Adaptive Utility Ranking Algorithm for Evaluating Blockchain-Enabled Microfinance in Emerging - A New MCDM Perspective

Muhammad Mukhlis Kamarul Zaman; Zahari Md Rodzi; Yusrina Andu; Nur Aima Shafie; Zuraidah Mohd Sanusi; Aziatul Waznah Ghazali; Jamilah Mohd Mahyideen

doi:10.31181/ijes1412025182

Authors

Muhammad Mukhlis Kamarul Zaman College of Computing, Informatics and Media, Universiti Teknologi MARA Negeri Sembilan, Kampus Seremban, 73000 Negeri Sembilan, Malaysia Author https://orcid.org/0009-0008-9437-552X
Zahari Md Rodzi College of Computing, Informatics and Media, Universiti Teknologi MARA Negeri Sembilan, Kampus Seremban, 73000 Negeri Sembilan, Malaysia Author https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4145-3340
Yusrina Andu College of Computing, Informatics and Media, Universiti Teknologi MARA Negeri Sembilan, Kuala Pilah Campus, 72000 Kuala Pilah, Negeri Sembilan, Malaysia Author https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4113-2926
Nur Aima Shafie Accounting Research Institute, Universiti Teknologi MARA Malaysia Author https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5711-2252
Zuraidah Mohd Sanusi Accounting Research Institute, Universiti Teknologi MARA Malaysia Author https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8047-4219
Aziatul Waznah Ghazali Faculty of Economics and Management, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Bangi 43600, Malaysia Author https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1324-5248
Jamilah Mohd Mahyideen Faculty of Business and Management, Universiti Teknologi MARA Negeri Sembilan, Kampus Seremban, 73000 Negeri Sembilan, Malaysia Author https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4322-9174

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.31181/ijes1412025182

Keywords:

Multi-Criteria Decision-Making, MCDM, Blockchain technology, Adaptive Utility Ranking Algorithm, AURA, Technology evaluation, Financial inclusion

Abstract

Blockchain integration in microfinance is beginning to reshape the scenario of financial inclusion and economic empowerment in emerging markets. To support a strategic decision on adoption, the study introduces the Adaptive Utility Ranking Algorithm (AURA), a newly established Multi-Criteria Decision-Making (MCDM) method to be used in evaluating blockchain-based alternatives relevant to microfinance in Malaysia. AURA stands apart from traditional MCDM techniques in that it has a distance function that is flexible and a normalization scheme that is dynamic by nature, thereby making it capable of offering the decision maker more leverage in terms of adaptability to actual economic conditions. For demonstrating the methodology, a simulated dataset based on eight blockchain-modeled alternatives and six criteria considered important in economic performance was constructed. These criteria were used for sensitivity analysis; the application of comparative evaluation of well-known MCDM methods such as TOPSIS, VIKOR, and COBRA; and robustness checks with the simulation methodology, all of which helped attest to the reliability of AURA. Even though it was based on synthetic data, the study has provided strong conceptual insight into the possibility of financial institutions being able to prioritize options from the technology perspective under complex economic constraints. Portraying AURA as a competitive decision-support tool for technology evaluation in microfinance will certainly make an impact.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Bhole, G. P. (2018). Multi Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) Methods and its applications. International Journal of Research in Applied Science and Engineering Technology, 6(5), 899–915. https://doi.org/10.22214/IJRASET.2018.5145

Köksalan, M., Wallenius, J., & Zionts, S. (2016). An early history of multiple criteria decision making. International Series in Operations Research and Management Science, 233, 3–17. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-3094-4_1

Yücenur, G. N., & Maden, A. (2024). Sequential MCDM methods for site selection of hydroponic geothermal greenhouse: ENTROPY and ARAS. Renewable Energy, 226. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.RENENE.2024.120361

Ati, A., Bouchet, P., & Ben Jeddou, R. (2024). Using multi-criteria decision-making and machine learning for football player selection and performance prediction: A systematic review. Data Science and Management, 7(2), 79–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.DSM.2023.11.001

Abdulgader, F. S., Eid, R., & Rouyendegh, B. D. (2018). Development of decision support model for selecting a maintenance plan using a fuzzy MCDM approach: A theoretical framework. Applied Computational Intelligence and Soft Computing, 2018. https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/9346945

Kaya, N. (2024). Multi-criteria decision-making methods (MCDM): A bibliometric analysis (1974-2024). Journal of Business, Economics and Finance. https://doi.org/10.17261/PRESSACADEMIA.2024.1940

Roszkowska, E. (2013). Rank Ordering Criteria Weighting Methods – A Comparative Overview. Optimum. Studia Ekonomiczne, 5(65), 14–33. https://doi.org/10.15290/OSE.2013.05.65.02

Alfares, H. K., & Duffuaa, S. O. (2016). Simulation-Based Evaluation of Criteria Rank-Weighting Methods in Multi-Criteria Decision-Making. International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making, 15(1), 43–61. https://doi.org/10.1142/S0219622015500315

Van Dua, T., Van Duc, D., Bao, N. C., & Trung, D. D. (2024). Integration of objective weighting methods for criteria and MCDM methods: Application in material selection. EUREKA: Physics and Engineering, 2024(2), 131–148. https://doi.org/10.21303/2461-4262.2024.003171

Kamari, M. S. M., Rodzi, Z. M., & Kamis, N. H. (2025). Pythagorean Neutrosophic Method Based on the Removal Effects of Criteria (PNMEREC): An Innovative Approach for Establishing Objective Weights in Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Challenges. Malaysian Journal of Fundamental and Applied Sciences, 21(1), 1678–1696. https://doi.org/10.11113/MJFAS.V21N1.3600

Sahoo, S. K., & Goswami, S. S. (2023). A Comprehensive Review of Multiple Criteria Decision-Making (MCDM) Methods: Advancements, Applications, and Future Directions. Decision Making Advances, 1(1), 25–48. https://doi.org/10.31181/DMA1120237

Genç, E., Keleş, M. K., & Özdağoğlu, A. (2024). A hybrid MCDM model for personnel selection based on a novel Gray AHP, Gray MOORA and Gray MAUT methods in terms of business management: An application in the tourism sector. Journal of Decision Analytics and Intelligent Computing, 4(1), 263–284. https://doi.org/10.31181/JDAIC10024122024G

Alimohammadi, M., Salehi, A., & Babaei, A. (2024). A Comprehensive Review of MCDM Applications in Enhancing Textile Supply Chain Management. https://doi.org/10.20944/PREPRINTS202409.0599.V1

Van Thanh, N. (2022). Designing a MCDM Model for Selection of an Optimal ERP Software in Organization. Systems, 10(4), 95. https://doi.org/10.3390/SYSTEMS10040095

Zavadskas, E. K., Pamučar, D., Stević, Ž., & Mardani, A. (2020). Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Techniques for Improvement Sustainability Engineering Processes. Symmetry, 12(6), 986. https://doi.org/10.3390/SYM12060986

Kaspar, K., & Kaliyaperumal, P. (2024). Optimizing Automotive Logistics Using MCGDM: A Data‐Driven Approach to the Selection of Warehouse Location With Octagonal Neutrosophic Application. Advances in Fuzzy Systems, 2024(1). https://doi.org/10.1155/ADFS/7672845

Zhang, M., & Duan, J. (2024). Literature Review: Application of MCDM Methodology to Logistics Location Problems. Frontiers in Sustainable Development, 4(4), 205–212. https://doi.org/10.54691/FHJMB632

Costa, J., & Silva, M. (2024). Multicriteria Decision-Making in Public Security: A Systematic Review. Mathematics, 12(11). https://doi.org/10.3390/MATH12111754

Chellappa, V., & Ginda, G. (2023). Application of multiple criteria decision making (MCDM) methods for construction safety research. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers, 177(3), 127–136. https://doi.org/10.1680/JMAPL.23.00006

Li, Y., Ding, Y., Guo, Y., Cui, H., Gao, H., Zhou, Z., ... & Chen, F. (2023). An integrated decision model with reliability to support transport safety system analysis. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 239, 109540.. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.RESS.2023.109540

Karavidic, Z., & Projovic, D. (2018). A multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) model in the security forces operations based on rough sets. Decision Making: Applications in Management and Engineering, 1(1), 97–120. https://doi.org/10.31181/DMAME180197K

Kumar, R. (2024). A Comprehensive Review of MCDM Methods, Applications, and Emerging Trends. Decision Making Advances, 3(1), 185–199. https://doi.org/10.31181/DMA31202569

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), 4705-4731. https://doi.org/10.1007/S40747-023-00972-1

Akram, M., Ali, G., Butt, M. A., & Alcantud, J. C. R. (2021). Novel MCGDM analysis under m-polar fuzzy soft expert sets. Neural Computing and Applications, 33(18), 12051–12071. https://doi.org/10.1007/S00521-021-05850-W

Penadés-Plà, V., García-Segura, T., Martí, J. V., & Yepes, V. (2016). A review of multi-criteria decision-making methods applied to the sustainable bridge design. Sustainability, 8(12). https://doi.org/10.3390/SU8121295

Podvezko, V. (2011). The comparative analysis of MCDA methods SAW and COPRAS. Engineering Economics, 22(2), 134–146. https://doi.org/10.5755/J01.EE.22.2.310

Fishburn, P. C. (1967). Letter to the Editor—Additive Utilities with Incomplete Product Sets: Application to Priorities and Assignments. Operations Research, 15(3), 537–542. https://doi.org/10.1287/OPRE.15.3.537

Zavadskas, E. K., Turskis, Z., Antucheviciene, J., & Zakarevicius, A. (2012). Optimization of Weighted Aggregated Sum Product Assessment. Elektronika ir Elektrotechnika, 122(6), 3–6. https://doi.org/10.5755/J01.EEE.122.6.1810

Hwang, C.-L., & Yoon, K. (1981). Multiple Attribute Decision Making (Vol. 186). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-48318-9

Mardani, A., Zavadskas, E. K., Govindan, K., Senin, A. A., & Jusoh, A. (2016). VIKOR Technique: A Systematic Review of the State of the Art Literature on Methodologies and Applications. Sustainability, 8(1), 37. https://doi.org/10.3390/SU8010037

Brauers, W. K. M., Ginevičius, R., & Podvezko, V. (2010). Regional development in Lithuania considering multiple objectives by the MOORA method. Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 16(4), 613–640. https://doi.org/10.3846/TEDE.2010.38

Krstić, M., Agnusdei, G. P., Miglietta, P. P., Tadić, S., & Roso, V. (2022). Applicability of Industry 4.0 Technologies in the Reverse Logistics: A Circular Economy Approach Based on COmprehensive Distance Based RAnking (COBRA) Method. Sustainability, 14(9). https://doi.org/10.3390/su14095632

Saaty, R. W. (1987). The analytic hierarchy process—what it is and how it is used. Mathematical Modelling, 9(3–5), 161–176. https://doi.org/10.1016/0270-0255(87)90473-8

Saaty, T. L. (2006). The analytic network process. International Series in Operations Research and Management Science, 95, 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1007/0-387-33987-6_1

Costa, C. A. B. E., & Vansnick, J.-C. (1994). MACBETH — An Interactive Path Towards the Construction of Cardinal Value Functions. International Transactions in Operational Research, 1(4), 489–500. https://doi.org/10.1111/J.1475-3995.1994.00325.X

Pamučar, D., Stević, Ž., & Sremac, S. (2018). A New Model for Determining Weight Coefficients of Criteria in MCDM Models: Full Consistency Method (FUCOM). Symmetry, 10(9), 393. https://doi.org/10.3390/SYM10090393

Mareschal, B. (2005). PROMETHEE methods. International Series in Operations Research and Management Science, 78, 163–195. https://doi.org/10.1007/0-387-23081-5_5

Roy, B. (1968). Classement et choix en présence de points de vue multiples. Revue française d’informatique et de recherche opérationnelle, 2(8), 57–75. https://doi.org/10.1051/RO/196802V100571

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

Hatefi, M. A. (2019). Indifference threshold-based attribute ratio analysis: A method for assigning the weights to the attributes in multiple attribute decision making. Applied Soft Computing, 74, 643–651. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ASOC.2018.10.050

Sarabando, P., & Dias, L. C. (2010). Simple procedures of choice in multicriteria problems without precise information about the alternatives’ values. Computers & Operations Research, 37(12), 2239–2247. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.COR.2010.03.014

Chan, L. K., & Wu, M. L. (2002). Quality function deployment: A comprehensive review of its concepts and methods. Quality Engineering, 15(1), 23–35. https://doi.org/10.1081/QEN-120006708

Hiremani, V., Devadas, R. M., Gujjar, J. P., Johar, S., & Sapna, R. (2024). Ranking of Institutes Using MCDM SAW Method Under Uncertainty. 2024 5th International Conference for Emerging Technology (INCET 2024). https://doi.org/10.1109/INCET61516.2024.10593015

Purohit, N., Srivastava, P., & Pandey, P. (2023). An Integrated Framework of RNN and MCDM SAW Method for Efficient Resource Provisioning in Cloud Computing. *IEEE Region 10 Humanitarian Technology Conference (R10-HTC)*, 30–36. https://doi.org/10.1109/R10-HTC57504.2023.10461779

Biswas, T. K., & Chaki, S. (2022). Applications of Modified Simple Additive Weighting Method in Manufacturing Environment. International Journal of Engineering, Transactions A: Basics, 35(4), 830–836. https://doi.org/10.5829/IJE.2022.35.04A.23

Wang, Y. J. (2020). Combining quality function deployment with simple additive weighting for interval-valued fuzzy multi-criteria decision-making with dependent evaluation criteria. Soft Computing, 24(10), 7757–7767. https://doi.org/10.1007/S00500-019-04394-5

Opricovic, S., & Tzeng, G. H. (2004). Compromise solution by MCDM methods: A comparative analysis of VIKOR and TOPSIS. European Journal of Operational Research, 156(2), 445–455. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0377-2217(03)00020-1

Çalık, A. (2021). A novel Pythagorean fuzzy AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS methodology for green supplier selection in the Industry 4.0 era. Soft Computing, 25(3), 2253–2265. https://doi.org/10.1007/S00500-020-05294-9

Alao, M. A., Popoola, O. M., & Ayodele, T. R. (2021). Selection of waste-to-energy technology for distributed generation using IDOCRIW-Weighted TOPSIS method: A case study of the City of Johannesburg, South Africa. Renewable Energy, 178, 162–183. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.RENENE.2021.06.031

Micale, R., Marannano, G., Giallanza, A., Miglietta, P. P., Agnusdei, G. P., & La Scalia, G. (2019). Sustainable vehicle routing based on firefly algorithm and TOPSIS methodology. Sustainable Futures, 1, 100001. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.SFTR.2019.100001

Zeng, J., Lin, G., & Huang, G. (2021). Evaluation of the cost-effectiveness of Green Infrastructure in climate change scenarios using TOPSIS. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 64, 127287. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.UFUG.2021.127287

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

Purwanto, H., & Susilawati, I. (2024). Web-Based Expert System Chatbot Determines The Best Cheap Camera For New Users Using The Vikor Method. International Journal of Informatics Engineering and Computing, 1(1), 29–39. https://doi.org/10.70687/IJIMATIC.V1.I1.27

Nivedita, Agrawal, S., Sharma, M. K., Rathour, L., & Mishra, V. N. (2024). Type-2 Gaussian neuro-fuzzy VIKOR technique in multi-criteria decision-making for medical diagnostic. Optimization and Computing using Intelligent Data-Driven Approaches for Decision-Making, 128–151. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781003503057-9

Xu, W., Qian, J., Wu, Y., Yan, S., Ni, Y., & Yang, G. (2024). A VIKOR-Based Sequential Three-Way Classification Ranking Method. Algorithms, 17(11), 530. https://doi.org/10.3390/A17110530

Chakraborty, S. (2011). Applications of the MOORA method for decision making in manufacturing environment. International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 54(9–12), 1155–1166. https://doi.org/10.1007/S00170-010-2972-0

Attri, R., & Grover, S. (2014). Decision making over the production system life cycle: MOORA method. International Journal of System Assurance Engineering and Management, 5(3), 320–328. https://doi.org/10.1007/S13198-013-0169-2

Petrov, I. (2021). Renewable energies projects selection: block criteria systematization with AHP and Entropy-MOORA methods in MCDM. E3S Web of Conferences, 327, 02004. https://doi.org/10.1051/E3SCONF/202132702004

Sitorus, Z., Karim, A., Nasyuha, A. H., & Aly, M. H. (2024). Implementation of MOORA and MOORSA Methods in Supporting Computer Lecturer Selection Decisions. Jurnal Infotel, 16(3). https://doi.org/10.20895/INFOTEL.V16I3.1184

Simamora, W. S., Harahap, S. S., Idaman, A., & Simatupang, S. (2024). Analysis of the Multi Objective Optimization by Ratio Analysis (MOORA) Method in Determining Pilot Areas at PT. XYZ. Journal of Computer Networks, Architecture and High Performance Computing, 6(3), 1098–1106. https://doi.org/10.47709/CNAHPC.V6I3.4149

Chakraborty, S., Bhattacharyya, O., Zavadskas, E. K., & Antucheviciene, J. (2015). Application of WASPAS Method as an Optimization Tool in Non-traditional Machining Processes. Information Technology and Control, 44(1), 77–88. https://doi.org/10.5755/J01.ITC.44.1.7124

Ramadani, R., Fadillah, R., & Fitriyani, I. N. (2024). Selection of Head of Study Program using Weighted Aggregated Sum Product Assessment (WASPAS) method. Internet of Things and Artificial Intelligence Journal, 4(3), 481–491. https://doi.org/10.31763/IOTA.V4I3.803

Suendri, & Wardani, A. (2024). Implementation of the WASPAS Method in Selection Librarian FST UIN Sumatera Utara. Jurnal Sistem Cerdas, 7(1), 38–44. https://doi.org/10.37396/JSC.V7I1.385

Wayahdi, M. R., & Ruziq, F. (2024). Designing an Used Goods Donation System to Reduce Waste Accumulation Using the WASPAS Method. Sinkron: Jurnal dan Penelitian Teknik Informatika, 8(4), 2325–2334. https://doi.org/10.33395/SINKRON.V8I4.14115

Popović, G., Pucar, Đ., & Smarandache, F. (2022). MEREC-COBRA approach in e-commerce development strategy selection. Journal of Process Management and New Technologies, 10(3–4), 66–74. https://doi.org/10.5937/JOUPROMAN2203066P

Razak, S. A., Rodzi, Z. M., Al-Sharqi, F., & Ramli, N. (2025). Revolutionizing Decision-Making in E-Commerce and IT Procurement: An IVPNS-COBRA Linguistic Variable Framework for Enhanced Multi-Criteria Analysis. International Journal of Economic Sciences, 14(1), 1–31. https://doi.org/10.31181/IJES1412025176