CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 931Multi-Criteria Decision MakingDecision Support System ApplicationsGame Theory and Voting Systems

STATE OF ART SURVEYS OF OVERVIEWS ON MCDM/MADM METHODS

Open access
Zavadskas, Edmundas Kazimieras, Turskis, Zenonas, Kildienė, Simona·2014·Technological and Economic Development of Economy
DOI 10.3846/20294913.2014.892037
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Decision-making is primarily a process that involves different actors: people, groups of people, institutions and the state. As a discipline, multi-criteria decision-making has a relatively short history. Since 1950s and 1960s, when foundations of modern multi-criteria decision-making methods have been laid, many researches devoted their time to development of new multi-criteria decision-making models and techniques. In the past decades, researches and development in the field have accelerated and seem to continue growing exponentially. Despite the intensive development worldwide, few attempts have been made to systematically present the theoretical bases and developments of multi-criteria decision-making methods. However, the methodological choices and framework for assessment of decisions are still under discussion. The article describes the situation with reviews of MCDM/MADM methods. Furthermore, there is a need for research to study the strengths and weaknesses of different decision-making methods.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3846/20294913.2014.892037

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • MCDM allows for systematic aggregation of expert opinions through pairwise comparisons and assigns weights to criteria reflecting their relative importance.

    “MCDM allows for the systematic aggregation of expert opinions through pairwise comparisons and assigns weights to criteria, reflecting their relative importance.”

    From Trustworthiness Evaluation of Large Language Models Using Multi-Criteria Decision Making (2025) · cites this paper as [16]

    The Introduction (page not provided) describes MCDM as involving the elicitation of individual preferences and the aggregation of multiple characteristics. It does not say that MCDM systematically aggregates expert opinions through pairwise comparisons or assigns criteria weights reflecting relative importance; searches for those terms found no supporting passage. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 82

  1. Adler, N.; Friedman, L.; Sinuany-Stern, Z. 2002. Review of ranking methods in the data envelopment analysis context, The European Journal of Operational Research 140(2): 249-265. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0377-2217(02)00068-1 · DOI
  2. Albiñana, J. C.; Vila, C. 2012. A framework for concurrent material and process selection during con- ceptual product design stages, Materials and Design 41(10): 433-446. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2012.05.016 · DOI
  3. Alias, M. A.; Hashim, S. Z. M.; Samsudin, S. 2008. Multi-criteria decision making and it applications: literature review, Jurnal Teknologi Maklumat 20(2): 129-152.
  4. 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(10): 2535-2548. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.05.010 · DOI
  5. Antuchevičienė, J.; Zakarevičius, A.; Zavadskas, E. K. 2011. Measuring congruence of ranking results applying particular MCDM methods, Informatica 22(3): 319-338.
  6. Antuchevičienė, J.; Zavadskas, E. K.; Zakarevičius, A. 2012. Ranking redevelopment decisions of derelict buildings and analysis of ranking results, Economic Computation and Economic Cybernetics Studies and Research 46(2): 37-62.
  7. Aruldoss, M.; Lakshmi, T. M.; Venkatesan, V. P. 2013. a survey on multi criteria decision making methods and its applications, American Journal of Information Systems 1(1): 31-43.
  8. Baležentis, A.; Baležentis, T.; Misiunas, A. 2012. An integrated assessment of Lithuanian economic sectors based on financial ratios and fuzzy MCDM methods, Technological and Economic Development of Economy 18(1): 34-53. http://dx.doi.org/10.3846/20294913.2012.656151 · DOI
  9. Balezentis, T.; Balezentis, A. 2013. A survey on development and applications of the multi criteria decision-making method MULTIMOORA, Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (in Press).
  10. Ballestero, E.; Romero, C. 2010. Multiple criteria decision making and its applications to economic problems. Berlin: Springer. 168 p.
  11. Behzadian, M.; Kazemzadeh, R. B.; Albadvi, A.; Aghdasi, M. 2010. PROMETHEE: a comprehensive lit- erature review on methodologies and applications, European Journal of Operational Research 200(1): 198-215. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2009.01.021 · DOI
  12. Behzadian, M.; Otaghsara, S. K.; Yazdani, M.; Ignatius, J. 2012. A state-of the-art survey of TOPSIS ap- plications, Expert Systems with Applications 39(17): 13051-13069. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2012.05.056 · DOI
  13. Belton, V.; Stewart, T. J. 2002. Multiple criteria decision analysis: an integrated approach. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. 372 p. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-1495-4 · DOI · Paper page
  14. Bouyssou, D.; Marchant, T.; Pirlot, M.; Tsoukias, A.; Vincke, P. 2006. Evaluation and decision models with multiple criteria: stepping stones for the analyst. New York: Springer. 459 p.
  15. Bragge, J.; Korhonen, P.; Wallenius, H.; Wallenius, J. 2012. Scholarly communities of research in multiple criteria decision making: a bibliometric research profiling study, International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making 11(2): 401-426. http://dx.doi.org/10.1142/S0219622012400081 · DOI
  16. Brauers, W. K. 2004. Optimization methods for a stakeholder society, a revolution in economic thinking by multi-objective optimization, series: nonconvex optimization and its applications. Vol. 73. Bo- ston-Dordrecht-London: Kluwer Academic Publishers and Springer. 342 p. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-9178-2 · DOI
  17. Chakraborty, S. 2011. Applications of the MOORA method for decision making in manufacturing en- vironment, The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology 54(9-12): 1155-1166. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00170-010-2972-0 · DOI
  18. Chen, Z.; Li, H. 2006. Environmental management in construction. A quantitative approach. London and New York: Taylor & Francis. 232 p.
  19. Chu, T.-C.; Lin, Y. 2009. An extension to fuzzy MCDM, Computers & Mathematics with Applications 57(3): 445-454. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.camwa.2008.10.076 · DOI
  20. Cook, W. D.; Seiford, L. M. 2009. Data envelopment analysis (DEA) -thirty years on, European Journal of Operational Research 192(1): 1-17. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2008.01.032 · DOI
  21. Diaz-Balteiro, L.; Romero, C. 2008. Making forestry decisions with multiple criteria: a review and an assessment, Forest Ecology and Management 255(8-9): 3222-3241. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2008.01.038 · DOI
  22. Doumpos, M.; Grigoroudis, E. 2013. Multicriteria decision aid and artificial intelligence: links, theory and applications. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell. 368 p.
  23. Ehrgott, M.; Figueira, R. J.; Greco, S. 2010. Trends in multiple criteria decision analysis. New York, Dordrecht, Heidelberg, London: Springer. 412 p. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-5904-1 · DOI
  24. Ehrgott, M.; Klamroth, K.; Schwehmc, C. 2004. An MCDM approach to portfolio optimization, European Journal of Operational Research 155(3): 752-770. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0377-2217(02)00881-0 · DOI
  25. El-Wahed, W. F. A. 2008. Intelligent fuzzy multi-criteria decision making: review and analysis, Fuzzy Multi-Criteria Decision Making Springer Optimization and its Applications 16: 19-50.
  26. Figueira, J.; Greco, S.; Ehrgott, M. (Eds.). 2005. Multiple criteria decision analysis: state of the art survey. Boston: Springer. 1048 p.
  27. Fishburn, P. C. 1978. A survey of multiattibute/multicriterion evaluation theories, in S. Zionts (Ed.). Multicriteria problem solving. Berlin: Springer Verlag, 181-224.
  28. Gal, T.; Stewart, T. J.; Hanne, T. 2009. Multicriteria decision making advances in MCDM models, algorithms, theory and applications. Berlin: Springer. 564 p.
  29. Greening, L. A.; Bernow, S. 2004. Design of coordinated energy and environmental policies: use of mul- ti-criteria decision-making, Energy Policy 32(6): 721-735. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2003.08.017 · DOI
  30. Hanne, T. 2009. Intelligent strategies for meta multiple criteria decision making. Berlin: Springer. 216 p.
  31. Ho, W. 2008. Integrated analytic hierarchy process and its applications -a literature review, European Journal of Operational Research 186(1): 211-228. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2007.01.004 · DOI
  32. Ho, W.; Xu, X.; Dey, P. K. 2010. Multi-criteria decision making approaches for supplier evaluation and selection: a literature review, European Journal of Operational Research 202(1): 16-24. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2009.05.009 · DOI
  33. Huang, I. B.; Keisler, J.; Linkov, I. 2011. Multi-criteria decision analysis in environmental sciences: ten years of applications and trends, Science of the Total Environment 409(19): 3578-3594. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2011.06.022 · DOI
  34. Hwang, C. L.; Masud, A. S. M. 1979. Multiple objective decision making methods and applications, a state of the art survey, Lecture Notes in Economics and Mathematical Systems. Vol. 164. Berlin: Springer-Verlag. 357 p. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-45511-7 · DOI · Paper page
  35. Hwang, C. L.; Yoon, K. 1981. Multiple attributes decision making methods and applications. Berlin, Hei- delberg: Springer. 269 p. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-48318-9 · DOI
  36. Hwang, C. L.; Lin, M. J. 1987. Group decision making under multiple criteria: methods and applications. Berlin: Springer-Verlag. 405 p. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-61580-1 · DOI
  37. Ishizaka, A.; Labib, A. 2011. Review of the main developments in the analytic hierarchy process, Expert Systems with Applications 38(11): 14336-14345.
  38. Ishizaka, A.; Nemery, P. 2013. Multi-criteria decision analysis: methods and software. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons. 296 p.
  39. Jadhav, A. S.; Rajendra Sonar, R. M. 2009. Evaluating and selecting software packages: a review, Information and Software Technology 51(3): 555-563. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2008.09.003 · DOI
  40. Jahan, A.; Ismail, M. Y.; Sapuan, S. M.; Mustaph, F. 2010. Material screening and choosing methods -a review, Materials & Design 31(2): 696-705. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2009.08.013 · DOI
  41. Kabir, G.; Sadiq, R.; Tesfamariam, S. 2013. A review of multi-criteria decision-making methods for infrastructure management, Structure and Infrastructure Engineering: Maintenance, Management, Life-Cycle Design and Performance. London: Taylor and Francis. 36 p. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15732479.2013.795978 · DOI
  42. Kahraman, C. 2008. Fuzzy multi-criteria decision making. Theory and applications with recent developments. Turkey: Springer, Science+Business Media, LLC. 591 p.
  43. Kaliszewski, I. 2010. Soft computing for complex multiple criteria decision making. Berlin: Springer. 172 p.
  44. Kapliński, O.; Peldschus, F. 2011. The problems of quantitative evaluation of socio-economic systems' development: review, Inzinerine Ekonomika -Engineering Economics 22(4): 345-355.
  45. Kapliński, O.; Tamošaitienė, J. 2010. Game theory applications in construction engineering and manage- ment, Technological and Economic Development of Economy 16(2): 348-363. http://dx.doi.org/10.3846/tede.2010.22 · DOI
  46. Kaplinski, O.; Tupenaite, L. 2011. Review of the multiple criteria decision making methods, intelligent and biometric systems applied in modern construction economics, Transformations in Business & Economics 10(1): 166-181.
  47. Keeney, R. L.; Raiffa, H. 1976. Decision with multiple objectives: preferences and value trade-offs. New York: John Wiley & Sons. 569 p.
  48. Köksalan, M. M.; Wallenius, J.; Zionts, S. 2011. Multiple criteria decision making: from early history to the 21st century. Singapore; Hackensack, NJ: World Scientific. 200 p.
  49. Kou, G.; Lu, Y.; Peng, Y.; Shi, Y. 2012. Evaluation of classification algorithms using MCDM and rank correlation, International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making 11(1): 197-225. http://dx.doi.org/10.1142/S0219622012500095 · DOI
  50. Liou, J. J. H. 2013. New concepts and trends of MCDM for tomorrow -in honor of Professor Gwo-Hshi- ung Tzeng on the occasion of his 70th birthday, Technological and Economic Development of Economy 19(2): 367-375. http://dx.doi.org/10.3846/20294913.2013.811037 · DOI
  51. Liou, J. J. H.; Tzeng, G.-H. 2012. Comments on "Multiple criteria decision making (MCDM) methods in economics: an overview", Technological and Economic Development of Economy 18(4): 672-695. http://dx.doi.org/10.3846/20294913.2012.753489 · DOI
  52. Manouselis, N.; Costopoulou, C. 2007. Analysis and classification of multi-criteria recommender systems, World Wide Web 10(4): 415-441. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11280-007-0019-8 · DOI
  53. Melo, M. T.; Nickel, S.; Saldanha-da-Gama, F. 2009. Facility location and supply chain management -a review, European Journal of Operational Research 169(2): 401-412. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2008.05.007 · DOI
  54. Miettinen, K. 2009. Nonlinear multiobjective optimization. Berlin: Springer. 320 p.
  55. Moffett, A.; Sarkar, S. 2006. Incorporating multiple criteria into the design of conservation area networks: a minireview with recommendations, Diversity and Distributions 12(2): 125-137. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1366-9516.2005.00202.x · DOI
  56. Opricovic, S.; Tzeng, G. H. 2004.Compromise solution by MCDM methods: a comparative analysis of VIKOR and TOPSIS, European Journal of Operation Research 156(2): 445-455. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0377-2217(03)00020-1 · DOI
  57. Pedrycz, W.; Ekel, P.; Parreiras, R. 2010. Fuzzy multicriteria decision-making: models, methods and applica- tions. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons Ltd. 360 p. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/9780470974032 · DOI
  58. Peng, Y.; Kou, G.; Wang, G.; Shi, Y. 2011. FAMCDM: a fusion approach of MCDM methods to rank multi- class classification algorithms, Omega 39(6): 677-689. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.omega.2011.01.009 · DOI
  59. Podviezko, A. 2012. Augmenting multicriteria decision aid methods by graphical and analytical reporting tools, Lecture in Business Information Processing 106: 236-251. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-29231-6_19 · DOI
  60. Podvezko, V. 2011. The comparative analysis of MCDA methods SAW and COPRAS, Inzinerine Eko- nomika -Engineering Economics 2(22): 134-146.
  61. Raju, K. S.; Kumar, D. M. 2013. Multicriterion analysis in engineering and management. Kindle edition. PHI Learning Private Limited. 343 p.
  62. Saaty, T. L. 1980. The analytic hierarchy process. New York: McGraw-Hill. 287 p.
  63. Scott, J. 2000. Rational choice theory, in Browning, G. (Ed.). From understanding contemporary society: theories of the present. London: SAGE Publications Ltd, 126-139. http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781446218310. · DOI
  64. Savage, L. J. 1954. The foundations of statistics. Second revised edition. New York: Wiley. 112 p.
  65. Shih, H.-S. 2008. Incremental analysis for MCDM with an application to group TOPSIS, European Journal of Operational Research 186(2): 720-734. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2007.02.012 · DOI
  66. Simanavičienė, R.; Ustinovičius, L. 2012. A new approach to assessing the biases of decisions based on multiple attribute decision making methods, Elektronics and Electrical Engineering -Elektronika ir Elektrotechnika 1(117): 29-32.
  67. Stanujkic, D.; Magdalinovic, N.; Jovanovic, R.; Stojanovic, S. 2012. An objective multi-criteria approach to optimization using MOORA method and interval grey numbers, Technological and Economic Development of Economy 18(2): 331-363. http://dx.doi.org/10.3846/20294913.2012.676996 · DOI
  68. Tamošaitienė, J.; Kaplinski, O. 2013. Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) of socio-economic systems: a systematic review, Technological and Economic Development of Economy 19(4): 661-674. http://dx.doi.org/10.3846/20294913.2013.862882 · DOI
  69. Toloie-Eshlaghy, A.; Homayonfar, M. 2011. MCDM methodologies and applications: a literature review from 1999 to 2009, Research Journal of Internatıonal Studıes (21): 86-137.
  70. Triantaphyllou, E. 2000. Multi-criteria decision making methods: a comparative study. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. 289 p. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4757-3157-6 · DOI
  71. Triantaphyllou, E. 2010. Multi-criteria decision making methods: a comparative study. Dordrecht: Springer. 288 p.
  72. Tzeng, G.-H.; Huang, J.-J. 2011. Multiple attribute decision making. New York: CRC Press. 349 p.
  73. Venkata, R. R. 2007. Decision making in the manufacturing environment: using graph theory and fuzzy multiple attribute decision making methods. London, Heidelberg, New York, Dordrecht: Springer. 391 p.
  74. Von Neumann, J.; Morgenstern, O. 1947. Theory of games and economic behavior. 2nd ed. Princeton: Princeton University Press. 641 p.
  75. Wang, J.-J.; Jing, Y.-Y.; Zhang, C.-F.; Zhao, J.-H. 2009. Review on multi-criteria decision analysis aid in sustainable energy decision-making, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 13(9): 2263-2278. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2009.06.021 · DOI
  76. Xidonas, P.; Psarras, J. 2009. Equity portfolio management within the MCDM frame: a literature review, International Journal of Banking, Accounting and Finance 1(3): 285-309.
  77. Yazdani-Chamzini, A.; Fouladgar, M. M.; Zavadskas, E. K.; Moini, S. H. H. 2013. Selecting the optimal renewable energy using multi criteria decision making, Journal of Business Economics and Management 14(5): 957-978. http://dx.doi.org/10.3846/16111699.2013.766257 · DOI
  78. Zavadskas, E. K.; Liias, R.; Turskis, Z. 2008. Multi-attribute decision-making methods for assessment of quality in bridges and road construction: state-of-the-art surveys, The Baltic Journal of Road and Bridge Engineering 3(3): 152-160. http://dx.doi.org/10.3846/1822-427X.2008.3.152-160 · DOI
  79. Zavadskas, E. K.; Turskis, Z. 2011. Multiple criteria decision making (MCDM) methods in economics: an overview, Technological and Economic Development of Economy 17(2): 397-427. http://dx.doi.org/10.3846/20294913.2011.593291 · DOI
  80. Zeleny, M. 1982. Multiple criteria decision making. New York: McGraw-Hill. 563 p.
  81. Zopounidis, C.; Doumpos, M. 2002. Multicriteria classification and sorting methods: a literature review, European Journal of Operational Research 138(2): 229-246. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0377-2217(01)00243-0 · DOI
  82. Zopounidis, C.; Pardalos, P. M. (Eds.). 2010. Handbook of multicriteria analysis. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag. 455 p. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-92828-7 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Zavadskas, E. K., Turskis, Z., & Kildienė, S.
Affiliations
Vilnius Gediminas Technical University (LT)
ORCID
Venue
Technological and Economic Development of Economy
Publisher
Vilnius Gediminas Technical University
Published
2014-03-26
Volume
20
Issue
1
Pages
165-179
ISSN
  • 1392-8619 (ISSN-L)
  • 2029-4913
  • 2029-4921
DOI
10.3846/20294913.2014.892037
OpenAlex
W2142078435
Cited by
931
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 104 · 2025: 103 · 2024: 76 · 2023: 91 · 2022: 70 · 2021: 100 · 2020: 112 · 2019: 82 · 2018: 74 · 2017: 39 · 2016: 40 · 2015: 32 · 2014: 8
FWCI
49.96
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Technological and Economic Development of Economy (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Multi-Criteria Decision Making
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Management Information Systems › Decision Support System Applications
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Game Theory and Voting Systems
Keywords
multi-criteria decision making, multi-attribute decision making, decision procedures, methodological framework

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review