An Identification of Better Engineering College with Conflicting Criteria using Adaptive TOPSIS

Full Text (PDF, 966KB), PP.19-31

Views: 0 Downloads: 0


T. Miranda Lakshmi 1,* V. Prasanna Venkatesan 2 A. Martin 3

1. Research and Development Centre, Bharathiyar University, Coimbatore, India

2. Department of Banking Technology, Pondicherry University, Puducherry, India

3. Department of MCA, Sri Manakula Vinayagar Engg. College, Puducherry, India

* Corresponding author.


Received: 9 Jan. 2016 / Revised: 5 Feb. 2016 / Accepted: 12 Mar. 2016 / Published: 8 May 2016

Index Terms

Multi Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) evaluation, TOPSIS, Adaptive TOPSIS, better engineering college, COPRAS, Rank reversal, repeated ranking


Students like to find better engineering college for their higher education. It is very challenging to find the better engineering college with conflicting criteria. In this research, the criterion such as academic reputation and achievements, infrastructure, fees structure, location, quality of the faculty, research facilities and other criterion are considered to find the better engineering college. Multi Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) is the most well known branch of decision making under the presence of conflicting criteria. TOPSIS is one of the MCDM technique widely applied to solve the problems which involves many number of criteria. In this research, TOPSIS is Adaptive and applied to find better engineering college. To evaluate the proposed methodology the parameters such as time complexity, space complexity, sensitivity analysis and rank reversal are considered. In this comparative analysis, better results are obtained for Adaptive TOPSIS compared to COPRAS.

Cite This Paper

T. Miranda Lakshmi, V. Prasanna Venkatesan, A. Martin, "An Identification of Better Engineering College with Conflicting Criteria using Adaptive TOPSIS", International Journal of Modern Education and Computer Science(IJMECS), Vol.8, No.5, pp.19-31, 2016. DOI:10.5815/ijmecs.2016.05.03


[1]Fülöp. J, “Introduction to Decision Making Methods,” pp. 1–15, 2001
[2]Athawale. V. M and Chakraborty. S, “A comparative study on the ranking performance of some multi-criteria decision-making methods for industrial robot selection,” Int. J. Ind. Eng. Comput., vol. 2, no. 4, pp. 831–850, Oct. 2011.
[3]Shih H.S, “Incremental analysis for MCDM with an application to group TOPSIS,” Eur. J. Oper. Res., vol. 186, no. 2, pp. 720–734, Apr. 2008.
[4]Lansing. E and Si. L, “A Study of Methods for Normalizing User Ratings in Collaborative Filtering.” The 27th annual international ACM SIGIR Conference, Sheffield, pp. 568-569, 2004.
[5]Anojkumar. L, Ilangkumaran. M, and Sasirekha. V, “Comparative analysis of MCDM methods for pipe material selection in sugar industry,” Expert Syst. Appl., vol. 41, no. 6, pp. 2964–2980, May 2014.
[6]Lima Junior. F. R, Osiro. L, and Carpinetti L. C. R, “A comparison between Fuzzy AHP and Fuzzy TOPSIS methods to supplier selection,” Appl. Soft Comput., vol. 21, pp. 194–209, Aug. 2014.
[7]Banwet D. K and Majumdar. A, “Comparative analysis of AHP-TOPSIS and GA-TOPSIS methods for selection of raw materials in textile industries,” pp. 2071–2080, 2014.
[8]Opricovic. S and Tzeng. G.-H, “Compromise solution by MCDM methods: A comparative analysis of VIKOR and TOPSIS,” Eur. J. Oper. Res., vol. 156, no. 2, pp. 445–455, Jul. 2004.
[9]Mela. K, Tiainen. T, and Heinisuo. M, “Comparative study of multiple criteria decision making methods for building design,” Adv. Eng. Informatics, vol. 26, no. 4, pp. 716–726, Oct. 2012.
[10]Chakraborty. S and Chatterjee. P, “Selection of materials using multi-criteria decision-making methods with minimum data,” Decis. Sci. Lett., vol. 2, pp. 135–148, Jul. 2013.
[11]Caterino. N, Iervolino. I, Manfredi. G, and Cosenza. E, “A Comparative Analysis of Decision Making Methods for the Seismic Retrofit of RC Buildings,” 2008.
[12]Behzadian. M, Otaghsara. S. K, Yazdani. M, and Ignatius. J, “Expert Systems with Applications A state-of the-art survey of TOPSIS applications,” Expert Syst. Appl., vol. 39, no. 17, pp. 13051–13069, 2012.
[13]Zavadskas. L, Kaklauskas, Sakalauskas and G. W. Weber, “Contractor selection multi-attribute model applying copras method with grey interval numbers,” 2008.
[14]Misra. S. K and A. Ray, “Comparative Study on Different Multi-Criteria Decision Making Tools in Software project selection scenario,” vol. 3, no. 4, pp. 172–178, 2012.
[15]Zavadskas E. K., A. Kaklauskas, Z. Turskis, and J. Tamosaitiene, “Selection of the effective dwelling house walls by applying attributes values determined at intervals,” J. Civ. Eng. Manag., vol.s 14, no. 2, pp. 85–93, Jan. 2008.
[16]Podvezko. V, “The Comparative Analysis of MCDA Methods,” vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 134–146, 2011.
[17]Dey, D. N. Ghosh, and A. C. Mondal, “A MCDM Approach for Evaluating Bowlers Performance in IPL,” vol. 2, no. 11, pp. 563–573, 2011.
[18]Alinezhad and Amini, “Sensitivity Analysis of TOPSIS Technique: The Results of Change in the Weight of One Attribute on the Final Ranking of Alternatives,” vol. 7, pp. 23–28, 2011.
[19]Chen, C. Liao, and L. Wu, “A Selection Model to Logistic Centers Based on TOPSIS and MCGP Methods: The Case of Airline Industry,” vol. 2014.
[20]Ying-Ming Wang and Ying Luo, "On Rank reversal in decision analysis", Mathematical and Computer Modelling, vol. 49, pp 1221-1229, March 2009.
[21]Sreenivasa Rao Basavala, Narendra Kumar, and Alok Agarrwal, "Finding Vulnerabilities in Rich Internet Applications (Flex/AS3) Using Static Techniques," International Journal of Modern Education and Computer Science (IJMECS), vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 33-39, February 2012.
[22]Miranda Lakshmi, T., Martin, A., Mumtaj Begum, R., V. Prasanna Venkatesan. "An Analysis on Performance of Decision Tree Algorithms using Student's Qualitative Data." International Journal of Modern Education & Computer Science 5, no. 5 (2013).