Journal Menu
Last Edition
Journal information

Vol.1, No.4, 2022: pp.126-135



Trinh Van Huy1
, Nguyen Quang Quyet1
, Vu Huu Binh1
, Tran Minh Hoang1
Nguyen Thi Thuy Tien1
, Dao Thi Nga1
, Nguyen Quoc Doan1

, Pham Hoang Tu1

Do Duc Trung1

1Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Hanoi University of Industry, Hanoi, Vietnam

Received: 20.08.2022.
Accepted: 08.11.2022.
Available: 31.12.2022.


Electric bicycle is a vehicle which is used widely in all the citys and provinces of Vietnam. However, it’s hard to choose “the most suitable” or “the best” type of electric bicycle because each type has different criteria (parameters). To choose out the best option, we need to consider all the alternatives at once. That is called multi-criteria decision-making. This research used three multi-criteria decision-making methods include SAW method, MARCOS method and PSI method to choose from seven best-selling types of electric bicycle on the market in 2022. All the methods which were used chose out the same best electric bicycle type and the same worst bicycle type. And so, among seven types of electric bicycle which include M133 mini, M133 Sport 2022, Aima 133AM, Nijia – PA4, DK 133M, Yadea iGo and Yadea i3, the best type is Aima 133AM, in contrast, Yadea iGo is considered the worst type. Things that need to be done in the folowing researches were proposed in the last part of this paper.


Electric bicycle selection, multi-criteria decision-making, SAW, MARCOS, PSI


[1] C. Zopounidis, M. Doumpos, Multiple Criteria Decision Making – Applications in Management and Engineering. Springer, 2017.
[2] B. Prasetiyo, N. Baroroh, Fuzzy Simple Additive Weighting Method in the Decision Making of Human Resource Recruitment. Lontar komputer: Jurnal Ilmiah Teknologi Informasi, 7(3), 2016: 174-181.
[3] N. Vafaei, R.R. Ribeiro, L.M. Camarinha-Matos, Assessing Normalization Techniques for Simple Additive Weighting Method. Procedia Computer Science, 199, 2022: 1229-1236.
[4] W.S. Goodridge, Sensitivity Analysis Using Simple Additive Weighting Method. International Journal of Intelligent Systems and Applications, 8(5), 2016: 27-33.
[5] I. Pangaribuan, A. Beniyanto, Multi-criteria decision-making method for procurement of goods and services auction system. Journal of Engineering Science and Technology, 2020(5), 2020: 26-32.
[6] S. Mitra, S.S. Goswami, Application of Simple Average Weighting Optimization Method in the Selection of Best Desktop Computer Model. Advanced Journal of Graduate Research, 6(1), 2019: 60-68.
[7] L. Abdullah, N. Zamri, C. M. Goh, Application of Interval Type 2 Fuzzy SAW in Flood Control Project. International Journal of Advances in Soft Computing and its Applications, 11(3), 2019: 124-137.
[8] M.D. Vujicic, M.Z. Papic, M.D. Blagojevic, Comparative Analysis of Objective Techniques for Criteria Weighing in Two MCDM Methods on Example of an Air Conditioner Selection. Tehnika, 67(3), 2017:422-429.
[9] D. Ajay, M. Manivel, J. Aldring, Neutrosophic Fuzzy SAW Method and It’s Application. The International Journal of Analytical and Experimental Modal Analysis, 11(8), 2019: 881-887.
[10] R.A. ZeinEldin, B.M. Abdullah, Comparing Two Multi-Criteria Approaches to Investigate Their Ability in Measuring Efficiency. International Journal for Modern Trends in Science and Technology, 3(2), 2017: 52-56.
[11] F. Gokgoz, E. Yalcın, An Integrated Approach to the World Cup Teams Using Entropy based ARAS and SAW Methods. 25 th ISTANBUL Int’l Conference on Literature, Languages, Humanities & Social Sciences (ILLHSS-19), 5-6 December, 2019, Istanbul, pp.1-4.
[12] M.I. Panjaitan, Simple Additive Weighting (SAW) method in Determining Beneficiaries of Foundation Benefits. Jurnal Teknologi Komputer, 13(1), 2019: 19-25.
[13] P.D. Larasati, A. Irawan, Application For Lecturer Recruitment Using Simple Additive Weighting (SAW) Method Case Study: TanriAbeng University Jakarta. Applied Information Systems and Management, 3(1), 2020: 15-20.
[14] A. Loa, B. Daniawan, Tugiman, A. Basri, Comparing SAW and CPI Method in Decisions Systems Support to Evaluate Teachers Performance. Bit-Tech, 2(3), 2020: 121-130.
[15] A. Cahyapratama, R. Sarno, Application of Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) and Simple Additive Weighting (SAW) Methods. International Conference on Information and Communications Technology, 6-7 March, 2018, Yogyakarta, Indonesia, pp.234-239.
[16] N. Dobrovolskiene, A. Pozniak, Simple Additive Weighting versus Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to an Ideal Solution: which method is better suited for assessing the sustainability of a real estate project. Entrepreneurship and Sustainability Issues, 8(4), 2021: 180-196.
[17] T.K. Biswas, S. Chaki, Applications of Modified Simple Additive Weighting Method in Manufacturing Environment. International Journal of Engineering, Transactions A: Basics, 35(4), 2022: 830-836.
[18] Z. Stevic, D. Pamucar, A. Puska, P. Chatterjee, Sustainable supplier selection in healthcare industries using a new MCDM method: Measurement Alternatives and Ranking according to COmpromise Solution (MARCOS). Computers & Industrial Engineering, 140, 2020: 106231.
[19] D.D. Trung, Multi-criteria decision making under the MARCOS method and the weighting methods: applied to milling, grinding and turning processes. Manufacturing review, 9(3), 2022: 1-13.
[20] A. Puska, I. Stojanovic, A. Maksimovic, N. Osmanovic, Project Management Software Evaluation by Using the Measurement of Alternatives and Ranking According to Compromise Solution (MARCOS) Method. Operational Research in Engineering Sciences: Theory and Applications, 3, 2020: 89-102.
[21] M. Bakır, O. Atalık, Application of Fuzzy AHP and Fuzzy MARCOS Approach for the Evaluation of E-Service Quality in the Airline Industry. Decision Making: Applications in Management and Engineering, 4(1), 2021: 127-152.
[22] M. Bakır, S. Akan, E. Ozdemir, Regional aircraft selection with fuzzy piprecia and fuzzy MARCOS: A case study of the Turkish airline industry. Facta universitatis, Series: Mechanical Engineering, 19(3), 2021:423-445.
[23] A. Mesic, S. Miskic, Z. Stevic, Z. Mastilo, Hybrid MCDM solutions for evaluation of the logistics performance index of the Western Balkan countries. Economics – Innovative and Economic Research, 10(1), 2022: 13-34.
[24] M.B. Bouraima, Z. Stevic, I. Tanackov, Y. Qiu, Assessing the performance of Sub-Saharan African (SSA) railways based on an integrated Entropy-MARCOS approach. Operational Research in Engineering Sciences: Theory and Applications, 4(2), 2021: 13-35.
[25] E. Mahmutagic, Z. Stevic, Z. Nunic, P. Chatterjee, I. Tanackov, An integrated decision-making model for efficiency analysis of the forklifts in warehousing systems. Facta universitatis, Series: Mechanical Engineering, 19(3), 2021: 537-553.
[26] R. Chattopadhyay, S. Chakraborty, S. Chakraborty, An integrated D-MARCOS method for supplier selection in an iron and steel industry. Decision Making: Applications in Management and Engineering,
3(2), 2020: 49-69.
[27] K. Maniya, M.G. Bhatt, A selection of material using a novel type decision-making method: Preference selection index method. Materials and Design, 31(4), 2010: 1785-1789.
[28] E.B. Sari, Measuring The Performances of the Machines Via Preference Selection Index (PSI) Method and Comparing Them with Values of Overall Equipment Efficiency (OEE). İzmir Journal of Economics, 34(4), 2019: 573-581.
[29] E.B. Sari, Recovery alternatives decision by using fuzzy based preference selection index method. Scientific Journal of Logistics, 16(1), 2020: 171-181.
[30] N. Arifi, P.H. Saputro, Selection Index (PSI) Method in Developing a Student Scholarship Decision Support System. International Journal of Computer and Information System, 3(1), 2022: 12-16.
[31] R. Yadav, Fabrication, characterization, and optimization selection of ceramic particulate reinforced dental restorative composite materials. Polymers and Polymer Composites, 30, 2022: 1-10.
[32] R. Attri, S. Grover, Application of preference selection index method for decision making over the design stage of production system life cycle. Journal of King Saud University – Engineering Sciences, 27(2), 2015: 207-216.
[33] R.V. Prasad, C. M. Rao, B.N. Raju, Application of Preference Selection Index (PSI) Method for the Optimization of Turning Process Parameters. International Journal of Modern Trends in Engineering & Research, 5(5), 2018: 140-144.
[34] N.H. Phan, N.N. Vu, S. Shirguppikar, N.T. Ly, N.C. Tam, B.T. Tai, L.T.P. Thanh, Multi-criteria decision making in electrical discharge machining with nickel coated aluminium electrode for titanium alloy using preferential selection index. Manufacturing review, 9(13), 2022: 1-10.
[35] D.H. Tien, D.D. Trung, N.V. Thien, N.T. Nguyen, Multi-objective optimization of the cylindrical grinding process of SCM440 steel using preference selection index method. Journal of Machine Engineering, 21(3), 2021: 110-123.
[36] G. Akyuz, S. Aka, An Alternative Approach for Manufacturing Performance Measurement: Preference Selection Index (PSI) Method. Business and Economics Research Journal, 6(1), 2015: 63-77.
[37] K. Maniya, M.G. Bhatt, A selection of material using a novel type decision-making method: Preference selection index method. Materials and Design, 31(4), 2010: 1785-1789.
[38] L.T. Sianturi, M. Mesran, E. Purba, R. Rahim, Implementation of Preference Selection Index Method In Determination of People’s Business Credit Receiver. Proceedings of the Third Workshop on Multidisciplinary and Its Applications, 11-14 December, 2019, Medan, Indonesia, pp.1-12.
[39] S.H. Sahir, J.Afriani, G. Ginting, B. Fachri, D. Siregar, R. Simbolon, L. Lindawati, M. Syarizal, S. Aisyah, M. Mesran, F. Fadlina, J. Simarmata, The Preference Selection Index Method in Determining the Location of Used Laptop Marketing. International Journal of Engineering & Technology, 7(3-4), 2018: 260-263.
[40] M. Stanujkic, D. Stanujkin, D. Karabasevic, C. Sava, G. Popovic, Comparison of tourism potentinals using preference selection index method. QUAESTUS Multidisciplinary Research Journal, 2020(16), 2020: 177-187.
[41] S. Jian, S.Ying, Preference Selection Index Method for Machine Selection in a Flexible Manufacturing Cell. MATEC Web of Conferences, 139, 2017: 00167.
[42] S. Kusumadewi, S. Hartati, A. Harjoko, R. Wardoyo, Fuzzy Multi-Attribute Decision Making (FUZZYMADM). Yogyakarta: Penerbit Graha Ilmu, 2006.
[43] (accessed: 12/12/2022)
[44] D. Ioan, G. F. Florin, M. J. Manolescu, Fuzzy Logic Is Not Fuzzy: World-renowned Computer Scientist Lotfi A. Zadeh. International Journal of Computers Communications & Control, 12(6), 2017: 748-789.
[45] D. Stanujkić, D. Karabašević, G. Popović, Ranking alternatives using PIPRECIA method: A case of hotels’website evaluation. Journal of Process Management and New Technologies, 9(3-4), 2021: 62-68.

© 2022 by the authors. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC 4.0)

Volume 3
Number 1
March 2024.



How to Cite

T. Van Huy, N. Quang Quyet, V. Huu Binh, T. Minh Hoang,  N.T. Thuy Tien, D. Thi Nga, N. Quoc Doan, P. Hoang Tu, D. Duc Trung, Multi-Criteria Decision-Making for Electric Bicycle Selection. Advanced Engineering Letters, 1(4), 2022: 126-135.

More Citation Formats

Van Huy, T., Quang Quyet, N., Huu Binh, V., Minh Hoang, T., Thuy Tien, N. T., Thi Nga, D., Quoc Doan, N., Hoang Tu, P., & Duc Trung, D. (2022). Multi-Criteria Decision-Making for Electric Bicycle Selection. Advanced Engineering Letters1(4), 126-135.

Van Huy, Trinh, et al. “Multi-Criteria Decision-Making for Electric Bicycle Selection.” Advanced Engineering Letters, vol. 1, no. 4, 2022, pp. 126-35,

Van Huy, Trinh, Nguyen Quang Quyet, Vu Huu Binh, Tran Minh Hoang, Nguyen Thi Thuy Tien, Dao Thi Nga, Nguyen Quoc Doan, Pham Hoang Tu, and Do Duc Trung. 2022. “Multi-Criteria Decision-Making for Electric Bicycle Selection.” Advanced Engineering Letters 1 (4): 126-35.

Van Huy, T., Quang Quyet, N., Huu Binh, V., Minh Hoang, T., Thuy Tien, N.T., Thi Nga, D., Quoc Doan, N., Hoang Tu, P. and Duc Trung, D. (2022). Multi-Criteria Decision-Making for Electric Bicycle Selection. Advanced Engineering Letters, 1(4), pp.126-135. doi: 10.46793/adeletters.2022.1.4.2.