Multiple Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) models are used to solve a number of decision making problems universally. Most of these methods require the use of integers as input data. However, there are problems which have indeterminate values or data intervals which need to be analysed. In order to solve problems with interval data, many methods have been reported. Through this study an attempt has been made to compare and analyse the popular decision making tools for interval data problems. Namely, I-TOPSIS (Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution), DI-TOPSIS, cross entropy, and interval VIKOR (VlseKriterijumska Optimiza-cija I Kompromisno Resenje) have been compared and a novel algorithm has been proposed. The new algorithm makes use of basic TOPSIS technique to overcome the limitations of known methods. To compare the effectiveness of the various methods, an example problem has been used where selection of best material family for the capacitor application has to be made. It was observed that the proposed algorithm is able to overcome the known limitations of the previous techniques. Thus, it can be easily and efficiently applied to various decision making problems with interval data. 1. Introduction Engineers and managers over the world are daily faced with problems that require the selection of the best alternative from among the feasible options. Such complications are called decision making problems and encompass a wide variety of applications from design, optimisation, allotment, and screening to name a few. Often these problems present alternatives where numerous conflicting constraints are to be considered while making a decision. The attributes associated are such that maximisation of one would lead to minimisation of others. Such problems have no absolute solution and require an optimisation of all the traits to present the best possible solution. This category of problems is known as Multiple Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) problems and various MCDM techniques are used to solve such dilemmas [1–3]. MCDM techniques can be broadly classified into two main categories mainly Multiple Objective Decision Making (MODM) and Multiple Attribute Decision Making (MADM) techniques. Both techniques are based on decision making under multiple criteria consideration but they differ slightly in their method of approach. MODM techniques require the knowledge of functional relationship that exists between various attributes associated with the alternatives. This relationship is used to formulate figure of merits (FOM) that are used to
References
[1]
A. Jahan, M. Y. Ismail, S. M. Sapuan, and F. Mustapha, “Material screening and choosing methods—a review,” Materials and Design, vol. 31, no. 2, pp. 696–705, 2010.
[2]
S. D. Pohekar and M. Ramachandran, “Application of multi-criteria decision making to sustainable energy planning—a review,” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, vol. 8, no. 4, pp. 365–381, 2004.
[3]
G. Wang, S. H. Huang, and J. P. Dismukes, “Product-driven supply chain selection using integrated multi-criteria decision-making methodology,” International Journal of Production Economics, vol. 91, no. 1, pp. 1–15, 2004.
[4]
M. F. Ashby, “Multi-objective optimization in material design and selection,” Acta Materialia, vol. 48, no. 1, pp. 359–369, 2000.
[5]
K. P. Yoon and C. L. Hwang, Multiple Attribute Decision Making: An Introduction, Sage Publications, 1995.
[6]
A. Chauhan and R. Vaish, “Magnetic material selection using multiple attribute decision making approach,” Materials and Design, vol. 36, pp. 1–5, 2012.
[7]
A. Chauhan and R. Vaish, “A comparative study on material selection for micro-electromechanical systems,” Materials & Design, vol. 41, pp. 177–181, 2012.
[8]
A. Chauhan and R. Vaish, “Hard coating material selection using multi-criteria decision making,” Materials & Design, vol. 44, pp. 240–245, 2013.
[9]
A. Chauhan and R. Vaish, “Pareto optimal microwave dielectric materials,” Advanced Science, Engineering and Medicine, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 149–155, 2013.
[10]
A. S. Milani, A. Shanian, R. Madoliat, and J. A. Nemes, “The effect of normalization norms in multiple attribute decision making models: a case study in gear material selection,” Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization, vol. 29, no. 4, pp. 312–318, 2005.
[11]
O. Parate and N. Gupta, “Material selection for electrostatic microactuators using Ashby approach,” Materials and Design, vol. 32, no. 3, pp. 1577–1581, 2011.
[12]
R. Pratap and A. Arunkumar, “Material selection for MEMS devices,” Indian Journal of Pure and Applied Physics, vol. 45, no. 4, pp. 358–367, 2007.
[13]
R. Vaish, “Piezoelectric and pyroelectric materials selection,” International Journal of Applied Ceramic Technology, vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 682–689, 2012.
[14]
A. Chauhan and R. Vaish, “An assessment of bulk metallic glasses for microelectromechanical system devices,” International Journal of Applied Glass Science, vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 231–241, 2013.
[15]
A. Chauhan and R. Vaish, “Material selection for piezoelectric devices,” Advanced Science, Engineering and Medicine, vol. 5, no. 7, pp. 715–719, 2013.
[16]
A. Chauhan, R. Vaish, and C. Bowen, “Piezoelectric material selection for ultrasonic transducer and actuator applications,” Journal of Materials Design and Applications, 2013.
[17]
T. Y. Chen and C. Y. Tsao, “The interval-valued fuzzy TOPSIS method and experimental analysis,” Fuzzy Sets and Systems, vol. 159, no. 11, pp. 1410–1428, 2008.
[18]
J. H. Park, I. Y. Park, Y. C. Kwun, and X. Tan, “Extension of the TOPSIS method for decision making problems under interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy environment,” Applied Mathematical Modelling, vol. 35, no. 5, pp. 2544–2556, 2011.
[19]
P. Sevastianov, “Numerical methods for interval and fuzzy number comparison based on the probabilistic approach and Dempster-Shafer theory,” Information Sciences, vol. 177, no. 21, pp. 4645–4661, 2007.
[20]
G. R. Jahanshahloo, F. H. Lotfi, and M. Izadikhah, “An algorithmic method to extend TOPSIS for decision-making problems with interval data,” Applied Mathematics and Computation, vol. 175, no. 2, pp. 1375–1384, 2006.
[21]
G. R. Jahanshahloo, F. Hosseinzadeh Lotfi, and A. R. Davoodi, “Extension of TOPSIS for decision-making problems with interval data: interval efficiency,” Mathematical and Computer Modelling, vol. 49, no. 5-6, pp. 1137–1142, 2009.
[22]
P. Sevastjanov and A. Tikhonenko, “Direct interval extension of TOPSIS method,” in Parallel Processing and Applied Mathematics, pp. 504–512, Springer, Berlin, Germany, 2012.
[23]
Z. Meng, Y. Jingsong, and R. Rongrong, “The method of interval multi-attribute decision-making based on cross entropy,” in Proceedings of the IEEE 3rd International Conference on Software Engineering and Service Science (ICSESS '12), pp. 461–464, June 2012.
[24]
M. K. Sayadi, M. Heydari, and K. Shahanaghi, “Extension of VIKOR method for decision making problem with interval numbers,” Applied Mathematical Modelling, vol. 33, no. 5, pp. 2257–2262, 2009.
[25]
C. L. Hwang and K. Yoon, “Methods for multiple attribute decision making,” in Multiple Attribute Decision Making, vol. 186, pp. 58–191, Springer, Berlin, Germany, 1981.
[26]
D. Yong, “Plant location selection based on fuzzy TOPSIS,” International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, vol. 28, no. 7-8, pp. 839–844, 2006.
[27]
L. Zhang and D. Q. Zhou, “A study on R-TOPSIS method and its application to web site building alternatives selection,” Communications in Computer and Information Science, vol. 232, no. 2, pp. 466–474, 2011.
[28]
L. Ren, Y. Zhang, Y. Wang, and Z. Sun, “Comparative analysis of a novel M-TOPSIS method and topsis,” Applied Mathematics Research eXpress, vol. 2007, 2007.
[29]
N. Kwak and C. H. Choi, “Input feature selection for classification problems,” IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 143–159, 2002.
