Comparative Analysis of CODAS, TOPSIS, and COCOSO Methods Using Objective Weighting in Multi-Criteria Decision Support Systems

Setiawansyah Setiawansyah

doi:10.58602/jima-ilkom.v5i1.78

Setiawansyah Setiawansyah Universitas Teknokrat Indonesia

DOI: https://doi.org/10.58602/jima-ilkom.v5i1.78

Keywords: Teacher Pedagogical Performance, Multi-Criteria Decision Making, CODAS Method, TOPSIS Method, COCOSO Method

Abstract

This study aims to objectively assess teachers' pedagogical performance through the application and comparison of three multi-criteria decision-making methods, namely CODAS, TOPSIS, and COCOSO, with the criteria weights determined using the ITARA method. The ranking results show differences in evaluation patterns among the methods, where the CODAS method places Teacher RD in the first rank, followed by Teacher GH and Teacher DG, while Teacher AN is ranked last. In contrast, the TOPSIS and COCOSO methods produced relatively consistent rankings, with Teacher TY ranking first, followed by Teacher AN and Teacher NH in TOPSIS, and Teacher NH and Teacher DG in COCOSO. These differences in results indicate that each method has a different evaluative perspective on the performance of alternatives, depending on the preference calculation approach used. Overall, this comparative analysis confirms that using more than one ranking method can provide a more comprehensive and balanced view in evaluating teachers' pedagogical performance, thereby supporting more accurate and data-driven decision-making.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

A. Ulutaş, A. Topal, and F. Ecer, “The Alternative Prioritization and Assessment System (ALPAS) Method for Environmental Performance Evaluation,” Mathematics, vol. 13, no. 20. p. 3333, 2025. doi: 10.3390/math13203333.

M. Riaz, F. Qamar, S. Tariq, and K. Alsager, “AI-Driven LOPCOW-AROMAN Framework and Topological Data Analysis Using Circular Intuitionistic Fuzzy Information: Healthcare Supply Chain Innovation,” Mathematics, vol. 12, no. 22. 2024. doi: 10.3390/math12223593.

C.-N. Wang, T. Q. Le, K.-H. Chang, and T.-T. Dang, “Measuring Road Transport Sustainability Using MCDM-Based Entropy Objective Weighting Method,” Symmetry, vol. 14, no. 5. 2022. doi: 10.3390/sym14051033.

J. Liu, B. Gu, and J. Chen, “Enablers for maritime supply chain resilience during pandemic: An integrated MCDM approach,” Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract., vol. 175, p. 103777, 2023, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2023.103777.

A. Katrancı, N. Kundakcı, and D. Pamucar, “Financial performance evaluation of firms in BIST 100 index with ITARA and COBRA methods,” Financ. Innov., vol. 11, no. 1, p. 34, 2025, doi: 10.1186/s40854-024-00704-5.

H. Onuoha et al., “Integrating GIS and AHP for Photovoltaic Farm Site Selection: A Case Study of Ikorodu, Nigeria,” Processes, vol. 13, no. 1. 2025. doi: 10.3390/pr13010164.

J. Wang, A. R. Isnain, and S. Setiawansyah, “Multi-Criteria Decision Support System for Best Warehouse Performance Selection Using Combined Compromise Solution Method,” Bull. Data Sci., vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 86–93, 2025, doi: 10.47065/bulletinds.v4i2.7196.

S. Dündar, “Performance evaluation of IPARD-II rural development programs with integrated DIBR-RAWEC methods TT - IPARD-II kırsal kalkınma programlarının bütünleşik DIBR-RAWEC yöntemleriyle performans değerlendirmesi,” Pamukkale Üniversitesi Mühendislik Bilim. Derg., vol. 31, no. 3, pp. 339–350, 2025, [Online]. Available: https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/pajes/article/1727829

G. C. Yalçın, P. Gürol, and K. Kara, “Chapter 6 - Developing a GIS-supported SVN-WENSLO-ARLON hybrid method for bicycle pooling location selection: A case study in Turkey,” M. B. T.-I. U. M. Deveci, Ed. Academic Press, 2025, pp. 103–148. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-443-34160-1.00014-6.

A. Aytekin, “DETERMINING CRITERIA WEIGHTS FOR VEHICLE TRACKING SYSTEM SELECTION USING PIPRECIA-S,” J. Process Manag. new Technol., vol. 10, no. 1–2, pp. 115–124, Jun. 2022, doi: 10.5937/jpmnt10-38145.

S. Chen, “The Application of Big Data and Fuzzy Decision Support Systems in the Innovation of Personalized Music Teaching in Universities,” Int. J. Comput. Intell. Syst., vol. 17, no. 1, p. 215, 2024, doi: 10.1007/s44196-024-00623-4.

I. Granado, L. Hernando, Z. Uriondo, and J. A. Fernandes-Salvador, “A fishing route optimization decision support system: The case of the tuna purse seiner,” Eur. J. Oper. Res., vol. 312, no. 2, pp. 718–732, 2024, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2023.07.009.

T. Sharma and A. Sarin, “Multi-criteria decision making for solar site selection in Punjab, India: An evaluation of site suitability using hybrid MCDM techniques towards the goal of sustainable energy development,” Results Eng., vol. 27, p. 106288, 2025, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rineng.2025.106288.

Hongling Jiang, “Digital Twin-Enhanced MCDM Framework for Circular Construction Dynamic Lifecycle Optimization of Hybrid Concrete Mix Design,” Decis. Mak. Appl. Manag. Eng., vol. 8, no. 2 SE-Regular articles, pp. 53–70, Aug. 2025, doi: 10.31181/dmame8220251476.

P. Pisal et al., “An integrated TOPSIS and ARAS method multi-criteria decision-making approach for optimizing investment portfolios using goal programming and genetic algorithm model,” Sci. Rep., vol. 15, no. 1, p. 34450, 2025, doi: 10.1038/s41598-025-17604-y.

P. Rani, A. R. Mishra, A. M. Alshamrani, A. F. Alrasheedi, and D. Pamucar, “Adoption of Smart Manufacturing Technologies in Small and Medium Enterprises Using Picture Fuzzy Combinative Distance-Based Assessment Model,” J. Knowl. Econ., 2025, doi: 10.1007/s13132-025-02693-x.

J. Wang, S. Setiawansyah, F. Ulum, A. Yudhistira, and A. D. Wahyudi, “Optimization of Production Operator Performance Assessment with Grey Geometric Mean Weighting and Combinative Distance-based Assessment,” Komputika J. Sist. Komput., vol. 14, no. 2 SE-Articles, Nov. 2025, doi: 10.34010/komputika.v14i2.15977.

H. Wang, L. Feng, M. Deveci, K. Ullah, and H. Garg, “A novel CODAS approach based on Heronian Minkowski distance operator for T-spherical fuzzy multiple attribute group decision-making,” Expert Syst. Appl., vol. 244, p. 122928, 2024, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2023.122928.

K. Yu, Q. Wu, X. Chen, W. Wang, and A. Mardani, “An integrated MCDM framework for evaluating the environmental, social, and governance (ESG) sustainable business performance,” Ann. Oper. Res., vol. 342, no. 1, pp. 987–1018, 2024, doi: 10.1007/s10479-023-05616-8.

Q. Wang, T. Cheng, Y. Lu, H. Liu, R. Zhang, and J. Huang, “Underground Mine Safety and Health: A Hybrid MEREC–CoCoSo System for the Selection of Best Sensor,” Sensors, vol. 24, no. 4, p. 1285, Feb. 2024, doi: 10.3390/s24041285.

S. Dhruva, R. Krishankumar, E. K. Zavadskas, K. S. Ravichandran, and A. H. Gandomi, “Selection of Suitable Cloud Vendors for Health Centre: A Personalized Decision Framework with Fermatean Fuzzy Set, LOPCOW, and CoCoSo,” Informatica, vol. 35, no. 1, pp. 65–98, Nov. 2024, doi: 10.15388/23-INFOR537.

O. Y. Akbulut and Y. Aydın, “A Hybrid Multidimensional Performance Measurement Model Using the MSD-MPSI-RAWEC Model for Turkish Banks,” J. Mehmet Akif Ersoy Univ. Econ. Adm. Sci. Fac., vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 1157–1183, 2024, doi: 10.30798/makuiibf.1464469.

B. Kizielewicz, J. Wątróbski, and W. Sałabun, “Multi-criteria decision support system for the evaluation of UAV intelligent agricultural sensors,” Artif. Intell. Rev., vol. 58, no. 7, p. 194, 2025, doi: 10.1007/s10462-025-11201-1.

T. Van Dua, “Combination of design of experiments and simple additive weighting methods: a new method for rapid multi-criteria decision making,” EUREKA Phys. Eng., no. 1 SE-Engineering, pp. 120–133, Jan. 2023, doi: 10.21303/2461-4262.2023.002733.

J. Wang, S. Setiawansyah, T. Ardiansah, F. Ulum, and S. Sumanto, “Decision Support System for Determining Strategic Warehouse Locations Using a Combination of the WENSLO Weighting and RAWEC Method,” JUTI J. Ilm. Teknol. Inf., vol. 24, no. 1 SE-Articles, pp. 165–184, 2026, doi: 10.12962/j24068535.v24i1.a1456.

P. Rani, A. R. Mishra, D. Pamucar, A. M. Alshamrani, and A. F. Alrasheedi, “Assessment of digital transformation indicators to prioritize sustainable financial services using q-rung orthopair fuzzy rough decision-making model,” Appl. Soft Comput., vol. 170, p. 112715, 2025, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2025.112715.

Z. Turskis and V. Keršulienė, “SHARDA–ARAS: A Methodology for Prioritising Project Managers in Sustainable Development,” Mathematics, vol. 12, no. 2, p. 219, Jan. 2024, doi: 10.3390/math12020219.

T. Ahmadi Pargo and S. Hashemkhani Zolfani, “Developing an Expert System for Hardware Selection in Internet of Things-Based System Design: Grey ITARA-COBRA Approach (With an Example in the Agricultural Domain),” Information, vol. 16, no. 6. 2025. doi: 10.3390/info16060425.

N. Hendrastuty, J. Wang, A. Sulistiyawati, D. Darwis, and Y. Jumaryadi, “Combination of MOORA and ITARA Methods in Decision Support Systems for Measuring the Performance of Quality Control Teams,” vol. 6, no. 6, pp. 727–739, 2025, doi: 10.47065/tin.v6i6.8382.

M. Wu, J. Song, and J. Fan, “Three-way decision based on ITARA and public weights DEA under picture fuzzy environment and its application in new energy vehicles selection,” Complex Intell. Syst., vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 927–947, 2024, doi: 10.1007/s40747-023-01188-z.

N. Hendrastuty, M. G. Ar’nars, Setiawansyah, Mesran, T. A. Putra, and M. W. Arshad, “Decision Support System in Teacher Pedagogy Assessment Using MAIRCA with Geometric Mean Weighting,” in 2024 International Conference on Informatics, Multimedia, Cyber and Information System (ICIMCIS), 2024, pp. 265–270. doi: 10.1109/ICIMCIS63449.2024.10957630.