P.

Kousalya, Mahender Reddy / International Journal of Engineering Research and

Applications (IJERA) ISSN: 2248-9622 www.ijera.com

Vol. 1, Issue 4, pp.1993-2002
1993 | P a g e

Selection of a student for All Round Excellence Award using
fuzzy AHP and TOPSIS methods

P. Kousalya*, Mahender Reddy**

*( Dept. of H&S( Mathematics)
Vignana Bharathi Institute of Technology , Ghatkesar, Hyderabad, INDIA.

**(Gurunanak Engineering College, Ibrahimpatnam, Hyderabad,INDIA.

Abstract

The aim of the study is developing a fuzzy decision
model to select a student from an Engineering college
who is eligible for All Round Excellence Award for the
year 2004-05 by taking subjective judgments of
decision makers into consideration. Here Fuzzy
Analytic Hierarchy Process (FAHP) approach and
(Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to
Ideal Solutions (TOPSIS) methods are proposed. The
weights of the criteria by decision makers are
determined by FAHP method and the ranking of the
alternative branches from which a student is selected
are determined by TOPSIS method. A numerical
example is taken to demonstrate these processes.

Key words : AHP, Multi Criteria Decision Making,
Fuzzy AHP

I INTRODUCTION

For most of the decisions, we either
approach the problem from a holistic point of view
in which we simply choose the best, or we
somehow break the decision down in to
components in order to
i) Better understand the problem we are faced with
and / or
ii) Communicate with someone else why a
particular course of action was chosen.
Holistic approach in decision making to some
extent works out but major decisions, one needs a
more scientific/logical approach to decision
making.
Determination and evaluation of the criteria for
selection of a student for All round Excellence
Award can be affected by the expert opinions and
the conditions of the decision making platform.
Thus, deterministic scale or crisp values can
produce misleading consequences sometimes. For


example, some pessimistic people may not give any
point more than four, or some optimistic people
may easily give 5 even if it does not deserve it.
These situations generate fuzziness within the
decision making process, so fuzzy AHP method can
handle these deviations concerning this fuzziness.
Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) is one of the
best ways for deciding among the complex criteria
structure in different levels. Fuzzy AHP is an
extension of classical AHP method when the
fuzziness of the decision makers is considered.
The AHP is also a method for ranking decision
alternatives and selecting the best one among them
when the decision maker has multiple criteria to
evaluate alternatives. According to Saaty, an
AHP matrix can be considered reasonably
consistent if its CR is not more than 0.1. It has
been shown in the literature that these solutions
perform poorly with respect to other error
criteria like least square error (LSE) even for
moderately inconsistent matrices (CR > 0.1). This
may be due to the fact that the methods that
rely on the eigen vector approach requires
solving the crisp linear equations and near
approximate solutions are often ignored. The
uncertainty in the preference judgments essentially
gives rise to uncertainty in the ranking of
alternatives as well leading to difficulty in
determining consistency of preferences. Hence
there is a necessity of Fuzzy AHP in such
problems.

II LITERATURE
Many methods for generating weights have been
proposed in Multi Criteria decision Analysis. Saaty
T.L (1980) proposed AHP method as a decision-
making aid to solve unstructured problems in
economics, social and management sciences. Saaty
P. Kousalya, Mahender Reddy / International Journal of Engineering Research and
Applications (IJERA) ISSN: 2248-9622 www.ijera.com

Vol. 1, Issue 4, pp.1993-2002
1994 | P a g e

T.L and Luis G. Vargas (1987) investigated the
effect of uncertainty in judgment on the stability of
the rank order of alternatives. Wang et al (2005)
developed a method of consistency test to check
whether an interval comparison matrix is consistent
or not. Van Laarhoven and Pedrycz
(1983)proposed the first studies that applied fuzzy
logic principle to AHP in which triangular fuzzy
numbers (TFNs) are used to model the pair-wise
comparisons. Wei Cuiping et al (2008) suggested
to check whether the Fuzzy comparison matrix is
consistent or not by means of the kernals of fuzzy
numbers. Kousalya et al(2006) discussed the
problem of Student absenteeism in engineering
colleges using AHP. Saaty(1980) explained AHP
in his book Analytic Hierarchy Process. Saaty
T.L., L.G. Vargas (1984),used Comparison of
eigenvalue, logarithmic leastsquares and least
squares methods in estimating ratios. Saaty .T. L
and Luis G. Vargas(1987) showed the uncertainty
and rank order in the analytic hierarchy
process.Van Laarhoven.P.J.M., W.
Pedrycz(1983) used the method of a fuzzy
extension of Saatys priority theory .Wang,
Y.M., Yang, J.B. and Xu, D.L. (2005) discussed
the interval weight generation approaches based
on consistency test .Wei Cuiping, Fan Lili and
Zhang Yuzhong (2008)gave a note on the
Consistency of a Fuzzy Comparison Matrix. Xu
R., X. Zhai(1996)described Fuzzy logarithmic
least squares and a ranking method in analytic
hierarchy process.Wang Y M and Elhag T.M.S
(2006) explained Fuzzy TOPSIS method based on
alpha level sets along with an application to bridge
risk assessment. Wang Y J and Lee H-S.(2007),
discussed generalising TOPSIS for fuzzy multiple
criteria group decision making. Ertugral I and
karakasoglu N.,(2007) has given performance
evaluation of Turkish cement firms with fuzzy
Analytical Hierarchy process and TOPSIS
methods. Serkan Balli and Serdar Korukoglu(2009)
has given selection of operating sytem using Fuzzy
AHP and TOPSIS Methods. Kousalya et al (2011)
has discussed comparative Performance of
Averaging Methods and Stochastic Vector
Methods in Analytical Hierarchy Process
problems. Kousalya et al(2012) has discussed
Selection of a student for All Round excellence
award using Multi criteria decision making
approach.



III METHODOLOGY

The following steps are involved in any
decision making process.

i) Define the problem of interest and
gather relevant data
ii) Formulate a Mathematical model to
represent the problem.
iii) Develop a computer-based procedure
for deriving solutions to the problem
from the model.
iv) Test the model and refine it as
needed. Prepare for ongoing
application of the model as prescribed
by management.
v) Implement.

3.1Establishment of a structural Hierarchy
A complex decision is to be structured in to a
hierarchy descending from an overall objective to
various criteria, sub criteria till the lowest level.
The overall goal of the decision is represented at
the top level of the hierarchy. The criteria and the
sub criteria, which contribute to the n, are
represented at the intermediate levels. Finally the
decision alternatives are laid down at the last level
of the hierarchy. According to Saaty (2000), a
hierarchy can be constructed by creative thinking,
recollection and using peoples perspectives.

3.2 Establishment of comparative judgments

Once the hierarchy has been structured, the next
step is to determine the priorities of elements at
each level. A set of comparison matrices of all
elements in a level with to respect to an element of
the immediately higher level are constructed. The
pair wise comparisons are given in terms of how
much element A is more important than element B.
The preferences are quantified using a nine point
scale that is shown in Table 1.

3.3 Fuzzy AHP method

Algorithm of FAHP method:
Let X={x
1
,x
2
,x
3
,, x
m
} be an object set and
G={g
1
,g
2
,g
3
,.,g
n
} be a goal set. According to this
method, each object is taken and extent analysis for
each goal performed respectively. Therefore, m
extent analysis values for each object can be
obtained, with the following signs.
P. Kousalya, Mahender Reddy / International Journal of Engineering Research and
Applications (IJERA) ISSN: 2248-9622 www.ijera.com

Vol. 1, Issue 4, pp.1993-2002
1995 | P a g e

M
1
gi
, M
2
gi
,.., M
m
gi
. i= 1, 2, 3, n Where
M
J
gi
, (j=1, 2, 3,m) all are Triangular Fuzzy
Numbers
Step 1: The value of fuzzy synthetic extent with
respect to the i
th
object is defined as
1
1 1 1

=

=

=
=
(
(

n
i
m
j
j
gi
M
m
j
j
gi
M
i
S
------ (1)

To obtain

=
m
j
j
gi
M
1
, perform the fuzzy addition
operation of m extent values for a particular matrix
such that
|
|
|
.
|

\
|

=
=
=
m
j
j
u
m
j
j
m
m
j
j
l
m
j
j
gi
M
1 1
,
1
,
1

-------------------- (2)

and to obtain
1
1 1

(
(

=

=
n
i
m
j
j
gi
M , perform fuzzy
addition operation of
j
gi
M ,(j=1,2,3,m)
values such that


|
|
|
.
|

\
|

=
=
=

=
n
i
i
u
n
i
i
m
n
i
i
l
n
i
m
j
j
gi
M
1 1
,
1
,
1 1

---------------------- (3) and
then compute the inverse of the vector above, such
that
|
|
|
|
|
|
.
|

\
|

=
=

(
(

=

=
n
i
i
l
n
i
i
m
n
i
i
u
n
i
m
j
j
gi
M
1

1
,
1
1
,
1
1
1
1 1

-------------------- (4)
Step 2: As )
1
,
1
,
1
(
1
~
u m l M = and
)
2
,
2
,
2
(
2
~
u m l M = are two TFNs, the degree of
possibility of
)
1
,
1
,
1
(
1
~
)
2
,
2
,
2
(
2
~
u m l M u m l M = > = is
defined as
( )
(
(

|
|
.
|

\
|
>
= > ) (
2
~
), (
1
~
min sup
1
~
2
~
y
M
x
M
x y
M M V
-------------------------- (5)
This can be equivalently expressed as follows
( ) ( ) ) (
2
~
1
~
2
~
1
~
2
~
d
M
M M hgt M M V = = >

>
>
=
otherwise ,
)
1
l
1
m ( )
2
u
2
(m
2
u
1
l

2
u
1
l if , 0
1
m
2
m if , 1






Fig1: Intersection between M
1
and M
2

Step 3: The degree of possibility for convex fuzzy
number to greater than k convex fuzzy number M
i

(i=1, 2, 3.n) can be defined by
| | ) ( and..... )
3
( and )
2
( and )
1
(
) ....
3
,
2
,
1
(
k
M M M M M M M M V
K
M M M M M V
> > > > =
>

V(MM
1
,M
2
..M
k
)
k 1,2,3..., i ), ( V min = > =
i
M M ------------ (6)
assume that
i k n; 1,2,3,.... k for ) S V(S min ) (
k i
= = > = '
i
A d


Then the weight vector is given by
( )
T
n i
A d A d A d A d W ) ( ........ ), ( ), ( ), (
3 2
' ' ' ' = '
-- (7) Where A
i
(i =1, 2, 3.n) are n elements.

2
M
1
M
2
l
2
m
( )
1
~
2
~
M M V >
1
m
1
u
2
u
1
l
x
d
P. Kousalya, Mahender Reddy / International Journal of Engineering Research and
Applications (IJERA) ISSN: 2248-9622 www.ijera.com

Vol. 1, Issue 4, pp.1993-2002
1996 | P a g e



Step 4: Via normalization, the normalized vectors
are given by
( )
T
n i
A d A d A d A d W ) ( ........ ), ( ), ( ), (
3 2
= -------- (8)
where W is non-fuzzy number.
3.4 TOPSIS Method
TOPSIS (Technique for Order Preference by
Similarity to Ideal Solution) is one of the useful
techniques which is very simple and easy to
implement when one goes for an easy weighting
technique. AHP provides a decision hierarchy and
requires pair wise comparison among criteria.
Hence detailed knowledge of the criteria in the
decision hierarchy is required to make informed
decisions while using AHP[18]TOPSIS method
was first proved by Hwang and Yoon[10].
According to this technique , the best alternative
would be the one which is nearest to the positive
ideal solution and farthest from the negative ideal
solution[1]. The positive ideal solution is one that
maximizes the cost criteria and minimizes the
benefit criteria[29,30]. Hence the positive ideal
solution consists of all best values attainable of
criteria and negative ideal solution consists of all
worst values attainable of criteria. In this study,
TOPSIS method is used for determining the final
ranking of the alternative branches of engineering
with regard to the Excellence award.
Step1 : Decision matrix is normalized as

=1

j= 1,2,3J, i=1,2,3,.n---------(9)

Step2 : Weighted normalized decision matrix is
formed.
v
ij
= w
ij
* r
ij
, j= 1,2,3J, i= 1,2n

Step3 : Positive ideal solutions (PIS) and
negative ideal solutions (NIS) are determined :
A
*
={ v
1
*
, v
2
*
, v
n
*
} Maximum values
A
-
= {v
1
-
, v
2
-
. V
n
-
} Minimum values
Step 4 : The distance of each alternative from
PIS and NIS are calculated :

=
(

)
2
=1
,j=1,2,J
----------(10)

=
(

)
2
=1
i=
1,2..J ------------(11)

Step 5 : The closeness coefficient of each
alternative is calculated :

i=1,2,J ----(12)

Step 6 : By comparing CC1 values the ranking
of alternatives are determined.

IV EXAMPLE
A numerical example is considered here. In this,
the main goal is to select a student for All Round
Excellence award. Here seven criteria which are
favorable to the main objective are selected and
weighted according to decision maker. Five
alternative branches are selected in selecting one
student of a branch for the final Award. The
physical significance of their alternative branches
is given as follows.
4.1 Physical Significance of criteria
Attendance: The students attendance has to be
above 75% throughout four-year period in all the
semesters.

Academics: The students academic record should
be consistently above 70% in all the Semesters
throughout four-year period.

Co-curricular activities: A student has to
participate in co-curricular activities like
Paper presentation, debates, Group Discussions or
quizzes etc, either in inter college or Intra College
and need to win some prizes.

Extra curricular activities: A student has to
participate in extra-curricular activities like
Indoor games, Outdoor games which are held in
intra college or inter college and need to win
some prizes.

Cultural activities: A student has to participate in
cultural activities like Singing or choreography
which are held in Intra College or Inter College and
need to win some prizes.

P. Kousalya, Mahender Reddy / International Journal of Engineering Research and
Applications (IJERA) ISSN: 2248-9622 www.ijera.com

Vol. 1, Issue 4, pp.1993-2002
1997 | P a g e

General behavior: A student is required to be
honest and need to maintain good relationship with
his / her peers and with teachers.

Departmental activities: A student need to
participate in the activities conducted by the
department and need to posses certain managerial
skills and need to coordinate different
activities/events held in the department.


Next we move to pair wise comparisons of the
lower level and lastly to the pair wise comparisons
of the lowest level .The elements to be compared
pair wise are the engineering branches with respect
to how much better one is than the other in
satisfying each criterion in level 2.Thus there will
be fifteen 5 x 5 matrices of judgments. To
understand these judgments, a brief description of
the engineering branches is follows.

EEE: This branch consists of students who are
good at academics, attendance and Co-Curricular
activities. Their participation is comparatively less
in Extra Curricular activities when compared to
other branch students.

ECE: The students of this branch are highly
motivated and hence have good academic records
and attendance. Their general behavior is good.
The departmental activities are conducted well.
Though their participation in Extracurricular
activities and Cultural activities is less, compared
to other branch students, they are good at Co
Curricular activities.

ICE: This branch consists of students who are less
motivated and hence poor in academics and
attendance. Their relationship with teachers and
peers is not good when compared with other
branch students. They are good at Extracurricular
activities , cultural activities and are able to
manage events well in their departments.

CSE: The students of this branch are good in
academics and attendance as students of EEE. The
relationship with peers is not good. They are good
in Extra Curricular activities and Co curricular
activities. They manage events well as students of
EEE and ECE.

MECH: The students of this branch are less
motivated and hence are not good in academics
and attendance. They are good at Extra Curricular
activities and Cultural activities, but not good at
Co Curricular activities. Their relationship with
teachers and peers is not very good.

After the fuzzy pair wise comparison matrix is
formed, weights of all criteria and sub criteria are
determined by the help of FAHP. According to
FAHP method, Synthesis Values are calculated
first. From Table 3 synthesis values with respect to
main goal are calculated as shown below.
S
c1
=(13,23,33) (1/114.33,1/76.47,1/44.77)
=(0.114,0.301, 0.737)
S
c2
=(2.89,3.4,5.67) (1/114.33,1/76.47,1/44.77)
=(0.025,0.044,0.127)

S
c3
=(6.2,12.33,19) (1/114.33,1/76.47,1/44.77)
=(0.054,0.161,0.424)
S
c4
=(3.74,6.2,10.33) (1/114.33,1/76.47,1/44.77)
=(0.033,0.081,0.231)
S
c5
=(4.54,6.87,10.33)
(1/114.33,1/76.47,1/44.77) =(0.040,0.090,0.231)
S
c6
=(9,17,25) (1/114.33,1/76.47,1/44.77)
=(0.079,0.222,0.558)
S
c7
=(5.4,7.67,11) (1/114.33,1/76.47,1/44.77)
=(0.047,0.1,0.246)
These fuzzy values are compared by using
Eq.(3.10) and the following values are obtained.
V(S
C1
S
C2
)=1 , V(S
C1
S
C3
)=1 , V(S
C1
S
C4
)=1
,V(S
C1
S
C5
)=1 , V(S
C1
S
C6
)=1 , V(S
C1
S
C7
)=1 ,

V(S
C2
S
C1
)=1 , V(S
C2
S
C3
)=1 ,V(S
C2
S
C4
)=0.72 ,
V(S
C2
S
C5
)=0.65 , V(S
C2
S
C6
)=1 , V(S
C2
S
C7
)=1
,
V(S
C3
S
C1
)=0.69 , V(S
C3
S
C2
)=1 , V(S
C3
S
C4
)=1
, V(S
C2
S
C5
)=1 , V(S
C2
S
C6
)=0.85 , V(S
C2

S
C7
)=1 ,
V(S
C4
S
C1
)=0.35 , V(S
C4
S
C2
)=1 ,V(S
C4

S
C3
)=0.69 , V(S
C4
S
C5
)=0.95 , V(S
C4
S
C6
)=1 ,
V(S
C4
S
C7
)=1 ,
V(S
C5
S
C1
)=0.36 , V(S
C5
S
C2
)=1 , V(S
C5

S
C3
)=0.71 , V(S
C5
S
C4
)=1 , V(S
C5
S
C6
)=0.54 ,
V(S
C5
S
C7
)=1 ,
V(S
C6
S
C1
)=0.85 , V(S
C6
S
C2
)=1 , V(S
C6
S
C3
)=1
, V(S
C6
S
C4
)=1 , V(S
C6
S
C5
)=1 , V(S
C6
S
C7
)=1 ,



P. Kousalya, Mahender Reddy / International Journal of Engineering Research and
Applications (IJERA) ISSN: 2248-9622 www.ijera.com

Vol. 1, Issue 4, pp.1993-2002
1998 | P a g e


Table 1: Pair wise comparison scale

Table 2: Table of opinions of Criteria



















V(S
C7
S
C1
)=0.39 , V(S
C7
S
C2
)=1 , V(S
C7

S
C3
)=0.76 , V(S
C7
S
C4
)=1 , V(S
C7
S
C5
)=1 ,
V(S
C7
S
C6
)=0.58
Then the priority weights are calculated by using
Eq.(3.11) as follows
d
1
(C
1
)= min(1,1,1,1,1,1) = 1
d
1
(C
2
)= min( 1,1,0.72,0.65,1,1 ) = 0.65
d
1
(C
3
)= min( 0.69,1,1,1,0.85,1 ) = 0.69
d
1
(C
4
)= min( 0.35,1,0.69,0.95,1,1 ) = 0.35
d
1
(C
5
)= min( 0.36,1,0.711,0.54,1 ) = 0.36
d
1
(C
6
)= min(0.85,1,1,1,1,1 ) =0.85
d
1
(C
7
)= min( 0.39,1,0.76,1,1,0.58 ) = 0.39
Hence we can obtain the priority weights from W
1

=( 1,0.65,0.69,0.35,0.36,0.85,0.39 ).
The above vector can be normalized and the
priority weights with respect to the main goal are
calculated as follows:
W
1
=(0.363216, 0.236091, 0.250619, 0.127126,
0.130758 , 0.308734, 0.141654 )
In a similar way, the weights of sub criteria and
priority values of the alternative branches are
calculated. These priority values of alternative
branches for each sub criteria are shown in table
3.Normalization is done as shown in the first step
of TOPSIS method .Then weighted normalized
matrix is formed by multiplying each value with
their weights. All weighted values that form each
sub criterion are aggregated. Then these values
which are aggregated and the weights of each main
criterion are multiplied to form Table 4.






TFN Inverse TFN Definition Explanation
(1,1,1) (1,1,1) Equal
importance
Two elements contribute equally to the property
(1,3,5) (1/5,1/3,1) Moderate
importance of
one over
another
Experience and judgment slightly favor one over the
other
(3,5,7) (1/7,1/5,1/3) Essential or
strong
importance
Experience and judgment strongly favor one over
another
(5,7,9) (1/9,1/7,1/5) Very strong
importance
An element is strongly favored and its dominance is
demonstrated in practice.
(7,9,11) (1/11,1/9,1/7) Extreme
importance
The evidence favoring one element over another is one
of the highest possible order of affirmation
C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7
C1 (1,1,1) (3,5,7) (1,3,5) (3,5,7) (3,5,7) (1,1,1) (1,3,5)
C2 (1/7,1/5,1/3) (1,1,1) (1/5,1/3,1) (1/5,1/3,1) (1/5,1/3,1) (1/7,1/5,1/3) (1,1,1)
C3 (1/5,1/3,1) (1,3,5) (1,1,1) (1,3,5) (1,3,5) (1,1,1) (1,1,1)
C4 (1/7,1/5,1/3) (1,3,5) (1/5,1/3,1) (1,1,1) (1,1,1) (1/5,1/3,1) (1/5,1/3,1)
C5 (1/7,1/5,1/3) (1,3,5) (1/5,1/3,1) (1,1,1) (1,1,1) (1/5,1/3,1) (1,1,1)
C6 (1,1,1) (3,5,7) (1,1,1) (1,3,5) (1,3,5) (1,1,1) (1,3,5)
C7 (1/5,1/3,1) (1,1,1) (1,1,1) (1,3,5) (1,1,1) (1/5,1/3,1) (1,1,1)
P. Kousalya, Mahender Reddy / International Journal of Engineering Research and
Applications (IJERA) ISSN: 2248-9622 www.ijera.com

Vol. 1, Issue 4, pp.1993-2002
1999 | P a g e


Table 3:Priority values of sub criteria



































Table 4: Total Weights of main criteria







From TOPSIS method ,Positive and Negative Ideal
solutions are determined by taking the maximum
and minimum values for each criterion:
A
*
={0.2353, 0.0968, 0.2650, 0.1098, 0.1081,
0.2795, 0.1032}
A
-
={0.0022, 0.0339, 0.0595, 0.0224, 0.04747,
0.2003, 0.0468}

Then the distance of each alternative from PIS and
NIS with respect to each criterion are calculated
with the help of Eq.(11) and (12)
d
i
*
={0.2353, 0.0582, 0.3222, 0.1024, 0.2658} and








d
i
-
={0.2196, 0.2960, 0.0320, 0.2421, 0.1070}
Finally the rankings of the alternative branches are
performed using step 5 of TOPSIS method. The
ranks of these alternatives arent calculated as step
6 of TOPSIS method and are tabulated in the
Table5.









Sub criteria A1 A2 A3 A4 A5
C1 0.0060 0.64790 0.0137 0.4141 0.0137
C2 0.3651 0.4103 0.2790 0.2256 0.1436
C31 0.3823 0.4581 0.0093 0.3005 0.1700
C32 0.3083 0.4602 0.0506 0.3037 0.1933
C33 0.3669 0.3669 0.1775 0.3552 0.2793
C41 0.2643 0.4264 0.1193 0.3368 0.2387
C42 0.3589 0.4376 0.0568 0.3063 0.2013
C51 0.4335 0.3208 0.1820 0.4335 0.4335
C52 0.3265 0.3698 0.1809 0.3934 0.3934
C61 0.4583 0.4583 0.2016 0.4583 0.2016
C62 0.4472 0.4472 0.4472 0.4472 0.4472
C63 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1.0000
C71 0.3216 0.3874 0.1472 0.3216 0.3061
C72 0.4075 0.3138 0.1834 0.3423 0.1834
C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7
A1 0.0022 0.0862 0.2650 0.0792 0.0993 0.2795 0.1032
A2 0.2353 0.0968 0.2067 0.1098 0.0903 0.2795 0.0993
A3 0.0050 0.0658 0.0595 0.0224 0.0474 0.2003 0.0468
A4 0.1504 0.0532 0.2404 0.0817 0.1081 0.2795 0.0940
A5 0.0050 0.0339 0.1610 0.0559 0.1081 0.2003 0.0693
P. Kousalya, Mahender Reddy / International Journal of Engineering Research and Applications (IJERA) ISSN: 2248-
9622 www.ijera.com

Vol. 1, Issue 4, pp.1993-2002
2000 | P a g e
































Figure: 1 Hierarchical decomposition of criteria, sub criteria and alternatives

All Round Excellence Award
Academics(C1)
)
Attendance(C2) Extra curricular
Activities(C4)
Co-curricular
Activities(C3)
Cultural
Activities(C5)
General
Behavior(C6)
Departmental
Activities(C7)

Paper Presentation(C31)
Singing(C51)
Choreography(C52)
Honesty(C61)
Group Discussion(C32)
Debate(C33)
Quiz(C34)
In-door games(C41)
Out-door games(C42)
Peer Relationship
(C62)
Teacher
Relationship(C63)
Event Management
(C71)
Coordinating (C72)
EEE(A1)
ECE(A2) ICE(A3) CSE(A4) MECH(A5)
P. Kousalya, Mahender Reddy / International Journal of Engineering Research and
Applications (IJERA) ISSN: 2248-9622 www.ijera.com

Vol. 1, Issue 4, pp.1993-2002
2001 | P a g e



Table5: Rankings of the alternative branches
Alternative Branches CC
i
Ranks
EEE 0.4827 3
ECE 0.8356 1
ICE 0.0905 5
CSE 0.7027 2
MECH 0.2870 4


















Figure: 2 Ranks of alternatives (five engineering branches)


5. Conclusions& Scope

The student of ECE gets the All Round Excellence
Award as he/she gets the highest score as shown in
Figure 2. The student of CSE branch is
equivalently good who performed better than EEE
students.
The present study is taken for a small sample (one
college) and it could be extended to a very large
sample of many colleges and also at University
level. Group decision making can be performed.

References

[1] Benitez J M , Martin J C and Roman C, Using
fuzzy number for measuring quality of service in
the hotel industry, Tourism Management,
28(2),544-555,2007.

[2] Ertugral I and karakasoglu N.,Performance
evaluation of Turkish cement firms with fuzzy
Analytical Hierarchy process and TOPSIS
methods, Expert Systems with Applications: An
International Journal ,Volume 36 Issue 1, January,
2009 .

[3] Kousalya P, Ravindranath and Vizayakumar. K,
Student absenteeism inengineering colleges-
Evaluation of alternatives using AHP, Journal of
Applied Mathematics and decision sciences, Vol
6,1-26, 2006.











P. Kousalya, Mahender Reddy / International Journal of Engineering Research and
Applications (IJERA) ISSN: 2248-9622 www.ijera.com

Vol. 1, Issue 4, pp.1993-2002
2002 | P a g e

[4] Lee,W.B,Lau,H, Liu Z and Tam S, A fuzzy
analytic hierarchy process approach in modular
product design, Expert systems Review, 18(1),32-
42,2001.

[5] Ramanathan R and Ganesh L.S, Group
preference aggregation methods employed in AHP:
An evaluation and an intrinsic process for deriving
members weightages, European Journal of
Operational Research 79,249-265, 1994.

[6] Ramsha Prabhu T and Vizaya Kumar K ,
Fuzzy Hierarchical Decision Making (FHDM): A
Methodology for Technology choice
,International Journal of Computer Applications in
Technology, Vol.9 No.5 &6, 1996.

[7] Ramsha Prabhu T and Vizaya Kumar
K,Evaluation of Technology using FHDM, A
case study of iron making technology,IEEE
Transactions on Engineering Management vol.48,
No.2, 209-222, 2001.

[8] Saaty T.L, Exploring interface between
Hierarchies, multiple objectives and Fuzzy sets ,
Fuzzy sets and systems 1,57-68, 1978.

[9] Saaty T.L., Vargas L.G , Comparison of
eigenvalue, logarithmic least squares and least
squares methods in estimating ratios ,
Mathematical Modeling 5 , 309324, 1984.

[10] Saaty .T. L and Vargas L.G,Uncertainty and
rank order in the analytic hierarchy process -
European Journal of Operational Research , 32,
107-117, 1987.

[11]Serkan Balli and Serdar Korukoglu,Operating
Sysytem Seletion using Fuzzy AHP and TOPSIS
Methods, Mathematical and computational
Applications, Vol14(2),119-130, 2009.

[12] Van Laarhoven.P.J.M., W. Pedrycz , A
fuzzy extension of Saatys priority
theory Fuzzy sets and Systems 11,229-241,
1983.

[13]Wang, Y.M., Yang, J.B. and Xu, D.L. ,
Interval weight generation approaches based on
consistency test and interval comparison
matrices , Applied Mathematics and
Computation, Vol: 167, 252-273, 2005.

[14] Wang Y M and Elhag T.M.S .,Fuzzy TOPSIS
method based on alpha level sets with an
application to bridge risk assessmen"t, Expert
Systems with Applications,31,309-319, 2006.

[15] Wang Y J and Lee H-S., Generalizing
TOPSIS for fuzzy multiple criteria group decision
making, Computers and Mathematics with
Applications, 53( 11),1762-1772,2007.

[16] Wei Cuiping, Fan Lili and Zhang Yuzhong
A note on the Consistency of a
Fuzzy Comparison Matrix , IEEE, 978-1-4244-
1734-6/08, 2008.

[17] Xu R., X. Zhai , Fuzzy logarithmic least
squares ranking method in analytic hierarchy
process , Fuzzy Sets and Systems 77: 175190,
1996.

[18] Xu R. , Fuzzy least-squares priority
method in the analytic hierarchy process ,
Fuzzy Sets and Systems 112: 359404, 2000.

Books:

[19] Hwang C.L and Yoon K, Multiple attributes
decision making methods and applications,
Springer, Berlin, 1981.

[20] Patric T.Harker, The art of Science and
Decision-making: The Analytic Hierarchy
Process, Springer Verlag, 1989.

[21] Saaty T.L, The Analytical Hierarchy
Process, Tata McGraw Hill, New York, 1980.

Proceedings Papers:

[22] Kousalya P, Pradeep Kumar R.L.N and
Ravindranath V, Comparative Performance of
Averaging Methods and Stochastic Vector
Methods in Analytical Hierarchy Process
problems, International Conference on Supply
chain Management at IIT Kharagpur, 2011.

[23] Kousalya P, Selection of a student for All
Round Excellence Award A mathematical model
of a Multi-criteria Decision Making approach,
International Conference at Bengal Institute of
Technology and Management, West Bengal , 2012.