International Journal of Intelligent Systems and Applications (IJISA)
IJISA Vol. 18, No. 5, 8 Oct. 2026
Cover page and Table of Contents: PDF (size: 900KB)
Enhancing Decision Accuracy with MONAS: A Multi-Objective Hybrid Normalization Approach for Ideal Solution Ranking
PDF (900KB), PP.54-73
Views: 0 Downloads: 0
Author(s)
Setiawansyah Setiawansyah
1,*
Ryan Randy Suryono
2
Yuri Rahmanto
3
Junhai Wang
4
Sumanto Sumanto
5
Riska Aryanti
5
Refiesta Ratu Anderha
6
Index Terms
Alternative Evaluation, Hybrid Normalization, Ideal Solution, MCDM, MONAS Framework
Abstract
Multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) often faces challenges in dealing with data with different scales and units, as well as ensuring the stability of ranking results against changes in criterion weights. This article proposes a new framework called multi-objective hybrid normalization for ideal solution-based alternative ranking (MONAS) that integrates hybrid normalization techniques and ideal solution approaches to improve the accuracy and consistency of alternative rankings. Weight uncertainty in MCDM reflects the variability or ambiguity in determining the relative importance among criteria, which can affect the stability and reliability of the final decision outcomes; however, this condition can be minimized through the MONAS approach, which adaptively integrates multi-objective normalization, thereby balancing the influence among criteria and improving the consistency of ranking results. The normalization hybrid used in this study combines three approaches: min-max normalization, vector normalization, and sum normalization. These are integrated by calculating the average of the results of these three normalization methods for each data value.
The data domain used in the MONAS method for evaluating supplier performance includes seven alternatives and six assessment criteria. These criteria represent a combination of benefit and cost attributes, with value distributions that vary across them. Experimental results show that MONAS is capable of producing more reliable rankings that are resilient to data uncertainty compared to conventional methods. Testing results using 10 popular MCDM methods indicate that MONAS can provide more stable and reliable alternative rankings compared to those conventional methods. This framework offers effective and adaptive solutions for various complex decision-making applications across different domains, thereby improving the quality and trust in the decision-making process.
Cite This Paper
Setiawansyah Setiawansyah, Ryan Randy Suryono, Yuri Rahmanto, Junhai Wang, Sumanto Sumanto, Riska Aryanti, Refiesta Ratu Anderha, "Enhancing Decision Accuracy with MONAS: A Multi-Objective Hybrid Normalization Approach for Ideal Solution Ranking", International Journal of Intelligent Systems and Applications (IJISA), Vol. 18, No. 5, pp.54-73, 2026. DOI:10.5815/ijisa.2026.05.04
Reference
[1]K. Kara, G. C. Yalçın, V. Simic, Z. Baysal, and D. Pamucar, “The alternative ranking using two-step logarithmic normalization method for benchmarking the supply chain performance of countries,” Socioecon. Plann. Sci., vol. 92, p. 101822, 2024, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seps.2024.101822.
[2]N.-T. Tran, “Application of the multi-criteria analysis method mairca, spotis, comet for the optimisation of sustainable electricity technology development,” EUREKA Phys. Eng., no. 1 SE-Mathematics, pp. 180–188, Jan. 2024, doi: 10.21303/2461-4262.2024.003133.
[3]A. Elsayed, “TrS-RAM:Leveraging Novel MCDM Techniques for Evaluating Sustainability of Fuel Cell Vehicles Based on Tree Soft Technique,” HyperSoft Set Methods Eng., vol. 1, pp. 46–58, Jan. 2024, doi: 10.61356/j.hsse.2024.18450.
[4]B. Ezell, C. J. Lynch, and P. T. Hester, “Methods for Weighting Decisions to Assist Modelers and Decision Analysts: A Review of Ratio Assignment and Approximate Techniques,” Applied Sciences, vol. 11, no. 21. 2021. doi: 10.3390/app112110397.
[5]T. Van Dua and D. D. Trung, “MEPSI (Mutriss Enhanced Preference Selection Index): a novel method for ranking alternatives,” EUREKA Phys. Eng., no. 6 SE-Mathematics, pp. 169–178, Nov. 2024, doi: 10.21303/2461-4262.2024.003408.
[6]F. Mizrak, K. C. Mizrak, and G. R. Akkartal, “Developing a strategic framework for airline destination selection: A multi-criteria decision-making approach applied to Turkish airlines,” Transp. Res. Interdiscip. Perspect., vol. 29, p. 101322, 2025, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trip.2025.101322.
[7]M. R. Pooya, A. Hasankhani, S. Fathololomi, and M. Karimi Firozjaei, “A Spatial Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Approach to Evaluating Homogeneous Areas for Rainfed Wheat Yield Assessment,” Water, vol. 17, no. 7. 2025. doi: 10.3390/w17071045.
[8]D. Štreimikienė, A. Bathaei, and J. Streimikis, “Enhancing Sustainable Global Supply Chain Performance: A Multi-Criteria Decision-Making-Based Approach to Industry 4.0 and AI Integration,” Sustainability, vol. 17, no. 10. 2025. doi: 10.3390/su17104453.
[9]M. N. Dwi Satria, E. R. Susanto, Setiawansyah, S. Maryana, and P. Palupiningsih, “Modification of Grey Relational Analysis for Dynamic Criteria Weighting in Decision-Making Systems,” IIUM Eng. J., vol. 26, no. 2 SE-Electrical, Computer and Communications Engineering, pp. 187–203, May 2025, doi: 10.31436/iiumej.v26i2.3494.
[10]V. Rajput, R. Soni, A. Jha, and A. Agrawal, “Ranking of epoxy/Kota stone dust composite by MCDM approach using hybrid AHP-MOORA methods,” MATEC Web Conf., vol. 393, p. 01006, Mar. 2024, doi: 10.1051/matecconf/202439301006.
[11]J. Feng, Y. Yan, M. Huang, Y. Du, Z. Lu, and B. Li, “A Study on The Multi-Attribute Decision Theory and Methods,” Procedia Comput. Sci., vol. 214, pp. 544–551, 2022, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2022.11.210.
[12]S. K. Sahoo, S. S. Goswami, and R. Halder, “Supplier Selection in the Age of Industry 4.0: A Review on MCDM Applications and Trends,” Decis. Mak. Adv., vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 32–47, Jan. 2024, doi: 10.31181/dma21202420.
[13]M. Anjum, H. Min, and Z. Ahmed, “Healthcare Waste Management through Multi-Stage Decision-Making for Sustainability Enhancement,” Sustainability, vol. 16, no. 11. 2024. doi: 10.3390/su16114872.
[14]M. S. Saidin, L. S. Lee, S. M. Marjugi, M. Z. Ahmad, and H.-V. Seow, “Fuzzy Method Based on the Removal Effects of Criteria (MEREC) for Determining Objective Weights in Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Problems,” Mathematics, vol. 11, no. 6, p. 1544, Mar. 2023, doi: 10.3390/math11061544.
[15]M. Z. Hoque, A. Keskinarkaus, P. Nyberg, and T. Seppänen, “Stain normalization methods for histopathology image analysis: A comprehensive review and experimental comparison,” Inf. Fusion, vol. 102, p. 101997, 2024, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.inffus.2023.101997.
[16]J. C. Pena, G. Nápoles, and Y. Salgueiro, “Normalization method for quantitative and qualitative attributes in multiple attribute decision-making problems,” Expert Syst. Appl., vol. 198, p. 116821, 2022, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2022.116821.
[17]L. Huang, J. Qin, Y. Zhou, F. Zhu, L. Liu, and L. Shao, “Normalization Techniques in Training DNNs: Methodology, Analysis and Application,” IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell., vol. 45, no. 8, pp. 10173–10196, 2023, doi: 10.1109/TPAMI.2023.3250241.
[18]M. O. Esangbedo and J. Wei, “Grey hybrid normalization with period based entropy weighting and relational analysis for cities rankings,” Sci. Rep., vol. 13, no. 1, p. 13797, 2023, doi: 10.1038/s41598-023-40954-4.
[19]X. Zhou, R. Zhang, K. Yang, C. Yang, and T. Huang, “Using hybrid normalization technique and state transition algorithm to VIKOR method for influence maximization problem,” Neurocomputing, vol. 410, pp. 41–50, 2020, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neucom.2020.05.084.
[20]J. Xu, J. Huang, J. Zhao, and J. Yang, “HyNCF: A hybrid normalization strategy via feature statistics for collaborative filtering,” Expert Syst. Appl., vol. 238, p. 121875, 2024, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2023.121875.
[21]Z. Zhai, J. F. Martínez, V. Beltran, and N. L. Martínez, “Decision support systems for agriculture 4.0: Survey and challenges,” Comput. Electron. Agric., vol. 170, p. 105256, Mar. 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.compag.2020.105256.
[22]P. Liu, T. Zhang, F. Tian, Y. Teng, and M. Yang, “Optimized Grid Partitioning and Scheduling in Multi-Energy Systems Using a Hybrid Decision-Making Approach,” Energies, vol. 17, no. 13. 2024. doi: 10.3390/en17133253.
[23]Y. Yun, D. Ma, and M. Yang, “Human–computer interaction-based decision support system with applications in data mining,” Futur. Gener. Comput. Syst., vol. 114, pp. 285–289, 2021, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.future.2020.07.048.
[24]N. Hendrastuty, M. G. Ar’nars, Setiawansyah, Mesran, T. A. Putra, and M. W. Arshad, “Decision Support System in Teacher Pedagogy Assessment Using MAIRCA with Geometric Mean Weighting,” in 2024 International Conference on Informatics, Multimedia, Cyber and Information System (ICIMCIS), 2024, pp. 265–270. doi: 10.1109/ICIMCIS63449.2024.10957630.
[25]P. Kut and K. Pietrucha-Urbanik, “Bibliometric Analysis of Multi-Criteria Decision-Making (MCDM) Methods in Environmental and Energy Engineering Using CiteSpace Software: Identification of Key Research Trends and Patterns of International Cooperation,” Energies, vol. 17, no. 16. 2024. doi: 10.3390/en17163941.
[26]H. Komasi, S. H. Zolfani, and A. Nemati, “Evaluation of the social-cultural competitiveness of cities based on sustainable development approach,” Decis. Mak. Appl. Manag. Eng., vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 583–602, Apr. 2023, doi: 10.31181/dmame06012023k.
[27]F. Sevim and E. U. Aldogan, “Evaluation of Health Systems Performance of OECD Countries Using MOORA Method,” J. Health Manag., vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 172–183, Jan. 2024, doi: 10.1177/09720634231215131.
[28]K. Aliyeva, A. Aliyeva, R. Aliyev, and M. Özdeşer, “Application of Fuzzy Simple Additive Weighting Method in Group Decision-Making for Capital Investment,” Axioms, vol. 12, no. 8. 2023. doi: 10.3390/axioms12080797.
[29]H. T. Dung, D. T. Do, and V. T. Nguyen, “Comparison of Multi-Criteria Decision Making Methods Using The Same Data Standardization Method,” Strojnícky časopis - J. Mech. Eng., vol. 72, no. 2, pp. 57–72, Nov. 2022, doi: 10.2478/scjme-2022-0016.
[30]H. Sulistiani, S. Setiawansyah, A. F. O. Pasaribu, P. Palupiningsih, K. Anwar, and V. H. Saputra, “New TOPSIS: Modification of the TOPSIS Method for Objective Determination of Weighting,” Int. J. Intell. Eng. Syst., vol. 17, no. 5, pp. 991–1003, Oct. 2024, doi: 10.22266/ijies2024.1031.74.