Comparison of the Simple Additive Weighting (SAW) with the Technique for Others Reference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) methods

  • Authors

    • Imam Tahyudin
    • Rahman Rosyidi
    • Ansari Saleh Ahmar
    • Haviluddin .
    2018-03-05
    https://doi.org/10.14419/ijet.v7i2.2.12740
  • SAW, TOPSIS, Scholarship selection.

  • Abstract

    The purpose of this research is to compare the SAW and TOPSIS methods. This research uses data selection of education scholarship in an Indonesian public school. This research uses data from selection of education scholarship program in an Indonesian public school. The methods usage is SAW and TOPSIS methods. A comparison of the two methods using this data set demonstrates that SAW method was more accurate than TOPSIS method.

     

     

  • References

    1. [1] K. Savitha and C. Chandrasekar, "Trusted Network Selection using SAW and TOPSIS Algorithms for Heterogeneous Wire-less Networks," Int. J. Comput. Appl., vol. 26, pp. 22–29, 2011.

      [2] M. T. Chu, J. Shyu, G. H. Tzeng, and R. Khosla, "Comparison among three analytical methods for knowledge communities group-decision analysis," Expert Syst. Appl., vol. 33, pp. 1011–1024, 2007.

      [3] A. Karami and R. Johansson, "Utilization of multi attribute deci-sion making techniques to integrate automatic and manual ranking of options," J. Inf. Sci. Eng., vol. 30, pp. 519–534, 2014.

      [4] P. D. Ugo, "A Multi-Criteria Decision Making for Location Se-lection in the Niger Delta Using Fuzzy TOPSIS Approach," International Journal of Management and Business Research (IJMBR), vol. 5, pp. 215–224, 2015.

      [5] Adriyendi, "Multi-Attribute Decision Making Using Simple Additive Weighting and Weighted Product in Food Choice," I.J. Information Engineering and Electronic Business, vol. 7, pp. 8–14, 2015.

      [6] A. Awasthi, S. S. Chauhan, and S. K. Goyal, "A multi-criteria decision making approach for location planning for urban distribution centers under uncertainty," Math. Comput. Model, vol. 53, pp. 98–109, 2011.

      [7] J. Thor, S. Ding, and S. Kamaruddin, "Comparison of Multi Cri-teria Decision Making Methods from the Maintenance Alter-native Selection Perspective," Int. J. Eng. Sci., vol. 2, pp. 27–34, 2013.

      [8] T. Y. Chen, "Comparative analysis of SAW and TOPSIS based on interval-valued fuzzy sets: Discussions on score functions and weight constraints," Expert Syst. Appl., vol. 39, pp. 1848–1861, 2012.

      [9] A. Afshari, M. Mojahed, and R. Yusuff, "Simple additive weighting approach to personnel selection problem," Int. J. In-nov. Manag. Technol., vol. 1, pp. 511–515, 2010.

  • Downloads

  • How to Cite

    Tahyudin, I., Rosyidi, R., Saleh Ahmar, A., & ., H. (2018). Comparison of the Simple Additive Weighting (SAW) with the Technique for Others Reference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) methods. International Journal of Engineering & Technology, 7(2.2), 87-89. https://doi.org/10.14419/ijet.v7i2.2.12740

    Received date: 2018-05-12

    Accepted date: 2018-05-12

    Published date: 2018-03-05