Received: 26 July 2022 | Revised: 5 December 2022
DOI: 10.1002/cae.22602
SPECIAL ISSUE ARTICLE
A new model based on the extended COPRAS method
for improving performance during the accreditation
process of Indian Higher Educational Institutions
Nidhi Agarwal1,2 | Devendra K. Tayal1
1
Department of Computer Science and
Engineering, Indira Gandhi Delhi
Technical University for Women,
Delhi, India
2
Department of Computer Science and
Engineering, Delhi Technical Campus,
Greater Noida, Uttar Pradesh, India
Correspondence
Devendra K. Tayal, Department of
Computer Science and Engineering,
Indira Gandhi Delhi Technical University
for Women, Delhi, India.
Email: devendrakumartayal@gmail.com
728 | © 2023 Wiley Periodicals LLC.
| Accepted: 21 December 2022
Abstract
The standard of any country in the global world is dependent highly on the
intellect content of the people. This intellect content is in turn dependent
exclusively upon the quality of the higher education in the country. The aim of
this research work is to perform an empirical evaluation to rank various
quality parameters suggested by the National Board of Accreditation. This
national board was established in India in 1994 by the All India Council for
Technical Education with the main motive of assessing the quality of various
Higher Educational Institutions. It provides marks to institutions out of
1000 on the basis of 10 parameters, which are further subdivided into 75
subparameters. This research work helps to guide educational institutions to
access their weak points during and before applying for this accreditation to
recover from them timely and in the most effective manner. An extended
model of fuzzy COPRAS (COmplex PRoportional ASsessment) is proposed as
an improved multicriteria decision‐making approach to first identify and then
set preferences to help institutions improve their data related to accreditation
key indicators. The work is divided into four steps. First, all the critical
evaluation factors for the accreditation process are identified in consultation
with senior, experienced and qualified academicians. They are then converted
into fuzzy triangular numeric values and crisp weights. Lingual values and
corresponding fuzzy weights of various preference key indicators are then
identified and converted into crisp weights. Further critical factors are divided
into price and profit values. Finally, key indicators are ranked using extended
fuzzy COPRAS. A comparative ranking analysis is generated as end result
through fuzzy COPRAS, TOPSIS (Technique for Order of Preference by
Similarity to Ideal Solution) and WASPAS (Weighted Aggregated Sum Product
Assessment) approaches, which shows that the proposed model generates
better ranking results. The proposed model is applicable to any accreditation
process with a varied set of parameters and their subparameters.
KEYWORDS
accreditation process, fuzzy COPRAS, fuzzy logic, multicriteria decision making, TOPSIS,
WASPAS MCDM approach
wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/cae Comput Appl Eng Educ. 2023;31:728–754.
AGARWAL AND TAYAL
1 | INTRODUCTION
Since the growth of a large number of Higher Educa-
tional Institutions (HEIs) is increasing in India, the term
quality plays an indispensable role. There has to be some
criteria to access and evaluate their academic progress.
Initiatives are being taken in the country to analyse the
various quality indicators [31, 39–41]. To ease and
uniformalize this process, a tool is proposed and
developed in this paper to assign preferences to various
key quality indicators for the National Board of
Accreditation (NBA) to identify the most critical ones
and generate a recovery plan.
Multicriteria decision‐making (MCDM) approach
guides in selecting the best alternative among a lot many
available alternatives based on certain preferences. It
helps in ranking the various alternatives based on our
preferences for a particular problem domain. The
concept of MCDM best suits our problem domain as it
deals with ranking the various parameters and subpara-
meters that can pose to be critical during or before any
NBA visit. By applying the MCDM approach in such a
problem domain, we can easily identify the most critical
alternatives that need to be dealt with immediately. This
can help educational institutions to resolve those factors
first on a priority basis, which need urgent attention and
can reduce their marks during any NBA visit or can even
deter the purpose of the visit. Using MCDM, we can
obtain such critical factors in the form of their ranks,
where lower ranks indicate ‘immediate attention’ and
higher ranks indicate ‘not so critical’ and can be resolved
after resolving the most critical ones. Although the
application of the MCDM approach is completely novel
for this problem, it has posed to be most suitable in this
research work to rank NBA‐related cardinal parameters
and their subparameters on the basis of which selection/
rejection during NBA visits depends.
Fuzzy COPRAS (COmplex PRoportional ASsessment)
is majorly followed as a versatile multiple criteria
decision analysis approach that reserves preferences to
various evaluation factors from most critical to least
critical ones [10, 37]. It takes into consideration the
various price and profit values of criteria by calculating
the ratio of ideal best worst key values. Fuzzy COPRAS,
implemented on the fuzzy value sets, being derived from
various criteria is an advanced practice to work out
MCDM issues in a highly unresolved environment [4, 8,
24]. The weights of various evaluation factors are
identified and multiplied by all key indicators' crisp
values. A decision matrix is constructed to rank various
alternatives on the basis of price and profit values. The
COPRAS methodology was given by Zavadskas and
colleagues [3, 8, 37] and was used to optimize the
| 729
strategy portfolio. It is adopted by researchers to solve
engineering, management and architecture problems
owing to its accuracy and efficiency in ranking various
evaluative factors [2, 3, 20, 22, 30]. The efficiency and
correctness of COPRAS consider undeviating and pro-
portionate values for utility values with respect to
preference key indicators (PKIs) [9]. Wang et al. [34] im-
plemented it for the evaluation of varied hotels' works
grounded on environmental viability. The strategy was
also implemented for optimizing blind portions within
large‐sized automobiles [1]. Used for assessing rejected
chunks of a city by Bielinskas [6]. The method was also
used to select designs for mechanics parts [32]. Re-
searchers also proposed a method of multicriteria
complex proportional evaluation for formulating the
construction of multiattribute problems since the Year
1996 [14].
In this research work, various parameters and
subparameters contributing to the NBA accreditation
process are considered [41]. NBA body was set up for
working independently and autonomously with effect
from 7 January 2010 with the prime aim to assure quality
and check the relevance of various setups for higher
technical education, dealing mainly in varied technical
domains like Engineering and Technology, Management,
Architecture, Pharmacy and Hospitality [41].
In all the existing work done on fuzzy COPRAS, the
decision matrix is constructed solely in consultation with
experts without any mathematical formulae, which may
affect the accuracy of ranking results. In this work, this
shortcoming is removed by using mathematical calcula-
tions, obviously in consultation with domain experts.
This leads to a more precise ranking framework. This
idea is a novice and has not been implemented prior.
Ranking of key indicators has become a matter of prime
concern as more and more educational organizations are
craving to accredit themselves, so as to raise their
standards at the national and international intellectual
levels.
A summary of the above‐mentioned details pertain-
ing to the limitations of the existing work, which
motivated us to carry out the current study, is mentioned
as follows:
• Decision matrix is constructed in consultation with
experts without using any mathematical formulae.
• No tool is available till now for self‐evaluation and self‐
analysis of the various parameters and subparameters
for NBA accreditation.
• No ranking tool is available till now that can provide
an insight into the weak parameters/subparameters for
the NBA accreditation process so as to recover timely
from them.
730 | AGARWAL
• No tool is available that can help educational institu-
tions access their preparation for NBA accreditation
visits well in advance to help in deciding whether to
actually go for it or withdraw timely.
• No tool is available that can rank the weak points from
the most critical (which can affect NBA marks to a
major extent) to the least critical (which can affect the
NBA marks to a minor extent).
• No tool is available that can help educational institu-
tions to set roadmaps to access their academic work
progress and keep it aligned with NBA guidelines.
• Till now, none of the researchers have used a highly
efficient MCDM approach called COPRAS for such a
domain.
• No comparative tool is available that can highlight and
rank shortcomings marked by experts during actual
NBA visits and critical parameters identified by such a
tool for the same institution (as this is a novel work).
• Unavailability of a flexible tool that is developed for
NBA visits (for Indian HEIs) but can be modified to be
used by any country and for any accrediting body.
The paper is ordered as: Section 2 describes the
basic concept behind MCDM approaches, fuzzy logic,
including a widely used representation way of a fuzzy
triangular matrix. Then follows the discussion on
parameters and subparameters with corresponding
weights of NBA process in India for an engineering
programme. Then another two MCDM approaches,
one comparatively older called TOPSIS (Technique
for Order of Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solu-
tion) and another slightly newer called WASPAS
(Weighted Aggregated Sum Product Assessment), are
discussed in detail. The reason for choosing WASPAS
and TOPSIS, being relatively newer and older
approaches respectively, is to obtain ranking results
from two different types of processes so as to analyse
the results fairly. The WASPAS method is far less
computationally intensive when compared to TOPSIS
and thus far easier to implement than the TOPSIS
approach. Furthermore, the technique is hardly
affected by the normalization approach applied in
the analysis. This follows the discussion on the
existing fuzzy COPRAS method based on various
steps involved, accompanied by a small problem in
implementing it. It then follows a detailed compara-
tive analysis between the MCDM approach and the
fuzzy COPRAS method. Section 3 presents the
proposed framework highlighting the critical evalua-
tion factors (CEFs), PKIs of NBA accreditation
process and the criteria for mapping both of them
empirically, which reflects the novice extension of
fuzzy COPRAS through this work. Section 4 discusses
AND TAYAL
the fuzzy COPRAS mathematical implementation for
our system elaborating price and profit criteria, to
solely evaluate and finally rank the various cardinal
indicators on the basis of which selection or rejection
by the NBA expert team is done. These should be
resolved as soon as possible for a successful NBA visit.
Section 5 further discusses a comparison of above‐
proposed framework with the already existing MCDM
approach called TOPSIS and WASPAS on the same
parameters. Section 6 finally discusses the conclusion
and also highlights some of the shortcomings of the
proposed model which can further be dealt with in the
future.
The main contributions of this paper to the academic
community are as under.
• It is the first attempt of this type to help educational
institutions access their preparation for NBA accredi-
tation. The preparation is quantified in terms of marks
out of 1000 based on NBA parameters and
subparameters.
• This work will help educational institutions to know in
advance their weak points before appearing for an
actual NBA accreditation visit.
• This work will also be helpful for institutions to
identify their shortcomings even after the NBA visit.
• The weak points will be known to institutions in order,
that is, from the most critical (which can affect NBA
marks to a major extent) to the least critical (which can
affect the NBA marks to a minor extent).
• This ranking of weak points from most critical to least
critical will help institutions decide on priority to work
on shortcomings and remove them in an orderly
fashion.
• The institutions can access their work in advance and
can even decide whether to pay fees for NBA visits or
are still not ready for it, as a large amount of fee is paid
by institutions for NBA visits.
• Such a model will help all educational institutions to
access their academic work progress, and keep it
aligned according to NBA guidelines by quantifying
them simultaneously.
• The model involves taking inputs from various senior
and qualified academicians. These discussions and
experience‐sharing sessions are always fruitful for an
academic organization.
• An entirely novel model is developed using an
important MCDM approach called fuzzy COPRAS.
Till now, none of the researchers have done such
a work.
• The results are compared with actual NBA visits of two
private engineering colleges (one in northern India
and another in southern India) by highly qualified and
AGARWAL AND TAYAL | 731

experienced senior groups of academicians and their 2.1 | MCDM approach

findings match our results.
• This model is flexible and can be used by any country
and for any accrediting body.
• Decision matrix is constructed quantitatively rather
than qualitatively.
A lot many terms and symbols are used in this
research paper. To understand them better, their details
are discussed in Table 1.
2 | METHODS
This section describes the basic concept behind MCDM
approaches, fuzzy logic, including a widely used repre-
sentation way of a fuzzy triangular matrix. Then follows
the discussion on parameters and subparameters with
corresponding weights of NBA process in India for an
engineering programme. Then another two MCDM
approaches, one comparatively older called TOPSIS and
another slightly newer called WASPAS, are discussed in
detail. This follows the discussion on the existing fuzzy
COPRAS method based on various steps involved,
accompanied by a small problem in implementing it. It
then follows a detailed comparative analysis between the
MCDM approach and the fuzzy COPRAS method.
There are various situations in life when we have a lot
many ‘alternatives’ available, and we have to choose
the best alternative based on our certain set of
‘preferences’. However, there is no single alternative
that best fulfills all our preferences, some alternative is
good in some preferences and some other is good in
some other preferences. In such a scenario, the MCDM
approach guides us in selecting the best alternative
among a lot many available alternatives based on our
preferences. It helps in ranking the various alternatives
based on our preferences for a particular problem
domain. The various steps that it follows are described
in Figure 1.
The steps shown in Figure 1 are summarized as
follows:
(1) Establish the decision objectives.
(2) Identify the criteria (attributes) that are relevant to
the decision problem.
(3) Identify the alternatives.
(4) For each of the criteria, assign scores to measure the
performance of the alternatives against them and
construct an evaluation matrix (decision matrix).
(5) Normalize the raw scores to generate a normalized
decision matrix.

TABLE 1 Details of the terms used

MCDM Multicriteria decision making COPRAS COmplex PRoportional ASsessment
HEIs Higher Educational Institutions TOPSIS Technique for Order of Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution
NBA National Board of Accreditation WASPAS Weighted Aggregated Sum Product Assessment
WSM Weighted Sum Model WPM Weighted Product Model
TFNs Triangular fuzzy numbers AICTE All India Council for Technical Education
SAR Self‐assessment report PKIs Preference key indicators
CEFs Critical evaluation factors ∼ Crisp weights
CW
∼ Fuzzy decision matrix NFP Nonfuzzy performance
D
D Defuzzied decision matrix 
D Standardized decision matrix
Sg+ Maximizing weight Sg− Minimizing weight

FIGURE 1 Steps for multicriteria decision‐making approach.

732 | AGARWAL
(6) Determine a weight for each criterion to reflect how
important it is to the overall decision, to generate the
weighted decision matrix.
(7) Use aggregation function to compute an overall
assessment measure for each decision and then
alternate it by combining the weights and priority
scores.
(8) Perform a decision‐making analysis to rank prefer-
ences/alternatives.
The concept of MCDM best suits our problem domain
as it deals with ranking the various parameters and
subparameters that can pose to be critical during or
before any NBA visit. By applying the MCDM approach
in such a problem domain, we can easily identify the
most critical alternatives that need to be dealt with
immediately. This can help educational institutions to
resolve those factors first on a priority basis, which need
urgent attention and can reduce their marks during any
NBA visit or can even deter the purpose of the visit.
Using MCDM, we can obtain such critical factors in the
form of their ranks, where lower ranks indicate
‘immediate attention’ and higher ranks indicate ‘not so
critical’ and can be resolved after resolving the most
critical ones. Although the application of the MCDM
approach is completely novel for this problem, it has
posed to be most suitable in this research work to rank
the critical parameters and their subparameters related to
the NBA process.
2.2 | Fuzzy logic
The conceptualization for fuzzy sets was instituted in
1962 by Lotfi A. Zadeh to provide added features to the
data representation through Boolean logic [13]. Bool-
ean logic can represent data only in the form of TRUE
or FALSE, that is, 1 and 0, which means yes or no. But
this representation does not work well if we need to
represent data that has some amount of uncertainty
associated with it. For this Zadeh introduced the
concept of ‘fuzzy logic’. It acts as a superset of the
Boolean logic and includes all the decimal values
between 0 and 1, both inclusive. It represents the
‘degree or amount’ to which a particular element is
important to us. That is why it is also called its ‘degree
of membership’. Thus, fuzzy sets act as a strong
mathematical tool to deal with an uncertain environ-
ment. They can even represent that data which cannot
be represented using Boolean logic for decision‐
making problems. As our problem deals with NBA
parameters whose values are uncertain for a particular
institute visit, they are thus represented best using
AND TAYAL
fuzzy values. Fuzzy values are represented in the form
of ordered pairs, for example, if we have an element x,
then its amount of inclusiveness is also represented in
that ordered pair [28, 33, 35].
The ordered pair is written as ( x , u (x ) ), where u
represents the membership value or inclusiveness of
element x in the fuzzy environment. Fuzzy logic deals
with a fuzzy set or fuzzy algebra. The function that is
used to calculate the value of u for a particular fuzzy set
is called the membership function [21, 29, 33, 35], as
we know that fuzziness is described best in terms
of membership functions. There are different types
of membership functions available in fuzzy logic, out of
which the triangular membership function is selected
here. The reason for selecting triangular membership
functions as compared to other functions is because of
the simplicity and efficiency associated with their
computations. Also, the results obtained using them are
quite satisfactory. However, in our future course of work,
we may use other membership functions too. Various
other researchers have also concluded that they are able
to handle robust data and are also least vulnerable to
noise [12, 17]. Thus, they are always the first choice
among researchers to represent information processing
in an uncertain fuzzy environment [36].
A triangular or tri‐cornered fuzzy membership
function is based on three parametric values m, n and
p as shown







0, x ≤ m,

n−m
triangle (x , m , n, p ) = 
x−m

, m ≤ x ≤ n,





(1)

p − x
 0,
, n ≤ x ≤ p,

p−n
p ≤ x.
The parameters {m,n,p} (with m < n < p) helps to find
the x coordinate values of the three corners of the
triangular membership function. Figure 2 represents a
triangular membership function defined by triangle( x ;
40, 60, 80).
2.3 | NBA accreditation process
The NBA was established by the All India Council for
Technical Education (AICTE) in September 1994 with
the main motive of assessing the quality of various
programmes run by technical, professional educational
institutions ranging from diploma degrees to postgradua-
tion degrees for engineering and technology, manage-
ment, pharmacy, architecture and other related disci-
plines, which was already approved by pertinent
statutory regulatory bodies. The Memorandum of
AGARWAL AND TAYAL
Association and Rules of NBA were amended in April
2013, to make it completely independent of AICTE,
administratively as well as financially. NBA conducts an
evaluation of programmes of technical institutions based
on the evaluation criteria and parameters laid down by
its Committees and Councils [41]. The most effective
strategies of NBA regarding engineering programme for
improving the quality of education and in determining
and interpreting findings for achieving targets by
assessing methods are as follows:
Assess and accredit the engineering education
programmes at the diploma, graduate and
postgraduate levels.
Evaluating the standard and parameters to assess and
accredit in harmony with the framework imputed
by suitable authorities.
Promoting quality following a standard methodology,
thus helping to determine the institutional ability
for achieving various targets, to interpret findings
using a proper assessing method.
Promoting quality conscious system of technical
education, where excellence, relevance to market
needs and participation by all stakeholders are
prime and major determinants.
FIGURE 2 Example of triangular membership function triangle ( x ; 40, 60, 80)
FIGURE 3 The National Board of Accreditation 10‐point scale criteria
| 733
To build a technical education system as a facilitator
of human resources, which will match the national
goals of growth by competence, contribution to the
economy through competitiveness and compatibil-
ity with societal development.
To set the quality benchmarks targeted at the global
and national stockpile of human capital in all fields
of technical education.
To conduct an evaluation of self‐assessment of
technical institutions and/or programmes offered
by them on the basis of guidelines, norms and
standards specified by it.
To contribute to the domain of knowledge in quality
parameters, assessment and evaluation.
2.3.1 | Accreditation criteria marks
distribution
The distribution of marks for the NBA process is as
follows: Total marks are from 1000, ranging from 1 to 10,
with criteria and subcriteria numbers yielding a total of
75 [15, 41]. The 10 criteria pertaining to the process are
depicted using Figure 3 and the 75 criteria pertaining to
these 10 criteria are depicted using Figure 4a–c.
734 | AGARWAL AND TAYAL

F I G U R E 4 (a) NBA 75‐point scale subcriteria (PKI1–PKI23). (b) NBA 75‐point scale subcriteria criteria (PKI24–PKI48). (c) NBA 75‐
point scale subcriteria criteria (PK49–PKI75). NBA, National Board of Accreditation; PKI, preference key indicator.

Various criteria and their subcriteria (ranging from 1
to 75) from Kahraman et al. [15] as PKIs represented
from PKI1 to PKI75, that is, subcriteria 1.1 is referred as
PKI1, subcriteria 1.2 is referred as PKI2 until subcriteria
10.4.2, which is referred as PKI75.
2.4 | TOPSIS method
TOPSIS is a type of MCDM approach that was
followed earlier [5, 7]. It was veritably advanced by
Ching‐Lai Hwang and Yoon in 1981. Yoon made some
more advancements and additions in 1987 and was
further improved considerably in 1993 by Hwang, Lai and
Liu. The main concept behind the TOPSIS method is that
the key indicator which has been selected must maintain
the least geometric difference with the optimistic
epitome solution and the maximum geometric difference
with the pessimistic epitome solution.
TOPSIS works on the concept of adjusting conver-
gence that collates a set of substitutes by pinpointing
weights of every evaluation factor, normalizing the notch
AGARWAL AND TAYAL
FIGURE 4 Continued
for each factor and then figuring out the geometric
difference between each available option and ideal
option, a value that is the prime outcome for every
factor. This is done to obtain the best score in each
criterion. TOPSIS method presumes that the critical
evaluative factors are monotonically expanding or
reducing. Monotonically expanding critical evaluative
factors are those which have profit/benefit or price
preference, that is, ‘the more the better’. The monotoni-
cally reducing critical evaluative factors are those that
have no benefit or price preference, that is, ‘the lesser the
better’, for any MCDM problem. This method allows
compromises between different criteria, wherein a ‘not so
good’ results in one criterion can be compensated by a
‘good’ result in another criterion. All this is possible with
the help of monotonically expanding and reducing
critical evaluative factors for any MCDM problem. This
| 735
is discussed in detail in Table 3 with respect to our
problem domain of NBA accreditation, which includes
four profit (CEF1–CEF4)‐ and two price (CEF5, CEF6)‐
based critical evaluative factors. Because of this compen-
satory behaviour, TOPSIS is widely used in various
domains of MCDM approaches.
In such a scenario, normalization is mostly needed to
provide suitable dimensions to various factors in case of
MCDM problems [5]. Normalization in MCDM is
considered as a transformational process to obtain
numerical input data that can be comparable and fall on
a common scale. and comparable input data by using a
common scale [7]. After collecting all the input data, one
has to do some preprocessing to ensure that the
‘criteria’ are comparable and thus making it useful for
the decision‐making process. Also, in MCDM problems,
the normalization technique usually maps attributes
736 | AGARWAL AND TAYAL

FIGURE 4 Continued

(criteria) falling under different measurement units to a TABLE 2 Lingual terms for critical evaluation factors
common scale in the interval [0–1] [7, 38]. The various Lingual term values Triangular fuzzy values
steps followed by the TOPSIS method pertaining to our
Fairly weak impact (0.00,0.00,2.50)
problem are discussed as follows:
Step 1: Reflect/select lingual values for CEFs and PKIs. Weak impact (0.00,2.50,5.00)
Significant weights are assigned to various critical Equal (2.50,5.00,7.50)
evaluation criteria by converting lingual terms to their Considerable impact (5.00,7.50,10.00)
corresponding fuzzy values, which are in turn defuz-
Dominant impact (7.50,10.00,10.00)
zied to obtain crisp values. Table 2 presents lingual
AGARWAL AND TAYAL | 737

h =1 dgh
TABLE 3 Lingual scale for preference key indicators dgh
dgh = s , g = 1, s and h = 1, r . (5)
Lingual term values Triangular fuzzy values
Very stubby (0.00,0.00,0.25)

 
The matrix obtained is

 d11 d12⋯ d1s 

 
Stubby (0.00,0.25,0.50)

D = ⋮ ⋱ ⋮ .
 
Mediocre (0.25,0.50,0.75)

 dr1 dr 2⋯ drs 

 
Eminent (0.50,0.75,1.00) (6)

Highly eminent (0.75,1.00,1.00)

Step 5: Formation of loaded Standardized decision

matrix D̂ .
terms for CEFs selected in consultation with senior, Various components d̂gh of the loaded matrix
experienced academic experts [18]. Similarly, Table 3 evaluate to
specifying the lingual values for various PKIs, is also
formed. dˆgh = dgh *qg , g = 1, s and h = 1, r . (7)
Step 2: Form the Fuzzy decision matrix.
A Fuzzy decision matrix is a multicriteria procedure where qg is the weight of the hth attribute

 ˆ 
 d11 dˆ1s 
that is clubbed with fuzzy logic to let the researchers

 
Dˆ = ⋮ ⋮ , g = 1, s and h = 1, r .
systematically identify and analyse the important rela-
dˆ12⋯

 ˆ 
dˆrs 
tionships between critical evaluative factors and their
 dr1
⋱

preference indicators. Considering the count of CEFs as
dˆr 2⋯
r, for key indicators as s, leads to the Fuzzy decision
(8)
matrix with r rows and s columns as follows:
Step 6: Find the maximizing weight Sg+.

 
 d ̃ d ̃ ⋯ d ̃ 
CEF1 CEF 2 … CEFs

 11 12 1s  
Sg+ indicates the sum of profit (maximizing) CEFs for
D̃ = ⋮ ⋱ ⋮ 
 
A1

 d ̃ d ̃ ⋯ d ̃ 
(2) PKIs. Let m denote the number of critical factors, which

 r1 r 2 rs 
: .

Ar are intended for profit purpose, the more the better.

 dˆgh.
m
Sg+ = (9)
The crisp weights of various CEFs are h =1

∼ ∼ ∼ ∼
CW = (CW1, CW2, …CWs ). (3) Step 7: Find the minimizing weight Sg−.
Sg− indicates the sum of price (minimizing—the
Step 3: Defuzzify the Fuzzy decision matrix. lesser, the better) CEFs, evaluated for (r − m) CEFs as


Now we need to defuzzify the fuzzy matrix obtained
r
in Step (2) above. The method for converting fuzzy
Sg − = dˆgh. (10)
weights to their corresponding crisp weights considers h = m +1
the centre of area concept, which is the easiest
implementable and most practical method of calculating Step 8: Determination of minimal value of minimizing
the most accurate nonfuzzy performance (NFP) value for weight Sg−.
fuzzy data components for every value. NFP worth for
∼ ∼ ∼ ∼ Sg −(min) = minimum (Sg −), g = 1, s. (11)
fuzzy numeric Ni = (LN i , MN i , UN i ) can be found using
the following equation:
Step 9: Determination of performance score PSg(TOP-
∼ ∼ ∼ ∼ SIS) for every attribute.
NFPg = [(UN g − LN g ) + (MN g − LN g )]/3
∼ (4)
+ LN g . Sg−
PSg (TOPSIS ) = . (12)
Sg− + Sg+
Step 4: Standardize the Defuzzied decision‐making
matrix D̄ . Step 10: Finding the preferences of various quality
The corresponding components of this Standardized indicators of NBA: Higher the value of performance
decision matrix are observed as score PSg(TOPSIS), the higher will be its priority or rank.
738 | AGARWAL
Using the above‐mentioned steps, we can calculate
the PKI ranks using the TOPSIS method.
2.5 | WASPAS method
The WASPAS technique is a quirky amalgam of two
methods Weighted Sum Model (WSM) and Weighted
Product Model (WPM). The performance score generated
at the end is a combination of the two scores WSM and
WPM. This technique generates further precise outcomes
as compared to WSM and WPM separately, thus a
favourite MCDM method among researchers. It is applied
to a large number of problems successfully owing to its
better results [23]. The WSM method is a simple and
frequently used MCDM approach and is based on
calculating the weighted average values using the
arithmetic mean. An evaluative measure is calculated for
each alternate value by taking the product of the scaled
value (of the alternative) of that attribute with their
relative important weights. These weights are assigned to
them based on the problem handler's discretion. It then
follows the summation of the products of all criteria
measures. The advantageous point of the WSM method is
that it is proportional to the linear transformation of data.
It implies that the relative order of magnitude of the
standard measure remains consistent. The method WPM
is quite similar to WSM as it provides an extension to it by
catering to multidimensional MCDM problems as con-
trary to single dimensional being catered by WSM. Both of
them are quite similar in their calculations as described in
the steps below.
Steps 1−5 are the same as done above for the TOPSIS
method using Equations (2)–(8), which are discussed
again in brief as follows:
Step 1: Reflect/select lingual values for CEFs and PKIs.
Step 2: Form the Fuzzy decision matrix.
Step 3: Defuzzify the Fuzzy decision matrix.
Step 4: Standardize the Defuzzied decision‐making
matrix D .
Step 5: Formation of loaded Sloaded Sized decision
matrix D̂ .
Step 6: To calculate the add the PKI values for all
corresponding CEFs for the Standardized decision ma-
trix D̂ to obtain the matrix QWSM(75 × 1).
Step 7: To calculate the score, raise every PKI to the power
of its corresponding CEF score in the Defuzzied decision‐
making matrix D to obtain the matrix QWPM(75 × 1).
Step 8: Now obtain the performance score PSg(WAS-
PAS) as (QWSM + QWPM)/2 for every PKI.
Step 9: Finding the preferences of various quality
indicators of NBA: Higher the value of performance score
PSg(WASPAS), the higher will be its priority or rank.
AND TAYAL
Using the above‐mentioned steps, we can calculate
the PKI ranks using the WASPAS method.
2.6 | Fuzzy COPRAS method
The COPRAS method was first recommended by
Zavadskas et al. in 1996 [3, 37]. It is among contemporary
and extensively accepted MCDM practices for evaluation
and then a final election of the worthiest alternative from
a mammoth aggregation of identified key indicators. The
reason for this is that the COPRAS method determines
the most appropriate alternative by comparing the direct
and proportional ratio of the best solution and the
ratio of the ideal worst solution. This method progresses
on the basis of mutually conflicting alternatives of
diverse attributes for solving real‐world problems. Never-
theless, the properties of various attributes and special-
ist's judgements might contain uncertain and vague data.
Thus, in such cases, the attic MCDM approaches are
inadequate to solve complex real‐world problems. It
leads us to the conclusion that adopting the fuzzy set
theory will prove to be substantially better to intercept
such complex issues in uncertain domains. The term
‘attic’ refers to those methods of MCDM approaches that
are based on the evaluation of alternatives that are
characterized by deterministic attributes. In such cases,
the data are obtained in crisp form. However, the crisp
data are insufficient to deal with the actual global
decision problems and are also unable to index flawless
knowledge. This led researchers to conclude that
adopting the fuzzy set theory will prove to be a
substantially better solution to intercept such complex
issues in uncertain domains. In the COPRAS method, the
weights of various evaluation factors and the gradings of
PKIs are confiscated as crisp numerical values. As a
result, the fuzzy COPRAS method is used by researchers,
which embeds the fuzzy concept with the COPRAS
method where evaluation factor weights and key indica-
tor gradings are provided by lingual terms, which in turn
are represented using fuzzy numeric values. Thus, the
procedure of fuzzy COPRAS is described mathematically
below.
Steps 1–8 are the same as done above for the TOPSIS
method using Equations (2)–(11), which are discussed
again in brief as follows:
Step 1: Reflect/select lingual values for CEFs and PKIs.
Step 2: Form the Fuzzy decision matrix.
Step 3: Defuzzify the Fuzzy decision matrix.
Step 4: Standardize the Defuzzied decision‐making
matrix D .
Step 5: Formation of loaded Standardized decision
matrix D̂ .
AGARWAL AND TAYAL
Step 6: Find the maximizing weight Sg+.
Step 7: Find the minimizing weight Sg−.
Step 8: Determination of minimal value of minimizing
weight Sg _.
Step 9: Determination of relative weight RQg for every
attribute.
S g −(min) * sg=1 Sg−
Sg−sg =1
RQg = Sg + −
S(min)
. (13)
Sg−
Step 10: Calculation of optimality criteria (OC).
OC depicts the conditions the function must satisfy at
its minimum point
OC = maximum (RQg ), g = 1, s.
Step 11: Finding the preferences of various quality
indicators of NBA.
The higher the value of relative weight RQg, the
higher will be its priority or rank. For OC, the satisfaction
value will be maximum.
Step 12: Determination of the utility degree (UDG) for
each key indicator.
RQg
UGDg = × 100%,
OC
where RQg and OC represent the weights of key
indicators obtained from Equation (13) and Equation
(14), respectively.
2.7 | MCDM versus fuzzy
COPRAS method
MCDM approaches guide in selecting the best alternative
among a lot many available alternatives based on certain
preferences. It helps in ranking the various alternatives
based on our preferences for a particular problem
domain. The various steps that it follows are discussed
in Section 2.1 above and are reiterated as follows:
(1) Establish the decision objectives.
(2) Identify the criteria (attributes) that are relevant to
the decision problem.
(3) Identify the alternatives.
(4) For each of the criteria, assign scores to measure the
performance of the alternatives against them and
construct an evaluation matrix (decision matrix).
(5) Normalize the raw scores to generate a normalized
decision matrix.
| 739
(6) Determine a weight for each criterion to reflect how
important it is to the overall decision, to generate the
weighted decision matrix.
(7) Use aggregation function to compute an overall
assessment measure for each decision alternative by
combining the weights and priority scores.
(8) Perform a decision‐making analysis to rank prefer-
ences/alternatives.
There are various types of MCDM approaches such
as TOPSIS (Technique for Order Preference by Similar-
ity to an Ideal Solution), WSM (Weighted Sum Model),
WPM (Weighted Product Model), WASPAS (Weighted
Aggregated Sum Product Assessment), AHP (Analytic
Hierarchy Process), DEMATEL (Decision Making Trial
(14) and Evaluation Laboratory), VIKOR, PROMETHENE
(Preference Ranking Organization METHod of
Enrichment Evaluation), SWARA (Step‐wise Weight
Assessment Ratio Analysis) and COPRAS (COmplex
PRoportional ASsessment).
The COPRAS methodology was given by Zavadskas
and colleagues and was used by the researchers to solve
engineering, management and architecture problems
owing to its accuracy and efficiency in ranking various
evaluative factors [2, 3, 20, 22, 30]. The efficiency and
correctness of COPRAS consider undeviating and propor-
(15)
tionate values for utility values with respect to PKIs [9].
Fuzzy COPRAS, implemented on the fuzzy value sets,
which was derived from various criteria is an advanced
practice to work out MCDM issues in a highly unresolved
environment [4, 24]. The weights of various evaluation
factors are identified and multiplied by all key indicators'
crisp values. A decision matrix is constructed to rank
various alternatives on the basis of price and profit values.
Fuzzy COPRAS is majorly followed as a versatile multiple
criteria decision analysis approach that reserves prefer-
ences to various evaluation factors from most critical to
least critical ones [10, 37]. It takes into consideration the
various price and profit values of criteria by calculating the
ratio of ideal best worst key values.
3 | P R O P O S E D M E T HO D O L O GY /
FR A M EW O RK
The methodology proposed in this research work to rank
the key indicators provided by NBA and generate a
recovery plan accordingly is divided into the following
junctures:
1. Identification of CEFs.
2. Recognition of PKIs.
740 | AGARWAL AND TAYAL

3. Identification, evaluation and resolution of cardinal
parameters associated with CEFs using the extended
COPRAS method.
3.1 | Identification of CEFs
Various criteria that are critical for the evaluation of key
indicators are identified. These are precise and accurate and
provide surety to analyse critical factors and thus are
identified in the form of lingual values (which is an
inherent part of fuzzy logic) using Table 4. Significant
weights are then assigned to these CEFs by converting their
lingual terms to their corresponding fuzzy values, which
are in turn defuzzied to obtain crisp values using Tables 5
and 6. The reason being they are developed by an expert
team of highly experienced and qualified educationalists
holding top positions in educational institutions. These
evaluative factors with their corresponding lingual terms
are defined in Table 3. Types specify whether they are price
type (the lesser, the better) or profit type (the more, the
better). As can be seen easily from the table below, the first
four are profit ones and the last two are price ones.
to evaluate ranking with criteria components of CEFs
with PKIs. The meanings of these lingual words with
corresponding tri‐cornered (triangular) fuzzy values
are depicted in Tables 2 and 3. This research paper is
the first to empirically map the lingual values of PKIs
with corresponding CEFs. In all other studies done till
now, this mapping is based solely on the discretion of
experts in that domain. In this work, obviously, in
consultation with the academic experts, mapping is
done empirically, thus making this system more
efficient, accurate, unbiased and completely generic
for NBA. This tool can be incorporated by any
technical educational institute willing to go for
accreditation in India. The formulae are mentioned
in Table 5.
Figure 5 depicts various PKIs ranging from 1 to 75
with corresponding CEFs. The 75 PKIs are obtained from
subparameters of the NBA accreditation framework for
the engineering programme.
T A B L E 5 Criteria for mapping FWIs with CEFs for Fuzzy
decision matrix
Lingual term Condition (for all CEFs)

3.2 | Recognition of PKIs FWI IF (SAR_Wi < 20% of NBA_Wi)

WI If (SAR_Wi ≥ 20% of NBA_Wi) AND
Various parameters and subparameters with weightage (SAR_Wi < 40% of NBA_Wi)
as specified by NBA are selected as PKIs [41]. They range EQ If (SAR_Wi ≥ 40% of NBA_Wi) AND
from criteria 1 to 10 with further division into subcriteria (SAR_Wi < 60% of NBA_Wi)
making a total of 75.
CI If (SAR_Wi ≥ 60% of NBA_Wi) AND
(SAR_Wi < 80% of NBA_Wi)
DI IF (SAR_Wi ≥ 80% of NBA_Wi)
3.3 | Evaluation of the issues associated
with CEFs USING the extended COPRAS Note: SAR_Wi refers to weights of i = 1–75 PKIs obtained by the institute
through its SAR report NBA_Wi refers to weights of i = 1–75 PKIs given by
method
NBA [41]. I refers to 75 PKIs, ranging from 1 to 75.
Abbreviations: CEFs, critical evaluation factors; CI, considerable impact; DI,
Various associated key indicators are ranked using the dominant impact; EQ, equal; FWI, fairly weak impact; NBA, National Board
COPRAS strategy. Appropriate lingual terms are used of Accreditation; SAR, self‐assessment report; WI, weak impact.

TABLE 4 CEFs for problem analysis

CEFs Type Definition
CEF1(TARGET ATTAINED) Profit Level of ability that is expected to be achieved for every preference indicator at each key stage in
the NBA weightage matrix.
CEF2(CONSISTENCY) Profit The quality of key indicators to behave or perform every time in a like manner.
CEF3(ADEQUACY) Profit The quality of the key indicator to be ample or satisfactory with regard to a specific aim.
CEF4(ADHERENCE) Profit The quality of being good enough for a particular key indicator.
CEF5(THREAT) Price The risk of key indicator to inflict damage, hostile action for evaluative factors.
CEF6(VULNERABILITY) Price The fact of key indicator behaving exactly according to its rules and regulations.
Abbreviations: CEFs, critical evaluation factors; NBA, National Board of Accreditation.
AGARWAL AND TAYAL | 741

T A B L E 6 Lingual terms, crisp

CEFs Lingual terms Fuzzy weight Crisp weight
weights and fuzzy weights for various
criteria evaluation factors CEF1(TARGET ATTAINED) HE (0.75,1.0,1.0) 0.916
CEF2(CONSISTENCY) M (0.25,0.5,0.75) 0.5
CEF3(ADEQUACY) E (0.5,0.75,1.0) 0.75
CEF4(ADHERENCE) HE (0.75,1.0,1.0) 0.916
CEF5(THREAT) S (0.0,0.25,0.5) 0.25
CEF6(VULNERABILITY) VS (0.00,0.00,0.25) 0.083
Abbreviations: CEFs, critical evaluation factors; E, eminent; HE, highly eminent; M, mediocre; S, stubby;
VS, very stubby.

FIGURE 5 Ranking of PKIs. CEF, critical evaluation factor; PKI, preference key indicator.

FIGURE 6 Proposed framework flowchart

4 | EV A L U A T IO N A N D R A N K I N G ranked finally. The lingual terms for CEFs and PKIs

OF PKIS FOR N BA USING
EXTENDED FUZZY COPRAS
METHOD: OUR PROP OSED MODEL
The model being proposed is shown in Figures 6 and
7. All the steps are shown empirically with their input
and output results in forthcoming sections using
tables. The proposed model is an extension of the
existing fuzzy COPRAS method. It considers the
various criteria numbered from 1 to 10 in the NBA
accreditation document as PKIs, which are to be
are collected in consultation with the academic team
of experts. Lingual terms are specified in Tables 2
and 3.
To calculate fuzzy weights of CEFs, the lingual terms
are transmuted to their corresponding three‐cornered
fuzzy weights as depicted through the third column of
Table 7 below. Corresponding crisp weights, presented in
column 4 in Table 7, are calculated using Equation (4).
The proposed model helps HEIs applying for NBA
accreditation to access and recover from their short-
comings timely by ranking the associated critical PKIs. In
742 | AGARWAL
F I G U R E 7 Proposed framework. CEF, critical evaluation factor; COPRAS, COmplex PRoportional ASsessment; NBA, National Board of
Accreditation; PKI, preference key indicator; WASPAS, Weighted Aggregated Sum Product Assessment; SAR, self‐assessment report.
all the existing work done on fuzzy COPRAS, the
decision matrix is constructed solely in consultation with
experts without any mathematical formulae, which may
affect the accuracy of ranking results. In this work, this
shortcoming is removed by using mathematical calcula-
tions as shown in Table 5, obviously in consultation with
domain experts. Also, the assignment of lingual terms to
various PKIs is done in consultation with the academic
team of experts rather than only at the discretion of the
developers. This leads to a more precise ranking
framework as these two ideas are novel and have not
been implemented prior. This is shown in detail in
Figure 7. The Fuzzy decision matrix is more precise as
values are mapped on an empirical basis rather than
based solely on experts' recommendations. The reason
for this being the lingual terms (identified by the experts)
are converted to their triangular fuzzy numbers (TFNs)
(i.e., empirical conversion) using Tables 2 and 3 in this
research work. All 75 key indicators are mapped to six
CEFs based on lingual value conversion to their
corresponding empirical values, which is done using
the mapping criteria mentioned in Table 5. This research
work paper is the first to empirically map lingual values
of PKIs with corresponding CEFs as described above. In
all other studies done till now, this mapping is based
solely on the discretion of experts in that domain. In this
work, obviously, in consultation with the academic
experts, mapping is done empirically, thus making this
system more efficient, accurate, unbiased and completely
generic for NBA. The SAR report generated during the
AND TAYAL
NBA process is more informative now in identifying
the CEFs.
A sample of the self‐assessment report is used to
create the Fuzzy decision matrix as shown in Table 7. All
75 key indicators are mapped to six CEFs based on
lingual values according to the mapping criteria men-
tioned in Table 5.
Subsequently, lingual utilities are first converted to
tricornered or triangular fuzzy values using Table 2 and
as depicted in Table 8. Further conversion to crisp values
using Equation (4) is shown in Table 9 using the process
of defuzzification. On the basis of the fuzzy COPRAS
method and its mathematical implementation, Table 9
needs to be standardized. This is done in Table 10 using
Equation (5). Now, a loaded Standardized decision
matrix is formed as depicted by Table 11 by taking the
product of evaluation factor weights with a Standardized
decision matrix.
Now we obtain Fuzzy decision matrix with lingual
terms transformed into their equivalent TFN according
to Table 3.
Defuzzied decision matrix is derived from Table 8 by
converting the triangular fuzzy values into their equiva-
lent crisp values using Equation (4).
Standardized decision matrix as shown in Table 10 is
obtained from Defuzzied Decision Matrix using Equa-
tion (5).
Calculations for the first row, that is, PKI1 (State the
Vision and Mission of the Department and Institute) are
shown as follows:
AGARWAL AND TAYAL | 743

TABLE 7 Fuzzy decision matrix with lingual terms

PKIs versus
critical NBA weightage CEF3 CEF4 CEF6
evaluation criteria CEF1(TARGET CEF2(CONSIS- (ADE- (ADHER- CEF5 (VULNERA-
factors (NBA_W) ATTAINED) TENCY) QUACY) ENCE) (THREAT) BILITY)
PKI1 5 CI CI WI EQ EQ CI
PKI2 5 CI EQ FWI EQ EQ CI
PKI3 10 CI CI WI EQ EQ CI
PKI4 25 CI EQ FWI CI EQ CI
PKI5 15 EQ DI WI EQ CI CI
PKI6 10 CI CI FWI DI DI EQ
PKI7 10 FWI EQ CI WI EQ EQ
PKI8 25 WI CI EQ FWI CI DI
PKI9 20 EQ DI WI EQ CI CI
PKI10 25 CI EQ WI CI EQ EQ
PKI11 15 DI CI WI DI DI CI
PKI12 15 CI EQ EQ CI CI EQ
PKI13 5 DI DI FWI DI CI CI
PKI14 5 WI EQ EQ WI CI EQ
PKI15 10 FWI DI CI FWI EQ DI
PKI16 10 EQ CI EQ FWI CI EQ
PKI17 40 EQ CI EQ EQ CI CI
PKI18 10 CI EQ WI CI EQ EQ
PKI19 40 CI CI FWI EQ EQ CI
PKI20 20 EQ EQ FWI CI EQ CI
PKI21 25 DI CI WI EQ EQ CI
PKI22 15 CI CI WI DI EQ CI
PKI23 15 EQ CI FWI CI CI CI
PKI24 15 CI EQ WI EQ CI CI
PKI25 40 DI DI EQ CI CI CI
PKI26 5 EQ EQ WI EQ CI CI
PKI27 5 EQ CI EQ CI EQ EQ
PKI28 10 WI CI EQ EQ EQ CI
PKI29 20 EQ EQ FWI DI EQ CI
PKI30 25 WI CI WI CI EQ EQ
PKI31 25 FWI EQ WI EQ CI EQ
PKI32 25 EQ DI FWI DI CI CI
PKI33 20 CI CI WI EQ CI CI
PKI34 15 EQ EQ WI CI EQ EQ
PKI35 10 WI EQ FWI EQ EQ CI
PKI36 5 CI CI FWI CI EQ CI
PKI37 10 WI EQ WI DI EQ CI

(Continues)
744 | AGARWAL AND TAYAL

TABLE 7 (Continued)

PKIs versus
critical NBA weightage CEF3 CEF4 CEF6
evaluation criteria CEF1(TARGET CEF2(CONSIS- (ADE- (ADHER- CEF5 (VULNERA-
factors (NBA_W) ATTAINED) TENCY) QUACY) ENCE) (THREAT) BILITY)
PKI38 5 EQ WI FWI EQ EQ CI
PKI39 30 CI CI WI DI CI CI
PKI40 10 CI DI EQ EQ CI CI
PKI41 30 EQ EQ WI CI EQ CI
PKI42 25 CI DI FWI DI EQ EQ
PKI43 10 EQ CI EQ CI CI EQ
PKI44 5 CI CI WI CI CI CI
PKI45 10 EQ EQ WI EQ CI CI
PKI46 20 WI WI FWI DI EQ EQ
PKI47 10 FWI WI WI EQ EQ CI
PKI48 10 WI FWI WI CI EQ CI
PKI49 10 CI CI FWI EQ EQ CI
PKI50 5 EQ CI WI DI EQ CI
PKI51 5 FWI CI FWI EQ CI CI
PKI52 10 CI DI WI CI CI CI
PKI53 5 DI EQ WI DI CI EQ
PKI54 5 CI DI FWI CI CI CI
PKI55 15 EQ CI FWI CI CI CI
PKI56 5 DI CI FWI EQ EQ EQ
PKI57 5 EQ EQ WI EQ EQ CI
PKI58 10 CI CI WI CI EQ CI
PKI59 5 CI EQ FWI EQ EQ CI
PKI60 5 CI EQ EQ CI EQ CI
PKI61 10 DI DI WI EQ CI CI
PKI62 5 CI CI FWI EQ CI CI
PKI63 10 WI CI WI CI EQ CI
PKI64 5 CI EQ EQ CI EQ EQ
PKI65 10 DI EQ WI DI CI EQ
PKI66 10 CI DI FWI CI CI CI
PKI67 10 CI CI EQ EQ EQ CI
PKI68 5 CI DI WI CI CI CI
PKI69 10 CI CI WI EQ CI CI
PKI70 15 CI EQ FWI DI EQ CI
PKI71 5 EQ CI WI CI EQ CI
PKI72 10 CI CI CI EQ EQ EQ
PKI73 20 WI CI WI CI EQ CI
AGARWAL AND TAYAL | 745

TABLE 7 (Continued)

PKIs versus
critical NBA weightage CEF3 CEF4 CEF6
evaluation criteria CEF1(TARGET CEF2(CONSIS- (ADE- (ADHER- CEF5 (VULNERA-
factors (NBA_W) ATTAINED) TENCY) QUACY) ENCE) (THREAT) BILITY)
PKI74 10 CI EQ EQ CI EQ EQ
PKI75 10 DI EQ WI DI CI EQ
Abbreviations: CEF, critical evaluation factor; CI, considerable impact; EQ, equal; FWI, fairly weak impact; NBA, National Board of
Accreditation; PKI, preference key indicator; WI, weak impact.

TABLE 8 Fuzzy decision matrix with lingual terms converted to triangular fuzzy numbers
CEF6
PKIs versus criteria CEF1(TARGET CEF2 CEF3 CEF4 CEF5 (VULNERA-
evaluation factors ATTAINED) (CONSISTENCY) (ADEQUACY) (ADHERENCE) (THREAT) BILITY)
1.1. State the Vision and (5.0,7.5,10.0) (5.0,7.5,10.0) (0.0,2.5,5.0) (2.5,5.0,7.5) (2.5,5.0,7.5) (5.0,7.5,10.0)
Mission of the Department
and Institute (PKI1)
1.2. State the PEOs (PKI2) (5.0,7.5,10.0) (2.5,5.0,7.5) (0.0,0.0,2.5) (2.5,5.0,7.5) (2.5,5.0,7.5) (5.0,7.5,10.0)
1.3. Indicate where and how (5.0,7.5,10.0) (5.0,7.5,10.0) (0.0,2.5,5.0) (2.5,5.0,7.5) (2.5,5.0,7.5) (5.0,7.5,10.0)
the Vision, Mission and
PEOs are published and
disseminated among
stakeholders (PKI3)
1.4. State the process for (5.0,7.5,10.0) (2.5,5.0,7.5) (0.0,0.0,2.5) (5.0,7.5,10.0) (2.5,5.0,7.5) (5.0,7.5,10.0)
defining the Vision and
Mission of the
Department, and PEOs of
the program (PKI4)
1.5. Establish consistency of (2.5,5.0,7.5) (7.5,10.0,10.0) (0.0,2.5,5.0) (2.5,5.0,7.5) (5.0,7.5,10.0) (5.0,7.5,10.0)
PEOs with the Mission of
the Department (PKI5)
: : : : : : :
:
10.4.2. Internet (PKI75) (7.5,10.0,10.0) (2.5,5.0,7.5) (0.0,2.5,5.0) (7.5,10.0,10.0) (5.0,7.5,10.0) (2.5,5.0,7.5)
Abbreviations: CEF, critical evaluation factor; PEO, Program Educational Objectives; PKI, preference key indicator.

Take row sum, then for each CEF calculate the ratio Calculations for the first column, that is, CEF1
7.5 7.5 2.5 5 5 7.5
of defuzzied value and row sum, that is, 35 35 35 35 35 35 (TARGET ATTAINED), are obtained by multiplying
are calculated to obtain the first row of Table 10 as each PKI (ranging from 1 to 75) with the criteria weight
(0.214285714, 0.214285714, 0.071428571, 0.142857143, of CEF1(0.916). Criteria weights are observed in Table 6.
0.142857143, 0.214285714). CEF1(TARGET ATTAINED)
0.214285714 × 0.916 = 0.196285714
Similarly, values for remaining PKIs ranging from
0.243269543 × 0.916 = 0.222834901
PKI2 to PKI75 are calculated.
The loaded Standardized fuzzy decision matrix, 0.214285714 × 0.916 = 0.196285714
represented by Table 11, is obtained by multiplying 0.225022502 × 0.916 = 0.206120612
column‐wise each standardized decision matrix 0.136351241 × 0.916 = 0.124897737
value with its equivalent CEF crisp value using ⋮
Equation (7). These crisp values are mentioned in
0.239175796 × 0.916 = 0.219085029
Table 6.
746 | AGARWAL AND TAYAL

TABLE 9 Defuzzied decision matrix

PKIs versus
criteria
evaluation CEF1(TARGET CEF2 CEF3 CEF4 CEF5 CEF6(VUL- Sum
factors ATTAINED) (CONSISTENCY) (ADEQUACY) (ADHERENCE) (THREAT) NERABILITY) of row
PKI1 7.5 7.5 2.5 5 5 7.5 35
PKI2 7.5 5 0.83 5 5 7.5 30.83
PKI3 7.5 7.5 2.5 5 5 7.5 35
PKI4 7.5 5 0.83 7.5 5 7.5 33.33
PKI5 5 9.17 2.5 5 7.5 7.5 36.67
: : : : : : : :
:
PKI75 9.17 5 2.5 9.17 7.5 5 38.34
Abbreviations: CEF, critical evaluation factor; PKI, preference key indicator.

T A B L E 10 Standardized decision matrix

CEF6
PKIs versus criteria CEF1(TARGET CEF2 CEF3 CEF4 CEF5 (VULNERA-
evaluation factors ATTAINED) (CONSISTENCY) (ADEQUACY) (ADHERENCE) (THREAT) BILITY)
PKI1 0.214285714 0.214285714 0.071428571 0.142857143 0.142857143 0.214285714
PKI2 0.243269543 0.162179695 0.026921829 0.162179695 0.162179695 0.243269543
PKI3 0.214285714 0.214285714 0.071428571 0.142857143 0.142857143 0.214285714
PKI4 0.225022502 0.150015002 0.02490249 0.225022502 0.150015002 0.225022502
PKI5 0.136351241 0.250068176 0.06817562 0.136351241 0.204526861 0.204526861
: : : : : : :
: : : : : : :
PKI75 0.239175796 0.130412102 0.065206051 0.239175796 0.195618153 0.130412102
Abbreviations: CEF, critical evaluation factor; PKI, preference key indicator.

T A B L E 11 Loaded normalized decision matrix

PKIs versus
criteria CEF1(TARGET
evaluation ATTAINED) × CEF2(CONSIS- CEF3(ADE- CEF4(ADHER- CEF5(- CEF6(VULNER-
factors 0.916 TENCY) × 0.5 QUACY) × 0.75 ENCE) × 0.916 THREAT) × 0.25 ABILITY) × 0.083
PKI1 0.196285714 0.107142857 0.065428571 0.130857143 0.035714286 0.017785714
PKI2 0.222834901 0.081089848 0.024660396 0.148556601 0.040544924 0.020191372
PKI3 0.196285714 0.107142857 0.065428571 0.130857143 0.035714286 0.017785714
PKI4 0.206120612 0.075007501 0.022810681 0.206120612 0.03750375 0.018676868
PKI5 0.124897737 0.125034088 0.062448868 0.124897737 0.051131715 0.016975729
: : : : : : :
PKI75 0.219085029 0.065206051 0.059728743 0.219085029 0.048904538 0.010824204
Abbreviations: CEF, critical evaluation factor; PKI, preference key indicator.
AGARWAL AND TAYAL | 747

Similarly, CEFs ranging from CEF2 to CEF6 are T A B L E 12 Maximizing and minimizing weights Sg+ and Sg−
calculated to obtain a loaded normalized decision Maximizing Minimizing
matrix. PKI weight Sg+ weight Sg−
Find out the relative weights Sg+ and Sg− according to PKI1 0.499714286 0.0535
Equations (9) and (10), by taking the sum of profit
PKI2 0.477141745 0.060736296
(maximizing) and price (minimizing) CEFs, respectively.
As a matter of practice, we have written profit CEFs first PKI3 0.499714286 0.0535
followed by price ones. We have CEF1, CEF2, CEF3 and PKI4 0.510059406 0.056180618
CEF4 as our profit factors and CEF5 and CEF6 as our PKI5 0.437278429 0.068107445
price criteria. Both values are calculated separately for
each PKI. The values of Sg+ and Sg− are shown in Table 12. PKI6 0.5049783 0.069121777

Finally, the amount of utilization for each CEF is PKI7 0.480847077 0.06445993
computed. PKI8 0.350162462 0.081111077
PKI9 0.437278429 0.068107445
Maximizing weight Sg+ for the first row, that is,
PKI1(State the Vision and Mission of the Department PKI10 0.570153846 0.051230769
and Institute) is calculated as follows: PKI11 0.507430349 0.064763386
PKI12 0.5552 0.061066667
Loaded standardized sum of (CEF1(TARGET
PKI13 0.510953392 0.05762575
ATTAINED) + CEF2(CONSISTENCY) + CEF3(ADEQU-
ACY) + CEF4(ADHERENCE)), that is,) 0.196285714 + PKI14 0.424 0.083272727
0.107142857 + 0.065428571 + 0.130857143) = 0.4997142- PKI15 0.399248 0.061880308
86).
PKI16 0.443408368 0.0742783
Similarly, values for remaining PKIs ranging from
PKI2 to PKI75 are calculated. PKI17 0.4664 0.0666
Minimizing weight Sg− for the first row, that is, PKI18 0.570153846 0.051230769
PKI1(State the Vision and Mission of the Department PKI19 0.478856286 0.056180618
and Institute) is computed as follows:
PKI20 0.477141745 0.060736296
Loaded standardized sum of (CEF5(THREAT) +
CEF6(VULNERABILITY)), that is, (0.035714286 + PKI21 0.518672484 0.05106354
0.017785714) = 0.0535. PKI22 0.544031657 0.047804442
Similarly, values for remaining PKIs ranging from
PKI23 0.445444599 0.069704159
PKI2 to PKI75 are calculated.
PKI24 0.464 0.071357143
Using Equation (13), the relative weight RQg of
each preference indicator is calculated as shown in PKI25 0.53304363 0.054482984
the second column of Table 13. Using Equation (14), PKI26 0.429230769 0.076846154
the OC, used in ranking various PKIs from 1 to 75, is
PKI27 0.565142857 0.047571429
reckoned. Using Equation (15), the UDG for each PKI
is computed (to finally rank them) as shown in the PKI28 0.467692308 0.057615385
third column of Table 13. The greater the value of PKI29 0.499692308 0.057615385
UDG, the higher is its rank or priority. As shown in PKI30 0.506666667 0.0555
Table 13, column 4, the ranks are assigned
PKI31 0.392190476 0.088656601
accordingly.
It can be concluded that the major critical factor PKI32 0.467832525 0.063760531
from which the organization has to work and recover PKI33 0.4664 0.0666
from are ‘Vision and Mission statement of the
PKI34 0.541333333 0.0555
Institute’ and ‘Quality of learning resources’, while
the factor that is safest and need not worked upon PKI35 0.392190476 0.072493225
more is ‘Qualification of Faculty Teaching First Year PKI36 0.509357522 0.052260675
Common Courses’. This is in context with the sample PKI37 0.488781812 0.059125355
SAR report used for data set purposes in this
PKI38 0.432453736 0.072493225
research work.
(Continues)
748 | AGARWAL AND TAYAL

TABLE 12 (Continued) 5 | COLLATING THE P ROPOSED

METHOD W I TH TO PSIS AND
Maximizing Minimizing
PKI weight Sg+ weight Sg−
WASPAS
PKI39 0.511392369 0.059935205
In this section, we have compared fuzzy COPRAS with
PKI40 0.494720422 0.059935205 TOPSIS and WASPAS methods to highlight the
PKI41 0.499692308 0.057615385 preciseness and accuracy using the fuzzy COPRAS
method. Improved and efficient implementation of
PKI42 0.562176166 0.045404963
extended fuzzy COPRAS for identifying and ranking
PKI43 0.527466667 0.061066667 the cardinal indicators that can pose a problem in the
PKI44 0.4945 0.0624375 successful NBA visit is demonstrated by comparing it
PKI45 0.429230769 0.076846154 with the TOPSIS and WASPAS methods. Both methods
are run separately on the same data set of key
PKI46 0.508 0.0666
indicators and criteria evaluative factors. In both
PKI47 0.380637805 0.080261466 methods, all the criteria are divided into price (the
PKI48 0.459349593 0.072493225 lesser the better) and profit (the more the better)
values. Implementation is refined in extended fuzzy
PKI49 0.478856286 0.056180618
COPRAS as it generates loaded standardized maximiz-
PKI50 0.518672484 0.05106354 ing and minimizing indices by maximizing the lower
PKI51 0.3378107 0.085648148 values and minimizing the higher values. Moreover,
PKI52 0.494720422 0.059935205 the output from all three methods is shown in
Table 13. There is a significant difference in the ranks
PKI53 0.563104851 0.059728743
provided by the two methods. The values provided by
PKI54 0.477132 0.0624375 fuzzy COPRAS are more significant, precise, accurate
PKI55 0.445444599 0.069704159 and match with the actual NBA expert findings for a
PKI56 0.538153846 0.051230769
particular setup. The six identified CEFs are shown
below in Figure 8 with their corresponding weights.
PKI57 0.465 0.062416667
In Figure 9, the weights of PKIs ranging from 1 to 5
PKI58 0.527466667 0.049933333 (out of 75) are shown with corresponding UDG values.
PKI59 0.477141745 0.060736296 Similarly, we can plot for remaining PKIs. The UDG
values signify the amount of needs of the author, which
PKI60 0.5552 0.049933333
are satisfied using a particular MCDM approach for a
PKI61 0.486158668 0.061153281 particular CEF. The greater the value, the more satisfying
PKI62 0.445444599 0.069704159 are the needs of the researcher.
PKI63 0.467692308 0.057615385 Figure 10 compares Spearman's rank correlation
coefficient for all three fuzzy methods (COPRAS,
PKI64 0.594857143 0.047571429
TOPSIS, WASPAS). It is observed that the Spearman's
PKI65 0.563104851 0.059728743 rank correlation coefficient, which tells the correlation
PKI66 0.477132 0.0624375 between the ranks of the attributes, is highest for the
proposed fuzzy COPRAS (0.7603) method as compared
PKI67 0.527466667 0.049933333
to TOPSIS (0.5021) and WASPAS (0.5002) methods.
PKI68 0.494720422 0.059935205
Spearman's rank correlation coefficient measures the
PKI69 0.4664 0.0666 strength of association between two ranked variables.
PKI70 0.529428571 0.0535 The values fall between 0 and 1 (both inclusive) where
‘0’ or approaching ‘0’ values signify no correlation and
PKI71 0.499714286 0.0535
‘1’ or approaching ‘1’ values signify very good
PKI72 0.588533333 0.0444 correlations.
PKI73 0.467692308 0.057615385 Thus, the results of the comparative study among
PKI74 0.594857143 0.047571429 fuzzy COPRAS, WASPAS and TOPSIS reveal the under-
lying shortcomings in the existing methods, which are
PKI75 0.563104851 0.059728743
removed through our proposed method of extended
Abbreviation: PKI, preference key indicator. fuzzy COPRAS as discussed below:
AGARWAL AND TAYAL | 749

T A B L E 13 Final ranking of PKIs through COPRAS and rank comparison through TOPSIS and WASPAS
RANK based on
Relative Utility security through RANK through RANK through
PKI weight (RQ) degree (UDG) fuzzy COPRAS fuzzy TOPSIS WASPAS
PKI1 5.096393365 98.16734675 31 52 37
PKI2 5.073820825 97.73255174 45 44 45
PKI3 5.096393365 98.16734675 31 52 37
PKI4 5.106738486 98.36661571 25 55 28
PKI5 5.033957509 96.96469972 64 8 67
PKI6 5.101657379 98.26874283 30 5 22
PKI7 5.077526157 97.80392429 42 64 42
PKI8 4.946841541 95.28666139 74 6 74
PKI9 5.033957509 96.96469972 64 8 67
PKI10 5.166832926 99.5241621 4 64 7
PKI11 5.104109429 98.3159745 28 7 23
PKI12 5.15187908 99.23611931 11 29 9
PKI13 5.107632472 98.38383578 24 30 27
PKI14 5.02067908 96.708929 69 10 64
PKI15 4.99592708 96.23215298 70 41 73
PKI16 5.040087448 97.08277535 63 17 60
PKI17 5.06307908 97.52564294 54 18 51
PKI18 5.166832926 99.5241621 4 64 7
PKI19 5.075535365 97.76557743 43 48 49
PKI20 5.073820825 97.73255174 45 42 45
PKI21 5.115351564 98.53252187 21 59 25
PKI22 5.140710737 99.02099333 13 62 14
PKI23 5.042123679 97.12199748 60 12 61
PKI24 5.06067908 97.47941385 58 15 48
PKI25 5.12972271 98.80934062 16 34 17
PKI26 5.025909849 96.80968472 67 3 65
PKI27 5.161821937 99.42763983 6 64 10
PKI28 5.064371387 97.55053553 51 51 57
PKI29 5.096371387 98.16692341 34 54 33
PKI30 5.103345746 98.30126436 29 64 29
PKI31 4.988869556 96.0962101 71 2 70
PKI32 5.064511605 97.55323641 50 19 55
PKI33 5.06307908 97.52564294 54 16 52
PKI34 5.138012413 98.96901789 14 64 13
PKI35 4.988869556 96.0962101 72 35 71
PKI36 5.106036601 98.35309593 26 56 30
PKI37 5.085460892 97.95676413 40 50 40
PKI38 5.029132816 96.87176589 66 37 69

(Continues)
750 | AGARWAL AND TAYAL

TABLE 13 (Continued)

RANK based on
Relative Utility security through RANK through RANK through
PKI weight (RQ) degree (UDG) fuzzy COPRAS fuzzy TOPSIS WASPAS
PKI39 5.108071448 98.3922914 23 26 24
PKI40 5.091399502 98.07115435 36 27 34
PKI41 5.096371387 98.16692341 34 47 31
PKI42 5.158855246 99.37049506 10 64 11
PKI43 5.124145746 98.70191648 18 28 15
PKI44 5.09117908 98.06690855 39 22 32
PKI45 5.025909849 96.80968472 67 3 65
PKI46 5.10467908 98.32694719 27 64 21
PKI47 4.977316885 95.87368116 73 36 72
PKI48 5.056028673 97.38983716 59 39 54
PKI49 5.075535365 97.76557743 43 48 49
PKI50 5.115351564 98.53252187 21 57 25
PKI51 4.934489779 95.04874025 75 1 75
PKI52 5.091399502 98.07115435 36 23 35
PKI53 5.159783931 99.38838351 7 32 4
PKI54 5.07381108 97.73236403 48 20 43
PKI55 5.042123679 97.12199748 60 12 61
PKI56 5.134832926 98.90777423 15 64 16
PKI57 5.06167908 97.49867597 57 38 56
PKI58 5.124145746 98.70191648 18 58 20
PKI59 5.073820825 97.73255174 45 44 45
PKI60 5.15187908 99.23611931 11 63 12
PKI61 5.082837748 97.9062368 41 25 41
PKI62 5.042123679 97.12199748 60 14 61
PKI63 5.064371387 97.55053553 51 43 58
PKI64 5.191536223 100 1 64 1
PKI65 5.159783931 99.38838351 7 32 4
PKI66 5.07381108 97.73236403 48 20 43
PKI67 5.124145746 98.70191648 18 61 19
PKI68 5.091399502 98.07115435 36 23 35
PKI69 5.06307908 97.52564294 54 11 52
PKI70 5.126107651 98.73970693 17 60 18
PKI71 5.096393365 98.16734675 31 46 37
PKI72 5.185212413 99.87819001 3 64 3
PKI73 5.064371387 97.55053553 51 40 58
PKI74 5.191536223 100 1 64 1
PKI75 5.159783931 99.38838351 7 31 4
Abbreviation: COPRAS, COmplex PRoportional ASsessment; PKI, preference key indicator; TOPSIS, Technique for Order of Preference by Similarity to Ideal
Solution; WASPAS, Weighted Aggregated Sum Product Assessment.
AGARWAL AND TAYAL | 751

FIGURE 8 Weights of critical evaluation

factors

FIGURE 9 Ranking of preference key indicators in fuzzy COmplex PRoportional ASsessment (Only starting 5 are taken out of 75)

F I G U R E 10 Spearman's rank correlation coefficient

(1) The estimates for critical PKIs fall under a restricted
range.
(2) Clustering of assets into an insufficient number of
brackets.
(3) Ignoring the correlative significant values of CEFs.
6 | CONCLUSION
In this paper, a new framework to evaluate key indicators
associated with various CEFs for NBA assessment is
introduced and developed. The proposed model helps
HEIs applying for NBA accreditation to access and
recover from their shortcomings timely by ranking the
key indicators. The Fuzzy decision matrix is more precise
as values are mapped on an empirical basis rather than
based solely on experts' recommendations. The SAR
report generated during the NBA process is more
informative now in identifying the CEFs. The benefits
of the proposed model are also verified by a comparative
analysis of the proposed method with TOPSIS and
WASPAS with the help of both diagrams matically and
empirical support. It reveals that extended fuzzy
COPRAS is able to identify cardinal indicators, the
critical parameters pertaining to a particular NBA visit
scenario, which if not solved timely can pose a problem
in the selection or rejection of the institute, more
efficiently as compared to others. It can further be
752 | AGARWAL
extended to other accrediting bodies at the national and
international levels.
A U T HO R C O N T R I B U TI O N S
All authors whose names appear on the submission have
made substantial contributions to the conception or
design of the work, its acquisition, analysis and
interpretation of the data. They have drafted the work
and revised it critically for important intellectual content
The authors have approved the version to be published
and agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work in
ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or
integrity of any part of the work are appropriately
investigated and resolved.
CONFLI CT OF I NTER EST
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
DATA A VAILABILITY S TATEMENT
The data would be made available to anyone who would
ask for it and the whole data repository would be shared.
The major data set that is, Shanghai ranking data set
from (2005–2015), which is analysed during the current
study, is available in the (data world) repository, https://
querydataworld/s/g3lmu2afosoprs6fxnoe5eqfjcfric.
Shanghai ranking data from year 2016 to year 2018 is
extracted by the authors from Shanghai World University
rankings, https://www.Shanghairanking.com. All the
codes are available with the authors in Python language
embedded in Google Collaboratory Sheet.
ORCID
Devendra K. Tayal http://orcid.org/0000-0001-
7388-5880
REFERENCES
1. M. Abdel‐Basset, A. Gamal, G. Manogaran, L. H. Son, and
H. V. Long, A novel group decision making model based on
neutrosophic sets for heart disease diagnosis, Multimed. Tools
Appl. 79 (2020), 9977–10002. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11042-
019-07742-7
2. P. Akahvan, S. Barak, H. Maghsoudlou, and J. Antucheviciene, J
FQSPM‐SWOT for strategic alliance planning and partner
selection; case study in a holding car manufacturer company,
Technol. Econ. Dev. Econ 21 (2015), 165–185.
3. S. Allison, S. Gabriel, H. R. Hajiagha, S. H. S. Hashemi, and
E. K. Zavadskas, A complex proportional assessment method for
group decision making in an interval‐value intuitionistic fuzzy
environment, Technol. Econ. Dev. Econ. 19 (2013), no. 1, 22–27.
4. Y. Cao, Z. M. AlKubaisy, J. Stojanović, N. Denić, D. Petković,
D. Zlatković, and A. Zakić, Appraisal of information and
communications technologies on the teaching process by neuro
AND TAYAL
fuzzy logic, Comput. Appl. Eng. Educ. 30 (2022), no. 3,
779–802.
5. T. Chaira, Fuzzy set and its extension: the intuitionistic fuzzy
set, John Wiley & Sons, 2019, https://doi.org/10.1002/
9781119544203.ch1
6. A. Čereška, E. Zavadskas, F. Cavallaro, V. Podvezko,
I. Tetsman, and I. Grinbergienė, Sustainable assessment of
aerosol pollution decrease applying multiple attribute decision‐
making methods, Sustainability 8 (2016), 586.
7. R. M. Clark, A. K. Kaw, and R. Braga Gomes, Adaptive
learning: helpful to the flipped classroom in the online
environment of COVID? Comput. Appl. Eng. Educ. 30 (2022),
no. 2, 517–531.
8. H. S. Dhiman and D. Deb, Fuzzy TOPSIS and fuzzy COPRAS
based multi‐criteria decision making for hybrid wind farms,
Energy 202 (2020), 117755.
9. F. Ecer, A hybrid banking websites quality evaluation model
using AHP and COPRAS‐G: a Turkey case, Technol. Econ.
Dev. Econ. 20 (2014), 757–782.
10. V. S. Gadakh, Application of complex proportional assessment
method for vendor selection, Int. J. Logist. Res. Appl. 17 (2014),
no. 1, 23–34.
11. I. Garcia, C. Pacheco, A. León, and J. A. Calvo‐Manzano,
Cadxela: an educational tool for supporting the global software
engineering education at undergraduate level, Comput. Appl.
Eng. Educ. 30 (2021), no. 3, 708–29.
12. A. Gholamy, O. Kosheleva, and V. Kreinovich, How to explain
the efficiency of triangular and trapezoid membership functions
in applications to design, Оntol. Des. 9 (2019), no. 2 (32),
253–260.
13. A. Gupta, D. Garg, and P. Kumar, An ensembling model for
early identification of at‐risk students in higher education,
Comput. Appl. Eng. Educ. 30 (2022), no. 2, 589–608.
14. S. Hashemkhani Zolfani, M. Pourhossein, M. Yazdani, and
E. Kazimieras Zavadskas, Evaluating construction projects of
hotels based on environmental sustainability with MCDM
framework, Alex. Eng. J. 57 (2018), 357–365.
15. C. Kahraman, A. Beskese, and I. Kaya, Selection among ERP
outsourcing alternatives using a fuzzy multi‐criteria decision‐
making methodology, Int. J. Prod. Res. 48 (2010), no. 2,
547–566. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207540903175095
16. F. Kayaalp and F. Dinc, A mobile app for algorithms learning
in engineering education: drag and drop approach, Comput.
Appl. Eng. Educ. 30 (2022), 235–250. https://doi.org/10.1002/
cae.22453250
17. O. Kosheleva, V. Kreinovich, and T. N. Nguyen, Why
triangular membership functions are successfully used in
f‐transform applications: a global explanation to supplement
the existing local ones, Axioms 8 (2019), no. 3, 95.
18. N. Li, X. Chen, S. Subramani, and S. N. Kadry, Improved fuzzy‐
assisted multimedia‐assistive technology for engineering educa-
tion, Comput. Appl. Eng. Educ. 2 (2020), no. 2, 453–464.
https://doi.org/10.1002/cae.22230
19. X. Li and Z. He, An integrated approach for evaluating hospital
service quality with linguistic preferences, Int. J. Prod. Res. 59
(2020), 1776–1790. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2020.
1725681
20. J. J. H. Liou, J. Tamošaitienė, E. K. Zavadskas, and
G. H. Tzeng, New hybrid COPRAS‐G MADM Model for
AGARWAL AND TAYAL
improving and selecting suppliers in green supply chain
management, Int. J. Prod. Res. 54 (2016), 114–134. https://
doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2015.1010747
21. D. Mehta and S. Saxena, Hierarchical WSN protocol with fuzzy
multi‐criteria clustering and bio‐inspired energy‐efficient routing
(FMCB‐ER), Multimed. Tools Appl. 81 (2020), 35083–35116.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11042-020-09633-8
22. A. Murugananthamand G. M. Gandhi, Framework for social
media analytics based on multi‐criteria decision making (MCDM)
model, Multimed. Tools Appl. 79 (2020), 3913–3927. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s11042-019-7470-2
23. M. Nadeem, A. Hussain, and A. Munir, Fuzzy logic based
computational model for speckle noise removal in ultrasound
images, Multimed. Tools Appl. 78 (2019), 18531–18548.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11042-019-7221-4
24. M. Nasir, P. Dutta, and A. Nandi, Fuzzy triangulation
signature for detection of change in human emotion from face
video image sequence, Multimed. Tools Appl. 80 (2021),
31993–32022. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11042-021-11196-1
25. A. Ozdemir, and K. F. Balbal, Fuzzy logic‐based performance
analysis of educational mobile game for engineering students,
Comput. Appl. Eng. Educ. 28 (2020), no. 6, 1536–1548.
26. W. Pedrycz, Why triangular membership functions, Fuzzy Sets
Syst. 64 (1994), 21–30.
27. L. Pintelon, M. Di Nardo, T. Murino, G. Pileggi, and
E. Vander Poorten, A new hybrid MCDM approach for RPN
evaluation for a medical device prototype, Qual. Reliab. Eng.
Int. 37 (2021), no. 5, 2189–2213.
28. P. Pitchipoo, D. S. Vincent, N. Rajini, and S. Rajakarunakaran,
COPRAS decision model to optimize blind spot in heavy vehicles: a
comparative perspective, Procedia Eng. 97 (2014), 1049–1059.
29. G. Polat, B. N. Bingol, and O. Var, An integrated multi‐criteria‐
decision‐making tool for mechanical designer selection,
Procedia Eng. 196 (2017), 278–285.
30. R. Rasiulis, L. Ustinovichius, T. Vilutienė, and V. Popov,
Decision model for selection of modernization measures: public
building case, J. Civil Eng. Manag. 22 (2015), 124–133.
31. L. Singh, S. Singh, and N. Aggarwal, Improved TOPSIS method
for peak frame selection in audio–video human emotion
recognition, Multimed. Tools Appl. 78 (2019), 6277–6308.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11042-018-6402-x
32. E. J. Tamošaitien and E. Gaudutis, Complex assessment of
structural systems, J. Civ. Eng. Manag. 19 (2013), 305–317.
33. B. Vytautas, B. Marija, and P. Vytautas, Assessment of neglected
areas in Vilnius city using MCDM and COPRAS methods,
Procedia Eng. 122 (2015), 29–38.
34. W. Wang, D. Qiu, X. Chen, and Z. Yu, An empirical study on
the evaluation system of innovation and entrepreneurship
education in applied universities, Comput. Appl. Eng. Educ.
2022. https://doi.org/10.1002/cae.22573
35. T. Wu, X. Liu, and F. Liu, An interval type‐2 fuzzy TOPSIS
model for large scale group decision making problems with
social network information, Inf. Sci.432 (2018), 392–410.
36. L. A. Zadeh, Fuzzy sets, Inf. Control 8 (1965), 338–353.
37. E. K. Zavadskas, E. Kaklauskas, and A. V. Sark, The new
method of multicriteria complex proportional assessment of
projects, Technol. Econ. Dev. Econ. 1 (1994), no. 3, 131–139.
38. E. K. Zavadskas, Z. Turskis, and J. Antucheviciene, Optimiza-
tion of weighted aggregated sum product assessment, Electron.
| 753
Electr. Eng. 122 (2012), no. 6, 3–6. https://doi.org/10.5755/j01.
eee.122.6.1810
39. http://naac.gov.in/index.php/assessment-accreditation#units
40. https://www.nbaind.org/files/evaluation-guidelines-tier-ii-
v0.pdf
41. https://www.nbaind.org/about/majormilestone
42. https://www.nirfindia.org/About
AU T HO R B I O G R A P HI E S
Nidhi Agarwal received a B.Tech
degree in Computer Science & Informa-
tion Technology engineering in 2004
from U.P.T.U. and M.Tech degree in
computer engineering in 2011. She has
cleared NTA NET in Computer Applica-
tions and Engineering in June 2019. She has 18.5
years of total teaching experience with B.Tech,
M.Tech students and 2 years of research experience.
She is pursuing her Ph.D. degree in the Department of
Computer Engineering, IGDTUW, Delhi, approved by
the Govt of N.C.T. of Delhi, since August 2019 and is
also serving as an Assistant Professor in the Depart-
ment of CSE at Delhi Technical Campus, Greater‐
Noida, India. She has around 10 research papers in
SCI/E and Scopus‐indexed journals. She has around
15 papers in IEEE/Scopus‐indexed conferences. She
has authored four book chapters from the CSE
domain and has four patents in her name. She has
reviewed many research papers in international
journals and conferences of repute. Her research
interests include Fuzzy logic, Soft Computing, Artifi-
cial Intelligence, Machine Learning, Deep Learning,
Software Engineering and Agile Methodologies.
Devendra K. Tayal is working as Chief
Proctor and Professor in the Department
of Computer Science and Engineering at
IGDTUW, Delhi. Earlier he was Head of
the Department of Computer Science
and Engineering. He has done M.Tech
(Computer Engineering) and Ph.D. (Computer En-
gineering) from Jawaharlal Nehru University. He has
a teaching experience of more than 20 years. He did
his research in the field of Intelligent Systems and has
published approximately 50 research papers in
international journals and conferences. He was earlier
selected as a Research Engineer in C‐DOT (Govt of
India) and also a Class‐I Gazetted Officer by UPSC.
He has written numerous articles in newspapers and
magazines as well. He is a member of the Interna-
tional Advisory Committee of the International
754 | AGARWAL
Journal of Computer Science, Hong Kong and a
member of the International Advisory Board of
the International Journal of Software Engineering &
Applications, Korea. Besides this, he is a referee on
the Editorial Board of various international journals
including the infamous ‘IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy
Systems’ having the SCI Impact Factor 4.2. He has
extensively delivered lectures at conferences, semi-
nars and workshops. He keeps on regularly conduct-
ing conferences and workshops in his field of interest,
in his department and outside too. He is currently
supervising Ph.D. in the field of Intelligent Systems,
AND TAYAL
Data mining, DBMS and Text Mining and Natural
Language Processing.
How to cite this article: N. Agarwal, and D. K.
Tayal, A new model based on the extended COPRAS
method for improving performance during the
accreditation process of Indian Higher Educational
Institutions, Comput. Appl. Eng. Educ.
2023;31:728–754.
https://doi.org/10.1002/cae.22602