Grading of Raw Jute Fibres Using Criteria Importance through Intercriteria Correlation (CRITIC) and Range of Value (ROV) Approach of Multi-criteria Decision Making

References

• Athawale, V. M., and S. Chakraborty. 2011. A comparative study on the ranking performance of some multi-criteria decision-making methods for industrial robot selection. International Journal of Industrial Engineering Computations 2 (4):831–50. doi:10.5267/j.ijiec.2011.05.002.
   Google Scholar
• Bureau of Indian Standards. 2003. Textiles ––– Grading of White, TOSSA and DALSEE Uncut Indian Jute. New Delhi: Fourth Revision.
   Google Scholar
• Chaitanya, K. L., and K. Srinivas. 2019. Sensitive Analysis on Selection of Piston Material Using MADM Techniques. Journal of Mechanical Engineering 69 (4):45–56.
   Google Scholar
• Chatterjee, P., A. Banerjee, S. Mondal, S. Boral, and S. Chakraborty. 2018. Development of a Hybrid Meta-Model for Material Selection Using Design of Experiments and EDAS Method. Engineering Transactions 66 (2):187–207.
   Google Scholar
• Choudhuri, P. K. 2014. Application of Multi-Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) Technique for Gradation of Jute Fibres. Journal of Institute of Engineers (India): Series - E 95 (2):63–68. doi:10.1007/s40034-014-0039-8.
   Google Scholar
• Das, S., V. B. Shambhu, and L. K. Nayak. 2013. Development of Decision Support System for Jute Grading. International Journal of Emerging Technology and Advanced Engineering 3 (8):754–58.
   Google Scholar
• Diakoulaki, D., G. Mavrotas, and L. Papayannakis. 1995. Determining objective weights in multiple criteria problems: The critic method. Computers & Operations Research 22 (7):763–70. doi:10.1016/0305-0548(94)00059-h.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ghorabaee, M. K., M. Amiri, E. K. Zavadskas, Z. Turskis, and J. Antucheviciene. 2017. Stochastic EDAS method for Multi-Criteria Decision-Making with Normally Distributed Data. Journal of Intelligent and Fuzzy Systems 33 (3):1627–38. doi:10.3233/JIFS-17184.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ghorabaee, M. K., E. K. Zavadskas, Z. Turskis, and J. Antucheviciene. 2016. A New Combinative Distance-Based Assessment (CODAS) Method for Multi-Criteria Decision-Making. Economic Computation and Economic Cybernetics Studies and Research 50 (3):25–44.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ghosh, A., and S. Das. 2013. Raw Jute Grading by Multi-Criteria Decision Making Method. Journal of Natural Fibres 10 (2):136–46. doi:10.1080/15440478.2012.763203.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hajkowicz, S., and A. Higgins. 2008. A comparison of multiple criteria analysis techniques for water resource management. European Journal of Operational Research 184 (1):255–65. doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2006.10.045.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hwang, C. L., and K. Yoon. 1981. Multiple Attribute Decision Making: Methods and Applications. New York: Springer-Verlag. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-48318-9.
   Google Scholar
• Kazan, H., and O. Ozdemir. 2014. Financial Performance Assessment of Large-Scale Conglomerates via TOPSIS and CRITIC Methods. International Journal of Management and Sustainability 3 (4):203–24.
   Google Scholar
• Madić, M., and M. Radovanović. 2015. Ranking of Some Most Commonly Used Non-traditional Machining Processes Using ROV and CRITIC Methods. UPB Scientific Bulletin: Series D 77 (2):193–204.
   Google Scholar
• Madić, M., M. Radovanović, and M. Manić. 2016. Application of the ROV method for the selection of cutting fluids. Decision Science Letters 5:245–54. doi:10.5267/j.dsl.2015.12.001.
   Google Scholar
• Ministry of Textiles, GOI. 2018-19. Annual Report, 70–73.
   Google Scholar
• Mitra, A. 2020a. Jute Fibre Gradation by Hybrid AHP-TOPSIS Methodology of Multi-Criteria Decision Making Technique. Journal of the Textile Association: May-June, 5–12.
   Google Scholar
• Mitra, A. 2020b. Jute Fiber Gradation by Grey Fuzzy Logic Approach. Journal of Natural Fibres 1–11. doi:10.1080/15440478.2020.1818351.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mitra, A. 2020c. Gradation of Raw Jute Fibres Using Evaluation based on Distance from Average Solution (EDAS) Method. Journal of Institute of Engineers (India): Series - E. doi:10.1007/s40034-020-00181-2.
   Google Scholar
• Mitra, A. 2020d. Selection of Cotton Fabrics Using EDAS Method. Journal of Natural Fibres 1–13. doi:10.1080/15440478.2020.1821289.
   Google Scholar
• Roy, G., S. C. Saha, A. Sarkar, and G. Sardar. 2017. An Innovative Integrated Jute Grading Instrument. Journal of Scientific and Industrial Research 76:515–18.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stević, Z., D. Pamučar, A. Puška, and P. Chatterjee. 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 140:1–15. doi:10.1016/j.cie.2019.106231.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sudha, A. S. 2019. Application of EDAS Method on Water Requirement in Agriculture. International Journal of Engineering Research and Technology 8 (12):558–61.
   Google Scholar
• Vujičić, M. D., M. Z. Papić, and M. D. Blagojević. 2017. Comparative Analysis of Objective Techniques for Criteria Weighing in Two MCDM Methods on Example of an Air Conditioner Selection. Tehnika – Menadžment 67 (3):422–29. doi:10.5937/tehnika1703422V.
   Google Scholar
• Yakowitz, D. S., L. J. Lane, and F. Szidarovszky. 1993. Multi-attribute decision making: Dominance with respect to an importance order of the attributes. Applied Mathematics and Computation 54 (2):167–81. doi:10.1016/0096-3003(93)90057-L.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yılmaz, B., and N. B. Harmancıoğlu. 2010. Multi-criteria decision making for water resource management: A case study of the Gediz River Basin, Turkey. Water SA 36 (5):563–76. doi:10.4314/wsa.v36i5.61990.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar