Advertisement

Intuitionistic Fuzzy Hybrid Multi-criteria Decision-Making Approach with TOPSIS Method Using Entropy Measure for Weighting Criteria

  • Talat ParveenEmail author
  • H. D. Arora
  • Mansaf Alam
Chapter
  • 33 Downloads
Part of the Asset Analytics book series (ASAN)

Abstract

Selecting a university which provides best education and fulfils all criteria among many alternatives for specific student is a challenging task. Hesitancy and vagueness in decision-making are best dealt with intuitionistic fuzzy sets. It is a multi-criteria decision-making problem among several alternatives involving several academic and non-academic criteria where for student it is difficult to decide precisely based on the available information. The study is concerned with the criteria that influence the student’s university selection and to establish the multi-criteria model for ranking the universities based on important criteria affecting selection by students. In this paper, an intuitionistic fuzzy entropy-based MCDM is proposed with TOPSIS method to determine the vagueness and exactness of alternatives over the effective academic and non-academic criteria; to aggregate the decision-maker’s opinion, intuitionistic fuzzy operator is applied over considered criteria for all alternatives, and the proposed method is applied to rank the universities.

Keywords

Multi-criteria decision-making MCDM TOPSIS Entropy University selection Education 

References

  1. 1.
    Conard MJ, Conard MA (2000) An analysis of academic reputation as perceived by consumers of higher education. J Mark High Educ 9(4):69–79Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Pampaloni AM (2010) The influence of organizational image on college selection: what students seek in institutions of higher education. J Mark High Educ 20(1):19–48Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Simoes C, Soares AM (2010) Applying to higher education: information sources and choice factors. Stud High Educ 35(4):371–389Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Briggs S (2006) An exploratory study of the factors influencing undergraduate student choice: the case of higher education in Scotland. Stud High Educ 31(6):705–722Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Briggs S, Wilson A (2007) Which university? A study of the influence of cost and information factors on Scottish undergraduate choice. J High Educ Policy Manag 29(1):57–72Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Adams J, Evenland V (2007) Marketing online degree programs: how do traditional residential programs compare? J Mark High Educ 17(1):67–90Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Soutar G, Turner J (2002) Students’ preferences for university: a conjoint analysis. Int J Educ Manag 16(1):40–45Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Broekemier GM, Seshadri S (2000) Differences in college choice criteria between deciding students and their parents. J Mark High Educ 9(3):1–13Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Poock MC, Love PG (2001) Factors influencing the program choice of doctoral students in higher education administration. NASPA J 38(2):203–223Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Haq AN, Kannan G (2006) Fuzzy analytical hierarchy process for evaluating and selecting a vendor in a supply chain model. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 29:826–835Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Sojkin B, Bartkowiak P, Skuza A (2011) Determinants of higher education choices and student satisfaction: the case of Poland. High Educ 63(5):565–581Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Taylor JS, Brites R, Correia F, Farhangmehr M, Ferreira B, Machado ML (2008) Strategic enrolment management: improving student satisfaction and success in Portugal. High Educ Manag Policy 20(1):129–145Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Warwick J, Mansfield PM (2004) Perceived risk in college selection: differences in evaluative criteria used by students and parents. J Mark High Educ 13(1):101–125Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hwang CL, Yoon K (1981) Multiple attribute decision making: methods and applications. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Holt GD (1998) Which contractor selection methodology? Int J Project Manage 16(3):153–164Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Li CC, Fun YP, Hung JS (1997) A new measure for supplier performance evaluation. IIE Trans Oper Eng 29:753–758Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Chen TY, Li CH (2010) Determining objective weights with intuitionistic fuzzy entropy measures: a comparative analysis. Inform Sci 180(21):4207–4222Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Bayrak MY, Çelebi N, Taskin H (2007) A fuzzy approach method for supplier selection. Prod Plan Control Manag Oper 18(1):54–63Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Atanassov KT (1986) Intuitionistic fuzzy sets. Fuzzy Sets Syst 20:87–96Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Shannon CE (1948) A mathematical theory of communication. Bell Syst Tech J 27:379–423Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Zadeh LA (1965) Fuzzy sets. Inform Control 8(3):338–356Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Shu MS, Cheng CH, Chang JR (2006) Using intuitionistic fuzzy sets for fault tree analysis on printed circuit board assembly. Microelectron Reliab 46(12):2139–2148Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Xu Z, Zhang X (2013) Hesitant fuzzy multi-attribute decision making based on TOPSIS with incomplete weight information. Knowl-Based Syst 52:53–64Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Xu ZS (2007) Intuitionistic fuzzy aggregation operators. IEEE Trans Fuzzy Syst 15(6):1179–1187Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Zeleny M (1976) The attribute-dynamic attribute model. Manage Sci 23:12–26Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Grzegorzewski P (2004) Distances between intuitionistic fuzzy sets and/or interval-valued fuzzy sets based on the Hausdoff metric. Fuzzy Sets Syst 149(2):319–328Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Applied MathematicsAmity Institute of Applied Sciences, Amity UniversityNoidaIndia
  2. 2.Department of Computer ScienceJamia Millia IslamiaNew DelhiIndia

Personalised recommendations