Document Type : Research Paper


Department of Mechanical Engineering, Benham University, Benha, Egypt.


Multiple Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) methods are used widely by researchers to make decisions in the presence of numerous criteria. It is essential to make the right decision for the most of engineering applications which makes the decision-making process more complex and requires further analysis. A major issue of MCDM methods that they suffer from the Rank Reversal Phenomenon (RRP). Another drawback to MCDM methods that they produce different ranking when evaluating the same problem. Thus, researcher tend to develop new methods to overcome these problems. This paper explores the applicability of a new MCDM approach namely Measurement Alternatives and Ranking according to Compromise Solution (MARCOS) by solving four different engineering problems. The results of MARCOS method are analyzed throughout a comparison with the results of other MCDM methods. The rank reversal test is explored for each problem to check the robustness of the method. The two phases of analysis indicate that the method is robust and applicable for different types of engineering applications.


Main Subjects

[1]     Triantaphyllou, E., Shu, B., Sanchez, S. N., & Ray, T. (1998). Multi-criteria decision making: an operations research approach. Encyclopedia of electrical and electronics engineering, 15(1998), 175–186.
[2]     Lootsma, F. A. (1990). The French and the American school in multi-criteria decision analysis. RAIRO-operations research, 24(3), 263–285.
[3]     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.
[4]     Voogd, H. (1982). Multicriteria evaluation with mixed qualitative and quantitative data. Environment and planning b: planning and design, 9(2), 221–236.
[5]     Aires, R. F. D. F., & Ferreira, L. (2018). The rank reversal problem in multi-criteria decision making: a literature review. Pesquisa operacional, 38, 331–362.
[6]     Saaty, T. L. (1988). What is the analytic hierarchy process? In Mathematical models for decision support (pp. 109–121). Springer.
[7]     Hwang, C. L., & Yoon, K. (1981). Methods for multiple attribute decision making. In Multiple attribute decision making (pp. 58–191). Springer.
[8]     Kuo, Y., Yang, T., & Huang, G. W. (2008). The use of grey relational analysis in solving multiple attribute decision-making problems. Computers & industrial engineering, 55(1), 80–93.
[9]     Brans, J. P., & De Smet, Y. (2016). PROMETHEE methods. In Multiple criteria decision analysis (pp. 187–219). Springer.
[10]   Tzeng, G. H., & Huang, J. J. (2011). Multiple attribute decision making: methods and applications. CRC Press.
[11]   Fishburn, P. C. (1967). Additive utilities with incomplete product sets: Application to priorities and assignments. Operations research, 15(3), 537–542.
[12]   Yazdani, M., Zarate, P., Zavadskas, E. K., & Turskis, Z. (2018). A combined compromise solution (CoCoSo) method for multi-criteria decision-making problems. Management decision, 57(9), 2501-2519.
[13]   Žižović, M., Pamučar, D., Albijanić, M., Chatterjee, P., & Pribićević, I. (2020). Eliminating rank reversal problem using a new multi-attribute model—The RAFSI method. Mathematics, 8(6), 1015.
[14]   Torkayesh, A. E., & Deveci, M. (2021). A multi-normalization multi-distance assessment (TRUST) approach for locating a battery swapping station for electric scooters. Sustainable cities and society, 74, 103243.
[15]   Pamucar, D., Žižović, M., Biswas, S., & Božanić, D. (2021). A new logarithm methodology of additive weights (LMAW) for multi-criteria decision-making: Application in logistics. Facta universitatis, series: mechanical engineering, 2021.
[16]   Stević, Ž., Pamučar, D., Puška, A., & Chatterjee, P. (2020). Sustainable supplier selection in healthcare industries using a new MCDM method: Measurement of alternatives and ranking according to COmpromise solution (MARCOS). Computers and industrial engineering, 140, 106231. DOI:10.1016/j.cie.2019.106231
[17]   Chakraborty, S., Zavadskas, E. K., & Antucheviciene, J. (2015). Applications of WASPAS method as a multi-criteria decision-making tool. Economic computation and economic cybernetics studies and research, 49(1), 5–22.
[18]   Chakraborty, S. (2011). Applications of the MOORA method for decision making in manufacturing environment. The international journal of advanced manufacturing technology, 54(9), 1155–1166.
[19]   El-Araby, A., Sabry, I., & El-Assal, A. (2022). 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), 121–138.
[20]   Chakraborty, S., Chattopadhyay, R., & Chakraborty, S. (2020). An integrated D-MARCOS method for supplier selection in an iron and steel industry. Decision making: applications in management and engineering, 3(2), 49–69.
[21]   Badi, I., & Pamucar, D. (2020). Supplier selection for steelmaking company by using combined Grey-MARCOS methods. Decision making: applications in management and engineering, 3(2), 37–48.
[22]   Stević, Ž., & Brković, N. (2020). A novel integrated FUCOM-MARCOS model for evaluation of human resources in a transport company. Logistics, 4(1), 4.
[23]   Stanković, M., Stević, Ž., Das, D. K., Subotić, M., & Pamučar, D. (2020). A new fuzzy MARCOS method for road traffic risk analysis. Mathematics, 8(3), 457.
[24]   Torkayesh, A. E., Zolfani, S. H., Kahvand, M., & Khazaelpour, P. (2021). Landfill location selection for healthcare waste of urban areas using hybrid BWM-grey MARCOS model based on GIS. Sustainable cities and society, 67, 102712.
[25]   Miškić, S., Stević, Ž., & Tanackov, I. (2021). A novel integrated SWARA-MARCOS model for inventory classification. International journal of industrial engineering & production research, 32(4), 1–17.
[26]   Karaaslan, A., Adar, T., & Delice, E. K. (2022). Regional evaluation of renewable energy sources in Turkey by new integrated AHP-MARCOS methodology: a real application. International journal of sustainable energy, 41(2), 103–125.
[27]   Bhangale, P. P., Agrawal, V. P., & Saha, S. K. (2004). Attribute based specification, comparison and selection of a robot. Mechanism and machine theory, 39(12), 1345–1366.
[28]   Rao, R. V. (2007). Decision making in the manufacturing environment: using graph theory and fuzzy multiple attribute decision making methods (Vol. 2). Springer.
[29]   Milani, A. S., Shanian, A., Madoliat, R., & Nemes, J. A. (2005). The effect of normalization norms in multiple attribute decision making models: a case study in gear material selection. Structural and multidisciplinary optimization, 29(4), 312–318.
[30]   Chatterjee, P., & Chakraborty, S. (2012). Material selection using preferential ranking methods. Materials & design, 35, 384–393.
[31]   Yang, L., Deuse, J., & Jiang, P. (2013). Multiple-attribute decision-making approach for an energy-efficient facility layout design. The international journal of advanced manufacturing technology, 66(5), 795–807.
[32]   Fazlollahtabar, H., Smailbašić, A., & Stević, Ž. (2019). FUCOM method in group decision-making: Selection of forklift in a warehouse. Decision making: applications in management and engineering, 2(1), 49–65.