Željko Stević, Mahmut Baydaş, Mustafa Kavacık, Emrah Ayhan, Dragan Marinković

DOI Number
First page
Last page


Sensitivity analyses are frequently performed to determine the robustness of MCDM methods, of which there are more than 200 types. In the past, rankings were compared to each other rather than to an external ranking. Thus, the direction and meaning of sensitivity can become unclear and complex. In addition, sensitivity analysis is usually performed only based on weight coefficients, but the effect of the normalization type is neglected. In this study, the most appropriate data conversion technique was investigated through an innovative sensitivity procedure to select the e-Small Van, which is an environmentally friendly logistics and transportation vehicle. Seven different normalization types based on the PROBID method (and two additional alternative MCDM methods) were used as parameters, resulting in 105 different MCDM rankings. According to the findings, MCDM rankings, which have low sensitivity, were also the performing methods that produced the highest correlation with price. What is striking is that careless choice of normalization type can be so effective as to manipulate the results. Although the most appropriate technique may vary depending on the data type, the fixed gold standard we recommend offers a flexible solution for all applications. A suitable data converter will result in the choice of a reliable electric vehicle.


Normalization Technique, MCDM, Sensitivity Analysis, Electric Vehicles, Logistics, Transport

Full Text:



Greene, D.L., Wegener, M., 1997, Sustainable transport, Journal of Transport Geography, 5(3), pp. 177–190.

Aytekin, A., Görçün, Ö.F., Ecer, F., Pamucar, D., Karamaşa, Ç., 2023, Foreign market selection of suppliers through a novel REF-Sort technique, Kybernetes, Vol. 52 No. 11, pp. 4958-4992.

Pala, O., 2022, A mixed-integer linear programming model for aggregating multi–criteria decision making methods, Decision Making: Applications in Management and Engineering, 5(2), pp. 260-286.

Chen, J.H., Tang, H.C., 2022, Pre-Emptive-Weights goal-programming for a multi-attribute decision-making problem with positive correlation among finite criteria, Axioms, 12(1), 20.

Nguyen, A.T., 2023, Combining FUCA, CURLI, and weighting methods in the decision-making of selecting technical products, Engineering, Technology & Applied Science Research, 13(4), pp. 11222-11229.

Thinh, H.X., Mai, N.T., 2023, Comparison of two methods in multi-criteria decision-making: application in transmission rod material selection, EUREKA: Physics and Engineering, (6), pp. 59-68.

Alamoodi, A.H., Zaidan, B.B., Albahri, O.S., Garfan, S., Ahmaro, I.Y., Mohammed, R.T., Malik, R.Q., 2023, Systematic review of MCDM approach applied to the medical case studies of COVID-19: trends, bibliographic analysis, challenges, motivations, recommendations, and future directions, Complex & Intelligent Systems, 9(4), pp. 4705-4731

Baydaş, M., Elma, O.E., Stević, Ž., 2024, Proposal of an innovative MCDA evaluation methodology: knowledge discovery through rank reversal, standard deviation, and relationship with stock return, Financial Innovation, 10(1), 4, pp. 1-35.

Wang, Z., Baydaş, M., Stević, Ž., Özçil, A., Irfan, S.A., Wu, Z., Rangaiah, G.P., 2023, Comparison of fuzzy and crisp decision matrices: An evaluation on PROBID and sPROBID multi-criteria decision-making methods, Demonstratio Mathematica, 56(1), 20230117.

Stević, Ž., Subotić, M., Softić, E., Božić, B., 2022, Multi-criteria decision-making model for evaluating safety of road sections, Journal of Intelligent Management Decision, 1(2), pp. 78-87.

Tešić, D., Božanić, D., 2023, Optimizing Military Decision-Making: Application of the FUCOM– EWAA–COPRAS-G MCDM Model, Acadlore Transactions on Applied Mathematics and Statistics, 1(3), pp, 148-160.

Chen, Y., Yu, J., Khan, S., 2013, The spatial framework for weight sensitivity analysis in AHP-based multi-criteria decision making, Environmental Modelling & Software, 48, pp. 129-140.

Yazdani, M., Zavadskas, E.K., Ignatius, J., Abad, M.D., 2016, Sensitivity analysis in MADM methods: Application of material selection, Engineering Economics, 27(4), pp. 382-391.

Maliene, V., Dixon-Gough, R., Malys, N., 2018, Dispersion of relative importance values contributes to the ranking uncertainty: Sensitivity analysis of Multiple Criteria Decision-Making methods, Applied Soft Computing, 67, pp. 286-298.

Mukhametzyanov, I., Pamucar, D., 2018, A sensitivity analysis in MCDM problems: A statistical approach, Decision Making: Applications in Management and Engineering, 1(2), pp. 51-80.

Triantaphyllou, E., Mann, S.H., 1989, An examination of the effectiveness of multidimensional decision-making methods: A decision-making paradox, Decision Support Systems, 5, pp. 303-312.

Demir, G., Chatterjee, P., Pamucar, D., 2024, Sensitivity analysis in multi-criteria decision making: A state-of-the-art research perspective using bibliometric analysis, Expert Systems with Applications, 237, 121660.

Baydaş M, Eren T, Stević Ž, Starčević V, Parlakkaya R. 2023, Proposal for an objective binary benchmarking framework that validates each other for comparing MCDM methods through data analytics, PeerJ Computer Science 9:e1350.

Elma, O.E., Stević, Ž., Baydaş, M., 2024, An alternative sensitivity analysis for the evaluation of MCDA applications: the significance of brand value in the comparative financial performance analysis of bıst high-end companies, Mathematics, 12(4), 520.

Raju, V.G., Lakshmi, K.P., Jain, V.M., Kalidindi, A., Padma, V., 2020, Study the influence of normalization/transformation process on the accuracy of supervised classification, In 2020 Third International Conference on Smart Systems and Inventive Technology (ICSSIT), pp. 729-735.

Ahsan, M.M., Mahmud, M.P., Saha, P.K., Gupta, K.D., Siddique, Z., 2021, Effect of data scaling methods on machine learning algorithms and model performance, Technologies, 9(3), 52.

Singh, D., Singh, B., 2020, Investigating the impact of data normalization on classification performance, Applied Soft Computing, 97, 105524.

Rahman, A., 2019, Statistics-based data preprocessing methods and machine learning algorithms for big data analysis, International Journal of Artificial Intelligence, 17(2), pp. 44-65.

Ozsahin, D.U., Mustapha, M.T., Mubarak, A.S., Ameen, Z.S., Uzun, B., 2022, Impact of feature scaling on machine learning models for the diagnosis of diabetes, In 2022 International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Everything (AIE), pp. 87-94.

Baydaş, M., Yılmaz, M., Jović, Ž., Stević, Ž., Özuyar, S.E.G., Özçil, A., 2024, A comprehensive MCDM assessment for economic data: success analysis of maximum normalization, CODAS, and fuzzy approaches, Financial Innovation, 10(1), 105.

Fleming, K.L., 2018, Social equity considerations in the new age of transportation: Electric, automated, and shared mobility, Journal of Science Policy & Governance, 13(1), pp. 1-20.

McGlade, C., Gould, T., Bennett, S., Bredariol, T.D.O., Grimal, P., Hilaire, J., Zeniewski, P., 2023, The Oil and Gas Industry in Net Zero Transitions, IEA. France. Retrieved from

Roman, M., 2022, Sustainable transport: a state-of-the-art literature review, Energies, 15(23), 8997.

Black, W.R., 1996, Sustainable transportation: A US perspective, Journal of Transport Geography, 4(3), pp. 151–159.

Nakamura, K., Hayashi, Y., 2013, Strategies and instruments for low-carbon urban transport: An international review on trends and effects, Transport Policy, 29, pp. 264–274.

Eliasson, J., Proost, S., 2015, Is sustainable transport policy sustainable?, Transport Policy, 37, pp. 92–100.

Banister, D., 2008, The sustainable mobility paradigm, Transport Policy, 15(2), pp. 73–80.

Ogryzek, M., Adamska-Kmieć, D., Klimach, A., 2020, Sustainable transport: An efficient transportation network—Case study, Sustainability, 12(19), 8274.

Anqi, W., 2023, Economic efficiency of high-performance electric vehicle operation based on neural network algorithm, Computers and Electrical Engineering, 112, 109026

Palit, T., Bari, A.M., Karmaker, C.L., 2022, An integrated principal component analysis and interpretive structural modeling approach for electric vehicle adoption decisions in sustainable transportation systems, Decision Analytics Journal, 4, 100119.

International Energy Agency (IEA), 2023, Global EV Outlook 2023, (last access: 10.01.2024)

European Environment Agency (EEA), 2023, New registrations of electric vehicles in Europe, (last access: 21.12.2023)

U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), 2023, September, Electric vehicles and hybrids make up 16% of U.S. light-duty vehicle sales, (last access: 16.01.2024)

U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), 2023, November, Electric vehicles and hybrids grow to a record-high 18% of U.S. light-duty vehicle sales, (last access: 16.01.2024)

The Van Discount Company, 2021, 6 Key Qualities To Look Out For In The Best Small Vans, (last access: 18.02.2024)

Kijewska, K., Iwan, S., Małecki, K., 2019, Applying multi-criteria analysis of electrically powered vehicles implementation in urban freight transport, Procedia Computer Science, 159, pp. 1558–1567.

Ecer, F., 2021, A consolidated MCDM framework for performance assessment of battery electric vehicles based on ranking strategies, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 143, 110916.

Sonar, H.C., Kulkarni, S.D., 2021, An integrated AHP-MABAC approach for electric vehicle selection, Research in Transportation Business & Management, 41, 100665.

Chawla, S., Dwivedi, P.K., Manjeet, Batra, L., 2022, Integrated MCDM model for prioritization of new electric vehicle selection, International Conference on Advancement in Manufacturing Engineering, Singapore: Springer Nature Singapore, pp. 21–28.

Pradhan, P., Shabbiruddin, Pradhan, S., 2022, Selection of electric vehicle using integrated Fuzzy-MCDM approach with analysis on challenges faced in hilly terrain, Energy Sources, Part A: Recovery, Utilization, and Environmental Effects, 44(2), pp. 2651–2673.

Puška, A., Stojanović, I., Štilić, A., 2023, The influence of objective weight determination methods on electric vehicle selection in urban logistics, Journal of Intelligent Management Decision, 2(3), pp. 117–129.

Saxena, A., Yadav, A.K., 2023, Adopting a multi-criteria decision-making approach to ıdentify barriers to electrification of urban freight in India, Transportation Research Record, 03611981231176812, pp. 816-827.

Tian, Z., Liang, H., Nie, R., Wang, X., Wang, J., 2023, Data-driven multi-criteria decision support method for electric vehicle selection, Computers & Industrial Engineering, 177, 109061.

Wang, N., Xu, Y., Puška, A., Stević, Ž., Alrasheedi, A.F., 2023, Multi-Criteria selection of electric delivery vehicles using fuzzy–rough methods, Sustainability, 15(21), 15541.

Nabavi, S.R., Wang, Z., Rangaiah, G.P., 2023, Sensitivity analysis of multi-criteria decision-making methods for engineering applications, Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research, 62(17), pp. 6707-6722.

Wolters, W.T.M., Mareschal, B., 1995, Novel types of sensitivity analysis for additive MCDM methods, European Journal of Operational Research, 81(2), pp. 281-290.

Antunes, C.H., Clímaco, J.N., 1992, Sensitivity analysis in MCDM using the weight space, Operations Research Letters, 12(3), pp. 187-196.

Bakhtavar, E., Yousefi, S., 2018, Assessment of workplace accident risks in underground collieries by integrating a multi-goal cause-and-effect analysis method with MCDM sensitivity analysis, Stochastic Environmental Research and Risk Assessment, 32(12), pp. 3317-3332.

Markatos, D.N., Malefaki, S., Pantelakis, S.G., 2023, Sensitivity analysis of a hybrid MCDM model for sustainability assessment—an example from the aviation industry, Aerospace, 10(4), 385.

Pamučar, D.S., Božanić, D., Ranđelović, A., 2017, Multi-criteria decision making: An example of sensitivity analysis, Serbian Journal of Management, 12(1), pp. 1-27.

Goodridge, W.S., 2016, Sensitivity analysis using simple additive weighting method, International Journal of Intelligent Systems and Applications, 8(5), pp. 27-33.

Lakshmi, T., Venkatesan, V., 2014, A comparison of various normalization in techniques for order performance by similarity to ıdeal solution (TOPSIS), International Journal of Computing Algorithm, 03(03), pp. 255-259.

Çelen, A., 2014, Comparative analysis of normalization procedures in TOPSIS method: with an application to Turkish deposit banking market, Informatica 25, pp. 185–208.

Mathew, M., Sahu, S., Upadhyay, A.K., 2017, Effect of normalization techniques in robot selection using weighted aggregated sum product assessment, International Journal of Innovative Research and Advanced Studies, 4, pp. 59–63.

Jafaryeganeh, H., Ventura, M., Soares, C., 2020, Effect of normalization techniques in multi-criteria decision making methods for the design of ship ınternal layout from a pareto optimal set, Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization, 62(3), pp. 1849-1863.

Aytekin, A., 2021, Comparative analysis of normalizatıon techniques in the context of MCDM problems, Decision Making: Applications in Management and Engineering, 4(2), pp. 1-25.

Polska, O., Kudermetov, R., Alsayaydeh, J.A.J., Shkarupylo, V., 2021, QoS-aware Web-services ranking: normalization techniques comparative analysis for LSP method, ARPN Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences, 16(2), pp. 248-254.

Ersoy, N., 2022, The ınfluence of statistical normalization techniques on performance ranking results: the application of MCDM method proposed by biswas and saha, International Journal of Business Analytics (IJBAN), 9(5), pp. 1-21.

Galvin, R., 2017, Energy consumption effects of speed and acceleration in electric vehicles: Laboratory case studies and implications for drivers and policymakers, Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 53, pp. 234–248.

Sovacool, B.K., Kester, J., Noel, L., de Rubens, G.Z., 2018, The demographics of decarbonizing transport: The influence of gender, education, occupation, age, and household size on electric mobility preferences in the Nordic region, Global Environmental Change, 52, pp. 86–100.

Egbue, O., Long, S., 2012, Barriers to widespread adoption of electric vehicles: An analysis of consumer attitudes and perceptions, Special Section: Frontiers of Sustainability, 48, pp. 717–729.

Neaimeh, M., Salisbury, S.D., Hill, G.A., Blythe, P.T., Scoffield, D.R., Francfort, J.E., 2017, Analysing the usage and evidencing the importance of fast chargers for the adoption of battery electric vehicles, Energy Policy, 108, pp. 474–486.

Nilsson, M., Nykvist, B., 2016, Governing the electric vehicle transition – Near term interventions to support a green energy economy, Applied Energy, 1[], pp. 1360–1371.

Azadfar, E., Sreeram, V., Harries, D., 2015, The investigation of the major factors influencing plug-in electric vehicle driving patterns and charging behaviour, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 42, pp. 1065–1076.

Leonard, A., 2023, What is usable battery capacity?, (last access: 11.12.2023)

Agrawal, S., Peeta, S., Miralinaghi, M., 2023, Multiparadigm modeling framework to evaluate the ımpacts of travel patterns on electric vehicle battery lifespan, Journal of Advanced Transportation, 2023, 1689075.

Yang, H., Zhang, J., Chen, Z., Zhao, F., Liu, H., 2023, Curb weight probability distribution and the recommended gross weight of passenger car in mechanical parking garage design, Journal of Asian Architecture and Building Engineering, 22(4), pp. 1852–1864.

Cieslik, W., Antczak, W., 2023, Research of load ımpact on energy consumption in an electric delivery vehicle based on real driving conditions: guidance for electrification of light-duty vehicle fleet, Energies, 16(2), 775.

Aiello, G., Quaranta, S., Certa, A., Inguanta, R., 2021, Optimization of urban delivery systems based on electric assisted cargo bikes with modular battery size, taking into account the service requirements and the specific operational context, Energies, 14(15), 4672.

Chauhan, S., 2015, Motor torque calculations for electric vehicle, International Journal of Scientific & Technology Research, 4(8), pp. 126–127.

Jensen, A.F., Cherchi, E., Mabit, S.L., 2013, On the stability of preferences and attitudes before and after experiencing an electric vehicle, Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 25, pp. 24–32.

Wang, Z., Rangaiah, G.P., Wang, X., 2021, Preference ranking on the basis of ideal-average distance method for multi-criteria decision-making, Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research, 60(30), pp. 11216-11230.

Lima, F.T., Souza, V.M., 2023, A large comparison of normalization methods on time series, Big Data Research, 34, 100407.

Ghorabaee, M., Zavadskas, E.K., Turskis, Z., Antucheviciene, J., 2016, A new combinative distance-based assessment (CODAS) method for multi-criteria decision-making, Economic Computation & Economic Cybernetics Studies & Research, 50, pp. 25–44.

Wang, Z., Rangaiah, G.P., 2017, Application and analysis of methods for selecting an optimal solution from the Pareto-optimal front obtained by multiobjective optimization, Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research, 56(2), pp. 560-574.

Mukhametzyanov, I., 2021, Specific character of objective methods for determining weights of criteria in MCDM problems: Entropy, CRITIC and SD, Decision Making: Applications in Management and Engineering, 4(2), pp. 76-105.

Sałabun, W., Urbaniak, K., 2020, A new coefficient of rankings similarity in decision-making problems, In Computational Science–ICCS 2020: 20th International Conference, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, June 3–5, 2020, Proceedings, Part II 20 pp. 632-645. Springer International Publishing.

Damjanović, M., Stević, Ž., Stanimirović, D., Tanackov, I., Marinković, D., 2022, Impact of the number of vehicles on traffic safety: multiphase modeling, Facta Universitatis,-Series Mechanical Engineering, 20(1), pp. 177-197.

Electric Vehicles Database, 2023, December, (last access: 20.12.2023)

Trung, D.D., 2022, Development of data normalization methods for multi-criteria decision making: applying for MARCOS method, Manufacturing Review, 9, 22.

Baydaş, M., Kavacık, M., Wang, Z., 2024, Interpreting the Determinants of Sensitivity in MCDM Methods with a New Perspective: An Application on E-Scooter Selection with the PROBID Method, Spectrum of Engineering and Management Sciences, 2(1), pp. 17-35.

Kalmaganbetov S.A., Isametova, M., Troha, S., Vrcan, Z., Markovic, K., Marinkovic, D., 2024, Selection of Optimal Planetary Transmission for Light Electric Vehicle Main Gearbox, Journal of Applied and Computational Mechanics,


  • There are currently no refbacks.

ISSN: 0354-2025 (Print)

ISSN: 2335-0164 (Online)

COBISS.SR-ID 98732551

ZDB-ID: 2766459-4