EVERGREEN

Joint Journal of Novel Carbon Resource Sciences and Green Asia Strategy

ISSN:2189-0420 (Print until Mar 2020)
ISSN:2432-5953 (Online)

SCImago Journal & Country Rank

Open Access
Scopus
Google Scholar
Crossref
SCImago Journal & Country Rank
4.3
2024CiteScore
 
69th percentile
Powered by Scopus
Metrics by SCOPUS 2024
CiteScore
4.3
SJR
0.391
SNIP
1.192

DAM Weighting: A New Approach to Determining Criteria Weighting in Multi-Criteria Decision Making

Dyah Ayu Megawaty1, Damayanti Damayanti1, Sumanto Sumanto2, Pritasari Palupiningsih3, Ryan Randy Suryono1, Setiawansyah Setiawansyah1,*, Muhammad Rahman1
1Faculty of Engineering and Computer Science, Universitas Teknokrat Indonesia, Lampung,35132, Indonesia
2Faculty of Engineering and Informatics, Universitas Bina Sarana Informatika, Jakarta,10450, Indonesia
3Faculty of Energy Telematics, Institut Teknologi Perusahaan Listrik Negara, Tanggerang 11750, Indonesia
*Author to whom correspondence should be addressed:
E-mail: setiawansyah@teknokrat.ac.id (SS)
Evergreen, Vol. 13, Iss. 02, pp. 788–800, 2026
DOI: 10.5109/7432655
Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International
Received: December 19, 2024 | Revised: April 12, 2026 | Accepted: April 27, 2026 | Published: June 2026
Abstract
The weighting of criteria in multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) is essential because it reflects the level of importance or priority of each criterion considered in decision-making. This paper aims to propose an innovative objective weighting method called the Data Assessment Model (DAM) to increase the validity and reliability of objective weighting in multi-criteria decision-making. The DAM method enables the weighting of criteria to be determined based on empirical data, rather than solely on a subjective assessment made by one or several decision-makers. The Pearson correlation analysis was conducted to measure the linear relationship between the ranking vectors of alternatives generated by different combinations of objective weighting methods and MCDM techniques, including SAW, MOORA, TOPSIS, and SMART. In this context, each correlation value represents the similarity between alternative rankings produced using different weighting schemes within the same MCDM method. The results show that, in combination with SAW, the MEREC and DAM methods achieved a perfect correlation value of 1, followed by CRITIC with 0.909 and Entropy with 0.825. For TOPSIS, DAM demonstrated the highest correlation value of 0.902, followed by MEREC with 0.881, while Entropy and CRITIC showed lower values of 0.811 and 0.825. In the MOORA method, DAM again reached the maximum value of 1, followed by MEREC with 0.993 and CRITIC with 0.95, whereas Entropy remained lower at 0.825. Meanwhile, for SMART, CRITIC produced the highest correlation value of 0.979, followed by DAM with 0.965, MEREC with 0.95, and Entropy with 0.888. These results indicate that the DAM and MEREC weighting methods tend to produce ranking patterns that are more consistent with other methods, while the Entropy method shows relatively greater variation. From these results, it can be concluded that the DAM Weighting method has the strongest correlation with the tested data, while the Entropy method shows a relatively lower correlation compared to the other methods.
Keywords
DAM Weighting; Decision-Making; Determining; MCDM; Pearson Correlation
Available Repositories
Journal DOI Zenodo Archive
Share Article
Article Metrics
--
Views
--
Downloads
--
Citations
Export Citation
BibTeX RIS Semantic Scholar CrossRef Mendeley Google Scholar
Full Text
Download PDF
References
  1. 1) L. Siciliani, V. Taccardi, P. Basile, M. Di Ciano, and P. Lops, “AI-based decision support system for public procurement,” Inf. Syst., 119 (1) 1–16 (2023). doi:10.1016/j.is.2023.102284.
  2. 2) F.M. Toma, “A hybrid neuro-experimental decision support system to classify overconfidence and performance in a simulated bubble using a passive bci,” Expert Syst. Appl., 212 (1) 11–22 (2023). doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2022.118722.
  3. 3) H. Sulistiani, S. Setiawansyah, P. Palupiningsih, F. Hamidy, P.L. Sari, and Y. Khairunnisa, “Employee Performance Evaluation Using Multi-Attribute Utility Theory (MAUT) with PIPRECIA-S Weighting: A Case Study in Education Institution,” in: 2023 Int. Conf. Informatics, Multimedia, Cyber Informations Syst., 2023: pp. 369–373. doi:10.1109/ICIMCIS60089.2023.10349017.
  4. 4) H. Sulistiani, S. Setiawansyah, A.F.O. Pasaribu, P. Palupiningsih, K. Anwar, and V.H. Saputra, “New topsis: modification of the topsis method for objective determination of weighting,” Int. J. Intell. Eng. Syst., 17 (5) 991–1003 (2024). doi:10.22266/ijies2024.1031.74.
  5. 5) D.D. Trung, “Application of edas, marcos, topsis, moora and piv methods for multi-criteria decision making in milling process,” Strojnícky Časopis - J. Mech. Eng., 71 (2) 69–84 (2021). doi:10.2478/scjme-2021-0019.
  6. 6) S. Biswas, A. Sanyal, D. Božanić, A. Puška, and D. Marinković, “Critical success factors for 5g technology adaptation in supply chains,” Sustainability, 15 (6) 5539 (2023). doi:10.3390/su15065539.
  7. 7) S.K. Sahoo, and S.S. Goswami, “A comprehensive review of multiple criteria decision-making (mcdm) methods: advancements, applications, and future directions,” Decis. Mak. Adv., 1 (1) 25–48 (2023). doi:10.31181/dma1120237.
  8. 8) T. Sharma, and A. Sarin, “Multi-criteria decision making for solar site selection in punjab, india: an evaluation of site suitability using hybrid mcdm techniques towards the goal of sustainable energy development,” Results Eng., 27 (1) 106–125 (2025). doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rineng.2025.106288. [DOI]
  9. 9) 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., 8 (11) 8942 (2024). doi:10.24294/jipd.v8i11.8942.
  10. 10) M.C. Joe Anand, K. Kalaiarasi, N. Martin, B. Ranjitha, S.S. Priyadharshini, and M. Tiwari, “Fuzzy C-Means Clustering with MAIRCA -MCDM Method in Classifying Feasible Logistic Suppliers of Electrical Products,” in: 2023 First Int. Conf. Cyber Phys. Syst. Power Electron. Electr. Veh., IEEE, 2023: pp. 1–7. doi:10.1109/ICPEEV58650.2023.10391835.
  11. 11) G.M. Magableh, “An integrated model for rice supplier selection strategies and a comparative analysis of fuzzy multicriteria decision-making approaches based on the fuzzy entropy weight method for evaluating rice suppliers,” PLoS One, 19 (4) e0301930 (2024). doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0301930.
  12. 12) S. Dash, S. Chakravarty, N.C. Giri, and R. Khargotra, “Evaluating sustainable wind energy sources with multiple criteria decision-making (mcdm) techniques,” Comput. Electr. Eng., 123 (1) 110–123 (2025). doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compeleceng.2025.110285. [DOI]
  13. 13) A. Ulutaş, F. Balo, and A. Topal, “Identifying the most efficient natural fibre for common commercial building insulation materials with an integrated psi, merec, lopcow and mcrat model,” Polymers (Basel)., 15 (6) 1500 (2023). doi:10.3390/polym15061500.
  14. 14) A.M. Barasin, A.Y. Alqahtani, and A.A. Makki, “Performance evaluation of retail warehouses: a combined mcdm approach using g-bwm and ratmi,” Logistics, 8 (1) 10 (2024). doi:10.3390/logistics8010010.
  15. 15) B. Ayan, S. Abacıoğlu, and M.P. Basilio, “A comprehensive review of the novel weighting methods for multi-criteria decision-making,” Information, 14 (5) 285 (2023). doi:10.3390/info14050285.
  16. 16) L. Zhang, Q. Cheng, and S. Qu, “Evaluation of railway transportation performance based on critic-relative entropy method in china,” J. Adv. Transp., 23 (1) 1–11 (2023). doi:10.1155/2023/5257482.
  17. 17) D. Boix-Cots, F. Pardo-Bosch, and P. Pujadas, “A systematic review on multi-criteria group decision-making methods based on weights: analysis and classification scheme,” Inf. Fusion, 9 (6) 16–36 (2023). doi:10.1016/j.inffus.2023.03.004.
  18. 18) D. Tešić, M. Radovanović, D. Božanić, D. Pamucar, A. Milić, and A. Puška, “Modification of the dibr and mabac methods by applying rough numbers and its application in making decisions,” Information, 13 (8) 353 (2022). doi:10.3390/info13080353.
  19. 19) 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., (2) 131–148 (2024). doi:10.21303/2461-4262.2024.003171.
  20. 20) A.R. Paramanik, S. Sarkar, and B. Sarkar, “OSWMI: an objective-subjective weighted method for minimizing inconsistency in multi-criteria decision making,” Comput. Ind. Eng., 16 (9) 108–126 (2022). doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2022.108138. [DOI]
  21. 21) D.D. Trung, B. Dudić, D. Van Duc, N. Hoai Son, and A. Mittelman, “Building a ranking system for lecturers based on student evaluations in teaching a specific course: a case study at a university in vietnam,” Int. J. Cogn. Res. Sci. Eng. Educ., 12 (2) 335–350 (2024). doi:10.23947/2334-8496-2024-12-2-335-350.
  22. 22) A.R. Mishra, M. Alrasheedi, J. Lakshmi, and P. Rani, “Multi-criteria decision analysis model using the q-rung orthopair fuzzy similarity measures and the copras method for electric vehicle charging station site selection,” Granul. Comput., 9 (1) 23 (2024). doi:10.1007/s41066-023-00447-1.
  23. 23) 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, 35 (1) 65–98 (2024). doi:10.15388/23-INFOR537.
  24. 24) D.D. Trung, “Development of data normalization methods for multi-criteria decision making: applying for marcos method,” Manuf. Rev., 9 22 (2022). doi:10.1051/mfreview/2022019.
  25. 25) R. Kumar, S. Singh, P.S. Bilga, Jatin, J. Singh, S. Singh, M.-L. Scutaru, and C.I. Pruncu, “Revealing the benefits of entropy weights method for multi-objective optimization in machining operations: a critical review,” J. Mater. Res. Technol., 10 1471–1492 (2021). doi:10.1016/j.jmrt.2020.12.114.
  26. 26) X. Wang, Z. Zhou, L. Sun, G. Xie, and Q. Lou, “Research on the evaluation index system of ‘new energy cloud’ operation mode based on critic weighting method and ahp method,” IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci., 831 (1) 12–17 (2021). doi:10.1088/1755-1315/831/1/012017.
  27. 27) M.N. Dwi Satria, E.R. Susanto, Setiawansyah, S. Maryana, and P. Palupiningsih, “Modification of grey relational analysis for dynamic criteria weighting in decision-making systems,” IIUM Eng. J., 26 (2) 187–203 (2025). doi:10.31436/iiumej.v26i2.3494.
  28. 28) D.A. Megawaty, D. Damayanti, S. Sumanto, S. Setiawansyah, Y.P. Putra, and C.R.S. Hati, “Comparative Analysis of Student Organization Chair Candidate Selection Using a Combination of ROC-MAUT and ROC-SMART,” in: 2024 Int. Conf. Adv. Inf. Sci. Dev., 2024: pp. 98–103. doi:10.1109/ICAISD63055.2024.10894887.
  29. 29) N.M. Mahfuz, M. Yusoff, and Z. Idrus, “Clustering heterogeneous categorical data using enhanced mini batch k-means with entropy distance measure,” Int. J. Electr. Comput. Eng., 13 (1) 1048 (2023). doi:10.11591/ijece.v13i1.pp1048-1059.
  30. 30) M. Akram, S. Naz, F. Feng, and A. Shafiq, “Assessment of hydropower plants in pakistan: muirhead mean-based 2-tuple linguistic t-spherical fuzzy model combining swara with copras,” Arab. J. Sci. Eng., 48 (5) 5859–5888 (2023). doi:10.1007/s13369-022-07081-0.
  31. 31) E. Pranita, J.P. Sembiring, A. Jayadi, N.U. Putri, A. Jaenul, and A.M. Fathurahman, “Melinjo Chip Dryer Monitoring System Using Fuzzy Logic Method,” in: 2023 Int. Conf. Networking, Electr. Eng. Comput. Sci. Technol., IEEE, 2023: pp. 98–102. doi:10.1109/IConNECT56593.2023.10327339.
  32. 32) C.-C. Liu, C.-H. Yu, and K.-S. Chen, “Using statistical test method to establish a decision model of performance evaluation matrix,” Appl. Sci., 13 (8) 51–59 (2023). doi:10.3390/app13085139.
  33. 33) P. William, O.J. Oyebode, A. Sharma, N. Garg, A. Shrivastava, and A. Rao, “Integrated decision support system for flood disaster management with sustainable implementation,” IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci., 1285 (1) 12–18 (2024). doi:10.1088/1755-1315/1285/1/012015.
  34. 34) J. Więckowski, B. Kizielewicz, B. Paradowski, A. Shekhovtsov, and W. Sałabun, “Application of multi-criteria decision analysis to identify global and local importance weights of decision criteria,” Int. J. Inf. Technol. Decis. Mak., 22 (06) 1867–1892 (2023). doi:10.1142/S0219622022500948.
  35. 35) S. Bošković, L. Švadlenka, M. Dobrodolac, S. Jovčić, and M. Zanne, “An extended aroman method for cargo bike delivery concept selection,” Decis. Mak. Adv., 1 (1) 1–9 (2023). doi:10.31181/v120231.
  36. 36) A. Sani, S. Aisyah, M. Rachmawati, D. P, and N. Wiliani, “Analysis of Decision Support Systems for Candidate Selection Scholarship Recipients Using TOPSIS Method,” in: Proc. 2nd Int. Conf. Law, Soc. Sci. Econ. Educ., EAI, 2022: pp. 19–26. doi:10.4108/eai.16-4-2022.2320136.
  37. 37) J. Tang, and F. Meng, “New method for interval-valued hesitant fuzzy decision making based on preference relations,” Soft Comput., 24 (17) 13381–13399 (2020). doi:10.1007/s00500-020-04756-4.
  38. 38) 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, 11 (6) 1544 (2023). doi:10.3390/math11061544.
  39. 39) Y.L. Li, Y.P. Tsang, C.-H. Wu, and C.K.M. Lee, “A multi-agent digital twin–enabled decision support system for sustainable and resilient supplier management,” Comput. Ind. Eng., 18 (7) 109–118 (2024). doi:10.1016/j.cie.2023.109838.
  40. 40) I. Badi, G. Demir, M.B. Bouraima, and A.K. Maraka, “Vendor managed inventory in practice: efficient scheduling and delivery optimization,” Spectr. Decis. Mak. Appl., 2 (1) 157–165 (2024). doi:10.31181/sdmap21202515.
  41. 41) F. Psarommatis, and D. Kiritsis, “A hybrid decision support system for automating decision making in the event of defects in the era of zero defect manufacturing,” J. Ind. Inf. Integr., 26 100263 (2022). doi:10.1016/j.jii.2021.100263.
  42. 42) V. Zamani, H. Taghaddos, and Y. Gholipour, “Simulation-based decision support system for earthmoving operations using computer vision,” Eng. Appl. Artif. Intell., 12 (4) 106–124 (2023). doi:10.1016/j.engappai.2023.106564.
  43. 43) M.P. Libório, R. Karagiannis, A.M.A. Diniz, P.I. Ekel, D.A.G. Vieira, and L.C. Ribeiro, “The use of information entropy and expert opinion in maximizing the discriminating power of composite indicators,” Entropy, 26 (2) 143 (2024). doi:10.3390/e26020143.
  44. 44) D. Kang, R. Jaisankar, V. Murugesan, K. Suvitha, S. Narayanamoorthy, A.H. Omar, N.I. Arshad, and A. Ahmadian, “A novel mcdm approach to selecting a biodegradable dynamic plastic product: a probabilistic hesitant fuzzy set-based copras method,” J. Environ. Manage., 340 (1) 117–127 (2023). doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2023.117967.
Other Papers in This Issue