Scalable TOPSIS Variants in Web-Based Decision Support Systems: A Performance Benchmarking Study on Vectorization and Uncertainty Modelling
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.26877/asset.v8i3.3122Keywords:
Vectorized TOPSIS, Z-TOPSIS, scalable DSS, computational performance, MCDM benchmarkingAbstract
This study systematically benchmarks the computational performance and decision consistency of three TOPSIS variants—classical TOPSIS, vectorized TOPSIS, and Z-TOPSIS—in scalable web-based multi-criteria decision support systems (DSS). Although TOPSIS is widely used due to its simplicity and interpretability, its scalability and computational behavior under concurrent web workloads remain insufficiently explored. To address this gap, the algorithms were evaluated using datasets containing 50–500 alternatives and 10 criteria, representing realistic decision-making scenarios. Classical TOPSIS was used as the baseline, vectorized TOPSIS applied matrix-based optimization, and Z-TOPSIS incorporated Z-numbers to capture uncertainty. Experiments were conducted on a cloud-based DSS equipped with multi-core CPUs and 16–32 GB RAM, measuring execution time, throughput, response time, and ranking consistency under workloads of 50–500 concurrent users. The results show that vectorized TOPSIS reduced execution time by approximately 50–55% (26.3 ms vs. 57.9 ms) and achieved the highest throughput of 480 requests per second. In contrast, Z-TOPSIS produced higher latency (68.4 ms) due to additional reliability computations. Ranking consistency remained high between classical and vectorized TOPSIS (Kendall’s tau ≥ 0.98), while Z-TOPSIS showed minor deviations (tau = 0.91). These findings provide practical guidance for selecting TOPSIS variants in scalable web-based MCDM applications.References
[1] T. Li, J. Sun, and L. Fei, “Application of Multiple-Criteria Decision-Making Technology in Emergency Decision-Making: Uncertainty, Heterogeneity, Dynamicity, and Interaction,” Mathematics, vol. 13, no. 5, p. 731, Feb. 2025, doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/math13050731.
[2] C.-T. Chen, “Extensions of the TOPSIS for group decision-making under fuzzy environment,” Fuzzy Sets Syst., vol. 114, no. 1, pp. 1–9, Aug. 2000, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0165-0114(97)00377-1.
[3] M. Behzadian, S. Khanmohammadi Otaghsara, M. Yazdani, and J. Ignatius, “A state-of the-art survey of TOPSIS applications,” Expert Syst. Appl., vol. 39, no. 17, pp. 13051–13069, Dec. 2012, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2012.05.056.
[4] A. Khakpour, R. Colomo-Palacios, and A. Martini, “Visual Analytics for Decision Support: A Supply Chain Perspective,” IEEE Access, vol. 9, pp. 81326–81344, 2021, doi: https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3085496.
[5] G. Kabir, R. Sadiq, and S. Tesfamariam, “A review of multi-criteria decision-making methods for infrastructure management,” Struct. Infrastruct. Eng., vol. 10, no. 9, pp. 1176–1210, Sep. 2014, doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/15732479.2013.795978.
[6] Mohd. Nazim, C. Wali Mohammad, and Mohd. Sadiq, “A comparison between fuzzy AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS methods to software requirements selection,” Alex. Eng. J., vol. 61, no. 12, pp. 10851–10870, Dec. 2022, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aej.2022.04.005.
[7] L. Boubekri, H. Aberkane, M. C. Abounaima, and L. Lamrini, “GPU-TOPSIS: A Complete Vectorized and Parallel Reformulation of the TOPSIS Method for Large-Scale Multi-Criteria Decision Making,” Big Data Cogn. Comput., vol. 10, no. 5, p. 138, Apr. 2026, doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/bdcc10050138.
[8] M. Zaharia et al., Commun. ACM, vol. 59, no. 11, pp. 56–65, Oct. 2016, doi: https://doi.org/10.1145/2934664.
[9] N. M. F. H. Nik Badrul Alam, K. M. N. Ku Khalif, and N. I. Jaini, “Analytic Hierarchy Process Based on the Magnitude of Z-Numbers,” Int. J. Anal. Hierarchy Process, vol. 15, no. 1, Jul. 2023, doi: https://doi.org/10.13033/ijahp.v15i1.1063.
[10] L. R. Rodrigues, G. P. Koslovski, M. Pasin, M. A. Pillon, O. C. Alves, and C. C. Miers, “Time-constrained and network-aware containers scheduling in GPU era,” Future Gener. Comput. Syst., vol. 117, pp. 72–86, Apr. 2021, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.future.2020.11.014.
[11] S. Chakraborty, “TOPSIS and Modified TOPSIS: A comparative analysis,” Decis. Anal. J., vol. 2, p. 100021, Mar. 2022, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dajour.2021.100021.
[12] F. Samanlioglu, A. N. Burnaz, B. Diş, M. D. Tabaş, and M. Adıgüzel, “An Integrated Fuzzy Best-Worst-TOPSIS Method for Evaluation of Hotel Website and Digital Solutions Provider Firms,” Adv. Fuzzy Syst., vol. 2020, pp. 1–10, Nov. 2020, doi: https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/8852223.
[13] Q. He et al., “Feasibility study of a multi-criteria decision-making based hierarchical model for multi-modality feature and multi-classifier fusion: Applications in medical prognosis prediction,” Inf. Fusion, vol. 55, pp. 207–219, Mar. 2020, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.inffus.2019.09.001.
[14] M. Krstić, S. Tadić, M. Kovač, V. Roso, and S. Zečević, “A Novel Hybrid MCDM Model for the Evaluation of Sustainable Last Mile Solutions,” Math. Probl. Eng., vol. 2021, pp. 1–17, Oct. 2021, doi: https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/5969788.
[15] Z. Shahpar, V. K. Bardsiri, and A. K. Bardsiri, “To overcome sequential limitations, researchers have explored vectorized processing,” Softw. Pract. Exp., vol. 52, no. 4, pp. 929–946, Apr. 2022, doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/spe.3040.
[16] T. Kouya, “Performance Evaluation of Strassen Matrix Multiplication Supporting Triple-Double Precision Floating-Point Arithmetic,” in Computational Science and Its Applications – ICCSA 2020, vol. 12253, O. Gervasi, B. Murgante, S. Misra, C. Garau, I. Blečić, D. Taniar, B. O. Apduhan, A. M. A. C. Rocha, E. Tarantino, C. M. Torre, and Y. Karaca, Eds., in Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 12253. , Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2020, pp. 163–176. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-58814-4_12.
[17] A. Singh, R. Narain, and R. C. Yadav, “Benchmarking and performance measurement of supply chain management practices: a survey of Indian organisations,” Int. J. Serv. Oper. Manag., vol. 2, no. 4, p. 313, 2006, doi: https://doi.org/10.1504/IJSOM.2006.010250.
[18] L. A. Zadeh, “A Note on Z-numbers,” Inf. Sci., vol. 181, no. 14, pp. 2923–2932, Jul. 2011, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2011.02.022.
[19] A. M. Yaakob and A. Gegov, “Interactive TOPSIS Based Group Decision Making Methodology Using Z-Numbers:,” Int. J. Comput. Intell. Syst., vol. 9, no. 2, p. 311, 2016, doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/18756891.2016.1150003.
[20] L. Fang, Kybernetes, vol. 55, no. 1, pp. 478–505, Jan. 2026, doi: https://doi.org/10.1108/K-07-2024-1837.
[21] R. Mitra and J. Das, “A comparative assessment of flood susceptibility modelling of GIS-based TOPSIS, VIKOR, and EDAS techniques in the Sub-Himalayan foothills region of Eastern India,” Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res., vol. 30, no. 6, pp. 16036–16067, 2022, doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-23168-5.
[22] M. Matejová and J. Paralič, “A Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Approach for the Selection of Explainable AI Methods,” Mach. Learn. Knowl. Extr., vol. 7, no. 4, p. 158, Dec. 2025, doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/make7040158.
[23] J. Dean and S. Ghemawat, “MapReduce: simplified data processing on large clusters,” Commun. ACM, vol. 51, no. 1, pp. 107–113, 2008, doi: https://doi.org/10.1145/1327452.1327492.
[24] A. M. Alshamsi, H. El-Kassabi, M. A. Serhani, and C. Bouhaddioui, “A multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) approach for data-driven distance learning recommendations,” Educ. Inf. Technol., vol. 28, no. 8, pp. 10421–10458, Aug. 2023, doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-11589-9.
[25] N. N. K. Krisnawijaya, B. Tekinerdogan, C. Catal, and R. Van Der Tol, “Multi-Criteria decision analysis approach for selecting feasible data analytics platforms for precision farming,” Comput. Electron. Agric., vol. 209, p. 107869, Jun. 2023, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compag.2023.107869.
[26] M. Yazdani, P. Chatterjee, E. K. Zavadskas, and S. Hashemkhani Zolfani, “Integrated QFD-MCDM framework for green supplier selection,” J. Clean. Prod., vol. 142, pp. 3728–3740, Jan. 2017, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.10.095.
[27] A. Masoumi, S. Ghassem-zadeh, S. H. Hosseini, and B. Z. Ghavidel, “Application of neural network and weighted improved PSO for uncertainty modeling and optimal allocating of renewable energies along with battery energy storage,” Appl. Soft Comput., vol. 88, p. 105979, Mar. 2020, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2019.105979.
[28] S. Daulay, “Lecturer Performance Decision Support System Using The TOPSIS Method Based on Web,” J. Appl. Eng. Technol. Sci., vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 42–49, Aug. 2020, doi: https://doi.org/10.37385/jaets.v2i1.181.
[29] A. Ristono, “Proximity Index Value for Supplier Selection Using Compromise Weighting of Stepwise Weight Assessment Ratio Analysis and The Method of Removal Effects Of Criteria: A Case Study in Indonesian Leather Industry,” J. Appl. Eng. Technol. Sci., vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 480–498, Dec. 2024, doi: https://doi.org/10.37385/jaets.v6i1.6030.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Advance Sustainable Science Engineering and Technology
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
