See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/342347772

Application of TOPSIS Method for Decision Making

Article · April 2020

CITATIONS READS

9 3,009

5 authors, including:

Rana Muhammad Zulqarnain Muhammad Saeed

University of Management and Technology (Pakistan) University of Management and Technology (Pakistan)
58 PUBLICATIONS   522 CITATIONS    152 PUBLICATIONS   1,110 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Fazal Dayan Bilal Ahmad

University of Management and Technology (Pakistan) University of Lahore
24 PUBLICATIONS   155 CITATIONS    11 PUBLICATIONS   34 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

5th International Conference on Combinatorics, Cryptography, Computer Science and Computation View project

Call for Paper, Scientific Inquiry and Review (SIR), Volume 3, Issue 1, 2019 View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Rana Muhammad Zulqarnain on 21 June 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 International Journal of Scientific Research in ___________________________ Research Paper .
Mathematical and Statistical Sciences
Volume-7, Issue-2, pp.76-81, April (2020) E-ISSN: 2348-4519

Application of TOPSIS Method for Decision Making

R. M. Zulqarnain 1*, M. Saeed 2, N. Ahmad 2, F. Dayan 2, B. Ahmad 4
1
School of Mathematics, Northwest University, Xian 710127, China.
2
School of Science, Department of Mathematics, University of Management and Technology Lahore, Punjab, Pakistan.
3
Department of Mathematics and Statistics, The University of Lahore, Pakistan.
*Corresponding author: ranazulqarnain7777@gmail.com, Tel: +86-13028563376
Available online at: www.isroset.org
Received: 16/Feb/2019, Accepted: 10/Apr/2020, Online: 30/Apr/2020
Abstract—In this paper, we discuss the order preference by similarity ideal solution (TOPSIS) method with basic concepts
and determine the TOPSIS algorithm. Secondly, we construct a graphical model for the TOPSIS method by using the
TOPSIS algorithm. Finally, we use the developed method for decision making in our daily life. In this work, we use the
TOPSIS method for the selection of a car by using hypothetical data and examined that the civic is the best automotive car
according to given parameters.

Keywords— Multiple Criteria Decision Making (MCDM), TOPSIS, Positive Ideal Solution (PIS), Negative Ideal Solution (NIS)
I. INTRODUCTION
Decision Making is the best procedure to choose a
superlative alternative from all feasible alternatives.
Almost in all other issues, the overall number of criteria
because decision making the general alternatives is
pervasive. Such criteria normally contrast one another so
there might be no way out satisfying all criteria
simultaneously. To deal with such problems the decision-
makers want to solve the MCDM problem. There are
different methods to solve MCDM problems. One of them
presented by Hwang and Yoon in [1] is known as a
TOPSIS to solve the MCDM problem with many
alternatives. The core concept of this technique is that the
chosen alternative should have the smallest geometrical
distance from the PIS and the largest geometrical distance
from NIS [2].
Nowadays this technique used in different fields of life
such as energy [37] medicine [2,810] engineering and
manufacturing systems [1116] safety and environmental
fields [1722] chemical engineering [5,23,24] and water
resources studies [5,19,23,25]. Chen & Hwang extend the
idea of the TOPSIS method and presented a new model for
TOPSIS[26]. Zulqarnain et al. developed the graphical
model of the TOPSIS method and used for the selection of
a medical clinic for the diagnosis of disease [27].
Moreover, to solve uncertain data Chen extended the
TOPSIS for Group Decision Making in the fuzzy
atmosphere [28] and used the newly proposed method for
decision making. The importance weights of multi-criteria
and alternative rating w.r.t. these criteria were treated as
linguistic variables, evaluated by a group of decision-
makers. To facilitate the decision making in a fuzzy
environment many researchers extended the TOPSIS
technique reported in the literature
[3,4,18,19,25,2935,6,8,1115,17]. The author’s
developed the idea of generalized interval-valued fuzzy
soft matrices (IVFSM) in [36]. Zulqarnain et al [37] used
the trapezoidal fuzzy numbers by Sanchez’s approach for
disease identification. The usage of interval numbers is too
a significant enhancement of [3840]. The extension of
TOPSIS under fuzzy data has been used to express the
prospect of achievement for pancreatic transplantation [8].
A decision-making method on IVFSM introduced in [41]
and the authors provided the application of IVFSM [42]
and comparative study with a fuzzy soft matrix in [43].
Mahmoodzadeh et al. developed a technique for the project
assortment by combining fuzzy AHP and TOPSIS methods
and used the upgraded technique to calculate the weights of
each criterion at first and then the TOPSIS algorithm was
engaged for ranking the projects to be selected [44]. The
authors faced some difficulties to determine the accurate
value of the elements of the decision matrix, such as their
values were considered as intervals, to overcome these
difficulties they extended the TOPSIS method with interval
data in [38]. Several approaches have been established for
MCDM problems, in [45] the authors provided a proper
guideline of how and which method could be used for
MCDM problems according to the situation.
The authors extended the TOPSIS to Atanassov
intuitionistic fuzzy set and proposed the algorithm of
extended TOPSIS for multi-attribute group decision-
making problem in [46]. The idea of multiple attribute
intuitionistic fuzzy group decision-making algorithm was
introduced in [46]. Many researchers worked on the
TOPSIS method and used in medical diagnosis and for
decision making in different fields of life reported in the
literature [4750].

© 2020, IJSRMSS All Rights Reserved 76

 Int. J. Sci. Res. in Mathematical and Statistical Sciences Vol. 7, Issue.2, Apr 2020

The following paper is organized as follows. In section II, Where l is the alternative index ( l  1, 2,..., q ); n is the
we study and discuss some basic concepts of the TOPSIS number of potential sites and m is the criteria index
method and present the classical TOPSIS algorithm. We
proposed the graphical model for the TOPSIS method by ( m  1, 2,..., p ).
using the TOPSIS algorithm. In section III, we use the The elements R1, R2 ,..., Rq of the DM define the criteria
TOPSIS method for decision-making and choose the best
car by using hypothetical data. lastly, the conclusion is while A1 , A2 ,, Ap defining the alternatives.
made in section IV. Step 2: Calculation of the Normalized Decision Matrix
(NDM)
THE EFFICIENCY OF TOPSIS [51] To represent the relative performance of the alternatives the
NDM constructed as follows.
First, it is important to discuss the efficiency of the clm
TOPSIS method. The calculation time of the TOPSIS NDM  Llm 
q
method rises slightly when the number of criteria increases
to 16. However, the point to be noted is that the time does c
l 1
2
lm

not exceed 10 seconds see [51].

Step 3: Determination of the Weighted Normalized
The TOPSIS is examined by changing the number of
Decision Matrix (WNDM)
criteria and users, and it was determined that the efficiency
By multiplying every element of each column of NDM got
is high when the number of users is under 320 and the
a weighted decision matrix.
number of criteria is not more than 16.
V  Vlm  Wm  Llm
TOPSIS Method
Step 4: Identification of the PIS and NIS
Hwang and Yoon [1] developed a technique to resolve  
The PIS ( I ) and the NIS ( I ) are defined concerning the
MCDM known as the TOPSIS method. To support the weighted decision matrix as follows
shortest Euclidean distance, they proposed the PIS and NIS
and each criterion needs to be maximized or minimized. NIS  I   {V1 , V2 , ... , Vq }, where:
They claimed that the TOPSIS method helps rank
alternatives closeness which based on optimum ideal
Vm  {(mini(Vlm ) if m  J);(maxi Vlm if m  J)}
solution and obtained the maximum level from available Where J  is associated with the non-beneficial attributes
alternatives. The best alternative has rank one and the worst and
alternative approaches rank zero. For every alternative, J is associated with beneficial attributes.
there is an intermediate ranking between the best answer
extremes. An identical set of choice criteria permits correct Step 5: Separation Distance from PIS and
weighting of relative disease and therefore the optimum NIS of each alternative
disease is alarming which needs attention. Here are p
presented the steps for the TOPSIS technique. TOPSIS
views an MCDM problem with m-alternatives as a
Sl   (V
m 1
m

 Vlm ) 2 ; l  1, 2, ... , q
geometric system with m points in the n-dimensional space
p
[52]. The core concept of this technique is that the chosen
alternative should have the smallest geometrical distance Sl   (V
m 1
m

 Vlm ) 2 ; l  1, 2, ... , q
from the PIS and the largest geometrical distance from the
NIS [53]. To apply TOPSIS [54], a common assumption is Where, l = Alternative index,
that criteria should be either monotonically increasing or m = Criteria index.
decreasing so that PIS and NIS can be easily identified. Step 6: Relative Closeness to the Ideal Solution.
The relative closeness of the ideal solution is computed as
Sl
II. CLASSICAL TOPSIS ALGORITHM
Cl   , 0  Cl  1
( Sl  Sl )
Step 1: Establishment of DM
Construct the decision matrix as follows Step 7: Ranking of Preference Order
R1 R2 ... Rq
The ranking is done based on the values of Cl the higher
A1  c11 c12 ... c1q 
A2  c21 c22 ... c2 q 
value of the relative closeness has a high rank and hence
the better performance of the alternative. Rank the
DM 
  preference in descending order to compare the better
  performances of alternative.
Ap c p1 c p 2 ... c pq 

© 2020, IJSRMSS All Rights Reserved 77

 Int. J. Sci. Res. in Mathematical and Statistical Sciences Vol. 7, Issue.2, Apr 2020

Table 2: Calculating
Cars St Sa FE Exp
Civic 49 81 81 64
Corolla 64 49 64 49
Swift 81 36 64 81
Hyundai 36 49 64 36

230 215 273 230

15.17 14.66 16.52 15.17

To normalize the decision matrix dividing each entry by

Table 3: Normalized Decision Matrix R = [rij]m×n

Figure 1. Graphical Model for TOPSIS
St Sa FE Exp
III. APPLICATION OF TOPSIS METHOD Civic 0.46 0.61 0.54 0.53
Corolla 0.53 0.48 0.48 0.46
A person wants to choose the car for his family. For the Swift 0.59 0.41 0.48 0.59
selection of best automotive car, he hires a team of three
experts (decision-makers) such as (l = 3) represented by D Hyundai 0.40 0.48 0.48 0.40
= {D1, D2, D3}. Firstly, the experts select four best Step 3: Computation of the weight matrix
automotive cars showroom in the city as follows A = The weights assigned by the experts (decision makers) to
{Civic, Corolla, Swift, Hyundai} and decide the four the criteria are given by the matrix
evaluation criteria represented by C = {Style, Safety, Fuel W = [w1 (Security) = 0.1, w2 (Environment) = 0.4, w3
Efficiency, Expanses} for selection of one of the best (Qualified staff) = 0.3, w4 (Expenses) = 0.2]Transpose
automotive car out of four cars. Step 4: Computation of WNDM Ŕ = [ ]m×n
C=
To get WNDM, multiplying each column of NDM in Table
3 by weights wj , of weight vector computed in the step 3.
Table 4: Weighted Normalized Decision Matrix Ŕ = [ ']m×n
J1 = J2 = {X4: Expenses
Weights wj 0.1 0.4 0.3 0.2
A St Sa FE Exp
SOLUTION BY TOPSIS Civic 0.046 0.244 0.162 0.106
Corolla 0.053 0.192 0.144 0.092
TOPSIS method will be illustrated with the help of a car
selection problem. Here the set of alternatives is A = Swift 0.059 0.164 0.144 0.118
{Civic, Corolla, Swift, Hyundai} and the set of evaluation Hyundai 0.040 0.192 0.144 0.080
criteria is C = {Style (St), Safety (Sa), Fuel Efficiency
Step 5: The calculation of PIS and NIS
(FE), Expanses (Exp)} are given. To find the PIS A*
Step 1: Construction of a Decision Matrix Table 5: Positive Ideal Solution
The decision matrix is given in the following table. Benefit Criteria ∈ J
+ Cost
-
Table 1: Decision Matrix D = [xij]m×n Criteria∈J
Cars St Sa FE Exp A St Sa FE Exp
Civic 7 9 9 8 Civic 0.046 0.244= 0.162= 0.106
Corolla 8 7 8 7 Corolla 0.053 0.192 0.144 0.092
Swift 9 6 8 9 Swift 0.059= 0.164 0.144 0.118=
Hyundai 6 7 8 6 Hyundai 0.040 0.192 0.144 0.080
Therefore A* = {0.059, 0.244, 0.162, 0.080}
Step 2: Normalization
To find the NIS
By using the following formula, we get

© 2020, IJSRMSS All Rights Reserved 78

 Int. J. Sci. Res. in Mathematical and Statistical Sciences Vol. 7, Issue.2, Apr 2020

Table 6: Negative Ideal Solution

+ Cost
Benefit Criteria ∈ J
-
Criteria∈J
A St Sa FE Exp
Civic 0.046 0.244 0.162 0.106
Corolla 0.053 0.192 0.144 0.092
Swift 0.059 0.164 = 0.144= 0.118
*
Hyundai 0.040= 0.192 0.144 0.080=v4

Therefore = {0.040,0.164,0.144,0.118}

Step 6: Determine the separation measures for each alternative

Calculating separation from PIS A*

Table 7: Calculation of
2
St Sa FE Exp Si*
2 2 2 2
Civic (0.046-0.059) (0.244-0.244) (0) (0.026) 0.000845 0.029
2 2 2 2
Corolla (0.053-0.059) (0.192-0.244) (-0.018) (0.012) 0.003208 0.057
2 2 2 2
Swift (0.053-0.059) (0.164-0.244) (-0.018) (0.038) 0.008186 0.090
2 2 2 2
Hyundai (0.053-0.059) (0.192-0.044) (-0.018) (0) 0.003389 0.058
-
Calculating separation from NIS A

Table 8: Calculation of
2
St Sa FE Exp
2 2 2 2
Civic (0.046-0.040) (0.244-0.164) (0.018) (-0.012) 0.006904 0.083
2 2 2 2
Corolla (0.053-0.040) (0.192-0.164) (0) (-0.026) 0.001629 0.040
2 2 2 2
Swift (0.053-0.040) (0.164-0.164) (0) (0) 0.000361 0.019
2 2 2 2
Hyundai (0.053-0.040) (0.192-0.164) (0) (-0.038) 0.002228 0.047

Step 7: Computation of RCC to the ideal solution C i*

RCC to the ideal solution Ci* is computed as follows
= = = 0.74 (Best)
Similarly, we can get
=
= 0.17
= 0.45

Hence “Civic” is the best automotive car with the above evaluation criteria.

IV. CONCLUSION REFERENCES

In this paper, we discuss the TOPSIS method in detail and
constructed a graphical model for the TOPSIS method. We
used the TOPSIS method for the selection of the best
automotive car by using hypothetical data and examined
that Civic is the best car according to the above selected
parameters.
[1] C. Hawng, K. Yoon, "Multiple Attribute Decision Making:
Methods and Applications," A State of the Art Survey 1. Berlin
Heidelberg Springer, 1981.
[2] Y. Bi, D. Lai, H. Yan, “Synthetic evaluation of the effect of
health promotion : Impact of a UNICEF project in 40 poor
western counties of China,” R. Soc. Public Heal, vol. 124, pp.
376–391, 2010.
[3] I. Chamodrakas, D. Martakos, “A utility-based fuzzy TOPSIS
method for energy-efficient network selection in heterogeneous
wireless networks,” Appl. Soft Comput. J, vol. 11, no. 4, pp.

© 2020, IJSRMSS All Rights Reserved 79

 Int. J. Sci. Res. in Mathematical and Statistical Sciences
3734–3743, 2011.
[4] R. M. Zulqarnain, M. Saeed, B. Ali, N. Ahmad, L. Ali, S.
Abdal, “Application of Interval Valued Fuzzy Soft Max-Min
Decision Making Method,” International Journal of
Mathematical Research, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 11-19, 2020.
[5] M. Behzadian, S. K. Otaghsara, M. Yazdani, J. Ignatius, “A
state-of the-art survey of TOPSIS applications,” Expert Syst.
Appl, Vol. 39, no. 17, pp. 13051–13069, 2012.
[6] F. Dayan, M. Zulqarnain, H. Naseer, “A Ranking Method for
Students of Different Socio Economic Backgrounds Based on
Generalized Fuzzy Soft Sets,” Int. J. Sci. Res, Vol. 6, no. 9, pp.
691–694, 2017.
[7] L. Yang, J. Deuse, “Multiple-attribute decision-making
approach for an energy-efficient facility layout design,” Publ. by
Elsevier B.V, vol. 3, pp. 149–154, 2012.
[8] G. La, G. Aiello, C. Rastellini, R. Micale, L. Cicalese, “Multi-
Criteria Decision Making support system for pancreatic islet
transplantation,” Expert Syst. Appl, Vol. 38, no. 4, pp. 3091–
3097, 2011.
[9] T. Chen, “A signed-distance-based approach to importance
assessment and multi-criteria group decision analysis based on
interval type-2 fuzzy set,” Knowl Inf Syst, Vol. 35, pp. 193–231,
2013.
[10] R. Kuo, Y. Wu, T. Hsu, “Integration of fuzzy set theory and
TOPSIS into HFMEA to improve outpatient service for elderly
patients in Taiwan,” J. Chinese Med. Assoc, Vol. 75, pp. 341–
348, 2012.
[11] K. Im, H. Cho, “A systematic approach for developing a new
business model using morphological analysis and integrated
fuzzy approach,” Expert Syst. Appl, Vol. 40, no. 11, pp. 4463–
4477, 2013.
[12] K. K. damghani, S. Sadi-nezhad, M. Tavana, “Solving multi-
period project selection problems with fuzzy goal programming
based on TOPSIS and a fuzzy preference relation,” Inf. Sci.
(Ny), Vol. 1, 2013.
[13] M. Nakhaeinejad, N. Nahavandi, “An interactive algorithm for
multi-objective flow shop scheduling with fuzzy processing
time through resolution method and TOPSIS,” Int J Adv Manuf
Technol, no. July, 2012.
[14] H. Hosseini, A. S. Milani, “An improvement of quantitative
strategic planning matrix using multiple criteria decision making
and fuzzy numbers,” Appl. Soft Comput. J, Vol. 12, no. 8, pp.
2246–2253, 2012.
[15] A. Taleizadeh, S. Taghi, A. Niaki, “A hybrid method of Pareto
TOPSIS and genetic algorithm to optimize multi- product multi-
constraint inventory control systems with random fuzzy
replenishments A Hybrid Method of Pareto , TOPSIS and
Genetic Algorithm to Optimize Multi-Product Multi-Constr,”
Math. Comput. Model, 2009.
[16] L. I. Tong, C. H. Wang, H. C. Chen, “Optimization of multiple
responses using principal component analysis and,” Int J Adv
Manuf Techno, Vol. 27, pp. 407–414, 2005.
[17] R. A. Krohling, V. C. Campanharo, “Fuzzy TOPSIS for group
decision making: A case study for accidents with oil spill in the
sea,” Expert Syst. Appl, Vol. 38, no. 4, pp. 4190–4197, 2011.
[18] X. Wang, H. K. Chan, “A hierarchical fuzzy TOPSIS approach
to assess improvement areas when implementing green supply
chain initiatives,” Int. J. Prod. Res, Vol. 51, no. 10, pp. 3117–
3130, 2013.
[19] Y. Kim, E. S. Chung, S. M. Jun, S. U. Kim, “Prioritizing the
best sites for treated wastewater instream use in an urban
watershed using fuzzy TOPSIS,” Resour. Conserv. Recycl, Vol.
73, pp. 23–32, 2013.
[20] P. Li, H. Qian, J. Wu, J. Chen, “Sensitivity analysis of TOPSIS
method in water quality assessment: I. Sensitivity to the
parameter weights,” Environ. Monit. Assess, Vol. 185, no. 3, pp.
2453–2461, 2013.
[21] A. Awasthi, S. S. Chauhan, S. K. Goyal, “A multi-criteria
decision making approach for location planning for urban
distribution centers under uncertainty,” Math. Comput. Model,
© 2020, IJSRMSS All Rights Reserved
Vol. 7, Issue.2, Apr 2020
Vol. 53, no. 1–2, pp. 98–109, 2011.
[22] M. J. Ostad-Ahmad-Ghorabi, M. Attari, “Advancing
environmental evaluation in cement industry in Iran,” J. Clean.
Prod, Vol. 41, pp. 23–30, 2013.
[23] P. Li, J. Wu, H. Qian, “Groundwater quality assessment based
on rough sets attribute reduction and TOPSIS method in a semi-
arid area, China,” Env. Monit Assess, Vol. 184, no. Sep, pp.
4841–4854, 2012.
[24] Y. Sun, Z. Liang, C. Shan, H. Viernstein, F. Unger,
“Comprehensive evaluation of natural antioxidants and
antioxidant potentials in Ziziphus jujuba Mill . var . spinosa (
Bunge ) Hu ex H . F . Chou fruits based on geographical origin
by TOPSIS method,” Food Chem, Vol. 124, no. 4, pp. 1612–
1619, 2011.
[25] D. Yong, “Plant location selection based on fuzzy TOPSIS,” Int
J Adv Manuf Technol, Vol. 28, no. Aug, pp. 839–844, 2006.
[26] S. J. J. C, C. L. Hwang, "Fuzzy Multiple Attribute Decision
Making Methods," Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg, Chapter
5, 1992.
[27] R. M. Zulqarnain, S. Abdal, B. Ali, L. Ali, F. Dayan, M. I.
Ahamad, Z. Zafar, “Selection of Medical Clinic for Disease
Diagnosis by Using TOPSIS Method,” Int. J. Pharm. Sci. Rev.
Res, Vol. 61, no. 1, pp. 22-27, 2020.
[28] C. T. Chen, “Extensions of the TOPSIS for group decision-
making under fuzzy environment,” Fuzzy Sets Syst, Vol. 114,
no. 1, pp. 1–9, 2000.
[29] M. Anisseh, F. Piri, M. Reza, “Fuzzy extension of TOPSIS
model for group decision,” Artif Intell Rev, Vol. 38, pp. 325–
338, 2012.
[30] L. Dymova, P. Sevastjanov, A. Tikhonenko, “An approach to
generalization of fuzzy TOPSIS method,” Inf. Sci. (Ny), Vol.
238, no. February, pp. 149–162, 2013.
[31] S. Rouhani, M. Ghazanfari, M. Jafari, “Evaluation model of
business intelligence for enterprise systems using fuzzy
TOPSIS,” Expert Syst. Appl, Vol. 39, no. 3, pp. 3764–3771,
2012.
[32] M. Zulqarnain, F. Dayan, “Choose Best Criteria for Decision
Making Via Fuzzy Topsis Method,” Math. Comput. Sci, Vol. 2,
no. 6, p. 113, 2017.
[33] M. Zulqarnain, F. Dayan, “Selection Of Best Alternative For An
Automotive Company By Intuitionistic Fuzzy TOPSIS
Method,” Int. J. Sci. Technol. Res, Vol. 6, no. 10, pp. 126–132,
2017.
[34] T. Kaya, C. Kahraman, “Multicriteria decision making in energy
planning using a modified fuzzy TOPSIS methodology,” Expert
Syst. Appl, Vol. 38, no. 6, pp. 6577–6585, 2011.
[35] F. Cavallaro, “Fuzzy TOPSIS approach for assessing thermal-
energy storage in concentrated solar power ( CSP ) systems,”
Appl. Energy, Vol. 87, no. 2, pp. 496–503, 2010.
[36] F. Dayan, M. Zulqarnain, “On Generalized Interval Valued
Fuzzy Soft Matrices,” Am. J. Math. Comput. Model, Vol. 3, no.
1, pp. 1–9, 2018.
[37] R. M. Zulqarnain, X. L. Xin, B. Ali, S. Abdal, A. Maalik, L.
Ali, M. I. Ahamad, Z. Zafar, “Disease identification using
trapezoidal fuzzy numbers by Sanchez’s approach,” Int. J.
Pharm. Sci. Rev. Res, Vol. 61, no 1, pp. 13-18, 2020.
[38] G. R. Jahanshahloo, F. H. Lotfi, A. R. Davoodi, “Extension of
TOPSIS for decision-making problems with interval data :
Interval efficiency,” Math. Comput. Model, Vol. 49, no. 5–6, pp.
1137–1142, 2009.
[39] L. Dymova, P. Sevastjanov, A. Tikhonenko, “A direct interval
extension of TOPSIS method,” Expert Syst. Appl, no. March,
2013.
[40] Z. Yue, “An extended TOPSIS for determining weights of
decision makers with interval numbers,” Knowledge-Based Syst,
Vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 146–153, 2011.
[41] M. Zulqarnain, M. Saeed, “A New Decision Making Method on
Interval Valued Fuzzy Soft Matrix (IVFSM),” Br. J. Math.
Comput. Sci, Vol. 20, no. 5, pp. 1–17, 2017.
[42] M. Zulqarnain, M. Saeed, “An Application of Interval Valued
80
 Int. J. Sci. Res. in Mathematical and Statistical Sciences Vol. 7, Issue.2, Apr 2020

Fuzzy Soft Matrix in Decision Making Problem,” Sci. Int, Vol.

28, no. 3, pp. 2261–2264, 2016.
[43] M. Zulqarnain, M. Saeed, M. F. Tbassum, “Comparison
Between Fuzzy Soft Matrix (FSM) and Interval Valued Fuzzy
Soft Matrix (IVFSM) in Decision Making,” Sci. Int, Vol. 28, no.
5, pp. 4277–4283, 2016.
[44] M. S. Mahmoodzadeh, J. Shahrabi, M. Pariazar, “Project
selection by using a fuzzy AHP and topsis technique,” World
Acad. Sci. Eng. Technol, Vol. 1, no. 6, pp. 270–275, 2007.
[45] M. Velasquez, P. T. Hester, “An Analysis of Multi-Criteria
Decision Making Methods,” Int. J. Oper. Res, Vol. 10, no. 2,
pp. 56–66, 2013.
[46] D. Li, “Extension of the TOPSIS for multi-Attribute group
Decision making under Atanassov IFS environments,” Int. J.
Fuzzy Syst. Appl, Vol. 1, no. 4, pp. 47–61, 2011.
[47] R. M. Zulqarnain, S. Abdal, A. Maalik, B. Ali, Z. Zafar, M. I.
Ahamad, S. Younas, A. Mariam, F. Dayan., “Application of
TOPSIS Method in Decision Making Via Soft Set,” Biomed. J.
Sci. Tech. Res, Vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 18208–18215, 2020.
[48] M. Sevkli, S. Zaim, A. Turkyılmaz, M. Satır, “An Application
of Fuzzy Topsis Method for Supplier Selection,” IEEE Int.
Conf. Fuzzy Syst, no. July, 2010.
[49] M. Zulqarnain, F. Dayan, M. Saeed, “TOPSIS Analysis for The
Prediction of Diabetes Based on General Characteristics of
Humans,” Int. J. Pharm. Sci. Res, Vol. 9, no. 7, pp. 2932-2939,
2018.
[50] S. Eraslan, “A Decision Making Method via TOPSIS on Soft
Sets,” J. New Results Sci, Vol. 8, pp. 57–71, 2015.
[51] D. Y. Cheng, K. M. Chao, C. C. Lo, C. F. Tsai, A user centric
service-oriented modeling approach, Vol. 14, no. 4. 2011.
[52] M. R. Fathi, H. Zarei Matin, M. Karimi Zarchi, S. Azizollahi,
“The Application of Fuzzy TOPSIS Approach to Personnel
Selection for Padir Company, Iran,” J. Manag. Res., Vol. 3, no.
2, pp. 1–14, 2011.
[53] E. Triantaphyllou, B. Shu, S. N. Sanchez, T. Ray, “Multi-
Criteria Decision Making : An Operations Research Approach,”
Encycl. Electr. Electron. Eng, Vol. 15, no. February, pp. 175–
186, 1998.
[54] W. Sa, “The mean error estimation of TOPSIS method using a
fuzzy reference models,” J. Theor. Appl. Comput. Sci, Vol. 7,
no. 3, pp. 40–50, 2013.

© 2020, IJSRMSS All Rights Reserved 81

View publication stats