ISSN (Online): 2812-9709
Journal Menu
Archive
Last Edition
Vol.4, No.3, 2025: pp.118-133
A novel approach for criteria weighting to enhance ranking stability of alternatives for industrial equipment and material selection
Authors:
Bui Thi Thu Trang1
, Do Duc Trung2
, Raul Turmanidze3
1Hanoi University of Industry, Faculty of Chemical Technology, Hanoi, Vietnam
2Hanoi University of Industry, School of Mechanical and Automotive Engineering, Hanoi, Vietnam
3Georgian Technical University (GTU), Department of Production Technologies of Mechanical Engineering,
Tbilisi, Georgia
Received: 3 May 2025
Revised: 6 August 2025
Accepted: 27 August 2025
Available: 30 September 2025
Abstract:
Ranking industrial equipment and materials constitutes a significant and intricate task due to the necessity of considering multiple, sometimes conflicting, criteria. Consequently, this ranking process is regarded as a multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) problem. Within MCDM problems, the determination of criteria weights holds paramount importance. These weights significantly influence the ranking stability of alternatives when evaluated using various MCDM methodologies. Each weighting method, whether it is subjective or objective, has specific advantages and limitations. This study was conducted to propose a new method for determining criteria weights, named the MEREC-ROC method. The weighting calculation process for the criteria using the MEREC-ROC method is carried out in two stages. First, the objective weights of the criteria are calculated using the MEREC method to determine the priority order of the criteria. This priority order is then utilized to calculate the subjective criteria weights using the ROC method. To compare the MEREC-ROC method with the MEREC method, four different case studies related to the ranking of industrial equipment and materials were performed. The results show that using the MEREC-ROC method to determine criteria weights ensures higher stability in the ranking of alternatives when different MCDM methods are applied, compared to using the MEREC method alone. The sensitivity analysis conducted for all four cases further demonstrates the superiority of the MEREC-ROC method over the MEREC method. The limitations of this research and directions for future studies are also discussed in the final section of this paper.
Keywords:
MCDM, Weight method, MEREC-ROC method, Industrial equipment and material ranking, Development, Maintenance
References:
[1] S. Zakeri, P. Chatterjee, D. Konstantas, F. Ecer, A decision analysis model for material selection using simple ranking process. Scientific Reports, 13, 2023: 8631. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-35405-z
[2] H. Li, W. Wang, L. Fan, Q. Li, X. Chen, A novel hybrid MCDM model for machine tool selection using fuzzy DEMATEL, entropy weighting and later defuzzification VIKOR. Applied Soft Computing, 91, 2020: 10620.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2020.106207
[3] A.S. Eisa, M. Fattouh, Hybrid MCDM Model of ARAS-TOPSIS–GRA for Materials Selection Problem. Journal of Engineering Research, 7(2), 2023: 1. https://digitalcommons.aaru.edu.jo/erjeng/vol7/iss2/1
[4] S. Simić, M. Milošević, B. Kosec, D. Božić, D. Lukić, Application of the multicriteria decision-making for selecting optimal maintenance strategy. Advanced Engineering Letters, 2(4), 2023: 151-160. https://doi.org/10.46793/adeletters.2023.2.4.3
[5] A. Ulutaş, F. Balo, L. Sua, E. Demir, A. Topal, V. Jakovljević, A new integrated grey MCDM model: Case of warehouse location selection. Facta Universitatis – Mechanical Engineering, 19(3), 2021: 515–535.
https://doi.org/10.22190/FUME210424060U
[6] Y. Dorfeshan, R. Tavakkoli-Moghaddam, F. Jolai, S.M. Mousavi, A new grey decision model-based reference point method for decision makers and criteria’s weight, and final ranking. Journal of Industrial and Systems Engineering, 14(2), 2022: 284-297.
[7] A. Puška, J. Bosna, I. Stojanović, Application of new method evaluation by distance from ideal solution of alternatives in the assessment of electric vehicles. Advanced Engineering Letters, 4(2), 2025: 92-103.
https://doi.org/10.46793/adeletters.2025.4.2.5
[8] J. Shao, S. Zhong, M. Tian, Y. Liu, Combining fuzzy MCDM with Kano model and FMEA: a novel 3-phase MCDM method for reliable assessment. Annals of Operations Research, 342(224), 2024: 725–765. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-024-05878-w
[9] S.H. Zolfani, R. Bazrafshan, P. Akaberi, M. Yazdani, F. Ecer, Combining the Suitability Feasibility Acceptability (SFA) strategy with the MCDM approach. Facta Universitatis – Mechanical Engineering, 19(3), 2021: 579–600.
https://doi.org/10.22190/FUME210711062Z
[10] N. Yalçin, N. Uncu, Applying EDAS as an applicable MCDM method for industrial robot selection. Sigma Journal of Engineering and Natural Sciences, 37(3), 2019: 779-796.
[11] M. Baydaş, Comparison of the Performances of MCDM Methods under Uncertainty: An Analysis on Bist SME Industry Index. Opus–Journal of Society Research, 19(46), 2022: 308-326. https://doi.org/10.26466//opusjsr.1064280
[12] M. Şahin, A comprehensive analysis of weighting and multicriteria methods in the context of sustainable energy. International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology, 18, 2020: 1591-1916. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13762-020-02922-7
[13] A. Ozdagoglu, M.K. Keleş, A. Altinata, A. Ulutaş, Combining different MCDM methods with the COPELAND method: An investigation on motorcycle selection. Journal of Process Management and New Technologies, 9(3-4), 2021: 13-27. https://doi.org/10.5937/jouproman2103013O
[14] B. Bepari, B. Bairagi, H.S. Das, G. Roymahapatra, De-Novo Approach in Rank Agglomeration in Multi Criteria Decision Making for Materials Selection. ES General, 7, 2025: 1353. https://dx.doi.org/10.30919/esg1353
[15] T.V. Dua, PSI-SAW and PSI-MARCOS Hybrid MCDM Methods. Engineering, Technology & Applied Science Research, 14(4), 2024: 15963-15968. https://doi.org/10.48084/etasr.7992
[16] V. Podvezko, E.K. Zavadskas, A. Podviezko, An extension of the new objective weight assessment methods CILOS and IDOCRIW to fuzzy MCDM. Economic Computation and Economic Cybernetics Studies and Research, 2020(2), 2020: 59-75. https://doi.org/10.24818/18423264/54.2.20.04
[17] C.–T. Chen, A. Ova, W.–Z. Hung, An MCDM Method with Dynamic Weights for Investment Project Selection. Economic Computation and Economic Cybernetics Studies and Research, 58(2), 2024: 116-131.
https://doi.org/10.24818/18423264/58.2.24.07
[18] M. Polatgil, A. Güler, The use of Different Criteria Weighting and Multi-Criteria Decision Making Methods for University Ranking: Two-Layer Copeland. Journal of University Research, 7(1), 2024: 60-73. https://doi.org/10.32329/uad.1398302
[19] D. Pamucar, Ž. Stevic, S. Sremac, A New Model for Determining Weight Coefficients of Criteria in MCDM Models: Full Consistency Method (FUCOM). Symmetry, 10, 2018: 393. https://doi.org/10.3390/sym10090393
[20] A.D.A. Mandil, M.M. Salih, Y.R. Muhsen, Opinion Weight Criteria Method (OWCM): A New Method for Weighting Criteria with Zero Inconsistency. IEEE Access, 12, 2024: 5605-5616. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2024.3349472
[21] S. Foong, An MCDM framework using combined compromise solution and integrated weighting method: Optimizing sustainable energy options. Journal of Quality Measurement and Analysis, 21(1), 2025: 43-67.
https://doi.org/10.17576/jqma.2101.2025.03
[22] F. Jia, X. Wang, Rough-Number-Based Multiple-Criteria Group Decision-Making Method by Combining the BWM and Prospect Theory. Mathematical Problems in Engineering, 2020(1), 2020: 8738327. https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/8738327
[23] R. Kumar, S. Singh, P.S. Bilga, Jatin, J. Singh, S. Singh, M.L. Scutaru, C.A.L. Pruncu, Revealing the benefits of entropy weights method for multi-objective optimization in machining operations: A critical review. Journal of Materials Research and Technology, 10, 2021: 1471-1492. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmrt.2020.12.114
[24] T.V. Dua, D.V. Duc, N.C. Bao, D.D. Trung, Integration of objective weighting methods for criteria and MCDM methods: application in material selection. EUREKA: Physics and Engineering, 2024(2), 2024: 131–148. https://doi.org/10.21303/2461-4262.2024.003171
[25] I.Z. Mukhametzyanov, Specific character of objective methods for determining weights of criteria in MCDM problems: Entropy, CRITIC, SD. Decision Making: Applications in Management and Engineering, 4(2), 2021: 76-105.
https://doi.org/10.31181/dmame210402076i
[26] A. El-Araby, I. Sabry, A. El-Assal, A comparative study of using MCDM methods integrated with entropy weight method for evaluating facility location problem. Operational Research in Engineering Sciences: Theory and Applications, 5(1), 2022: 121-138. https://doi.org/10.31181/oresta250322151a
[27] N.T.D. Linh, N.H. Son, D.X. Thao, Evaluating the Impact of Weighting Methods on the Stability of Scores for Alternatives in Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Problems. Engineering, Technology & Applied Science Research, 15(1), 2025: 19998-20004. https://doi.org/10.48084/etasr.9518
[28] R.K. Dhurkari, MCDM methods: Practical difficulties and future directions for improvement. RAIRO Operations Research, 56, 2022: 2221–2233. https://doi.org/10.1051/ro/2022060
[29] M. Cebesoy, C.T. Sakar, B. Yet, Multicriteria decision support under uncertainty: combining outranking methods with Bayesian networks. Annals of Operations Research, 2024. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-024-06064-8
[30] G.O. Odu, Weighting Methods for Multi-Criteria Decision Making Technique. Journal of Applied Sciences and Environmental Management, 23(8), 2019: 1449-1457. https://dx.doi.org/10.4314/jasem.v23i8.7
[31] H. Sulistiani, Setiawansyah, A.F.O. Pasaribu, P. Palupiningsih, K. Anwar, V.H. Saputra, New TOPSIS: Modification of the TOPSIS Method for Objective Determination of Weighting. International Journal of Intelligent Engineering and Systems, 17(5), 2024: 991-1003. https://doi.org/10.22266/ijies2024.1031.74
[32] R. Nuraini, D. Alamsyah, R.S. Septarini, A.A.J. Sinlae, Completion of Multi-Criteria Decision Making Using the Weighted Product Method on the Server Maintenance Vendor Selection System. Jurnal Teknik Informatika C.I.T Medicom, 14(1), 2022: 27-35. https://doi.org/10.35335/cit.Vol14.2022.247.pp27-35
[33] R.M.X. Wu, Y. Wang, Which Objective Weight Method Is Better: PCA or Entropy?. Scientific Journal of Research and Reviews, 3(3), 2022: 1-3. https://doi.org/10.33552/SJRR.2022.03.000558
[34] H. Zhao, Y. Wang, S. Guo, A hybrid MCDM model combining Fuzzy Delphi, AEW, BWM, and MARCOS for digital economy development comprehensive evaluation of 31 provincial level regions in China. PLOS One, 2023: 1-31.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0283655
[35] Z. Langović, B. Pažun, Ž. Grujčić, M. Nikolić, A.L. Milićević, D. Ugrinov, MCDM Approach Combining DEA and AHP Methods in Sustainable Tourism: Case of Serbia. Journal of Scientific & Industrial Research, 84, 2025: 183-195.
https://doi.org/10.56042/jsir.v84i02.8163
[36] R. Al-Aomar, A combined AHP-ENTROPY method for deriving subjective and objective criteria weights. International Journal of Industrial Engineering, 17(1), 2010: 12-24.
[37] D. Kacprzak, A new extension of the EDAS method in a fuzzy environment for group decision-making. Decision, 51, 2024: 263-277. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40622-024-00396-x
[38] I. Vinogradova, V. Podvezko, E.K. Zavadskas, The Recalculation of the Weights of Criteria in MCDM Methods Using the Bayes Approach. Symmetry, 10(6), 2018: 205. https://doi.org/10.3390/sym10060205
[39] E.K. Zavadskas, V. Podvezko, Integrated determination of objective criteria weights in MCDM. International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making, 15(2), 2016: 267-283. https://doi.org/10.1142/S0219622016500036
[40] M.O. Esangbedo, J. Xue, S. Bai, C.O. Esangbedo, Relaxed Rank Order Centroid Weighting MCDM Method With Improved Grey Relational Analysis for Subcontractor Selection: Photothermal Power Station Construction. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 71, 2024: 3044-3061. https://doi.org/10.1109/TEM.2022.3204629
[41] T. Varshney, A.V. Waghmare, V.P. Singh, M. Ramu, N. Patnana, V.P. Meena, A.T. Azar, I.A. Hameed, Investigation of rank order centroid method for optimal generation control. Scientific Reports, 14, 2024: 11267. [https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-61945-z](https://doi.org/
© 2025 by the authors. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC 4.0)
Volume 4
Number 4
December 2025.
How to Cite
B.T.T. Trang, D.D. Trung, R. Turmanidze, A Novel Approach for Criteria Weighting to Enhance Ranking Stability of Alternatives for Industrial Equipment and Material Selection. Advanced Engineering Letters, 4(3), 2025: 118-133.
https://doi.org/10.46793/adeletters.2025.4.3.2
More Citation Formats
Trang, B.T.T., Trung, D.D., & Turmanidze, R. (2025). A Novel Approach for Criteria Weighting to Enhance Ranking Stability of Alternatives for Industrial Equipment and Material Selection. Advanced Engineering Letters, 4(3), 118-133.
https://doi.org/10.46793/adeletters.2025.4.3.2
Trang, Bui Thi Thu, et al. “A Novel Approach for Criteria Weighting to Enhance Ranking Stability of Alternatives for Industrial Equipment and Material Selection.“ Advanced Engineering Letters, vol. 4, no. 3, 2025, pp. 118-133.
https://doi.org/10.46793/adeletters.2025.4.3.2
Trang, Bui Thi Thu, Do Duc Trung, and Raul Turmanidze. 2025. “A Novel Approach for Criteria Weighting to Enhance Ranking Stability of Alternatives for Industrial Equipment and Material Selection.“ Advanced Engineering Letters, 4 (3): 118-133.
https://doi.org/10.46793/adeletters.2025.4.3.2
Trang, B.T.T., Trung, D.D. and Turmanidze, R. (2025). A Novel Approach for Criteria Weighting to Enhance Ranking Stability of Alternatives for Industrial Equipment and Material Selection. Advanced Engineering Letters, 4(3), pp. 118-133.
doi: 10.46793/adeletters.2025.4.3.2.