Decısıon makıng for car selectıon ın Vıetnam

Keywords: Multi Criteria Decision Making, B-segment car selection, R method, CURLI method


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


Download data is not yet available.

Author Biographies

Do Duc Trung, Hanoi University of Industry

Faculty of Mechanical Engineering

Dung Hoang Tien, Hanoi University of Industry

Faculty of Mechanical Engineering

Nguyen Hoai Son, Hanoi University of Industry

Faculty of Mechanical Engineering


Tapchicongthuong. Available at:

Năm 2020 người Việt sắm hơn 400.000 ô tô, thương hiệu nào được ưa chuộng nhất? Available at:

Người Việt mua sắm 410.000 ô tô trong năm 2021, xe Hàn ngày càng được ưa chuộng. Available at:

Hơn 51.000 ô tô bán ra trong tháng 4 tại Việt Nam. Available at:

Hyundai Accent: giá lăn bánh, ưu đãi (10/2022). Available at:

Zopounidis, C., Doumpos, M. (2017). Multiple Criteria Decision Making - Applications in Management and Engineering. Springer, 211. doi:

Brauers, W. K. (2004). Optimization methods for a stakeholder society. A revolution in economic thinking by multi-objective optimization. Springer. doi:

Triantaphyllou, E. (2000). Multi-criteria Decision Making Methods: A Comparative Study. Springer, 290. doi:

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:

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:

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:

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:

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:

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:

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:

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:

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:

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:

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:

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:

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:

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:

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:

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:

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:

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:

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:

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:

Gunantara, N. (2018). A review of multi-objective optimization: Methods and its applications. Cogent Engineering, 5 (1), 1502242. doi:

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:

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:

Duc Trung, D. (2022). Multi-criteria decision making of turning operation based on PEG, PSI and CURLI methods. Manufacturing Review, 9, 9. doi:

Trung, D. D. (2022). Comparison r and curli methods for multi-criteria decision making. Advanced Engineering Letters, 1 (2), 46–56. doi:

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:

Decısıon makıng for car selectıon ın Vıetnam

👁 219
⬇ 177
How to Cite
Trung, D. D., Tien, D. H., & Son, N. H. (2022). Decısıon makıng for car selectıon ın Vıetnam. EUREKA: Physics and Engineering, (6), 139-150.

Most read articles by the same author(s)