[Ahmadi, H., Rad, M. S., Nazari, M., Nilashi, M., & Ibrahim, O. (2014). Evaluating the factors affecting the implementation of hospital information system (HIS) using AHP method. Life Science Journal, 11(3), 202-207.]Search in Google Scholar
[Arnesen, T., & Trommald, M. (2004). Roughly right or precisely wrong? Systematic review of quality-of-life weights elicited with the time trade-off method. Journal of health services research & policy, 9(1), 43-50.10.1258/135581904322716111]Search in Google Scholar
[Barron, F. H., & Barrett, B. E. (1996). The efficacy of SMARTER-Simple multi-attribute rating technique extended to ranking. Acta Psychologica, 93(1), 23-36.10.1016/0001-6918(96)00010-8]Search in Google Scholar
[Bottomley, P. A., & Doyle, J. R. (2001). A comparison of three weight elicitation methods: good, better, and best. Omega, 29(6), 553-560.10.1016/S0305-0483(01)00044-5]Search in Google Scholar
[Bottomley, P. A., Doyle, J. R., & Green, R. H. (2000). Testing the reliability of weight elicitation methods: direct rating versus point allocation. Journal of Marketing Research, 37(4), 508-513.10.1509/jmkr.37.4.508.18794]Search in Google Scholar
[Chin, K. S., Fu, C., & Wang, Y. (2015). A method of determining attribute weights in evidential reasoning approach based on incompatibility among attributes. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 87, 150-162.10.1016/j.cie.2015.04.016]Search in Google Scholar
[Colombo, E., & Francalanci, C. (2004). Selecting CRM packages based on architectural, functional, and cost requirements: Empirical validation of a hierarchical ranking model. Requirements Engineering, 9(3), 186-203.10.1007/s00766-003-0184-y]Search in Google Scholar
[Curtis, I. A. (2004). Valuing ecosystem goods and services: a new approach using a surrogate market and the combination of a multiple criteria analysis and a Delphi panel to assign weights to the attributes. Ecological Economics, 50(3), 163-194.10.1016/j.ecolecon.2004.02.003]Search in Google Scholar
[Danaher, P. J. (1997). Using conjoint analysis to determine the relative importance of service attributes measured in customer satisfaction surveys. Journal of Retailing, 73(2), 235-260.10.1016/S0022-4359(97)90005-1]Search in Google Scholar
[Dehghan-Manshadi, B., Mahmudi, H., Abedian, A., & Mahmudi, R. (2007). A novel method for materials selection in mechanical design: combination of non-linear normalization and a modified digital logic method. Materials & Design, 28(1), 8-15.10.1016/j.matdes.2005.06.023]Search in Google Scholar
[Deng, H., Yeh, C. H., & Willis, R. J. (2000). Inter-company comparison using modified TOPSIS with objective weights. Computers & Operations Research, 27(10), 963-973.10.1016/S0305-0548(99)00069-6]Search in Google Scholar
[Diakoulaki, D., Mavrotas, G., & Papayannakis, L. (1995). Determining objective weights in multiple criteria problems: the CRITIC method. Computers & Operations Research, 22(7), 763-770.10.1016/0305-0548(94)00059-H]Search in Google Scholar
[e Costa, C. A. B., & Vansnick, J. C. (1997). A theoretical framework for measuring attractiveness by a categorical based evaluation technique (MACBETH). In Multicriteria Analysis (pp. 15-24). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.10.1007/978-3-642-60667-0_3]Search in Google Scholar
[Edwards, W., & Barron, F. H. (1994). SMARTS and SMARTER: Improved simple methods for multiattribute utility measurement. Organizational behavior and human decision processes, 60(3), 306-325.10.1006/obhd.1994.1087]Search in Google Scholar
[Edwards, W., & Barron, F. H. (1994). SMARTS and SMARTER: Improved simple methods for multiattribute utility measurement. Organizational behavior and human decision processes, 60(3), 306-325.10.1006/obhd.1994.1087]Search in Google Scholar
[Huang, J. (2008). Combining entropy weight and TOPSIS method for information system selection. In 2008 IEEE Conference on Cybernetics and Intelligent Systems, 1281-128410.1109/ICCIS.2008.4670971]Search in Google Scholar
[Hwang, C. L., & Yoon, K. (1981). Multiple attribute decision making making: methods and applications. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.10.1007/978-3-642-48318-9]Search in Google Scholar
[Jadhav, A. S., & Sonar, R. M. (2009). Evaluating and selecting software packages: A review. Information and software technology, 51(3), 555-563.10.1016/j.infsof.2008.09.003]Search in Google Scholar
[Janković-Milić, V., & Stanković J. (2010). Bayesian approach to multi-criteria analysis in business decision making (in Serbian). Vrnjačka Spa]Search in Google Scholar
[Jayant, A., Gupta, P., Garg, S. K., & Khan, M. (2014). TOPSIS-AHP based approach for selection of reverse logistics service provider: a case study of mobile phone industry. Procedia Engineering, 97, 2147-2156.10.1016/j.proeng.2014.12.458]Search in Google Scholar
[Karande, P., & Chakraborty, S. (2014). A facility layout selection model using MACBETH method. In Proceedings of the 2014 International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Operations Management, January (pp. 7-9).]Search in Google Scholar
[Kim, J., & Moon, J. Y. (1997). An AHP & survey for selecting workflow management systems. Intelligent Systems in Accounting, Finance and Management, 6(2), 141-161.10.1002/(SICI)1099-1174(199706)6:2<141::AID-ISAF122>3.0.CO;2-2]Search in Google Scholar
[Kim, K. Y., & Na, K. S. (2014). Business information system recovery priority decision using TOPSIS on interval data. Journal of Systems and Information Technology, 16(2), 103-112.10.1108/JSIT-12-2013-0068]Search in Google Scholar
[Krstic, B., Petrovic, J., & Stanisic, T. (2015). Analysis of key indicators of economic dimensions of spas'sustainable development in Serbia as tourism destinations 4. Ekonomika, 61(3), 61.10.5937/ekonomika1503061K]Search in Google Scholar
[Kundakcı, N. (2016). Combined Multi-Criteria Decision Making Approach Based On Macbeth And Multi-MOORA Methods. Alphanumeric Journal, 4(1).10.17093/aj.2016.4.1.5000178402]Search in Google Scholar
[Kundakcı, N., & Işık, A. (2016). Integration of MACBETH and COPRAS methods to select air compressor for a textile company. Decision Science Letters, 5(3), 381-394.10.5267/j.dsl.2016.2.003]Search in Google Scholar
[Lee, J. W., & Kim, S. H. (2000). Using analytic network process and goal programming for interdependent information system project selection. Computers & Operations Research, 27(4), 367-382.10.1016/S0305-0548(99)00057-X]Search in Google Scholar
[Ma, J., Fan, Z. P., & Huang, L. H. (1999). A subjective and objective integrated approach to determine attribute weights. European Journal of Operations Research, 112 (2), 397-404.10.1016/S0377-2217(98)00141-6]Search in Google Scholar
[Milićević, M.R. & Župac, G.Ž. (2012). Objektivni pristup određivanju težina kriterijuma. Vojnotehnički glasnik, 60(1), 39-56.10.5937/vojtehg1201039M]Search in Google Scholar
[Mitchell, J. (2000). Increasing the cost-effectiveness of telemedicine by embracing ehealth. Journal of telemedicine and telecare, 6(suppl 1), 16-19.10.1258/1357633001934500]Search in Google Scholar
[Ngai, E. W., & Chan, E. W. C. (2005). Evaluation of knowledge management tools using AHP. Expert systems with applications, 29(4), 889-899.10.1016/j.eswa.2005.06.025]Search in Google Scholar
[Pan American Health Organization (1998) Information Systems and Information Technology in Health: Challenges and Solutions for Latin America and the Caribbean, Health Services Information Systems Program, PAHO/WHO, Washington, DC; ISBN 9275 12246 6.]Search in Google Scholar
[Podvezko, V., & Sivilevičius, H. (2013). The use of AHP and rank correlation methods for determining the significance of the interaction between the elements of a transport system having a strong influence on traffic safety. Transport, 28(4), 389-403.10.3846/16484142.2013.866980]Search in Google Scholar
[Pöyhönen, M., & Hämäläinen, R. P. (2001). On the convergence of multiattribute weighting methods. European Journal of Operational Research, 129(3), 569-585.10.1016/S0377-2217(99)00467-1]Search in Google Scholar
[Pulipati, S. B., & Mattingly, S. P. (2013). Establishing criteria and their weights for evaluating transportation funding alternatives using a Delphi survey.Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 104, 922-931.10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.11.187]Search in Google Scholar
[Rao, R. V. (2008). A decision making methodology for material selection using an improved compromise ranking method. Materials & Design, 29(10), 1949-1954.10.1016/j.matdes.2008.04.019]Search in Google Scholar
[Rao, R. V., & Davim, J. P. (2008). A decision-making framework model for material selection using a combined multiple attribute decision-making method. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 35(7-8), 751-760.10.1007/s00170-006-0752-7]Search in Google Scholar
[Roberts, R., & Goodwin, P. (2002). Weight approximations in multi‐attribute decision models. Journal of Multi‐Criteria Decision Analysis, 11(6), 291-303.10.1002/mcda.320]Search in Google Scholar
[Rodrigues, R. J. (2000, April). Telemedicine and the transformation of healthcare practice in the information age. In Speakers' book of the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) Telecom Americas. Rio de Janeiro: Telecom Development Symposium, Session TDS (Vol. 2, pp. 91-105).]Search in Google Scholar
[Rodrigues, R. J. (2003). Opportunities and challenges in the deployment of global e-health. International journal of healthcare technology and management, 5(3-5), 335-358.10.1504/IJHTM.2003.004173]Search in Google Scholar
[Saaty, T. L. (1977). A scaling method for priorities in hierarchical structures. Journal of mathematical psychology, 15(3), 234-281.10.1016/0022-2496(77)90033-5]Search in Google Scholar
[Saaty, T. L. (1990). How to make a decision: the analytic hierarchy process. European Journal of Operational Research, 48 (1), 9-26.10.1016/0377-2217(90)90057-I]Search in Google Scholar
[Saaty, T.L. (1980). The Analytic Hierarchy Process, New York: McGraw Hill.10.21236/ADA214804]Search in Google Scholar
[Srđević, B. (2005). Nepristrasna ocena značaja krtierijuma u višekriterijumskoj optimizaciji. Vodoprivreda, 37 (1-3), 53-58.]Search in Google Scholar
[Tan, J., & Payton, F. C. (2010). Adaptive health management information systems: Concepts, cases, & practical applications. Jones & Bartlett Learning.]Search in Google Scholar
[Teltumbde, A. (2000). A framework for evaluating ERP projects. International journal of production research, 38(17), 4507-4520.10.1080/00207540050205262]Search in Google Scholar
[Todorović, O., & Stanković, J. (2011). TOPSIS metoda kao sredstvo optimizacije odlučivanja u uslovima krize. Nauka i svetska ekonomska kriza, Niš: Ekonomski fakultet]Search in Google Scholar
[Von Winterfeldt, D., & Edwards, W. (1986). Decision analysis and behavioral research: Vol. 604. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.]Search in Google Scholar
[Wei, C. C., Chien, C. F., & Wang, M. J. J. (2005). An AHP-based approach to ERP system selection. International journal of production economics, 96(1), 47-62.10.1016/j.ijpe.2004.03.004]Search in Google Scholar
[Wu, J., Sun, J., Liang, L., & Zha, Y. (2011). Determination of weights for ultimate cross efficiency using Shannon entropy. Expert Systems with Applications, 38(5), 5162-5165.10.1016/j.eswa.2010.10.046]Search in Google Scholar
[Xu, X. (2004). A note on the subjective and objective integrated approach to determine attribute weights. European Journal of Operational Research, 156(2), 530-532.10.1016/S0377-2217(03)00146-2]Search in Google Scholar
[Yoon, K., Hwang, C. (1995). Multiple attribute decision-making: an introduction. Sage Publisher10.4135/9781412985161]Search in Google Scholar
[Zaidan, A. A., Zaidan, B. B., Al-Haiqi, A., Kiah, M. L. M., Hussain, M., & Abdulnabi, M. (2015). Evaluation and selection of open-source EMR software packages based on integrated AHP and TOPSIS. Journal of biomedical informatics, 53, 390-404.10.1016/j.jbi.2014.11.012]Search in Google Scholar
[Zavadskas, E. K., & Podvezko, V. (2016). Integrated Determination of Objective Criteria Weights in MCDM. International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making, 15(02), 267-283.10.1142/S0219622016500036]Search in Google Scholar