Analyzing Criteria Count Impact on SAW and TOPSIS Stability in Decision Support Systems

Alif Catur Murti, Muhammad Imam Ghozali, Indra Lina Puta, Ali Ikhwan

Abstract


This study investigates how increasing the number of decision criteria (5–30) affects the ranking stability and computational efficiency of Simple Additive Weighting (SAW) and the Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS). Previous studies compared these methods in domains such as scholarship selection and food assistance but did not examine how rankings evolve under greater complexity. Using a synthetic dataset of five fixed alternatives with multiple random seeds, results show that SAW is more prone to ranking fluctuations, while TOPSIS demonstrates greater stability. Kendall’s Tau reveals variability across scenarios, and sensitivity tests confirm that agreement depends on data generation. Computationally, SAW exhibits quasi-linear growth in processing time (≈0.002–0.008 s), whereas TOPSIS remains efficient (≈0.002–0.004 s) with minimal variance. These findings highlight a context-dependent choice SAW offers simplicity in low-dimensional settings, while TOPSIS provides scalability and robustness for complex, high-stakes decision support.

Keywords


Computational Efficiency; Decision Support System (DSS); Ranking Stability; SAW; TOPSIS.

Full Text:

PDF

References


P. Zandi, M. Ajalli, and N. S. Ekhtiyati, “An extended simple additive weighting decision support system with application in the food industry,” Decis. Anal. J., vol. 14, no. September 2024, 2025, doi: 10.1016/j.dajour.2025.100553.

J. V. G. A. Araujo et al., “Multi-criteria Decision Support Method AHP-TOPSIS-2N applied in bids to improve the control of public expenses,” Procedia Comput. Sci., vol. 221, pp. 362–369, 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.procs.2023.07.049.

M. Selmi, T. Kormi, and N. Bel Hadj Ali, “Comparison of multi-criteria decision methods through a ranking stability index,” Int. J. Oper. Res., vol. 27, no. 1/2, p. 165, 2016, doi: 10.1504/ijor.2016.10000064.

S. Hajkowicz and A. Higgins, “A comparison of multiple criteria analysis techniques for water resource management,” Eur. J. Oper. Res., vol. 184, no. 1, pp. 255–265, 2008, doi: 10.1016/j.ejor.2006.10.045.

P. Umami, L. A. Abdillah, and I. Z. Yadi, “Sistem pendukung keputusan pemberian beasiswa bidik misi,” 2014, [Online]. Available: http://arxiv.org/abs/1402.7131

W. E. Sari, M. B, and S. Rani, “Perbandingan Metode SAW dan Topsis pada Sistem Pendukung Keputusan Seleksi Penerima Beasiswa,” J. Sisfokom (Sistem Inf. dan Komputer), vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 52–58, 2021, doi: 10.32736/sisfokom.v10i1.1027.

A. Hermawan and A. Damiyati, “Decision Support System for Employee Performance Assessment with SAW and TOPSIS Methods Aditiya,” eCo-Buss, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 1–7, 2020.

N. Vafaei, R. A. Ribeiro, and L. M. Camarinha-Matos, “Assessing Normalization Techniques for Simple Additive Weighting Method,” Procedia Comput. Sci., vol. 199, pp. 1229–1236, 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.procs.2022.01.156.

L. H. Nunes, J. C. Estrella, C. Perera, S. Reiff-Marganiec, and A. N. Delbem, “Multi-criteria IoT Resource Discovery: A Comparative Analysis,” Softw. - Pract. Exp., vol. 39, no. 7, pp. 701–736, 2009, doi: 10.1002/spe.

A. Alowaigl, K. H. A. Al-Shqeerat, and M. Hadwan, “A multi-criteria assessment of decision support systems in educational environments,” Indones. J. Electr. Eng. Comput. Sci., vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 985–996, 2021, doi: 10.11591/ijeecs.v22.i2.pp985-996.

W. Prapaporn, W. Chaipanha, and P. Kaewwichian, “A multi-criteria decision-making approach of transport intersection toward sustainable urban transport index,” Ain Shams Eng. J., vol. 16, no. 8, p. 103453, 2025, doi: 10.1016/j.asej.2025.103453.

D. L. Olson, “Comparison of weights in TOPSIS models,” Math. Comput. Model., vol. 40, no. 7–8, pp. 721–727, 2004, doi: 10.1016/j.mcm.2004.10.003.

J. Barman, B. Biswas, S. S. Ali, and M. Zhran, “The TOPSIS method: Figuring the landslide susceptibility using Excel and GIS,” MethodsX, vol. 13, no. October, 2024, doi: 10.1016/j.mex.2024.103005.

R. Susmaga, I. Szczęch, and D. Brzezinski, “Towards explainable TOPSIS: Visual insights into the effects of weights and aggregations on rankings,” Appl. Soft Comput., vol. 153, 2024, doi: 10.1016/j.asoc.2024.111279.

R. Susmaga and I. Szczech, “Utility Inspired Generalizations of TOPSIS,” pp. 1–38, 2025, [Online]. Available: http://arxiv.org/abs/2504.08014

Q. Hu, S. Zhang, C. Hu, and Y. Liu, “A new fuzzy multi-attribute group decision-making method based on TOPSIS and optimization models,” 2023, [Online]. Available: http://arxiv.org/abs/2311.15933

S. K. Pendyala, “Real-time Analytics and Clinical Decision Support Systems: Transforming Emergency Care,” Int. J. Multidiscip. Res., vol. 6, no. 6, 2024, doi: 10.36948/ijfmr.2024.v06i06.31500.

S. Mejjaouli, “Internet of Things based Decision Support System for Green Logistics,” Sustain., vol. 14, no. 22, 2022, doi: 10.3390/su142214756.

Adhika Pramita Widyassari, Mohamad Ardy An’syah, and Retno Wahyusari, “Comparative Analysis Of Saw And Topsis In Selecting Recipients Of Basic Food Assistance,” Int. Conf. Digit. Adv. Tour. Manag. Technol., vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 174–183, 2023, doi: 10.56910/ictmt.v1i1.61.

J. Susilo and E. G. Wahyuni, “Comparison of SAW and TOPSIS Methods in Decision Support Systems for Contraceptive Selection,” Int. J. Softw. Eng. Comput. Sci., vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 792–807, 2024, doi: 10.35870/ijsecs.v4i2.2815.

C. Gracia and W. T. Atmojo, “Implementation of SAW and TOPSIS in Decision Support System to Decide The Best Midfielder in A Football League,” TIERS Inf. Technol. J., vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 76–83, 2022, doi: 10.38043/tiers.v3i2.3868.

F. Ciardiello and A. Genovese, “A comparison between TOPSIS and SAW methods,” Ann. Oper. Res., 2023.

R. Simanaviciene and L. Ustinovichius, “Sensitivity analysis for multiple criteria decision making methods: TOPSIS and SAW,” Procedia - Soc. Behav. Sci., vol. 2, no. 6, pp. 7743–7744, 2010, doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.05.207.

A. C. Murti and A. A. Chamid, “Sistem Auto Recommendation Objek Wisata Menggunakan Metode SAW,” J. Sist. Inf. Bisnis, vol. 8, no. 1, p. 9, 2018, doi: 10.21456/vol8iss1pp9-16.

A. A. Chamid and A. C. Murti, “Prioritization of Natural Dye Selection In Batik Tulis Using AHP and TOPSIS Approach,” IJCCS (Indonesian J. Comput. Cybern. Syst., vol. 12, no. 2, p. 129, 2018, doi: 10.22146/ijccs.29813.

M. Mehrparvar, J. Majak, and K. Karjust, “A comparative analysis of Fuzzy AHP and Fuzzy VIKOR methods for prioritization of the risk criteria of an autonomous vehicle system,” Proc. Est. Acad. Sci., vol. 73, no. 2, pp. 116–123, 2024, doi: 10.3176/proc.2024.2.04.

C. Park, M. Son, J. Kim, B. Kim, Y. Ahn, and N. Kwon, “TOPSIS and AHP-Based Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Approach for Evaluating Redevelopment in Old Residential Projects,” Sustain., vol. 17, no. 15, pp. 1–20, 2025, doi: 10.3390/su17157072.

P. K. Parida and S. K. Sahoo, “Multiple Attributes Decision Making Approach by TOPSIS Technique,” Int. J. Eng. Res. Technol., vol. 2, no. 11, pp. 907–912, 2013.

R. E. Setyani and R. Saputra, “Flood-prone Areas Mapping at Semarang City by Using Simple Additive Weighting Method,” Procedia - Soc. Behav. Sci., vol. 227, no. November 2015, pp. 378–386, 2016, doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2016.06.089.

G. Wen and F. Ji, “Flood resilience assessment of region based on TOPSIS-BOA-RF integrated model,” Ecol. Indic., vol. 169, no. July, 2024, doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2024.112901.

N. Ouachene, T. Senga Kiessé, and M. S. Corson, “Using conditional Kendall’s tau estimation to assess interactions among variables in dairy-cattle systems,” Agric. Syst., vol. 220, no. August, 2024, doi: 10.1016/j.agsy.2024.104089.

L. Kunitomo-Jacquin, “Conditional Kendall’s tau for interval-valued data,” Procedia Comput. Sci., vol. 246, no. C, pp. 1973–1981, 2024, doi: 10.1016/j.procs.2024.09.717.

S. Perreault, “Simultaneous computation of Kendall’s tau and its jackknife variance,” Stat. Probab. Lett., vol. 213, no. February, p. 110181, 2024, doi: 10.1016/j.spl.2024.110181.




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.30829/zero.v9i2.25707

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

Publisher :
Department of Mathematics
Faculty of Science and Technology
Universitas Islam Negeri Sumatera Utara Medan
📱 WhatsApp:085270009767 (Admin Official)
SINTA 2 Google Scholar CrossRef Garuda DOAJ