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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Conard MJ, Conard MA (2000) An analysis of academic reputation as perceived by consumers of higher education. J Mark High Educ 9(4):69–79
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):19–48
Simoes C, Soares AM (2010) Applying to higher education: information sources and choice factors. Stud High Educ 35(4):371–389
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):705–722
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):57–72
Adams J, Evenland V (2007) Marketing online degree programs: how do traditional residential programs compare? J Mark High Educ 17(1):67–90
Soutar G, Turner J (2002) Students’ preferences for university: a conjoint analysis. Int J Educ Manag 16(1):40–45
Broekemier GM, Seshadri S (2000) Differences in college choice criteria between deciding students and their parents. J Mark High Educ 9(3):1–13
Poock MC, Love PG (2001) Factors influencing the program choice of doctoral students in higher education administration. NASPA J 38(2):203–223
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 29:826–835
Sojkin B, Bartkowiak P, Skuza A (2011) Determinants of higher education choices and student satisfaction: the case of Poland. High Educ 63(5):565–581
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):129–145
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):101–125
Hwang CL, Yoon K (1981) Multiple attribute decision making: methods and applications. Springer, New York
Holt GD (1998) Which contractor selection methodology? Int J Project Manage 16(3):153–164
Li CC, Fun YP, Hung JS (1997) A new measure for supplier performance evaluation. IIE Trans Oper Eng 29:753–758
Chen TY, Li CH (2010) Determining objective weights with intuitionistic fuzzy entropy measures: a comparative analysis. Inform Sci 180(21):4207–4222
Bayrak MY, Çelebi N, Taskin H (2007) A fuzzy approach method for supplier selection. Prod Plan Control Manag Oper 18(1):54–63
Atanassov KT (1986) Intuitionistic fuzzy sets. Fuzzy Sets Syst 20:87–96
Shannon CE (1948) A mathematical theory of communication. Bell Syst Tech J 27:379–423
Zadeh LA (1965) Fuzzy sets. Inform Control 8(3):338–356
Shu MS, Cheng CH, Chang JR (2006) Using intuitionistic fuzzy sets for fault tree analysis on printed circuit board assembly. Microelectron Reliab 46(12):2139–2148
Xu Z, Zhang X (2013) Hesitant fuzzy multi-attribute decision making based on TOPSIS with incomplete weight information. Knowl-Based Syst 52:53–64
Xu ZS (2007) Intuitionistic fuzzy aggregation operators. IEEE Trans Fuzzy Syst 15(6):1179–1187
Zeleny M (1976) The attribute-dynamic attribute model. Manage Sci 23:12–26
Grzegorzewski P (2004) Distances between intuitionistic fuzzy sets and/or interval-valued fuzzy sets based on the Hausdoff metric. Fuzzy Sets Syst 149(2):319–328
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2020 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Parveen, T., Arora, H.D., Alam, M. (2020). Intuitionistic Fuzzy Hybrid Multi-criteria Decision-Making Approach with TOPSIS Method Using Entropy Measure for Weighting Criteria. In: Kapur, P.K., Singh, O., Khatri, S.K., Verma, A.K. (eds) Strategic System Assurance and Business Analytics. Asset Analytics. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-3647-2_26
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-3647-2_26
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore
Print ISBN: 978-981-15-3646-5
Online ISBN: 978-981-15-3647-2
eBook Packages: Business and ManagementBusiness and Management (R0)