A Contemporary Approach for Solving Selection Problems: The Entropy-Based Performance Measurement Method

Furkan Fahri Altıntaş

doi:10.34248/bsengineering.1699472

TR EN

A Contemporary Approach for Solving Selection Problems: The Entropy-Based Performance Measurement Method

Abstract

In this study, the applicability of the widely used entropy method traditionally employed for calculating criterion weights in the Multi-Criteria Decision-Making (MCDM) literature is investigated as a novel approach for measuring the performance of alternatives. The proposed method, termed Entropy-Based Performance Measurement (EBPM), is grounded in the principle of continuously increasing uncertainty inherent in both natural and social systems. The primary motivation of this approach is to demonstrate, through sensitivity, comparative, and simulation analyses, that the method can produce ideally sensitive, reliable, consistent, stable, and robust results. The study aims to expand the application domain of the entropy method and to contribute to both the MCDM and entropy literature. EBPM is theoretically based on entropy’s inherent capability to quantify and enhance informational performance. Without manipulating the original entropy equation, the entropy function is reformulated into a positively increasing structure, enabling it to measure the performance of alternatives. In the methodology section, the characteristics of 15 widely recognized MCDM methods are introduced, the theoretical and mathematical foundations of the proposed approach are explained, and its applicability is demonstrated using the innovation performance data of seven countries selected from the 2024 Global Innovation Index. In the results and discussion section, the quantitative findings and comprehensive explanations of the proposed method are presented in detail. Thus, this study aims to broaden the potential of the entropy method within the field of MCDM and to offer a novel perspective for decision-making processes.

Keywords

A Contemporary Approach for Solving Selection Problems: The Entropy-Based Performance Measurement Method

Abstract

In this study, the applicability of the widely used entropy method traditionally employed for calculating criterion weights in the Multi-Criteria Decision-Making (MCDM) literature is investigated as a novel approach for measuring the performance of alternatives. The proposed method, termed Entropy-Based Performance Measurement (EBPM), is grounded in the principle of continuously increasing uncertainty inherent in both natural and social systems. The primary motivation of this approach is to demonstrate, through sensitivity, comparative, and simulation analyses, that the method can produce ideally sensitive, reliable, consistent, stable, and robust results. The study aims to expand the application domain of the entropy method and to contribute to both the MCDM and entropy literature. EBPM is theoretically based on entropy’s inherent capability to quantify and enhance informational performance. Without manipulating the original entropy equation, the entropy function is reformulated into a positively increasing structure, enabling it to measure the performance of alternatives. In the methodology section, the characteristics of 15 widely recognized MCDM methods are introduced, the theoretical and mathematical foundations of the proposed approach are explained, and its applicability is demonstrated using the innovation performance data of seven countries selected from the 2024 Global Innovation Index. In the results and discussion section, the quantitative findings and comprehensive explanations of the proposed method are presented in detail. Thus, this study aims to broaden the potential of the entropy method within the field of MCDM and to offer a novel perspective for decision-making processes.

Keywords

Ethical Statement

Ethics committee approval was not required for this study because of there was no study on animals or humans.

References

Aghamammadli F, Toptancı Ş, Karamaşa Ç. 2024. Analyzing the energy consumption of OECD countries through an interval-valued circular intuitionistic fuzzy AHP-based CRADIS. Res Square, 1(1):1-31. https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-6283480/v1
Akmaludin, Suriyanto AD, Iriadi N, Widianto K. 2024. Integrated MCDM-AHP and MABAC for selection head of branch offices. Sinkron J Penelit Tek Inform, 8(4):2335-2344. https://doi.org/10.33395/sinkron.v8i4.13669
Aksakal E, Çalışkan E. 2020. Olimpiyatlarda aday şehirlerin seçim sürecinde dikkate alınacak kriterlerin entropi yönetimi ile değerlendirilmesi. In: Kabak M, Çınar Y, editors. Çok kriterli karar verme yöntemleri MS Excel çözümlü uygulamalar. Nobel, Ankara, Türkiye, pp: 169-179.
Aksoy E. 2021. An analysis on Türkiye's merger and acquisition activities: MAIRCA method. Gümüşhane Univ Sos Bilim Enst Elektron Derg, 12(1):1-11
Aktaş R, Doğanay MM, Türen U, Gazibey Y, Gökmen Y. 2015. Sayısal karar verme yöntemleri. Beta Yayınları, İstanbul, Türkiye, pp: 412.
AlAli AM, Salih A, Hassaballa A. 2023. Geospatial-based analytical hierarchy process (AHP) and weighted product model (WPM) techniques for mapping and assessing flood susceptibility in the Wadi Hanifah Drainage Basin, Riyadh Region, Saudi Arabia. Water, 15(1943):1-130. https://doi.org/10.3390/w15101943
Alossta A, Elmansouri O, Badi I. 2021. Resolving a location selection problem by means of an integrated AHP-RAFSI approach. Rep Mech Eng, 2(1):135-142. https://doi.org/10.31181/rme200102135a
Alqoud A, Milisavljevic-Syed J, Salonitis K. 2025. Multi-criteria decision making in evaluating digital retrofitting solutions: Utilizing AHP and TOPSIS. Procedia CIRP, 132:184-190. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2025.01.031

Altın H. 2020. ARAS ve MOOSRA yöntemlerinin performans sonuçlarının karşılaştırılması: Amerika kıtası ülkeleri. Pressacademia J Econ Finance Account, 7(2):173-186
Anđić D. 2024. Comparison of a tower geodetic micro-network optimization results obtained using the MABAC, MAIRCA, COCOSO and ROV methods with those obtained applying the VIKOR method. Int J Eng Res Dev, 20(10):81-95
Andrejic M, Vukasin P. 2025. Integrated BWM–QFD–MARCOS framework for strategic decision-making in cold chain logistics. J Oper Strateg Anal, 3(1):23-33. https://doi.org/10.56578/josa030103
Apaydın F. 2004. Kuantum fiziği. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Yayınları, Ankara, Türkiye, pp: 356.
Arisantoso, Somaida MH, Sanwasih M, Shalahudin MI. 2023. Multi-criteria decision making using the WASPAS method in webcam selection decision support systems. Int J Informatics Comput Sci, 7(1):1-11. https://doi.org/10.30865/ijics.v7i1.6001
Arslan HM. 2017. Determination of optimal vehicle selection of logistics companies with AHP-ARAS hybrid method. Alphanumeric J, 5(2):272-281. https://doi.org/10.17093/alphanumeric.339476
Atan M, Altan Ş. 2020. Örnek uygulamalarla çok kriterli karar verme yöntemleri. Gazi Kitapevi, Ankara, Türkiye, pp: 276.
Ayçin E. 2019. Çok kriterli karar verme. Nobel Yayın, Ankara, Türkiye, pp: 198.
Aydemir MF. 2025. Evaluation of foreign direct investment attractiveness of BRICS-T countries: The CRITIC-LOPCOW based ARAS approach. Polit Ekonomik Kuram, 9(1):372-392. https://doi.org/10.30586/pek.1613421
Azadfallah M. 2025. Incorporating negative values into the simple additive weighting (SAW) under uncertain conditions: An application in project manager selection problem. In: Strang KD, Vajjhala NR, editors. International program and project management — best practices in selected industries. Springer, Cham, Switzerland, pp: 1-12.
Bahadır O, Türkmençalıkoğlu H. 2021. Shannon entropy and its applications in information theory. Eur J Sci Technol, (32):491-498. https://doi.org/10.31590/ejosat.1039771,
Ballamudi S. 2024. Evaluating IoT platforms: An approach using the COPRAS method. J Data Sci Inform Technol, 2:55-65
Baş F. 2021. Çok kriterli karar verme yöntemlerinde kriter ağırlıklarının belirlenmesi. Nobel Bilimsel, Ankara, Türkiye, pp: 144.
Başdar C. 2019. Finansal performans ve çok kriterli karar verme teknikleri. Ekin Yayınevi, Bursa, Türkiye, pp: 232.
Begam S. 2024. Identification of groundwater recharge zone in periurban watershed with the help of MAUT and MEREC techniques. Res Square, 1(1):1-29. https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-4178085/v1
Bektaş S. 2023. MEREC ve MABAC yöntemleri ile BİST 100’de işlem gören enerji firmalarının finansal performanslarının değerlendirilmesi. Dokuz Eylül Univ İşletme Fakültesi Derg, 24(2):115-128
Bircan H. 2020. Çok kriterleri karar verme problemlerinde kriter ağırlıklandırma yöntemleri. Nobel Akademik, Ankara, Türkiye, pp: 184.
Chaipetch P, Amprayn C, Pawan P, Vatanavongs R. 2025. A multi-criteria decision support system for prioritizing road maintenance: Integrating AHP and TOPSIS with a focus on low-volume roads. IOP Conf Ser Earth Environ Sci, 1450(1):1-11. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/1450/1/012004
Chakraborty S, Zavadskas EK, Antucheviciene J. 2015. Applications of WASPAS method as a multi-criteria tool. Econ Comput Econ Cybern Stud Res, 49(1):5-22
Chen LC, Chang KH, Hung JF. 2025. WASPAS-based natural language processing method for handling content words extraction and ranking issues: An example of SDGs corpus. Information, 16(198):1-19. https://doi.org/10.3390/info16030198
Chinnasamy S, Ramachandran M, Rajkumar S, Sivaji C. 2023. A survey on transportation system using the WPM method. Build Mater Eng Struct, 1(2):37-44. http://doi.org/10.46632/bmes/1/2/5
Chinnasay S, Ramachandran M, Sravanan V. 2023. Analysis of blast resistant buildings using the WPM method. REST J Emerg Trends Model Manuf, 9(1):26-36. https://doi.org/10.46632/jemm/9/1/4
Ciardiello F, Genovese A. 2023. A comparison between TOPSIS and SAW methods. Ann Oper Res, 325:967-994. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-023-05339-w
Cincotta PM, Giordano CM, Silva RA, Beaugé C. 2021. Shannon entropy diffusion estimates: Sensitivity on the parameters of the method. Celest Mech Dyn Astron, 133(7):1-20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10569-021-10006-y
Ćirovic G, Pamučar D. 2022. Multiple-criteria decision making. MDPI AG, Basel, Switzerland, pp: 244.
Çankaya Kurnaz S. 2025. Çok kriterli karar verme yöntemlerinden TOPSIS ile AB ülkelerinin e-devlet performanslarının karşılaştırılması. Sos Bilim EKEV Akad Derg, 101:149-173. https://orcid.org/my-orcid?orcid=0000-0001-6977-300X
Çelikbilek Y. 2018. Çok kriterli karar verme yöntemleri. Nobel Akademik Yayıncılık, Ankara, Türkiye, pp: 212.
Çetinkaya C, Erbaş M, Kabak M, Özceylan E. 2023. A mass vaccination site selection problem: An application of GIS and entropy-based MAUT approach. Socio Econ Plan Sci, 85:1-11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seps.2022.101376,
Çilek A, Şeyranlioğlu O. 2025. Measuring the financial performance of reinsurance companies in Türkiye with LODECI, CRADIS and AROMAN MCDM methods. Int J Bus Econ Stud, 7(1):1-18. https://doi.org/10.54821/uiecd.1587675
Demir G. 2021. Özel sermayeli mevduat bankalarında performans analizi: RAFSI bütünleşik model uygulaması. Atatürk Univ İktisadi İdari Bilim Derg, 35(4):1359-1382
Demir G, Arslan R. 2022. Sensitivity analysis in multi-criteria decision-making problems. Ankara Hacı Bayram Veli Univ İktisadi İdari Bil Fak Derg, 24(3):1025-1056
Demir G, Özyalçın AT, Bircan H. 2021. Çok kriterli karar verme yöntemleri ve ÇKKV yazılımı ile problem çözümü. Nobel, Ankara, Türkiye, pp: 198.
Demirci A. 2020. Sağlık hizmetleri yönetiminde çok kriterli karar verme teknikleri. Gazi Kitapevi, Ankara, Türkiye, pp: 224.
Dinçer SE. 2019. Çok kriterli karar alma. Gece Akademi, Ankara, Türkiye, pp: 164.
Doković L, Doljanica D. 2023. Application of AHP and MABAC methods in the framework of multi criteria decision making in the selection of investment projects. J Process Manag New Technol, 11(3-4):105-114, pp: 105-114.
Ecer F. 2020. Çok kriterli karar verme. Seçkin Yayıncılık, Ankara, Türkiye, pp: 186.
El-Araby A, Sabry I, El-Assal A. 2024. Ranking performance of MARCOS method for location selection problem in the presence of conflicting criteria. Decis Mak Adv, 2(1):148-162. https://doi.org/10.31181/dma21202435
Ersoy N. 2024. Assessing renewable energy impact in Nordic-Baltic region: Sensitivity analysis and MCDM approach. Renew Energy Res Appl, 6(1):47-60. https://doi.org/10.22044/rera.2023.13416.1238
Fan J, Yao X, Wu M. 2025. Extended WPA CRITIC WASPAS model based on picture fuzzy soft sets for green building materials selection. Int J Fuzzy Syst, 1(1):1-15. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40815-025-01982-6
Gini A. 2000. What happens if work goes away. Bus Ethics Q, 10(1):181-188. https://doi.org/10.2307/3857704
Goswami SS, Behera DK, Afzal A, Kaladgi AR, Khan SA, Rajendran P, Asif M. 2021. Analysis of a robot selection problem using two newly developed hybrid MCDM models of TOPSIS-ARAS and COPRAS-ARAS. Symmetry, 13(1331):1-35. https://doi.org/10.3390/sym13081331
Goswami SS, Mohanty SK, Behera DK. 2022. Selection of a green renewable energy source in India with the help of MEREC integrated PIV MCDM tool. Mater Today, 52(3):1152-1160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2021.11.019
Gressman PT, Strain RM. 2010. Global classical solutions of the Boltzmann equation with long-range interactions. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA, 107(13):5744-5749. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1001185107
Han F, Alkhawaji RN, Shafieezadeh MM. 2025. Evaluating sustainable water management strategies using TOPSIS and fuzzy TOPSIS methods. Appl Water Sci, 15(4):1-13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13201-024-02336-7
Handayani N, Heriyani N, Septian F, Alexander AD. 2023. Multi-criteria decision making using the WASPAS method. J Teknoinfo, 17(1):260-270
Hwang CL, Yoon K. 1981. Multiple attribute decision making - methods and applications. Springer Verlag, Berlin, Germany, pp: 357.
Işık Ö, Çalık A, Shabir M. 2025. A consolidated MCDM framework for overall performance assessment of listed insurance companies based on ranking strategies. Comput Econ, 65:271-312. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10614-024-10578-5
Kaya İ, Karaşan A. 2020. Çok kriterli karar verme. Umuttepe Yayınları, Kocaeli, Türkiye, pp:15-56.
Kaymaz ÇK, Kızılkan Y, Birinci S. 2020. Ordu ili turizm merkezlerinin çok kriterli karar verme yöntemlerine göre analizi. Kriter Yayınevi, İstanbul, Türkiye, pp:25-45.
Keeney R, Raiffa H. 1976. Decision with multiple objectives: Preferences and value trade off. John Wiley & Sons, New York, USA, pp:14,16.
Keleş N. 2023. Uygulamalarla klasik ve güncel karar verme yöntemleri. Nobel Bilimsel, Ankara, Türkiye, pp:45-49.
Keshavarz-Ghorabaee, M, Amiri M, Zavadskas EK, Turskis Z, Antucheviciene J. 2021. Determination of objective weights using a new method based on the removal effects of criteria (merec). Symmetry, 13(525): 1-21. https://doi.org/10.3390/sym13040525.
Khan NZ, Ansari TA, Siddiquee AN, Khan ZA. 2019. Selection of e-learning websites using a novel proximity ındexed value (piv) mcdm method. J Comput Educ 6: 241-256. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40692-019-00135-7.
Köksal K, Köseoğlu R. 2010. Fenciler için kuantum mekaniği. Nobel Yayın, Ankara, Türkiye, pp:14-16.
Krippendorff K. 2009. Mathematical theory of communication. In: Encyclopedia of communication theory, SW. Littlejohn, KA. Foss Editors. Sage, Los Angeles: USA, pp: 614-618.
Lendvai L, Jakab S, Singh T. 2025. Optimal design of agroresidue filled poly(lactic acid) biocomposites using an integrated critic-cocoso multi-criteria decision-making approach. Sci Rep, 15(11586): 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-92724-z.
Lopez LM, Ishizaka A, Qin J. 2023. Multi criteria decision making sorting methods: Applications to real world., Acad Press, Cambridge-Massachusetts, USA, pp:56-78.
Madić M, Radovanović M. 2015. Ranking of some most commonly used nontraditional machining processes using rov and critic methods. U.P.B. Sci Bull D, 72(2): 193-204.
Madić M, Radovanović M, Manić, M. 2016. Application of the rov method for the selection of cutting fluids. Dec SciLett5: 245–254.
Mehdiabadi A, Sadeghi A, Yazdi AK, Tan Y. 2025. Sustainability service chain capabilities in the oil and gas industry: A fuzzy hybrid approach swara-mabac. Spectr Oper Res, 2(1): 92-112. https://doi.org/10.31181/sor21202512.
Mishra S, Ayyub, BM. 2019. Shannon entropy for quantifying uncertainty and risk in economic disparity. Risk Anal., 39(10): 2160-2181. https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.13313.
Muni GD, Sudipa G, Meinarni NS, Wiguna, IA, Sandhiyasa, IS. 2024. Comparison of magıq, mabac, marcos, and moora methods in multi-criteria problems. Sinkron : Jurnal dan Penelitian Teknik Informatika, 8(3): 1286-1303. https://doi.org/10.33395/sinkron.v8i3.13639.
Munier N. 2021. Mathematical modelling of decision problems. Springer Cham., Gewerbestrasse, Switzerland, pp:45-46.
Munier N. 2024. Strategic Approach in multi criteria decision making. Springer Int Pub AG, Gewerbestrasse, Switzerland, pp:47-89
Nanda A. 2020. Shannon's entropy and ıts generalisations towards statistical ınference in last seven decades: Review on entropy. Int Stat Rev, 87(11): 167-186 https://doi.org/10.1111/insr.12374
Narang V, Rai R, Johal RS. 2024. Clausius' theorem and the Second law in the process of isoenergetic thermalization. arXiv:1-17 https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevE.110054103
Organ A, Yalçın E. 2016. Performance evaluation of research assistants by copras method. Eur Sci J Spec Issue: 102-109
Owen C. 2023. Multiple-criteria decision making: techniques, analysis and applications. States Acad Press, New York, USA, pp:15-56
Özbek A. 2019. Çok kriterli karar verme yöntemleri ve excel ile problem çözümü kavram-teori-uygulama. Seçkin Yayıncılık, Ankara, Türkiye, pp:45-49
Özbek A, Erol E. 2017. Ranking of factoring companies in accordance with aras and copras. Int J Acad Res Acc Financ Manag Sci, 2(7): 105-116 http://dx.doi.org/10.6007/IJARAFMS/v7-i2/2876
Özdemir M. 2018. Çok kriterli karar verme yöntemleri. Nobel Yayımcılık, Ankara, Türkiye, pp:35-37
Özekenci SY. 2024. Financial performance measurement of companies in the bıst sustainability 25 ındex with lbwa and merec-based cradis methods. J Mehmet Akif Ersoy Univ Econ Admin Sci Fac, 11(24): 1184-1211 https://doi.org/10.30798/makuiibf.1465069
Özkaya G. 2024. An analysis of the circular economy in europe through comparative research employing the crıtıc-based maut and copras methods. Verimlilik Derg, 58(3): 337-358 https://doi.org/10.51551/verimlilik.1462098
Öztaş T, Öztaş GZ. 2024. Innovation performance analysis of g20 countries: a novel ıntegrated lopcow-maırca mcdm approach ıncluding the covıd-19 period. J Prod Spec Issue: Productivity for Innovations: 1-20 https://doi.org/10.51551/verimlilik.1320794
Öztel A, Alp İ. 2020. Çok kriterli karar verme seçiminde yeni bir yaklaşım. Kriter Yayıncılık, İstanbul, Türkiye, pp:15-16
Paksoy S. 2017. Çok kriterli karar vermede güncel yaklaşımlar. Karahan Kitapevi, Adana, Türkiye, pp:265-258
Pamućar DS, Tarle SP, Parezanovic T. 2018. New hybrid multi-criteria decision-making dematel-mairca sustainable selection of a location for the development of multimodal logistics centre. 31(1): 1641-1665 https://doi.org/10.1080/1331677X.2018.1506706
Pamućar D, Ćirović G. 2015. The selection of transport and handling resources in logistics centers using multi-attributive border approximation area comparison. Expert Syst Appl, 42: 3016–3028
Paradhita AN, Fajariyanti Y, Amanda MT, Puspitasari A, Sulistyowati V. 2025. Implementation of topsıs method to assist the process of accepting new employees in the company. People Behav Anal, 3(1): 35-48 https://doi.org/10.31098/pba.v3i1.3135
Permata KI, Putri DS, Sasmita GA. 2025. Multi-criteria decision support system for web-based credit approval: a study of topsıs, mabac, waspas, and maut methods. J Penelit Teknol Inform Dan Sains, 3(1): 114-130 https://doi.org/10.54066/jptis.v3i1.3152
Puška A, Božanić D, Mastilo Z, Pamučar D. 2023. A model based on merec-cradis objective decision-making methods and the application of double normalization: A case study of the selection of electric cars. Res Square, pp: 2-19 https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-2092146/v1
Radomska-Zalas A. 2023. Application of the waspas method in a selected technological. Procedia Comput Sci, 225: 177–187 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2023.10.002
Radulescu CZ, Radulescu M. 2024. A hybrid group multi-criteria approach based on saw,topsıs, vıkor, and copras methods for complex IoT selection problem. Electronics, 13(789): 1-27 https://doi.org/10.3390/electronics13040789
Rasoanaivo RG, Yazdani M, Zaraté P, Fateh A. 2024. Combined compromise for ıdeal solution (CoCoFISo): A multi-criteria decision-making based on the CoCoSo method algorithm. Expert Syst Appl, pp: 1-35 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2024.124079
Robinson DW. 2008. Entropy and uncertainty. Entropy, 10: 493-506 https://doi.org/10.3390/e10040493
Roshanravan B, Kreuzer OP, Buckingham A. 2025. BWM-MARCOS: A new hybrid mcdm approach for mineral potential modelling. J Geochem Explor, 269: 1-13 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gexplo.2024.107639
Rudnicki L. 2011. Shannon entropy as a measure of uncertainty. J Russ Laser Res, 32: 393–399 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10946-011-9227-x
Sakurai JJ, Napolitano J. 2012. Modern kuantum mekaniği. (Translated by G. Önengüt). Palme Yayınevi, Ankara, Türkiye, pp:45-49
Shankar R. 2014. Thermodynamics II. In: Fundamentals of Physics: Mechanics, relativity, and thermodynamics. Yale University Press, New Haven, USA, pp:65-68
Sharma LP, Patel N, Ghose MK, Debnath P. 2015. Development and application of Shannon’s entropy integrated information value model for landslide susceptibility assessment and zonation in Sikkim Himalayas in India. Nat Hazards, 75: 1555–1576 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-014-1378-y
Stevenson D. 2021. Application of shannon entropy metrics to cultural diversity and language evaluation. Academia Lett, 2503: 1-7 https://doi.org/10.20935/AL2503
Stević Ž, Pamučar D, Puškac A, Chatterjee P. 2020. Sustainable supplier selection in healthcare ındustries using a new mcdm method: measurement of alternatives and ranking according to compromise solution (MARCOS). Comput Ind Eng, 140: 1-15
Sutoyo MN, Paliling A. 2025. The Integration of dematel and saw methods for developing a research performance assessment model for lecturers. J Appl Data Sci, 6(2): 1026-1036 https://doi.org/10.47738/jads.v6i2.550
Taherdoost H, Mohebi A. 2024. A Comprehensive guide to the copras method for multi-criteria decision making. J Manag Sci Eng Res, 7(2): 1-11 https://doi.org/10.30564/jmser.v7i2.6280
Taşcı MZ. 2024. Merec ve cradis yöntemlerini içeren entegre bir çkkv modeli ile dask özelinde bir uygulama. Doğuş Univ Derg, 25(1): 35-53 https://doi.org/10.31671/doujournal.1294336
Tepe S. 2021. Örnek uygulamalarla çok kriterli karar verme yöntemleri. Akademisyen Kitapevi, Ankara, Türkiye, pp:36-123
Tesic D, Bozanic D, Radovanovic M, Petrovski A. 2023. Optimising assault boat selection for military operations: an application of the dibr ii-bm-cocoso mcdm model. J Intell Manag Dec, 2(4): 160-171 https://doi.org/10.56578/jimd020401
Thakkar JJ. 2021. Multi criteria decision making. Springer Singapore, Singapore, Singapore, pp:45-59
Thanh NV. 2021. Multi criteria decision making model for supply change management. Eliva, Chișinău, Moldovia, pp:63-68
Trung D. 2021. Application of edas, marcos, topsıs, moora and pıv methods for multi-criteria decision making ın milling process. J Mech Eng, 71(2): 69-84
Trung DD, Tan TN. 2023. Combination of doe and pıv methods for multi-criteria decision making. J Appl Eng Sci, 21(1): 361-373 https://doi.org/10.5937/jaes0-41482
Trung D, Thinh HX, Ha LD. 2022. Comparison of the rafsi and piv method in multi-criteria decision making: application to turning processes. Int J Metrol Qual Eng, 13(14): 1-9 https://doi.org/10.1051/ijmqe/2022014
Turan H, Bulak ME. 2023. An application of multi criteria methods in choosing location for disaster logistics. Meriç Uluslar Sos Sos Stratej Araştır Derg, 7(Special Issue): 78-93
Uludağ AS, Doğan H. 2021. Üretim yönetiminde çok kriterli karar verme. Nobel, Ankara, Türkiye, pp:48-98
Ulutaş A. 2019. Swara ve mairca yöntemleri ile catering firması seçimi. BMIJ, 7(4): 1467-1479
Ulutaş A, Topal A. 2020. Bütünleştirilmiş çok kriterli karar verme yöntemlerinin üretim sektörü uygulamaları. Akademisyen Kitapevi, Ankara, Türkiye, pp:58-69
van Stokkum R. 2024. An information measure of ınstitutional complexity for social psychology. Adv Soc Sci Res J, 11(2): 33-53 https://doi.org/10.14738/assrj.112.16387
World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) 2024. Global innovation index 2024: Unlocking the promise of social entrepreneurship. WIPO, Geneva, Switzerland, pp:45-49
Yadav A, Kant R, Kumar V. 2025. Evaluation and ranking of solutions to mitigate Industry 4.0 adoption risks in manufacturing: A hybrid spherical fuzzy fucom-mabac approach. Int J Comput Integr Manuf, 1-27 https://doi.org/10.1080/0951192X.2025.2503315
Yakowitz DS, Lane LJ, Szidarrovszky F. 1993. Multi-attribute decision making: dominance with respect to an importance order of the attributes. Appl Math Comput, 54(2-3): 167-181
Yazdani M, Zarate P, Zavadskas E, Turskis Z. 2019. A combined compromise solution (CoCoSo) method for multi-criteria decision-making problems. Manag Dec, pp: 1-19
Zaeemzadeh A, Tononi G. 2024. Shannon information and integrated information: Message and meaning. arXiv: 1-26 https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2412.10626
Zardari NH, Ahmed K, Shirazi SM, Yusop ZB. 2014. Weighting methods and their effects on multi criteria decision making model outcomes in water resources management. Springer Nature, Berlin, Germany, pp:47-132
Zavadskas EK, Turskis Z. 2010. A new addiadditive ratio assessment (aras) method in multicriteria decision-making. Technol Econ Dev Econ, 16(2): 159–172
Zavadskas EK, Kaklauskas A, Šarka V. 1994. The new method of multicriteria complex proportional assessment of projects. Technol Econ Dev Econ, 1(3): 131-139
Zavadskas EK, Turskis Z, Antucheviciene J, Zakarevičius A. 2012. Optimization of weighted aggregated sum product assessment. Elektronika ir Elektrotechnika, 6(122): 3-6
Zhang QR. 2008. A general information theoretical proof for the second law of thermodynamics. Int J Mod Phys E, pp: 531-537 https://doi.org/10.1142/S0218301308009859
Zhang X, Wang C, Li E, X C. 2014. Assessment model of ecoenvironmental vulnerability based on ımproved entropy weight method. Sci World J, pp: 1-7 http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2014/797814
Žižovic M, Pamucar D, Albijanic M, Chatterjee P, Pribicevi. 2020. Eliminating rank reversal problem using a new multi-attribute model: The rafsi method. Mathematics, 8: 1-16 https://doi.10.3390/math8061015
Zolfani SH, Ecer F, Pamučar D, Raslanas S. 2020. Neighborhood selection for a newcomer via a novel bwm-based revised mairca ıntegrated model: A case from the coquimbo-la serena conurbation, Chile. Int J Strateg Prop Manag, 24(2): 102-118 https://doi.org/10.3846/ijspm.2020.11543

Details

Primary Language

English

Subjects

Multiple Criteria Decision Making

Journal Section

Research Article

Authors

Furkan Fahri Altıntaş ^*
0000-0002-0161-5862
Türkiye

Early Pub Date

September 10, 2025

Publication Date

September 15, 2025

Submission Date

May 14, 2025

Acceptance Date

July 9, 2025

Published in Issue

Year 2025 Volume: 8 Number: 5

DOI

https://doi.org/10.34248/bsengineering.1699472

IZ

https://izlik.org/JA32GH55DB

Cite

RIS / Bibtex

APA

Altıntaş, F. F. (2025). A Contemporary Approach for Solving Selection Problems: The Entropy-Based Performance Measurement Method. Black Sea Journal of Engineering and Science, 8(5), 1373-1400. https://doi.org/10.34248/bsengineering.1699472

AMA

1.Altıntaş FF. A Contemporary Approach for Solving Selection Problems: The Entropy-Based Performance Measurement Method. BSJ Eng. Sci. 2025;8(5):1373-1400. doi:10.34248/bsengineering.1699472

Chicago

Altıntaş, Furkan Fahri. 2025. “A Contemporary Approach for Solving Selection Problems: The Entropy-Based Performance Measurement Method”. Black Sea Journal of Engineering and Science 8 (5): 1373-1400. https://doi.org/10.34248/bsengineering.1699472.

EndNote

Altıntaş FF (September 1, 2025) A Contemporary Approach for Solving Selection Problems: The Entropy-Based Performance Measurement Method. Black Sea Journal of Engineering and Science 8 5 1373–1400.

IEEE

[1]F. F. Altıntaş, “A Contemporary Approach for Solving Selection Problems: The Entropy-Based Performance Measurement Method”, BSJ Eng. Sci., vol. 8, no. 5, pp. 1373–1400, Sept. 2025, doi: 10.34248/bsengineering.1699472.

ISNAD

Altıntaş, Furkan Fahri. “A Contemporary Approach for Solving Selection Problems: The Entropy-Based Performance Measurement Method”. Black Sea Journal of Engineering and Science 8/5 (September 1, 2025): 1373-1400. https://doi.org/10.34248/bsengineering.1699472.

JAMA

1.Altıntaş FF. A Contemporary Approach for Solving Selection Problems: The Entropy-Based Performance Measurement Method. BSJ Eng. Sci. 2025;8:1373–1400.

MLA

Altıntaş, Furkan Fahri. “A Contemporary Approach for Solving Selection Problems: The Entropy-Based Performance Measurement Method”. Black Sea Journal of Engineering and Science, vol. 8, no. 5, Sept. 2025, pp. 1373-00, doi:10.34248/bsengineering.1699472.

Vancouver

1.Furkan Fahri Altıntaş. A Contemporary Approach for Solving Selection Problems: The Entropy-Based Performance Measurement Method. BSJ Eng. Sci. 2025 Sep. 1;8(5):1373-400. doi:10.34248/bsengineering.1699472