Determining the utility in management by using multi-criteria decision support tools: a review

References

• Adhikary, D. D., Bose, G. K., Bose, D., & Mitra, S. (2014). Multi criteria FMECA for coal-fired thermal power plants using COPRAS-G. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 31(5), 601–614.
   Google Scholar
• Akadiri, P. O., Olomolaiye, P. O., & Chinyio, E. A. (2013). Multi-criteria evaluation model for the selection of sustainable materials for building projects. Automation in Construction, 30, 113–125.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Alimardani, M., Zolfani, S. H., Aghdaie, M. H., & Tamosaitiene, J. (2013). A novel hybrid SWARA and VIKOR methodology for supplier selection in an agile environment. Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 19(3), 533–548.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Antucheviciene, J., Zakarevicius, A., & Zavadskas, E. K. (2010). Multiple criteria construction management decisions considering relations between criteria. Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 16(1), 109–125.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Antucheviciene, J., Zavadskas, E. K., & Zakarevicius, A. (2012). Ranking redevelopment decisions of derelict buildings and analysis of ranking results. Economic Computation and Economic Cybernetics Studies and Research, 46(2), 37–62.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Atanassov, K. T. (1986). Intuitionistic fuzzy sets. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 20(1), 87–96.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bagocius, V., Zavadskas, E. K., & Turskis, Z. (2014b). Multi-person selection of the best wind turbine based on the multi-criteria integrated additive-multiplicative utility function. Journal of Civil Engineering and Management, 20(4), 590–599.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bakshi, T., & Sarkar, B. (2011). MCA based performance evaluation of project selection. International Journal of Software Engineering & Applications, 2(2), 14–22.
   Google Scholar
• Balezentiene, L., & Kusta, A. (2012). Reducing greenhouse gas emissions in grassland ecosystems of the central Lithuania: multi-criteria evaluation on a basis of the ARAS method. The Scientific World Journal, e511100, 1–11.
   Google Scholar
• Balezentiene, L., Streimikiene, D., & Balezentis, T. (2013). Fuzzy decision support methodology for sustainable energy crop selection. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 17, 83–93.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Balezentis, A., & Balezentis, T. (2011). Framework of strategic management model for strategy Europe 2020: Diachronic analysis and proposed guidelines. Inžinerinė ekonomika - Engineering Economics, 22(3), 271–282.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Balezentis, A., & Balezentis, T. (2011a). Assessing the efficiency of Lithuanian transport sector by applying the methods of MULTIMOORA and data envelopment analysis. Transport, 26(3), 263–270.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Balezentis, A., Balezentis, T., & Misiunas, A. (2012). An integrated assessment of Lithuanian economic sectors based on financial ratios and fuzzy MCDM methods. Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 18(1), 34–53.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Balezentis, A., Valkauskas, R., & Balezentis, T. (2010). Evaluating situation of Lithuania in the European Union: structural indicators and multimoora method. Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 16(4), 578–602.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baležentis, T., & Baležentis, A. (2011b). A multi-criteria assessment of relative farming efficiency in the European Union Member States. Žemės ūkio mokslai, 18(3), 125–135.
   Google Scholar
• Balezentis, T., Balezentis, A., & Brauers, W. K. (2011). Multi-objective optimization of well-being in the European Union member states. Ekonomska Istrazivanja–Economic Research, 24(4), 1–15.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Balezentis, T., & Zeng, S. (2013). Group multi-criteria decision making based upon interval-valued fuzzy numbers: An extension of the MULTIMOORA method. Expert Systems with Applications, 40(2), 543–550.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Banaitiene, N., Banaitis, A., Kaklauskas, A., & Zavadskas, E. K. (2008). Evaluating the life cycle of a building: A multivariant and multiple criteria approach. Omega, 36(3), 429–441.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barysiene, J. (2012). A multi-criteria evaluation of container terminal technologies applying the COPRAS-G method. Transport, 27(4), 364–372.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Belton, V., Stewart, T. (2002). Multiple criteria decision analysis: An integrated approach. New York: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Brauers, W. K. M., & Zavadskas, E. K. (2006). The MOORA method and its application to privatization in a transition economy. Control and Cybernetics, 35(2), 445–469.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brauers, W.K.M. (2004). Optimization methods for a stakeholder society, a revolution in economic thinking by multi-objective optimization. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• Brauers, W. K. M., & Ginevicius, R. (2010). The economy of the Belgian regions tested with MULTIMOORA. Journal of Business Economics and Management, 11(2), 173–209.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brauers, W.K.M. (2013). Multi-objective seaport planning by MOORA decision making. Annals of Operations Research, 206(1), 39–58.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brauers, W.K.M. (2012). Project management for a country with multiple objectives. Czech Economic Review, 6(1), 80–101.
   Google Scholar
• Brauers, W. K. M., Ginevicius, R., Podvezko, V. (2010). Regional development in Lithuania considering multiple objectives by the MOORA method. Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 16(4), 613–640.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brauers, W. K. M., Zavadskas, E. K. (2010). Project management by MULTIMOORA as an instrument for transition economies. Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 16(1), 5–24.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brauers, W. K. M., Zavadskas, E. K. (2012). Robustness of MULTIMOORA: A method for multi-objective optimization. Informatica, 23(1), 1–25.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chakraborty, S. (2011). Applications of the MOORA method for decision making in manufacturing environment. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 54(9–12), 1155–1166.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Charnes, A. (1994). Data envelopment analysis: Theory, methodology and applications. New York: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Charnes, A., Cooper, W. W., & Rhodes, E. (1978). Measuring the efficiency of decision making units. European Journal of Operational Research, 2(6), 429–444.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chatterjee, N., & Bose, G. (2013). A COPRAS-F base multi-criteria group decision making approach for site selection of wind farm. Decision Science Letters, 2(1), 1–10.
   Google Scholar
• Chatterjee, P., Athawale, V. M., & Chakraborty, S. (2011). Materials selection using complex proportional assessment and evaluation of mixed data methods. Materials & Design, 32(2), 851–860.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chatterjee, P., & Chakraborty, S. (2012). Material selection using preferential ranking methods. Materials & Design, 35, 384–393.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chauhan, A., & Vaish, R. (2012). Magnetic material selection using multiple attribute decision making approach. Materials & Design, 36, 1–5.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen, S.-M., & Tan, J.-M. (1994). Handling multicriteria fuzzy decision-making problems based on vague set theory. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 67(2), 163–172.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen, T.-Y., Wang, H.-P., & Lu, Y.-Y. (2011). A multicriteria group decision-making approach based on interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy sets: A comparative perspective. Expert Systems with Applications, 38(6), 7647–7658.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cheng, E., & Li, H. (2005). Analytic network process applied to project selection. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 131(4), 459–466.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chiclana, F., Herrera, F., & Herrera-Viedma, E. (1998). Integrating three representation models in fuzzy multipurpose decision making based on fuzzy preference relations. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 97(1), 33–48.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chiclana, F., Herrera, F., & Herrera-Viedma, E. (2000). The ordered weighted geometric operator: properties and application in MCDM Problems. In Proceedings of the 8th Conference on Information Processing and Management of Uncertainty in Knowledge-Based Systems (IPMU), Citeseer.
   Google Scholar
• Chou, J.-S., Pham, A.-D., & Wang, H. (2013). Bidding strategy to support decision-making by integrating fuzzy AHP and regression-based simulation. Automation in Construction 35, 517–527.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• da Costa Sousa, J. M., & Kaymak, U. (2001). Model predictive control using fuzzy decision functions. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part B: Cybernetics, 31(1), 54–65.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dejus, T., & Antucheviciene, J. (2013). Assessment of health and safety solutions at a construction site. Journal of Civil Engineering and management, 19(5), 728–737.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Deng, J. (1982). Grey system fundamental method. Huazhong University of Science and Technology Wuhan, China.
   Google Scholar
• Deng, J. (1988). Grey system. Beijing: China Ocean Press.
   Google Scholar
• Dubois, D., & Prade, H. (1980). Systems of linear fuzzy constraints. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 3(1), 37–48.
   Google Scholar
• Ertay, T., Kahraman, C., & Kaya, İ. (2013). Evaluation of renewable energy alternatives using MACBETH and fuzzy AHP multicriteria methods: the case of Turkey. Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 19(1), 38–62.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fodor, J. C., & Roubens, M. (1995). Characterization of weighted maximum and some related operations. Information Sciences, 84(3), 173–180.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fontela, E., & Gabus, A. (1976). The DEMATEL observer, DEMATEL.
   Google Scholar
• Gadakh, V., Shinde, V., & Khemnar, N. (2013). Optimization of welding process parameters using MOORA method. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 69(9–12), 2031–2039.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gal, T., Stewart, T., & Hanne, T. (1999). Multicriteria decision making: Advances in MCDM models, algorithms, theory, and applications. Cambridge, MA: Da Capo Press.
   Google Scholar
• Gudiene, N., Banaitis, A., Podvezko, V., & Banaitiene, N. (2014). Identification and evaluation of the critical success factors for construction projects in Lithuania: AHP approach. Journal of Civil Engineering and Management, 20(3), 350–359.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hashemkhani Zolfani, S., Farrokhzad, M., & Turskis, Z. (2013b). Investigating on successful factors of online games based on explorer. E & M: Ekonomie a Management, 16(2), 161–169.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hashemkhani Zolfani, S., & Saparauskas, J. (2013). New application of SWARA method in prioritizing sustainability assessment indicators of energy system. Inzinerine Ekonomika-Engineering Economics, 24(5), 408–414.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hashemkhani Zolfani, S., Aghdaie, M. H., Derakhti, A., Zavadskas, E. K., & Morshed Varzandeh, M. H. (2013b). Decision making on business issues with foresight perspective; an application of new hybrid MCDM model in shopping mall locating. Expert Systems with Applications, 40(17), 7111–7121.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hashemkhani Zolfani, S., & Bahrami, M. (2014). Investment prioritizing in high tech industries based on SWARA-COPRAS approach. Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 20(3), 534–553.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hatami-Marbini, A., Tavana, M., Moradi, M., & Kangi, F. (2013). A fuzzy group Electre method for safety and health assessment in hazardous waste recycling facilities. Safety Science, 51(1), 414–426.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hong, D. H., & Choi, C.-H. (2000). Multicriteria fuzzy decision-making problems based on vague set theory. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 114(1), 103–113.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hsu, L.-C. (2015). Using a decision-making process to evaluate efficiency and operating performance for listed semiconductor companies. Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 21(2), 301–331.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hwang, C.-L., & Lin, M.-J. (1987). Group decision making under multiple criteria. Berlin: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Hwang, C.-L., Masud, A. S. M., Paidy, S. R., & Yoon, K. P. (1979). Multiple objective decision making, methods and applications: A state-of-the-art survey. Berlin: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Hwang, C., & Yoon, K. (1981). Multiple attribute decision making: Methods and applications, A State of the Art Survey. New York: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Hwang, F. P., Chen, S. J., & Hwang, C. L. (1992). Fuzzy multiple attribute decision making: Methods and applications. Berlin: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Inuiguchi, M., Ichihashi, H., & Tanaka, H. (1990). Fuzzy programming: A survey of recent developments. In Stochastic versus fuzzy approaches to multiobjective mathematical programming under uncertainty (pp. 45–68). Dordrecht: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Jana, T. K., Bairagi, B., Paul, S., Sarkar, B., & Saha, J. (2013). Dynamic schedule execution in an agent based holonic manufacturing system. Journal of Manufacturing Systems, 32(4), 801–816.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jaskowski, P., Biruk, S., & Bucon, R. (2010). Assessing contractor selection criteria weights with fuzzy AHP method application in group decision environment. Automation in Construction, 19(2), 120–126.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jato-Espino, D., Castillo-Lopez, E., Rodriguez-Hernandez, J., & Canteras-Jordana, J. C. (2014). A review of application of multi-criteria decision-making methods in construction. Automation in Construction, 45, 151–162.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kahraman, C., & Çebı˙, S. (2009). A new multi-attribute decision making method: Hierarchical fuzzy axiomatic design. Expert Systems with Applications, 36(3, Part 1), 4848–4861.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kahraman, C., & Kaya, İ. (2012). A fuzzy multiple attribute utility model for intelligent building assessment. Journal of Civil Engineering and Management, 18(6), 811–820.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kaklauskas, A., Tupenaite, L., Kanapeckiene, L., & Naimaviciene, J. (2013). Knowledge-based model for standard housing renovation. Procedia Engineering, 57, 497–503.
   Google Scholar
• Kaklauskas, A., Zavadskas, E. K., Naimaviciene, J., Krutinis, M., Plakys, V., & Venskus, D. (2010). Model for a complex analysis of intelligent built environment. Automation in Construction, 19(3), 326–340.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kaklauskas, A., Zavadskas, E. K., Raslanas, S., Ginevicius, R., Komka, A., & Malinauskas, P. (2006). Selection of low-e windows in retrofit of public buildings by applying multiple criteria method COPRAS: A Lithuanian case. Energy and Buildings, 38(5), 454–462.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kaklauskas, A., Zavadskas, E. K., & Trinkunas, V. (2007b). A multiple criteria decision support on-line system for construction. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence, 20(2), 163–175.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kalibatas, D., & Turskis, Z. (2008). Multicriteria evaluation of inner climate by using MOORA method. Information Technology and Control, 37(1), 79–83.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kalibatas, D., Zavadskas, E. K., & Kalibatiene, D. (2012). A method of multi-attribute assessment using ideal alternative: Choosing an apartment with optimal indoor environment. International Journal of Strategic Property Management, 16(3), 338–353.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kanapeckiene, L., Kaklauskas, A., Zavadskas, E. K., & Seniut, M. (2010). Integrated knowledge management model and system for construction projects. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence, 23(7), 1200–1215.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kaya, İ., & Kahraman, C. (2014). A comparison of fuzzy multicriteria decision making methods for intelligent building assessment. Journal of Civil Engineering and Management, 20(1), 59–69.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Keeney, R. L., Raiffa, H., & Rajala, D. W. (1979). Decisions with multiple objectives: Preferences and value trade-offs. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, 9(7), 403–403.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kersuliene, V., & Turskis, Z. (2011). Integrated fuzzy multiple criteria decision-making model for architect selection. Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 17(4), 645–666.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kersuliene, V., Zavadskas, E. K., & Turskis, Z. (2010). Selection of rational dispute resolution method by applying new step‐wise weight assessment ratio analysis (SWARA). Journal of Business Economics and Management, 11(2), 243–258.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kildiene, S. (2013). Assessment of opportunities for construction enterprises in European Union member states using the MULTIMOORA method. Procedia Engineering 57, 557–564.
   Google Scholar
• Koksalan, M. M., & Wallenius, J., & Zionts, S. (2011). Multiple criteria decision making: from early history to the 21st century. Singapore: World Scientific.
   Google Scholar
• Kracka, M., Zavadskas, E. K. (2013). Panel building refurbishment elements effective selection by applying multiple-criteria methods. International Journal of Strategic Property Management, 17(2), 210–219.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Krylovas, A., Zavadskas, E. K., Kosareva, N., & Dadelo, S. (2014). New KEMIRA method for determining criteria priority and weights in solving MCDM problem. International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making, 13(6), 1119–1133.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kucukvar, M., Gumus, S., Egilmez, G., & Tatari, O. (2014). Ranking the sustainability performance of pavements: An intuitionistic fuzzy decision-making method. Automation in Construction, 40, 33–43.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lapinskiene, V., & Martinaitis, V. (2013). The framework of an optimization model for building envelope. Procedia Engineering 57, 670–677.
   Google Scholar
• Li, D.-F. (2005). Multiattribute decision making models and methods using intuitionistic fuzzy sets. Journal of Computer and System Sciences, 70(1), 73–85.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lin, L.-K., Chang, C.-C., & Lin, Y.-C. (2011). Structure development and performance evaluation of construction knowledge management system. Journal of Civil Engineering and Management, 17(2), 184–196.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liu, H.-W., & Wang, G.-J. (2007). Multi-criteria decision-making methods based on intuitionistic fuzzy sets. European Journal of Operational Research, 179(1), 220–233.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• MacCrimmon, K. R. (1968). Decision making among multiple-attribute alternatives: A survey and consolidated approach, DTIC Document.
   Google Scholar
• Maity, S. R., Chatterjee, P., & Chakraborty, S. (2012). Cutting tool material selection using grey complex proportional assessment method. Materials & Design, 36, 372–378.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marcic, D., Ceric, A., & Kovacevic, M. S. (2013). Selection of a field testing method for karst rock mass deformability by multi criteria decision analysis. Journal of Civil Engineering and Management, 19(2), 196–205.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mardani, A., Jusoh, A., Md Nor, K., Khalifah, Z., Zakwan, N., & Valipour, A. (2015a). Multiple criteria decision-making techniques and their applications – a review of the literature from 2000 to 2014. Economic Research-Ekonomska Istraživanja, 28(1), 516–571.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mardani, A., Jusoh, A., & Zavadskas, E. K. (2015b). Fuzzy multiple criteria decision-making techniques and applications–Two decades review from 1994 to 2014. Expert Systems with Applications, 42(8), 4126–4148.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mareschal, B., Brans, J. P., & Vincke, P. (1984). PROMETHEE: A new family of outranking methods in multicriteria analysis, ULB–Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
   Google Scholar
• Medineckiene, M., & Bjork, F. (2011). Owner preferences regarding renovation measures–the demonstration of using multi-criteria decision making. Journal of Civil Engineering and Management, 17(2), 284–295.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Miettinen, K. (1999). Nonlinear multiobjective optimization. Berlin: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Miyamoto, S., Liu, Z.-Q., & Kunii, T. (2000). Soft computing and human-centered machines. New York: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Mohammadi, F., Sadi, M. K., Nateghi, F., Abdullah, A., & Skitmore, M. (2014). A hybrid quality function deployment and cybernetic analytic network process model for project manager selection. Journal of Civil Engineering and Management, 20(6), 795–809.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moravej, Z., & Afshar, H. (2014). Optimal Planning of microgrid using multi criteria decision analysis. International Journal of Multidisciplinary Sciences and Engineering, 5(8), 1–6.
   Google Scholar
• Mulliner, E., Smallbone, K., & Maliene, V. (2013). An assessment of sustainable housing affordability using a multiple criteria decision-making method. Omega, 41(2), 270–279.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nazarko, J., & Chodakowska, E. (2015). Measuring productivity of construction industry in Europe with Data Envelopment Analysis. Procedia Engineering, 122, 204–212.
   Google Scholar
• Nguyen, H.-T., Dawal, S. Z. M., Nukman, Y., & Aoyama, H. (2014). A hybrid approach for fuzzy multi-attribute decision making in machine tool selection with consideration of the interactions of attributes. Expert Systems with Applications, 41(6), 3078–3090.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nieto-Morote, A., & Ruz-Vila, F. (2012). A fuzzy multi-criteria decision-making model for construction contractor prequalification. Automation in Construction, 25, 8–19.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nuuter, T., Lill, I., & Tupenaite, L. (2015). Comparison of housing market sustainability in European countries based on multiple criteria assessment. Land Use Policy, 42, 642–651.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Opricovic, S. (1998). Multicriteria optimization of civil engineering systems. Faculty of Civil Engineering, Belgrade, 2(1), 5–21.
   Google Scholar
• Opricovic, S., & Tzeng, G. H. (2002). Multicriteria planning of post‐earthquake sustainable reconstruction. Computer‐Aided Civil and Infrastructure Engineering, 17(3), 211–220.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peneva, V., & Popchev, I. (2008). Multicriteria decision making based on fuzzy relations. Cybernetics and Information Technologies, 8(4), 3–12.
   Google Scholar
• Pinter, U., Psunder, I. (2013). Evaluating construction project success with use of the M-TOPSIS method. Journal of Civil Engineering and Management, 19(1), 16–23.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Podvezko, V. (2011). The comparative analysis of MCDA methods SAW and COPRAS. Engineering Economics, 22(2), 134–146.
   Google Scholar
• Popovic, G., Stanujkic, D., & Stojanovic, S. (2012). Investment project selection by applying copras method and imprecise data. Serbian Journal of Management, 7(2), 257–269.
   Google Scholar
• Rabbani, A., Zamani, M., Yazdani-Chamzini, A., & Zavadskas, E. K. (2014). Proposing a new integrated model based on sustainability balanced scorecard (SBSC) and MCDM approaches by using linguistic variables for the performance evaluation of oil producing companies. Expert Systems with Applications, 41(16), 7316–7327.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Radziszewski, P., Nazarko, J., Vilutiene, T., & et al. (2016). Future trends in road pavement technologies development in the context of environmental protection. Baltic Journal Of Road And Bridge Engineering, 11(2), 160?168.
   Google Scholar
• Razavi Hajiagha, S. H., Hashemi, S. S., & Zavadskas, E. K. (2013). A complex proportional assessment method for group decision making in an interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy environment. Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 19(1), 22–37.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roy, B. (1968). Classement et choix en présence de points de vue multiples. RAIRO-Operations Research-Recherche Opérationnelle 2 (V1), 57–75.
   Google Scholar
• Roy, B. (1971). Problems and methods with multiple objective functions. Mathematical Programming, 1(1), 239–266.
   Google Scholar
• Roy, B. (1978). ELECTRE III: Un algorithme de classements fondé sur une représentation floue des préférences en présence de criteres multiples. Cahiers du CERO, 20(1), 3–24.
   Google Scholar
• Roy, B. (1996). Multicriteria methodology for decision aiding. Boston: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Roy, B., & Bertier, P. (1973). La Méthode ELECTRE II (Une application au média-planning…).
   Google Scholar
• Ruzgys, A., Volvaciovas, R., Ignatavicius, C., & Turskis, Z. (2014). Integrated evaluation of external wall insulation in residential buildings using SWARA-TODIM MCDM method. Journal of Civil Engineering and Management, 20(1), 103–110.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Saaty, T. L. (1971). On polynomials and crossing numbers of complete graphs. Journal of Combinatorial Theory, Series A 10(2), 183–184.
   Google Scholar
• Saaty, T. L. (1980). The analytic hierarchy process: Planning, priority setting, resources allocation. New York: McGraw.
   Google Scholar
• Saaty, T. L. (1988). What is the analytic hierarchy process? Cham: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Saaty, T. L. (1996). Decision making with dependence and feedback: The analytic network process. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh.
   Google Scholar
• Safa, M., Shahi, A., Haas, C. T., & Hipel, K. W. (2014). Supplier selection process in an integrated construction materials management model. Automation in Construction, 48, 64–73.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sahu, A. K., Sahu, N. K., & Sahu, A. K. (2014). Appraisal of CNC machine tool by integrated MULTI-MOORA-IVGN circumferences: An empirical study. Grey Systems: Theory and Application, 4(1), 104–123.
   Google Scholar
• Simanaviciene, R., Liaudanskiene, R., & Ustinovichius, L. (2012). A new synthesis method of structural, technological and safety decisions (SyMAD-3). Journal of Civil Engineering and Management, 18(2), 265–276.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Siozinyte, E., & Antucheviciene, J. (2013). Solving the problems of daylighting and tradition continuity in a reconstructed vernacular building. Journal of Civil Engineering and Management, 19(6), 873–882.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Skibniewski, M. J., & Chao, L.-C. (1992). Evaluation of advanced construction technology with AHP method. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 118(3), 577–593.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sliogeriene, J., Turskis, Z., & Streimikiene, D. (2013). Analysis and choice of energy generation technologies: The multiple criteria assessment on the case study of Lithuania. Energy Procedia 32, 11–20.
   Google Scholar
• Słowiński, R. (1986). A multicriteria fuzzy linear programming method for water supply system development planning. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 19(3), 217–237.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Staniunas, M., Medineckiene, M., Zavadskas, E. K., & Kalibatas, D. (2013). To modernize or not: Ecological–economical assessment of multi-dwelling houses modernization. Archives of Civil and Mechanical Engineering, 13(1), 88–98.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stankeviciene, J., & Sviderske, T. (2012). Country risk assessment based on MULTIMOORA. In The 7th international scientific conference Business and Management (pp. 530–536).
   Google Scholar
• Stanujkic, D., Magdalinovic, N., Milanovic, D., Magdalinovic, S., & Popovic, G. (2014). An efficient and simple multiple criteria model for a grinding circuit selection based on MOORA method. Informatica, 25(1), 73–93.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Streimikiene, D., Balezentis, T., Krisciukaitiene, I., & Balezentis, A. (2012). Prioritizing sustainable electricity production technologies: MCDM approach. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 16(5), 3302–3311.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tamosaitiene, J., & Gaudutis, E. (2013). Complex assessment of structural systems used for high-rise buildings. Journal of Civil Engineering and Management, 19(2), 305–317.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tarlochan, F., Samer, F., Hamouda, A. M. S., Ramesh, S., & Khalid, K. (2013). Design of thin wall structures for energy absorption applications: Enhancement of crashworthiness due to axial and oblique impact forces. Thin-Walled Structures, 71, 7–17.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Torra, V. (2010). Hesitant fuzzy sets. International Journal of Intelligent Systems, 25(6), 529–539.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Torra, V., & Narukawa, Y. (2009). On hesitant fuzzy sets and decision. In 2009 IEEE International Conference on Fuzzy Systems (pp. 1378–1382).
   Google Scholar
• Turskis, Z. (2008). Multi‐attribute contractors ranking method by applying ordering of feasible alternatives of solutions in terms of preferability technique. Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 14(2), 224–239.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Turskis, Z., Zavadskas, E. K., Antucheviciene, J., & Kosareva, N. (2015). A hybrid model based on fuzzy AHP and fuzzy WASPAS for construction site selection. International Journal of Computers Communications & Control, 10(6), 113–128.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Turskis, Z., & Zavadskas, E. K. (2010a). A new fuzzy additive ratio assessment method (ARAS‐F). Case study: The analysis of fuzzy multiple criteria in order to select the logistic centers location. Transport, 25(4), 423–432.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Turskis, Z., & Zavadskas, E. K. (2010b). A novel method for multiple criteria analysis: Grey additive ratio assessment (ARAS-G) method. Informatica , 21(4), 597–610.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Turskis, Z., Zavadskas, E. K., & Kutut, V. (2013). A model based on ARAS-G and AHP methods for multiple criteria prioritizing of heritage value. International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making, 12( 1), 45–73.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tzeng, G.-H., & Huang, J.-J. (2011). Multiple attribute decision making: Methods and applications. Boca Raton: CRC Press.
   Google Scholar
• Ulubeyli, S., & Kazaz, A. (2009). A multiple criteria decision‐making approach to the selection of concrete pumps. Journal of Civil Engineering and Management, 15(4), 369–376.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Uzsilaityte, L., & Martinaitis, V. (2010). Search for optimal solution of public building renovation in terms of life cycle. Journal of Environmental Engineering and Landscape Management, 18(2), 102–110.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vafaeipour, M., Hashemkhani Zolfani, S., Morshed Varzandeh, M. H., Derakhti, A., & Keshavarz Eshkalag, M. (2014). Assessment of regions priority for implementation of solar projects in Iran: New application of a hybrid multi-criteria decision-making approach. Energy Conversion and Management, 86, 653–663.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vahdani, B., Mousavi, S. M., Tavakkoli-Moghaddam, R., Ghodratnama, A., & Mohammadi, M. (2014). Robot selection by a multiple criteria complex proportional assessment method under an interval-valued fuzzy environment. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 72(5–8), 687–697.
   Google Scholar
• Wang, W.-C., Yu, W.-D., Yang, I.-T., Lin, C.-C., Lee, M.-T., & Cheng, Y.-Y. (2013). Applying the AHP to support the best-value contractor selection–lessons learned from two case studies in Taiwan. Journal of Civil Engineering and Management, 19(1), 24–36.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Xu, Z. (2004a). EOWA and EOWG operators for aggregating linguistic labels based on linguistic preference relations, International Journal of Uncertainty. Fuzziness and Knowledge-based Systems, 12(6), 791–810.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Xu, Z. (2004b). A method based on linguistic aggregation operators for group decision making with linguistic preference relations. Information Sciences, 166(1), 19–30.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Xu, Z., & Da, Q. (2002). The ordered weighted geometric averaging operators. International Journal of Intelligent Systems, 17(7), 709–716.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yager, R. R. (1986). A characterization of the extension principle. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 18(3), 205–217.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yager, R. R. (1988). On ordered weighted averaging aggregation operators in multicriteria decisionmaking. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, 18(1), 183–190.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yager, R. R. (1994). On weighted median aggregation. International Journal of Uncertainty, Fuzziness and Knowledge-based Systems, 2(1), 101–113.
   Google Scholar
• Yager, R. R. (2004). OWA aggregation over a continuous interval argument with applications to decision making. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part B: Cybernetics, 34(5), 1952–1963.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yu, D., Wu, Y., Zhou, W. (2012). Generalized hesitant fuzzy Bonferroni mean and its application in multi-criteria group decision making. Journal of Information and Computational Science, 9(2), 267–274.
   Google Scholar
• Zadeh, L. A. (1965). Fuzzy sets. Information and Control, 8(3), 338–353.
   Google Scholar
• Zavadskas, E. K., & Antucheviciene, J. (2007). Multiple criteria evaluation of rural building's regeneration alternatives. Building and Environment, 42(1), 436–451.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zavadskas, E. K., Antucheviciene, J., Hajiagha, S. H. R., Hashemi, S. S. (2014a). Extension of weighted aggregated sum product assessment with interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy numbers (WASPAS-IVIF). Applied Soft Computing, 24, 1013–1021.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zavadskas, E. K., Antucheviciene, J., Hajiagha, S. H. R., & Hashemi, S. S. (2015c). The interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy MULTIMOORA method for group decision making in engineering. Mathematical Problems in Engineering, Article Number 560690.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zavadskas, E. K., Antucheviciene, J., Saparauskas, J., & Turskis, Z. (2013a). MCDM methods WASPAS and MULTIMOORA: Verification of robustness of methods when assessing alternative solutions. Economic Computation and Economic Cybernetics Studies and Research, 47(2), 5–20.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zavadskas, E. K., Kaklauskas, A., & Sarka, V. (1994). The new method of multicriteria complex proportional assessment of projects. Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 1(3), 131–139.
   Google Scholar
• Zavadskas, E. K., Kaklauskas, A., Banaitis, A., & Kvederyte, N. (2004). Housing credit access model: The case for Lithuania. European Journal of Operational Research, 155(2), 335–352.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zavadskas, E. K., Kaklauskas, A., Turskis, Z., & Tamosaitiene, J. (2008c). Selection of the effective dwelling house walls by applying attributes values determined at intervals. Journal of Civil Engineering and Management, 14(2), 85–93.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zavadskas, E. K., Kaklauskas, A., Turskis, Z., & Tamosaitiene, J. (2009b). Multi-attribute decision-making model by applying grey numbers. Informatica, 20(2), 305–320 .
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zavadskas, E. K., Skibniewski, M. J., & Antucheviciene, J. (2014b). Performance analysis of civil engineering journals based on the Web of Science® database. Archives of Civil and Mechanical Engineering, 14(4), 519–527.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zavadskas, E. K., & Turskis, Z. (2010). A new additive ratio assessment (ARAS) method in multicriteria decision‐making. Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 16(2), 159–172.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zavadskas, E. K., Turskis, Z., & Antucheviciene, J. (2015b). Selecting a contractor by using a novel method for multiple attribute analysis: Weighted aggregated sum product assessment with grey values (WASPAS-G). Studies in Informatics and Control, 24(2), 141–150.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zavadskas, E. K., Turskis, Z., & Bagocius, V. (2015a). Multi-criteria selection of a deep-water port in the Eastern Baltic Sea. Applied Soft Computing, 26, 180–192.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zavadskas, E. K., Turskis, Z., & Kildiene, S. (2014c). State of art surveys of overviews on MCDM/MADM methods. Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 20(1), 165–179.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zavadskas, E. K., Turskis, Z., & Tamosaitiene, J. (2010b). Risk assessment of construction projects. Journal of Civil Engineering and Management, 16(1), 33–46.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zavadskas, E. K., Turskis, Z., & Vilutiene, T. (2010a). Multiple criteria analysis of foundation instalment alternatives by applying Additive Ratio Assessment (ARAS) method. Archives of Civil and Mechanical Engineering, 10(3), 123–141.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zavadskas, E. K., Turskis, Z., Antucheviciene, J., & Zakarevicius, A. (2012a). Optimization of weighted aggregated sum product assessment. Elektronika ir Elektrotechnika, 122(6), 3–6.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zeleny, M., & Cochrane, J. L. (1982). Multiple criteria decision making. New York: McGraw-Hill.
   Google Scholar
• Zhu, B., Xu, Z., & Xia, M. (2012). Hesitant fuzzy geometric Bonferroni means. Information Sciences, 205, 72–85.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar