A Comprehensive and Systematic Review of Multi-Criteria Decision-Making (MCDM) Methods to Solve Decision-Making Problems: Two Decades from 2004 to 2024

Authors

  • Rahul Kumar P.G Department of Commerce, Magadh University, Bodh-Gaya, Gaya, Bihar, India Author
  • Dragan Pamucar Department of Operations Research and Statistics, Faculty of Organizational Sciences, University of Belgrade, Belgrade, Serbia Author

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.31181/sdmap21202524

Keywords:

Multi-Criteria Decision-Making, Hybrid Models, Sustainable Development Goals, Bibliometric Analysis, Emerging Technologies, Decision-Making Frameworks

Abstract

Decision-making in complex, multifaceted scenarios has become increasingly critical across diverse sectors, necessitating robust frameworks like Multi-Criteria Decision-Making (MCDM). Over the past two decades (2004–2024), MCDM has transformed from foundational methods like AHP and TOPSIS into dynamic hybrid models integrating artificial intelligence, fuzzy logic, and machine learning. Despite significant strides, the field faces challenges in addressing geographic disparities, underexplored domains and adapting to emerging global needs. This study provides a comprehensive review of MCDM's evolution, consolidating insights from 3,655 peer-reviewed articles sourced through Dimensions.ai and analyzed using bibliometric tools like VOSviewer. The research identifies publication trends, leading contributors, thematic clusters, and collaborative networks while pinpointing gaps and opportunities for future exploration. These Key findings highlight exponential growth in MCDM applications, particularly in sustainable energy, urban planning, and healthcare optimization. These advancements align with global priorities, including the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) such as clean energy, climate action, and sustainable cities. However, critical gaps remain in addressing issues like poverty alleviation, gender equity, and biodiversity conservation, emphasizing the need for broader interdisciplinary applications. This review concludes that MCDM's potential lies in embracing inclusivity, advancing into emerging technologies like blockchain and the metaverse, and fostering collaboration across underrepresented regions and domains. By harnessing real-time data, immersive simulations, and secure decision-making platforms, MCDM can redefine how global challenges are addressed. 

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Kumar, R. (2024). A Comprehensive Review of MCDM Methods, Applications, and Emerging Trends. Decision Making Advances, 3(1), 185–199. https://doi.org/10.31181/dma31202569

Kumar, R. (2024). Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Applications in Agro-based Industries for Economic Development: An Overview of Global Trends, Collaborative Patterns, and Research Gaps. Spectrum of Engineering and Management Sciences, 2(1), 247–262. https://doi.org/10.31181/sems21202431k

Kumar,R. (2024). Artificial Intelligence (AI)-driven Transformation: Sustainable Development of Agro-based Industries in Bihar. International Journal for Multidisciplinary Research, 6(2). https://doi.org/10.36948/ijfmr.2024.v06i02.15935

Kumar,R. & Kumari, K. (2024). Enhancing Economic Development through Inventory Management Optimization in Agro-based Industries in Bihar: A Comparative Study of EOQ and EPQ Models. International Journal for Multidisciplinary Research, 6(2). https://doi.org/10.36948/ijfmr.2024.v06i02.16892

Kumar, R., Khan, A. K., & Goel, S. (2024). From farm to table: How AI is revolutionizing demand forecasting in agro-based industries. Blockchain and AI in business. Applications, Research and Insights, 81-99.

Mokhtar, M. R., Abdullah, M. P., Hassan, M. Y., & Hussin, F. (2015, December). Combination of AHP-PROMETHEE and TOPSIS for selecting the best Demand Side Management (DSM) options. In 2015 IEEE Student Conference on Research and Development (SCOReD) (pp. 367-372). IEEE.https://doi.org/10.1109/scored.2015.7449357

Kumar, R. (2024). Global Trends and Research Patterns in Financial Literacy and Behavior: A Bibliometric Analysis. Management Science Advances., 2(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.31181/msa2120256

Zavadskas, E. K., Turskis, Z., &Kildienė, S. (2014). STATE OF ART SURVEYS OF OVERVIEWS ON MCDM/MADM METHODS. Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 20(1), 165–179. https://doi.org/10.3846/20294913.2014.892037

Saoud, A., Lachgar, M., Hanine, M., Dhimni, R. E., Azizi, K. E., &Machmoum, H. (2025). decideXpert: Collaborative system using AHP-TOPSIS and fuzzy techniques for multi-criteria group decision-making. SoftwareX, 29, 102026. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.softx.2024.102026

Radulescu, C. Z., & Radulescu, M. (2024). A Hybrid Group Multi-Criteria Approach Based on SAW, TOPSIS, VIKOR, and COPRAS Methods for Complex IoT Selection Problems. Electronics, 13(4), 789.https://doi.org/10.3390/electronics13040789

Sivalingam C, & Subramaniam, S. K. (2024). Cobot selection using hybrid AHP-TOPSIS based multi-criteria decision making technique for fuel filter assembly process. Heliyon, 10(4), e26374–e26374. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e26374

Topaloğlu, F. (2024). Development of a new hybrid method for multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) approach: a case study for facility location selection. Operational Research, 24(4), 60.https://doi.org/10.1007/s12351-024-00871-4

Stojčić, M., Zavadskas, E., Pamučar, D., Stević, Ž., & Mardani, A. (2019). Application of MCDM Methods in Sustainability Engineering: A Literature Review 2008–2018. Symmetry, 11(3), 350. https://doi.org/10.3390/sym11030350

Stević, Ž., Pamučar, D., Puška, A., & Chatterjee, P. (2020). Sustainable supplier selection in healthcare industries using a new MCDM method: Measurement of alternatives and ranking according to COmpromise solution (MARCOS). Computers & Industrial Engineering, 140(1), 106231. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2019.106231

Mahmoodirad, A., Pamucar, D., Niroomand, S., & Simic, V. (2025). Data envelopment analysis based performance evaluation of hospitals – Implementation of novel picture fuzzy BCC model. Expert Systems with Applications, 263, 125775. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2025.125775

Karatas, M., Eriskin, L., Deveci, M., Pamucar, D., & Garg, H. (2022). Big Data for Healthcare Industry 4.0: Applications, challenges and future perspectives. Expert Systems with Applications, 200(1), 116912. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2022.116912

Pamučar, D., &Ćirović, G. (2015). The selection of transport and handling resources in logistics centers using Multi-Attributive Border Approximation area Comparison (MABAC). Expert Systems with Applications, 42(6),3016–3028. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2014.11.057

Deveci, M., Mishra, A. R., Gokasar, I., Rani, P., Pamucar, D., & Ozcan, E. (2022). A Decision Support System for Assessing and Prioritizing Sustainable Urban Transportation in Metaverse. IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1109/TFUZZ.2022.3190613

Pamucar, D., Deveci, M., Gokasar, I., Tavana, M., &Köppen, M. (2022). A metaverse assessment model for sustainable transportation using ordinal priority approach and Aczel-Alsina norms. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 182, 121778. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2022.121778

Ala, A., Mahmoudi, A., Mirjalili, S., Simic, V., & Pamucar, D. (2023). Evaluating the Performance of various Algorithms for Wind Energy Optimization: A Hybrid Decision-Making model. Expert Systems with Applications, 221, 119731. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2023.119731

Chyad, M., Zaidan, B. B., Zaidan, A. A., Hossein Pilehkouhi, Roqia Aalaa, Qahtan, S., Alsattar, H. A., Dragan Pamucar, & Simic, V. (2024). Exploring adversarial deep learning for fusion in multi-color channel skin detection applications. Information Fusion, 114, 102632–102632. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.inffus.2024.102632

Leung, A. Y. T., & Zhang, H. (2009). Particle swarm optimization of tuned mass dampers. Engineering Structures, 31(3), 715–728. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2008.11.017

Selman Karagöz, Muhammet Deveci, Vladimir Šimić, Nezir Aydın, & Ufuk Bölükbaş. (2020). A novel intuitionistic fuzzy MCDM-based CODAS approach for locating an authorized dismantling center: a case study of Istanbul. Waste Management & Research, 38(6), 660–672. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734242x19899729

Simic, V., Gokasar, I., Deveci, M., & Isik, M. (2022). Fermatean Fuzzy Group Decision-Making Based CODAS Approach for Taxation of Public Transit Investments. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1109/tem.2021.3109038

Deveci, M., Pamucar, D., Gokasar, I., Koppen, M., & Gupta, B. B. (2022). Personal Mobility in Metaverse With Autonomous Vehicles Using Q-Rung Orthopair Fuzzy Sets Based OPA-RAFSI Model. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1109/tits.2022.3186294

Kumar, R., & Sahoo, S. K. (2024). A Bibliometric Analysis of Agro-Based Industries: Trends and Challenges in Supply Chain Management. Decision Making Advances, 3(1), 200–215. https://doi.org/10.31181/dma31202568

Kumar, R. (2025). Bibliometric Analysis: Comprehensive Insights into Tools, Techniques, Applications, and Solutions for Research Excellence. Spectrum of Engineering and Management Sciences, 3(1), 45–62. https://doi.org/10.31181/sems31202535

Liu, Y., Eckert, C. M., & Earl, C. (2020). A review of fuzzy AHP methods for decision-making with subjective judgements. Expert Systems with Applications, 161(1), 113738. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2020.113738

Yadav, V., Kalbar, P. P., Karmakar, S., & Dikshit, A. K. (2020). A two-stage multi-attribute decision-making model for selecting appropriate locations of waste transfer stations in urban centers. Waste Management, 114, 80–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2020.05.024

Slebi-Acevedo, C. J., Lastra-González, P., Calzada-Pérez, M. A., & Castro-Fresno, D. (2020). Effect of Synthetic Fibers and Hydrated Lime in Porous Asphalt Mixture Using Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Techniques. Materials, 13(3), 675–675. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma13030675

Akram, M., Kahraman, C., & Zahid, K. (2021). Group decision-making based on complex spherical fuzzy VIKOR approach. Knowledge-Based Systems, 216, 106793. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knosys.2021.106793

Tzouramani, I., Mantziaris, S., & Karanikolas, P. (2020). Assessing Sustainability Performance at the Farm Level: Examples from Greek Agricultural Systems. Sustainability, 12(7), 2929. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12072929

Liao, H., Peng, X., & Gou, X. (2020). Medical Supplier Selection with a Group Decision-Making Method Based on Incomplete Probabilistic Linguistic Preference Relations. International Journal of Fuzzy Systems, 23(1), 280–294. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40815-020-00885-y

Salimi, A. H., Noori, A., Bonakdari, H., Masoompour Samakosh, J., Sharifi, E., Hassanvand, M., Gharabaghi, B., & Agharazi, M. (2020). Exploring the Role of Advertising Types on Improving the Water Consumption Behavior: An Application of Integrated Fuzzy AHP and Fuzzy VIKOR Method. Sustainability, 12(3), 1232. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12031232

Rahimi, S., Hafezalkotob, A., Monavari, S. M., Hafezalkotob, A., & Rahimi, R. (2020). Sustainable landfill site selection for municipal solid waste based on a hybrid decision-making approach: Fuzzy group BWM-MULTIMOORA-GIS. Journal of Cleaner Production, 248, 119186. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119186

Published

2025-01-23

How to Cite

Kumar, R., & Pamucar, D. (2025). A Comprehensive and Systematic Review of Multi-Criteria Decision-Making (MCDM) Methods to Solve Decision-Making Problems: Two Decades from 2004 to 2024. Spectrum of Decision Making and Applications, 2(1), 178-197. https://doi.org/10.31181/sdmap21202524