Enhanced Root Assessment Method for Multi-Criteria Decision Making: An Improved Framework for Robust Alternative Ranking
Multi-Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) methods are widely used to address complex decision problems involving multiple alternatives and criteria with different characteristics. However, ranking outcomes may be sensitive to normalization mechanisms, criterion weights, and aggregation processes, particularly when benefit and cost criteria are evaluated simultaneously. This study proposes the Enhanced Root Assessment Method (ERAM), an improved root-based MCDM framework designed to provide a more structured and balanced evaluation of alternative performance while improving ranking stability. ERAM integrates modified normalization, weighted normalization, positive and negative aggregation, Relative Benefit–Penalty Balance, and an Enhanced Root Assessment Index to construct the final preference measure. The proposed method is evaluated using a new store location selection dataset comprising eight alternatives and six criteria. Its performance is examined through comparative analysis with SAW, WASPAS, GRA, and MOORA, together with sensitivity analysis using ±0.05 changes in criterion weights. The results show that ERAM maintains a stable ranking structure under weight variations and achieves a strong Spearman correlation of 0.9286 with the reference ranking, exceeding WASPAS (0.9048) and SAW, GRA, and MOORA (0.8810). These findings demonstrate that ERAM can produce consistent rankings while maintaining robustness against moderate changes in criterion importance. Therefore, ERAM provides a structured and robust framework for multi-criteria ranking problems involving heterogeneous criteria and uncertain decision preferences.
Downloads
References
[1] D. A. Megawaty et al., “DAM Weighting: A New Approach to Determining Criteria Weighting in Multi-Criteria Decision Making,” Evergreen, vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 788–800, 2026, doi: 10.5109/7432655.
[2] Z. Liu et al., “An integrated cubic Pythagorean fuzzy MAIRCA model with novel variation coefficient similarity measure for food safety risk assessment,” Sci. Rep., vol. 16, no. 1, p. 11323, 2026, doi: 10.1038/s41598-026-39302-z.
[3] Y. Djeddi, “Hybrid Solution (HYBSO) based on Hybrids Normalization and Aggregation for the Multi-criteria Decision-Making Problems,” Yugosl. J. Oper. Res., vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 1–24, 2026, doi: 10.2298/YJOR241020020D.
[4] S. Bošković, L. Švadlenka, M. Dobrodolac, S. Jovčić, and M. Zanne, “An Extended AROMAN Method for Cargo Bike Delivery Concept Selection,” Decis. Mak. Adv., vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 1–9, Jun. 2023, doi: 10.31181/v120231.
[5] 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.
[6] T. Oztas and G. Z. Oztas, “Innovation Performance Analysis of G20 Countries: A Novel Integrated LOPCOW-MAIRCA MCDM Approach Including the COVID-19 Period,” Veriml. Derg., pp. 1–20, Jan. 2024, doi: 10.51551/verimlilik.1320794.
[7] S. Dhruva, R. Krishankumar, E. K. Zavadskas, K. S. Ravichandran, and A. H. Gandomi, “Selection of Suitable Cloud Vendors for Health Centre: A Personalized Decision Framework with Fermatean Fuzzy Set, LOPCOW, and CoCoSo,” Informatica, vol. 35, no. 1, pp. 65–98, Nov. 2024, doi: 10.15388/23-INFOR537.
[8] K. Kara, G. Cihan Yalçın, V. Simic, A. Tuğrul Yıldırım, D. Pamucar, and P. Siarry, “A spherical fuzzy-based DIBR II-AROMAN model for sustainability performance benchmarking of wind energy power plants,” Expert Syst. Appl., vol. 253, p. 124300, 2024, doi: 10.1016/j.eswa.2024.124300.
[9] M. Arshad, H. Sulistiani, S. Maryana, P. Palupiningsih, Y. Rahmanto, and S. Setiawansyah, “Modification of the Grey Relational Analysis Method in Determining the Best Mechanic,” Build. Informatics, Technol. Sci., vol. 6, no. 3 SE-Articles, Dec. 2024, doi: 10.47065/bits.v6i3.5678.
[10] B. Yagmahan and H. Yılmaz, “An integrated ranking approach based on group multi-criteria decision making and sensitivity analysis to evaluate charging stations under sustainability,” Environ. Dev. Sustain., vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 96–121, 2023, doi: 10.1007/s10668-021-02044-1.
[11] K. Subramani, D. Nithyanandham, F. Augustin, S. Ramasamy, A. P. Paulose, and P. V, “An integrated picture fuzzy entropy–MAIRCA–TOPSIS framework for sustainable soil suitability evaluation,” Int. J. Appl. Earth Obs. Geoinf., vol. 152, p. 105474, 2026, doi: 10.1016/j.jag.2026.105474.
[12] G. Demir, P. Chatterjee, and D. Pamucar, “Sensitivity analysis in multi-criteria decision making: A state-of-the-art research perspective using bibliometric analysis,” Expert Syst. Appl., vol. 237, p. 121660, 2024, doi: 10.1016/j.eswa.2023.121660.
[13] A. Jusufbašić, “MCDM Methods for Selection of Handling Equipment in Logistics: A Brief Review,” Spectr. Eng. Manag. Sci., vol. 1, no. 1 SE-Articles, pp. 13–24, Aug. 2023, doi: 10.31181/sems1120232j.
[14] G. N. Yücenur and A. Maden, “Sequential MCDM methods for site selection of hydroponic geothermal greenhouse: ENTROPY and ARAS,” Renew. Energy, vol. 226, p. 120361, 2024, doi: 10.1016/j.renene.2024.120361.
[15] T. Van Dua, D. Van Duc, N. C. Bao, and D. D. Trung, “Integration of objective weighting methods for criteria and MCDM methods: application in material selection,” EUREKA Phys. Eng., no. 2, pp. 131–148, Mar. 2024, doi: 10.21303/2461-4262.2024.003171.
[16] S. Biswas, B. Biswas, and K. Mitra, “A Novel Group Decision Making Model to Compare Online Shopping Platforms,” Spectr. Decis. Mak. Appl., vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 1–27, Aug. 2024, doi: 10.31181/sdmap2120259.
[17] M. Ramesh, D. J. D. James, S. Mohan, and K. Panneerselvam, “Evaluation and study of PBI reinforced with HDPE on abrasive wear using ANOVA and CODAS approach for protective shell applications,” J. Pipeline Sci. Eng., p. 100279, 2025, doi: 10.1016/j.jpse.2025.100279.
[18] D. T. Do, “Assessing the Impact of Criterion Weights on the Ranking of the Top Ten Universities in Vietnam,” Eng. Technol. Appl. Sci. Res., vol. 14, no. 4, pp. 14899–14903, Aug. 2024, doi: 10.48084/etasr.7607.
[19] A. Sotoudeh-Anvari, “Root Assessment Method (RAM): A novel multi-criteria decision making method and its applications in sustainability challenges,” J. Clean. Prod., vol. 423, p. 138695, Oct. 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.138695.
[20] D. Trung, D. Duc, N. Bao, and D. Thuy, “Using the root assessment method to choose the optimal solution for mushroom cultivation,” Yugosl. J. Oper. Res., no. 00, pp. 7–7, 2024, doi: 10.2298/YJOR240115007T.
[21] A. Yudhistira, S. Setiawansyah, T. Ardiansah, S. Maryana, Y. Yadin, and R. Oktaviani, “Development of Multi-Attribute Utility Theory Methods in Dynamic Decision Models Using Change-Data Driven,” Evergreen, vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 3279–3289, Dec. 2024, doi: 10.5109/7326962.
[22] D. A. Megaraty, H. Sulistiani, Setiawansyah, A. Qurania, Y. Yadin, and R. Oktaviani, “Integration Method Based on the Removal Effects of Criteria Weighting and MOORA Method: Wi-Fi Router Selection Case Study,” in 2024 International Conference on Informatics, Multimedia, Cyber and Information System (ICIMCIS), 2024, pp. 241–246. doi: 10.1109/ICIMCIS63449.2024.10956545.
[23] R. D. Gunawan, M. W. Arshad, A. D. Wahyudi, R. R. Suryono, T. Widodo, and F. Ulum, “Modification of Additive Ratio Assessment Method through Distance-Based Weighting Approach for Optimizing Assessment Accuracy,” Paradig. - J. Komput. dan Inform., vol. 27, no. 2, pp. 55–64, 2025, doi: 10.31294/p.v27i2.8810.
[24] M. Wu, J. Song, and J. Fan, “Three-way decision based on ITARA and public weights DEA under picture fuzzy environment and its application in new energy vehicles selection,” Complex Intell. Syst., vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 927–947, 2024, doi: 10.1007/s40747-023-01188-z.
[25] J. Hallak, “Optimizing construction supplier selection in conflict-affected regions: a hybrid multi-criteria framework,” Oper. Manag. Res., vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 1270–1294, 2024, doi: 10.1007/s12063-024-00505-0.
[26] A. L. Olteanu (Burcă) et al., “Prioritizing the European Investment Sectors Based on Different Economic, Social, and Governance Factors Using a Fuzzy-MEREC-AROMAN Decision-Making Model,” Sustainability, vol. 16, no. 17. 2024. doi: 10.3390/su16177790.
[27] A. Shekhovtsov, B. Kizielewicz, and W. Sałabun, “The universal library for solving multi-criteria decision-making problems,” SoftwareX, vol. 24, p. 101519, 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.softx.2023.101519.
[28] D. Desyanti, I. Ahmad, and S. Sanusi, “Assessing Microcredit Eligibility Using LOGSTA Weighting and Comprehensive Distance-Based Ranking: A Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Approach,” J. Comput. Data Sci., vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 1–31, doi: 10.67449/jcoda.v1i1.1.
[29] A. Puška, D. Božanić, Z. Mastilo, and D. Pamučar, “Extension of MEREC-CRADIS methods with double normalization-case study selection of electric cars,” Soft Comput., vol. 27, no. 11, pp. 7097–7113, 2023, doi: 10.1007/s00500-023-08054-7.
[30] A. Katrancı, N. Kundakcı, and D. Pamucar, “Financial performance evaluation of firms in BIST 100 index with ITARA and COBRA methods,” Financ. Innov., vol. 11, no. 1, p. 34, 2025, doi: 10.1186/s40854-024-00704-5.
[31] S. Maniyan, R. Ghousi, and A. Haeri, “Data mining-based decision support system for educational decision makers: Extracting rules to enhance academic efficiency,” Comput. Educ. Artif. Intell., vol. 6, p. 100242, 2024, doi: 10.1016/j.caeai.2024.100242.
[32] S. H. Gurmani, S. Zhang, F. A. Awwad, and E. A. A. Ismail, “Combinative distance-based assessment method using linguistic T-spherical fuzzy aggregation operators and its application to multi-attribute group decision-making,” Eng. Appl. Artif. Intell., vol. 133, p. 108165, 2024, doi: 10.1016/j.engappai.2024.108165.
[33] J. Więckowski and W. Sałabun, “Supporting multi-criteria decision-making processes with unknown criteria weights,” Eng. Appl. Artif. Intell., vol. 140, p. 109699, 2025, doi: 10.1016/j.engappai.2024.109699.
[34] D. Tiwari and V. Soni, “Multi-response optimization in the ORC-VCR system using the EDAS Method,” Energy Build., vol. 313, p. 114281, 2024, doi: 10.1016/j.enbuild.2024.114281.
[35] M. I. Takaendengan, “Performance Comparison of Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Methods in Decision Support Systems,” J. Comput. Data Sci., vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 88–108, 2026, doi: 10.67449/jcoda.v1i1.5.
[36] G. Patel, S. Das, and R. Das, “Evaluation of optimal normalization techniques in multi-criteria decision-making to rank CMIP6 climate models,” Theor. Appl. Climatol., vol. 156, no. 7, p. 385, 2025, doi: 10.1007/s00704-025-05617-6.
License
Copyright (c) 2027 Aditya Lapu Kalua, Angreine Kewo, Susi Hendartie, Yampi R Kaesmetan (Author)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
