A Two-Layer Model for Complex Multi-Criteria Decision-Making and Its Application in Institutional Research
Abstract
1. Introduction
2. Related Works
2.1. Multi-Criteria Decision Aiding/Analysis (MCDA)
2.2. Multi-Stage and Hierarchical Extensions of MCDM
2.3. Research Gaps and Motivation for a Two-Layer Model
3. A Two-Layer Decision Model
- First layer: Identifying alternatives
- Second layer: Selecting the final alternative
4. Implementation of Two-Layer Model for IR
4.1. Data Used for Model Implementation
4.2. Implementation of First Layer
4.3. Implementation of Second Layer
- Baseline values in Table 5;
- Budget +10% (more budget) for all alternatives;
- Period +10% (little more time) for Teaching reputation;
- Period +50% (more time) for Teaching reputation.
5. Discussion
5.1. Comparison with Current MCDA Approaches
5.2. Analysis on the Two-Layer Structure
5.3. Extension to a Multi-Layer Structure
5.4. Limitations and Future Research
6. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Simplilearn. The Best Guide to Understanding What Decision Making Is. Available online: https://www.simplilearn.com/tutorials/mba-preparation-tutorial/what-is-decision-making-explained (accessed on 20 June 2025).
- Zavadskas, E.K.; Govindan, K.; Antucheviciene, J.; Turskis, Z. Hybrid multiple criteria decision-making methods: A review of applications for sustainability issues. Econ. Res. Ekon. Istraž. 2016, 29, 857–887. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Frazão, T.D.C.; Camilo, D.G.G.; Cabral, E.L.S.; Souza, R.P. Multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) in health care: A systematic review of the main characteristics and methodological steps. BMC Med. Inform. Decis. Mak. 2018, 18, 90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gupta, S.; Soni, U.; Kumar, G. Green supplier selection using multi-criterion decision making under fuzzy environment: A case study in automotive industry. Comput. Ind. Eng. 2019, 136, 663–680. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Behzadian, M.; Otaghsara, S.K.; Yazdani, M.; Ignatius, J. A state-of the-art survey of TOPSIS applications. Expert Syst. Appl. 2012, 39, 13051–13069. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Thokala, P.; Devlin, N.; Marsh, K.; Baltussen, R.; Boysen, M.; Kalo, Z.; Longrenn, T.; Mussen, F.; Peacock, S.; Watkins, J.; et al. Multiple criteria decision analysis for health care decision making—An introduction: Report 1 of the ISPOR MCDA Emerging Good Practices Task Force. Value Health 2016, 19, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Govindan, K.; Rajendran, S.; Sarkis, J.; Murugesan, P. Multi criteria decision making approaches for green supplier evaluation and selection: A literature review. J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 98, 66–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zimmer, B. Achieving Quality Within Funding Constraints: The Potential Contribution of Institutional Research. J. Institutional Res. 1995, 4, 74. [Google Scholar]
- Terenzini, P.T. On the nature of institutional research and the knowledge and skills it requires. Res. High. Educ. 1993, 34, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chairungruang, S.; Piriyasurawong, P.; Nilsook, P. Multi Criteria Decision Making for Ranking Digital Vocational Education. In Proceedings of the 2023 Research, Invention, and Innovation Congress: Innovative Electricals and Electronics (RI2C), Bangkok, Thailand, 24–25 August 2023; pp. 59–65. [Google Scholar]
- Garg, R.; Join, C.; Sira-Ramirez, H. MCDM-Based Parametric Selection of Cloud Deployment Models for an Academic Organization. IEEE Trans. Cloud Comput. 2022, 10, 863–871. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Youssef, A.E.; Saleem, K. A Hybrid MCDM Approach for Evaluating Web-Based E-Learning Platforms. IEEE Access 2023, 11, 72436–72447. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alaa, M.; Albakri, I.S.M.A.; Singh, C.K.S.; Hammed, H.; Zaidan, A.A.; Zaidan, B.B.; Albahri, O.S.; Alsalem, M.A.; Salih, M.M.; Almahdi, E.M.; et al. Assessment and Ranking Framework for the English Skills of Pre-Service Teachers Based on Fuzzy Delphi and TOPSIS Methods. IEEE Access 2019, 7, 126201–126223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Abdelaal, R.M.S.; Makki, A.A.; Al-Madi, E.M.; Qhadi, A.M. Prioritizing Strategic Objectives and Projects in Higher Education Institutions: A New Hybrid Fuzzy MEREC-G-TOPSIS Approach. IEEE Access 2024, 12, 89735–89753. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, Z.; Liang, W.; Luo, S. A Novel Integrated Picture Fuzzy MACONT Method and Its Application in Teaching Quality Evaluation in Higher Education. IEEE Access 2024, 12, 88345–88356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Myint, K.K.; Thein, N. Implementation of MCDM Techniques for Estimating Regional Education Development in Myanmar. In Proceedings of the 2020 IEEE 9th Global Conference on Consumer Electronics (GCCE), Kobe, Japan, 13–16 October 2020; pp. 76–77. [Google Scholar]
- Koltharkar, P.; Eldhose, K.K.; Sridharan, R. Application of fuzzy TOPSIS for the prioritization of students’ requirements in higher education institutions: A case study: A multi-criteria decision-making approach. In Proceedings of the 2020 International Conference on System, Computation, Automation and Networking (ICSCAN), Pondicherry, India, 3–4 July 2020; pp. 1–7. [Google Scholar]
- Xu, Y.; Tian, Y. Comprehensive Evaluation Model of Elective Subjects’ Performance in the College Entrance Examination Based on Entropy Weight TOPSIS. In Proceedings of the 2021 6th International Conference on Intelligent Computing and Signal Processing (ICSP), Xi’an, China, 9–11 April 2021; pp. 208–212. [Google Scholar]
- Kang, H.; Lee, S. Decision-Making Model Using a Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Method for College Admissions. J. Korea Soc. Comput. Inf. 2018, 23, 65–72. [Google Scholar]
- Mustafa, A.; Goh, M. Multi-criterion models for higher education administration. Omega 1996, 24, 167–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Garg, R.; Kumar, R.; Garg, S. MADM-Based Parametric Selection and Ranking of E-Learning Websites Using Fuzzy COPRAS. IEEE Trans. Educ. 2019, 62, 11–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Köksalan, M.; Wallenius, J.; Zionts, S. Multiple Criteria Decision Making: From Early History to the 21st Century; World Scientific: Singapore, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Roy, B. Paradigms, Challenges. In Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis: State of the Art Surveys, 2nd ed.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2016; pp. 19–39. [Google Scholar]
- Roy, B. Multicriteria Methodology for Decision Aiding; Kluwer Academic Publishers: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 1996. [Google Scholar]
- Greco, S.; Stowinski, R.; Wallenius, J. Fifty years of multiple criteria decision analysis: From classical methods to robust ordinal regression. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2025, 323, 351–377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Roy, B.; Vanderpooten, D. The European school of MCDA: Emergence, basic features and current works. J. Multi-Criteria Decis. Anal. 1996, 5, 22–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Belton, V.; Stewart, T.J. Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis: An Integrated Approach; Kluwer Academic Publishers: Boston, MA, USA, 2002. [Google Scholar]
- Keeney, R.L.; Raiffa, H. Decisions with Multiple Objectives: Preferences and Value Tradeoffs; Wiley: New York, NY, USA, 1976. [Google Scholar]
- Tzeng, G.H.; Huang, J.J. Multiple Attribute Decision Making: Methods and Applications; Chapman and Hall: London, UK; CRC: New York, NY, USA, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Opricovic, S.; Tzeng, G.H. Compromise solution by MCDM methods: A comparative analysis of VIKOR and TOPSIS. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2004, 156, 445. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Saaty, T.L.; Vargas, L.G. Models, Methods, Concepts & Applications of the Analytic Hierarchy Process; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2022. [Google Scholar]
- Saaty, T.L.; Vagas, L.G. Decision Making with the Analytic Network Process: Economic, Political, Social and Technological Applications with Benefits, Opportunities, Costs and Risks; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Roy, B. The outranking approach and the foundations of ELECTRE methods. Theory Decis. 1991, 31, 49–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Govindan, K.; Jepsen, M.B. ELECTRE: A comprehensive literature review on methodologies and applications. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2016, 250, 1–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shmelev, S.; Brook, H.R. Macro Sustainability across Countries: Key Sector Environmentally Extended Input-Output Analysis. Sustainability 2021, 13, 11657. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kersulienė, V.Z.; Zavadskas, E.K.; Turskis, Z. Selection of rational dispute resolution method by applying new stepwise weight assessment ratio analysis (SWARA). J. Bus. Econ. Manag. 2010, 11, 243–258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zavadskas, E.K.; Turskis, Z. A new additive ratio assessment (ARAS) method in multicriteria decision-making. Technol. Econ. Dev. Econ. 2010, 16, 159–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hu, L.; Yu, Q.; Jana, C.; Simic, V.; Bin-Mohsin, B. An Intuitionistic Fuzzy SWARA-AROMAN Decision-Making Framework for Sports Event Management. IEEE Access 2024, 12, 57711–57726. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, C.T. Extensions of the TOPSIS for group decision-making under fuzzy environment. Fuzzy Sets Syst. 2000, 114, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Maghrabie, H.F.; Beauregard, Y.; Schiffauerova, A. Grey-based Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis approach: Addressing uncertainty at complex decision problems. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 2019, 146, 366–379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yaakob, A.M.; Serguieva, A.; Gegov, A. FN-TOPSIS: Fuzzy Networks for Ranking Traded Equities. IEEE Trans. Fuzzy Syst. 2017, 25, 315–332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Karsak, E.E.; Sozer, S.; Alptekin, S.E. Product planning in quality function deployment using a combined analytic network process and goal programming approach. Comput. Ind. Eng. 2003, 44, 171–190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kabak, M.; Dağdeviren, M. Prioritization of renewable energy sources for Turkey by using a hybrid MCDM methodology. Energy Convers. Manag. 2014, 79, 25–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mardani, A.; Jusoh, A.; Nor, K.M.; Khalifah, Z.; Zakwan, N.; Valipour, A. Multiple criteria decision-making techniques and their applications—A review of the literature from 2000 to 2014. Econ. Res. Ekon. Istraživanja 2015, 28, 516–571. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hendiani, S.; Mahmoudi, A.; Liao, H. A Multi-Stage Multi-Criteria Hierarchical Decision-Making Approach for Sustainable Supplier Selection. Appl. Soft Comput. 2020, 94, 106456. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jovanović, S.; Zavadskas, E.K.; Stević, Ž.; Marinković, M.; Alrasheedi, A.F.; Badi, I. An Intelligent Fuzzy MCDM Model Based on D and Z Numbers for Paver Selection: IMF D-SWARA—Fuzzy ARAS-Z Model. Axioms 2023, 12, 573. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dressel, P.L. The Nature of Institutional Research; Michigan State University: East Lansing, MI, USA, 1966. [Google Scholar]
- Zhou, Y.; Abe, Y.; Asano, A. Times Higher Education Rankings Analysis for Enhancing University Performance Using Multi-Criteria Decision Making. In Proceedings of the 2024 IEEE 17th International Symposium on Embedded Multicore/Many-core Systems-on-Chip (MCSoC), Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 16–19 December 2024; pp. 117–121. [Google Scholar]
- Huang, J. Combining entropy weight and TOPSIS method for information system selection. In Proceedings of the 2008 IEEE Conference on Cybernetics and Intelligent Systems, Chengdu, China, 1–3 September 2008; pp. 1281–1284. [Google Scholar]
- Dehdasht, G.; Ferwati, M.S.; Zin, R.M.; Abidin, N.Z. A hybrid approach using entropy and TOPSIS to select key drivers for a successful and sustainable lean construction implementation. PLoS ONE 2020, 15, e0228746. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, X.; Wang, K.; Liu, L.; Xin, J.; Yang, H.; Gao, C. Application of the Entropy Weight and TOPSIS Method in Safety Evaluation of Coal Mines. Procedia Eng. 2011, 26, 2085–2091. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Siwiec, D.; Pacana, A. Materials and products development based on a novelty approach to quality and life cycle assessment (QLCA). Materials 2024, 17, 3859. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Pillars | Indicators | Weights | Total Weights |
---|---|---|---|
Teaching (TE) | Teaching Reputation | 15.0 | 29.5 |
Student–Staff Ratio | 4.5 | ||
Doctorate–Bachelor Ratio | 2.0 | ||
Doctorate–Staff Ratio | 5.5 | ||
Institutional Income | 2.5 | ||
Research Environment (RE) | Research Reputation | 18.0 | 29.0 |
Research Income | 5.5 | ||
Research Productivity | 5.5 | ||
Research Quality (RQ) | Citation Impact | 15.0 | 30.0 |
Research Strength | 5.0 | ||
Research Excellence | 5.0 | ||
Research Influence | 5.0 | ||
Industry (IN) | Industry Income | 2.0 | 4.0 |
Patents | 2.0 | ||
International Outlook (IO) | International Students | 2.5 | 7.5 |
International Staff | 2.5 | ||
International Co-authorship | 2.5 | ||
Studying Abroad | 0 |
Rank | Overall Score | TE | RE | RQ | IN | IO |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
601–800 | 38.2–43.2 | 29.8 | 13.4 | 68.1 | 57.0 | 82.8 |
Pillar | Indicator 1 | Indicator 2 | Indicator 3 | Indicator 4 | Indicator 5 | Total Score |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
TE | 7.16 | 7.95 | 1.12 | 8.02 | 5.55 | 29.80 |
RE | 1.42 | 4.04 | 7.94 | – | – | 13.40 |
RQ | 21.37 | 21.54 | 3.52 | 21.67 | – | 68.10 |
IN | 37.82 | 19.18 | – | – | – | 57.00 |
IO | 29.07 | 5.15 | 15.32 | 33.26 | – | 82.80 |
Scenario | α Value | Rank 1 | Rank 2 | Rank 3 | Rank 4 | Rank 5 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Case 1 | All α = 1 | Citation impact | Research reputation | Teaching reputation | Industry income | International students |
Case 2 | 4 indicators α = 5 others α = 1 | Citation impact | Research reputation | Research strength | International students | Teaching reputation |
Case 3 | 4 indicators α = 10 others α = 1 | Research strength | International students | Student staff ratio | Doctorate bachelor ratio | Citation impact |
Alternatives | Budget (Units) | Manpower (People) | Period (Months) |
---|---|---|---|
Citation Impact | 120 | 5 | 18 |
Research Reputation | 150 | 6 | 24 |
Research Strength | 100 | 4 | 15 |
International Students | 80 | 3 | 12 |
Teaching Reputation | 130 | 5 | 20 |
Scenario | Rank 1 | Rank 2 | Rank 3 | Rank 4 | Rank 5 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Baseline | International students | Research strength | Citation impact | Teaching reputation | Research reputation |
Budget +10% for all alternatives | International students | Research strength | Citation impact | Teaching reputation | Research reputation |
Period +10% for alternative 5 | International students | Research strength | Citation impact | Teaching reputation | Research reputation |
Period +50% for alternative 5 | International students | Research strength | Citation impact | Research reputation | Teaching reputation |
Method Family | Examples | Main Features | Why Not Used in This Study |
---|---|---|---|
Value/utility-based | MAUT, TOPSIS, VIKOR | Weighted aggregation into a single utility score | Flat aggregation reduces interpretability when many alternatives are evaluated simultaneously. |
Pairwise comparison | AHP, ANP | Pairwise judgments to derive weights | Requires extensive subjective comparisons, which is impractical with many alternatives. |
Outranking | ELECTRE III/IV, PROMETHEE | Establishes outranking relations with thresholds | Require multiple threshold parameters and yield results less intuitive for non-experts; not suitable for our case, which requires a transparent process to show the final choice among the commensurable and weighted indicators in THE Rankings. |
Stepwise/additive ratio | SWARA, ARAS, ARAS-F | Sequential assignment of weights or scores | Simplifies weighting and evaluation, but still treats all factors in a single stage, without distinguishing different dimensions of evaluation. |
Fuzzy/gray-based | Fuzzy AHP, Gray ARAS, Fuzzy PROMETHEE | Capture vagueness with fuzzy/grey numbers | Valuable for linguistic judgments, but THE data is quantitative and precise. Transparency was prioritized over handling fuzziness. |
Hybrid/extended | ANP–BOCR, fuzzy AHP–TOPSIS, PCA-based weighting | Combine MCDA with optimization/statistics | Increases robustness but usually aggregates all criteria in one stage. Our problem requires a transparent process to show how the final choice is made. |
Rank | Two-Layer Model | One-Layer Method |
---|---|---|
1 | International students | Citation impact |
2 | Research strength | International students |
3 | Citation impact | Research reputation |
4 | Teaching reputation | Teaching reputation |
5 | Research reputation | Research influence |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2025 by the authors. Published by MDPI on behalf of the International Institute of Knowledge Innovation and Invention. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Zhou, Y.; Asano, A. A Two-Layer Model for Complex Multi-Criteria Decision-Making and Its Application in Institutional Research. Appl. Syst. Innov. 2025, 8, 148. https://doi.org/10.3390/asi8050148
Zhou Y, Asano A. A Two-Layer Model for Complex Multi-Criteria Decision-Making and Its Application in Institutional Research. Applied System Innovation. 2025; 8(5):148. https://doi.org/10.3390/asi8050148
Chicago/Turabian StyleZhou, Yinghui, and Atsushi Asano. 2025. "A Two-Layer Model for Complex Multi-Criteria Decision-Making and Its Application in Institutional Research" Applied System Innovation 8, no. 5: 148. https://doi.org/10.3390/asi8050148
APA StyleZhou, Y., & Asano, A. (2025). A Two-Layer Model for Complex Multi-Criteria Decision-Making and Its Application in Institutional Research. Applied System Innovation, 8(5), 148. https://doi.org/10.3390/asi8050148