Applications of Multi-Criteria Decision Making in Information Systems for Strategic and Operational Decisions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Business problems today are complicated and involve considering numerous dimensions to be weighed against each other, leading to opposing goals that must be compromised on to discover the best solution. Multi-Criteria Decision Making or MCDM plays an essential role in this situation here. MCDM techniques and procedures analyze, score, and select between options that have various conflicting criteria. This systematic review investigates applications of MCDM methods within Management Information Systems (MIS) based on evidence from 40 peer-reviewed articles selected from the Scopus database. Key methods discussed are Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP), TOPSIS, fuzzy logic-based methods, and Analytic Network Process (ANP). These methods were applied across MIS strategic planning, re-source assignment, risk assessment, and technology selection. The review contributes further by categorizing MCDM application into thematic decision domains, evaluating methodological directions, and mapping the strengths of each method against specific MIS problems. Theoretical guidelines are suggested to align the type of decision with an appropriate MCDM strategy. The study demonstrates how the addition of MCDM enhances MIS capability with data-driven, transparent decision-making power. Implications and directions for future research are presented to guide scholars and practitioners.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.043 | 0.052 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.016 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".