Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Modified fuzzy TOPSIS + TFNs ranking model for candidate selection using the qualifying criteria

  • Methodologies and Application
  • Published:
Soft Computing Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Currently, globalization process significantly impacts not only technological, economical, but also social, political and cultural fields. Ongoing social, economic and political processes demonstrate their impacts, and countries are governed by different regimes and government forms. From this standpoint, there is a need for qualified, competent staff for operation of the regimes and governments. In the article researches, which criteria or factors must be taken into account for selection of competent candidates that are suitable for relevant positions during the election process in contrast to traditional voting. Criteria for candidates’ selection include adoption of democratic principles, age, education, government agency experience, professional competence, global culture and value acknowledgement, influence in voting area, leadership skills, activity in social media, etc. In the article implemented multi-criteria evaluation approach for candidate selection. Candidates are ranked based on criteria selected using modified fuzzy TOPSIS and triangular fuzzy numbers ranking methods and different aggregation operators. Candidates are ranked by applying both methods in a numeral experiment, and obtained results are compared. Proposed fuzzy multi-criteria decision-making model allows determining a compromise solution in candidate selection.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Afshari AR, Nikolić M, Akbari Z (2017) Personnel selection using group fuzzy AHP and SAW methods. J Eng Manag Compet 7(1):3–10

    Google Scholar 

  • Akyar E, Akyar H, Duzce SA (2012) A new method for ranking triangular fuzzy numbers. Int J Uncertain Fuzz 20(5):729–740

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Alguliyev RM, Yusifov FF (2016a) E-government formation challenges and solution perspectives. In: Kadry S et al (eds) E-systems for the 21st century: concept, developments, and applications, vol 1. Apple Academic Press, exclusive distributor by CRC press. Taylor and Francis group, Waretown, New Jersey, USA, pp 171–196

    Google Scholar 

  • Alguliyev RM, Yusifov FF (2016b) Challenges of transformation from e-government to e-democracy. 14th international conference on e-Society. Algarve, Portugal, pp 217–220

    Google Scholar 

  • Alguliyev RM, Aliguliyev RM, Mahmudova RM (2015) Multicriteria personnel selection by the modified fuzzy VIKOR method. Sci World J. https://doi.org/10.1155/2015/612767

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alguliyev RM, Aliguliyev RM, Mahmudova RM (2016) A Fuzzy TOPSIS+worst-case model for personnel evaluation using information culture criteria. Int J Oper Res Inf Syst 7(4):38–66

    Google Scholar 

  • Aliguliyev R (2009) Performance evaluation of density-based clustering methods. Inform Sciences 179:3583–3602

    Google Scholar 

  • Awad M, Leiss EL (2016) The evolution of voting: analysis of conventional and electronic voting systems. Int J Appl Eng 11(12):7888–7896

    Google Scholar 

  • Borissova D (2018) A group decision making model considering experts competency: an application in personnel selection. CR Acad Bulg Sci 71(11):1520–1527

    Google Scholar 

  • Bormann N-C, Golder M (2013) Democratic electoral systems around the world, 1946–2011. Elect Stud 32:360–369

    Google Scholar 

  • Boulmakoul A, Laarabi MH, Sacile R, Garbolino E (2013) Ranking triangular fuzzy numbers using fuzzy set inclusion index. In: Masulli F, Pasi G, Yager R (eds) Fuzzy logic and applications, WILF 2013. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 8256. Springer, Cham

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Capaldo G, Zollo G (2001) Applying fuzzy logic to personnel assessment: a case study. Omega 29(6):585–597

    Google Scholar 

  • Chang Y-H, Yeh C-H, Chang Y-W (2013) A new method selection approach for fuzzy group multicriteria decision making. Appl Soft Comput 13(4):2179–2187. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2012.12.009

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dursun M, Karsak EE (2010) A fuzzy MCDM approach for personnel selection. Expert Syst Appl 37:4324–4330

    Google Scholar 

  • Emerson P (2016) From majority rule to inclusive politics. Springer, ISBN 978-3-319-23500-4

  • Farmani M, Jafari A (2016) A comparative approach to study the electoral systems of selected countries. Int J Humanit Cult Stud 2(4):1913–1924

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibson JP, Krimmer R et al (2016) A review of E-voting: the past, present and future. Ann Telecommun 71(7–8):279–286

    Google Scholar 

  • Grofman B (2016) Perspectives on the comparative study of electoral systems. Annu Rev Polit Sci 19:523–540. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-polisci-020614-092344

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gungor Z, Serhadlioglu G, Kesen SE (2009) A fuzzy AHP approach to personnel selection problem. Appl Soft Comput 9:641–646

    Google Scholar 

  • Hajjari T (2015) Fuzzy risk analysis based on ranking of fuzzy numbers via new magnitude method. Iran J Fuzzy Syst 12(3):17–29

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Kabak M, Burrnaoglu S, Kazancoglu Y (2012) A fuzzy hybrid MCDM approach for professional selection. Expert Syst Appl 39:3516–3525

    Google Scholar 

  • Karabasevic D, Stanujkic D, Urosevic S, Maksimovic M (2015) Selection of candidates in the mining industry based on the application of the SWARA and the MULTIMOORA methods. Acta Montan Slovaca 20(2):116–124

    Google Scholar 

  • Karabasevica D, Stanujkic D, Urosevic S (2015) The MCDM model for personnel selection based on SWARA and ARAS methods. Manag J Sustain Bus Manag Sol Emerg Econ 77:43–52

    Google Scholar 

  • Kazana H, Özçelik S, Hobikoğlu EH (2015) Election of deputy candidates for nomination with AHP-Promethee methods. Procedia Soc Behav Sci 195:603–613

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelemenis A, Askounis D (2010) A new TOPSIS-based multi-criteria approach to personnel selection. Expert Syst Appl 37:4999–5008

    Google Scholar 

  • Khorami M, Ehsani R (2015) Application of multi criteria decision making approaches for personnel selection problem: a survey. Int J Eng Res Appl 5(5):14–29

    Google Scholar 

  • Kumar S (2011) Analysis of electronic voting system in various countries. Int J Comput Sci Eng 3(5):1825–1830

    Google Scholar 

  • Lin Sh (2010) Rank aggregation methods. WIREs Comp Stats 2:555–570

    Google Scholar 

  • Mardani A, Jusoh A, Nor KMD, Khalifah Z, Zakwan N, Valipour A (2015) Multiple criteria decision-making techniques and their applications—a review of the literature from 2000 to 2014. Econ Res-Ekon Istraz 28(1):516–571

    Google Scholar 

  • Menocal AR (2011) Why electoral systems matter: an analysis of their incentives and effects on key areas of governance. Overseas Development Institute. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org. Accessed 31 Oct 2019

  • Meserve SA, Palani S, Pemstein D (2017) Measuring candidate selection mechanisms in European elections: comparing formal party rules to candidate survey responses, pp 1–28 www.danpemstein.com. Accessed 31 Oct 2019

  • Moser RG, Scheiner E (2004) Mixed electoral systems and electoral system effects: controlled comparison and crossnational analysis. Elect Stud 23:575–599

    Google Scholar 

  • Musial-Karg M (2014) The use of e-voting as a new tool of e-participation in modern democracies. http://pressto.amu.edu.pl/index.php/pp/-article/viewFile/2101/2091. Accessed 30 Oct 2019

  • Nguyen T-L (2017) Methods in ranking fuzzy numbers: a unified index and comparative reviews. Complexity, Hindawi Pub. vol 2017, 13 p. https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/3083745

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Pennings P, Hazan RY (2001) Democratizing candidate selection: causes and consequences. Party Polit 7(3):267–275

    Google Scholar 

  • Pilet J-B, Van Haute E, Kelbel C (2015) Candidate selection procedures for the European elections. European Parliament’s Committee on Constitutional Affairs, http://www.europarl.europa.eu/studies. Accessed 31 Oct 2019

  • Powell GB (2000) Elections as instruments of democracy: majoritarian and proportional visions. Yale University Press, New Haven, p 312

    Google Scholar 

  • Rouyendegh BD, Erkan TE (2013) An application of the fuzzy ELECTRE method for academic staff selection. Hum Factor Ergon Manuf 23(2):107–115

    Google Scholar 

  • Royes GF, Bastos RC (2001a) Fuzzy MCDM in election prediction. IEEE Int Conf Syst Man Cybern 5:3258–3263

    Google Scholar 

  • Royes GF, Bastos RC (2001b) Political analysis using fuzzy MCDM. J Intell Fuzzy Syst 11(1–2):53–64

    Google Scholar 

  • Shahandashti SF (2016) Electoral systems used around the world. In: Hao F, Ryan PYA (eds) Real-world electronic voting: design, analysis and deployment (series in security). CRC Press, Privacy and Trust)

    Google Scholar 

  • Siavelis PM, Morgenstern S (2008) Candidate recruitment and selection in Latin America: a framework for analysis. Lat Am Polit Soc 50(4):27–58

    Google Scholar 

  • Stanujkic D, Djordjevic B, Djordjevic M (2013) Comparative analysis of some prominent MCDM methods: a case of ranking Serbian banks. Serb J Manag 8(2):213–241

    Google Scholar 

  • Tuan NA (2017) Personnel evaluation and selection using a generalized fuzzy multi-criteria decision making. Int J Soft Comput 12(4):263–269

    Google Scholar 

  • Turskis Z, Zavadskas EK (2011) Multiple criteria decision making (MCDM) methods in economics: an overview. Technol Econ Dev Econ 2:397–427

    Google Scholar 

  • Vassil K, Solvak M, Vinkel P et al (2016) The diffusion of internet voting. Usage patterns of internet voting in Estonia between 2005 and 2015. Gov Inform Q 33:453–459

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang K-H, Mondal SK, Chan K, Xie X (2017) A review of contemporary E-voting: requirements, technology, systems and usability. Data Sci Pattern Recognit 1(1):31–47

    Google Scholar 

  • Zavadskas EK, Turskis Z, Kildienė S (2014) State of art surveys of overviews on MCDM/MADM methods. Technol Econ Dev Econ 20(1):165–179

    Google Scholar 

  • Zionts S (1979) MCDM-if not a roman numeral, then what? Manag Sci 9(4):94–101

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

The authors received no specific funding for this work.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Information Technology, Azerbaijan National Academy of Sciences, Baku, Azerbaijan

    Rasim Alguliyev, Ramiz Aliguliyev & Farhad Yusifov

Authors
  1. Rasim Alguliyev
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ramiz Aliguliyev
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Farhad Yusifov
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Farhad Yusifov.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Additional information

Communicated by V. Loia.

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Alguliyev, R., Aliguliyev, R. & Yusifov, F. Modified fuzzy TOPSIS + TFNs ranking model for candidate selection using the qualifying criteria. Soft Comput 24, 681–695 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00500-019-04521-2

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00500-019-04521-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation