TEKNO Method: Total Evaluation based on Knowledge-driven Normalized Optimization for Multi-Criteria Decision Making
Multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) methods play an important role in supporting decisions involving multiple criteria with different characteristics and levels of importance. However, differences in normalization procedures, criterion treatment, and aggregation mechanisms can lead to variations in the resulting preference structures. This study proposes a new MCDM method, namely total evaluation based on knowledge-driven normalized optimization (TEKNO), which integrates normalization, relative evaluation, criterion weighting, optimization-based normalization, and total evaluation into a unified decision-making framework. The proposed method is designed to transform heterogeneous decision information into comparable evaluation values while preserving the relative contribution of each criterion. The applicability of TEKNO is evaluated through two decision-making case studies involving new store location selection and leasing customer selection. The evaluation framework includes ranking analysis, comparison with established MCDM methods, Spearman rank correlation analysis, and sensitivity analysis under variations in criterion weights. The results show that TEKNO achieves a Spearman rank correlation coefficient of 1.0000 for the new store location case and 0.9964 for the leasing customer selection case, indicating very strong agreement with the reference rankings. In addition, the ranking remains unchanged across the tested sensitivity scenarios, demonstrating the stability of TEKNO under variations in criterion weights. These findings indicate that TEKNO provides a transparent, systematic, and stable alternative for MCDM applications for practical decision support where reliable ranking, methodological transparency, and robustness across alternative evaluation conditions are required. Nevertheless, broader validation using diverse datasets, decision domains, weighting schemes, and statistical evaluation techniques is required to further establish its generalizability and comparative performance.
Downloads
References
[1] D. E. Ighravwe, C. Kokofi, O. Ojo, M. O. Babatunde, and O. A. Olanrewaju, “A Fuzzy Multi-Criteria Decision Framework for Selecting Cybersecurity Platforms Under Strategic PESTEL Factors,” Applied Sciences, vol. 16, no. 13. p. 6326, 2026. doi: 10.3390/app16136326.
[2] A. Shoaei, V. Sousa, and C. O. Cruz, “Scaling challenges in multi-criteria decision analysis in a hybrid approach with cost-benefit analysis for infrastructure investment,” Eur. Transp. Res. Rev., vol. 18, no. 1, p. 19, 2026, doi: 10.1186/s12544-026-00776-7.
[3] E. J. Sobczyk, W. Sobczyk, T. Olkuski, and M. Ciepiela, “Assessing the Pace of Decarbonization in EU Countries Using Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis,” Energies, vol. 19, no. 1. p. 243, 2026. doi: 10.3390/en19010243.
[4] S. Setiawansyah, “A Pythagorean Fuzzy-Based MUNRA Method for Handling Uncertainty in Complex Decision Environments,” J. Artif. Intell. Technol. Inf., vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 269–286, Jun. 2026, doi: 10.58602/jaiti.v4i2.273.
[5] R. Gunasekaran, P. Hariharan, and B. M. Prasanth, “Studies on Different Multi-criteria Decision-Making Techniques in Micro-Electrical Discharge Machining of Titanium Alloy,” J. Mater. Eng. Perform., 2025, doi: 10.1007/s11665-025-11343-x.
[6] S. Malefaki, D. Markatos, A. Filippatos, and S. Pantelakis, “A Comparative Analysis of Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Methods and Normalization Techniques in Holistic Sustainability Assessment for Engineering Applications,” Aerospace, vol. 12, no. 2. p. 100, 2025. doi: 10.3390/aerospace12020100.
[7] S. Dündar, “Prioritizing the Regional Preferences of Turkish Investors Regarding Foreign Direct Investment by ARLON Method,” Konya J. Eng. Sci., vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 927–946, 2025, doi: 10.36306/konjes.1648279.
[8] D. Do, E. Nazli, and T. Vo, “Cylinder and piston: Material selection in the design phase,” J. Appl. Eng. Sci., vol. 22, no. 4, pp. 789–803, 2024, doi: 10.5937/jaes0-52884.
[9] P. Jamróz, K. Socha, and J. Sobczyk, “Validation of the reference method for measuring low flow velocities in an open wind tunnel using the PIV method,” Measurement, vol. 263, p. 120117, 2026, doi: 10.1016/j.measurement.2025.120117.
[10] 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.
[11] S. Saboor, V. Ahmed, C. Anane, and Z. Bahroun, “A Hybrid AHP–Fuzzy MOORA Decision Support Tool for Advancing Social Sustainability in the Construction Sector,” Sustainability, vol. 17, no. 11. p. 4879, 2025. doi: 10.3390/su17114879.
[12] S. Bektaş, “Financial Performance Ranking With A New Hybrid Decision Making Model: Application Of The CRISUS-RAWEC Hybrid Model For The Reinsurance Industry,” Gümüşhane Univ. J. Soc. Sci., vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 233–249, 2026.
[13] R. Dragić et al., “Hybrid Interval Type-2 Fuzzy Set Methodology with Symmetric Membership Function for Application Selection in Precision Agriculture,” Symmetry, vol. 17, no. 9. p. 1504, 2025. doi: 10.3390/sym17091504.
[14] P. Mandal, L. Mrsic, A. Kalampakas, T. Allahviranloo, and S. Samanta, “Pythagorean linguistic information-based green supplier selection using quantum-based group decision-making methodology and the MULTIMOORA approach,” Artif. Intell. Rev., vol. 58, no. 7, p. 199, 2025, doi: 10.1007/s10462-025-11205-x.
[15] 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.
[16] P. Rani, A. R. Mishra, D. Pamucar, A. M. Alshamrani, and A. F. Alrasheedi, “Assessment of digital transformation indicators to prioritize sustainable financial services using q-rung orthopair fuzzy rough decision-making model,” Appl. Soft Comput., vol. 170, p. 112715, 2025, doi: 10.1016/j.asoc.2025.112715.
[17] S. J. Bakary, M. B. Bouraima, A. Aytekin, and K. Ntoh-Gyan, “Proposing appropriate strategies for domestic tourism promotion in a developing country by Fuzzy Fermatean MCDM approach,” J. Appl. Res. Ind. Eng., 2025, doi: 10.22105/jarie.2025.489833.1713.
[18] A. Fetanat and M. Tayebi, “Fuzzy set–based decision support system for hydrogen sulfide removal technology selection in natural gas processing: a sustainability and efficiency perspective,” Environ. Monit. Assess., vol. 196, no. 12, p. 1267, 2024, doi: 10.1007/s10661-024-13348-w.
[19] Y.-S. Kim, M. K. Kim, N. Fu, J. Liu, J. Wang, and J. Srebric, “Investigating the impact of data normalization methods on predicting electricity consumption in a building using different artificial neural network models,” Sustain. Cities Soc., vol. 118, p. 105570, 2025, doi: 10.1016/j.scs.2024.105570.
[20] Y. Liu, “A novel decision making approach based on Picture Hesitant Fuzzy Environment for optimizing art education strategies,” Sci. Rep., 2026, doi: 10.1038/s41598-026-48827-2.
[21] A. Çilek and O. Şeyranlıoğlu, “Measuring the Financial Performance of Reinsurance Companies in Türkiye with LODECI, CRADIS and AROMAN MCDM Methods TT - LODECI, CRADIS ve AROMAN,” Int. J. Bus. Econ. Stud., vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 1–18, 2025, doi: 10.54821/uiecd.1587675.
[22] B. Cosenza et al., “A data-knowledge hybrid decision support system for wastewater treatment operations: the Acqua dei Corsari plant case study,” Inf. Sci. (Ny)., vol. 718, p. 122321, 2025, doi: 10.1016/j.ins.2025.122321.
[23] M. Marinović et al., “An Intelligent Multi-Criteria Decision Approach for Selecting the Optimal Operating System for Educational Environments,” Electronics, vol. 14, no. 3. 2025. doi: 10.3390/electronics14030514.
[24] T. Ahmadi Pargo and S. Hashemkhani Zolfani, “Developing an Expert System for Hardware Selection in Internet of Things-Based System Design: Grey ITARA-COBRA Approach (With an Example in the Agricultural Domain),” Information, vol. 16, no. 6. 2025. doi: 10.3390/info16060425.
[25] Q. Wang, T. Cheng, Y. Lu, H. Liu, R. Zhang, and J. Huang, “Underground Mine Safety and Health: A Hybrid MEREC–CoCoSo System for the Selection of Best Sensor,” Sensors, vol. 24, no. 4, p. 1285, Feb. 2024, doi: 10.3390/s24041285.
[26] D. D. Trung, B. Dudic, D. M. Huong, N. T. Tham, and A. Ašonja, “Evaluating Innovation Levels based on Standard Deviation of Parameters and MCDM Methods,” Spectr. Eng. Manag. Sci., vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 77–97, Apr. 2026, doi: 10.31181/sems41202666.
[27] N. Öztürkçü, “Analysis of Global Competition in Container Port Performance Using the LOPCOW-CRADIS Integrated Method,” J. ETA Marit. Sci., vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 124–135, 2026, doi: 10.4274/jems.2026.46959.
[28] H. Gaspars-Wieloch and D. Gawroński, “How can one improve SAW and max-min multi-criteria rankings based on uncertain decision rules?,” Oper. Res. Decis., vol. 34, no. 1, pp. 131–148, 2024, doi: 10.37190/ord240107.
[29] C. Z. Radulescu and M. Radulescu, “A Hybrid Group Multi-Criteria Approach Based on SAW, TOPSIS, VIKOR, and COPRAS Methods for Complex IoT Selection Problems,” Electronics, vol. 13, no. 4, p. 789, Feb. 2024, doi: 10.3390/electronics13040789.
[30] S. M. Durmuşoğlu and Ö. Atlam, “A methodological framework for evaluating thermal fluids in solar power applications via the simple additive weighting technique,” J. Therm. Anal. Calorim., 2026, doi: 10.1007/s10973-025-15276-4.
[31] B. Kizielewicz, A. Shekhovtsov, and W. Sałabun, “pymcdm—The universal library for solving multi-criteria decision-making problems,” SoftwareX, vol. 22, p. 101368, 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.softx.2023.101368.
[32] H. Onuoha et al., “Integrating GIS and AHP for Photovoltaic Farm Site Selection: A Case Study of Ikorodu, Nigeria,” Processes, vol. 13, no. 1. 2025. doi: 10.3390/pr13010164.
[33] 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.
[34] R. D. Gunawan and J. Wang, “An Integrated G2M and RADERIA Model for Improved Leasing Customer Selection,” J. Comput. Data Sci., vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 48–68, 2026, doi: 10.67449/jcoda.v1i1.3.
[35] V. T. N. Uyen, N. Ersoy, D. D. Trung, and N. T. P. Giang, “Applying MCDM to evaluate benchmark scores in the logistics sector for the period 2021–2023: Application to universities in Vietnam,” J. Infrastructure, Policy Dev., vol. 8, no. 11, p. 8942, Oct. 2024, doi: 10.24294/jipd.v8i11.8942.
[36] B. Kizielewicz, J. Wątróbski, and W. Sałabun, “Multi-criteria decision support system for the evaluation of UAV intelligent agricultural sensors,” Artif. Intell. Rev., vol. 58, no. 7, p. 194, 2025, doi: 10.1007/s10462-025-11201-1.
[37] 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.
[38] I. Z. Mukhametzyanov and D. Pamucar, “Equivalence of MCDM Methods and Synthesis of Solution Based on Ratings Obtained in Different Models,” Decis. Mak. Appl. Manag. Eng., vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 1–20, Aug. 2025, doi: 10.31181/dmame8220251473.
[39] 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.
[40] B. Kizielewicz, J. Więckowski, and W. Sałabun, “SESP-SPOTIS: Advancing Stochastic Approach for Re-identifying MCDA Models BT - Computational Science – ICCS 2024,” 2024, pp. 281–295. doi: 10.1007/978-3-031-63751-3_19.
License
Copyright (c) 2027 Yuri Rahmanto, Ryan Randy Suryono, Dedi Darwis, Abhishek R. Mehta, Auliya Rahman Isnain (Author)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
