Fundamental Characteristics and Applicability of the RADAR Method: Proof of Ranking Consistency

Nikola Komatina; Dragan Marinkovic; Matej Babič

doi:10.31181/sor31202635

Authors

Nikola Komatina Faculty of Engineering, University of Kragujevac, Kragujevac, Serbia Author https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6964-5673
Dragan Marinkovic Faculty of Mechanical Engineering and Transport Systems, TU Berlin, Germany Author https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3583-9434
Matej Babič Faculty of Information Studies, Novo mesto, Slovenia Author https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5446-5087

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.31181/sor31202635

Keywords:

MADM, RADAR, RADAR II, Mathematical proofs, Fundamental characteristics

Abstract

This paper presents a mathematical explanation of one of the Multi-Attribute Decision-Making (MADM) methods—the RAnking based on Distance And Range (RADAR) method—along with its modified variant, RADAR II. Through mathematical proofs, the influence of each step of the method on the final ranking of alternatives is analyzed. The methods are tested on three numerical examples with varying criterion weights. The robustness of the methods, as well as their fundamental characteristics, is demonstrated. A comparative analysis reveals that although both methods prioritize alternatives based on their stability across all criteria—particularly the most important ones—the RADAR II method is somewhat more rigorous and stringent, whereas the original RADAR method is more flexible and yields more objective results.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Triantaphyllou, E. (2000). Multi-criteria decision making methods: A comparative study. Springer.

Saaty, T. L. (1980). The analytical hierarchy process, planning, priority. RWS Publications.

Saaty, T. L. (2013). The modern science of multicriteria decision making and its practical applications: The AHP/ANP approach. Operations Research, 61(5), 1101–1118. https://doi.org/10.1287/opre.2013.1197

Saaty, T. L., & Vargas, L. G. (2013). The Analytic Network Process. In T. L. Saaty & L. G. Vargas, Decision making with the Analytic Network Process (pp. 1–40). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-7279-7_1

Diakoulaki, D., Mavrotas, G., & Papayannakis, L. (1995). Determining objective weights in multiple criteria problems: The CRITIC method. Computers & Operations Research, 22(7), 763–770. https://doi.org/10.1016/0305-0548(94)00059-H

Gazi, K. H., Raisa, N., Biswas, A., Azizzadeh, F., & Mondal, S. P. (2025). Finding most important criteria in women’s empowerment for sports sector by pentagonal fuzzy DEMATEL methodology. Spectrum of Decision Making and Applications, 2(1), 28–52. https://doi.org/10.31181/sdmap21202510

Tadić, D., & Komatina, N. (2025). A hybrid interval type-2 fuzzy DEMATEL-MABAC approach for strategic failure management in automotive manufacturing. Journal of Engineering Management and Systems Engineering, 4(1), 21–38. https://doi.org/10.56578/jemse040102

Rezaei, J. (2015). Best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method. Omega, 53, 49–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.omega.2014.11.009

Žižović, M., & Pamučar, D. (2019). New model for determining criteria weights: Level Based Weight Assessment (LBWA) model. Decision Making: Applications in Management and Engineering, 2(2). https://doi.org/10.31181/dmame1902102z

Kizielewicz, B., & Sałabun, W. (2024). SITW method: A new approach to re-identifying multi-criteria weights in complex decision analysis. Spectrum of Mechanical Engineering and Operational Research, 1(1), 215–226. https://doi.org/10.31181/smeor11202419

Pamučar, D., Deveci, M., Gokasar, I., Işık, M., & Zizovic, M. (2021). Circular economy concepts in urban mobility alternatives using integrated DIBR method and fuzzy Dombi CoCoSo model. Journal of Cleaner Production, 323, 129096. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.129096

Božanić, D., Epler, I., Puška, A., Biswas, S., Marinković, D., & Koprivica, S. (2024). Application of the DIBR II – rough MABAC decision-making model for ranking methods and techniques of lean organization systems management in the process of technical maintenance. Facta Universitatis, Series: Mechanical Engineering, 22(1), 101. https://doi.org/10.22190/FUME230614026B

Božanić, D., & Pamučar, D. (2023). Overview of the Method Defining Interrelationships Between Ranked Criteria II and Its Application in Multi-criteria Decision-Making. In P. Chatterjee, D. Pamučar, M. Yazdani, & D. Panchal (Eds.), Computational Intelligence for Engineering and Management Applications (pp. 863–873). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-8493-8_64

Komatina, N., Tadić, D., Aleksić, A., & Jovanović, A. D. (2023). The assessment and selection of suppliers using AHP and MABAC with type-2 fuzzy numbers in automotive industry. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part O: Journal of Risk and Reliability, 237(4), 836–852. https://doi.org/10.1177/1748006X221095359

Biswas, A., Gazi, K. H., Sankar, P. M., & Ghosh, A. (2025). A decision-making framework for sustainable highway restaurant site selection: AHP-TOPSIS approach based on fuzzy numbers. Spectrum of Operational Research, 2(1), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.31181/sor2120256

Milanovic, M., Misita, M., & Komatina, N. (2020). Determination of the optimal production plan by using fuzzy AHP and fuzzy linear programming. Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems, 38(4), 4315–4325. https://doi.org/10.3233/JIFS-190913

Hwang, C. L., & Yoon, K. (1981). Multiple attribute decision making: Methods and applications. Springer.

Opricovic, S., & Tzeng, G.-H. (2007). Extended VIKOR method in comparison with outranking methods. European Journal of Operational Research, 178(2), 514–529. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2006.01.020

Pamučar, D., & Ćirović, G. (2015). The selection of transport and handling resources in logistics centers using Multi-Attributive Border Approximation area Comparison (MABAC). Expert Systems with Applications, 42(6), 3016–3028. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2014.11.057

Stević, Ž., Pamučar, D., Puška, A., & Chatterjee, P. (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, 106231. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2019.106231

Alinezhad, A., & Khalili, J. (2019). EDAS Method. In New methods and applications in multiple attribute decision making (MADM) (pp. 149–155). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-15009-9_21

Zavadskas, E. K., & Turskis, Z. (2011). Multiple criteria decision making (MCDM) methods in economics: An overview. Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 17(2), 397–427. https://doi.org/10.3846/20294913.2011.593291

Pamučar, D., Vasin, L., & Lukovac, V. (2014). Selection of railway level crossings for investing in security equipment using hybrid DEMATEL-MARICA model. XVI Scientific-Expert Conference on Railways (RAILCON 2014), 89–92.

Komatina, N. (2024). A compromise-based MADM approach for prioritizing failures: Integrating the RADAR method within the FMEA framework. Jurnal Sistem Dan Manajemen Industri, 8(2), 73–88. https://doi.org/10.30656/jsmi.v8i2.9283

Komatina, N. (2025). A novel BWM-RADAR approach for multi-attribute selection of equipment in the automotive industry. Spectrum of Mechanical Engineering and Operational Research, 2(1), 104–120. https://doi.org/10.31181/smeor21202531

Mishra, A. R., & Rani, P. (2025). Evaluating and prioritizing blockchain networks using intuitionistic fuzzy multi-criteria decision-making method. Spectrum of Mechanical Engineering and Operational Research, 2(1), 78–92. https://doi.org/10.31181/smeor21202527

Mehdiabadi, A., Sadeghi, A., Yazdi, A. K., & Tan, Y. (2025). Sustainability service chain capabilities in the oil and gas industry: A fuzzy hybrid approach SWARA-MABAC. Spectrum of Operational Research, 2(1), 92–112. https://doi.org/10.31181/sor21202512

Mishra, A. R., Rani, P., Cavallaro, F., & Alrasheedi, A. F. (2023). Assessment of sustainable wastewater treatment technologies using interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy distance measure-based MAIRCA method. Facta Universitatis, Series: Mechanical Engineering, 21(3), 359. https://doi.org/10.22190/FUME230901034M

Aleksić, A., Milanović, D. D., Komatina, N., & Tadić, D. (2023). Evaluation and ranking of failures in manufacturing process by combining best-worst method and VIKOR under type-2 fuzzy environment. Expert Systems, 40(2), e13148. https://doi.org/10.1111/exsy.13148

Aleksic, A., Runic Ristic, M., Komatina, N., & Tadic, D. (2019). Advanced risk assessment in reverse supply chain processes: A case study in Republic of Serbia. Advances in Production Engineering & Management, 14(4), 421–434. https://doi.org/10.14743/apem2019.4.338

Marković, A., Stojanović, B., Komatina, N., & Ivanović, L. (2024). Multi-attribute approach for selection of polymeric materials for manufacturing gears: A case study in the automotive industry. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part C: Journal of Mechanical Engineering Science, 238(22), 10744–10755. https://doi.org/10.1177/09544062241271690

Komatina, N., Marinković, D., Tadić, D., & Pamučar, D. (2025). Advancing PFMEA decision-making: FRADAR-based prioritization of failure modes using AP, RPN, and multi-attribute assessment in the automotive industry. Tehnički Glasnik / Technical Journal, 19(3).