Decısıon makıng for car selectıon ın Vıetnam
Mid-priced cars (segment B) are attracting the attention of middle-income families in Vietnam. They often consider choosing one of three vehicles from three different manufacturers, consisting of Hyundai Accent 1.4AT, Toyota Vios 1.5G, and Honda City 1.5L. This study was carried out to rank those three cars. Twelve criteria for rating each car provided by the dealer were used. These criteria are both qualitative and quantitative, and also fall into all three types, including max, min and another (“Yes”, “No”). The importance of each criterion was determined by experts in a survey. They are all knowledgeable about cars. Two multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) methods including R (A simple ranking method for multi-attribute decision making in the industrial environment) and CURLI (Collaborative Unbiased Rank List Integration) method were applied for ranking. This is the first work that has used both methods mentioned above. The result revealed that the rank of the alternatives is the same when both the methods were used. This result gives us a certain confidence when choosing a car. Accordingly, Honda City 1.5L is ranked first. R and CURLI not only succeeded in ranking cars in this study, but also promise to be successful when used in other situations. Moreover, other criteria for evaluating the vehicle options that have not been surveyed in this study are mentioned in the last section of this paper. They need to be further considered to include in other next studies for car selection
Tapchicongthuong. Available at: https://tapchicongthuong.vn/
Năm 2020 người Việt sắm hơn 400.000 ô tô, thương hiệu nào được ưa chuộng nhất? Available at: https://thanhnien.vn/nam-2020-nguoi-viet-sam-hon-400000-o-to-thuong-hieu-nao-duoc-ua-chuong-nhat-post1272928.html
Người Việt mua sắm 410.000 ô tô trong năm 2021, xe Hàn ngày càng được ưa chuộng. Available at: https://thanhnien.vn/nguoi-viet-mua-sam-410-000-o-to-nam-2021-xe-han-ngay-cang-duoc-ua-chuong-post1420676.html
Hơn 51.000 ô tô bán ra trong tháng 4 tại Việt Nam. Available at: https://tienphong.vn/hon-51-000-o-to-ban-ra-trong-thang-4-tai-viet-nam-post1437822.tpo
Hyundai Accent: giá lăn bánh, ưu đãi (10/2022). Available at: https://giaxeoto.vn/hyundai-accent-thong-so-ky-thuat-gia-ban-320.html
Zopounidis, C., Doumpos, M. (2017). Multiple Criteria Decision Making - Applications in Management and Engineering. Springer, 211. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-39292-9
Brauers, W. K. (2004). Optimization methods for a stakeholder society. A revolution in economic thinking by multi-objective optimization. Springer. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-9178-2
Triantaphyllou, E. (2000). Multi-criteria Decision Making Methods: A Comparative Study. Springer, 290. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4757-3157-6
Kusumadewi, S., Hartati, S., Harjoko, A., Wardoyo, R. (2006). Fuzzy Multi-Attribute Decision Making (FUZZY MADM). Yogyakarta: Penerbit Graha Ilmu.
Zavadskas, E. K., Turskis, Z., Antucheviciene, J. (2012). Optimization of Weighted Aggregated Sum Product Assessment. Electronics and Electrical Engineering, 122 (6). doi: https://doi.org/10.5755/j01.eee.122.6.1810
Mufazzal, S., Muzakkir, S. M. (2018). A new multi-criterion decision making (MCDM) method based on proximity indexed value for minimizing rank reversals. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 119, 427–438. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2018.03.045
Hwang, C.-L., Lai, Y.-J., Liu, T.-Y. (1993). A new approach for multiple objective decision making. Computers & Operations Research, 20 (8), 889–899. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/0305-0548(93)90109-v
Opricovic, S., Tzeng, G.-H. (2004). Compromise solution by MCDM methods: A comparative analysis of VIKOR and TOPSIS. European Journal of Operational Research, 156 (2), 445–455. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/s0377-2217(03)00020-1
Pamučar, D., Ćirović, G. (2015). The selection of transport and handling resources in logistics centers using Multi-Attributive Border Approximation area Comparison (MABAC). Expert Systems with Applications, 42 (6), 3016–3028. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2014.11.057
Pamucar, D. S., Tarle, S. P., Parezanovic, T. (2018). New hybrid multi-criteria decision-making DEMATEL-MAIRCA model: sustainable selection of a location for the development of multimodal logistics centre. Economic Research-Ekonomska Istraživanja, 31 (1), 1641–1665. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/1331677x.2018.1506706
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 & Industrial Engineering, 140, 106231. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2019.106231
Ghorabaee, M. K., Zavadskas, E. K., Amiri, M., Antucheviciene, J. (2016). Evaluation by an Area-based Method of Ranking Interval Type-2 Fuzzy Sets (EAMRIT-2F) for Multi-criteria Group Decision-making. Transformations in Business & Economics, 15 (3), 76–95.
Ardil, C. (2020). Aircraft Selection Process Using Preference Analysis for Reference Ideal Solution (PARIS). International Journal of Aerospace and Mechanical Engineering, 14 (3), 80–90.
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. doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/math8061015
Yazdani, M., Zarate, P., Kazimieras Zavadskas, E., Turskis, Z. (2019). A combined compromise solution (CoCoSo) method for multi-criteria decision-making problems. Management Decision, 57 (9), 2501–2519. doi: https://doi.org/10.1108/md-05-2017-0458
Keshavarz-Ghorabaee, M., Zavadskas, E. K., Turskis, Z., Antucheviciene, J. (2016). A new combinative distance-based assessment (CODAS) method for multi-criteria decision-making, Economic Computation and Economic Cybernetics Studies and Research, 50 (3), 25–44.
Bairagi, B. (2022). A homogeneous group decision making for selection of robotic systems using extended TOPSIS under subjective and objective factors. Decision Making: Applications in Management and Engineering. doi: https://doi.org/10.31181/dmame0304052022b
Gorcun, O. F., Senthil, S., Küçükönder, H. (2021). Evaluation of tanker vehicle selection using a novel hybrid fuzzy MCDM technique. Decision Making: Applications in Management and Engineering, 4 (2), 140–162. doi: https://doi.org/10.31181/dmame210402140g
Kazemitash, N., Fazlollahtabar, H., Abbaspour, M. (2021). Rough Best-Worst Method for Supplier Selection in Biofuel Companies based on Green criteria. Operational Research in Engineering Sciences: Theory and Applications, 4 (2), 1–12. doi: https://doi.org/10.31181/oresta20402001k
Chattopadhyay, R., Das, P. P., Chakraborty, S. (2022). Development of a Rough-MABAC-DoE-based Metamodel for Supplier Selection in an Iron and Steel Industry. Operational Research in Engineering Sciences: Theory and Applications, 5 (1), 20–40. doi: https://doi.org/10.31181/oresta190222046c
Fazlollahtabar, H., Kazemitash, N. (2021). Green supplier selection based on the information system performance evaluation using the integrated best-worst method. Facta Universitatis, Series: Mechanical Engineering, 19 (3), 345. doi: https://doi.org/10.22190/fume201125029f
Bakır, M., Akan, Ş., Özdemir, E. (2021). Regional aircraft selection with fuzzy PIPRECIA and fuzzy marcos: a case study of the Turkish airline industry. Facta Universitatis, Series: Mechanical Engineering, 19 (3), 423. doi: https://doi.org/10.22190/fume210505053b
Aytekin, A. (2021). Comparative Analysis of the Normalization Techniques in the Context of MCDM Problems. Decision Making: Applications in Management and Engineering, 4 (2), 1–25. doi: https://doi.org/10.31181/dmame210402001a
Ersoy, N. (2020). Selecting the Best Normalization Technique for ROV Method: Towards a Real Life Application. Gazi University Journal of Science, 34 (2), 592–609. doi: https://doi.org/10.35378/gujs.767525
Palczewski, K., Sałabun, W. (2019). Influence of various normalization methods in PROMETHEE II: an empirical study on the selection of the airport location. Procedia Computer Science, 159, 2051–2060. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2019.09.378
Miranda Lakshmi, T., Prasanna Venkatesan, V. (2014). A Comparison of Various Normalization in Techniques for Order Performance by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS). International Journal of Computing Algorithm, 3 (3), 255–259. doi: https://doi.org/10.20894/ijcoa.101.003.003.023
Do, T. (2021). Application of TOPSIS an PIV Methods for Multi - Criteria Decision Making in Hard Turning Process. Journal of Machine Engineering, 21 (4), 57–71. doi: https://doi.org/10.36897/jme/142599
Gunantara, N. (2018). A review of multi-objective optimization: Methods and its applications. Cogent Engineering, 5 (1), 1502242. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/23311916.2018.1502242
Rao, R. V., Lakshmi, J. (2021). R-method: A simple ranking method for multi-attribute decision-making in the industrial environment. Journal of Project Management, 6, 223–230. doi: https://doi.org/10.5267/j.jpm.2021.5.001
Kiger, J. R., Annibale, D. J. (2016). A new method for group decision making and its application in medical trainee selection. Medical Education, 50 (10), 1045–1053. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.13112
Duc Trung, D. (2022). Multi-criteria decision making of turning operation based on PEG, PSI and CURLI methods. Manufacturing Review, 9, 9. doi: https://doi.org/10.1051/mfreview/2022007
Trung, D. D. (2022). Comparison r and curli methods for multi-criteria decision making. Advanced Engineering Letters, 1 (2), 46–56. doi: https://doi.org/10.46793/adeletters.2022.1.2.3
Pamucar, D., Bozanic, D., Randjelovic, A. (2017). Multi-criteria decision making: An example of sensitivity analysis. Serbian Journal of Management, 12 (1), 1–27. doi: https://doi.org/10.5937/sjm12-9464
👁 219 ⬇ 177
Copyright (c) 2022 Do Duc Trung, Dung Hoang Tien, Nguyen Hoai Son
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Our journal abides by the Creative Commons CC BY copyright rights and permissions for open access journals.
Authors, who are published in this journal, agree to the following conditions:
1. The authors reserve the right to authorship of the work and pass the first publication right of this work to the journal under the terms of a Creative Commons CC BY, which allows others to freely distribute the published research with the obligatory reference to the authors of the original work and the first publication of the work in this journal.
2. The authors have the right to conclude separate supplement agreements that relate to non-exclusive work distribution in the form in which it has been published by the journal (for example, to upload the work to the online storage of the journal or publish it as part of a monograph), provided that the reference to the first publication of the work in this journal is included.