Applying TOPSIS method to evaluate the Business Operation Performance of

Vietnam Listing Securities Companies

Tien-Chin Wang, Jui-Fang Chang,
Truong Ngoc Anh, Wan-Tseng Chang
Department of International Business
National Kaoshiung University of Applied Sciences,
Kaoshiung, Taiwan
{rose; tcwang}@cc.kuas.edu.tw
tna255@gmail.com; r2680456@yahoo.com.tw
AbstractStock market is still known as a new range in
Vietnam, however now it becomes one of the main business
lines in Vietnam. This study is targeted at the thirteen listing
companies in the Vietnam Stock Market as the main
investigation counter parties, which their business style are
real estate, by using the Inventory Turnover, Net Income Ratio,
Earnings per Share and Current Ratio, Return on total
assets(ROA), and Return on common Equity(ROE) these six
financial ratios as the estimation standard, henceforth apply
entropy method to work out the objective weights for each
evaluation standard, and finally by using the TOPSIS method
to measure the relative performance index of each project and
sort the results. The method is addressed to those who prefer to
select for a portfolio only the firms which demonstrate the
closeness of their overall financial performance in the past year
and help doing the investment strategic analysis.
Keywords-Vietnam Stock Market, TOPSIS, Multi-Criteria
Analysis Model, Financial Ratio, Objective Weight.
I. INTRODUCTION
For the beginning of Stock in Vietnam, Vietnam only had
two securities companies in 1998, and now has over 68
securities companies. It is necessary to plenty of investors to
make decision to do the most reasonable investments by
acknowledging of the best performance listing companies
and the possibility to get the excess profits. From the figures
shown on the balance sheet, profit and loss account
announced by these companies, we can get the massive
financial data, something like the company assets, gross
profit and net profit. However, we can not finalize our
judgment on the company performance. For instance, if two
companies operation scales exist huge difference, even
though they make the same size of profit outcomes, the
attractiveness they show to the investors are quite different.
The best usage of financial analysis is to help us locating
some companies worthy of investing. The researching range
includes companys running situation, profits earning ability
and operation turnover etc., the consideration of these factors
is to substitute the various data from the listing company into
the mathematic formulas, and we can get the financial ratios
after calculation. The general investors usually evaluate the
companys performance by using the financial ratios. They
intend to get the judgment about the company operation from
the analysis of various financial ratios, and then make the
investment in the comparatively profitable and growing
companies, and hope to get excess profits from the stock
market. Some researchers used the financial ratios in Multi-
Criteria Analysis Model as evaluation standards and they
also applied TOPSIS method to calculate the performance
indexes and sorts the results. Therefore, it can be used as
reference for the investors to buy the stock shares.
II. LITERATURE REVIEW
A. Vietnam stock market
In an effort to develop the market economy and
synchronize all kinds of markets, including the Stock
Exchange (SE), relevant State bodies, especially the State
Securities Commission (SSC), gathered together to discuss
the plans to open and develop the SE in 1995. The opening
of the Ho Chi Minh City Securities Trading Centre (HSTC)
in July 2000 marked a milestone in Vietnams efforts in its
economic reforms and reaffirmed Vietnams determinations
in developing the market economy.
After five years of operating the stock market, Vietnam
has reached many achievements in the initial stage,
generalized as follows: (1).Successfully organizing and
operating the Ho Chi Minh City Securities Trading Centre,
ensuring principles of the SE. (2).Gradually creating more
goods for the SE, strengthening the management of listed
firms and clarifying information on the SE. (3).Expanding
operations of intermediary organizations on the market and
improving service quality. (4).After five years, SE of
Vietnam has attracted participation of both local and foreign
investors. (5).Intensifying state management over the SE.
B. Multi-Criteria Analysis Model
Multi-Criteria Analysis Model is one of the multivariate
analysis methods which uses rationalized, systematic notions
and analysis techniques, comprehensively applies to persons,
enterprises, academies, forum topics and government
machineries background problems [5] (Hwang and Yoon,
1981). The appearance of this Methods can solute the
various sources of information brings us complexity and
floods everywhere; making strategy is nevertheless based on
single criterion or standard, but turns to consider each and
every aspects of the situation.
Multi-Criteria Analysis Model is categorized by the types
of data deal with as follows: Qualitative Criteria Evaluation
Method, Quantitative Criteria Evaluation Method,
Elimination etc Choice Translating Reality and Qualitative
and Quantitative Multi-Criteria Evaluation Method. This
model is in a limited set of alternatives, extract out the
2010 International Conference on Computational Aspects of Social Networks
978-0-7695-4202-7/10 $26.00 2010 IEEE
DOI 10.1109/CASoN.2010.69
273
attributes and proceeds the evaluations from the characters of
the alternatives, and then get a clear picture of the
advantages and the disadvantages of each alternative, so as to
pick up the best of them. Based on the preference of the
decision-making body, the suitable problems for researching
in a limited set are selected. Because of the types of
problems in surroundings to confront with belong to this
category, can ascertain the applicable range would be
extensive. 1970s is the explosive development period of the
Multi- Criteria Analysis Model, it is in this period that
various key techniques were launched and continue
refinements and apply extensively afterward.
C. TOPSIS evaluation method
TOPSIS (Technique for Order Preference by Similarity
to Ideal Solution) method is developed as a kind of Multi-
Criteria Analysis Model technique by Hwang and Yoon [5]
in 1981, it is an improved version of Zeleny (1974) [8]
notion Displaced Ideal separated away from the Ideal
Solution the least. Its basic concept is to define the Ideal
Solution from the Negative Ideal Solution [1]. What is called
the Ideal Solution is the set of alternate schemes optimums
with each attributes (profit attributes the maximum, cost
attributes the minimum); Negative Ideal Solution is just on
the contrary, it is the set of alternate schemes the worst with
each attributes (profit attributes the minimum, cost attributes
the maximum). The selected scheme should be the closest
one from the Ideal Solution and the separation from the
Negative Ideal Solution the most. The TOPSIS Evaluation
has been widely applied with various businesses and the
types of business Estimation and Choice by scholars. For
example, Feng et al. (2000) [4] associated the Grey
Relational Analysis with the TOPSIS, then applied with the
5 Airline Companies evaluation and selection; Deng et al.
(2000) [2] applied with the 7 textile factories at Wu Han
evaluation and selection. Tsaur et al.(2002) [7] used fuzzy
MCDM to evaluate the airlines service quality.
D. Financial ratio
Financial Ratio is a popular tool to analyze the business
operation performance that proved to work well. Financial
Ratio plays an important role in the estimation of the
enterprise entitys operation performance and financial
situation, regardless of the investors or the research scholars,
they extract the development and profit information of
companies from the analysis of companies financial reports,
but the tools used to judge and analyze is Financial Ratio.
Therefore, this research refers to generally adopted Financial
Ratios in practice, and decides to use as four evaluation
principles, the operational definitions are as follows:
1) Inventory Turnover: Its purpose is to determine the
average sold out times for the inventory in a fixed period
(generally a year). You can understand how fast the
company inventory runs. If the speed is too slow, it will
cause the capital backlog or reduce the operating ability. Its
definition is:
Cost of Sales
Inventory Turnover
AverageCost of Inventory
=
(1)
The Average Cost of Inventory in the Eq. (1) generally
adopts the average of the Beginning Inventory Balance and
the Close Stock Balance. Also, it uses the total amount of the
balances by the end of each month and divided by twelve.
Both methods are adopted by scholars.
2) Net Income Ratio: It is the Net Profit to Sales Net
Revenue ratio. As per Income Tax Law regulations, the
company should pay the income tax if the net profit appears,
so the net profit is acknowledged as two categories pre-tax
net profit and after-tax net profit. Generally, it takes the
after-tax net profit into consideration more popularly. Its
better to eliminate or put into other considerations the realty
deals incomes, something like the lands or factory buildings
for sale, so it will not cause faulty judgment as calculation
or comparison with the previous year data. Its definition is
as follows:
( ) Net profit Pre taxor After tax
Net Income Ratio
Sales Net Revenue

=
(2)
Net Income Ratio is an important index to show the
companys earning profit ability, it is worth taking care of by
the stock market investors.
3) Earnings per Share (EPS): It demonstrates the
business after-tax net profits appropriated for the
shareholders, e.g. the common stock can earn profits per
share within an accounting period, and evaluates the
companys earning profit ability and the risk of shareholders
investment, for the investment managing standpoint, the
higher this value the better is the investment. Its definition is
as follows:
After Tax Net Profit Preferred Stock Dividend
EPS
Weighted Average Issued and Outsanding Shares

=
(3)
4) Current Ratio: Current Ratio is one companys
ability to compensate the Current Liability with the Current
Assets, its definition is as follows:
Current Asset
Current Ratio
Current Liability
=
(4)
It examines the business ability to compensate the short-
term liability, higher value means the current liability to be
protected at higher level, as the business is involved with
unexpected loss, it can respond in time and not influence the
ordinary operations of the business. If the Current Ratio is
less than 1, it represents that all current assets of the
company can not compensate for current liability, and it will
cause problems with the settlement of debts. On the contrary,
if the current ratio is larger than 1, it represents the business
current assets can compensate the current liability. What is
the suitable current ratio, it depends on the trade, and
generally acceptable at 2 as good value. However, it is not a
good phenomena if the current ratio is too high, it reflects
that the business are not efficiently drawing on the current
assets, such as overstocking the merchandises, holding too
high Accounts Receivable or Cashes, etc., represents the
businesss behaviors too much conservative, not capable of
sufficiently application of its current borrowing power.
274
5) Return on Equity (ROE): ROE is expressed as a
percentage. It measures a firm's efficiency at generating
profits from every unit of shareholders' equity (also known
as net assets or assets minus liabilities). As with many
financial ratios, ROE is best useful for comparing the
profitability of a company to that of other firms in the same
industry.
High ROE yields no immediate benefit. Since stock
prices are most strongly determined by earnings per share
(EPS). The benefit comes from the earnings reinvested in the
company at a high ROE rate, which in turn gives the
company a high growth rate.
Net Income
ROE
Average Shareholders Equity
=
(5)
6) Return on assets (ROA): ROA tells you what
earnings were generated from invested capital (assets). ROA
for public companies can vary substantially and will be
dependent on the industry. This is why when using ROA as
a comparative measure, it is best to compare it against a
companys previous ROA numbers or the ROA of a similar
company.
The assets of the company are comprised of both debt
and equity. Both of these types of financing are used to fund
the operations of the company. The ROA figure gives
investors an idea of how effectively the company is
converting the money it has to invest into net income. The
higher the ROA number, the better, because the company is
earning more money on less investment.
Net Income Interes Expense Interest Tax Savings
ROA
Total Assets
+ +
=
(6)
III. METHODOLOGY AND RELEVANT STEPS
This research adopts Deng et al. (2000) [2] proposal of
improved TOPSIS computation processes, the detail steps as
follows:
1) Construction of the original data evaluation matrix:
Lets assume to use the n criteria (C
1
, C
2,,
C
n
) to evaluate
the m subjects (A
1
, A
2,,
A
n
) the ordinary original data
evaluation matrix representation is as follows:
1 11 12 1
2 21 22 2
1 2
...
...
... ... ... ... ...
...
n
n
m m m mn
A x x x
A x x x
X
A x x x
(
(
(
=
(
(
(

(7)
2) Normalization of the original data evaluation matrix:
The evaluation criteria (C
1
, C
2,,
C
n
) may take different
units, so we must do the normalization of the above-
mentioned evaluation matrix. There are several ways to do
the normalization, such as Feng and Wang (2000) [4], Kim
et al. (1997) [6], this research adopts Deng et al.(2000) [2]
proposal to proceed the normalization, it is
1
m
ij ij pj
p
r x x
=
=

(8)
1, 2,..., 1, 2,..., i m j n = =
After we treat the normalization of the Eq. (1) original
data evaluation matrix, it shows a matrix form as follows:
1 2
11 12 1
21 22 2
1 2
...
...
... ... ... ...
...
n
C C C
n
n
ij
mxn
m m mn
r r r
r r r
R r
r r r
(
(
(
( = =

(
(
(

(9)
1, 2,..., 1, 2,..., i m j n = =
3) Computation of the weights of each evaluation
criterion: Computes the weight of each evaluation criterion,
and completes in following two steps.
a) First to compute the entropy value of each criterion
(C
1
, C
2,,
C
n
): By introducing the entropy concept to
compute the weight of each criterion, and the
j
e
represents
the entropy of the jth criterion.
1
1
ln
m
j ij ij
i
e r lnr
m
=
=

(10)
While 1 ln m is a constant, it makes sure
0 1
i
e s s
.
b) Computation of the Weights
1 2
( , ,..., )
n
W w w w =
of
Each Evaluation Criterion.
( ) ( )
1
1 1
n
j j i
i
w e e
=
=

(11)
1, 2,..., 1, 2,..., i m j n = =
4) Determination of the Ideal Solution V
+
and Negative
Ideal Solution V

of each evaluation criterion.

For obtaining the Performance Index of each evaluated
subject, it must calculate the Ideal Solution V
+
and Negative
Ideal Solution V

of each criterion.
( ) ( )
( )
( ) ( )
( )
1 2 1 2
1 2 1 2
max , max ,......, max( ) ( , ,......, )
max , max ,......, max( ) ( , ,......, )
i i in n
i i i
i i in n
i i i
V r r r v v v
V r r r v v v
+ + + +

= =
= =
(12)
5) Computation of the distances between the evaluation
subjects and Ideal Solutions and Negative Ideal Solutions.
As per the Eqs. (7) and (10), we can get the distances
from
i
A to
1
v
+
, and from
i
A to
1
v

.
2 2
1 1
( ) , ( )
n n
i j j ij i j ij j
j j
D w v r D w r v
+ +
= =
= =

(13)
1, 2,..., i m =
The
i
D
+
represents the distance from the th i evaluated
subject to ideal solution, and
i
D

is the distance from the th i

evaluated subject to negative ideal solution.
6) Computation of the relative performance index of the
Ideal Solution: For each evaluated subject, the computation
of the relative Performance Index (PI) as follows.
i
i
i i
D
P
D D

+
=
+
(14)
7) As per the relative performance indexes to sort the
evaluated subjects in order: The computation of the
275
Performance Index is to treat the distance from the
th i evaluated subject to Negative Ideal Solution
i
D

as the
numerator, the PI value larger means the distance to Ideal
Solution closer, and means the distance to Negative Ideal
Solution farther.
IV. DATA ANALYSIS
This research is targeted at the thirteen listing real estate
companies in Vietnam Stock Market as the main
investigation counter parties: BCI, CII, D2D, H2D, HDC,
KBC, LCG, NBB, NTL, RCL, SC5, TDH, UIC, VIC. The
data comes from the Vietnam Stock 68. [9], we choose six
Financial Ratios as the evaluation standards. Hereafter, we
appoint (A
1
, A
2,,
A
13
) as the names of the evaluation subjects,
and the Inventory Turnover, Net Income Ratio (times),
Earnings per Share, Current Ratio, Return on Equity(ROE)
and Return on Assets (ROA) are evaluation standards.
1) Construction of the original data evaluation matrix:
As per the sources of data, there are four criteria (C
1
, C
2,,
C
6
) ) used to evaluate thirteen subjects (A
1
, A
2,,
A
13
), from
Eq. (7) we can derive Table 1.
2) Normalization of the original data evaluation matrix:
The above-mentioned evaluation standards adopt four
different units, so refers to the Eq. (8), the normalized
matrix is listed as Table 2.
TABLE I. ORIGINAL DATA MATRIX
C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6
A1
1.72 0.03 0.57 0.02 0.04 0.48
A
2
1.19 0.01 1.45 0.02 0.08 0.30
A
3
0.86 0.10 0.14 0.01 0.03 0.32
A
4
1.46 0.13 0.26 0.03 0.12 0.27
A5
1.09 0.02 1.19 0.04 0.08 0.28
A6
1.86 0.11 0.21 0.04 0.09 0.03
A
7
5.79 0.09 0.14 0.02 0.05 0.05
A
8
1.32 0.27 0.32 0.07 0.29 0.84
A9
0.95 0.09 0.35 0.03 0.10 0.07
A10
1.22 0.41 0.03 0.01 0.04 0.24
A
11
2.19 0.03 0.50 0.03 0.05 0.12
A
12
0.97 0.56 0.02 0.01 0.03 0.14
A
13
4.68 0.01 0.88 0.01 0.04 0.15
TABLE II. NORMALIZED MATRIX
C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6
A
1
0.19577 0.03834 0.24888 0.17960 0.10652 0.40537
A2
0.13544 0.01278 0.63313 0.17960 0.21304 0.25335
A3
0.09788 0.12780 0.06113 0.08980 0.07989 0.27024
A
4
0.16617 0.16614 0.11352 0.26940 0.31957 0.22802
A
5
0.12406 0.02556 0.51960 0.35921 0.21304 0.23646
A
6
0.21170 0.14058 0.09169 0.35921 0.23968 0.02533
A7
0.65901 0.11502 0.06113 0.17960 0.13315 0.04222
A8
0.15024 0.34507 0.13972 0.62861 0.77230 0.70939
A
9
0.10812 0.11502 0.15282 0.26940 0.26631 0.05911
A
10
0.13886 0.52400 0.01309 0.08980 0.10652 0.20268
A11
0.24926 0.03834 0.21832 0.26940 0.13315 0.10134
A12
0.11040 0.71571 0.00873 0.08980 0.07989 0.11823
A
13
0.53267 0.01278 0.38424 0.08980 0.10652 0.12667
3) Computation of the weight of each evaluation
criterion: As per the Eqs. (10) And (11), the computed
weights are as follows.
1,...,6
(0.22324,0.03334,0.11351,0.25769,0.19800,0.17419) w =
4) Determination of the Ideal Solution V
+
and Negative
Ideal Solution V

of each evaluation criterion: As per the

Eq. (12), the computed results are as follows.
1,...,6
(1.44358,1.06626,1.22555,1.51202,1.39342,1.34611) v
+
=
1,...,6
(0.22324,0.03334,0.11351,0.25769, 0.19800, 0.17419) v

=
5) Computation of the distances between the evaluation
subjects and Ideal Solutions and Negative Ideal Solutions:
As per the Eq. (13), the computed results are as follows.
TABLE III. DISTANCES FROM THE IDEAL SOLUTIONS AND NEGATIVE
IDEAL SOLUTIONS
C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6
A1
0.04370 0.00127 0.02825 0.04628 0.02109 0.07061
A2
0.03023 0.00042 0.07187 0.04628 0.04218 0.04413
A
3
0.02185 0.00426 0.00693 0.02314 0.01581 0.04707
A
4
0.03709 0.00554 0.01288 0.06942 0.06327 0.03971
A
5
0.02769 0.00085 0.05898 0.09256 0.04218 0.04119
A6
0.04726 0.00468 0.01040 0.09256 0.04745 0.00441
A7
0.14712 0.00383 0.00693 0.04628 0.02636 0.00735
A
8
0.03354 0.01150 0.01586 0.16199 0.15291 0.12357
A
9
0.02413 0.00383 0.01734 0.06942 0.05273 0.01029
A10
0.03100 0.01747 0.00148 0.02314 0.02109 0.03530
A11
0.05564 0.00127 0.02478 0.06942 0.02636 0.01765
A12
0.02464 0.02386 0.00099 0.02314 0.01581 0.02059
A
13
0.11891 0.00042 0.04361 0.02314 0.02109 0.02206
6) Computation of the relative performance index of the
Ideal Solution: As per the Eq. (14), the computed
Performance Index values are as Table 4.
TABLE IV. THE PERFORMANCE INDEXES OF THE THIRTEEN LISTING
COMPANIES
PI Value Ranking
A1
0.26658 8
A
2
0.29264 5
A
3
0.14577 11
A4
0.28098 6
A5
0.33957 3
A
6
0.27817 7
A
7
0.37001 2
A
8 0.64350 1
A9
0.21673 10
A10
0.12803 12
A
11
0.22900 9
A
12
0.09844 13
A13
0.32686 4
7) As per the relative performance indexes to sort the
evaluated subjects in order
The larger the computed Performance Index value is,
the closer it represents the distance from Ideal Solution, and
farther away from the Negative Ideal Solution and it is the
best choice. From Table 4, we acknowledge the A
8
is
company with the best performance, and its Return on
common Equity (7%) is the top one among the thirteen
companies, and the Earning per share (87%) is the largest
one. In this research, the A
12
Performance Index value is the
lowest, and sorted at the last position, its Return on common
Equity (84%) and Earnings per Share (14%) are the extreme
smallest ones.
276
V. CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS
The Deng et al.(2000) [2] proposed theory is adopted by
this research, and combined with entropy method to compute
the objective weight of each evaluation standard, it can avoid
the subjective factors influences, then the sorted results
would be more trustful. The sorted weights in this research
are listed as follows:
4 1 5 6 3 2
w >w >w >w >w >w
, that is Return
on total assets > Current ratio > Return on common Equity >
Earning per share > Net income ratio > Inventory turnover,
this result offers the listed company a reference to pay more
attention to the more weighed standards, so that it can
promote the performance of business.
In the future continuous researches, it is better to
consider the marketing mechanism and includes more
indicators, combines with other investigation methods such
as the Grey Relational Analysis to filter out more appropriate
evaluation standards, then apply with the CRITIC [3]
(Criteria Importance Through Inter criteria Correlation), S.D.
(Standard Deviation), MW (Mean Weight) different methods
to compute the objective weight of each evaluation standard,
so it can promote the accuracy of research.
REFERENCES
[1] Chen-Tung Chen, Extensions of the TOPSIS for group decision-
making under fuzzy environment, Fuzzy Sets and Systems, vol 114,
2000, pp.1-9.
[2] Hepu Deng, Chung-Hsing Yeh and Robert J. Willis, Inter-company
comparision using modified TOPSIS with objective weights,
Computers and Operations Research, vol. 27, 2000, pp.963-973.
[3] D. Diakoulaki, G. Mavrotas and L. Papayannakis, Determining
objective weights in multiple criteria problems: The CRITIC
method, Computers and Operations Research, vol. 22(7), 1995,
pp.763-770.
[4] Cheng-Min Feng and Rong-Tsu Wang, Performance evaluation for
airlines including the consideration of financial ratios, Journal of Air
Transport Management, 6, 2000, pp.133-142.
[5] Hwang, C. L. and Yoon. K., Multiple Attribute Decision Making
Methods and Applocations, Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, New York,
1981.
[6] Gyutai Kim, Chan S. Park and K. Paul Yoon, Identifying investment
opportunities for advanced manufacturing systems with comparative-
integrated performance measurement, International Journal of
Production Economics, 50, 1997, pp.23-33.
[7] Sheng-Hshiung Tsaur, Te-Yi Chang and Chang-Hua Yen, The
evaluation of airline service quality by fuzzy MCDM, Tourism
Management, 23, 2002, pp.107-115.
[8] Zeleny, M., A Concept of Compromise Solutions and the Method of
the Displaced Ideal, Computers and Operations Research, vol.1,
1974, pp.479-496.
[9] The Market Observation Post System of Taiwan Stock Exchange
Corp., http://mops.tse.com.tw/
[10] http://s1.zetaboards.com/sinhviengiaothuy/index/ phat trien thi truong
chung khoan.
[11] http://news.e-city.vn/index.php?ecms=news&news_id=1497.
[12] http://www.cophieu68.com/category_finance.php?cid=6&o=c&ud=a
#cid_6.
[13] Chao Fu and Shan-lin Yang, Solutions to belief group decision
making using extended TOPSIS, International Conference on
Management Science & Engineering, vols 1-3, 2007, pp.458-463.
[14] Xu, Z. S., A method based on the dynamic weighted geometric
aggregation operator for dynamic hybrid multi-attribute group
decision making, International Journal of uncertainty Fuzziness and
knowledge-based systems, vol. 17(1), 2009, pp.15-33.
[15] Tien-Chin Wang and Tsung-Han Chang, Application of TOPSIS in
evaluating initial training aircraft under a fuzzy environment, Expert
Systems with Applications, vol. 33, Issue 4, 2007, pp.870-880.
[16] Tien-Chin Wang, Mei-Chu Liou, and Hsiu-Huang Hung, Selection
by TOPSIS for surveyor of candidates in organizations, International
Journal of Services Operations and Informatics, vol. 1, No.4, 2006,
pp.332-346.
[17] Tien-Chin Wang, Tsung-Han Chang and Ying-Ling Lin, Applying
TOPSIS in the improvement of ISP service quality: an example of
ADSL, 2005 IEEE International Conference on Service Operations
and Logistics, and Informatics, Beijing, China, August 10-12, 2005.
[18] Tien-Chin Wang, Mei-Chu Liou, and Hsiu-Huang Hung, Decision-
making for selecting applicants by TOPSIS, 2005 IEEE International
Conference on Service Operations and Logistics, and Informatics,
Beijing, China, August 10-12, 2005.
[19] Tien-Chin Wang and Jo-Chien Hsu, Evaluation of the business
operation performance of the listing companies by applying TOPSIS
method, 2004 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man and
Cybernetics, vol.2, Oct 10-13, 2004, pp.1286-1291, The Hague, The
Netherlands.
277