A Novel Fuzzy Modified RAFSI Method and its Applications in Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Problems

Garima Bisht, A. K. Pal


In real-life decision-making problems, the constraints may change from time to time. Considering the change of elements of certain decisions which lead to the introduction of new alternative or removal of old alternative to the existing decision causing rank reversal. Rank reversal is the most significant problem that can’t be ignored in the MCDM methods. Ranking of alternatives through functional mapping of criterion subintervals into a single interval (RAFSI) method effectively removes the problem of rank reversal, but there are some limitations like standardized decision matrix is obtained by the assumption of supreme value as at least six times improved than the anti-supreme value, which is not always true. This paper aims to address those limitations by giving a modified form of the RAFSI (MRAFSI) method.  As real-life problems are associated with uncertainty in form of linguistic terms, a fuzzified form of the MRAFSI method has been given using triangular fuzzy numbers (TFNs) to deal with uncertainty. The effectiveness of the presented method is illustrated using a real-time case study to rank five stocks under the National Stock Exchange (NSE) for the year 2021 and is compared with other MCDM methods for validation. The supplier selection problem has been taken as an example to show the application of the Fuzzy Modified RAFSI (FMRAFSI) method.

Full Text:



Ali, M. Y., Sultana, A., Khan, A. F. M. K. (2016). Comparison of fuzzy multiplication operation on triangular fuzzy number, ISOR Journal of Mathematics, Vol. 12, 35-41.

Barzilai, J., Golany, B. (2017). AHP Rank Reversal, Normalization and Aggregation Rules, Information Systems and Operational Research, 32(2): 57-64.

Belton, V., Gear, T. (1983). On a Short-Coming of Saaty’s Method of Analytic Hierarchies, Omega, 11, 228–230.

Božanić, D., Milić1, A., Tešić1, D., Sałabun, W., Pamučar, D. (2021). D Numbers – Fucom – Fuzzy Rafsi Model for selecting the group of construction machines for enabling mobility, Facta Universitatis.

Chai, J., Liu, J. N. K., Ngai, E. W. T. (2013). Application of Decision-Making Techniques in Supplier Selection: A Systematic Review of Literature. Expert Systems with Applications, 40:3872–85.

Chen, C.T. (2000). Extension of the TOPSIS for group decision making un-der fuzzy Environment. Journal of Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 114, 1-9.

Fedrizzi, M., Giove, S., Predella, N. (2018). Rank reversal in the AHP with consistent judgements: A numerical study in single and group decision making. Collan M., Kacprzyk J. (eds). Soft Computing Applications for Group Decision-making and Consensus Modeling. Studies in Fuzziness and Soft Computing, 357. Springer, Cham.

García-cascales, M. S., Lamata, M. T. (2012). On rank reversal and TOPSIS method, Mathematical and Computer Modelling, 56:123–32.

Hota, H.S., Sharma, L.K., Pavani, S. (2014). Fuzzy TOPSIS method applied for ranking of Teacher in Higher Education, Intelligent Computers, Networking & Informatics, Vol.243, pp.1225-1232.

Kargi, V. (2016). Supplier Selection for a Textile Company Using the Fuzzy TOPSIS Method, Yönetim ve Ekonomi 23/3, 789-803.

Kong, F. (2011). Rank reversal and rank preservation in TOPSIS, Advanced Materials Research, Vol. 204-210, pp. 36-41.

Latpate, R.V. (2015). Fuzzy modified TOPSIS for supplier selection problem in supply chain management, International Journal of innovative research in computer science and technology, Vol. 3, 2347-5552.

Leskinen, P., Kangas, J. (2005).Rank reversals in multi-criteria decision analysis with statistical modelling of ratio-scale pairwise comparisons. J. Oper. Res. Soc., 56, 855–861.

Matin, H. Z., Fathi, Zarchi, M.K, ve Azizollahi, S. (2011). The Application of Fuzzy TOPSIS Approach To Personnel Selection For Padir Company,Iran, Journal of Management Research, 3(2),1-13.

Mufazzal, S., Muzakkir, S. M. (2018). A new multi-criterion decision making (MCDM) method based on proximity indexed value for minimizing rank reversals. Comput Ind Eng, 119:427–38.

Nagoorgani, A., Assarudeen, S. N. M. (2012). A new operation on Triangular Fuzzy number for solving fuzzy linear programming problem, Applied Mathematical Sciences, Vol. 6, 525-532.

Paydar, M.M., Arabsheybani, A., SattarSafaei, A. (2017). A new approach for sustainable supplier selection. Int. J. Ind. Eng. Prod. Res., 28, 47–59.

Pamučar, D., Žižović, M., Marinković, D., Doljanica, D., Jovanović, S. V., Brzaković, P. (2020). Development of a multi-criteria model for sustainable reorganization of a healthcare system in an emergency situation caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, Sustainability, 12(18), 7504.

Ramanathan, U., Ramanathan, R. (2011). An investigation into rank reversal properties of the multiplicative AHP. Int. J. Oper. Res., 11:54–77.

Sahu, N., Jaiswal, R. (2018). BSE index ranking and performance evaluation using MCDM techniques, International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology, Vol. 5.

Salabun, W. (2018). Handling data uncertainty in decision making with COMET, Proc. of 2018 IEEE Symposium Series Computational Intelligence (SSCI), Bangalore, India.

Salema, A.A.A., Awasthi, A. (2018). Investigating rank reversal in reciprocal fuzzy preference relation based on additive consistency: Causes and solutions. Comput Ind Eng, 115:573–81.

Schenkerman, S. (1994). Avoiding rank reversals in AHP decision support models. Eur J Oper Res., 74:407–19.

Sałabun, W., Ziemba, P., Wątr´obski, J. (2016). The rank reversals paradox in management decisions: The comparison of the AHP and COMET methods, Intelligent Decision Technologies.

Stevi´c, Z., Pamucar, D., Puška, A., Chatterjee, P. (2020). Sustainable supplier selection in healthcare industries using a new MCDM method: Measurement of alternatives and ranking according to Compromise solution (MARCOS), Comput. Ind. Eng. 140, 106231.

Triantaphyllou, E. (2001). Two new cases of rank reversals when the AHP and some of its additive variants are used that do not occur with multiplicative AHP, J Multi-criteria Decis Anal, 10:11–25.

Triantaphyllou, E., Mann, S.H. (1989). An examination of the electiveness of multi-dimensional decision-making methods: A decision-making paradox. Decis. Support System, 5, 303–312.

Vargas, L.G. (1994). Reply to Schenkerman’s avoiding rank reversals in AHP decision support models. Eur J Oper Res., 74:420–5.

Wang, Y., Luo, Y. (2009). On rank reversal in decision analysis. Mathematical and Computer Modelling, 49:1221–9.

Wang, Y. M., Elhag, TMS. (2006). An approach to avoiding rank reversal in AHP. Decis Support Syst, 42:1474–80.

Wang, T.C., Chang, T.H. (2007). Application of TOPSIS in Evaluating Initial Training Aircraft Under a Fuzzy Environment, Expert Systems with Applications, 33(4),870-880.

Žižović, M., Pamučar, D., Albijanić, M., Chatterjee, P., Pribićević, I. (2020). Eliminating rank reversal problem using a new multi-attribute model – the RAFSI method, Mathematics, 8(6), 1015.

Zadeh, L. A. (1965). Fuzzy sets. Information and Control, 8, 338–356.

Zhou, X., Xu, Z. (2018). An Integrated Sustainable Supplier Selection Approach Based on Hybrid Information Aggregation, Sustainability, 10, 2543.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.31449/inf.v48i1.4144

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.