Abstract- The purpose of paper is to develop a benchmarking framework that incorporates multi- criteria of water

supply system. A decision making process requires the values of conflicting objectives for alternatives and the selection of

the best alternative according to the needs of decision makers. Multi-criteria decision making tool provides selection of the

best option for achieving the objectives. MCDM has open and explicit advantage. In this paper it is aimed to present the

benchmarking framework based on MOORA (Multi-objective Optimization On The Basis Of Ratio Analysis) and new

hybrid multi-criteria decision making DEMATEL- MAIRCA model on selection of best alternative among the twelve states

of India, one hundred fifty nine cities of twelve states (1A cities), five hundred fifty three BIMARU cities and eight one

municipal corporations with respect to nine criteria. The novelty of this paper is the application of MOORA and DEMATEL-

MARICA methods for the first time in solving the problem of water supply system.

Keyword: MCDM, 1Acities, MOORA, DEMATEL-MARICA method, Benchmarking

Introduction- Water is at the center of economic and social development; it is vital to maintain health,
grow food, manage the environment, and create jobs. Despite water’s importance, over 663 million
people in the world still lack access to improved drinking water sources (World Bank overview 2017).
Exponential growth of population, industrialization and urbanization has resulted in progressive decline
in the per capita availability of water in Indian cities. In India, water supply to the consumer is
inadequate, intermittent, generally for low duration and of poor quality. Considering the growing water
scarcity and poor services to the consumers, Indian urban water utilities need to instill efficient practices
for sustainable water supply services to the consumers (Singh et al 2011). Water is a cross-cutting issue
that is of critical importance if India is to make progress on major development challenges, including
food security, rapid urbanization, sustainable rural development, disaster risk management, adaptation to
climate change, equitable allocation of natural resources, and economic cooperation with its neighbors
in the region. Most cities in India are water stressed, with no city having 24/7 water supply. According
to the Ministry of Urban Development (MoUD), 182 cities require immediate attention in regards to
proper water and wastewater management. Moreover, in cities with more than one million people, the
official water supply after 35% loss in leakages is just 125 liters/day per capita which is considerably
lower than the demand of 210 litres /day per capita. According to recent calculations, rising demands
due to increasing population and economic growth may result in about half the demand for water being
unmet by 2030. Not to forget the existence of areas with acute water shortage and problems of poor
quality. There are inefficiencies in supply of water and one of the standard criteria of inefficiency is
water supply and second level is quality and staffing. According to survey of Asian Development Bank
(1997), No major Indian city has a 24 hour supply of water, with 4 to 5 hours of supply per day being
the norm. This compares to the Asian-Pacific average of 19 hours per day supply. In a survey of Delhi
households with in-house connections, Zérah (2000) finds that 40% had 24 hour supply of water, while
more than 25% had under 4hours a day of service. McIntosh (2003) notes that consumers without 24-
hour supply tend to use more water than those with continuous supply because consumers store water,
which they then throw away to replace with fresh supplies each day. Benchmarking and book of water
utilities in India (2007) provides information on selected water utilities (twenty water utilities) of India
shows supply and coverage of water is not up to the demand. Towards the path of sustainable
development evaluation of existing performance is important. Benchmarking techniques should always
be aimed at continuous improvement. As a matter of fact, benchmarking fits especially well in the
PDCA (Plan, Do, Check, Act) concept and should always be approached with those four stages in mind.
As a natural consequence, benchmarking should derive in any organization in a natural tendency
towards continuous improvement. However benchmarking is anything but a “do it yourself” concept.
The search for leading practices implies that lessons need to be learnt from others2, hopefully from the
best in class. But as much as benchmarking is about looking outside, it is also an exercise of looking
within and learning how things are done internally. It is only from that inner knowledge and the
understanding of how others (the best) do things, that improvement can be achieved (Alegre et al 2016).
Benchmarking as important tool of management was first time applied in company XEROX in 1979.
From this time method of benchmarking started to apply in different regions and in different levels
(Tothova et al 2006). The basic concept of benchmarking is the process of improving, measuring the
performance of services, products etc. through the continuous identification, understanding and
comparison. There are two kinds of improvement opportunities continuous and dramatic. Continuous
improvement is incremental, involving only small adjustments to reap sizeable advances. Dramatic
improvement can only come about through reengineering the whole internal work process. It will point
out what changes will make the most difference, but it’s up to individual to actually put them in place.
Benchmarking has some key benefits like helping firms more efficient and upgraded, improving cost
structure and internal process, encouragement to team building and cooperation in the interest of
becoming the more competitive, enhancing familiarity with key performance metrics and opportunities
for improvement. A trifling effort towards benchmarking of water supply system would help in the way
of sustainable performance. Over the past two decades benchmarking in the water sector has been
facilitated by different actors including: (a) utility associations in several different countries and regions,
mainly for comparative assessments and process benchmarking; (b) national governments for improved
information systems that can then be used for performance-based sector funding and process
benchmarking; and c) for regulation – by regulators as well as through performance-based contracts
(Mehta et al 2013).

Based on the results of performance benchmarking, rational decisions for effective utility management can be taken

(Haider et al 2016).

However, several benchmarking initiatives, criteria considered and MCDM methods have been given in table (1)

here some studies used MCDM methods or group decision- making on water resource management method.

Enrollment in local colleges, 2005

Authors/Year objective Method Criteria

Tkach & Simonovic Spatial Spatial Compromise Flood Water Depth,

(1997) comparison Programming Building Damage and
of floodplain Benefit from Flooding
management Upstream Areas.
alternatives
in a raster
GIS
environment.
Abrishamachi & Ebrahimian Application Compromise Total cost, public
(2005) MCDM to Programming (CP) appraisal , political
make Urban impact, quality of water
Water Supply health impact,
flexibility, water
demand control, time of
water shortage,
population impact

Chung & Lee Prioritization Analytic Hierarchy Driver, Pressure, State,

(2009) of water Process (AHP) Impact, and Response.
 management Sub criteria were
defined in two classes:
water quantity and water
quality

Yilmaz & Harmancioglu Water Simple Additive Agricultural

(2010) resource Weighting (SAW), Sustainability Index,
management Compromise Environmental
Programming Sustainability Index,
(CP) and Technique for Water Exploitation Rate,
Order Preference by Yield Reliability,
Similarity to Irrigation Water Deficit,
Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) Domestic Supply
‘Elimination Reliability, Benefit /
Et Choice Translating Cost Ratio, Irrigation
Reality’ (ELECTRE) Water Use Efficiency
and Preference and Total Production
Ranking Organization Value
Method for Enrichment
Evaluation
(PROMETHEE)

Garfí & Ferrer-Martí Water and Do not use Technical (e.g. local
(2011 ) sanitation resources use,
projects appropriate
evaluation management); social
(e.g. local community
participation,
overcoming
discrimination of
conflict); economic (e.g.
low cost, employment of
local staff) and
environmental criteria
(e.g. atmospheric
emissions, water
pollution).

They selected two main

Garfí et al. Environmental AHP criteria: (1) General
(2011) assessment of criteria for human
water development projects
programmes (technical, social,
environmental and
 economic criteria - 11
sub criteria) and (2)
Technical water supply
criteria (12 sub criteria).

They segregated into3

Singh & Mittal Benchmarking Data Envelopment classes, (1) social
(2011) of North Analysis (DEA) (Service sufficiency,
Indian Service reliability)
urban water (2) Financial (Staff
utilities rationalization, Business
viability)
(3)
Environmental(Resource
conservation)

Amount of water loss,

Implementation cost,
Fontana & Morais Network PROMETHEE V Maintenance cost,
(2013) rehabilitation Runtime, and Reliability
time.

Five criteria: Driver,

Pressure, State, Impact,
Prioritizing and Response. Sub
the best Fuzzy TOPSIS criteria were defined in
Kim et al. (2013) two classes: water
sites for quantity and water
treated quality
wastewater
instream.
Reliability of water
Robust Decision Making supply service,
Water (RDM) and Info-Gap Reservoir storage
Matrosov et al. resources Decision Theory (IGDT) susceptibility,
(2013) planning Environmental
performance, Energy
consumption, and Total
costs.
 Reliability,
Intergenerational equity,
Multi-attribute value and Cost
Scholten et al. (2014) model (MAVM)
Network Human population
rehabilitation growth, Weak
Azarnivand & Chitsaz AHP, eDPSIR and enforcement of law and
(2015) DEMATEL legislation, Erosion,
Water Declining available
shortage freshwater resources,
mitigation Desertification and sand
and dust storms,
Salinization, Operational
feasibility, and Multi-
objectivity

They divided into three

section(1)
AHP, SAW and Novel Economical criteria
Sikder& Salehin Approach to Imprecise (implementation cost,
(2015) MCDM for Assessment and operation and
rural water Decision maintenance cost,
supply Environments(NAIADE) economic impact), (2)
Technical criteria
( water availability,
water quality, cyclone
resistance) and(3)Social
(social acceptance)

Amount of economies
(number), Type of
SMARTER economies, Water
Fontana & Morais consumed, and Price
(2015) Network tax.
segmentation

Five fundamental
Multi-attribute utility objectives:
Scholten et al. theory Intergenerational equity,
(2015) Water supply (MAUT) Resources and
infrastructure groundwater protection,
planning Water supply, Social
acceptance, and Costs

Fontana & Morais SMARTER and Integer Implementation cost,

(2016) linear programming Efficiency, Runtime,
 Water loss (ILP) Potential reduction in
control wastewater, Skilled
labour to implement,
and Lifetime.

Costs, Water stress, and

Kumar et al. ELECTRE-III Environmental impact
(2016)
Water Water resources and
allocation environmental
TOPSIS sustainability index
Haider et al. (WEI), Personnel
(2016) Benchmarking adequacy index (PEI),
model for Physical assets efficacy
small to index (PHI), Operational
medium sized integrity index (OPI),
water utilities Water quality and public
health safety index
(WPI)

System Average
Interruption Frequency
Voting procedure Index, Reliability,
Almeida-Filho et al. Availability, and Cost
(2017) Network per cycle.
maintenance

Implementation cost,
Number of segments
Fontana & Morais PROMETHEE GDSS generated, Water
(2017) consumed, Difficulty
Network level in implementing
segmentation and maintaining,
Change in network
pressure and/or water
flow, Type of
economies, and
Infrastructure impact.

Pressure, Number of
users, Number of supply
Ilaya-Ayza et al. AHP and ILP hours, and Ease of
(2017) operation of the sectors.
Water supply
schedule
 Technical, Social and
Environment
Scholten et al. MAVT and Integrated
(2017) Assessment model
Comparison
of MCDA Non-economic
(operation risk,
operation time,
infrastructure setup&
AHP and MAUT socio-environment
Daza et al. criteria and economic
(2019) MCDM for
selection of
new water
supply
infrastructure
Graduate
ce: Fictitious data, for illustration purposes only

Multiple criteria decision analysis (MCDA) or multiple criteria decision making (MCDM) is a auxiliary branch of

management science or operation research that clearly assesses the pertaining criteria in a decision making processes. The

MCDM method early roots can be traced from Benjamin Franklin who allegedly had a simple paper system for deciding

significant issues. On one side write the points in favor and on other side points in against strike out the points on both side of

paper which are in favor of argument when all the points are struck out whatever remaining points should be considered and

supported. Apparently Franklin used this method in making out important points or decisions. MCDA has been seen an

incredible amount of use over last several decades. Its role in different application areas has increased significantly,

especially as new methods develop and as old methods improve. To manage growing public concerns, conflicting views, and

to ensure transparency as well as develop appropriate attributes of different criteria, MCDM, nowadays, is a widely used a

tool deal with environmental decision making (Mustajoki et al.2004). Huang et al.( 2011) showed a steady annual 7.5%

growth of MCDM papers in environmental publications between 1990 to 2009. Recently, the development of hybrid and

modular methods is becoming increasingly important. They are based on previously developed well-known methods, such as

TOPSIS (Hwang & Yoon, 1981), SAW (MacCrimmon & Rand, 1968), AHP (Saaty, 1971, 1988), ANP (Saaty, 1996), Vise
Kriterijumska Optimizacija I Kompromisno Resenje (VIKOR; Opricovic, 1998; Opricovic & Tzeng, 2002), decision making

trial and evaluation laboratory (DEMATEL; Fontela & Gabus, 1976), DEA (Charnes, 1994; Charnes, Cooper, & Rhodes,

1978), preference ranking organization method for enrichment evaluations (PROMETHEE; Mareschal, Brans, & Vincke,

1984), ELECTRE (Roy, 1968, 1971, 1978; Roy) and their modification, by applying fuzzy and grey number theory (Mardani

et al.2015).

MCDM is a practical and useful tool for solving real-life problem which often involve several conflicting criteria. In order to

choose appropriate tool and use it efficiently, Stewart (1992)suggested considering three facts (1) clear and meaningful input

to the decision model , (2)t transparency of the process and consistent translation from the input to the decision model, and

(3) simple and efficient model. MCDA is structured approach for measuring the performance of alternative that are based on

multiple attributes that are based on multiple attributes.( Hajkowicz et al. 2007) . The different methods that falls within this

catergory can support the decision analysis process for issues in which more than one criteria – also known as attribute – is

simultaneously evaluated (Lai et al. 2008).The decision analysis tools enables the inclusion of relative importance

implemented against the selected criteria (Castillo et al.2006). These methods have the potential impact of improving

transparency, audit ability and analytical rigor of decision –making processes in complex contexts. (Roy et al.2005). MCDM

techniques classified in three categories: value measurement models, goal reference models, outranking models. There has

been dramatic increase in the successful application of these techniques in engineering , technology ,management and

business , social science and economics etc. since 2000 to 2014 whereas energy, environment and sustainability were

ranked as the first areas that have applied MCDM techniques and approaches.( Mardani et al 2015) .

The combination of two or more methods of MCDM is the newest trend where shortcomings in any single particular

method are make-up and by combination a new-fangled method evolved which expands the theoretical framework of

expertise in the field of a MCDM. This makes possible the analysis of practical problems with new approach and creates a

basis for further theoretical and practical upgrade.

 In this study two MCDM methods –MOORA (multi-objective optimization on the basis of ratio analysis) and new hybrid

multi-criteria decision making DEMATEL- MAIRCA , were used to see how the results sundry and understand the impact of

using different methods. This study used the two methods to identify the best state, city, Municipal Corporation and cities of

BIMARU states on the ground nine criteria, this paper put forward new evince of how two different methods can be used to

identify best attribute among nine criteria. The use of such new method and hybrid method will not only increase the

application but also give result which are free from non-dominate solution, uncertainty, and will also ensure transparency,

implications of different weight and scores assigned to criteria and alternative. This is probably the first time where the

MOORA and DEMATEL- MAIRCA used in water supply benchmarking. A small table (2) is given which distributes the

techniques and approaches of MOORA and DEMATEL –MARICA, MCDM.

Enrollment in local colleges, 2005

Authors Year Tools and approaches

Brauers & Zavadskas 2006 Proposed MOORA for
transition of economy

Brauers, Zavadskas et al. 2008 Applied MOORA for

evaluation of road
design
2008
Brauers, Zavadskas et al. Applied MOORA for
best performing
contractor

Brauers & Ginevičius Applied MOORA for

2009 robustness in different
regions of Lithuania

Brauers, et al. 2012 Building elements

selection by using
MULTIMOORA and
MOORA

Used MOORA for

Brauers 2013 selection of the best
location of seaport
Brauers et al. 2013
Assessment of
construction sector
based on
macroeconomic view by
using MULTIMOORA
 Location of seaport by
Prof. causa et al. 2014 MOORA optimization.

An Integrated Fuzzy
Akkaya et al. 2015 AHP and Fuzzy
MOORA Approach to
the Problem of
Industrial Engineering
Sector Choosing.

Kecek et al. 2016 A Comparative Analysis

of TOPSIS and
MOORA in Laptop
Selection.

Application of MOORA
method for Multi-
criteria – Inventory
Method.
Dhar et al. 2017

Nayakappa et al. 2019 MOORA and SWARA

collective MCDM
approach for
Smartphone Selection.

Analysed performance
Hu et al. 2009 in computer industry by
Using DEMATEL.

Assessed performance
Ho et al. 2012 of supplier quality by
implementing
DEMATEL.
Bai & Sarkis 2013 Assessment of business
process management by
utilizing DEMATEL.
Li et al 2014 Ranking of CSFs of
emergency management
by using DEMATEL.

Mentes et al 2015 A FSA based fuzzy

DEMATEL approach
for risk assessment.

Ali et al. 2016 Modeling for casual

interrelationships by
DEMATEL.

Seker et al. 2017 Application of fuzzy

DEMATEL for
analyzing occupational
risk on construction site.

Sheng-Li Si et al. 2018 DEMATEL Technique:

A Systematic Review of
the State-of-the-Art
Literature on
Methodologies and
Applications.

Abdullah et al. 2019 An interval-valued

intuitionistic fuzzy
DEMATEL method
combined with Choquet
integral for sustainable
solid waste management

Source: Fictitious data, for illustration purposes o

5.1MOORA (Multi-objective Optimization On The Basis Of Ratio Analysis)

MCDM method has evolved to acclimatize with number of application in various disciplines. It is essential to use multi-

criteria decision making (MCDM) method to evaluate human judgments, for decision problems requiring the measuring of
tangible and intangible criteria.( Alsheri et al. 2018). As it is evaluates multiple criteria, indicator both quantitative and

qualitative therefore widely utilized by many scientists and researchers in numerous fields, especially in complex engineering

problems. Even small improvisation in existing method or amalgamation of two different methods creates new method

generally called hybrid multi-criteria decision making method (HMCDM). In this paper we applied one HMCDM and one

MCDM to find out top rankings cities with respect to nine criteria. These two methods are probably first time used in water

resources management decision making problems and environmental planning and management. It is not very easy for

researcher in multi-objective decision support system the choices among the various method is not very easy. Therefore

numerous theories were developed since the forerunners: Condorcet (the Condorcet Paradox, against binary comparisons,

1785, LVIII), Gossen (law of decreasing marginal utility, 1853), Minkowski (Reference Point, 1896, 1911) and Pareto

(Pareto Optimum and Indifference Curves analysis 1906, 1927) and pioneers like Kendall (ordinal scales, since 1948), Roy et

al. (ELECTRE, since 1966), Miller and Starr (multiplicative form for multiple objectives, 1969), Hwang and Yoon (TOPSIS,

1981) and Saaty (AHP, since 1988),(Brauers ,2010). A succinct narration of the applied method is mentioned below

MOORA is relatively new method first introduced by Brauers (2004) in multi-criteria retrieval. It is widely applied in areas

such as management, construction, road design and the economy because of its good selectivity level as it can find out the

purpose of conflicting criteria which can be beneficial. In a real-time manufacturing environment, different decision makers

with varying interests and values, make a decision-making process much more difficult. In a decision-making problem, the

objectives (attributes) must be measureable and their outcomes can be measured for every decision alternative. Objective

outcomes provide the basis of comparison of choices and consequently facilitate the selection of the best (satisfactory)

choice. Therefore, multi-objective optimization techniques seem to be an appropriate tool for ranking or selecting one or

more alternatives from a set of available options based on multiple, usually conflicting attributes (Chakraborty, 2011).

MOORA has some new approaches like superior stage of selectivity in determining the alternatives and simultaneously
optimize two more conflicting criteria. It has ease of understanding in separating portion of an evaluation process into the

decision making criteria with some attributes. Solving steps are as follows:

Create the decision matrix, x

Normalization of the matrix, xij

Determine positive and negative effects

Determine weighted assessment values, WjXij

Select the top ranked alternative, yi

Figure1. Phases of MOORA

 Matrix formation

 x11 x12 .. x1n 

 
x   x21 x22 .. x2 n 
x xmn 
 m1 xm 2 .. 

x is the criterion value of each that is represented as a matrix

a. Determining the normalization matrix

xij
xij 
m

x
j 1
2
ij

The Xij ratio shows the ith size of the alternative on the criterion to j, m and then denotes the number of

alternate and n denotes the number of criteria. Brauers concluded that the denominator is the best choice

of the square root of the sum of square of each alternative per criterion , it goes for a ratio system in

which each response of an alternative on an objective is compared to a denominator, which is

representative for all alternatives concerning that objective. For this denominator the square root of the

sum of squares of each alternative per objective is chosen, proved that this is the most robust choice.

(Brauers et al. 2006).

 b. Determining the weight normalization matrix

WjXij

In some cases , it is often observed that some criteria are more important than other. To indicate that a

criterion is more important, it can be multiplied by an appropriate (Brauers et al. 2006). Where Wj is

the weight of the jth criterion

c. Determining the preference value

g
yi = ∑j=1 wj xij − ∑nj=g+1 wj xij

In the term of multi -objective optimization, the results of normalization is the summation in terms of

maximization is the summation in terms of maximization (from favourable attributes) and reduction in

terms of minimization (from unfavourable attributes) where g is the number of attributes that will be

maximized, yi is the value of the normalized normalization assessment against all the criteria. The yi

value can be positive or negative depending on the maximum number (benefit criteria) and minimal

(unfavourable or cost criteria) in the decision matrix. A privilege yi shows the final preference. Thus, the

best alternative has the highest yi value, while the worst alternative has the lowest yi value.

DEMATEL- MAIRCA model

This is hybrid method developed from of two methods DEAMTEL and MARICA at the Center Of

Logistics Research Of Defense University in Belgrade. The DEMATEL (Decision-Making Trial and

Evaluation Laboratory). A modified fuzzy DEMATEL method was used in evaluation process and

criteria for determining weight coefficients. (Pamucar et al. 2014)After determining weight criteria using

another method MARICA (Multi- Attribute Real Ideal Comparative Analysis) it calculate value of

criterion function after the performance of criterion function ,ranking of the alternatives and selection of

optimal alternative is done. There are two phases of hybrid DEMATEL-MAIRCA model
 Identification of the criteria and calculation of their weight

Gather the opinion of experts and calculate the average matrix Z

Phase I of the DEMATEL method

Calculate the normalized initial decision matrix D

Derive the total relation matrix T

Calculate the sums of the rows and columns of matrix T

Determine the weight coefficients of the criteria

Normalization of the weight coefficient of the criteria

Formation of the initial decision matrix (Evaluation of the alternatives by criteria)

Evaluation and Selection of the Optimal Alternative

Definition of preference for alternatives (PAI)

Phase II of the MATRCA method

Calculation of the elements of theoretical ring matrix (Tp )

Calculation of the elements of real ring matrix (Tr )

Calculation of the elements of total gap matrix (G )

Definition of the total gap by alternatives (QI)

Calculation of the value of criteria functions and ranking the alternatives

The selection of the optimal alternatives

Figure2. Phases of the hybrid DMAT EL –MAIRCA model. Source: ( Pamucar et al. 2018)
6. Combination of DEMATEL- MAIRCA model

DEMATEL is a sophisticated method for establishing a structural model involving causal relationships among complex

factors (Gabus & Fontela, 1972, 1973). DEMATEL was developed by the science and human affairs program of the Battelle

Memorial Institute of Geneva between 1972and 1976 and it was used to solve the complicated and intertwined problem

group (Amiri et al.2011). The main objective of this study is nominating MCDM method for solving complicated issues and

for evaluating, comparing and improving the effectiveness of every system factors by dividing all factors into cause and

effect group (Falatoonitoosi et al 2013). The procedure of the DEMATEL is given below:

a. Initial direct- influenced matrix

This is also called average matrix here n is the criteria, H is experts. Each experts answer the certain questions to point up the

degree of a criterion i effect criterion j according their knowledge, a ij signify pair wise comparison between two criteria and

assigned integer score from 0 to 4. The scores given by each experts and X1, X2…XH are answers each of them to make

n×n matrix Xk = [xijk]n×n , with 1<k<H. A high score indicates a belief that greater improvement in i is required to improve j.

Then it’s possible to calculate the n×n average matrix A on account of all expert’s opinions by averaging the H their scores

(Falatoonitoosi et al 2013).
 b. Normalization of initial direct matrix

Average matrix is normalized in the above equation

c. Total –Relation matrix

The total relation matrix T n×n is achieved in above mentioned equation

In order to determine criterion weight a mathematical formulation is set up known as MAIRCA model. Basically its is set up

to define gap between ideal and empirical ratings. Total gap is observed by summing of each criterion of each alternative.

Ranking is obtained at the end of process where top ranked or best ranked have low gap value and alternative of lowest gap

value is the alternative by most of the criteria, with values of nearest to the ideal ratings (the ideal criteria value). The

MAIRCA method is six conceded in six steps:

i) Initial Ideal Decision Matrix (X

C1 C2 ... Cn

A1  x11 x12 ... x1n 

A2 x x22 ... x2 n 
 21
X = ...  ... ... ... ... 
 
An  xm1 xm 2 ... xmn 

The criteria of above matrix can be quantitative and qualitative. The quantitative criteria are obtained by quantification of real

indicator which presents the criteria whereas qualitative criteria values determined by decision maker’s or experts preferences

or in case of large number of experts by aggregating the expert’s judgment.

 ii) Decision Making Analysis

1
𝑃𝐴𝑖 = ; ∑m
i=1 PAi = 1 , 𝑖 = 1,2 … . 𝑚
𝑚

Here PAi is the preference of the choice of alternative and m is the total number alternative being selected. In this step it

is assumed that decision maker’s is neutral and does not any preference for any particular alternative. So in this step we

proceed from the point that DM is neutral and preferences for selection of individual are equal P A1=PA2=…PAM (m is the

total number alternative).

iii) Calculation of The Element Of (Tp) Matrix

w1 w2 ... wn
PA1  t p11 t p12 ... t p1n 
PA t t p 22 ... t p 2 n 
TP  2  p 21
...  ... ... ... ... 
 
PAm t p m1 t pm 2 ... t p mn 

w1 w2 ... wn
PA1  PA1 .w1 PA1 .w2 ... PA1 .wn 
PA2  P .w P .w ... PA2 .wn 
...
 A2 1 A2 2
 ... ... ... ... 
PAm  
 PAm .w1 PAm .w2 ... PAm .wn 
The (Tp) matrix is represented by n×m (where n is the total number of criteria, m is the total number of alternatives). The (tpij)

are calculated as a product of preferences for the selection of alternatives PAi and criterion weights (wi =1,2,…n). As the DM

is neutral towards the initial alternative selection, the preferences (PAi ) are the same for all alternatives. As the preferences

(PAi ) are the same for all alternatives, we can also present above matrix in the format n x 1 (where n is the total number of

criteria)

Tp=PAI [w1, w2…wn] = PAI [w1, w2… wn ]

tp1, tp2…tpn P AI. w1, PAI.. w2… PAn.. wn

Where n is the total number of criteria and tpi theoretical rating

iv) Description Of The Elements Of Real Ratings Matrix (Tr).

C1 C2 … Cn
A1  t r1 1 t r1 2 ... t r1n 
 ... t r2 n 
A2  t r2 1 t r2 2
Tr 
...  ... ... ... ... 
 
Am t rm1 t rm 2 ... t rmn 

Here, the elements of the theoretical ratings matrix (Tp) are multiplied by the elements of the initial decision making matrix

(X) represents the total number of criteria, and m the

total number of alternatives. To calculate (Tr) the elements of the theoretical ratings matrix (Tp) are multiplied by the

elements of the initial decision making matrix (X) using two following formula:

a) For the benefit type criteria (chosen higher criteria value):

 𝑥𝑖𝑗 − 𝑥𝑖−
𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑗 = 𝑡𝑝𝑖𝑗 . (𝑥 + − 𝑥 − )
𝑖 𝑖

b) For the cost type criteria (chosen lower criteria value):

𝑥𝑖𝑗 − 𝑥𝑖+
𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑗 = 𝑡𝑝𝑖𝑗 . (𝑥 − − 𝑥 + )
𝑖 𝑖

Where xIJ, x+i and x-i denotes the elements of the initial decision-making matrix (X), x+I is the maximum value of the

alternative and x-I is the minimum value of the alternative.

v) The Gap Matrix ( G )

 g11 g12 ... g1n 

g g 22 ... g 2 n 
G  Tp  Tr  
21

 ... ... ... ... 

 
 g m1 gm2 ... g mn 

 t p  t r11 t p12  t r12 ... t p  t r1n 

 11 
1n

 t p 21  t r21 t p  t r22 ... t p  tr2 n 


... 
22 2n

... ... ...

 
t p m1  t rm 2 tp
m2
 t rm 3 ... t p  trmn 
mn 
The gap matrix is calculated by difference between theoretical (Tp ) and real rating matrix(Tr) . The gap g ij dervies the value

from given below expression :

gij= tpij - trij

vi) Summing Up Criteria Value (Qi)

Qi = ∑nj=i gij i=1, 2…m

The values of criteria function (Qi) is calculated by summing of the element of matrix (G). Here n is the total number of

criteria, and m is the total number of the alternatives being chosen.

7. Function of MCDM Methods

The analysis was carried out using the above discussed two methods in which second method is hybrid method. In the both

method’s steps are not complex so it is easily understandable and does not require software package. They are performed

using Microsoft Excel program. The selection of the final result does not take too much time. The MOORA method is multi-

objective effectively applied in complex decision making problems; there is no limit with reference to the criteria and

alternatives of the problem and addition of the extra parameter.

The HMCDM (hybrid multi-criteria decision making) DEMATEL-MARICA method here expert’s opinion is considered for

assigning weight of the criteria. The response shows that technical criteria are considered more important than social and

economic. The data for analysis has been taken from the report of Service Level in Urban Water and Sanitation Sector –

Status Report (2010-2011). The report is brought up by the Ministry Of Urban Development first time, the data consisting

service level standard consists of fourteen hundred municipalities of various states of India. From which water supply data is

taken
 Criteri Description

C1 Coverage Connections

C2 Per capita Supply

C3 Metering of Connections

C4 Non-Revenue Water

C5 Continuity of Supply

C6 Quality & Treatment

C7 Redressal of Customer Complaints

C8 Cost Recovery

C9 Efficiency in collection charges

Table1: Nine criteria

RANKING OF ALTERNATIVES FROM TWO MCDM METHODS

1.MOORA 2.Hybrid DEMATEL- RANKING

MARICA MODEL
 Kerala Andhra Pradesh 1

Himachal Pradesh Bihar 2

Gujarat Chhattisgarh 3

STATES Uttar Pradesh Gujarat 4

Maharashtra Himachal Pradesh 5

Andhra Pradesh Karnataka 6

Karnataka Kerala 7

Rajasthan Madhya Pradesh 8

Orissa Maharashtra 9

Madhya Pradesh Orissa 10

Table 2: Ranking of states alternatives

RANKING OF ALTERNATIVES FROM TWO MCDM METHODS

1.MOORA 2.Hybrid DEMATEL- RANKING

MARICA MODEL

Navi Mumbai Katihar 1

Mira Bhayander Darbhanga 2

Mumbai Bhagalpur 3

MUNICIPAL Pune Begusarai 4

CORPATIONS Kalian dombivli Arah 5

Kolhapur Thrissur 6

Mysore Korba 7
 Nashlk Durg 8

Visakhapatnam Ramagundam 9

Pimpri-chinchwad Muzaffarpur 10

Table 3: Ranking of municipal corporations alternatives

RANKING OF ALTERNATIVES FROM TWO MCDM METHODS

1.MOORA 2.Hybrid DEMATEL- RANKING

MARICA MODEL

Hamirpur Konch 1

Chhibraman Arwal 2

Jasavantnagar Barh 3

BIMARU CITIES Chitrakutdham Karvi Hilsa 4

Fatehpur Jabalpur 5

Kannauj Jamui 6

Kakrala Khagaria 7

Mugrabadshahpur Narkatiaganj 8

Mawana Raxaul Bazar 9

Jhansi Seikhpura 10

Table 4: Ranking of bimaru cities alternatives

RANKING OF ALTERNATIVES FROM TWO MCDM METHODS

1.MOORA 2.Hybrid DEMATEL- RANKING

 MARICA MODEL

S Koshikalan 1

Dandeli Gurusarai 2

Islampur Koilandy 3

1 A CITIES Navi Mumbai Bijuri 4

Vegurle Dahegam 5

Morshi Payannur 6

Sawantwad Konch 7

Narasaraopeta Malajkhad 8

Bhavnagar Dadri 9

Ambernath Kotpad 10

Table 4: Ranking of 1A cities alternatives

9. Result and Discussion

The ranking of the four sets of alternatives by applying nine criteria (mentioned in table 1) are given in below in table 2,3,4

and 5. For MOORA ranking is obtained by the summation of the values of weighted normalization matrix and in

DEMATEL-MARICA method ranking is obtained by the summation of the gap matrix. In order to check out the effect of the

criteria sensitivity analysis is carried out for the MCDM methods and results show that ranking was different it is so because

in second method expert opinion is considered for weight of criteria where technical criteria are given much preference

compare to social and economic, which implies that if social and economic criteria were elevated then ranking could

changed.
The study shows the huge comparison between the results of two different MCDM methods. Here weak alternative is ranked

high. The imperative point is the role of criteria (technical, social and economical) in the selection of the best alternative and

selection of the apposite MCDM method in the decision making process. The expert’s opinion should observed and

incorporated properly in the weighing the criteria ,if any contributing entity is left then results may change drastically. For

example, in table 1Bihar is ranked second in the ranking of the states because of its technical criteria is good and in table 2

and 4 Navi Mumbai is ranked first and fourth in ranking. Therefore choosing a suitable MCDM method and understanding

the effect and function of criteria will be beneficial in finding the best alternative and solving the similar problems in water

supply area ranking is requisite.

References

Mustajoki, J., Hämäläinen, R. P. & Marttunen,M. (2004). Participatory multicriteria decision analysis with Web-HIPRE: a

case of lake regulation policy. Environmental Modelling & Software.

Stewart, T. J. (1992). A critical survey on the status of multiple criteria decision making theory and practice. Omega 20(5),

569–586.

Huang, I. B., Keisler, J. & Linkov, I. (2011). Multi-criteria decision analysis in environmental sciences: ten years of

applications and trends. Science of the Total Environment 409(19), 3578–3594.

Hajkowicz, S.; Collins, K. (2007) A review of multiple criteria analysis for water resource planning and management. Water

Resource . Manag.
Lai, E .; Lundie, S.; Ashbolt, (2008) N.J. Review of multi-criteria decision aid for integrated sustainability assessment of

urban water systems. Urban Water J.

Castillo,M. Toma de Decisiones en las Empresas(2006): Entre el arte y la Técnica; Ediciones Uniandes: Bogotá, Colombia,.

Roy, B .Paradigms and challenges. In Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis: State of the Art Surveys; Figueira, J.,

Greco, S., Ehrgott, M., Eds.; Springer Science + Business Media, Inc.: Boston, MA, USA, 2005; pp. 19–39.

ISBN 978-0-387-23067-2.

Mardani, A., Jusoh, A. & Zavadskas, E. K. (2015). Fuzzy multiple criteria decision-making techniques and applications–

twodecades review from 1994 to 2014. Expert Systems with Applications 42(8), 4126–4148.

doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2015.01.003.

Asian Development Bank (ADB) (1997). Second water utilities data book: Asian and pacific region, edited by Arthur C.

McIntosh and Cesar E. Yñiguez. Asian Development Bank: Manila

Zérah, Marie-Hélène (2000) Water: Unreliable Supply in Delhi. Manohar, Centre de Sciences Humaines, Delhi.

McIntosh, Arthur C. (2003) Asian Water Supplies: Reaching the urban poor, Asian development bank and IWA publishing:

London.

Asian Deveploment Bank, (2007) Benchmarking and data book of water utilities in India.
Ministry of urban development, (2010-2011) Service Level in urban water and sanitation sector – status report

Alsheri. (2018). Multicriteria decision making (MCDM) methods for ranking estimation techniques in extreme programming.

Engineering,Technology &Applied Science Research.

W. K. M. Brauers and E. K. Zavadskas (2006) The MOORA method and its application to privatization in a transition

economy by A new method : the MOORA method, vol. 35, no. 2.

Pamcuar,Vasin and Lukovac. (2014).“ Selection of railway level crossings for investing in security equipment using hybrid

dematel-marica model. Scitinfic –expert conference on railwa , RAILCON’14.

Pamucar, Pejcic Tarle an Parezanovic. (2018).New hybrid multi-criteria decision-making DEMATEL-MAIRCA model:

sustainable selection of a location for the development of multimodal logistics centre. Economic Research-Ekonomska

IstraZivanja, 2018,VOL. 31, NO. 1,1641–1665, https://doi.org/10.1080/1331677X.2018.1506706.

Gabus, A . and E. Fontela,1972. World Problems an Invitation to Further Thought within the Framework of DEMATEL.

Battelle Geneva Research Centre, Switzerland, Geneva.

Gabus, A. and E. Fontela, 1973. Perceptions of the World Problematique: Communication Procedure,

Communicating with thos Bearing Collective Responsibility.

Amiri, M., S.S. Jamshid, P. Nafiseh and S. Mahdi,(2011). Developing a DEMATEL method to prioritize distribution centers

in supply chain. Manage. Sci. Lett., 10(3-4): 279-288.

Falatoonitoosi, Leman, Sorooshian and Salimi (2012). Decision-making trial and evaluation laboratory. Research Journal of

Applied Sciences, Engineering and Technology 5(13): 3476-3480, 2013, ISSN: 2040-7459; e-ISSN: 2040-7467.

Alegre H., Baptista J. M., Cabrera E., Cubillo F., Duarte P., Hirner W., Merkel W. & Parena R. 2016
Performance Indicators for Water Supply Services. IWA Publishing, London, UK.
https://doi.org/10.2166/9781780406336.

Triantaphyllou et al.199. Multi-Criteria Decision Making: An Operations Research Approach, Encyclopedia of

Electrical and Electronics Engineering, (J.G. Webster, Ed.), John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY, Vol. 15, pp. 175-

186, (1998).

Mehta et al. 2013. A Review of Performance Benchmarking Urban Water Supply and Sanitation,
Performance Assessment System ,CEPT University.