik et al. (2009) FAD (Fuzzy axiomatic design)-Fuzzy TOPSIS
container ports
Chan and Kumar (2007) Global supplier development FAHP
Chan et al. (2005) Production and distribution AHP-GA
Chang et al. **(2009) Evaluate office layouts EFWA (efficient fuzzy weighted average)
Chao et al. (2008) Supply capacity SDSC (stochastically dependent supply capacity)
Chen (2001) Select the location of the distribution center FMCDM
Chen (2009) Supplier selection (rebury procurement) Fuzzy set theory
Optimizing partners’ choice in IS/IT
Chen and Wang* (2009) Fuzzy VIKOR
outsourcing projects
Chen et al. (2006) Supplier evaluation in SCM Fuzzy TOPSIS-Fuzzy MOP
Marine transshipment container port
Chou (2007) FMCDM
selection
Selecting the hub location in the marine
Chou (2009) Chou (2009)
transportation
Chou and Chang (2008) Supplier selection Fuzzy SMART
ANP-MOMILP (multi -objective mixed integer
Demirtas and Üstün (2008) Supplier selection and order allocation
linear programming)
Deshpande et al. (2004) Task assignment in a supply chain Fuzzy MOP
Selecting a third-party reverse logistics
Efendigil et al. (2008) FAHP–ANN
provider
Farahani and Asgari (2007) Facility location TOPSIS-Set Covering Model
Ferrari (2003) Transportation AHP
Guneri et al. (2009) Supplier selection problem in SCM Fuzzy set theory-Fuzzy LP
Hassanzadeh Amin and Razmi
Supplier selection and evaluation Fuzzy set theory-
(2009)

Table 7: The applied papers on the topic of ‘Transportation and Logistics’ - continued
Ho and Emrouznejad (2009) Logistics distribution network design AHP-GP

Hong and Ha (2008) Supply chain management Machine learning techniques
Contracting cleaning services in
Jiménez et al (2007) DSS (Generic Multi -Attribute Analysis system)
transportation
Fuzzy Group MADM(Fuzzy synthetic evaluation-
Kahraman et al. (2003) Facility location selection Yager’s weighted goals method-FAHP-Blin’s fuzzy
relations)
Kandakoglu et al. (2009) Shipping registry selection AHP-TOPSIS
Kinra and Kotzab (2008) Supply chain environmental complexity AHP
Kongar and Gupta (2006) Disassembly to order system Fuzzy GP
Kulak and Kahraman (2005) Transportation company selection AHP-Axiomatic design
SMAA-O (stochastic multi criteria acceptability
Lahdelma et al. (2009) Locating a waste treatment facility
analysis)
Cross-border logistics with fleet
Leung et al. (2006) GP
management
Liao and Rittscher (2007) Supplier selection model Stochastic MOP
Lin and Kwok (2006) Logistic system Tabu Search-Simulated Annealing
Liou and Chuang (2009) Selection of outsourcing providers DEMATEL-ANP-VIKOR
Liu and Hai (2005) Supplier selection Voting AHP-DEA
MOPSO (Multi-objective particle swarm
Mahnam et al. (2009) Supply chain modeling
optimization)
Melachrinoudis et al. (2005) Consolidating a warehouse network Physical programming
Montazer et al. (2009) Vendor selection Fuzzy ELECTRE III
Reference point approach-Reference distribution
Ogryczak (1999) Location problems
approach
MOGA (multi objective genetic algorithm)-
Ölçer et al. (2006) Arrangement of Ro–Ro vessels
FMAGDM
Önüt et al. (2009) Supplier selection ANP-TOPSIS
Petroni and Rizzi (2002) Ranking the shop floor dispatching rules Fuzzy set theory
Poh and Ang (1999) Transportation fuels AHP
Pokharel (2008) Decision making in a supply chain MOP
Reverse logistics for end-of-life
Ravi et al. (2005) ANP
computers
Sharma et al. (2008) Optimize distribution network AHP
Shen and Yu (2009) Facility location selection FRS (fuzzy factor rating system)
Sheu (2008) Logistic Management FAHP-TOPSIS-FMCDM
Shyur and Shih (2006) Strategic vendor selection ANP-TOPSIS-NGT (nominal group technique)
Silva et al. (2007) Optimization of logistic systems FWA (Fuzzy weighted aggregation)
Skriver et al. (2004) Facility location Bi objective optimization
Tabari et al. (2008) Location selection FAHP
Vendor selection of a
Tam and Tummala (2001) AHP
telecommunications system
Tansel İç and
Machining center selection DSS-FAHP-Fuzzy TOPSIS
Yurdakul,(2009)
Tseng et al. (2009) Selection of optimal supplier in SCM ANP-choquet integral
Tuzkaya et al. (2008) Locating undesirable facilities ANP
Tzeng et al. (2005) Public transportation analysis AHP-TOPSIS-VIKOR
ANP-MOMILP (multi objective mixed integer
Ustun and Demırtas (2008) Supplier selection
LP)
Ustun and Demirtas (2008) Lot-sizing with supplier selection ANP-achievement scalarizing functions-GP
Wang and Yang (2007) IS outsourcing AHP-PROMETHEE
Wang et al. (2004) Product-driven supply chain selection AHP-preemptive GP
Wey and Wu (2007) Resource allocation in transportation ANP-GP
DS (Dempster–Shafer theory)-grey related
Wu (2009) Supplier selection
analysis
Wu et al. (2009) Supplier selection ANP-MIP (Mixed integer programming)
AHP-MOMIP (multi-objective mixed integer
Xia and Wu (2007) Supplier selection
programming)
Yang et al. (2008) Vendor selection FAHP-ISM (interpretive structural modeling)

Table 7: The applied papers on the topic of ‘Transportation and Logistics’ - continued
Evaluation of robustness of supply chain SMART-TOPSIS-GRA (grey relational analysis)-

Yang ey al. (2009)
information-sharing strategies Taguchi method
Zolghadri et al. (2008) SCM- Production planning LLGP (lexicographic linear GP)
Zucca et al. (2008) Site selection for a local park SMCE (multiple criteria evaluation)
4.5. Manufacturing and Assembly

Manufacturing and Assembly is also an important application area in the literature of the MCDM
methods that is mainly related to the aspects of manufacturing systems and planning, maintenance
programming, and assembly line planning (Behzadian et al., 2009). In the context of Manufacturing
and Assembly, 35 papers were published. Al-Najjar and Alsyouf (2003) utilize Fuzzy MCDM for
selecting the most efficient maintenance approach in Sweden. Chan et al. (2000) utilized AHP and
Artificial Intelligence to aid the design of flexible manufacturing systems in Hong Kong. Li and Huang
(2009) applied TRIZ (Theory of Inventive Problem Solving) and Fuzzy AHP methods to develop
innovative design for automated manufacturing systems in Taiwan, and Tavana et al. (2007) utilized
D-side (a group multi-criteria DSS) for facility and workforce planning for Johnson Space Center in
USA. Table 8 gives a brief summary of scholarly papers on the topic of Manufacturing and Assembly.
Table 8: The applied papers on the topic of ‘Manufacturing and Assembly’

Abdi (2009) Evaluating reconfigurable machines FAHP
Alanne (2004) Selection of renovation actions Multi-criteria “knapsack” model
Almedia (2001) Maintenance MAUT
Al-Najjar and Alsyouf Selecting the most efficient maintenance
FMCDM
(2003) approach
Capacitated plant selection in a decentralized
Cao and Chen (2006) Mixed integer programming
manufacturing environment
Selection of a cleaning system for engine
Cascales and Lamata (2009) AHP
maintenance
Cebeci (2009) Selecting ERP systems in textile industry FAHP
Chan et al. (2000) Design of FMS AHP-AI
Chen and Liao (2004) Quality Control MOP-DEA
Chiadamrong (1999) Manufacturing strategies selection FMCDM (Fuzzy set theory)
Selection of software for production system Fuzzy set theory-Object-oriented
Cochran and Chen (2005)
analysis programming
Cui et al. (2004) Inspection strategy MOP
Ertay et al. (2006) Facility layout design AHP-DEA
Gamberini et al. (2006) Assembly line re-balancing problem TOPSIS-Kottas and Lau heuristic approach
Gokcen and Agpak (2006) Manufacturing systems GP
Evaluating advanced manufacturing system
Karsak and Tolga (2001) FMCDM
investments
Designing operations system Mathematical programming model-based
Kim et al. (2000)
telecommunications MADM
Lasserre et al. (2009) Multi product batch plant design AHP-GA
Develop innovative design for automated FAHP-TRIZ (Theory of Inventive Problem
Li and Huang (2009)
manufacturing systems Solving)
Li and Kao (2009) Peer Production Services FMCDM
Low et al. (2006) FMS scheduling MOP-Simulated annealing-Tabu search
Mallasi (2006) Workspace planning CSA (Critical Space-time Analysis )
Özcan and Toklu (2009) Assembly line balancing Pre-emptive GP-Fuzzy GP
Papakostas et al (2009) Aircraft Maintenance Planning DSS
Resit et al. (2009) ERP software selection process ANP-ANN
Rose and Shier (2007) Marker making Two-stage enumerative approach
Shanian and Savadogo
Material selection TOPSIS-VIKOR
(2009)
Tavana et al. (2007) Facility and workforce planning D-side (group multi-criteria DSS)
Wang (2000) Nested inspections OPTIMAN (branch-and-bound algorithm)
Table 8: The applied papers on the topic of ‘Manufacturing and Assembly’ - continued
Wang et al. (2007) Selection of maintenance strategies FAHP-Fuzzy prioritization method

Trading capacity between two semiconductor GA-NN-DOE (design of experiment)-
Wu and Chang (2008)
fabs RSM (response surface method)
Corporate environmental and resources
Wu et al. (2004) grey compromise programming
management
Yaman and Balibek (1999) Facility layout problem DMSS(decision-making support system)
Yang and Hsieh (2009) Six-Sigma project selection Delphi FMCDM
Performance evaluation of manufacturing
Yu ad Hu (2009) Voting method-Fuzzy TOPSIS
plants
4.6. Energy Management

Various MCDM applications are suggested for the topic of Energy Management. Most research in this
topic has concentrated on selecting and evaluating energy generation or exploitation alternatives
(Behzadian et al., 2009). In the context of Energy Management, 20 papers were published. Beck et al.
(2008) utilize Multi Objective Programming (MOP) to planning, optimization and decision making for
energy networks in Australia. Doukas et al. (2007) utilize Fuzzy MCDM for the formulation of
sustainable technological energy priorities using linguistic variables in Greece. Muela et al. (2007)
employed Fuzzy possibilistic model and Multi objective optimization methods for medium-term power
generation planning with environmental criteria in Argentina, and Papadopoulos and Karagiannidis
(2008) utilized ELECTRE III for the optimization of decentralized energy systems in Greece. The
application of MCDM methods on the topic of Energy Management are summarized on Table 9.
Table 9: The applied papers on the topic of ‘Energy Management’

Beck et al. (2008) Energy networks planning and optimization MOP
Bergey et al (2003) Electrical power districting problem DSS
MCA tools (Super Decisions , DecideIT,
Buchholz et al. (2009) Bioenergy systems assessments
Decision Lab, NAIADE)
Cavallaro and Ciraolo (2005) Evaluate wind energy plants Fuzzy set theory-NAIADE
Formulation of sustainable technological
Doukas et al. (2007) FMCDM
energy priorities
Resource allocation with application to
Ekel and Galperin (2003) Box-triangular MOLP
load management and energy market
Goumas and Lygerou (2000) Energy exploitation projects PROMETHEE II
Dominance methods-minimax-maximax-
Conjunctive and disjunctive methods-
Greening and Bernow (2004) Energy and environmental policy Lexicographic-elimination-Weighting or
scaling methods-Mathematical
programming
Kablan (2004) Energy conservation promotion AHP
Kim (2007) Evaluation of electricity generation AHP-ELECTRE
Kowalski et al. (2009) Renewable energy PROMETHEE
Fuzzy possibilistic model-Multi objective
Muela et al. (2007) Power generation planning
optimization
Oud (2002) Hydropower development planning Literature Review
Optimization of decentralized energy
Papadopoulos and Karagiannidis (2008) ELECTRE III
systems
Energy and carbon modeling-Policy AHP-HIPRE (AHP HIerarchical
Phdungsilp (2009)
scenarios for low-carbon city development PREference analysis)
Building information model based energy Physical calculation models-Statistic
Schlueter and Thesseling (2009)
performance assessment calculation models
Supriyasilp et al. (2009) Hydropower development priority AHP
Tsoutsos et al. (2009) Sustainable energy planning PROMETHEE II
Wang et al. (2008) Selecting the optimal tri generation system AHP-FMCDM
Facilitate convergence of divergent opinion
Yüzügüllü and Deason (2007) Delphi method
in hydrogen production decisions

4.7. Agricultural and Forestry Management
The publications on the topic of Agricultural and Forestry Management focusing are not diverse. In the
context of Agricultural and Forestry Management, 12 papers were published. Ananda and Herath
(2009) developed a critical review of multi-criteria decision making methods with special reference to
forest management and planning. Gomez-Limon et al. (2003) utilized MAUT to agricultural risk
aversion in Spain. Kazana et al. (2003) utilize MIN-MAX method for multiple use forest management
(The Queen Elizabeth Forest in Scotland), and Sarker and Quaddus (2002) developed a Goal
Programming technique to Modeling a nationwide crop planning problem. The papers on the topic of
Agricultural and Forestry Management are summarized in Table 10.
Table 10: The applied papers on the topic of ‘Agricultural and Forestry Management’

Planning the regional agricultural
Agrell et al. (2004) DSS
development
Ananda and Herath (2009) Forest management Review MCDM Methods
André and Riesgo (2007) Agricultural economics MAUT
Calker et al. (2006) Dutch dairy farming systems MAUT-GP
Assessing the threat of exotic plant
Cook and Proctor (2007) Deliberative multi-criteria evaluation
pests
Gomez-Limon et al. (2003) Agricultural risk aversion MAUT
Kazana et al. (2003) Forest management MIN-MAX
López et al. (2008) Organic and integrated olive farming AHP
Sarker and Quaddus (2002) Crop planning GP
Tropical forestry projects providing
Sell et al. (2006) Mean values-ANOVA
environmental services
Balancing and Ranking Method (New
Strassert and Prato (2002) Selecting farming systems
MCDM Method)
Forest planning-natural resource
Vainikainen et al. (2008) Multi-criteria DSS
management
4.8. Managerial and Strategic Planning

Many MCDM applications are mentioned for the topic of Managerial and Strategic Planning. Most
research in this topic have concentrated on strategic decisions and important decisions made at
managerial levels. In the context of Managerial and Strategic Planning, 43 papers were published.
Albadvi (2004) applied AHP and DEA to Formulating national information technology strategies in
Iran. Chen et al. (2009) utilize ANP for measuring knowledge management performance using a
competitive perspective in Taiwan. Huang et al. (2005) employed Fuzzy MCDM and MOP methods
for Policy planning. Lin and Gen (2008) utilizes Fuzzy MCDM and TOPSIS methods for Multi-criteria
human resource allocation in Japan. Sowlati et al. (2005) utilized ANP method to Information systems
project prioritization in Canada, and Sun (2002) developed a Goal Programming technique for
determining faculty salary equity adjustments in Taiwan. A list of MCDM papers, with Managerial and
Strategic Planning papers topic presented in Table 11.
Table 11: The applied papers on the topic of ‘Managerial and Strategic planning’

Formulating national information
Albadvi (2004) PROMETHEE-AHP-DEA
technology strategies
Amiri et al. (2009) Firms competence evaluation FBOGP (Fuzzy bi-objective GP)
Evaluation model on academic personnel
Celik et al. (2009) Fuzzy DSS-Possibilistic programming
recruitment
Least-cost optimizing model-Most-
Chakrabarty (2007) Urban development management
benefit optimizing model
Measuring the possibility of successful
Chang and Wang ** (2009) FMCDM
Knowledge management
Table 11: The applied papers on the topic of ‘Managerial and Strategic planning’ - continued
FMCGDSS (Fuzzy metric computer

Cheh and Cheng (2005) IS personnel selection
based group decision support system
Chen et al. ** (2009) R&D partner selection AHPP (AHP-Prioritization operators)
Measuring knowledge management
Chen et al. *(2009) ANP
performance
Cheng and Li (2007) Strategic partnering MOP
Choudhury et al (2006) Selection of advanced technology FAHP
Driessen et al. (2001) Management for public works Bi-criteria utility functions
Dursun and Karsak (2009) Personnel selection Statistical analysis methods
Manpower planning-optimal operator
Ertay and Ruan (2005) AHP
allocation
Gamper and Turcanu (2007) Public decision making ANP
Huang et al. (2005) Policy planning FMCDM-MOP
Huanget al.** (2009) Personnel assignment TOPSIS-ANP
Analyze changes in the utility function of
Huylenbroeck et al. (2001) MOP
farmers due to policy reforms
Kelemenis and Askounis (2009) Personnel selection FMCDM
Khatami Firouzabadi et al. LPPAM (Linguistic Possibility-
Strategic selection decisions
(2008) Probability Aggregation Model)
Klapka and Pinos (2002) R&D and IS projects selection DEA
Evaluating performance of IT department in
Lee et al. (2008) ANP-DEMATEL
the manufacturing industry
Lee et al.** (2009) Selection of technology acquisition mode Fuzzy TOPSIS
Hazards planning and emergency
Levy and Taji (2007) FAHP
management
Limam et al. (2009) Business process redesign Stochastic beam search algorithm
Lin and Gen (2008) Human resource allocation FMCDM-TOPSIS
Consensus based group decision-
Lin et al. (2007) Data warehouse system selection
making
Measuring human behavioral resistance to MOP-mohGA (Multi objective hybrid
Milani et al. (2008)
organizational change in strategic planning genetic algorithm)
Nokhbatolfoghahaayee et al.
Crisis management FMCDM
(2009)
Royes and Bastos (2006) Political forecasting ANP-AHP
Enterprise software selection (electronic AHP-TOPSIS-LA (Linear
Şen et al. (2009)
company’s) Assignment)
Sowlati et al. (2005) Information systems project prioritization ANP
Interactive policy-making
Sueyoshi et al. (2009) Audit prioritization in a rental car company
(Qualitative)
Sun (2002) Faculty salary equity adjustments GP
Evaluation of cluster policy to HsinChu
Sun et al. (2009) Multi-criteria analysis
Science Park
AHP-ZOGP (Zero-One Goal
Tsao (2009) M&A (merger and acquisition) in Enterprise
Programming)
Tzeng et al. (2005) Evaluating enterprise intranet web sites FAHP
MAUT(AIM (Aspiration-level
Wang and Zionts (2008) Wisely Negotiating
Interactive Model))
Construction and validation of analytical
Wong et al. (2008) AHP
models
Wu (2008) Choosing knowledge management strategies AHP
Wu and Lee (2007) Selecting knowledge management strategies Group DSS (ELECTE-
PROMETHEE)
Yahya and Kingsman (2002) Modeling Allocation in Government DSS
Sponsored furniture makers
Yuen (2009) Operator selection PROMETHEE V-Integer
programming
Yuen and Lau (2009) R&D project selection PROMETHEE II

4.9. Project Management and Evaluation
Project Management and Evaluation is also essential area in the literature of the MCDM methods and
has many aspects such as; scheduling, resource and cost allocation, construction and appraisal. In the
context of Project Management and Evaluation, 38 papers were published. Cagno et al. (2004) utilized
AHP method for assessment of winning in the competitive bidding process in Italy. Ertuğrul and
Karakaşoğlu (2009) evaluated Performance of Turkish cement firms with fuzzy analytic hierarchy
process (FAHP) and TOPSIS methods. Pan (2008) developed a fuzzy AHP approach for selecting the
suitable bridge construction method in Taiwan. Topcu (2004) employed an AHP-DSS based model for
construction contractor selection in Turkey, and Wang and Elang (2006) utilized fuzzy TOPSIS
method and fuzzy set theory for bridge risk assessment. Table 12 summarizes the papers on the topic of
Project Management and Evaluation.
Table 12: The applied papers on the topic of ‘Project Management and Evaluation’

Management of variation orders for
Arain and Pheng (2006) KBDSS (knowledge-based DSS)
institutional building projects
Badri et al. (2001) Project selection 0–1 GP
Multi variant Design-COPRAS
Banaitiene et al. (2008) Evaluating the life cycle of a building (multiple criteria complex
proportional assessment)
Assessment of winning in the competitive
Cagno et al. (2004) AHP
bidding process
Cebi et al. (2009) Structuring ship design project Fuzzy axiomatic design
Chen and Cheng (2009) Selecting information system project FMCDM
Chin et al. (2008) Product project screening AHP-ER (evidential reasoning)
Choudhary et al. (2005) Simulation-based building design ATC (Analytical Target Cascading)
Ertuğrul and Karakaşoğlu Performance evaluation of Turkish cement
FAHP-TOPSIS
(2009) firms
Feng and Xu (1999) Evaluation of urban development Fuzzy multi criteria evaluation model
Planning tenders selection in public office
Hsieh et al. (2004) FAHP
buildings
Risk assessment model for construction
Hsueh et al. (2007) AHP-Utility theory
joint ventures
MUSA (multi criteria satisfaction
Ipsilandis et al. (2008) Assessment of operational programs
analysis)
Jablonsky (2007) Measuring the efficiency of production units AHP-DEA
Juan et al. (2009) Housing refurbishment contractors selection Hybrid fuzzy-QFD
Kim et al. (2005) housing performance evaluation AHP
Lee and Kim (2000) Information system project selection ANP-Zero one GP
Interdependent information system project
Lee and Kim (2001) ANP-Zero one GP
selection
Mahdi and Alreshaid (2005) Selecting the proper project delivery method AHP
Mavrotas et al. (2006) Project prioritization FAHP-Fuzzy TOPSIS
Nassar et al. (2003) Building assemblies AHP
Selecting the suitable bridge construction
Pan (2008) FMC(Group)DM
method
Selecting an excavation construction
Pan (2009) FAHP
method
Sasmal and Ramanjaneyulu Condition evaluation of existing reinforced
FAHP
(2008) concrete bridges
Soebarto and Williamson (2001) Assessment of building performance MOP-benefit–cost analysis model
Steffens et al. (2007) Product development projects Decision-making approach
Evaluation of construction safety NSFDSS (The Non-structural fuzzy
Tam et al. (2002)
management system DSS)
Environmental management in the
Tam et al. (2004) NSFDSS (Non-structural fuzzy DSS)
construction industry
Tam et al. (2006) Decision making in construction industry NSFDSS (Non-Structural Fuzzy DSS)
Table 12: The applied papers on the topic of ‘Project Management and Evaluation’ - continued
Topcu (2004) Construction contractor selection AHP-DSS

Tsai et al. (2009) Sourcing strategy in IT projects DEMATEL-ANP-GP
Ugwu and Haupt (2007) Assessment for infrastructure sustainability Weighted sum model-AHP
Sustainability appraisal in infrastructure
Ugwu et al. (2006) AHP-weighted sum model
projects
Fuzzy TOPSIS-FWA (Fuzzy
Wang and Elang** (2006) Bridge risk assessment
weighted average)
Wong et al. (2008) Development of key intelligent indicators ANP-AHP
Zammori et al. (2009) Critical path definition TOPSIS
Selection of optimum underground mining
Zare-Naghadehi et al. (2009) FAHP
method
Zavadskas and Antucheviciene Multiple-criteria complex
Evaluation of rural building's regeneration
(2007) proportional evaluation
4.10. Social Service

A number of 11 papers were found on the topic of Social services. Doerner et al. (2007) utilized multi
objective combinatorial optimization method (MOPO) in tour planning for mobile healthcare facilities
in a developing country. Gladish et al. (2005) developed a method for Management of surgical waiting
lists through a Possibilistic Linear Multi objective Programming in Spain, and Sadi-Nezhad and Khalili
Damghani (2009) employed a fuzzy TOPSIS method in assessment of traffic police centers
performance in Iran. All papers on the topic of Social services can be found in Table 13.
Table 13: The applied papers on the topic of ‘Social Service’

Ballestero and Maldonado (2004) Rank hospital activities Single price model
Blake and Carter (2002) Health services GP
Tour planning for mobile healthcare (MOPO) multi objective
Doerner et al. (2007)
facilities combinatorial optimization
Possibilistic Linear MOP-Fuzzy
Gladish et al. (2005) Hospital management
Compromise Programming
Choose ideal cities for medical service
Lin and Tsai (2009) ANP-TOPSIS
ventures
Assess service performance of travel
Lin et al. (2009) ANP
industry
Liou et al. (2009) Mass customization of airline services Fuzzy set theory
MOLP (mixed integer programming
Perrier et al. (2008) Winter road maintenance
model)
Sadi-Nezhad and Khalili Damghani
Traffic police centers performance Fuzzy TOPSIS
(2009)
Microeconomic health technology
Sloane (2003) AHP
assessment
Yuan et al. (2002) Health services MORE and UNOS
4.11. Military Service

In the context of military services, 8 papers were found, which is not considerable. Cheng (1999)
utilized fuzzy set theory for evaluating weapon systems. Dağdeviren et al. (2009) applied AHP and
TOPSIS methods for Weapon selection, and Leeneer and Pastijn (2002) utilized ORESTE and
PROMETHEE methods to electing land mine detection strategies. Table 14 summarized the
application of MCDM methods in military service.

Table 14: The applied papers on the topic of ‘Military Service’

Vulnerability assessment model for critical FIVAM (Fuzzy integrated vulnerability
Akgun et al. (2009)
facilities in combating the terrorism assessment model)-SMART
Chang et al. (2007) Military officer performance appraisal system FGDSS (Fuzzy group DSS)
Fuzzy set theory(Synthetic evaluation
Cheng (1999) Evaluating weapon systems
method)
Cheng and Lin (2002) Military application Fuzzy Delphi
Dağdeviren et al. (2009) Weapon selection AHP-TOPSIS
Valuation of RFID/MEMS technology applied
Doerr et al. (2006) AHP-case-based methods
to ordnance inventory
Haapalinna (2003) Allocate funds within the army DSS-MOP
Leeneer and Pastijn
Electing land mine detection strategies ORESTE-PROMETHEE
(2002)
4.12. Other Topics

The last category, which covered a fair number of publications, discusses other application aspects
including; Chemistry, Sport, Physics and so on. In this context 35 papers were studied. Hussein and
Ahmed (2000) utilized fuzzy MCDM in Cancer radiotherapy in Egypt. Partovi (2007) utilized AHP
and ANP methods for modeling of process choice in the chemical industry in USA. Hu (2009) utilized
fuzzy MCDM for assessing service quality of travel websites in Taiwan, Bodin and Epstein (2000)
utilized AHP method to rank the baseball team players in USA. Table 15 gives a summary of other
topics papers.
Table 15: The applied papers on the topic of ‘Other topics’

Athanasopoulos et al.
Coating selection MAXMIN-TOPSIS
(2009)
FAHP-HTOM (hierarchical
Azadeh et al. (2009) Mining method selection technical–operational model)-HEM
(hierarchical economical model)
Ballester et al. (2008) Environmental education for enterprises Multi criteria integration-MCDM
Bodin and Epstein (2000) Rank the baseball team players AHP
OWA (Ordered weighted
Bordogna and Pasi (2004) Soft fusion of information accesses on the web
averaging)
Chen and Tzeng (2004) Selecting an expatriate host country FAHP-TOPSIS
Evaluating sustainable fishing development
Chiou et al.(2005) Non-additive fuzzy integral-FAHP
strategies
Colson (2000) Helps a jury to attribute a scientific award ANP
Dalalah and Bataineh Selection of the best silicon crystal slicing
Fuzzy reasoning
(2009) technology
Fonteix et al. (2004) Emulsion polymerization MO Optimization
Forgionne et al. (2002) Quality analysis of AI and DSS journals AHP
Resource allocation, investment planning,
Galperin*(2004) MOP
production, and control problems
Evaluation of strategies for nuclear remediation
Geldermann et al. (2009) MAVT-DSS
management
Hu (2009) Assessing travel websites FMCDM
Huang et al. (2009) Web service selection DEA-MCDM
Hussein and Ahmed
Cancer radiotherapy FMCDM
(2000)
System Dynamic-ABM (agent-
Kunsch et al. (2009) Modeling complex ethical decision problems
based modeling)
Lai et al. (2002) Software Selection FMCDM
Planning the development strategy for the mobile AHP-SAW-FIM (Fuzzy integral
Lin et al. (2009)
communication package method)
Table 15: The applied papers on the topic of ‘Other topics’ - continued
Muniglia et al. (2004) Single-cell oil production (Biology) Multi Objective Optimization
Consumers' selection of teleshopping versus Multi criteria network equilibrium
Nagurney et al. (2001)
shopping framework
Oddershede et al. (2007) Rural development AHP
Olcer and Odabasi (2005) Propulsion/maneuvering system selection FMADM-TOPSIS-AHP
SMART-PROMETHEE-Centroid
Olson (2001) American major league professional baseball
method
Ossadnik and Lange
Software Selection MOP-Integer programming
(1999)
Partovi (2007) Process choice in the chemical industry AHP-ANP
Promentilla et al. (2008) Contaminated site remedial countermeasures FANP
Romero (2000) Analysis of short-run labor market Choquet integral
Shyur (2006) COTS evaluation AHP-Choquet integral
Tervonen et al. (2008) Elevator planning SMAA
Wang and Lin (2003) Select configuration items for software development Group ANP
Wang and Chang (2009) Evaluating initial training aircraft Fuzzy TOPSIS
Wang and Lim (2007) Berth allocation problem TOPSIS
Wang et al. (2004) ESO (Evolutionary simulation-
Selection of the best statistical distribution
optimization)-Grey programming
Wong et al. (2009) Expert system for fashion retailers Fuzzy screening
5. Analysis of MCDM Non-Application Areas

The authors could not find any application aspect for 242 reviewed papers (38.5%). Some of these
papers have incorporated an extensive mathematical contribution into the MCDM methods; the other
papers have been related to general description of the MCDM methods, the MCDM software, and so
on. For more information, review the references of this article.
6. Other Classification Results

Two previous sections, classified 628 scholarly papers based on the methods and application and non-
application area, according to the proposed scheme. This section analyzes the classification of 628
papers according to the; (1) Year of publication, (2) Journal of publication, (3) fuzzy or crisp nature
and (4) authors’ nationality.
6.1. Distribution by Year of Publication

Distribution of MCDM papers published in scholarly journals since 1999-2009 categorized in Table
16. As shown in the table, there has been seen a continuing growth over time in the number and
percentage of papers published. The number of papers published increased during the period 1999–
2009. Moreover, 220 papers (35%) were published during 1999–2004, while 408 papers (65%) were
published during 2005–2009.
Table 16: Frequency of papers by year
Year Number Percent

1999 34 5.41
2000 30 4.78
2001 30 4.78
2002 37 5.89
2003 34 5.41
2004 55 8.76
2005 48 7.64
2006 67 10.67
Table 16: Frequency of papers by year - continued
2007 72 11.46
2008 65 10.35
2009 156 24.84
Total 628 100
Figure 3: Distribution by year of publication
6.2. Distribution by Journal of Publication

Six hundred and twenty eight papers are classified by journal of publication to develop a percentage of
total papers. In this review, there have been 20 journals published at least eight paper on the MCDM
topic in. Table 17 provides a list of journals arranged by the number and percentage. The table
indicates that the European Journal of Operational Research has published by far the most papers (166
papers, 26.4%) related to the MCDM topic, since it has always had a special focus on the MCDM
methodologies and applications. There is a significant difference in the volume of the papers published
between this journal and the other journals. The Journals of Expert Systems with Applications and
Computers & Operations Research is the second and third ones regarding the number and percentage
of the total papers published.
Table 17: Frequency of papers by journals
Journal name Number Percent

European Journal of Operational Research 166 26.4
Expert Systems With Applications 90 14.3
Computers & Operations Research 39 6.2
Fuzzy Sets and Systems 36 5.7
International Journal of Production Economics 29 4.6
Omega 27 4.3
Computers & Industrial Engineering 27 4.3
Journal of Environmental Management 26 4.1
Applied Mathematics and Computation 24 3.8
Mathematical and Computer Modeling 24 3.8
Decision Support Systems 23 3.7
Ecological Economics 17 2.7
Information Sciences 15 2.4
Energy Policy 14 2.2
Automation in Construction 14 2.2
Applied Soft Computing 13 2.1
Environmental Modeling & Software 13 2.1
Computers & Mathematics with Applications 12 1.9
International Journal of Project Management 11 1.8
Building and Environment 8 1.3
Total 628 100

6.3. Distribution by Fuzzy or Crisp Nature
Among 628 reviewed papers, 386 papers have application areas and 242 papers have not. In this
section we divided MCDM methods in both application and non-application areas based on their crisp
and fuzzy nature. We found 387 crisp and 125 fuzzy methods in papers with application areas and 230
crisp and 44 fuzzy methods in papers with non-application areas (see table 2). Following figure,
illustrates number of fuzzy and crisp methods applied in application areas: As you can see,
Transportation and logistic with 79 crisp and 39 fuzzy methods in 78 papers, is at a first rank and
military service with 10 crisp techniques and Agricultural and Forestry Management with 0 fuzzy
technique are in the last rank.
Figure 4: Distribution of fuzzy/crisp methods
6.4. Distribution by Authors’ Nationality

Having developed for many years, many countries in Europe, Asia, North and South America, Africa
and Australia participated in the MCDM publications. MCDM also continues to attract interest in other
regions of the world. Table 18 shows a geography distribution of the MCDM papers, in number and
percentage, published in our twenty journals. Although most prolific authors are from Taiwan, USA,
Turkey, China and UK, there have been 62 countries in the world that have contributed to at least one
paper between 1999 to 2009. The value N in Table 14 stands for the total number of times authors from
a country published paper/papers on the MCDM topics. For instance, the Taiwan authors contributed to
108 papers. In addition, the USA, Turkey, China and UK researchers contributed to 103, 47, 43 and 41
papers, respectively. In this review, 498 papers out of 628 papers belong to one country, 117 papers to
two different countries, and 13 papers to three different countries; Therefore, the total value of N was
calculated 771 (498 * 1 + 117 * 2 + 13 * 3). Although the number of papers published in many
countries is small, as shown in Table 18.
Table 18: Frequency of papers by authors’ nationality.
Country 1 2 3 Sum %
Taiwan 95 13 108 14
USA 61 39 3 103 13.3
Turkey 38 9 47 6.1
China 23 18 1 43 5.6
UK 21 16 4 41 5.3
Spain 30 5 35 4.5
Canada 18 12 2 32 4.1
Finland 21 4 2 27 3.5
Iran 19 4 23 3.0
Germany 9 8 5 22 2.8
Australia 13 8 21 2.7
Belgium 8 10 3 21 2.7
Hong Kong 9 9 2 21 2.7
Greece 16 4 20 2.6
France 7 8 2 17 2.2
Table 18: Frequency of papers by authors’ nationality. - continued
Poland 11 3 14 1.8
India 10 3 13 1.7
Italy 8 4 1 13 1.7
South Korea 11 1 12 1.6
Austria 3 5 3 11 1.4
Japan 7 4 11 1.4
Portugal 1 8 2 11 1.4
South Africa 4 5 1 10 1.3
Netherlands 3 4 2 9 1.2
Brazil 5 1 1 7 0.9
Denmark 2 3 1 6 0.8
Republic of Korea 5 5 0.6
Singapore 5 5 0.6
Czech republic 2 2 4 0.5
Israel 4 4 0.5
New Zealand 3 1 4 0.5
Egypt 2 1 3 0.4
Indonesia 2 1 3 0.4
Mexico 1 2 3 0.4
Serbia 2 1 3 0.4
Sweden 1 1 1 3 0.4
Switzerland 2 1 3 0.4
Thailand 3 3 0.4
Chile 1 1 2 0.3
Ireland 2 2 0.3
Jordan 2 2 0.3
Lithuania 2 2 0.3
Malaysia 2 2 0.3
Russia 2 2 0.3
UAE 2 2 0.3
Yugoslavia 2 2 0.3
Argentina 1 1 0.1
Bulgaria 1 1 0.1
Costa Rica 1 1 0.1
Cyprus 1 1 0.1
Hungary 1 1 0.1
Iceland 1 1 0.1
Korea 1 1 0.1
Kuwait 1 1 0.1
Luxembourg 1 1 0.1
Namibia 1 1 0.1
Nigeria 1 1 0.1
Philippines 1 1 0.1
Qatar 1 1 0.1
Saudi Arabia 1 1 0.1
Slovenia 1 1 0.1
Trinidad and Tobago 1 1 0.1
Total 498 234 39 771 1
7. Conclusion
This paper has presented an extensive review on MCDM methodologies and applications consisting of
628 papers from 20 scholarly journals. For this purpose, a classification scheme was developed to
organize each paper into several categories. The MCDM papers were categorized based on methods,
application and non-application areas that the first one, includes 386 papers categorized into twelve
sub-areas on the topics of Environment Management (34 papers), Water Management (22 papers),
Business and Financial Management (50 papers), Transportation and Logistics (78 papers),
Manufacturing and Assembly (35 papers), Energy Management (20 papers), Agricultural and Forestry
Management (12 papers), Managerial and Strategic Planning (43 papers), Project Management and
Evaluation (38 papers), Social service (11 papers), Military Service (8 papers) and Other Topics that
covers the papers published in several fields: Chemistry, Physics, Sport and so on (35 papers). The
second one includes 242 papers. The published papers also classified by distribution by year of
publication, journal of publication, fuzzy or crisp nature of their applied methods and authors’
nationality.
References
[1] Abdi, M.R., 2009. Fuzzy multi-criteria decision model for evaluating reconfigurable machines.
International Journal of Production Economics 117, 1-15.
[2] Abonyi, J., Feil, B., Nemeth, S., Arva, P., 2005. Modified Gath–Geva clustering for fuzzy
segmentation of multivariate time-series. Fuzzy Sets and Systems 149, 39-56.
[3] Abo-Sinna, M, A., Amer, A, H., 2005. Extensions of TOPSIS for multi-objective large-scale
nonlinear programming problems. Applied Mathematics and Computation 162, 243-256.
[4] Adler, N., Friedman, L., Stern, Z, S., 2002. Review of ranking methods in the data envelopment
analysis context. European Journal of Operational Research 140, 249–265.
[5] Agrell, P, J., Stam, A., Fischer, G, W., 2004. Interactive multiobjective agro-ecological land
use planning: The Bungoma region in Kenya. European Journal of Operational Research 158,
194-217.
[6] Akgun, I., Kandakoglu, A., Ozok, A, F., Fuzzy integrated vulnerability assessment model for
critical facilities in combating the terrorism. Expert Systems with Applications, In press.
[7] Alanne, K., 2004. Selection of renovation actions using multi-criteria “knapsack” model.
Automation in Construction 13, 377-391.
[8] Albadvi, A., 2004. Formulating national information technology strategies: A preference
ranking model using PROMETHEE method. European Journal of Operational Research 153,
290–296.
[9] Albadvi, A., Chaharsooghi, S, K., Esfahanipour, A., 2007. Decision making in stock trading:
An application of PROMETHEE. European Journal of Operational Research 177, 673–683.
[10] Almeida, A, T, D., 2001. Multi criteria decision making on maintenance: Spares and contracts
planning. European Journal of Operational Research 129, 235-241.
[11] Al-Najjar, B., Alsyouf, I., 2003. Selecting the most efficient maintenance approach using fuzzy
multiple criteria decision making. International Journal of Production Economics 84, 85-100.
[12] Aloysius, J, A., Davis, F, D., Wilson, D, D., Taylor, A, R., Kottemann, J, E., 2006. User
acceptance of multi-criteria decision support systems: The impact of preference elicitation
techniques. European Journal of Operational Research 169, 273–285.
[13] Amid, A., Ghodsypour, S.H., O’Brien, C., 2006. Fuzzy multi objective linear model for
supplier selection in a supply chain. International Journal of Production Economics 104, 394-
407.
[14] Amid, A., Ghodsypour, S.H., O’Brien, C., 2009. A weighted additive fuzzy multi objective
model for the supplier selection problem under price breaks in a supply Chain. International
Journal of Production Economics 121, 323-332.
[15] Amiri, M., Zandieh, M., Soltani, R., Vahdani, B., 2009. A hybrid multi-criteria decision-
making model for firm’s competence evaluation. Expert Systems with Applications 36, 12314-
12322.
[16] Amor, S, B., Jabeur, K., Martel, J, M., 2007. Multiple criteria aggregation procedure for mixed
evaluations. European Journal of Operational Research 181, 1506–1515.

[17] Anagnostopoulos, K., Doukas, H., Psarras, J., 2008. A linguistic multi criteria analysis system
combining fuzzy sets theory, ideal and anti-ideal points for location site selection. Expert
Systems with Applications 35, 2041-2048.
[18] Ananda, J., Herath, G., 2009. A critical review of multi-criteria decision making methods with
special reference to forest management and planning. Ecological Economics 68, 2535-2548.
[19] Anderson, R, K., Dror, M., 2001. An interactive graphic presentation for multi objective linear
programming. Applied Mathematics and Computation 123, 229-248.
[20] André, F, J., 2009. Indirect elicitation of non-linear multi-attribute utility functions. A dual
procedure combined with DEA. Omega 37, 883-895.
[21] André, F, J., Riesgo, L., 2007. A non-interactive elicitation method for non-linear multi
attributes utility functions: Theory and application to agricultural economics. European Journal
of Operational Research 181, 793-807.
[22] Aouni, B., Kettani, O., 2001. Goal programming model: A glorious history and a promising
future. European Journal of Operational Research 133, 225-231.
[23] Arain, F, M., Pheng, L, S., 2006. Knowledge-based decision support system for management of
variation orders for institutional building projects. Automation in Construction 15, 272-291.
[24] Araz, C., Ozfirat, P, M., Ozkarahan, I., 2007. An integrated multi criteria decision-making
methodology for outsourcing management. Computers & Operations Research 34, 3738-3756.
[25] Ashtiani, B., Haghighirad, F., Makui, A., Montazer, G.A., 2009. Extension of fuzzy TOPSIS
method based on interval-valued fuzzy sets. Applied Soft Computing 9, 457-461.
[26] Athanasopoulos, J., Riba, C, R., Athanasopoulou, C., 2009. A decision support system for
coating selection based on fuzzy logic and multi-criteria decision making. Expert Systems with
Applications 36, 10848-10853.
[27] Ayağ, Z., Özdemir, R, G., 2009. A hybrid approach to concept selection through fuzzy analytic
network process. Computers & Industrial Engineering 56, 368-379.
[28] Azadeh, A., Osanloo, M., Ataei, M., A new approach to mining method selection based on
modifying the Nicholas technique. Applied Soft Computing, In press.
[29] Badri, M, A., Davis, D., Davis, D., 2001. A comprehensive 0–1 goal programming model for
project selection. International Journal of Project Management 19, 243-252.
[30] Ballester, V, A, C., Díaz, R, M., Ballester, V, A, C., Sibille, A, D, C, T., 2008. Environmental
education for small- and medium-sized enterprises: Methodology and e-learning experience in
the Valencian region. Journal of Environmental Management 87, 507-520.
[31] Ballestero, E., Alarcón, S., Bernabeu, A, G., 2000. Establishing politically feasible water
markets: a multi-criteria approach. Journal of Environmental Management 65, 411-429.
[32] Ballestero, E., Maldonado, J, A., 2004. Objective measurement of efficiency: applying single
price model to rank hospital activities. Computers & Operations Research 31, 512-532.
[33] Balteiro, L, D., Romero, C., 2004. In search of a natural systems sustainability index.
Ecological Economics 49, 401-405.
[34] Banaitiene, N., Banaitis, A., Kaklauskas, A., Zavadskas, E, K., 2008. Evaluating the life cycle
of a building: A multi variant and multiple criteria approach. Omega 36, 429-441.
[35] Basak, I., 2001. The categorical data analysis approach for ratio model of pair wise
comparisons. European Journal of Operational Research 128, 532-544.
[36] Basson, L., Petrie, J.G., 2007. An integrated approach for the consideration of uncertainty in
decision making supported by Life Cycle Assessment. Environmental Modeling & Software
22, 167-176.
[37] Bebbington, J., Brown, J., Frame, B., 2007. Accounting technologies and sustainability
assessment models. Ecological Economics 61, 224-236.
[38] Beck, J., Kempener, R., Cohen, B., Petrie, J., 2008. A complex systems approach to planning,
optimization and decision making for energy networks. Energy Policy 36, 2795-2805.

[39] Behzadian, M., Kazemzadeh, R, B., Albadavi, A., Aghdasi, M., 2009. PROMETHEE: A
comprehensive literature review on methodologies and applications, European Journal of
Operational Research, 200, 198-215.
[40] Ben-Arieh, D., 2005. Sensitivity of multi criteria decision making to linguistic quantifiers and
aggregation means. Computers & Industrial Engineering 48, 289-309.
[41] Ben-Arieh, D., Easton, T., 2007. Multi-criteria group consensus under linear cost opinion
elasticity. Decision Support Systems 43, 713-721.
[42] Bendoly, E., Bachrach, D, G., 2003. A process-based model for priority convergence in multi-
period group decision making. European Journal of Operational Research 148, 534–545.
[43] Bergey, P, K., Ragsdale, C, T., Hoskote, M., 2003. A decision support system for the electrical
power districting problem. Decision Support Systems 36, 1-17.
[44] Beynon, M, J., 2005. A method of aggregation in DS/AHP for group decision making with the
non-equivalent importance of individuals in the group. Computers & Operations Research 32,
1881-1896.
[45] Beynon, M, J., 2005. Understanding local ignorance and non-specificity within the DS/AHP
method of multi criteria decision making. European Journal of Operational Research 163, 403–
417.
[46] Beynon, M., 2002. An analysis of distributions of priority values from alternative comparison
scales within AHP. European Journal of Operational Research 140, 104-117.
[47] Beynon, M., Cosker, D., Marshall, D., 2001. An expert system for multi-criteria decision
making using Dempster Shafer theory. Expert Systems with Applications 20, 357-367.
[48] Bisdor , R., 1999. Cognitive support methods for multi-criteria expert decision making.
European Journal of Operational Research 119, 379±387.
[49] Blake, J, T., Carter, M, W., 2002. A goal programming approach to strategic resource
allocation in acute care hospitals. European Journal of Operational Research 140, 541-561.
[50] Bodin, L., Epstein, E., 2000. Who’s on first–with probability 0.4? Computers & Operations
Research 27, 205-215.
[51] Bodin, L., Gass, S, L., 2003. On teaching the analytic hierarchy process. Computers &
Operations Research 30, 1487-1497.
[52] Boran, F, E., Genç, S., Kurt, M., Akay, D., 2009. A multi-criteria intuitionist fuzzy group
decision making for supplier selection with TOPSIS method. Expert Systems with Applications
36, 11363-11368.
[53] Bordogna, G., Pasi, G., 2004. A model for a SOft Fusion of Information Accesses on the web.
Fuzzy Sets and Systems 148, 105-118.
[54] Borges, P, C., Villavicencio, A., 2004. Avoiding academic and decorative planning in GHG
emissions abatement studies with MCDA: The Peruvian case. European Journal of Operational
Research 152, 641-654.
[55] Bottani, E., Rizzi, A., 2008. An adapted multi-criteria approach to suppliers and products
selection—An application oriented to lead-time reduction. International Journal of Production
Economics 111, 763-781.
[56] Bouyssou, D., Marchant, T., 2007. An axiomatic approach to non compensatory sorting
methods in MCDM, I: The case of two categories. European Journal of Operational Research
178, 217–245.
[57] Bouyssou, D., Marchant, T., 2007. An axiomatic approach to non-compensatory sorting
methods in MCDM,II: More than two categories. European Journal of Operational Research
178, 246-276.
[58] Brand, C., Mattarelli, M., Moon, D., Calvo, R, W., 2002. STEEDS: A strategic transport–
energy–environment decision support. European Journal of Operational Research 139, 416-435.
[59] Brouwer, R., Ek, R, V., 2004. Integrated ecological, economic and social impact assessment of
alternative flood control policies in the Netherlands. Ecological Economics 50, 1-21.
[60] Brown, K., Adger, W.N., Tompkins, E., Bacon, P., Shim, D., Young, K., 2001. Trade-off
analysis for marine protected area management. Ecological Economics 37, 417-434.
[61] Brugha, C, M., 2000. Relative measurement and the power function. European Journal of
Operational Research 121, 627-640.
[62] Brugha, C, M., 2004. Phased multi criteria preference finding. European Journal of Operational
Research 158, 308–316.
[63] Bryson, N., Joseph, A., 1999. Generating consensus priority point vectors: a logarithmic goal
programming approach. Computers & Operations Research 26, 637-643.
[64] Buchanan, J., Gardiner. L., 2003. A comparison of two reference point methods in multiple
objective mathematical programming. European Journal of Operational Research 149, 17-34.
[65] Buchholz, T., Rametsteiner, E., Volk, T.A., Luzadis, V, A., 2009. Multi Criteria Analysis for
bio energy systems assessments. Energy Policy 37, 484-495.
[66] Büyüközkan, G., Feyzioğlu, O., Ersoy, M, S., 2009. Evaluation of 4PL operating models: A
decision making approach based on 2-additive Choquet integral. International Journal of
Production Economics 121, 112-120.
[67] Büyüközkan, G., Feyzioğlu, O., Nebol, E., 2008. Selection of the strategic alliance partner in
logistics value chain. International Journal of Production Economics 113, 148-158.
[68] Büyüközkan, G.G., Feyzioglu, O., 2004. A fuzzy-logic-based decision-making approach for
new product development. International Journal of Production Economics 90, 27-45.
[69] Caballero, R., Hernández, M., 2004. The controlled estimation method in the multi objective
linear fractional problem. Computers & Operations Research 31, 1821-1832.
[70] Cagno, E., Caron, F., Perego, A., 2001. Multi-criteria assessment of the probability of winning
in the competitive bidding process. International Journal of Project Management 19, 313-324.
[71] Cakir, O., Canbolat, M, S., 2008. A web-based decision support system for multi-criteria
inventory classification using fuzzy AHP methodology. Expert Systems with Applications 35,
1367-1378.
[72] Calker, K.J., V., Berentsen, P.B.M., Romero, C., Giesen, G.W.J., Huirne, R.B.M., 2006.
Development and application of a multi-attribute sustainability function for Dutch dairy
farming systems. Ecological Economics 57, 640-658.
[73] Cao, D., Chen, M., 2006. Capacitated plant selection in a decentralized manufacturing
environment: A bi level optimization approach. European Journal of Operational Research 169,
97-110.
[74] Cavallaro, F., Ciraolo, L., 2005. A multi criteria approach to evaluate wind energy plants on an
Italian island. Energy Policy 33, 235-244.
[75] Cebeci, U., 2009. Fuzzy AHP-based decision support system for selecting ERP systems in
textile industry by using balanced scorecard. Expert Systems with Applications 36, 8900-8909.
[76] Cebi, S., Celik, M., Kahraman, C., Structuring ship design project approval mechanism towards
installation of operator–system interfaces via fuzzy axiomatic design principles. Information
Sciences, In press.
[77] Çelebi, D., Bayraktar, D., 2008. An integrated neural network and data envelopment analysis
for supplier evaluation under incomplete information. Expert Systems with Applications 35,
1698-1710.
[78] Celik, M., Cebi, S., Kahraman, C., Er, I.D., 2009. Application of axiomatic design and TOPSIS
methodologies under fuzzy environment for proposing competitive strategies on Turkish
container ports in maritime transportation network. Expert Systems with Applications 36, 4541-
4557.
[79] Celik, M., Er, I, D., 2009. Fuzzy axiomatic design extension for managing model selection
paradigm in decision science. Expert Systems with Applications 36, 6477-6484.

[80] Celik, M., Kahraman, C., Cebi, S., Er, I, D., 2009. Fuzzy axiomatic design-based performance
evaluation model for docking facilities in shipbuilding industry: The case of Turkish shipyards.
Expert Systems with Applications 36, 599-615.
[81] Celik, M., Kandakoglu, A., Er, I, D., 2009. Structuring fuzzy integrated multi-stages evaluation
model on academic personnel recruitment in MET institutions. Expert Systems with
[82] Chakrabarty, B.K., 2007. Computer-aided design in urban development and management—A
software for integrated planning and design by optimization. Building and Environment 42,
473-494.
[83] Chakraborty, C., Chakraborty, D., 2007. A fuzzy clustering methodology for linguistic opinions
in group decision making. Applied Soft Computing 7, 858-869.
[84] Chamodrakas, I., Alexopoulou, N., Martakos, D., 2009. Customer evaluation for order
acceptance using a novel class of fuzzy methods based on TOPSIS. Expert Systems with
[85] Chan, F, T.S., Chung, S.H., Wadhwa, S., 2005. A hybrid genetic algorithm for production and
distribution. Omega 33, 345-355.
[86] Chan, F, T.S., Jiang, B., Tang, N, K.H., 2000. The development of intelligent decision support
tools to aid the design of flexible manufacturing systems. International Journal of Production
Economics 65, 73-84.
[87] Chan, F, T.S., Kumar, N., 2007. Global supplier development considering risk factors using
fuzzy extended AHP-based approach. Omega 35, 417-431.
[88] Chang, J, R., Cheng, C, H., Chen, L, S., 2007. A fuzzy-based military officer performance
appraisal system. Applied Soft Computing 7, 936-945.
[89] Chang, N,B., Parvathinathan, G., Breeden, J, B., 2008. *. Combining GIS with fuzzy multi
criteria decision-making for landfill sitting in a fast-growing urban region. Journal of
Environmental Management 87, 139-153.
[90] Chang, N.B., Tseng, C.C., 1999. Optimal evaluation of expansion alternatives for existing air
quality monitoring network by grey compromise programming. Journal of Environmental
Management 56, 61-77.
[91] Chang, P, C., Liu, C, H., Lai, R, K., 2008. A fuzzy case-based reasoning model for sales
forecasting in print circuit board industries. Expert Systems with Applications 34, 2049-2058.
[92] Chang, P, T., Lee, J, H., Hung, K, C., Tsai, J, T., Perng, C., 2009. **. Applying fuzzy weighted
average approach to evaluate office layouts with Feng–Shui consideration. Mathematical and
Computer Modeling 50, 1514-1537.
[93] Chang, T, H., Wang, T, C., 2009. Erratum to “Using the fuzzy multi-criteria decision making
approach for measuring the possibility of successful knowledge management” [Information
Sciences 179 (4) (2009) 355–370]. Information Sciences 179, 2294-2295.
[94] Chang, T, H., Wang, T, C., 2009. Using the fuzzy multi-criteria decision making approach for
measuring the possibility of successful knowledge management. Information Sciences 179,
355-370.
[95] Chao, X., Chen, H., Zheng, S., 2008. Joint replenishment and pricing decisions in inventory
systems with stochastically dependent supply capacity. European Journal of Operational
Research 191, 142–155.
[96] Chen, C, M., 2009. A fuzzy-based decision-support model for rebury procurement.
[97] Chen, C, T., 2000. Extensions of the TOPSIS for group decision-making under fuzzy
environment. Fuzzy Sets and Systems 114, 1-9.
[98] Chen, C, T., 2001. A fuzzy approach to select the location of the distribution center. Fuzzy Sets
and Systems 118, 65-73.

[99] Chen, C, T., Cheng, H, L., 2009. A comprehensive model for selecting information system
project under fuzzy environment. International Journal of Project Management 27, 389-399.
[100] Chen, C, T., Lin, C, T., Huang, S, F., 2006. A fuzzy approach for supplier evaluation and
selection in supply chain management. International Journal of Production Economics 102,
289-301.
[101] Chen, J., Lin, S., 2003. An interactive neural network-based approach for solving multiple
criteria decision-making problems. Decision Support Systems 36, 137-146.
[102] Chen, L, S., Cheng, C, H., 2005. Selecting IS personnel use fuzzy GDSS based. European
Journal of Operational Research 160, 803–820.
[103] Chen, L, Y., Wang, T, C., 2009. *. Optimizing partners’ choice in IS/IT outsourcing projects:
The strategic decision of fuzzy VIKOR. International Journal of Production Economics 120,
233-242.
[104] Chen, M, F., Tzeng, G, H., 2004. Combining grey relation and TOPSIS concepts for selecting
an expatriate host country. Mathematical and Computer Modeling 40, 1473-1490.
[105] Chen, M, F., Tzeng, G, H., Ding, C, G., 2008. Combining fuzzy AHP with MDS in identifying
the preference similarity of alternatives. Applied Soft Computing 8, 110-117.
[106] Chen, M, Y., Huang, M, J., Cheng, Y, C., 2009. Measuring knowledge management
performance using a competitive perspective: An empirical study. Expert Systems with
[107] Chen, S, M., Wang, C, H., 2009. **. A generalized model for prioritized multi criteria decision
making systems. Expert Systems with Applications 36, 4773-4783.
[108] Chen, S, Y., Fu, G, T., 2005. Combining fuzzy iteration model with dynamic programming to
solve multi objective multistage decision making problems. Fuzzy Sets and Systems 152, 499-
512.
[109] Chen, Y, K., Liao, H, C., 2004. Multi-criteria design of an X bar control chart. Computers &
Industrial Engineering 46, 877-891.
[110] Cheng, C , H., Lin, Y., 2002. Evaluating the best main battle tank using fuzzy decision theory
with linguistic criteria evaluation. European Journal of Operational Research 142, 174–186.
[111] Cheng, C, B., 2004. Group opinion aggregation based on a grading process: A method for
constructing triangular fuzzy numbers. Computers & Mathematics with Applications 48, 1619-
1632.
[112] Cheng, C, B., 2008. Solving a sealed-bid reverse auction problem by multiple-criterion
decision-making methods. Computers & Mathematics with Applications 56, 3261-3274.
[113] Cheng, C, H., 1999. Evaluating weapon systems using ranking fuzzy numbers. Fuzzy Sets and
Systems 107, 25-35.
[114] Cheng, E, W.L., Li, H., 2007. Application of ANP in process models: An example of strategic
partnering. Building and Environment 42, 278-287.
[115] Cheng, S, C., Chou, T, C., Yang, C, L., Chang, H, Y., 2005. A semantic learning for content-
based image retrieval using analytical hierarchy process. Expert Systems with Applications 28,
495-505.
[116] Chiadamrong, N., 1999. An integrated fuzzy multi-criteria decision making method for
manufacturing strategies selection. Computers & Industrial Engineering 37,433-436.
[117] Chin, K, S., Xu, D, L., Yang, J, B., Lam, J, P, K., 2008. Group-based ER–AHP system for
product project screening. Expert Systems with Applications 35, 1909-1929.
[118] Chiou, H, K., Tzeng, G, H., Cheng, D, C., 2005. Evaluating sustainable fishing development
strategies using fuzzy MCDM approach. Omega 33, 223-234.
[119] Cho, K, T., 2003. Multi criteria decision methods: An attempt to evaluate and unify.
Mathematical and Computer Modeling 37, 1099-1119.
[120] Choi, D, Y., Oh, K, W., 2000. ASA and its application to multi-criteria decision making. Fuzzy
Sets and Systems 114, 89-102.
[121] Choo, E, U., Schoner, B., Wedley, W, C., 1999. Interpretation of criteria weights in multi
criteria decision making. Computers & Industrial Engineering 37, 527-541.
[122] Choo, E.U., Wedley, W.C., 2004. A common framework for deriving preference values from
pair wise comparison matrices. Computers & Operations Research 31, 893-908.
[123] Chou, C, C., 2007. A fuzzy MCDM method for solving marine transshipment container port
selection problems. Applied Mathematics and Computation 186, 435-444.
[124] Chou, C, C., Application of FMCDM model to selecting the hub location in the marine
transportation: A case study in southeastern Asia. Mathematical and Computer Modelling, In
press.
[125] Chou, S, Y., Chang, Y, H., 2008. A decision support system for supplier selection based on a
strategy-aligned fuzzy SMART approach. Expert Systems with Applications 34, 2241-2253.
[126] Chou, T, Y., Chou, S.c, T., Tzeng, G, H., 2006. Evaluating IT/IS investments: A fuzzy multi-
criteria decision model approach. European Journal of Operational Research 173, 1026–1046.
[127] Choudhary, R., Malkawi, A., Papalambros, P, Y., 2005. Analytic target cascading in
simulation-based building design. Automation in Construction 14, 551-568.
[128] Choudhury, A.K., Shankar, R., Tiwari, M.K., 2006. Consensus-based intelligent group
decision-making model for the selection of advanced technology. Decision Support Systems
42, 1776-1799.
[129] Chu, M, T., Khosla, R., 2009. Index evaluations and business strategies on communities of
practice. Expert Systems with Applications 36, 1549-1558.
[130] Chu, M, T., Shyu, J., Tzeng, G, H., Khosla, R., 2007. Comparison among three analytical
methods for knowledge community’s group-decision analysis. Expert Systems with
[131] Chu, T, C., Lin,Y., 2009. An extension to fuzzy MCDM. Computers & Mathematics with
Applications 57,445-454.
[132] Chung, E, S., Lee, K, S., 2009. Prioritization of water management for sustainability using
hydrologic simulation model and multi criteria decision making techniques. Journal of
[133] Cil, I., Alpturk, O., Yazgan, H, R., 2005. A new collaborative system framework based on a
multiple perspective approach: Intel Team. Decision Support Systems 39, 619-641.
[134] Climaco, J, C.N., Captivo, M, E., Pascoal, M, M.B., 2009. On the bi criterion – minimal
cost/minimal label – spanning tree problem. European Journal of Operational Research xxx,
xxx–xxx.
[135] Cochran, J, K., Chen, H, N., 2005. Fuzzy multi-criteria selection of object-oriented simulation
software for production system analysis. Computers & Operations Research 32, 153-168.
[136] Cohen, A., Korach, E., Last, M., Ohayon, R., 2005. A fuzzy-based path ordering algorithm for
QOS routing in non-deterministic communication networks. Fuzzy Sets and Systems 150, 401-
417.
[137] Colson, G., 2000. The OR's prize winner and the software ARGOS: how a multi judge and
multi criteria ranking GDSS helps a jury to attribute a scientific award. Computers &
[138] Contreras, I., Ma´rmol, A.M., 2007. A lexicographical compromise method for multiple criteria
group decision problems with imprecise information. European Journal of Operational
Research 181, 1530–1539.
[139] Cook, D., Proctor, W., 2007. Assessing the threat of exotic plant pests. Ecological Economics
63, 594-604.
[140] Costa, C, A.B., Ensslin, L., Corrêa, E, C., Vansnick, J, C., 1999. Decision Support Systems in
action: Integrated application in a multi criteria decision aid process. European Journal of

[141] Crone, S, F., Lessmann, S., Stahlbock, R., 2006. The impact of preprocessing on data mining:
An evaluation of classifier sensitivity in direct marketing. European Journal of Operational
Research 173, 781-800.
[142] Cui, L.R., Loh, H.T., Xie, M., 2004. Sequential inspection strategy for multiple systems under
availability requirement. European Journal of Operational Research 155, 170-177.
[143] Dağdeviren, M., Yavuz, S., Kılınç, N., 2009. Weapon selection using the AHP and TOPSIS
methods under fuzzy environment. Expert Systems with Applications 36, 8143-8151.
[144] Dalalah, D., Bataineh, O., 2009. A fuzzy logic approach to the selection of the best silicon
crystal slicing technology. Expert Systems with Applications 36, 3712-3719.
[145] Damart, S., Dias, L, C., Mousseau, V., 2007. Supporting groups in sorting decisions:
Methodology and use of a multi-criteria aggregation/disaggregation DSS. Decision Support
Systems 43, 1464-1475.
[146] Demirtas, E, A., Üstün, O., 2008. An integrated multi objective decision making process for
supplier selection and order allocation. Omega 36, 76-90.
[147] Demirtas, E, A., Ustun, O., 2009. Analytic network process and multi-period goal programming
integration in purchasing decisions. Computers & Industrial Engineering 56, 677-690.
[148] Denguir-Rekik, A., Montmain, J., Mauris, G., 2009. A possibilistic-valued multi criteria
decision-making support for marketing activities in e-commerce: Feedback Based Diagnosis
System. European Journal of Operational Research 195, 876–888.
[149] Deshpande, U., Gupta, A., Basu, A., 2004. Task assignment with imprecise information for
real-time operation in a supply chain. Applied Soft Computing 5, 101-117.
[150] Dimova, L., Sevastianov, P., Sevastianov, D., 2006. MCDM in a fuzzy setting: Investment
projects assessment application. International Journal of Production Economics 100, 10-29.
[151] Ding, J, F., Liang, G, S., 2005. Using fuzzy MCDM to select partners of strategic alliances for
liner shipping. Information Sciences 173, 197-225.
[152] Doerner, K., Focke, A., Gutjahr, W, J., 2007. Multi criteria tour planning for mobile healthcare
facilities in a developing country. European Journal of Operational Research 179, 1078-1096.
[153] Doerr, K, H., Gates, W, R., Mutty, J, E., 2006. A hybrid approach to the valuation of
RFID/MEMS technology applied to ordnance inventory. International Journal of Production
Economics 103, 726-741.
[154] Doukas, H, Ch., Andreas,, B, M., Psarras, J, E., 2007. Multi-criteria decision aid for the
formulation of sustainable technological energy priorities using linguistic variables. European
[155] Downing, C, E., Ringuest, J, L., 2002. Implementing and testing a complex interactive MOLP
algorithm. Decision Support Systems 33, 363-374.
[156] Driessen, P, P.J., Glasbergen, P., Verdaas, C., 2001. Interactive policy-making - a model of
management for public works. European Journal of Operational Research 128, 322-337.
[157] Durbach, I., 2006. A simulation-based test of stochastic multi criteria acceptability analysis
using achievement functions. European Journal of Operational Research 170, 923–934.
[158] Dursun, M., Karsak, E, E., A fuzzy MCDM approach for personnel selection. Expert Systems
with Applications, In press.
[159] Efendigil, T., Önüt, S., Kongar, E., 2008. A holistic approach for selecting a third-party reverse
logistics provider in the presence of vagueness. Computers & Industrial Engineering 54, 269-
286.
[160] Ehrgott, M., Klamroth, K., Schwehm, C., 2004. An MCDM approach to portfolio optimization.
European Journal of Operational Research 155, 752–770.
[161] Ehrgott, M., Podehl, D, T., 2003. Computation of ideal and Nadir values and implications for
their use in MCDM methods. European Journal of Operational Research 151, 119-139.
[162] Ekel, P, Y., 2002. Fuzzy sets and models of decision making. Computers & Mathematics with
[163] Ekel, P, Y., Galperin, E.A., 2003. Box-triangular multi objective linear programs for resource
allocation with application to load management and energy market problems. Mathematical and
[164] Ekel, P, Y., Martini, J.S.C., Palhares, R, M., 2008. Multi criteria analysis in decision making
under information uncertainty. Applied Mathematics and Computation 200, 501-516.
[165] Ekel, P.Y., Silva, M.R., Neto, F.S., Palhares, R.M., 2006. Fuzzy preference modeling and its
application to multi objective decision making. Computers & Mathematics with Applications
52, 179-196.
[166] El-Gayar, O, F., Leung, PS., 2001. A Multiple Criteria Decision Making for regional
aquaculture development. European Journal Of Operational Research, 122, 462- 482.
[167] Engau, A., 2009. Tradeoff-based decomposition and decision-making in multi objective
programming. European Journal of Operational Research 199, 883–891.
[168] Erol, I., Jr, W, J, F., 2003. A methodology for selection problems with multiple, conflicting
objectives and both qualitative and quantitative criteria. International Journal of Production
[169] Ertay, T., Ruan, D., 2005. Data envelopment analysis based decision model for optimal
operator allocation in CMS. European Journal of Operational Research 164, 800–810.
[170] Ertay, T., Ruan, D., Tuzkaya, U, R., 2006. Integrating data envelopment analysis and analytic
hierarchy for the facility layout design in manufacturing systems. Information Sciences 176,
237-262.
[171] Ertuğrul, I., Karakaşoğlu, N., 2009. Performance evaluation of Turkish cement firms with fuzzy
analytic hierarchy process and TOPSIS methods. Expert Systems with Applications 36, 702-
715.
[172] Eum, Y, S., Park, K, S., Kim, S, H., 2001. Establishing dominance and potential optimality in
multi-criteria analysis with imprecise weight and value. Computers & Operations Research 28,
397-409.
[173] Farahani, R, Z., Asgari, N., 2007. Combination of MCDM and covering techniques in a
hierarchical model for facility location: A case study. European Journal of Operational
Research 176, 1839–1858.
[174] Feng, S., Xu, L, D., 1999. Decision support for fuzzy comprehensive evaluation of urban
development. Fuzzy Sets and Systems 105, 1-12.
[175] Ferrari, P., 2003. A method for choosing from among alternative transportation projects.
European Journal of Operational Research 150, 194-203.
[176] Fonteix, C., Massebeuf, S., Pla, F., Kiss, L, N., 2004. Multi criteria optimization of an emulsion
polymerization process. European Journal of Operational Research 153, 350–359.
[177] Forgionne, G, A., Kohli, R., Jennings, D., 2009. An AHP analysis of quality in AI and DSS
journals. Omega 30, 171-183.
[178] Fortemps, P., Pirlot, M., 2004. Conjoint axiomatization of Min, DiscriMin and LexiMin. Fuzzy
[179] Fu, G., 2008. A fuzzy optimization method for multi criteria decision making: An application to
reservoir flood control operation. Expert Systems with Applications 34, 145-149.
[180] Fujita, T., Iwamoto, S., 2001. An optimistic decision-making in fuzzy environment. Applied
Mathematics and Computation 120, 123-137.
[181] Gal, T., Hanne, T., 1999. Consequences of dropping nonessential objectives for the application
of MCDM methods. European Journal of Operational Research 119, 373-378.
[182] Gal, T., Hanne, T., 2006. Nonessential objectives within network approaches for MCDM.
[183] Galperin, E.A., 2003. Goal-optimal pareto solution of multi objective linear programs and its
computing with standard single objective LP software. Mathematical and Computer Modeling
37, 785-794.
[184] Galperin, E.A., 2004. *. Balance set and Pareto solutions in linear space with application to
ongoing optimal resource allocation, investment planning, production, and control problems
with multiple objectives. Mathematical and Computer Modeling 40, 137-149.
[185] Galperin, E.A., 2004. **. Set contraction algorithm for computing pareto set in non convex non
smooth multi objective optimization. Mathematical and Computer Modeling 40, 847-859.
[186] Gamberini, R., Grassi, A., Rimini, B., 2006. A new multi-objective heuristic algorithm for
solving the stochastic assembly line re-balancing problem. International Journal of Production
Economics 102, 226-243.
[187] Gamboa, G., 2006. Social multi-criteria evaluation of different development scenarios of the
Aysén region, Chile. Ecological Economics 59, 157-170.
[188] Gamper, C, D., Turcanu, C., 2007. On the governmental use of multi-criteria analysis.
Ecological Economics 62, 298-307.
[189] Garsia-Cascales, M, S., Lamata, M, T., 2009. Selection of a cleaning system for engine
maintenance based on the analytic hierarchy process. Computers & Industrial Engineering 56,
1442-1451.
[190] Geldermann, J., Bertsch, V., Treitz, M., French, S., Papamichail, K.N., Hämäläinen, R, P.,
2009. Multi-criteria decision support and evaluation of strategies for nuclear remediation
management. Omega 37, 238-251.
[191] Geldermann, J., Spengler, T., Rentz, O., 2000. Fuzzy outranking for environmental assessment.
Case study: iron and steel making industry. Fuzzy Sets and Systems 115, 45-65.
[192] Gelman, I, A., Setting priorities for data accuracy improvements in satisficing decision-making
scenarios: A guiding theory. Decision Support Systems, In press.
[193] Georgopoulou, E., Sarafidis, Y., Mirasgedis, S., Zaimi, S., Lalas., D.P., 2003. A multiple
criteria decision-aid approach in defining national priorities for greenhouse gases emissions
reduction in the energy sector. European Journal of Operational Research 146, 199-215.
[194] Gladish, B, P., Parra, M, A., Terol, A, B., Urı́a, M, V, R., 2005. Management of surgical
waiting lists through a Possibilistic Linear Multi objective Programming problem. Applied
[195] Gokcen, H., Agpak, K., 2006. A goal programming approach to simple U-line balancing
problem. European Journal of Operational Research 171, 577–585.
[196] Gomez-Limon, J, A., Arriaza, M., Riesgo, L., 2003. An MCDM analysis of agricultural risk
aversion. European Journal of Operational Research 151, 569–585.
[197] Gomez-Limon, J, A., Martınez, Y., 2006. Multi-criteria modeling of irrigation water market at
basin level: A Spanish case study. European Journal of Operational Research 173, 313–336.
[198] Goumas, M., Lygerou, V., 2000. An extension of the PROMETHEE method for decision
making in fuzzy environment: Ranking of alternative energy exploitation projects. European
Journal of Operational Research 123, 606-613.
[199] Grabisch, M., Labreuche, C., Vansnick, J, C., 2003. On the extension of pseudo-Boolean
functions for the aggregation of interacting criteria. European Journal of Operational Research
148, 28–47.
[200] Greco, S., Matarazzo, B., Slowinski, R., 2004. Axiomatic characterization of a general utility
function and its particular cases in terms of conjoint measurement and rough-set decision rules.
[201] Greening, L, A., Bernow, S., 2004. Design of coordinated energy and environmental policies:
use of multi-criteria decision-making. Energy Policy 32, 721-735.
[202] Guijarro, M., Pajares, G., 2009. On combining classifiers through a fuzzy multi criteria decision
making approach: Applied to natural textured images. Expert Systems with Applications 36,
7262-7269.

[203] Guneri, A, F., Yucel, A., Ayyildiz, G., 2009. An integrated fuzzy-lp approach for a supplier
selection problem in supply chain management. Expert Systems with Applications 36, 9223-
9228.
[204] Gupta, P., Mehlawat, M, K., Saxena, A., 2008. Asset portfolio optimization using fuzzy
mathematical programming. Information Sciences 178, 1734-1755.
[205] Guu, S, M., 2002. Fuzzy weighted averages revisited. Fuzzy Sets and Systems 126, 411-414.
[206] Haapalinna, I., 2003. How to allocate funds within the army. European Journal of Operational
Research 144, 224-233.
[207] Hajkowicz, S, A., 2008. Supporting multi-stakeholder environmental decisions. Journal of
[208] Hajkowicz, S., Higgins, A., 2008. A comparison of multiple criteria analysis techniques for
water resource management. European Journal of Operational Research 184, 255–265.
[209] Hassanzadeh Amin, S., Razmi, J., 2009. An integrated fuzzy model for supplier management:
A case study of ISP selection and evaluation. Expert Systems with Applications 36, 8639-8648.
[210] Herrera, F., Viedma, H., 2000. Linguistic decision analysis: steps for solving decision problems
under linguistic information. Fuzzy Sets and Systems 115, 67-82.
[211] Hill, M, J., Braaten, R., Veitch, S, M., Lees, B, G., Sharma, S., 2005. Multi-criteria decision
analysis in spatial decision support: the ASSESS analytic hierarchy process and the role of
quantitative methods and spatially explicit analysis. Environmental Modelling & Software 20,
955-976.
[212] Ho, W., Emrouznejad, A., 2009. Multi-criteria logistics distribution network design using
SAS/OR. Expert Systems with Applications 36, 7288-7298.
[213] Hokkanen, J., Lahdelma, R., Salminen, P., 2000. Multi criteria decision support in a technology
competition for cleaning polluted soil in Helsinki. Journal of Environmental Management 60,
339-348.
[214] Hong, D, H., Choi, C, H., 2000. Multi criteria fuzzy decision-making problems based on vague
set theory. Fuzzy Sets and Systems 114, 103-113.
[215] Hong, G, H., Ha, S, H., 2008. Evaluating supply partner’s capability for seasonal products
using machine learning techniques. Computers & Industrial Engineering 54, 721-736.
[216] Hsieh, T, Y., Lu, S, T., Tzeng, G, H., 2004. Fuzzy MCDM approach for planning and design
tenders selection in public office buildings. International Journal of Project Management 22,
573-584.
[217] Hsueh, S, L., Perng, Y, H., Yan, M, R., Lee, J, R., 2007. On-line multi-criterion risk assessment
model for construction joint ventures in China. Automation in Construction 16, 607-619.
[218] Hu, Y, C., 2009. Fuzzy multiple-criteria decision making in the determination of critical criteria
for assessing service quality of travel websites. Expert Systems with Applications 36, 6439-
6445.
[219] Huand, Y, C., Tsai, J, F., 2006. Back propagation multi-layer perceptron for incomplete pair
wise comparison matrices in analytic hierarchy process. Applied Mathematics and Computation
180, 53-62.
[220] Huang, A, F.M., Lan, C, W., Yang, S, J.H., 2009. An optimal QOS-based Web service
selection scheme. Information Sciences 179, 3309-3329.
[221] Huang, D, K., Chiu, H, N., Yeh, R, H., Chang, J, H., 2009. **. A fuzzy multi-criteria decision
making approach for solving a bi-objective personnel assignment problem. Computers &
[222] Huang, G, H., Linton, J, D., Yeomans, J, S., Yoogalingam, R., 2005. Policy planning under
uncertainty: efficient starting populations for simulation-optimization methods applied to
municipal solid waste management. Journal of Environmental Management 77, 22-34.
[223] Hussein, M.L., Ahmed, E., 2000. Fuzzy concepts in radiotherapy. Fuzzy Sets and Systems 114,
305-309.
[224] Huylenbroeck, G, V., Campos, E, M, U., Vanslembrouck, I., 2001. A (recursive) multiple
objective approach to analyze changes in the utility function of farmers due to policy reforms.
Applied Mathematics and Computation 122, 283-299.
[225] Hyde, K.M., Maier, H.R., Colby, C.B., 2005. A distance-based uncertainty analysis approach to
multi-criteria decision analysis for water resource decision making. Journal of Environmental
[226] Ipsilandis, P, G., Samaras, G., Mplanas, N., 2008. A multi criteria satisfaction analysis
approach in the assessment of operational programs. International Journal of Project
[227] Jablonsky, J., 2007. Measuring the efficiency of production units by AHP models.
[228] Jahanshahloo, G.R., Hosseinzadeh Lotfi, F., Davoodi, A.R., 2009. Extension of TOPSIS for
decision-making problems with interval data: Interval efficiency. Mathematical and Computer
Modelling 49, 1137-1142.
[229] Jahanshahloo, G.R., Hosseinzadeh Lotfi, F., Izadikhah, M., 2006. An algorithmic method to
extend TOPSIS for decision-making problems with interval data. Applied Mathematics and
Computation 175, 1375-1384.
[230] Jahanshahloo, G.R., Hosseinzadeh Lotfi, F., Izadikhah, M., 2006. Extension of the TOPSIS
method for decision-making problems with fuzzy data. Applied Mathematics and Computation
181, 1544-1551.
[231] Jiménez, A., Mateos, A., Insua, S, Rodríguez, L,C., 2007. R., Contracting cleaning services in a
European public underground transportation company with the aid of a DSS. Decision Support
Systems 43, 1485-1498.
[232] Jorge, J, M., 2009. An algorithm for optimizing a linear function over an integer efficient set.
[233] Joro, T., Korhonen, P., Zionts, S., 2003. An interactive approach to improve estimates of value
efficiency in data envelopment analysis. European Journal of Operational Research 149, 688-
699.
[234] Juan, Y, K., Perng, Y, H., Castro,D, C., Lu, K, S., 2009. Housing refurbishment contractor’s
selection based on a hybrid fuzzy-QFD approach. Automation in Construction 18, 139-144.
[235] Kablan, M.M., 2004. Decision support for energy conservation promotion: an analytic
hierarchy process approach. Energy Policy 32, 1151-1158.
[236] Kahraman, C., Cebeci, U., Ruan, D., 2004. Multi-attribute comparison of catering service
companies using fuzzy AHP: The case of Turkey. International Journal of Production
[237] Kahraman, C., Ruan, D., Dogan, I., 2003. Fuzzy group decision-making for facility location
selection. Information Sciences 157, 135-153.
[238] Kailasam, G, T., Lee, J, S., Rhee, J, W., Kang, J., 2009. Efficient SKYCUBE Computation
using Point and Domain-based Filtering. Information Sciences, In press.
[239] Kaliszewski, I., 2000. Using trade-off information in decision-making algorithms. Computers
& Operations Research 27, 161-182.
[240] Kaliszewski, I., 2003. Dynamic parametric bounds on efficient outcomes in interactive multiple
criteria decision making problems. European Journal of Operational Research 147, 94–107.
[241] Kaliszewski, I., 2004. Out of the mist––towards decision-maker-friendly multiple criteria
decision making support. European Journal of Operational Research 158, 293–307.
[242] Kaliszewski, I., 2007. Erratum to ‘‘Out of the mist—Towards decision-maker-friendly multiple
criteria decision making support’’ [Eur. J. Oper. Res. 158 (2004) 293–307]. European Journal
of Operational Research 176, 1293.
[243] Kaliszewski, I., Michalowski, W., 1999. Searching for psychologically stable solutions of
multiple criteria decision problems. European Journal of Operational Research 118, 549-562.
[244] Kalu, T, Ch.U., 1999. An algorithm for systems welfare interactive goal programming
modeling. European Journal of Operational Research 116, 508-529.
[245] Kandakoglu, A., Celik, M., Akgun, I., 2009. A multi-methodological approach for shipping
registry selection in maritime transportation industry. Mathematical and Computer Modeling
49, 586-597.
[246] Karacapilidis, N., Moraïtis, P., 2001. Building an agent-mediated electronic commerce system
with decision analysis features. Decision Support Systems 32, 53-69.
[247] Karacapilidis, N., Pappis, C., 2000. Computer-supported collaborative argumentation and fuzzy
similarity measures in multiple criteria decision making. Computers & Operations Research 27,
653-671.
[248] Karasakal, E, K., Michalowski, W., 2003. Incorporating wealth information into a multiple
criteria decision making model. European Journal of Operational Research 150, 204–219.
[249] Karsak, E.E., Tolga, E., 2001. Fuzzy multi-criteria decision-making procedure for evaluating
advanced manufacturing system investments. International Journal of Production Economics
69, 49-64.
[250] Kasanen, E., et al., 2000. A study of high-level managerial decision processes, with
implications for MCDM research. European Journal of Operational Research 120, 496-510.
[251] Kazana, V., Fawcett, R, H., Mutch, W, E.S., 2003. A decision support modeling framework for
multiple use forest management: The Queen Elizabeth Forest case study in Scotland. European
[252] Kelemenis, A., Askounis, D., A new TOPSIS-based multi criteria approach to personnel
selection. Expert Systems with Applications, In press.
[253] Kenyon, W., 2007. Evaluating flood risk management options in Scotland: A participant-led
multi-criteria approach. Ecological Economics 64, 70-81.
[254] Khalil, W, A.S., Shanableh, A., Rigby, P., Kokot, S., 2005. Selection of hydrothermal pre-
treatment conditions of waste sludge destruction using multi criteria decision-making. Journal
of Environmental Management 75, 53-64.
[255] Khan, F, I., Sadiq, R., Husain, T., 2002. GreenPro-I: a risk-based life cycle assessment and
decision-making methodology for process plant design. Environmental Modeling & Software
17, 669-692.
[256] Khatami Firouzabadi, S.M.A., Henson,B., Barnes, C., 2008. A multiple stakeholders’ approach
to strategic selection decisions. Computers & Industrial Engineering 54, 851-865.
[257] Kiang, M, Y., 2003. A comparative assessment of classification methods. Decision Support
Systems 35, 441-454.
[258] Kim, J., Kim, S, K., 2006. A CHIM-based interactive Tchebycheff procedure for multiple
objective decision making. Computers & Operations Research 33, 1557-1574.
[259] Kim, S, H., 2007. Evaluation of negative environmental impacts of electricity generation:
Neoclassical and institutional approaches. Energy Policy 35, 413-423.
[260] Kim, S, H., Ahn, B, S., 1999. Interactive group decision making procedure under incomplete
information. European Journal of Operational Research 116, 498-507.
[261] Kim, S, S., Yang, I, H., Yeo, M, S., Kim, K, W., 2005. Development of a housing performance
evaluation model for multi-family residential buildings in Korea. Building and Environment
40,1103-1116.
[262] Kim, Y, M., Kim, J, H., Kim, S, H., 2000. Use of multi-attribute decision analysis for designing
operations system framework in telecommunications management network. Computers &
[263] Kinra, A., Kotzab, H., 2008. A macro-institutional perspective on supply chain environmental
complexity. International Journal of Production Economics 115, 283-295.
[264] Klapka, J., Pinos, P., 2002. Decision support system for multi criteria R&D and information
systems projects selection. European Journal of Operational Research 140, 434–446.
[265] Kleine, A., 2004. A general model framework for DEA. Omega 32, 17-23.
[266] Kojadinovic, I., 2004. Estimation of the weights of interacting criteria from the set of profiles
by means of information-theoretic functional. European Journal of Operational Research 155,
741–751.
[267] Kojadinovic, I., 2005. An axiomatic approach to the measurement of the amount of interaction
among criteria or players. Fuzzy Sets and Systems 152, 417-435.
[268] Kojadinovic, I., 2007. Minimum variance capacity identification. European Journal of
Operational Research 177, 498–514.
[269] Köksalan, M., Ulu, C., 2003. An interactive approach for placing alternatives in preference
classes. European Journal of Operational Research 144, 429-439.
[270] Kongar, E., Gupta, S, M., 2006. Disassembly to order system under uncertainty. Omega 34,
550-561.
[271] Korhonen, P., Koskinen, L., Voutilainen, R., 2006. A financial alliance compromise between
executives and supervisory authorities. European Journal of Operational Research 175, 1300–
1310.
[272] Korhonen, P., Voutilainen, R., 2006. Finding the most preferred alliance structure between
banks and insurance companies. European Journal of Operational Research 175. 1285–1299.
[273] Kowalski, K., Stagl, S., Madlener, R., Omann, I., 2009. Sustainable energy futures:
Methodological challenges in combining scenarios and participatory multi-criteria analysis.
[274] Kulak, O., Kahraman, C., 2005. Fuzzy multi-attribute selection among transportation
companies using axiomatic design and analytic hierarchy process. Information Sciences 170,
191-210.
[275] Kunsch, P.L., Kavathatzopoulos, I., Rauschmayer, F., 2009. Modeling complex ethical decision
problems with operations research. Omega 37, 1100-1108.
[276] Kuo, M, S., Tzeng, G, H., Huang, W, C., 2007. Group decision-making based on concepts of
ideal and anti-ideal points in a fuzzy environment. Mathematical and Computer Modeling 45,
324-339.
[277] Kwak, N, K., Lee, C, W., Kim, J, H., 2005. An MCDM model for media selection in the dual
consumer/industrial market. European Journal of Operational Research 166, 255–265.
[278] Labreuche, C., Grabisch, M., 2003. The Choquet integral for the aggregation of interval scales
in multi criteria decision making. Fuzzy Sets and Systems 137, 11-26.
[279] Labreuche, C., Grabisch, M., 2006. Generalized Choquet-like aggregation functions for
handling bipolar scales. European Journal of Operational Research 172, 931–955.
[280] Lahdelma, R., Makkonen, S., Salminen, P., 2006. Multivariate Gaussian criteria in SMAA.
[281] Lahdelma, R., Makkonen, S., Salminen, P., 2009. Two ways to handle dependent uncertainties
in multi-criteria decision problems. Omega 37, 79-92.
[282] Lahdelma, R., Miettinen, K., Salminen, P., 2003. Ordinal criteria in stochastic multi criteria
acceptability analysis (SMAA). European Journal of Operational Research 147, 117–127.
[283] Lahdelma, R., Miettinen, K., Salminen, P., 2005. Reference point approach for multiple
decision makers. European Journal of Operational Research 164, 785–791.
[284] Lahdelma, R., Salminen, P., 2006. *. Classifying efficient alternatives in SMAA using cross
confidence factors. European Journal of Operational Research 170, 228-240.
[285] Lahdelma, R., Salminen, P., 2006. **. Stochastic multi criteria acceptability analysis using the
data envelopment model. European Journal of Operational Research 170, 241–252.
[286] Lahdelma, R., Salminen, P., 2009. Prospect theory and stochastic multi criteria acceptability
analysis (SMAA). Omega 37, 961-971.
[287] Lahdelma, R., Salminen, P., Hokkanen, J., 2000. Using multi criteria methods in environmental
planning and management, Environmental Management 26. 595–605.
[288] Lahdelma, R., Salminen, P., Hokkanen, J., 2002. Locating a waste treatment facility by using
stochastic multi criteria acceptability analysis with ordinal criteria. European Journal of
[289] Lahiri, S., 2002. Axiomatic characterizations of threshold choice functions for comparison
functions. Fuzzy Sets and Systems 132, 77-88.
[290] Lai, K, K., Li, L., 1999. A dynamic approach to multiple-objective resource allocation problem.
[291] Lai, V, S., Wong, B, K., Cheung, W., 2002. Group decision making in a multiple criteria
environment: A case using the AHP in software selection. European Journal of Operational
Research 137, 134-144.
[292] Lasserre, A, A.A., Bautista, M, A.B., Ponsich, A., Huerta, M, A.G., 2009. An AHP-based
decision-making tool for the solution of multiproduct batch plant design problem under
imprecise demand. Computers & Operations Research 36, 711-736.
[293] Laukkanen, S., Kangas, A., Kangas, J., 2002. Applying voting theory in natural resource
management: a case of multiple-criteria group decision support. Journal of Environmental
[294] Lee, A, H.I., Chen, W, C., Chang, C, J., 2008. A fuzzy AHP and BSC approach for evaluating
performance of IT department in the manufacturing industry in Taiwan. Expert Systems with
[295] Lee, H, S., 2002. Optimal consensus of fuzzy opinions under group decision making
environment. Fuzzy Sets and Systems 132, 303-315.
[296] Lee, H., Kim, C., Park, Y., *. Evaluation and Management of New Service Concepts: An ANP-
Based Portfolio Approach. Computers & Industrial Engineering, In Press.
[297] Lee, H., Lee, S., Park, Y., 2009. **. Selection of technology acquisition mode using the
analytic network process. Mathematical and Computer Modeling 49, 1274-1282.
[298] Lee, J, W., Kim, S, H., 2000. Using analytic network process and goal programming for
interdependent information system project selection. Computers & Operations Research 27,
367-382.
[299] Lee, J, W., Kim, S, H., 2001. An integrated approach for interdependent information system
project selection. International Journal of Project Management 19,111-118.
[300] Lee, W, S., Tzeng, G, H., Guan, J, L., Chien, K, T., Huang, J,M., 2009. Combined MCDM
techniques for exploring stock selection based on Gordon model. Expert Systems with
[301] Leeneer, I, D., Pastijn, H., 2002. Selecting land mine detection strategies by means of
outranking MCDM techniques. European Journal of Operational Research 139, 327–338.
[302] Leskinen, P., Kangas, A, S., Kangas, J., 2004. Rank-based modeling of preferences in multi-
criteria decision making. European Journal of Operational Research 158, 721–733.
[303] Leung, L, C., Cao, D., 2001. On the efficacy of modeling multi-attribute problem using AHP
and Sinarchy. European Journal of Operational Research 132, 39-49.
[304] Leung, S, C.H., Wu, Y., Lai, K.K., 2006. Cross-border logistics with fleet management: A goal
programming approach. Computers & Industrial Engineering 50, 263-272.
[305] Levary, R, R., Wan, K., 1999. An analytic hierarchy process based simulation model for entry
mode decision regarding foreign direct investment. Omega 27, 661-677.
[306] Levy, J, K., Taji, K., 2007. Group decision support for hazards planning and emergency
management: A Group Analytic Network Process (GANP) approach. Mathematical and
[307] Li, C, W., Tzeng, G, H., 2009. *. Identification of a threshold value for the DEMATEL method
using the maximum mean de-entropy algorithm to find critical services provided by a
semiconductor intellectual property mall. Expert Systems with Applications 36, 9891-9898.

[308] Li, C, W., Tzeng, G, H., 2009. **. Identification of interrelationship of key customers’ needs
based on structural model for services/capabilities provided by a Semiconductor-Intellectual-
Property Mall. Applied Mathematics and Computation 215, 2001-2010.
[309] Li, D, Q., Wang, J, Y., Li, H, X., 2009. Note on “On the normalization of interval and fuzzy
weights”. Fuzzy Sets and Systems 160, 2722-2725.
[310] Li, H., Yen, V.C., Lee, E.S., 2000. Factor space theory in fuzzy information processing—
Composition of states of factors and multi factorial decision making. Computers &
Mathematics with Applications 39, 245-265.
[311] Li, T, S., Huang, H, H., 2009. Applying TRIZ and Fuzzy AHP to develop innovative design for
automated manufacturing systems. Expert Systems with Applications 36, 8302-8312.
[312] Li, Y, M., Kao, C, P., 2009. TREPPS: A Trust-based Recommender System for Peer
Production Services. Expert Systems with Applications 36, 3263-3277.
[313] Li,R, J., 1999. Fuzzy method in group decision making. Computers & Mathematics with
[314] Liang, J, S., 1999. Fuzzy MCDM based on ideal and anti-ideal concepts. European Journal of
[315] Liao, Z., Rittscher, J., 2007. A multi-objective supplier selection model under stochastic
demand conditions. International Journal of Production Economics 105, 150-159.
[316] Lin, C, C., Wang, W, C., Yu, W, D., 2008. Improving AHP for construction with an adaptive
AHP approach (A3). Automation in Construction 17, 180-187.
[317] Lin, C, L., Chen, C, W., Tzeng, G, H., Planning the development strategy for the mobile
communication package based on consumers’ choice preferences. Expert Systems with
Applications, In press.
[318] Lin, C, M., Gen, M., 2008. Multi-criteria human resource allocation for solving multistage
combinatorial optimization problems using multi objective hybrid genetic algorithm. Expert
[319] Lin, C, T., Lee, C., Chen, W, Y., 2009.An expert system approach to assess service
performance of travel intermediary. Expert Systems with Applications 36, 2987-2996.
[320] Lin, C, T., Lee, C., Wu, C, S., 2009. Optimizing a marketing expert decision process for the
private hotel. Expert Systems with Applications 36, 5613-5619.
[321] Lin, C, T., Tsai, M, C., 2009. Development of an expert selection system to choose ideal cities
for medical service ventures. Expert Systems with Applications 36, 2266-2274.
[322] Lin, C.K.Y., Kwok, R.C.W., 2006. Multi-objective meta heuristics for a location-routing
problem with multiple use of vehicles on real data and simulated data. European Journal of
[323] Lin, H, Y., Hsu, P, Y., Sheen, G, J., 2007. A fuzzy-based decision-making procedure for data
warehouse system selection. Expert Systems with Applications 32, 939-953.
[324] Lin, P, C., Ko, P, C., 2009. Portfolio value-at-risk forecasting with GA-based extreme value
theory. Expert Systems with Applications 36, 2503-2512.
[325] Linares, P., 2009. Are inconsistent decisions better? An experiment with pair wise
comparisons. European Journal of Operational Research 193, 492–498.
[326] Liou, J, J.H., Chuang, Y, T., Developing a hybrid multi-criteria model for selection of
outsourcing providers. Expert Systems with Applications, In press.
[327] Liou, J, J.H., Yen, L., Tzeng, G, H., Using decision rules to achieve mass customization of
airline services. European Journal of Operational Research, In press.
[328] Lipovetsky, S., Tishler, A., 1999. Interval estimation of priorities in the AHP. European Journal
of Operational Research 114, 153-164.
[329] Liu, D., Stewart, T, J., 2004. *. Integrated object-oriented framework for MCDM and DSS
modeling. Decision Support Systems 38, 421-434.

[330] Liu, D., Stewart, T, J., 2004. **. Object-oriented decision support system modeling for multi
criteria decision making in natural resource management. Computers & Operations Research
31, 985-999.
[331] Liu, F, H, F., Hai, H, L., 2005. The voting analytic hierarchy process method for selecting
supplier. International Journal of Production Economics 97, 308-317.
[332] Liu, H, W., Wang, G, J., 2007. Multi-criteria decision-making methods based on intuitionist
fuzzy sets. European Journal of Operational Research 179, 220–233.
[333] López , C, P., Requena, J, C., Giménez, T, D, H., 2008. A systemic comparative assessment of
the multifunctional performance of alternative olive systems in Spain within an AHP-extended
framework. Ecological Economics 64, 820-834.
[334] Low, C., Yip, Y., Wu, T, H., 2006. Modeling and heuristics of FMS scheduling with multiple
objectives. Computers & Operations Research 33, 674-694.
[335] Lowe, T, J., Wendell, R, E., Hu, G., 2002. Screening location strategies to reduce exchange rate
risk. European Journal of Operational Research 136, 573-590.
[336] Macharis, C., Springael, J., Brucker, K, D., Verbeke, A., 2004. PROMETHEE and AHP: The
design of operational synergies in multi criteria analysis.: Strengthening PROMETHEE with
ideas of AHP. European Journal of Operational Research 153, 307-317.
[337] Mackay, D.S., Robinson, V, B., 2000. A multiple criteria decision support system for testing
integrated environmental models. Fuzzy Sets and Systems 113, 53-67.
[338] Mahdavi, I., Mahdavi-Amiri, N., Heidarzade, A., Nourifar, R., 2008. Designing a model of
fuzzy TOPSIS in multiple criteria decision making. Applied Mathematics and Computation
206, 607-617.
[339] Mahdi, I, M., Alreshaid, K., 2005. Decision support system for selecting the proper project
delivery method using analytical hierarchy process (AHP). International Journal of Project
[340] Mahnam, M., Yadollahpour, M, R., Famil-Dardashti, V., Hejazi, S.R., 2009. Supply chain
modeling in uncertain environment with bi-objective approach. Computers & Industrial
Engineering 56, 1535-1544.
[341] Majlender, P., 2005. OWA operators with maximal Rényi entropy. Fuzzy Sets and Systems
155, 340-360.
[342] Makowski, M., 2000. Modeling paradigms applied to the analysis of European air quality.
[343] Makowski, M., 2005. A structured modeling technology. European Journal of Operational
Research 166, 615-648.
[344] Makropoulos, C.K., Butler, D., 2006. Spatial ordered weighted averaging: incorporating
spatially variable attitude towards risk in spatial multi-criteria decision-making. Environmental
Modeling & Software 21, 69-84.
[345] Malakooti, B., Al-alwani, J, E., 2002. Extremist vs. centrist decision behavior: quasi-convex
utility functions for interactive multi-objective linear programming problems. Computers &
[346] Mallasi, Z., 2006. Dynamic quantification and analysis of the construction workspace
congestion utilizing 4D visualization. Automation in Construction 15, 640-655.
[347] Mansar, S, L., Reijers, H, A., Ounnar, F., 2009. Development of a decision-making strategy to
improve the efficiency of BPR. Expert Systems with Applications 36, 3248-3262.
[348] Marichal, J, L., 2004. Tolerant or intolerant character of interacting criteria in aggregation by
the Choquet integral. European Journal of Operational Research 155, 771-791.
[349] Marichal, J, L., Mathonet, P., Tousset, E., 1999. Characterization of some aggregation
functions stable for positive linear transformations. Fuzzy Sets and Systems 102, 293-314.

[350] Marinoni, O., Higgins, A., Hajkowicz, S., Collins, K., 2009. The multiple criteria analysis tool
(MCAT): A new software tool to support environmental investment decision making.
Environmental Modeling & Software 24, 153-164.
[351] Marsden, J, R., Pakath, R., Wibowo, K., 2006. Decision making under time pressure with
different information sources and performance-based financial incentives: part 3. Decision
Support Systems 42, 186-203.
[352] Mateos, A., Jime´nez. A., Rı´os-Insua, S., 2006. Monte Carlo simulation techniques for group
decision making with incomplete information. European Journal of Operational Research 174,
1842–1864.
[353] Matsatsinis, N, F., Samaras, A, P., 2001. MCDA and preference disaggregation in group
decision support systems. European Journal of Operational Research 130, 414-429.
[354] Mavrotas, G., Diakoulaki,, D., Caloghirou, Y., 2006. Project prioritization under policy
restrictions. A combination of MCDA with 0–1 programming. European Journal of Operational
Research 171, 296–308.
[355] Melachrinoudis, E., Messac, A., Min, H., 2005. Consolidating a warehouse network:: A
physical programming approach. International Journal of Production Economics 97, 1-17.
[356] Merino, G, G., Jones, D, D., Clements, D, L., Miller, D., 2003. Fuzzy compromise
programming with precedence order in the criteria. Applied Mathematics and Computation
134, 185-205.
[357] Miettinen, K., Makela, M, M., 2006. Synchronous approach in interactive multi objective
optimization. European Journal of Operational Research 170, 909–922.
[358] Miettinen, K., Molina, J., González, M., Díaz, A, H., Caballero, R., 2009. Using box indices in
supporting comparison in multi objective optimization. European Journal of Operational
Research 197, 17–24.
[359] Miettinen, K., Salminen P., 1999. Decision-aid for discrete multiple criteria decision making
problems with imprecise data. European Journal of Operational Research 119, 50-60.
[360] Mikhailov, L., 2002. Fuzzy analytical approach to partnership selection in formation of virtual
enterprises. Omega 30, 393-401.
[361] Mikhailov, L., 2003. Deriving priorities from fuzzy pair wise comparison judgments. Fuzzy
[362] Mikhailov, L., 2004. Group prioritization in the AHP by fuzzy preference programming
method. Computers & Operations Research 31, 293-3001.
[363] Mikhailov, L., Tsvetinov, P., 2004. Evaluation of services using a fuzzy analytic hierarchy
process. Applied Soft Computing 5, 23-33.
[364] Milani, A.S., Shanian, A., Lahham, C, E., 2008. A decision-based approach for measuring
human behavioral resistance to organizational change in strategic planning. Mathematical and
[365] Millet, I., Schoner, B., 2005. Incorporating negative values into the Analytic Hierarchy Process.
Computers & Operations Research 32, 3163-3173.
[366] Modarres, M., Sadi-Nezhad, S., 2001. Ranking fuzzy numbers by preference ratio. Fuzzy Sets
[367] Moffett, A., Garson, J., Sarkar, S., 2005. MultCSync: a software package for incorporating
multiple criteria in conservation planning. Environmental Modelling & Software 20, 1315-
1322.
[368] Molina, J., Santana, L, V., Hernández-Díaz, A, G., Coello Coello, C, A., Caballero, R., 2009. g-
dominance: Reference point based dominance for multiobjective metaheuristics. European
[369] Monroy, L., Fernández, F, R., 2009. A general model for voting systems with multiple
alternatives. Applied Mathematics and Computation 215, 1537-1547.

[370] Montazer, G, H., Saremi, H, Q., Ramezani, M., 2009. Design a new mixed expert decision
aiding system using fuzzy ELECTRE III method for vendor selection. Expert Systems with
[371] Montibeller, G., Belton, V., 2009. Qualitative operators for reasoning maps: Evaluating multi-
criteria options with networks of reasons. European Journal of Operational Research 195, 829–
840.
[372] Moshkovich, H, M., Mechitov, A, I., Olson, D, L., 2002. Ordinal judgments in multi attribute
decision analysis. European Journal of Operational Research 137, 625–641.
[373] Muata, K., Bryson, O., 2006. An action learning approach for assessing the consistency of pair
wise comparison data. European Journal of Operational Research 174, 234–244.
[374] Muela, E., Schweickardt , G., Garcés, F., 2007. Fuzzy possibilistic model for medium-term
power generation planning with environmental criteria. Energy Policy 35, 5643-5655.
[375] Muniglia, L., Kiss, L, N., Fonteix, C., Marc, I., 2004. Multi criteria optimization of a single-cell
oil production. European Journal of Operational Research 153, 360-369.
[376] Mysiak, J., Giupponi, C., Rosato, P., 2005. Towards the development of a decision support
system for water resource management. Environmental Modeling & Software 20, 203-214.
[377] Naesens, K., Gelders, L., Pintelon, L., 2009. A swift response framework for measuring the
strategic fit for a horizontal collaborative initiative. International Journal of Production
Economics 121, 550-561.
[378] Nagurney, A., Dong, J., Mokhtarian, P.L., 2001. Teleshopping versus shopping: a multi criteria
network equilibrium framework. Mathematical and Computer Modeling 34, 783-798.
[379] Nassar, K., Thabet, W., Beliveau, Y., 2003. A procedure for multi-criteria selection of building
assemblies. Automation in Construction 12, 543-560.
[380] Neto, B., Kroeze, C., Hordijk, L., Costa, C., 2008. Modeling the environmental impact of an
aluminum pressure die casting plant and options for control. Environmental Modelling &
Software 23, 147-168.
[381] Ngwenyama, O, K., Bryson, B., 1999. Eliciting and mapping qualitative preferences to numeric
rankings in group decision making. European Journal of Operational Research 116, 487-497.
[382] Niaraki, A, S., Kim, K., 2009. Ontology based personalized route planning system using a
multi-criteria decision making approach. Expert Systems with Applications 36, 2250-2259.
[383] Nikolić, D., Jovanović, I., Mihajlović, I., Živković, Z., 2009. Multi-criteria ranking of copper
concentrates according to their quality – An element of environmental management in the
vicinity of copper – Smelting complex in Bor, Serbia. Journal of Environmental Management
91, 509-515.
[384] Niskanen, V, A., 2002. A soft multi-criteria decision-making approach to assessing the
goodness of typical reasoning systems based on empirical data. Fuzzy Sets and Systems 131,
79-100.
[385] Nokhbatolfoghahaayee, H., Bagher Menhaj, M., Shafiee, M., Fuzzy decision support system for
crisis management with a new structure for decision making. Expert Systems with
Applications, In press.
[386] Nowak, M., 2006. INSDECM—an interactive procedure for stochastic multi criteria decision
problems. European Journal of Operational Research 175, 1413–1430.
[387] Nowak, M., 2007. Aspiration level approach in stochastic MCDM problems. European Journal
of Operational Research 177, 1626–1640.
[388] Nwogugu, M., 2006. A further critique of cumulative prospect theory and related approaches.
Applied Mathematics and Computation 179, 451-465.
[389] Nwogugu, M., 2006. *. Regret minimization, willingness-to-accept-losses and framing. Applied
[390] Nwogugu, M., 2006. **. Volatility, risk modeling and utility. Applied Mathematics and
[391] Nwogugu, M., 2007. Decision-making, risk and corporate governance: A critique of
methodological issues in bankruptcy/recovery prediction models. Applied Mathematics and
[392] Oddershede, A., Arias, A., Cancino, H., 2007. Rural development decision support using the
Analytic Hierarchy Process. Mathematical and Computer Modeling 46, 1107-1114.
[393] Ogryczak, W, O., 1999. On the distribution approach to location problems. Computers &
[394] Ogryczak, W., Vetschera, R., Austria, V., 2004. Methodological foundations of multi-criteria
decision making. European Journal of Operational Research 158, 267–270.
[395] Oh, Y., Suh, E, H., Hong, J., Hwang, H., 2009. A feasibility test model for new telecom service
development using MCDM method: A case study of video telephone service in Korea. Expert
[396] Olcer, A, I., Odabasi, A,Y., 2005. A new fuzzy multiple attributive group decision making
methodology and its application to propulsion/maneuvering system selection problem.
[397] Ölçer, A.I., Tuzcu, C., Turan, O., 2006. An integrated multi-objective optimization and fuzzy
multi-attributive group decision-making technique for subdivision arrangement of Ro–Ro
vessels. Applied Soft Computing 6, 221-243.
[398] Olenick, K, L., Wilkins, N., Conner, J.R., 2004. Increasing off-site water yield and grassland
bird habitat in Texas through brush treatment practices. Ecological Economics 49, 469-484.
[399] Olson, D, L., 2001. Comparison of three multi criteria method to predict known outcomes.
[400] Önüt, S., Kara, S, S., Işik, E., 2009. Long term supplier selection using a combined fuzzy
MCDM approach: A case study for a telecommunication company. Expert Systems with
[401] Opricovic, S., Tzeng, G, H., 2004. Compromise solution by MCDM methods: A comparative
analysis of VIKOR and TOPSIS. European Journal of Operational Research, 156, 445–455.
[402] Opricovic, S., Tzeng, G, H., 2007. Extended VIKOR method in comparison with outranking
methods. European Journal of Operational Research 178, 514–529.
[403] Ossadnik, W., Lange, O., 1999. AHP-based evaluation of AHP-Software. European Journal of
[404] Oud, E., 2002. The evolving context for hydropower development. Energy Policy 30, 1215-
1223.
[405] Özcan, U., Toklu, B., 2009. Multiple-criteria decision-making in two-sided assembly line
balancing: A goal programming and a fuzzy goal programming models. Computers &
[406] Pan, N, F., 2008. Fuzzy AHP approach for selecting the suitable bridge construction method.
[407] Pan, N.F., 2009. Selecting an appropriate excavation construction method based on qualitative
assessments. Expert Systems with Applications 36, 5481-5490.
[408] Papadopoulos, A., Karagiannidis, A., 2008. Application of the multi-criteria analysis method
Electre III for the optimization of decentralized energy systems. Omega 36, 766-776.
[409] Papakostas, N., Papachatzakis, P., Xanthakis, V., Mourtzis, D., Chryssolouris, G., An Approach
to Operational Aircraft Maintenance Planning. Decision Support Systems, In press.
[410] Pappas, J, L., 2006. Biological taxonomic problem solving using fuzzy decision-making
analytical tools. Fuzzy Sets and Systems 157, 1687-1703.
[411] Parra, M, A., Terol, A, B., Gladish, B, P., 2005. Solving a multi-objective possibilistic problem
through compromise programming. European Journal of Operational Research 164, 748-759.
[412] Partovi, F, Y., 2007. An analytical model of process choice in the chemical industry.
[413] Paterson, B., Stuart-Hill,G., Underhill, L, G., Dunne, T, T., Schinzel, B., Brown, C., Beytell,
B., Demas, F., Lindeque, P., Tagg, J., Weaver, C., 2008. A fuzzy decision support tool for
wildlife translocations into communal conservancies in Namibia. Environmental Modeling &
Software 23, 521-534.
[414] Pavlikakis, G, E., Tsihrintzis, V, A., 2003. A quantitative method for accounting human
opinion, preferences and perceptions in ecosystem management. Journal of Environmental
[415] Peng, Y., Kou, G., Shi, Y., Chen, Z., 2008. A Multi-criteria Convex Quadratic Programming
model for credit data analysis. Decision Support Systems 44, 1016-1030.
[416] Peniwati, K., 2007. Criteria for evaluating group decision-making methods. Mathematical and
[417] Peniwati, K., Brenner, W., 2008. Multi-decisions rating model: Establishing rescue policies for
Regional Drinking Water Companies (PDAMs) in Indonesia. European Journal of Operational
Research 186, 1127-1136.
[418] Pereira, R, A, M., Ribeiro, R, A., 2003. Aggregation with generalized mixture operators using
weighting functions. Fuzzy Sets and Systems 137, 43-58.
[419] Perrier, N., Langevin, A., Campbell, J, F., 2008. The sector design and assignment problem for
snow disposal operations. European Journal of Operational Research 189, 508–525.
[420] Petkov, D., Petkova, O., Andrew, T., Nepal, T., 2007. Mixing Multiple Criteria Decision
Making with soft systems thinking techniques for decision support in complex situations.
Decision Support Systems 43, 1615-1629.
[421] Petroni, A., Rizzi, A., 2002. A fuzzy logic based methodology to rank shop floor dispatching
rules. International Journal of Production Economics 76, 99-108.
[422] Phdungsilp, A., Integrated energy and carbon modeling with a decision support system: Policy
scenarios for low-carbon city development in Bangkok. Energy Policy, In press.
[423] Podinovski, V, V., 2007. Interval articulation of superiority and precise elicitation of priorities.
[424] Poh, K.L., Ang, B.W., 1999. Transportation fuels and policy for Singapore: an AHP planning
approach. Computers & Industrial Engineering 37, 507-525.
[425] Pokharel, S., 2008. A two objective model for decision making in a supply chain. International
Journal of Production Economics 111, 378-388.
[426] Prato, T., 1999. Multiple attribute decision analysis for ecosystem management. Ecological
[427] Promentilla, M, A, B., Furuichi, T., Ishii, K., Tanikawa, N., 2008. A fuzzy analytic network
process for multi-criteria evaluation of contaminated site remedial countermeasures. Journal of
[428] Purao, S., Jain, H, K., Nazareth, D, L., 1999. Supporting decision making in combinatorial
explosive multi criteria situations. Decision Support Systems 26, 225-247.
[429] Qi, J., Hu, J., Peng, Y, H., Wang, W., Zhang, Z., 2009. A case retrieval method combined with
similarity measurement and multi-criteria decision making for concurrent design. Expert
[430] Qin, X.S., Huang, G. H., Chakma, A., Nie, X.H., 2008. A MCDM-based expert system for
climate-change impact assessment and adaptation planning. A case study for the Georgia Basin,
Canada. Expert Systems with Applications 34, 2164-2179.
[431] Rademaker, M., Baets, B, D., Meyer, H, D., 2009. Loss optimal monotone relabeling of noisy
multi-criteria data sets. Information Sciences 179, 4089-4096.
[432] Raju, K, S., Pillai, C.R.S., 1999. Multi criteria decision making in performance evaluation of an
irrigation system. European Journal of Operational Research 112, 479-488.
[433] Raju, K, S., Pillai, C.R.S., 1999. Multi criteria decision making in river basin planning and
development. European Journal of Operational Research 112, 249-257.
[434] Ramík, J., Vlach, M., 2002. Pareto-optimality of compromise decisions. Fuzzy Sets and
Systems 129, 119-127.
[435] Raveh, A., 2000. Co-plot: A graphic display method for geometrical representations of MCDM.
[436] Ravi, V., Shankar, R., Tiwari, M.K., 2005. Analyzing alternatives in reverse logistics for end-
of-life computers: ANP and balanced scorecard approach. Computers & Industrial Engineering
48, 327-356.
[437] Regan, H, M., Colyvan, M., Nicholls, L, M., 2006. A formal model for consensus and
negotiation in environmental management. Journal of Environmental Management 80, 167-176.
[438] Rodrigues, J.M, C., Clímaco, J. C. N., Current, J, R., 1999. An interactive bi-objective shortest
path approach: searching for unsupported non dominated solutions. Computers & Operations
Research 26, 789-798.
[439] Romero, C., 1999. Determination of the optimal externality: Efficiency versus equity. European
[440] Romero, C., 2000. Bi-criteria utility functions: Analytical considerations and implications in
the short-run labor market. European Journal of Operational Research 122, 91-100.
[441] Romero, C., 2001. Extended lexicographic goal programming: a unifying approach. Omega 29,
63-71.
[442] Romero, C., 2004. A general structure of achievement function for a goal programming model.
[443] Rose, D, M., Shier, D, R., 2007. Cut scheduling in the apparel industry. Computers &
[444] Rosen, S, L., Harmonosky, C, M., Traband, M, T., 2007. A simulation optimization method
that considers uncertainty and multiple performance measures. European Journal of Operational
Research 181, 315–330.
[445] Royes, G, F., Bastos, R, C., 2006. Uncertainty analysis in political forecasting. Decision
[446] Ruiz, M.C., Fernández, I., 2009. Environmental assessment in construction using a Spatial
Decision Support System. Automation in Construction 18, 1135-1143.
[447] Saad, I., Chakhar, S., 2009. A decision support for identifying crucial knowledge requiring
capitalizing operation. European Journal of Operational Research 195, 889–904.
[448] Saaty, T, L., 2006. Rank from comparisons and from ratings in the analytic hierarchy/network
processes. European Journal of Operational Research 168, 557-570.
[449] Saaty, T, L., 2007. Multi-decisions decision-making: In addition to wheeling and dealing, our
national political bodies need a formal approach for prioritization. Mathematical and Computer
Modelling 46, 1001-1016.
[450] Sadeghi-Niaraki, A., Kim, K., 2009. Corrigendum “Ontology based personalized route
planning system using a multi-criteria decision making approach” [Experts Systems with
Applications 36 (2P1) (2009) (1695–1705)]. Expert Systems with Applications 36, 9604.
[451] Sadi-Nezhad, S., Khalili Damghani, K., Application of a fuzzy TOPSIS method base on
modified preference ratio and fuzzy distance measurement in assessment of traffic police
centers performance. Applied Soft Computing, In press.
[452] Sadiq, R., Tesfamariam, S., 2007. Probability density functions based weights for ordered
weighted averaging (OWA) operators: An example of water quality indices. European Journal
[453] Salt, C.A., Dunsmore, C., 2000. Development of a spatial decision support system for post-
emergency management of radioactively contaminated land. Journal of Environmental
[454] Sarker, R.A., Quaddus, M.A., 2002. Modeling a nationwide crop planning problem using a
multiple criteria decision making tool. Computers & Industrial Engineering 42, 541-553.
[455] Sarkis, J., 2000. A comparative analysis of DEA as a discrete alternative multiple criteria
decision tool. European Journal of Operational Research 123, 543-557.
[456] Sasmal, S., Ramanjaneyulu, K., 2008. Condition evaluation of existing reinforced concrete
bridges using fuzzy based analytic hierarchy approach. Expert Systems with Applications 35,
1430-1443.
[457] Scheubrein, R., Zionts, S., 2006. A problem structuring front end for a multiple criteria decision
support system. Computers & Operations Research 33, 18-31.
[458] Schlueter, A., Thesseling, F., 2009. Building information model based energy performance
assessment in early design stages. Automation in Construction 18, 153-163.
[459] Schneeweiss, C., Schneider, H., 1999. Measuring and designing flexibility as a generalized
service degree. European Journal of Operational Research 112, 98-106.
[460] Scholz, R, W., Schnabel, U., 2006. Decision making under uncertainty in case of soil
remediation. Journal of Environmental Management 80, 132-147.
[461] Seçme, N, Y., Bayrakdaroğlu, A., Kahraman, C., 2009. Fuzzy performance evaluation in
Turkish Banking Sector using Analytic Hierarchy Process and TOPSIS. Expert Systems with
[462] Sell, J., Koellner, T., Weber, O., Pedroni, L., Scholz, R, W., 2006. Decision criteria of
European and Latin American market actors for tropical forestry projects providing
environmental services. Ecological Economics 58, 11-36.
[463] Şen, C, G., Baraçlı, H., Şen, S., Başlıgil, H., 2009. An integrated decision support system
dealing with qualitative and quantitative objectives for enterprise software selection. Expert
[464] Sevastjanov, P., Dymova, L., 2009. Stock screening with use of multiple criteria decision
making and optimization. Omega 37, 659-671.
[465] Sevastjanov, P., Figat, P., 2007. Aggregation of aggregating modes in MCDM: Synthesis of
Type 2 and Level 2 fuzzy sets. Omega 35, 505-523.
[466] Shanian, A., Savadogo, O., 2009. A methodological concept for material selection of highly
sensitive components based on multiple criteria decision analysis. Expert Systems with
[467] Sharma, M, J., Moon, I., Bae, H., 2008. Analytic hierarchy process to assess and optimize
distribution network. Applied Mathematics and Computation 202, 256-265.
[468] Shen, C, Y., Yu, K, T., 2009. A generalized fuzzy approach for strategic problems: The
empirical study on facility location selection of authors’ management consultation client as an
example. Expert Systems with Applications 36, 4709-4716.
[469] Sheu, J, B., 2008. A hybrid neuro-fuzzy analytical approach to mode choice of global logistics
management. European Journal of Operational Research 189, 971–986.
[470] Shih, H, S., Huang, L, C., Shyur, H, J., 2005. Recruitment and selection processes through an
effective GDSS. Computers & Mathematics with Applications 50,1543-1558.
[471] Shih, S, H., 2008. Incremental analysis for MCDM with an application to group TOPSIS.
European Journal of Operational Research, 186, 720-734.
[472] Shipley, M, F., Korvin, A, D., Omer, K., 2001. A fuzzy logic-based decision model to satisfy
goal for successful product/service introduction. European Journal of Operational Research
135, 209-219.
[473] Shyur, H, J., 2006. COTS evaluation using modified TOPSIS and ANP. Applied Mathematics
and Computation 177, 251-259.
[474] Shyur, H, J., Shih, H, S., 2006. A hybrid MCDM model for strategic vendor selection.
[475] Silva, C.A., Sousa, J.M.C., Runkler, T, A., 2007. Optimization of logistic systems using fuzzy
weighted aggregation. Fuzzy Sets and Systems 158, 1947-1960.

[476] Simão, A., Densham, P, J., Haklay, M., 2009. Web-based GIS for collaborative planning and
public participation: An application to the strategic planning of wind farm sites. Journal of
[477] Skriver, A, J.V., Andersen, K, A., Holmberg, K., 2004. Bi criteria network location (BNL)
problems with criteria dependent lengths and minimum objectives. European Journal of
[478] Skriver, A. J. V., Andersen, K.A., 2000. A label correcting approach for solving bi criterion
shortest-path problems. Computers & Operations Research 27, 507-524.
[479] Sloane, E, B., Liberatore, M, J., Nydick, R, L., Luo, W., Chung, Q.B., 2003. Using the analytic
hierarchy process as a clinical engineering tool to facilitate an iterative, multidisciplinary,
microeconomic health technology assessment. Computers & Operations Research 30, 1447-
1465.
[480] Smolíková, R., Wachowiak, M, P., 2002. Aggregation operators for selection problems. Fuzzy
[481] Sobol', I.M., Levitan, Y.L., 1999. A pseudo-random number generator for personal computers.
Computers & Mathematics with Applications 37, 33-40.
[482] Soebarto, V.I., Williamson, T.J., 2001. Multi-criteria assessment of building performance:
theory and implementation. Building and Environment 36, 681-690.
[483] Sowlati, T., Paradi, J.C., Suld, C., 2005. Information systems project prioritization using data
envelopment analysis. Mathematical and Computer Modeling 41, 1279-1298.
[484] Srdjevic, B., 2007. Linking analytic hierarchy process and social choice methods to support
group decision-making in water management. Decision Support Systems 42, 2261-2273.
[485] Starkl, M., Brunner, N., 2004. Feasibility versus sustainability in urban water management.
Journal of Environmental Management 71, 245-260.
[486] Steffens, W., Martinsuo, M., Artto, K., 2007. Change decisions in product development
projects. International Journal of Project Management 25, 702-713.
[487] Steuer, R, E., Na, P., 2003. Multiple criteria decision making combined with finance: A
categorized bibliographic study. European Journal of Operational Research 2003, 496–515.
[488] Stewart, T, J., 1999. Evaluation and refinement of aspiration-based methods in MCDM.
[489] Strassert, G., Prato, T., 2002. Selecting farming systems using a new multiple criteria decision
model: the balancing and ranking method. Ecological Economics 40, 269-277.
[490] Sueyoshi, T., Shang, J., Chiang, W, C., 2009. A decision support framework for internal audit
prioritization in a rental car company: A combined use between DEA and AHP. European
[491] Sun, C, C., Lin, G, T.R., 2009. Using fuzzy TOPSIS method for evaluating the competitive
advantages of shopping websites. Expert Systems with Applications 36, 11764-11771.
[492] Sun, C, C., Lin, G, T.R., Tzeng, G, H., 2009. The evaluation of cluster policy by fuzzy MCDM:
Empirical evidence from HsinChu Science Park. Expert Systems with Applications 36, 11895-
11906.
[493] Sun, J., Li, H., 2009. Financial distress early warning based on group decision making.
[494] Sun, M., 2002. A multiple objective programming approach for determining faculty salary
equity adjustments. European Journal of Operational Research 138, 302–319.
[495] Sun, M., 2005. Some issues in measuring and reporting solution quality of interactive multiple
objective programming procedures. European Journal of Operational Research 162, 468–483.
[496] Sun, M., Stam, A., Steuer, R, E., 2000. Interactive multiple objective programming using
Tchebycheff programs and artificial neural networks. Computers & Operations Research 27,
601-620.

[497] Supriyasilp, T., Pongput, K., Boonyasirikul, T., 2009. Hydropower development priority using
MCDM method. Energy Policy 37, 1866-1875.
[498] Syau, Y, R., Lee, E, S., Jia, L., 2004. Convexity and upper semi continuity of fuzzy sets.
Computers & Mathematics with Applications 48, 117-129.
[499] Tabari, M., Kaboli, A., Aryanezhad, M.B., Shahanaghi, K., Siadat, A., 2008. A fuzzy MCDM
method for solving marine transshipment container port selection problems. Applied
[500] Tai, W, S., Chen, C, T., 2009. A new evaluation model for intellectual capital based on
computing with linguistic variable. Expert Systems with Applications 36, 3483-3488.
[501] Takeda, E., 2001. A method for multiple pseudo-criteria decision problems. Computers &
[502] Tam, C, M., Tong, T, K.L., Chiu, G, C.W., Fung, I, W.H., 2002. Non-structural fuzzy decision
support system for evaluation of construction safety management system. International Journal
of Project Management 20, 303-313.
[503] Tam, C.M., Tam, V, W.Y., Tsui, W.S., 2004. Green construction assessment for environmental
management in the construction industry of Hong Kong. International Journal of Project
[504] Tam, C.M., Tong, T, K.L., Chiu, G, W.C., 2006. Comparing non-structural fuzzy decision
support system and analytical hierarchy process in decision-making for construction problems.
[505] Tam, M, C.Y., Tummala, V.M, R., 2001. An application of the AHP in vendor selection of a
telecommunications system. Omega 29, 171-182.
[506] Tan, R, R., 2005. Rule-based life cycle impact assessment using modified rough set induction
methodology. Environmental Modelling & Software 20, 509-513.
[507] Tansel İç, Y., Yurdakul, M., 2009. Development of a decision support system for machining
center selection. Expert Systems with Applications 36, 3505-3513.
[508] Tarrasón, D., Ortiz, O., Alcañiz, J, M., 2007. A multi-criteria evaluation of organic
amendments used to transform an unproductive scrublands into a Mediterranean dehesa.
[509] Tavana, M., Smither, J, W., Anderson, R, V., 2007. D-side: A facility and workforce planning
group multi-criteria decision support system for Johnson Space Center. Computers &
[510] Terol, A, B., 2008. A new approach for multi objective decision making based on fuzzy
distance minimization. Mathematical and Computer Modeling 47, 808-826.
[511] Tervonen, T., Hakonen, H., Lahdelma, R., 2008. Elevator planning with stochastic multi
criteria acceptability analysis. Omega 36, 352-362.
[512] Tervonen, T., Lahdelma, R., 2007. Implementing stochastic multi criteria acceptability analysis.
[513] Tiryaki, F., Ahlatcioglu, M., 2005. Fuzzy stock selection using a new fuzzy ranking and
weighting algorithm. Applied Mathematics and Computation 170, 144-157.
[514] Tone, K., 2002. A slacks-based measure of super-efficiency in data envelopment analysis.
European Journal of Operational Research 143. 32–41.
[515] Topcu, Y, I., 2004. A decision model proposal for construction contractor selection in Turkey.
Building and Environment 39, 469-481.
[516] Triantaphyllou, E., Evans, G, W., 1999. Multi-criteria decision making in industrial
engineering. Computers & Industrial Engineering 37, 505-506.
[517] Triantaphyllou, E., Shu, B., 2001. On the maximum number of feasible ranking sequences in
multi criteria decision making problems. European Journal of Operational Research 130, 665-
678.

[518] Trinkaus, H, L., Hanne, T., 2005. knowCube: a visual and interactive support for multi criteria
decision making. Computers & Operations Research 32, 1289-1309.
[519] Trzaskalik, T., Sitarz, S., 2007. Discrete dynamic programming with outcomes in random
variable structures. European Journal of Operational Research 177, 1535-1548.
[520] Tsai, W, H., Leu, J, D., Liu, J, Y., Lin, S, J., Shaw, M, J., A MCDM approach for sourcing
strategy mix decision in IT projects. Expert Systems with Applications, In Press.
[521] Tsao, C, T., 2009. Applying a fuzzy multiple criteria decision-making approach to the M&A
due diligence. Expert Systems with Applications 36, 1559-1568.
[522] Tseng, F, M., Chiu, Y, J., Chen, J, S., 2009. Measuring business performance in the high-tech
manufacturing industry: A case study of Taiwan's large-sized TFT-LCD panel companies.
Omega 37, 686-697.
[523] Tseng, M, L., Chiang, J, H., Lan, L, W., 2009. Selection of optimal supplier in supply chain
management strategy with analytic network process and choquet integral. Computers &
[524] Tsiporkova, E., Boeva, V., 2006. Multi-step ranking of alternatives in a multi-criteria and
multi-expert decision making environment. Information Sciences 176, 2673-2697.
[525] Tsoutsos, T., Drandaki, M., Frantzeskaki, N., Iosifidis, E., Kiosses, I., 2009. Sustainable energy
planning by using multi-criteria analysis application in the island of Crete. Energy Policy 37,
1587-1600.
[526] Tung, C, T., Lee, Y, J., 2009. A novel approach to construct grey principal component analysis
evaluation model. Expert Systems with Applications 36, 5916-5920.
[527] Tuzkaya, G., Önüt, S., Tuzkaya, U, R., Gülsün, B., 2008. An analytic network process approach
for locating undesirable facilities: An example from Istanbul, Turkey. Journal of Environmental
[528] Tzeng, G, H., Chiang, C, H., Li, C, W., 2007. Evaluating intertwined effects in e-learning
programs: A novel hybrid MCDM model based on factor analysis and DEMATEL. Expert
[529] Tzeng, G, H., Lin, C, W., Opricovic, S., 2005. Multi-criteria analysis of alternative-fuel buses
for public transportation. Energy Policy 33, 1373-1383.
[530] Tzeng, G, H., Yang, Y, P, O., Lin, C, T., Chen, C, B., 2005. Hierarchical MADM with fuzzy
integral for evaluating enterprise intranet web sites. Information Sciences 169, 409-426.
[531] Ugwu, O.O., Haupt, T.C., 2007. Key performance indicators and assessment methods for
infrastructure sustainability—a South African construction industry perspective. Building and
Environment 42, 665-680.
[532] Ugwu, O.O., Kumaraswamy, M.M., Wong, A., Ng, S.T., 2006. Sustainability appraisal in
infrastructure projects (SUSAIP): Part 1. Development of indicators and computational
methods. Automation in Construction 15, 239-251.
[533] Ustun, O., Demırtas, E, A., 2008. An integrated multi-objective decision-making process for
multi-period lot-sizing with supplier selection. Omega 36, 509-521.
[534] Ustun, O., Demirtas, E, A., 2008. Multi-period lot-sizing with supplier selection using
achievement scalarizing functions. Computers & Industrial Engineering 54, 918-931.
[535] Vaidya, O, S., Kumar, S., 2006. Analytic hierarchy process: An overview of applications.
[536] Vaillancourt, K., Waaub, J, P., 2004. Equity in international greenhouse gases abatement
scenarios: A multi criteria approach. European Journal of Operational Research 153, 489-505.
[537] Vainikainen, N., Kangas, A., Kangas, J., 2008. Empirical study on voting power in
participatory forest planning. Journal of Environmental Management 88, 173-180.
[538] Valls, A., Batet, M., Lo´pez, E, M., 2009. Using expert’s rules as background knowledge in the
ClusDM methodology. European Journal of Operational Research 195, 864–875.

[539] Valls, A., Torra, V., 2000. Using classification as an aggregation tool in MCDM. Fuzzy Sets
[540] Vasant, P., Bhattacharya, A., Sarkar, B., Mukherjee, S, K., 2007. Detection of level of
satisfaction and fuzziness patterns for MCDM model with modified flexible S-curve MF.
Applied Soft Computing 7, 1044-1054.
[541] Vencheh, A.H., Mokhtarian, M.N., 2009. Erratum to “A hybrid MCDM model for strategic
vendor selection” [Math. Comput. Modelling 44 (2006) 749–761]. Mathematical and Computer
Modelling 50, 1252.
[542] Voigt, K., Brüggemann, R., Pudenz, S., 2006. A multi-criteria evaluation of environmental
databases using the Hasse Diagram Technique (ProRank) software. Environmental Modelling
& Software 21, 1587-1597.
[543] Wang, F., Lim, A., 2007. A stochastic beam search for the berth allocation problem. Decision
[544] Wang, G., Huang, S, H., Dismukes, J, P., 2004. *. Product-driven supply chain selection using
integrated multi-criteria decision-making methodology. International Journal of Production
Economics 91, 1-15.
[545] Wang, J, J., Jing, Y, Y., Zhang, C, F., Shi, G, H., Zhang, X, T., 2008. A fuzzy multi-criteria
decision-making model for trigeneration system. Energy Policy 36, 3823-3832.
[546] Wang, J, J., Yang, D, L., 2007. Using a hybrid multi-criteria decision aid method for
information systems outsourcing. Computers & Operations Research 34, 3691-3700.
[547] Wang, J., Lin, Y, I., 2003. A fuzzy multi criteria group decision making approach to select
configuration items for software development. Fuzzy Sets and Systems 134, 343-363.
[548] Wang, J., Zionts, S., 2006. The aspiration level interactive method (AIM) reconsidered:
Robustness of solutions. European Journal of Operational Research 175, 948–958.
[549] Wang, J., Zionts, S., 2008. Negotiating wisely: Considerations based on MCDM/MAUT.
[550] Wang, L., Chu, J., Wu, J., 2007. Selection of optimum maintenance strategies based on a fuzzy
analytic hierarchy process. International Journal of Production Economics 107, 151-163.
[551] Wang, L., Syau, Y, R., 2004. Fuzzy Φ-convexity and fuzzy decision making. Computers &
Mathematics with Applications 47, 1697-1705.
[552] Wang, N., Chang, Y, C., Nunn, C., Lifecycle assessment for sustainable design options of a
commercial building in Shanghai. Building and Environment, In press.
[553] Wang, T, C., Lee, H, D., 2009. Developing a fuzzy TOPSIS approach based on subjective
weights and objective weights. Expert Systems with Applications 36, 8980-8985.
[554] Wang, T, C., Lin, Y, L., 2009. Accurately predicting the success of B2B e-commerce in small
and medium enterprises. Expert Systems with Applications 36, 2750-2758.
[555] Wang, T, C., Lin, Y, L., 2009. Applying the consistent fuzzy preference relations to select
merger strategy for commercial banks in new financial environments. 36, 7019-7026.
[556] Wang, T, H., Chang, T,H., 2007. Application of TOPSIS in evaluating initial training aircraft
under a fuzzy environment. Expert Systems with Applications 33, 870-880.
[557] Wang, W., 2000. A model of multiple nested inspections at different intervals. Computers &
[558] Wang, X., Triantaphyllou, E., 2008. Ranking irregularities when evaluating alternatives by
using some ELECTRE methods. Omega 36, 45-63.
[559] Wang, Y, J., 2008. Applying FMCDM to evaluate financial performance of domestic airlines in
Taiwan. Expert Systems with Applications 34, 1837-1845.
[560] Wang, Y, J., 2009. Combining grey relation analysis with FMCGDM to evaluate financial
performance of Taiwan container lines. Expert Systems with Applications 36, 2424-2432.
[561] Wang, Y, J., Lee, H, S., 2007. Generalizing TOPSIS for fuzzy multiple-criteria group decision-
making. Computers & Mathematics with Applications 53, 1762-1772.
[562] Wang, Y, M., Chin, K, S., 2006. An eigenvector method for generating normalized interval and
fuzzy weights. Applied Mathematics and Computation 181, 1257-1275.
[563] Wang, Y, M., Chin, K, S., 2009. A new data envelopment analysis method for priority
determination and group decision making in the analytic hierarchy process. European Journal
[564] Wang, Y, M., Elang, T, M.S., 2007. A goal programming method for obtaining interval weights
from an interval comparison matrix. European Journal of Operational Research 177, 458–471.
[565] Wang, Y, M., Elhag, T, M.S., 2006. An approach to avoiding rank reversal in AHP. Decision
[566] Wang, Y, M., Elhag, T, M.S., 2006. Fuzzy TOPSIS method based on alpha level sets with an
application to bridge risk assessment. Expert Systems with Applications 31, 309-319.
[567] Wang, Y, M., Elhag, T, M.S., 2006. On the normalization of interval and fuzzy weights. Fuzzy
[568] Wang, Y, M., Yang, J, B., Xu, D, L., 2005. A two-stage logarithmic goal programming method
for generating weights from interval comparison matrices. Fuzzy Sets and Systems 152, 475-
498.
[569] Wang, Y., Yam, R, C.M., Zuo, M, J., 2004. A multi-criterion evaluation approach to selection
of the best statistical distribution. Computers & Industrial Engineering 47, 165-180.
[570] Westmacott, S., 2001. Developing decision support systems for integrated coastal management
in the tropics: Is the ICM decision-making environment too complex for the development of a
useable and useful DSS? Journal of Environmental Management 62, 55-74.
[571] Wey, W, M., Wu, K,Y., 2007. Using ANP priorities with goal programming in resource
allocation in transportation. Mathematical and Computer Modeling 46, 985-1000.
[572] Wiecek, M, M., Ehrgott, M., Fadel, G., Figueira, J, R., 2008. Multiple criteria decision making
for engineering. Omega 36, 337-339.
[573] Wong, J., Li, H., Lai, J., 2008. Evaluating the system intelligence of the intelligent building
systems: Part 1: Development of key intelligent indicators and conceptual analytical.
[574] Wong, J., Li, H., Lai, J., 2008. Evaluating the system intelligence of the intelligent building
systems: Part 2: Construction and validation of analytical models. Automation in Construction
17, 303-321.
[575] Wong, W.K., Zeng, X.H., Au, W.M.R., Mok, P, Y., Leung, S.Y.S., 2009. A fashion mix-and-
match expert system for fashion retailers using fuzzy screening approach. Expert Systems with
[576] Wren, G, E.P., Hahn, E, D., Forgionne, G, A., 2004. A multiple-criteria framework for
evaluation of decision support systems. Omega 32, 323-332.
[577] Wren, G, P., Mora, M., Forgionne, G, A., Gupta, J.N.D., An integrative evaluation framework
for intelligent decision support systems. European Journal of Operational Research 195, 642–
652.
[578] Wu, C, C., Chang, N, B., 2004. Corporate optimal production planning with varying
environmental costs: A grey compromise programming approach. European Journal of
[579] Wu, C, R., Lin, C, T., Lin, Y, F., 2009. Selecting the preferable bank assurance alliance
strategic by using expert group decision technique. Expert Systems with Applications 36, 3623-
3629.
[580] Wu, D., 2009. Supplier selection in a fuzzy group setting: A method using grey related analysis
and Dempster–Shafer theory. Expert Systems with Applications 36, 8892-8899.
[581] Wu, H, Y., Tzeng, G, H., Chen, Y, H., 2009. A fuzzy MCDM approach for evaluating banking
performance based on Balanced Scorecard. Expert Systems with Applications 36, 10135-
10147.
[582] Wu, M, C., Chang, W, J., 2008. A multiple criteria decision for trading capacity between two
semiconductor fabs. Expert Systems with Applications 35, 938-945.
[583] Wu, W, W., 2008. Choosing knowledge management strategies by using a combined ANP and
DEMATEL approach. Expert Systems with Applications 35, 828-835.
[584] Wu, W, W., Lee, Y, T., 2007. Selecting knowledge management strategies by using the
analytic network process. Expert Systems with Applications 32, 841-847.
[585] Wu, W, Y., Sukoco, B, M., Li, C, Y., Chen, S, H., 2009. An integrated multi-objective
decision-making process for supplier selection with bundling problem. Expert Systems with
[586] Xenarios, S., Tziritis, I., 2007. Improving pluralism in Multi Criteria Decision Aid approach
through Focus Group technique and Content Analysis. Ecological Economics 62, 692-703.
[587] Xevi, E., Khan, S., 2005. A multi-objective optimization approach to water management.
[588] Xia, W., Wu, Z., 2007. Supplier selection with multiple criteria in volume discount
environments. Omega 35, 494-504.
[589] Xidonas, P., Mavrotas, G., Psarras, J., 2009. A multi criteria methodology for equity selection
using financial analysis. Computers & Operations Research 36, 3187-3203.
[590] Xu, D, L., Carthy, Yang, J, B., 2006. M., Intelligent decision system and its application in
business innovation self assessment. Decision Support Systems 42, 664-673.
[591] Xu, X., 2001. The SIR method: A superiority and inferiority ranking method for multiple
criteria decision making. European Journal of Operational Research 131, 587–602.
[592] Yahya, S., Kingsman, B., 2002. Modeling a multi-objective allocation problem in a government
sponsored entrepreneur development program. European Journal of Operational Research 136,
430-448.
[593] Yaman, R., Balibek, E., 1999. Decision making for facility layout problem solutions.
Computers & Industrial Engineering 37, 319-322.
[594] Yang, J, L., Chiu, H, N., Tzeng, G, H., Yeh, R, H., 2008. Vendor selection by integrated fuzzy
MCDM techniques with independent and interdependent relationships. Information Sciences
21, 4166-4183.
[595] Yang, T., Hsieh, c, h., 2009. Six-Sigma project selection using national quality award criteria
and Delphi fuzzy multiple criteria decision-making method. Expert Systems with Applications
36, 7594-7603.
[596] Yang, T., Wen, Y, F., Wang, F, F., Evaluation of robustness of supply chain information-
sharing strategies using a hybrid Taguchi and multiple criteria decision-making method. In
press.
[597] Yazgan, H, R., Boran, S., Goztepe, K., 2009. An ERP software selection process with using
artificial neural network based on analytic network process approach. Expert Systems with
[598] Ye, J., 2009. Multi criteria fuzzy decision-making method based on a novel accuracy function
under interval-valued intuitionist fuzzy environment. Expert Systems with Applications 36,
6899-6902.
[599] Ye, J., Using an improved measure function of vague sets for multi criteria fuzzy decision-
making. Expert Systems with Applications, In press.
[600] Yeh, C, H., Chang, Y, H., 2009. Modeling subjective evaluation for fuzzy group multi criteria
decision making. European Journal of Operational Research 194, 464–473.
[601] Yoshida, Y., Kerre, E, E., 2002. A fuzzy ordering on multi-dimensional fuzzy sets induced
from convex cones. Fuzzy Sets and Systems 130, 343-355.
[602] Yu, C, S., 2002. A GP-AHP method for solving group decision-making fuzzy AHP problems.

[603] Yu, L., Wang, S., Lai, K, K., 2009. An intelligent-agent-based fuzzy group decision making
model for financial multi criteria decision support: The case of credit scoring. European Journal
[604] Yu, R., Tzeng, G, H., 2006. A soft computing method for multi-criteria decision making with
dependence and feedback. Applied Mathematics and Computation 180, 63-75.
[605] Yu, V, F., Hu, K, J., 2009. An integrated fuzzy multi-criteria approach for the performance
evaluation of multiple manufacturing plants. Computers & Industrial Engineering, In press.
[606] Yuan, Y., Feldhamer, S., Gafni, A., Fyfe, F., Ludwin, D., 2002. The development and
evaluation of a fuzzy logic expert system for renal transplantation assignment: Is this a useful
tool? European Journal of Operational Research 142, 152-173.
[607] Yuen, K, K, F., Analytic hierarchy prioritization process in the AHP application development:
A prioritization operator selection approach. Applied Soft Computing, In press.
[608] Yuen, K, K.F., Lau, H.C.W., 2009. A Linguistic Possibility-Probability Aggregation Model for
decision analysis with imperfect knowledge. Applied Soft Computing 9, 575-589.
[609] Yüzügüllü, E., Deason, J, P., 2007. Structuring objectives to facilitate convergence of divergent
opinion in hydrogen production decisions. Energy Policy 35, 452-460.
[610] Yun, Y.B., Nakayama, H., Arakawa, M., 2004. Multiple criteria decision making with
generalized DEA and an aspiration level method. European Journal of Operational Research
158, 697–706.
[611] Zammori, F, A., Braglia, M., Frosolini, M., 2009. A fuzzy multi-criteria approach for critical
path definition. International Journal of Project Management 27, 278-291.
[612] Zare Naghadehi, M., Mikaeil, R., Ataei, M., 2009. The application of fuzzy analytic hierarchy
process (FAHP) approach to selection of optimum underground mining method for Jajarm
Bauxite Mine, Iran. Expert Systems with Applications 36, 8218-8226.
[613] Zarghami, M., Szidarovszky, F., 2009. Revising the OWA operator for multi criteria decision
making problems under uncertainty. European Journal of Operational Research 198, 259–265.
[614] Zavadskas, E, K., Antucheviciene, J., 2007. Multiple criteria evaluation of rural building's
regeneration alternatives. Building and Environment 42, 436-451.
[615] Zeng, G., Jiang, R., Huang, G., Xu, M., Li, J., 2007. Optimization of wastewater treatment
alternative selection by hierarchy grey relational analysis. Journal of Environmental
[616] Zhai, L, Y., Khoo, L, P., Zhong, Z, W., 2009. Design concept evaluation in product
development using rough sets and grey relation analysis. Expert Systems with Applications 36,
7072-7079.
[617] Zhang, G., Lu, J., 2009. A linguistic intelligent user guide for method selection in multi-
objective decision support systems. Information Sciences 179, 2299-2308.
[618] Zhang, J., Shi, Y., Zhang, P., 2009. Several multi-criteria programming methods for
classification. Computers & Operations Research 36, 823-836.
[619] Zhang, Q., Chen, J, C.H., Chong, P, P., 2004. Decision consolidation: criteria weight
determination using multiple preference formats. Decision Support Systems 38, 247-258.
[620] Zhang, X., Lu, X. Multiple criteria evaluation of ecosystem services for the Ruoergai Plateau
Marshes in southwest China. Ecological Economics, In press.
[621] Zhang, Y., Fan, Z, P., Liu, Y., 2009. A method based on stochastic dominance degrees for
stochastic multiple criteria decision making. Computers & Industrial Engineering.
[622] Zhou, G., Gen, M., 1999. Genetic algorithm approach on multi-criteria minimum spanning tree
problem. European Journal of Operational Research 114, 141-152.
[623] Zhu, X., Dale, A, P., 2001. JavaAHP: a web-based decision analysis tool for natural resource
and environmental management. Environmental Modeling & Software 16, 251-262.
[624] Žnidaršič, M., Bohanec, M., Zupan, B., 2006. proDEX – A DSS tool for environmental
decision-making. Environmental Modeling & Software 21,1514-1516.
[625] Zolghadri, M., Olivier, C., Bourrières, J, P., 2008. Close-optimal production and procurement
policy for a X-network of added value using lexicographic linear goal programming.
Computers & Industrial Engineering 54, 821-839.
[626] Zopounidis, C., Doumpos, M., 2000. PREFDIS: a multi criteria decision support system for
sorting decision problems. Computers & Operations Research 27, 779-797.
[627] Zopounidis, C., Doumpos, M., 2002. Multi-group discrimination using multi-criteria analysis:
Illustrations from the field of finance. European Journal of Operational Research 139, 371-389.
[628] Zucca, A., Sharifi, A, M., Fabbri, A, G., 2008. Application of spatial multi-criteria analysis to
site selection for a local park: A case study in the Bergamo Province, Italy. Journal of
View publication stats

AHP

Încărcat de

Informații document

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

AHP

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

See

MCDM Methodologies and Applications: A

Data · January 2011

Abbas Toloie Eshlaghy

Application Journal of Year of Authors’

Although this review covers a proportion of MCDM publications on methodologies and

3. Analysis of Applied MCDM Methods

© Research Journal of Internatıonal Studıes - Issue 21 (October, 2011) 87

© Research Journal of Internatıonal Studıes - Issue 21 (October, 2011) 88

Table 3: Distribution of applied papers between 1999 to 2009

Figure 1: Frequency of papers by application area

© Research Journal of Internatıonal Studıes - Issue 21 (October, 2011) 89

Business and Financial Management

Agricultural and Forestry Management

Project Management and Evaluation

Figure 2: Frequency of applied papers by year

4.1. Environment Management

© Research Journal of Internatıonal Studıes - Issue 21 (October, 2011) 90

Author(s) Application Area Tools / Methodologies used

4.2. Hydrology and Water Management

Table 5: The applied papers on the topic of ‘Water Management’

Author(s) Application Area Tools / Methodologies used

4.3. Business and Financial Management

© Research Journal of Internatıonal Studıes - Issue 21 (October, 2011) 92

Author(s) Application Area Tools / Methodologies used

© Research Journal of Internatıonal Studıes - Issue 21 (October, 2011) 93

4.4. Transportation and Logistics

Table 7: The applied papers on the topic of ‘Transportation and Logistics’

Author(s) Application Area Tools / Methodologies used

© Research Journal of Internatıonal Studıes - Issue 21 (October, 2011) 94

Ho and Emrouznejad (2009) Logistics distribution network design AHP-GP

© Research Journal of Internatıonal Studıes - Issue 21 (October, 2011) 95

Evaluation of robustness of supply chain SMART-TOPSIS-GRA (grey relational analysis)-

4.5. Manufacturing and Assembly

Table 8: The applied papers on the topic of ‘Manufacturing and Assembly’

Author(s) Application Area Tools / Methodologies used

Wang et al. (2007) Selection of maintenance strategies FAHP-Fuzzy prioritization method

4.6. Energy Management

Table 9: The applied papers on the topic of ‘Energy Management’

Author(s) Application Area Tools / Methodologies used

© Research Journal of Internatıonal Studıes - Issue 21 (October, 2011) 97

Author(s) Application Area Tools / Methodologies used

4.8. Managerial and Strategic Planning

Author(s) Application Area Tools / Methodologies used

FMCGDSS (Fuzzy metric computer

© Research Journal of Internatıonal Studıes - Issue 21 (October, 2011) 99

Author(s) Application Area Tools / Methodologies used

Topcu (2004) Construction contractor selection AHP-DSS

4.10. Social Service

Table 13: The applied papers on the topic of ‘Social Service’

Author(s) Application Area Tools / Methodologies used

4.11. Military Service

© Research Journal of Internatıonal Studıes - Issue 21 (October, 2011) 101

Author(s) Application Area Tools / Methodologies used

4.12. Other Topics

Table 15: The applied papers on the topic of ‘Other topics’

Author(s) Application Area Tools / Methodologies used

5. Analysis of MCDM Non-Application Areas

6. Other Classification Results

6.1. Distribution by Year of Publication

Table 16: Frequency of papers by year

Year Number Percent

Figure 3: Distribution by year of publication

6.2. Distribution by Journal of Publication