Simple Additive Weighting versus Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to an Ideal Solution: which method is better suited for assessing the sustainability of a real estate project

Abstract

In the real estate sector, sustainability assessment tools enable the transition to buildings with lower impacts on the environment, the economy and the society. A variety of multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) methods has been proposed to address this problem. There is, however, no consensus on the method to be used in each assessment case. The paper presents an empirical application and comparison of two different MCDM approaches SAW (Simple Additive Weighting) and TOPSIS (Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to an Ideal Solution) to assessing the sustainability of a real estate project. 18 sustainability criteria weighted by experts formed the basis of sustainability assessment of a real estate project. The results of the study revealed a significant difference between the ranks obtained by SAW and TOPSIS. Moreover, the results of the MCDM sensitivity analysis showed that the TOPSIS method is more sensitive to changes in baseline data than the SAW method.

Estimation of Dimensional Deviation of Parts Printed in Different Orientations on Multi Jet Printer

“…decision-makers and lessen the impact of extremes criterion values on decision-making outcomes (Huang et al, 2021). Dobrovolskienė and Pozniak (2021) provides an actual application and comparison of two distinct MCDM methods to evaluate the sustainability of a real estate project. The study's findings indicated a substantial disparity in the rankings produced by SAW and TOPSIS.…”

“…The study's findings indicated a substantial disparity in the rankings produced by SAW and TOPSIS. Furthermore, the TOPSIS technique is more sensitive to changes in baseline data than the SAW method, according to the findings of the MCDM sensitivity study (Dobrovolskienė & Pozniak, 2021). Bogojević et al (2020) studied on the influence of AM orientation on the fatigue behaviour of steel parts.…”

Supplier Evaluation at Small-Medium Enterprise Using Simple Additive Weighting

“…Second, SAW is a highly flexible decision-making method that can be easily adapted to diverse scenarios. It allows for the inclusion of both subjective and objective criteria and can be tailored to reflect the preferences and specific Fernando Jose Armando, Raymond Sunardi Oetama| 471 requirements of stakeholders and decision-makers [16]. To achieve normalization of the decision matrix, the formula represented in Equation 1 is utilized.…”

Combination of design of experiments and simple additive weighting methods: a new method for rapid multi-criteria decision making

“…The advantage of this method is performing a proportional linear transformation of the unprocessed data, which means that the order of relative magnitude of the benchmarks remains the same [7,8]. For that very reason, despite being the oldest, this method or its modified variables is still widely used in recently published studies: to evaluate flood control projects [9]; to choose air conditioners [10]; to choose schools [11,12]; to evaluate national football teams participating in the 2018 World Cup [13]; to choose employees to be recruited into the company [2]; to choose students who are entitled to grants [14]; to serve the recruitment for lecturers of a University [15]; to rank secondary school teachers [16]; to rank singers in a band [17]; to evaluate the sustainability of real estate projects [18]; to choose industrial robots, Flexible Manufacturing Systems and non-traditional machining methods [19], and so on. Thus, it can be seen that the SAW method has been successfully applied to make multi-criteria decisions in many different fields.…”