## 2 Related Work
### Decision Support System
The CODAS (Combinative Distance-based Assessment) is known as one of the MCDA tools developed by [PERSON] et al. [35] in 2016 to solve complicated problems based on the negative one as an opposite way for the best criteria in each group. CODAS will assess the distance using Euclidean and Taxicab measurements. It also represents the distance between the best and the negative solution for a reliable decision making process [36]. The VIKOR (VlseKriterijumska Optimizacija I Kompromisno Resenje) method [37] shares similarities with TOPSIS in its reliance on distance-based evaluations. This technique assesses each alternative across all specified criteria and ranks them by measuring their proximity to the ideal solution. Unlike TOPSIS, however, VIKOR employs a distinct operational framework and a unique methodology for determining closeness to the ideal alternatives. Table 1 presents a summary of the discussed MCDM methods  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline
**Tool** & **Developer** & **Advantage** & **Disadvantage** \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{AHP} & \multirow{3}{*}{[PERSON] [38] 1970s} & Consistency factor can give the decision maker the idea of any essential reassessment [18] & If a new option is introduced after completing the calculation, the entire evaluation process must be restarted, making it time-consuming [18] \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{SMART} & \multirow{3}{*}{[PERSON] [39] 1981} & High level of accuracy in certain tasks & Because of its simplicity, it may not be suitable in consideration of complicated circumstances [18] \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{TOPSIS} & \multirow{3}{*}{[PERSON] et al. [30] 1981} & Can compare each alternative with the ideal solution [8] & The subjectivity of weighting criteria and the difficulty to create the decision matrix and judging the criteria value [18] \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{SAW} & \multirow{3}{*}{[PERSON] [40] 1968} & \multirow{3}{*}{Straight forward method [8]} & Considers only maximizing evaluation criteria, requiring minimizing criteria to be transformed into maximizing ones using appropriate formulas before application. This limitation is overcome by the COPRAS [41] \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{COPRAS} & \multirow{3}{*}{[PERSON] et al. [34] 1994} & An interdependent solution between criteria and alternatives [8] & Less stable than other methods in the case of data variation [41] \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{PROMETHEE} & \multirow{3}{*}{[PERSON] et al. [32] 1986} & An appropriate solution even when simple and efficient information is available [35]. & Fails to offer a clear method for assigning weights [42]. \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{CODAS} & \multirow{3}{*}{[PERSON] et al. [35] 2016} & A relatively recent approach measures the overall performance of an alternative based on its distance from the negative ideal point [43]. \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{VIKOR} & \multirow{3}{*}{[PERSON] [37] 1998} & A comparison solution once there are conflicting factors while considering both the worst and best solution [8] & Can be sensitive to changes in weights and thresholds. And, complexity increases with the number of criteria and alternatives [44]. \\ \cline{1-1} \cline{3-3} \cline{4-4}  
As a result of comparing each tool approach and advantages and disadvantages, a combination of the selected ones according to the infrastructure project complexity forms a robust evaluation framework, addressing the best, worst, compromise, and interdependent aspects of decision-making. Indeed, their combination enables a more holistic assessment of alternatives, incorporating both individual and collective criteria, trade-offs, and ranking stability. For instance, VIKOR enhances SAW and TOPSIS by introducing a compromise-based approach, which is particularly useful for decision problems involving conflicting criteria.