Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Determination of Interaction Between Criteria and the Criteria Priorities in Laptop Selection Problem

  • Published:
International Journal of Fuzzy Systems Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The statistic of global laptop shipment showed that 161.6 million laptops were sold, 65.23% more than desktop-PCs, and almost the same quantity as tablets in 2017. So, laptop demand is quite high and needs to be researched on what kind of criteria (properties) are crucial. Since there are more than one criteria, this study focuses on multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) methods in selecting laptops. This study aims to determine the interaction between criteria, and the criteria priorities in laptop selection problem that can be added/changing new features every day and to present the findings/results to the researcher/decision-makers. DEMATEL method is used for determining the interactions which are not observed in laptop literature, and fuzzy AHP is for criteria priorities. The price and brand image of a laptop have more interrelated action than the other main criteria. According to results, the brand image is determined as the most important criteria. Along with the brand image, other/peripheral properties and price criteria have totally two-thirds priority among six main criteria. The brand image along with the price had a dominant effect on other criteria according to the interaction matrices/diagrams. This study also shows that criteria priority results should be considered along with interaction matrices/diagrams that may produce such following information: speed, storage, monitor and other/peripheral properties criteria have overall effecting feature but not strongly, while brand image is a transition criterion along with having the highest priority, and the price criterion is obviously being affected by all criteria.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Triantaphyllou, E.: Multi-criteria decision making methods. In: Multi-Criteria Decision Making Methods: A Comparative Study. Applied Optimization, vol. 44, pp. 1–4. Springer, Boston (2000). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4757-3157-6_2

    Chapter  MATH  Google Scholar 

  2. Kahraman, C.: Fuzzy multi-criteria decision making: theory and applications with recent developments. Springer, Berlin (2008)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  3. Chen, S.J., Hwang, C.L.: Fuzzy multiple attribute decision making methods. In: Fuzzy Multiple Attribute Decision Making. Lecture Notes in Economics and Mathematical Systems, vol. 375, pp. 289–486. Springer, Berlin (1992). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-46768-4_5

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  4. Gabus, A., Fontela, E.: World problems an invitation to further thought within the framework of DEMATEL. Battelle Geneva Research Centre, Geneva (1972)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Saaty, T.: The analytic hierarchy process: Planning, priority setting, resource allocation. McGraw-Hill, New York (1980)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  6. Hwang, C.L., Yoon, K.: Methods for multiple attribute decision making. In: Multiple Attribute Decision Making. Lecture Notes in Economics and Mathematical Systems, vol. 186, pp. 58–191. Springer, Berlin (1981). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-48318-9_3

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  7. Deng, J.L.: Control problems of grey systems. Sys. Contr. Lett. 1(5), 288–294 (1982)

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  8. Brans, J.P., Vincke, P.: Note-A Preference Ranking Organisation Method: The PROMETHEE Method for Multiple Criteria Decision-Making. Manage. Sci. 31(6), 647–656 (1985)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  9. Costa, C.A.B., Vansnick, J.C.: MACBETH-An interactive path towards the construction of cardinal value functions. Int. Trans. Oper. Res. 1(4), 489–500 (1994)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  10. Zavadskas, E.K., Kaklauskas, A., Turskis, Z., Tamošaitien, J.: Selection of the effective dwelling house walls by applying attributes values determined at intervals. J. Civil. Eng. Manage 14(2), 85–93 (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  11. Saaty, T.L.: Fundamentals of the analytic network process, proceedings of ISAHP, Kobe, Japan, 48–63 (1999)

  12. Trajcovic, S., Avakumovic, D., Opricovic, S.: Multi criteria optimization of an irrigation system. Archit. Civ. Eng. 1(4), 547–552 (1997)

    Google Scholar 

  13. Brauers, W.K., Zavadskas, E.K.: The MOORA method and its application to privatization in a transition economy. Control Cybern 35(2), 445–469 (2006)

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  14. Zavadskas, E.K., Turskis, Z.: A new additive ratio assessment (ARAS) method in multicriteria decision-making. Technol. Econ. Dev. Econ. 16(2), 159–172 (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  15. Das, M.C., Sarkar, B., Ray, S.: Decision making under conflicting environment: a new MCDM method. Int. J. Appl. Decis. Sci. 5(2), 142–162 (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  16. Shannon, C.E., Weaver, W.: The mathematical theory of communication, vol. 27, pp. 379–423. University of Illinois Press, Urbana (1949)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  17. Zadeh, L.A.: Fuzzy sets. Inf. Control 8(3), 338–353 (1965)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  18. Diakoulaki, D., Mavrotas, G., Papayannakis, L.: Determining objective weights in multiple criteria problems: The critic method. Comput. Oper. Res. 22(7), 763–770 (1995)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  19. Pekkaya, M., Aktogan, M.: Dizüstü Bilgisayar Seçimi: DEA. TOPSIS ve VIKOR ile Karşılaştırmalı Bir Analiz, Ekonomik ve Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi 10(1), 157–178 (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  20. Sumi, R.S., Kabir, G.: Analytical hierarchy process for higher effectiveness of buyer decision process. Global J. Manage. Bus. Res 10(2), 2–9 (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  21. Wichapa, N., Khokhajaikiat, P., Sarawan, K., Gonwirat, S.: Selection of the best laptop for educational purposes using hybrid decision making technique. 10(3), 368 (2019)

  22. Stanujkić, D., Jevtić, M., Ivanov, B.: An approach for laptop computers evaluation using multiple-criteria decision analysis. In Proc. of International Scientific Conference UNITECH, 263–267 (2018)

  23. Rayhan, D.S.A.: Selection of best laptop for educational purpose by using ANP. World J. Soc. Sci. 6(2), 167–181 (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  24. Borthick, A.F., Scheiner, J.H.: Selection of small business computer systems: Structuring a multi-criteria approach. J. Inf. Sys. 3(2), 10–29 (1998)

    Google Scholar 

  25. Düzakın, E., Demirtaş, S.: En uygun performansa sahip kişisel bilgisayarların oluşturulmasında veri zarflama analizinin kullanımı. Çukurova Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi 14(2), 265–280 (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  26. Gal, T., Hanne, T.: Nonessential objectives within network approaches for MCDM. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 168(2), 584–592 (2006)

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  27. Ertuğrul, İ., Karakaşoğlu, N.: Electre ve bulanık ahp yöntemleri ile bir işletme için bilgisayar seçimi. Dokuz Eylül Ünv İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi 25(2), 23–41 (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  28. Lakshmi, T.M., Venkatesan, V.P., Martin, A.: Identification of a better laptop with conflicting criteria using TOPSIS. Int. J. Inf. Eng. Elect. Bus. 7(6), 28–36 (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  29. Adalı, E.A., Işık, A.T.: The multi-objective decision making methods based on MULTIMOORA and MOOSRA for the laptop selection problem. J. Ind. Eng. Int. 13(2), 229–237 (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  30. Ulutaş, A., Cengiz, E.: CRITIC ve EVAMIX yöntemleri ile bir işletme için dizüstü bilgisayar seçimi. J. Int. Soc. Res. 11(55), 881–887 (2018)

    Google Scholar 

  31. Hu, H.Y., Lee, Y.C., Yen, T.M., Tsai, C.H.: Using BPNN and DEMATEL to modify importance–performance analysis model—a study of the computer industry. Expert Syst. Appl. 36(6), 9969–9979 (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  32. Tsai, S.B.: Using the DEMATEL model to explore the job satisfaction of research and development professionals in china’s photovoltaic cell industry. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 81(1), 62–68 (2018)

    Google Scholar 

  33. Tseng, M.L., Lin, Y.H.: Application of fuzzy DEMATEL to develop a cause and effect model of municipal solid waste. Environ. Monit. Assess. 158(1–4), 519–533 (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  34. Wu, W.W., Lee, Y.T.: Developing global managers’ competencies using the fuzzy DEMATEL method. Expert Syst. Appl. 32(2), 499–507 (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  35. Tzeng, G.H., Chiang, C.H., Li, C.W.: Evaluating intertwined effects in e-learning programs: A novel hybrid MCDM model based on factor analysis and DEMATEL. Expert Syst. Appl. 32(4), 1028–1044 (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  36. Yang, Y.P.O., Shieh, H.M., Leu, J.D., Tzeng, G.H.: A novel hybrid MCDM model combined with DEMATEL and ANP with applications. Int. J. Oper. Res 5(3), 160–168 (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  37. Kashi, K.: DEMATEL method in practice: finding the causal relations among key competencies. The 9th International days of statistics and economics, Prague, 2015, 723–732. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/, Accessed 08 Oct 2019

  38. Aksakal, E., Dağdeviren, M.: ANP ve DEMATEL Yöntemleri İle Personel Seçimi Problemine Bütünleşik Bir Yaklaşim. Gazi Üniversitesi Mühendislik-Mimarlık Fakültesi Dergisi 25(4), 905–913 (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  39. Paksoy, S.: Çok Kriterli Karar Vermede Güncel Yaklaşımlar. Karahan Kitabevi, Adana (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  40. Hamzaçebi, C., Pekkaya, M.: Determining of stock investments with grey relational analysis. Expert Syst. Appl. 38(8), 9186–9195 (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  41. Kabir, G., Hasin, M.A.A.: Comparative analysis of AHP and fuzzy AHP models for multicriteria inventory classification. Int. J. Fuzzy Log. Syst 1(1), 1–16 (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  42. Chou, Y.C., Sun, C.C., Yen, H.Y.: Evaluating the criteria for human resource for science and technology (HRST) based on an integrated fuzzy AHP and fuzzy DEMATEL approach. Appl. Soft. Comput 12(1), 64–71 (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  43. Hsieh, T.Y., Lu, S.T., Tzeng, G.H.: Fuzzy MCDM approach for planning and design tenders selection in public office buildings. Int. J. Project Manage. 22(7), 573–584 (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  44. Chou, Y.C., Yen, H.Y., Dang, V.T., Sun, C.C.: Assessing the human resource in science and technology for Asian countries: application of fuzzy AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS. Symmetry 11(2), 251–267 (2019)

    Google Scholar 

  45. Akman, G., Alkan, A.: Tedarik Zinciri Yönetiminde Bulanık AHP yöntemi kullanılarak tedarikçilerin performansının ölçülmesi: Otomotiv Yan Sanayiinde bir uygulama. İstanbul Ticaret Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Dergisi 5(9), 23–46 (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  46. Pekkaya, M.: Hizmet Kalite Standartları Temelli, Hastanelerin ÇKKV İle Değerlendirilmesi, 17th International Symposium on Econometrics, Operations Research and Statistics (ISEOS 2016), 2-4 June 2016 in Sivas, Turkey. ISEOS 2016 Proceedings, 974-982. ISBN: 978-605-4561-47-6 (2016)

  47. Roszkowska, E.: Rank ordering criteria weighting methods-a comparative overview. Optimum Studia Ekonomiczne 5(65), 14–33 (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  48. Si, S.L., You, X.Y., Liu, H.C., Zhang, P.: DEMATEL technique: A systematic review of the state-of-the-art literature on methodologies and applications. Math Probl Eng 2018, 1–33 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/3696457

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Pekkaya, M., Aslan, B.: OSB Yer Seçiminde Dikkate Alınan Kriterler Arası Etkileşimin ve Kriter Önem Derecelerinin Belirlenmesi. Int. J. Econ. Adm. Stud 18, 293–308 (2018)

    Google Scholar 

  50. Pekkaya, M., ErolDemir, F.: Determining the Priorities of CAMELS Dimensions Based on Bank Performance. In: Dincer, H., Hacioglu, Ü., Yüksel, S. (eds.) Global Approaches in Financial Economics, Banking, and Finance. Contributions to Economics. Springer, Cham (2018)

    Google Scholar 

  51. Pekkaya, M., Erol, F.: Generating priority series via AHP for conducting statistical tests on CAMELS dimension priorities in evaluating bank failure risk. J. Intell. Fuzzy Sys 37(6), 8131–8146 (2019)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Management Information Systems, Bartın University, Ağdacı, Bartın, Turkey

    Fatma Sönmez Çakır

  2. Business Administration, Z. Bülent, Ecevit University (ZBEU), İncivez, Zonguldak, Turkey

    Mehmet Pekkaya

Authors
  1. Fatma Sönmez Çakır
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mehmet Pekkaya
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mehmet Pekkaya.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Sönmez Çakır, F., Pekkaya, M. Determination of Interaction Between Criteria and the Criteria Priorities in Laptop Selection Problem. Int. J. Fuzzy Syst. 22, 1177–1190 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40815-020-00857-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40815-020-00857-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation