MCDM'11 - paper no. 11


Back to MCDM'11 contents


Ewa Roszkowska


In this paper, one of the multi-criteria models in making decision, a Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to an Ideal Solution (TOPSIS), is described. Some of the advantages of TOPSIS methods are: simplicity, rationality, comprehensibility, good computational efficiency and ability to measure the relative performance for each alternative in a simple mathematical form. The paper has a review character. It systematises the knowledge within the scope of techniques of decision taking with the use of the TOPSIS method. Simple numerical examples that reference real situations show practical applications of different aspects of this method. The paper is organized as follows. The Introduction presents a short overview of the decision making steps as well as MCDM techniques. Section 1 presents matrix representation of the MCDM problem. Section 2 describes the TOPSIS procedure for crisp data, and Section 3 for interval data. The TOPSIS algorithm in group decision environment in the case of crisp and interval data is also presented. In Section 4 the problem of qualitative data in TOPSIS model is discussed. The numerical examples showing applications of those techniques in the negotiation process are presented in Section 5. Finally, conclusions and some concluding remarks are made in last section.


TOPSIS method, numerical data, interval data, positive ideal solution, negative ideal solution.

Reference index:


Full text:


Scopus citations in 48 paper(s):
  1. Abbas, M., & Chergui, Z. (2019). The impact of using new significant reference point with TOPSIS methods: Study and application. International Journal of Information and Decision Sciences, 11(2), 95-115. doi:10.1504/IJIDS.2019.101139
  2. Adeel, A., Akram, M., & Koam, A. N. A. (2019). Group decision-making based on m-polar fuzzy linguistic TOPSIS method. Symmetry, 11(6) doi:10.3390/sym11060735
  3. Akram, M., & Arshad, M. (2019). A novel trapezoidal bipolar fuzzy TOPSIS method for group decision-making. Group Decision and Negotiation, 28(3), 565-584. doi:10.1007/s10726-018-9606-6
  4. Akram, M., Adeel, A., & Alcantud, J. C. R. (2019). Multi-criteria group decision-making using an m-polar hesitant fuzzy TOPSIS approach. Symmetry, 11(6) doi:10.3390/sym11060795
  5. Albulescu, A. -., & Larion, A. (2019). Application of fuzzy and classical multicriteria decision-making methods in assessing the forest area preservation level of Romania?s counties. Baltic Forestry, 25(2), 263-272.
  6. Andersen, S. C., M?ller, K. L., J?rgensen, S. W., Jensen, L. B., & Birkved, M. (2019). Scalable and quantitative decision support for the initial building design stages of refurbishment. Journal of Green Building, 14(4), 35-56. doi:10.3992/1943-4618.14.4.35
  7. Ardielli, E. (2019). Use of TOPSIS method for assessing of good governance in european union countries. Review of Economic Perspectives, 19(3), 211-231. doi:10.2478/revecp-2019-0012
  8. Babatunde, O. M., Munda, J. L., & Hamam, Y. (2019). Selection of a hybrid renewable energy systems for a low-income household. Sustainability (Switzerland), 11(16) doi:10.3390/su11164282
  9. Bolivar, H., Jaimes Parada, H. D., Roa, O., & Velandia, J. (2019). Multi-criteria decision making model for vulnerabilities assessment in cloud computing regarding common vulnerability scoring system. Paper presented at the 2019 Congreso Internacional De Innovacion y Tendencias En Ingenieria, CONIITI 2019 - Conference Proceedings, doi:10.1109/CONIITI48476.2019.8960909
  10. Cerreta, M., Mele, R., & Poli, G. (2018). Urban vulnerability assessment: Towards a cross-scale spatial multi-criteria approach doi:10.1007/978-3-319-95168-3_34
  11. Daghouri, A., Mansouri, K., & Qbadou, M. (2019). Analytical hierarchy process (AHP) and technique for order of preference by similarity to ideal solution (TOPSIS) methods for decision support system-case study. Journal of Advanced Research in Dynamical and Control Systems, 11(2 Special Issue), 1044-1052.
  12. Daghouri, A., Mansouri, K., & Qbadou, M. (2019). The impact of IT investment on firm performance based on MCDM techniques. International Journal of Electrical and Computer Engineering, 9(5), 4344-4354. doi:10.11591/ijece.v9i5.pp4344.4354
  13. Deepa, N., Durai Raj Vincent, P. M., Senthil Kumar, N., Srinivasan, K., Chang, C. -., & Bashir, A. K. (2019). An efficient ensemble VTOPES multi-criteria decision-making model for sustainable sugarcane farms. Sustainability (Switzerland), 11(16) doi:10.3390/su11164288
  14. Deepa, N., Ganesan, K., & Sethuramasamyraja, B. (2019). Predictive mathematical model for solving multi-criteria decision-making problems. Neural Computing and Applications, 31(10), 6733-6746. doi:10.1007/s00521-018-3505-2a
  15. Deepa, N., Ganesan, K., Srinivasan, K., & Chang, C. -. (2019). Realizing sustainable development via modified integrated weighting MCDM model for ranking agrarian dataset. Sustainability (Switzerland), 11(21) doi:10.3390/su11216060
  16. Deshmukh, M., Kakarwal, S. N., Deshmukh, R., & Kurmude, D. V. (2020). Multi-criteria decision making for routing process in MANET doi:10.1007/978-3-030-39047-1_11
  17. Diemuodeke, E. O., Addo, A., Oko, C. O. C., Mulugetta, Y., & Ojapah, M. M. (2019). Optimal mapping of hybrid renewable energy systems for locations using multi-criteria decision-making algorithm. Renewable Energy, , 461-477. doi:10.1016/j.renene.2018.11.055
  18. Isravel, D. P., Silas, S., & Rajsingh, E. B. (2019). Preferential multi-attribute rank based forwarding node selection in software defined networks. Paper presented at the 2019 Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Computing and Communications Technologies, ICCCT 2019, 73-79. doi:10.1109/ICCCT2.2019.8824798
  19. Jain, P., & Ramsankaran, R. A. A. J. (2019). GIS-based integrated multi-criteria modelling framework for watershed prioritisation in India?A demonstration in marol watershed. Journal of Hydrology, 578 doi:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2019.124131
  20. Jozaghi, A., Alizadeh, B., Hatami, M., Flood, I., Khorrami, M., Khodaei, N., & Tousi, E. G. (2018). A comparative study of the AHP and TOPSIS techniques for dam site selection using GIS: A case study of sistan and baluchestan province, iran. Geosciences (Switzerland), 8(12) doi:10.3390/geosciences8120494
  21. Jurczyk-Bunkowska, M., & Polak, P. (2019). Multicriteria evaluation of process innovation variants in manufacturing system development. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the European Conference on Innovation and Entrepreneurship, ECIE, , 1 442-451. doi:10.34190/ECIE.19.151
  22. Khanna, D., & Rana, P. S. (2020). Improvement in prediction of antigenic epitopes using stacked generalisation: An ensemble approach. IET Systems Biology, 14(1), 1-7. doi:10.1049/iet-syb.2018.5083
  23. Kirkire, M. S., Rane, S. B., & Abhyankar, G. J. (2020). Structural equation modelling ? FTOPSIS approach for modelling barriers to product development in medical device manufacturing industries. Journal of Modelling in Management, doi:10.1108/JM2-09-2018-0139
  24. Korzeb, Z., & Samaniego-Medina, R. (2019). Sustainability performance: A comparative analysis in the polish banking sector. Sustainability (Switzerland), 11(3) doi:10.3390/su11030653
  25. Kwast-Kotlarek, U., & Hełdak, M. (2019). Evaluation of the construction and investment process of a high-pressure gas pipeline with use of the trenchless method and open excavation method. analytic hierarchy process (AHP). Sustainability (Switzerland), 11(8) doi:10.3390/su11082438
  26. Lee, Y., Huh, C., & Lee, W. B. (2019). Inherently safer process design of natural gas liquefaction processes through multiobjective optimization - part I. with inherent safety indexes. Industrial and Engineering Chemistry Research, 58(10), 4186-4198. doi:10.1021/acs.iecr.8b05983
  27. Meshram, I. I., Boiroju, N. K., & Kodali, V. (2017). Ranking of districts in andhra pradesh using women and children nutrition and health indicators by topsis method. Indian Journal of Community Health, 29(4), 350-356
  28. Moalla, K., & Dhouib, D. (2019). Selection of sustainable development strategy using a new multi-criteria approach TOPSISIC. Paper presented at the International Colloquium on Logistics and Supply Chain Management, LOGISTIQUA 2019, doi:10.1109/LOGISTIQUA.2019.890725
  29. Mohammed, A. (2019). Towards a sustainable assessment of suppliers: An integrated fuzzy TOPSIS-possibilistic multi-objective approach. Annals of Operations Research, doi:10.1007/s10479-019-03167-5
  30. Mohammed, A., Harris, I., & Dukyil, A. (2019). A trasilient decision making tool for vendor selection: A hybrid-MCDM algorithm. Management Decision, 57(2), 372-395. doi:10.1108/MD-04-2018-0478
  31. Mohanty, P., Jane, N. A., & Bonas, M. C. (2018). Identifying variables to define innovator group in the healthy food industry: A fuzzy approach doi:10.1007/978-3-030-04191-5_36
  32. Mousavi, L., Tamiji, Z., Hajimahmoodi, M., Amini, M., Ahmadkhaniha, R., Asadi, M., & Khoshayand, M. R. (2020). Combining chemometrics and the technique for the order of preference by similarity to ideal solution: A new approach to multiple-response optimization of HPLC compared to desirability function. Microchemical Journal, 155 doi:10.1016/j.microc.2020.104752
  33. Nanayakkara, C., Yeoh, W., Lee, A., & Moayedikia, A. (2019). Deciding discipline, course and university through TOPSIS. Studies in Higher Education, doi:10.1080/03075079.2019.1616171
  34. Navarro, I. J., Yepes, V., & Martí, J. V. (2019). A review of multicriteria assessment techniques applied to sustainable infrastructure design. Advances in Civil Engineering, 2019 doi:10.1155/2019/6134803
  35. Pratiwi, E., Artana, K. B., & Dinariyana, A. A. B. (2019). Ship collision frequency during pipeline decommissioning process on surabaya west access channel (SWAC). Journal of Engineering Science and Technology, 14(4), 2013-2033. Retrieved from
  36. Praveena, T., & Prasanna, J. (2018). Optimization of electrical parameters for machining of Ti-6Al-4V through TOPSIS approach doi:10.1007/978-981-13-1724-8_22
  37. Prodanuks, T., & Blumberga, D. (2018). Methodology of municipal energy plans. priorities for sustainability. Paper presented at the Energy Procedia, , 147 594-599. doi:10.1016/j.egypro.2018.07.076
  38. Shooshtarian, L., & Safaei, F. (2019). A maximally robustness embedding algorithm in virtual data centers with multi-attribute node ranking based on TOPSIS. Journal of Supercomputing, doi:10.1007/s11227-019-02981-9
  39. Skvarciany, V., Jurevičiene, D., & Volskyte, G. (2020). Assessment of sustainable socioeconomic development in european union countries. Sustainability (Switzerland), 12(5), 1-19. doi:10.3390/su12051986
  40. Suthar, H. A., & Gadit, J. J. (2019). Multiobjective optimization of 2DOF controller using evolutionary and swarm intelligence enhanced with TOPSIS. Heliyon, 5(4) doi:10.1016/j.heliyon.2019.e01410
  41. Thakur, R., Kumar, S., Kashyap, K., Kumar, A., & Aggarwal, S. (2019). Selection of erosive wear rate parameters of pelton turbine buckets using PSI and TOPSIS techniques. International Journal of Innovative Technology and Exploring Engineering, 9(1), 2418-2428. doi:10.35940/ijitee.A4408.119119
  42. Tilla, I., & Blumberga, D. (2018). Qualitative indicator analysis of a sustainable remediation. Paper presented at the Energy Procedia, , 147 588-593. doi:10.1016/j.egypro.2018.07.075
  43. Tłuczak, A., & Kauf, S. (2017). Multicriteria methods in evaluation of city logistics projects. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 30th International Business Information Management Association Conference, IBIMA 2017 - Vision 2020: Sustainable Economic Development, Innovation Management, and Global Growth, , 2017-January 4357-4366
  44. Zafri, N. M., Sameen, I., Jahangir, A., Tabassum, N., & Hasan, M. M. U. (2020). A multi-criteria decision-making approach for quantification of accessibility to market facilities in rural areas: An application in bangladesh. GeoJournal, doi:10.1007/s10708-020-10161-z
  45. Zaher, H., & Mohamed, S. (2020). On rough interval multi-criteria group decision making. International Journal of Scientific and Technology Research, 9(1), 3694-3698.
  46. Zhor, C., & Moncef, A. (2018). Reference points in TOPSIS methods for group decision makers & interval data: Study and comparison. Paper presented at the Springer Proceedings in Mathematics and Statistics, , 223 423-433. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-71583-4_28
  47. Ziemba, P., Becker, A., & Becker, J. (2020). A consensus measure of expert judgment in the fuzzy TOPSIS method. Symmetry, 12(2) doi:10.3390/sym12020204
  48. Zihare, L., Gusca, J., Spalvins, K., & Blumberga, D. (2019). Priorities determination of using bioresources. case study of heracleum sosnowskyi. Environmental and Climate Technologies, 23(1), 242-256. doi:10.2478/rtuect-2019-0016