University Name: Decision Making Process Analysis Report

This report provides a comprehensive analysis of the decision-making process, focusing on the application of analytical tools and techniques. The report begins by defining decision-making and discussing its importance, along with the application of decision analysis. It then identifies and outlines a decision problem involving multiple objectives, using the scenario of selecting a dream house in Malaysia as a business case. The report delves into the Single Multi-Attribute Rating Technique (SMART), detailing its application and steps involved, and discussing its strengths and limitations in the context of the decision problem. The report also explores various DM tools such as decision matrix, decision tree, and T-charts. The report concludes with a discussion of the limitations and strengths of the analysis, providing valuable insights into the complexities of decision-making and the effectiveness of different analytical approaches. The report also includes an introduction, table of contents, and references.

Running head: DECISION MAKING (DM) PROCESS
Decision making (DM) process
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

Decision making (DM) process 1
Table of Contents
1. Introduction............................................................................................................................2
2. Defining DM..........................................................................................................................2
2.1 Importance of DM tools...................................................................................................4
2.2 Application of DM...........................................................................................................6
3. Identification and outlining a descision problem...................................................................8
4. Application of Single Multi Attribute Rating Technique....................................................10
5. Limitations and strengths.....................................................................................................18
6. Conclusion............................................................................................................................19
7. References............................................................................................................................21

2
Decision making (DM) process
1. Introduction
SMART is defined as the type of framework which is very much useful to make
descision regarding multiple criterias (Elgendy and Elragal 2016). The alternatives of some
criteria can be identified with the help of this framework as well.
This report will be very much beneficial for the readers of this report to understand
the significance of analytical thinking and descision making. Critical review of the literature
shall be one of the prime highlights of this report. The application of the SMART framework
will be the other highlights of this report as well, at the same time the report shall also focus
on the limitations and strengths of the analysis. Thus, this report will be very much useful to
investigate the impact of the descion making styles which is followed on the organizational
learning process.
2. Defining DM
Descision Making (DM) is defined as the cognitive process which is very much
useful to identify and choose alternatives based on the preferences and values of the
descisuion maker (Dijkstra et al. 2017). The role of the entrepreneurs is very much useful in
the descision making procedure as huge amount of time is required in the descision making
procedure. Descision making is one of the most critical pricess and it is very much useful to
solve the business problems.
Researchers view
As discussed by Deli and Şubaş (2017), a systematic approach has to be maintained in a
descision making process in a commercial establishment. The journal helped in
understanding that there are numerous factors which has to be considered in the descision

3
Decision making (DM) process
making procedure such as the descision making styles and selection of the DM tools (Bals,
Kirchoff and Foerstl 2016). The researchers of the article also highlighted that the
entrepreneur must be understanding the impact of the DM procedure befotre the selection of
a DM process. On the other hand, as elaborated by De et al. (2016), there are numerous
factors which influences the leadership DM in commercial establishments such as
technology, communication and cognitive biases. The following pictorial illustration will
very much useful to understand the factors in a detailed modus.
Figure 1: Factors influencing leadership descions
Source: Dai et al. (2016)
But, as elaborated by Borgonovo and Plischke (2016), there are few limitations
related with DM procedure as well such as its inability to to take quick descisions. The
scholars highlighted that success and failure of the projects depends hugely on the quality of
descision making.

4
Decision making (DM) process
2.1 Importance of DM tools
 DM is a very risk procedure and it might have a long or a short term impact in a
project or a business (Biswas, Pramanik and Giri 2016). Selectiong from a set of
alternative outcomes is one of the most signigficant aspects of the descision making
procedure.
 Learning procedure and the experience of the entrepreneur are the very significant
charateristics features required from the entrepreneurs during the DM process
(Amuna, Al Shobak and Naser 2017). Most of the management activities in a
commercial setting can be done with the help of the DM tools.
Figure 2: Principles of DM tools
(Source: Gatlin, Hallock and Cooley 2017)

5
Decision making (DM) process
 The above model is very much significant to understand the entire cycle which is
followed by the entrepreneurs while making a descision in an organizationl setting
(Ghorbanzadeh, Feizizadeh and Blaschke, 2018).
 Identification of the problem is the initial step of a descision making process, the
following step is the establishment of the descision criteria and then the descision
criteria is measured (Herath and Prato 2017). In the ensuing step the alternative
solution is identified and evaluated (Giannoccaro 2018).
 The following step is the most critical step of the entire cycle when the best
alternative is chosen by the entrepreneur. Enactment of the chosen descision and
evaluation of the chosen descision is the closing step of this cycle (Gul and Guner
2016).
Thus, it can be said that any sort of complex business descision in a commercial
establishment can be conducted with the help of this cycle. The techniques which are very
much useful in the DM techniques such as random, analytical and intuition process.
However, there are numerous challenges related with a DM procedure such as the followings:
 Level of power: Some of the middle level manager gets confused while taking a
significant descision in a complex project.
 Lack of time: Unavilability of time requied to make a descision is a huge
drawback of thid DM process.
 Lack of data: Ambigous or incomplete data have an adverse impact on the DM
process as well.
 Risk taking ability: Casual attitude of the entrepreneurs can have an adverse
impact on the DM process.
 Inadequate support: Lack of support from the top level or the grass root level
employees can lead in ineffective DM.

6
Decision making (DM) process
 Lack of resources: Lack of resources like time and cost can also lead ineffective
descisions from an operational manager.
 Inability to change: Unprofessional organizational policies can also lead to
ineffective descision making.
2.2 Application of DM
 The performance of an organization depends hugely on the DM process of the
managers or the entrepreneurs (Jamkhaneh and Garg 2018). The organizational
objectives can be accomplished with the help of the descision making process as well
(Hu and Mahadevan 2016). Making consistent and value maximising choices is the
key aspect of the DM process in a commercial establishment.
 The factors which play a huge role in the DM process are the values of the manager,
attitude of the manager, educational qualification of the manager, organizational
policies and different managerial levels.
 The difference in the DM process among the managers in an organizational settings is
driven by difference in experience, analytical ability of the managers, perception of
the manager, scope of consultation, degree of free dom of choice and availability of
resources.
 The diverse categories of DM styles which are used in an organizational settings are
as followings:
1. Integrative: Exploration and creativity is focussed in this style.
2. Hirarchial: Mutual trust and hirarchial relationships are focussed in this style.
3. Flexible: Implications and adaptability are focussed in this DM style.
4. Descisive: Consistency and efficienct is focussed in this DM style.
 The DM tools which are commonly used in an organizational settings are as
followings:

7
Decision making (DM) process
1. Framing: It is defined as the type of tool which helps in getting rational biasness,
the results coming from this tool is either negative or positive (Kristensen and
Petersen 2016). The influence of information plays a huge role in the DM process
using this tool.
2. Descision matrix: Comparing the possible solutions is the most significant aspect
of this tool (Kumar et al. 2017). Success factors of each alternative has to be
studued while deploying ths tool in the DM procedure. Elimination of the
confusions is one of the prime benefits of this tool.
3. Descision Tree: It is defined aas the type of flowchart which considers several
certain and uncertain points to make a descision (Luan et al. 2017) The outcome
of use this toolis ddependent on the chance process.
Figure 3: Descision Tree Analysis
(Source: Manikam and Yanuar 2017)

8
Decision making (DM) process
4. T-charts: Most of the comparative DM process is conducted with the help of this
tool (Pantano, Rese and Baier 2017). The demerits and the merits of the
alternative tool are considered by the entrepreneurs who uses this tool.
5. SMART technique: It is defined as the technique which is very much useful to
take descision where numerous criterias are there (Pradita and Rosa 2016). Both
the quantitative and the qualitative issues which are faced in the DM process can
be addressed using this tool (Pérez-Domínguez et al. 2018). The business
performance of a commercial establishment can be enhanced using this tool.
3. Identification and outlining a descision problem
 Descision making gets complicated when there are multiple objectives in a scenario.
 Increase in number of group makes a situation much more complex, at the same time
the involvement of more than one descision maker is the other challenge related with
the descision making procedure.
 The level of complexity increases with the presenve of more than one descision
maker.
 Conflict among the descision maker can have huge impact on the descision making
procedure.
The followimg section of this report shall be identifying a problem which is related
with selecting a dream house in Malaysia and the concerned person is unsure about making a
descision due to the presence of the multiple objectives.
Business case: The person who will be going to buy a new house in Malaysia have a
very limited budget, however the person wants the most of the criterias which will be

9
Decision making (DM) process
described in the following table such as locational advantage, basic amenities, simpler
property management protocols and lower property value.
Multiple objectives: The muktiple objectives of this scenario can be understood with
the help of the following tabular description.
Alternatives Options
Area Locational
advantage
Cost of
living
Basic
amenities
Property
Management
Property Value
Kuala
Lumpur
High High Available Complex High
Malacca
City
Medium High Available Moderate Medium
Johor
Bahru
High Medium Available Moderate High
Kuantan Medium Medium Unavailable Simple Medium
Langkawi Medium Medium Available Simple Low
The above table is very much useful to understand the complex selection criteria
regarding selecting a dream house in Malaysia. The merits and the demerits of each of the
five locations can be understrood from the above table as well. The above scenario have a
single stakeholder with multiple and conflicting objectives.
Descision problem: Each of the five locations have both advantages and limitations,
which makes the descision making much more complicated than expected.
Supporting the analysis

10
Decision making (DM) process
According to Rajeshkanna and Arunesh (2018), there are numerous factors which has
to be considered in the first place while selecting a dream house such as the value of the
property, cost of living and the availability of the basic amenities. On the other hand, as
elaborated by Pramanik, Biswas and Giri (2017), multiple objectives can be structured into a
single objective by the stakeholder. The researcher of this paper also highlighted that separate
hierarchies are sometimes created to deal with the complications of muktiple objectives.
4. Application of Single Multi Attribute Rating Technique
SMART: It is defined as the type of tool which are very much useful to draw
conclusions in a complex situation (Santoso, Ernawati and Anggriani 2019). This
compensation methid was established in the year 1971 by Edwards (Ravikumar et al. 2018).
There are numerous areas of application of this DM tool especially in the planning activities
and in the general fields.
 In the planning activities transportation sector, descision of route choice, land use
behaviour, resource management and environmental impact assessment.
 In the general fields this tool can be extensively used in the engineering sector,
agricultural industry, military operations, security operations, assembly problems and
manufacturing problems.
 This descision making tool works mainly on human perceptions and is very much
useful to evaluate different categories of attributes in a problem.
 The descision problem can be understood in an systemized modus with the help of
this tool (Schneckenberg et al. 2017). This tool is very much useful to provided
optimum insights in a descision making procedure.
 There are numerous steps which has to be considered by the entrepreneurs while
using this DM tool such as the identification of the problem, identification of the

11
Decision making (DM) process
alternative solutions, identification of the dimensions of value for evaluating the
alternatives, raning the dimensions, rating the dimensions, adding the importance of
the weight of the dimensions, measuring the location of the alternative, calculating the
utilities of the alternstives, and taking the final descision.
 This tool is widely used in urban planning due to its simplicity.
 There are numerous pros and cons related with the use of this DM tool as well which
can be understood from the following tabular description.
Pros Cons
Unity: It is the simplest choice of value
function.
Complexity: Increase in the number of criteria
results in confusions.
Applicability: The linearity cases can be solved
using this tool.
Accuracy: Poorly performing alternatives has
to be identified in the first place while using
this DM tool.
Interdependencies: It is dependent of each of the
alternatives.
Sensitity: Lack of adequate address scale
ranges is one of the prime limitations of this
DM tool.
Operations: Both the highest and the lowest
level attributes is considered by this tool.
Consistency: The subjective nature of this tool
is the drawback related with SMART.
Example: In this example, there will be five attributres and graphical illustration will
be there to support the descusion which will be made using this tool. In this example we are
considering data of five locations such as Kuala Lumpur, Malacca City, Johor Bahru,
Kuantan and Lankawi. There are five attributes in this scenario as well such as the locational
advantage, basic amenities, property management, cost of living and property value.
The prime business case of this scenario is about a person who is trying to identify a
perfect location across the cities of Malaysia so that the person gets each of these facilities
after the home is bought. There are few criterias related with buying the house like the
unavialbility of unlimited financial resource which means the concern person has to take a

12
Decision making (DM) process
descion in such a modus so that the accuracy of the investment is maintained. Thus, the
persom has decided to take the descion on the basis of SMART tool. The following 8 stages
will be very much useful for the readers of this report to understand the way by which
SMART is used in the descision making procedure.
Stage 1: Identification of the descion makers: The success of using this framework
depends upon the role of the descision makers in this scenario. The significant descision
makers in this scenario are property values, cost of living, propery management, basic
amenities and locational advantage.
Stage 2: Identification of the options: There are numerous options which are available to
the descision makers to make their descisions such as Kulalumpur, Malacca City, Johor
Bahru, Kuantan and Lankawi.
Stage 3: Identification of the attributes required in the DM process: Identification of the
attributes of a descision is one of the key aspects regarding making any sort of descision
using SMART (Abdel‐Basset et al. 2019). The attributes are measured and evaluated in a
sytemized modus so that the accuract of descison making is maintained. There are five
different league teams who are the attributes of this problem. Hence, the attributes of this
problem are property values, cost of living, propery management, basic amenities and
locational advantage.
Attributes Kuala
Lumpur
Malacca
City
Johor Bahru Kuantan Lankawi
Locational advantage 85 80 78 76 74
Basic amenities 80 72 71 70 69
Property management 86 70 80 78 65
Cost of living 80 70 65 70 72
Property value 90 80 65 70 75

13
Decision making (DM) process
Stage 4: Measuring the attributes: The following tabular description will be very
much useful to understand this entire scenario in a sustemized modus.
Stage 5: Determining the weight of the attrbutes: Efficiency of the optimum solution
from different attributes are considered while creating the below table.
Attributes Org. weights Normalised
Locational advantage 85 24
Basic amenities 75 21
Property management 71 21
Cost of living 72 20
Property value 50 14
Total 352 100
Stage 6: Weighted average of the values for each option: The overall performsnce of the each
of the criteria and attributes are considered abnd evaluated in this step of DM. Answers
coming from stage 4 is multopiled with the noramalised weights which was calculated in
stage 5. The detailed evaluation of each of the five cities can be understood from the
following tables.
Kuala Lumpur Value Normalised Weight*Value
Locational advantage 85 24 2040
Basic amenities 80 21 1680
Property management 86 21 1806
Cost of living 80 20 1600
Property value 90 14 1260
Total 100 8386

14
Decision making (DM) process
Malacca City Value Normalised Weight*Value
Locational advantage 80 24 1920
Basic amenities 72 21 1512
Property management 70 21 1470
Cost of living 70 20 1400
Property value 80 14 1120
Total 100 7422
Johor Bahru Value Normalised Weight*Value
Locational advantage 78 24 1872
Basic amenities 71 21 1491
Property management 80 21 1680
Cost of living 65 20 1300
Property value 65 14 910
Total 100 7253
Kuantan Value Normalised Weight*Value
Locational advantage 76 24 1824
Basic amenities 70 21 1470
Property management 78 21 1638
Cost of living 70 20 1400
Property value 70 14 980
Total 100 7312
Lankawi Value Normalised Weight*Value
Locational advantage 74 24 1776
Basic amenities 69 21 1449
Property management 65 21 1365
Cost of living 72 20 1440

15
Decision making (DM) process
Property value 75 14 1050
Total 100 7080
Summary
Stage 7: Generation of a provision descision: The above summary table is vey much
significant to understand that Kuala Lumpur has the best facilities and it is followed by
Malacca City. The aggregate benefits of each of the cities can be understood in the first place
using the below chart.
K u a l a L u m p u r M a l a c c a C i t y J o h o r B a h r u K u a n t a n L a n k a w i
60
65
70
75
80
85
Agg. Benefi ts
Figure 4: Aggregate benefits of each of the cities
(Source: Created by author)
Kuala Lumpur Malacca City Johor Bahru Kuantan Lankawi
Agg.
Benefits
83.66 74.22 72.53 73.12 70.80

16
Decision making (DM) process
Stage 8: Sensitivity Analysis: It is defined as the type of method which is very much
useful to identify or preduct the outcome of a descison making procedure (Ţene et al. 2018).
The riskiness of the selected alternative stargey can be identified in the first place using this
method (Biswas, Pramanik and Giri 2016). The dependency of the output as compared with
the input values can also be identified from this method. The anaylsis of each of the attributes
for the five cities can be understood from the following illustrations.
K u a l a L u m p u r M a l a c c a C i t y J o h o r B a h r u K u a n t a n L a n k a w i
68
70
72
74
76
78
80
82
84
86
Locati onal advantage
Figure 4: Locational advantage of each of the cities
(Source: Created by author)

17
Decision making (DM) process
K u a l a L u m p u r M a l a c c a C i t y J o h o r B a h r u K u a n t a n L a n k a w i
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Property management
Figure 5: Property management of each of the cities
(Source: Created by author)
Kuala Lumpur Malacca City Johor Bahru Kuantan Lankawi
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
90
80
65 70 75
Property value
Figure 6: Property value of each of the cities
(Source: Created by author)

18
Decision making (DM) process
K u a l a L u m p u r M a l a c c a C i t y J o h o r B a h r u K u a n t a n L a n k a w i
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Cost of living
Figure 7: Cost of living in each of the cities
(Source: Created by author)
Kuala Lumpur Malacca City Johor Bahru Kuantan Lankawi
60
64
68
72
76
80
84
Basic amenities
Figure 5: Basic Ameneties of each of the cities
(Source: Created by author)
5. Limitations and strengths
The notable limitations related with the use of SMART are as followings:

19
Decision making (DM) process
 Rapid descisions cannot be done using SMART tool. Cost overruns is the other
ddrawback of this DM tool.
 Meta analysis cannot be conducted with the help of this tool. Huge number of data is
required for this DM tool.
 Goal programming cannot be conducted using SMART as well (Trojanowska, Varela
and Machado 2017). The long term results are often unknown to the users of this DM
tool.
 Management of the axioms is a huge challenge for the entrepreneurs who uses this
tool in an organizational setting (Tole and Matei 2016). Data manipulation is aloso
one of the prime limitations related with this DM tool.
 Management of the paradoxes is the other challenges rekated with this tool. The
external validity of results are sometimes limited.
The main strengths related with the use of this DM tool are as followings:
 Multifacet problems can be easily solved using this DM tool (Vu-Bac et al. 2016).
Structing a complex problem can get much simpler due to the deployment of this tool.
 The values of the attributrs can be easily measured using this tool. Highklighting the
areas for further research is an advantage of deploying this tool in an organizational
setting as well.
 There are no real uncertanitirs related with this DM tool (Yang and Gabrielsson
2017). The preferences of the entrepreneurs can be clarified in the first place using
this tool as well.
 The assumptions of this tool are very much transparent and easy to analyse.
 Well informed policy descisions can be created using this tool (Yeo and Grant 2018).
Steering committee or the management team of an organizational setting can make
significant business descions using this DM tool.

20
Decision making (DM) process
6. Conclusion
 Smart Framework is very much useful in an organziational setting as it can help the
strategic planners and the management team to take significant business descisions.
 Descisions having multiple criteria and attributes can be taken suing this tool. The
role of the entrepreneurs who works this this tool is very significant for the smooth
working of this tool.
 There are numerous factors which plays a key role in the descision making process in
an organizationall setting such as education and experience; technologies used in the
organization, organizational policy, organizational leaders, and cognitive biases.
 Establishment of the descision criteria, generation of the alternatives, choosing the
best alternative, enacting the alternative are the prime descisive steps of using DM
tools like SMART.
 The four categories of DM styles which can be deployed in an organbizational setting
are integrative, hirarchial, flexible amnd descisive.
 The DM tools which can be deployued in an organizational setting are framing,
descision matrix, descision tree, T charts and SMART.
Advantages
 This tool can be used to solve mukti facet problems.
 The value of the attributes can be easily solved using this DM tool.
 Transparency in the descision making procedure can be maintained using this tool.
 Making strategic descions can be done in a systemized modus using this tool as well.
 Preferences of the entrepreneurs can be understood if SMART is deployed in an
organized modus.
 Structuring a complex problem can be much simpler using this tool.

21
Decision making (DM) process
 Highlighting the araes of further research is the other advantages associated with this
tool.
Drawbacks
 Meta analysis, goal programming and Rapid descison cannot be made using SMART.
 Management of paradoxes and axioms is a huge challnegs for the entreopreneurs who
uses this tool.
 Cost overruns and data manipulation are the other limitations of using SMART.

22
Decision making (DM) process
7. References
Abdel‐Basset, M., Manogaran, G., Mohamed, M. and Rushdy, E., 2019. Internet of things in
smart education environment: Supportive framework in the decision‐making process.
Concurrency and Computation: Practice and Experience, 31(10), p.e4515.
Amuna, Y.M.A., Al Shobaki, M.J. and Naser, S.S.A., 2017. The Role of Knowledge-Based
Computerized Management Information Systems in the Administrative Decision-Making
Process.
Bals, L., Kirchoff, J.F. and Foerstl, K., 2016. Exploring the reshoring and insourcing decision
making process: toward an agenda for future research. Operations Management Research,
9(3-4), pp.102-116.
Biswas, P., Pramanik, S. and Giri, B.C., 2016. TOPSIS method for multi-attribute group
decision-making under single-valued neutrosophic environment. Neural computing and
Applications, 27(3), pp.727-737.
Biswas, P., Pramanik, S. and Giri, B.C., 2016. Value and ambiguity index based ranking
method of single-valued trapezoidal neutrosophic numbers and its application to multi-
attribute decision making. Neutrosophic Sets and Systems, 12, pp.127-138.
Borgonovo, E. and Plischke, E., 2016. Sensitivity analysis: a review of recent advances.
European Journal of Operational Research, 248(3), pp.869-887.
Dai, H., Chen, X., Ye, M., Song, X. and Zachara, J.M., 2017. A geostatistics‐informed
hierarchical sensitivity analysis method for complex groundwater flow and transport
modeling. Water Resources Research, 53(5), pp.4327-4343.

23
Decision making (DM) process
De Maio, C., Fenza, G., Loia, V., Orciuoli, F. and Herrera-Viedma, E., 2016. A framework
for context-aware heterogeneous group decision making in business processes. Knowledge-
Based Systems, 102, pp.39-50.
Deli, I. and Şubaş, Y., 2017. A ranking method of single valued neutrosophic numbers and its
applications to multi-attribute decision making problems. International Journal of Machine
Learning and Cybernetics, 8(4), pp.1309-1322.
Dijkstra, H.P., Pollock, N., Chakraverty, R. and Ardern, C.L., 2017. Return to play in elite
sport: a shared decision-making process.
Elgendy, N. and Elragal, A., 2016. Big data analytics in support of the decision making
process. Procedia Computer Science, 100, pp.1071-1084.
Gatlin, K., Hallock, D. and Cooley, L.G., 2017. Confirmation bias among business students:
The impact on decision-making. Review of Contemporary Business Research, 6(2).
Ghorbanzadeh, O., Feizizadeh, B. and Blaschke, T., 2018. An interval matrix method used to
optimize the decision matrix in AHP technique for land subsidence susceptibility mapping.
Environmental Earth Sciences, 77(16), p.584.
Giannoccaro, I., 2018. Centralized vs. decentralized supply chains: The importance of
decision maker's cognitive ability and resistance to change. Industrial Marketing
Management, 73, pp.59-69.
Gul, M. and Guneri, A.F., 2016. A fuzzy multi criteria risk assessment based on decision
matrix technique: a case study for aluminum industry. Journal of Loss Prevention in the
Process Industries, 40, pp.89-100.

24
Decision making (DM) process
Herath, G. and Prato, T., 2017. Role of multi-criteria decision making in natural resource
management. In Using multi-criteria decision analysis in natural resource management (pp.
17-26). Routledge.
Hu, Z. and Mahadevan, S., 2016. Global sensitivity analysis-enhanced surrogate (GSAS)
modeling for reliability analysis. Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization, 53(3),
pp.501-521.
Jamkhaneh, E.B. and Garg, H., 2018. Some new operations over the generalized intuitionistic
fuzzy sets and their application to decision-making process. Granular Computing, 3(2),
pp.111-122.
Kristensen, M.H. and Petersen, S., 2016. Choosing the appropriate sensitivity analysis
method for building energy model-based investigations. Energy and Buildings, 130, pp.166-
176.
Kumar, A., Sah, B., Singh, A.R., Deng, Y., He, X., Kumar, P. and Bansal, R.C., 2017. A
review of multi criteria decision making (MCDM) towards sustainable renewable energy
development. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 69, pp.596-609.
Luan, W., Lu, L., Li, X. and Ma, C., 2017. Weight determination of sustainable development
indicators using a global sensitivity analysis method. Sustainability, 9(2), p.303.
Manikam, R.M. and Yanuar, M.Y., 2017. Sistem Pengambilan Keputusan Penerimaan
Beasiswa dengan Simple Multi Attribute Rating Technique (Studi Kasus pada SMA
Yuppentek 1 Tangerang). Jurnal Ilmiah Fifo, 9(1), pp.41-56.
Pantano, E., Rese, A. and Baier, D., 2017. Enhancing the online decision-making process by
using augmented reality: A two country comparison of youth markets. Journal of Retailing
and Consumer Services, 38, pp.81-95.

25
Decision making (DM) process
Pérez-Domínguez, L., Rodríguez-Picón, L.A., Alvarado-Iniesta, A., Luviano Cruz, D. and
Xu, Z., 2018. MOORA under Pythagorean fuzzy set for multiple criteria decision making.
Complexity, 2018.
Pradita, S.Y. and Rosa, P.H.P., 2016, October. Sistem pendukung pengambilan keputusan
pemilihan kamera DSLR menggunakan metode Simple Multi Attribute Rating Technique
(SMART). In Seminar Nasional Ilmu Komputer (SNIK 2016)-Semarang (pp. 371-378).
Pramanik, S., Biswas, P. and Giri, B.C., 2017. Hybrid vector similarity measures and their
applications to multi-attribute decision making under neutrosophic environment. Neural
computing and Applications, 28(5), pp.1163-1176.
Rajeshkanna, A. and Arunesh, K., 2018. Role of Decision Tree Classification in Data Mining.
International Journal of Pure and Applied Mathematics, 119(15), pp.2533-2543.
Ravikumar, D., Seager, T.P., Cucurachi, S., Prado, V. and Mutel, C., 2018. Novel method of
sensitivity analysis improves the prioritization of research in anticipatory life cycle
assessment of emerging technologies. Environmental science & technology, 52(11), pp.6534-
6543.
Santoso, T., Ernawati, E. and Anggriani, K., 2019. Sistem Pendukung Keputusan Serangan
Hama Dan Penyakit Pada Tanaman Kakao Menggunakan Metode Simple Multi Attribute
Rating Technique. Rekursif: Jurnal Informatika, 7(1).
Schneckenberg, D., Velamuri, V.K., Comberg, C. and Spieth, P., 2017. Business model
innovation and decision making: uncovering mechanisms for coping with uncertainty. R&D
Management, 47(3), pp.404-419.

26
Decision making (DM) process
Ţene, M., Stuparu, D.E., Kurowicka, D. and El Serafy, G.Y., 2018. A copula-based
sensitivity analysis method and its application to a North Sea sediment transport model.
Environmental modelling & software, 104, pp.1-12.
Tole, A.A. and Matei, N.C., 2016. Executive Information Systems'(EIS) structure and their
importance in decision-making. A comparison between decision support computer systems.
Journal of Information Systems & Operations Management, p.1.
Trojanowska, J., Varela, M.L.R. and Machado, J., 2017, April. The tool supporting decision
making process in area of job-shop scheduling. In World Conference on Information Systems
and Technologies (pp. 490-498). Springer, Cham.
Vu-Bac, N., Lahmer, T., Zhuang, X., Nguyen-Thoi, T. and Rabczuk, T., 2016. A software
framework for probabilistic sensitivity analysis for computationally expensive models.
Advances in Engineering Software, 100, pp.19-31.
Yang, M. and Gabrielsson, P., 2017. Entrepreneurial marketing of international high-tech
business-to-business new ventures: A decision-making process perspective. Industrial
Marketing Management, 64, pp.147-160.
Yeo, B. and Grant, D., 2018. Predicting service industry performance using decision tree
analysis. International Journal of Information Management, 38(1), pp.288-300.