Journal Menu
Last Edition

The multi-criteria decision-making method: selection of support equipment for classroom instructors


Vo Thi Nhu Uyen1


 Pham Xuan Thu2

1 Department of Academic Affairs, Hanoi University of Industry, Hanoi City, 100000, Vietnam
2 National Institute for Vocational Education and Training, Hanoi City, 100000, Vietnam

Received: 29 August 2023
Revised: 12 October 2023
Accepted: 9 November 2023
Published: 31 December 2023


This research illustrates the application of the MCDM (Multi-Criteria Decision Making) method in education, specifically in the context of selecting supportive equipment for classroom instructors, as detailed below. The study aims to determine the optimal equipment to assist instructors in their teaching activities. The research is centered around classrooms within a university in Vietnam. Two MCDM methods, namely the FUCA (Faire Un Choix Adéquat) method and the CURLI (Collaborative Unbiased Rank List Integration) method, were employed to select the most suitable equipment options available in the market. The recommended quantities for the respective equipment are 4, 12, and 5, with 5, 12, and 10 evaluation criteria for each type. Notably, the optimal solutions obtained through the FUCA method align with those derived from the CURLI method for each type of equipment. The findings of this study can be leveraged to conduct further research on teaching methodologies, textbook selection, equipment choices for practical exercises, and various other aspects within the field of education.


Supporting Equipment, Classroom, MCDM, FUCA Method, CURLI Method


[1] E.K. Zavadskas, J. Antucheviciene, P. Chatterjee, Multiple-Criteria Decision-Making (MCDM) Techniques for Business Processes Information Management. Information, 10(4), 2019: 4.
[2] M. Baydas, T. Eren, Z. Stevic, V. Starcevic, R. Parlakkaya, Proposal for an objective binary benchmarking framework that validates each other for comparing MCDM methods through data analytics. PeerJ Computer Science, 9, 2023: e1350.
[3] M. Jagtap, P. Karande, Effect of normalization methods on rank performance in single valued m-polar fuzzy ELECTRE-I algorithm. Materials Today: Proceeding, 52, 2022: 762-771.
[4] R.V. Rao, J. Lakshmi, R-method: A simple ranking method for multi-attribute decision making in the industrial environment. Journal of Project Management, 6, 2021: 223-230.
[5] M M.L. Fernando, J.L.P. Escobedo, C. Azzaro-Pantel, L. Pibouleau, S. Domenech, A. Aguilar-Lasserre, Selecting the best alternative based on a hybrid multiobjective GA-MCDM approach for new product development in the pharmaceutical industry. IEEE Symposium on Computational Intelligence in Multicriteria Decision-Making (MDCM), 11-15 April 2011, Paris, France, pp.159-166.
[6] R.K. James, J.A. David, A new method for group decision making and its application in medical trainee selection. Medical Education, 50(10), 2016: 1045-1053.
[7] M. Baydas, The effect of pandemic conditions on financial success rankings of BIST SME industrial companies: a different evaluation with the help of comparison of special capabilities of MOORA, MABAC and FUCA methods. Business & Management Studies: An International Journal, 10(1), 2022: 245-260.
[8] M. Baydas, Comparison of the Performances of MCDM Methods under Uncertainty: An Analysis on Bist SME Industry Index. OPUS – Journal of Society Research, 19(46), 2022: 308-326.
[9] M. Baydas, D. Pamucar, Determining Objective Characteristics of MCDM Methods under Uncertainty: An Exploration Study with Financial Data. Mathematics, 10(7), 2022: 1115.
[10] A. Ouattara, L. Pibouleau, C. Azzaro-Pantel, S. Domenech, P. Baudet, Y. Benjamin, Economic and environmental strategies for process design. Computers & Chemical Engineering, 36(10), 2012: 174-188.
[11] X.T. Hoang, Multi-objective optimization of turning process by FUCA method. Strojnícky časopis – Journal of Mechanical Engineering, 72(1), 2023: 55-66.
[12] V. D. Tran, Development of a new multi-criteria decision making method. Eastern-European Journal of Enterprise Technologies, 3(4), 2023: 33-38.
[13] A.-T. Nguyen, The Improved CURLI Method for multicriteria Decision Making, Engineering, Technology & Applied Science Research, 13(1), 2023: 10121-10127.
[14] (Accessed: 12 August 2023).
[15] D.D. Trung, The combination of TAGUCHI – ENTROPY – WASPAS – PIV methods for multi- criteria decision making when external cylindrical grinding of 65g steel. Journal of Machine Engineering, 21(4), 2021: 90-105.
[16] D.T. Do, N.-T. Nguyen, Applying COCOSO, MABAC, MAIRCA, EAMR, TOPSIS and weight determination methods for multi-criteria decision making in hole turning process. Strojnícky Časopis-Journal of Mechanical Engineering, 72(2), 2022: 15-40.
[17] H. Fazlollahtabar, A. Smailbasic, Z. Stevic, FUCOM method in group decision-making: Selection of forklift in a warehouse. Decision Making: Applications in Management and Engineering, 2(1), 2019: 49-65.
[18] Z. Gligoric, M. Gligoric, I. Miljanovic, S. Lutovac, A. Milutinovic, Assessing Criteria Weights by the Symmetry Point of Criterion (Novel SPC Method)–Application in the Efciency Evaluation of the Mineral Deposit Multi-Criteria Partitioning Algorithm. Computer Medeling in Engineering & Sciences, 136(1), 2023: 955-979.
[19] S. Salimian, S.M. Mousavi, Z. Turskis, Transportation Mode Selection for Organ Transplant Networks by a New Multi-Criteria Group Decision Model Under Interval-Valued Intuitionistic Fuzzy Uncertainty. Informatica, 34(2) 2023: 337-355.
[20] (Accessed: 12 August 2023).
[21] D. Stanujkic, E.K. Zavadskas, D. Karabasevic, F. Smarandache, Z. Turskis, The use of the pivot pairwise relative criteria importance assessment method for determining the weights of criteria. Romanian Journal of Economic Forecasting, 20(4), 2017: 116-133.

© 2023 by the authors. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC 4.0)

Volume 8
Number 4
December 2023

Last Edition

Volume 8
Number 2

How to Cite

V.T.N. Uyen, P.X. Thu, The Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Method: Selection of Support Equipment for Classroom Instructors. Applied Engineering Letters, 8(4), 2023: 148-157

More Citation Formats