RMCDA

This R package has been developed to serve as a universal library in R for the application of multi-criteria decision making methods.

<br>

<h2>UPDATE (6/6/25): the RMCDA package is now available on <a href="https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=RMCDA">CRAN</a>!</h2> <h3>Installation Guide</h3> <h4>CRAN version:</h4>

To install the CRAN version please simply run the following code (please check the reference manual for the CRAN version on <a href="https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=RMCDA">CRAN's website</a>):

install.packages('RMCDA')

To install the R package from Github run the following code:

devtools::install_github("AnniceNajafi/RMCDA")

<h3>Description of Methods</h3> This is an R package for applying MCDA methods on product data. <h3>Methods</h3> <table> <thead> <tr> <th>Method</th> <th>Full Name</th> <th>References</th> </tr> </thead> <tbody> <tr> <td>AHP</td> <td>Analytic Hierarchy Process</td> <td><a href=https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11518-006-0151-5>Saaty, T. L. (2004). Decision making—the analytic hierarchy and network processes (AHP/ANP). Journal of systems science and systems engineering, 13, 1-35.</a></td> </tr> <tr> <td>Fuzzy AHP</td> <td>Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process</td> <td><a href=https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.1201/9781315369884-3/comparison-methods-fahp-application-supplier-selection-nimet-yapici-pehlivan-turan-paksoy-ahmet-%C3%A7alik>Pehlivan, N. Y., Paksoy, T., & Çalik, A. (2017). Comparison of methods in FAHP with application in supplier selection. In Fuzzy analytic hierarchy process (pp. 45-76). Chapman and Hall/CRC.</a></td> </tr> <tr> <td>ANP</td> <td>Analytic Network Process</td> <td><a href = https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-1-4614-7279-7>Saaty, T. L., & Vargas, L. G. (2006). Decision making with the analytic network process (Vol. 282). Berlin, Germany: Springer Science+ Business Media, LLC.</a></td> </tr> <tr> <td>ARAS</td> <td>Additive Ratio Assessment</td> <td><a href = https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.3846/TEDE.2010.10>Zavadskas, E. K., & Turskis, Z. (2010). A new additive ratio assessment (ARAS) method in multicriteria decision‐making. Technological and economic development of economy, 16(2), 159-172.</a></td> </tr> <tr> <td>BORDA</td> <td>Borda Count Method</td> <td><a href = https://cir.nii.ac.jp/crid/1570854175105600384>Borda, J. D. (1781). M'emoire sur les' elections au scrutin. Histoire de l'Acad'emie Royale des Sciences.</a></td> </tr> <tr> <td>BWM</td> <td>Best Worst Method</td> <td><a href=https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305048314001480?casa_token=nWrNdLNgxLsAAAAA:y-S2YVMdX8H0vL4oL9vyhUljkyPKzyeIO_De3Xds38PqhwxQZH1-P2l5wR-0I9vN2GEx2umPE7w>Rezaei, J. (2015). Best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method. Omega, 53, 49-57.</a></td> </tr> <tr> <td>CILOS</td> <td>Crietion Impact LOSs</td> <td><a href=https://www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/10.1142/S0219622016500036>Zavadskas, E. K., & Podvezko, V. (2016). Integrated determination of objective criteria weights in MCDM. International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making, 15(02), 267-283.</a></td> </tr> <tr> <td>COCOSO</td> <td>Combined Compromise Solution</td> <td><a href = https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/MD-05-2017-0458/full/html?casa_token=2tQ35vkXRNcAAAAA:jjoT6lUqI2EqO1RCa4526f865wS5t6M_KAw6yTWq2ncqOXgHMK4svbcNenM6MhwbTaCD4s_3qjBtBHNJR1YvkXubBTxjrq5CSwjsJOvSwUIfRO8218SH>Yazdani, M., Zarate, P., Kazimieras Zavadskas, E., & Turskis, Z. (2019). A combined compromise solution (CoCoSo) method for multi-criteria decision-making problems. Management decision, 57(9), 2501-2519. </a></td> </tr> <tr> <td>CODAS</td> <td>Combinative Distance-based Assessment</td> <td><a href=https://etalpykla.vilniustech.lt/handle/123456789/116529>Keshavarz Ghorabaee, M., Zavadskas, E. K., Turskis, Z., & Antuchevičienė, J. (2016). A new combinative distance-based assessment (CODAS) method for multi-criteria decision-making.</a></td> </tr> <tr> <td>COPELAND</td> <td>Copeland Method</td> <td><a href=https://idp.springer.com/authorize/casa?redirect_uri=https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/bf01212012&casa_token=81GHAXKFs28AAAAA:OoRU5rbnI_HQarZyUmP7heBUQoj0PW6W0vZZF6T77kz2UkVXM43y1buf2_XDa_7SVRXRPz7I4MCI4eu7>Saari, D. G., & Merlin, V. R. (1996). The copeland method: I.: Relationships and the dictionary. Economic theory, 8, 51-76.</a></td> </tr> <tr> <td>COPRAS</td> <td>Complex Proportional Assessment</td> <td><a href=https://journals.rtu.lv/index.php/BJRBE/article/view/1822-427X.2007.4.195%E2%80%93203>Zavadskas, E. K., Kaklauskas, A., Peldschus, F., & Turskis, Z. (2007). Multi-attribute assessment of road design solutions by using the COPRAS method. The Baltic journal of Road and Bridge engineering, 2(4), 195-203.</a></td> </tr> <tr> <td>CRADIS</td> <td>Compromise Ranking and Distance from Ideal Solution</td> <td><a href=https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10668-021-01902-2>Puška, A., Stević, Ž., & Pamučar, D. (2022). Evaluation and selection of healthcare waste incinerators using extended sustainability criteria and multi-criteria analysis methods. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 1-31.</a></td> </tr> <tr> <td>CRITIC</td> <td>CRiteria Importance Through Intercriteria Correlation</td> <td><a href=https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/030505489400059H?via%3Dihub>Diakoulaki, D., Mavrotas, G., & Papayannakis, L. (1995). Determining objective weights in multiple criteria problems: The critic method. Computers & Operations Research, 22(7), 763-770.</a></td> </tr> <tr> <td>DEMATEL</td> <td>Decision-Making Trial and Evaluation Laboratory</td> <td><a href=https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1155/2018/3696457>Si, S. L., You, X. Y., Liu, H. C., & Zhang, P. (2018). DEMATEL technique: a systematic review of the state‐of‐the‐art literature on methodologies and applications. Mathematical problems in Engineering, 2018(1), 3696457.</a></td> </tr> <tr> <td>EDAS</td> <td>Evaluation based on Distance from Average Solution</td> <td><a href=https://content.iospress.com/articles/informatica/inf1070>Keshavarz Ghorabaee, M., Zavadskas, E. K., Olfat, L., & Turskis, Z. (2015). Multi-criteria inventory classification using a new method of evaluation based on distance from average solution (EDAS). Informatica, 26(3), 435-451.</a></td> </tr> <tr> <td>ELECTRE I</td> <td>ELimination Et Choix Traduisant la REalité</td> <td><a href=http://www.numdam.org/item/RO_1968__2_1_57_0.pdf> Roy, B. (1968). Classement et choix en présence de points de vue multiples. Revue française d'informatique et de recherche opérationnelle, 2(8), 57-75.</a></td> </tr> <tr> <td>ENTROPY</td> <td>Entropy Method</td> <td><a href=https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/6773024/?casa_token=_kCZjBOKVMgAAAAA:wq8nKNnia70lL4kneInKjM5WZz5V5uv1SQz4IUo9kGnEQewUsOiaLN-Vfh3X5HoglmLG0sH8>Shannon, C. E. (1948). A mathematical theory of communication. The Bell system technical journal, 27(3), 379-423.</a></td> </tr> <tr> <td>GRA</td> <td>Grey Relational Analysis</td> <td><a href=https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360835207002732?casa_token=pzzTjhaHoTUAAAAA:QgNfcIX3BmmUaSt8oI4cpRuyPIQlAa8NvVhb9oU47PmJlvP-TcvHAdLbKeKk9XLqiGxadAUZgg>Kuo, Y., Yang, T., & Huang, G. W. (2008). The use of grey relational analysis in solving multiple attribute decision-making problems. Computers & industrial engineering, 55(1), 80-93.</a></td> </tr> <tr> <td>IDOCRIW</td> <td>Integrated Determination of Objective CRIteria Weights </td> <td><a href=https://www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/10.1142/S0219622016500036>Zavadskas, E. K., & Podvezko, V. (2016). Integrated determination of objective criteria weights in MCDM. International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making, 15(02), 267-283.</a></td> </tr> <tr> <td>MABAC</td> <td>Multi-Attributive Border Approximation Area Comparison</td> <td><a href=https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0957417414007568?casa_token=0e_2p15LstQAAAAA:Piq5a90Bopn646GsqlGLmwBncig9NPtrC37S2WH7ThyDjvXlX4Zapv_1-NmHWDj2qRhDXZzmhw>Pamučar, D., & Ćirović, G. (2015). The selection of transport and handling resources in logistics centers using Multi-Attributive Border Approximation area Comparison (MABAC). Expert systems with applications, 42(6), 3016-3028.</a></td> </tr> <tr> <td>MACBETH</td> <td>Measuring Attractiveness by a Categorical Based Evaluation Technique</td> <td><a href=https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fbuil.2019.00006/full>Marcelino, P., Antunes, M. D. L., Fortunato, E., & Gomes, M. C. (2019). Development of a multi criteria decision analysis model for pavement maintenance at the network level: Application of the MACBETH approach. Frontiers in Built Environment, 5, 6.</a></td> </tr> <tr> <td>MAIRCA</td> <td>Multi-Attribute Ideal Real Comparative Analysis</td> <td><a href=https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02626667.2022.2027949>Hadian, S., Shahiri Tabarestani, E., & Pham, Q. B. (2022). Multi attributive ideal-real comparative analysis (MAIRCA) method for evaluating flood susceptibility in a temperate Mediterranean climate. Hydrological Sciences Journal, 67(3), 401-418.</a></td> </tr> <tr> <td>MARA</td> <td>Multi-Attribute Ranking Approach</td> <td><a href