Skip to main content

2023 | OriginalPaper | Buchkapitel

4. Which Prioritization Method Is Better for Deriving Priority from Best-Worst Preferences? A Theoretical and Experimental Analysis

verfasst von : Bapi Dutta, Diego García-Zamora, Álvaro Labella, Luis Martínez

Erschienen in: Advances in Best-Worst Method

Verlag: Springer Nature Switzerland

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config
loading …

Abstract

The Best-Worst Method (BWM) is a popular multi-criteria decision-making tool to prioritize alternatives or criteria via a set of subjective pairwise judgments. Deriving the priority weights from best-to-others and others-to-worst preferences is one of the key issues, and several prioritization methods have been proposed to address it. However, their behavior and performances in different situations are yet to investigate. In this study, we analyze the performance of four prioritization methods from theoretical and experimental perspectives. For this purpose, we first show that when the given preference is fully multiplicative consistent, the prioritization methods produce the same weight priority, and it can directly obtain through the analytic formulae without solving the optimization model. For inconsistent preferences, the prioritization methods are compared in terms of deviation from the original preferences and total order violation measures. Simulation experiments suggest that Euclidean distance and order violations metric based measures could lead to different choices of prioritization methods.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 102.000 Bücher
  • über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
  • Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Versicherung + Risiko




Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Literatur
1.
Zurück zum Zitat Brunelli, M., & Rezaei, J. (2019). A multiplicative best-worst method for multi-criteria decision making. Operations Research Letters, 47(1), 12–15.CrossRef Brunelli, M., & Rezaei, J. (2019). A multiplicative best-worst method for multi-criteria decision making. Operations Research Letters, 47(1), 12–15.CrossRef
2.
Zurück zum Zitat Harker, P. T., & Vargas, L. G. (1987). The theory of ratio scale estimation: Saaty’s analytic hierarchy process. Management Science, 33(11), 1383–1403.CrossRef Harker, P. T., & Vargas, L. G. (1987). The theory of ratio scale estimation: Saaty’s analytic hierarchy process. Management Science, 33(11), 1383–1403.CrossRef
3.
Zurück zum Zitat Liang, F., Brunelli, M., & Rezaei, J. (2020). Consistency issues in the best worst method: Measurements and thresholds. Omega, 96, 102175.CrossRef Liang, F., Brunelli, M., & Rezaei, J. (2020). Consistency issues in the best worst method: Measurements and thresholds. Omega, 96, 102175.CrossRef
4.
Zurück zum Zitat Mi, X., & Liao, H. (2019). An integrated approach to multiple criteria decision making based on the average solution and normalized weights of criteria deduced by the hesitant fuzzy best worst method. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 133, 83–94.CrossRef Mi, X., & Liao, H. (2019). An integrated approach to multiple criteria decision making based on the average solution and normalized weights of criteria deduced by the hesitant fuzzy best worst method. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 133, 83–94.CrossRef
5.
Zurück zum Zitat Rezaei, J. (2015). Best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method. Omega, 53, 49–57.CrossRef Rezaei, J. (2015). Best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method. Omega, 53, 49–57.CrossRef
6.
Zurück zum Zitat Rezaei, J. (2016). Best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method: Some properties and a linear model. Omega, 64, 126–130.CrossRef Rezaei, J. (2016). Best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method: Some properties and a linear model. Omega, 64, 126–130.CrossRef
7.
Zurück zum Zitat Saaty, T. L. (1977). A scaling method for priorities in hierarchical structures. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 15(3), 234–281.CrossRef Saaty, T. L. (1977). A scaling method for priorities in hierarchical structures. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 15(3), 234–281.CrossRef
8.
Zurück zum Zitat Saaty, T. L. (2008). Relative measurement and its generalization in decision making why pairwise comparisons are central in mathematics for the measurement of intangible factors the analytic hierarchy/network process. RACSAM-Revista de la Real Academia de Ciencias Exactas, Fisicas y Naturales. Serie A. Matematicas, 102, 251–318. Saaty, T. L. (2008). Relative measurement and its generalization in decision making why pairwise comparisons are central in mathematics for the measurement of intangible factors the analytic hierarchy/network process. RACSAM-Revista de la Real Academia de Ciencias Exactas, Fisicas y Naturales. Serie A. Matematicas, 102, 251–318.
9.
Zurück zum Zitat Subramanian, N., & Ramanathan, R. (2012). A review of applications of analytic hierarchy process in operations management. International Journal of Production Economics, 138(2), 215–241.CrossRef Subramanian, N., & Ramanathan, R. (2012). A review of applications of analytic hierarchy process in operations management. International Journal of Production Economics, 138(2), 215–241.CrossRef
10.
Zurück zum Zitat Thurstone, L. L. (1927). A law of comparative judgment. Psychological Review, 34(4), 273.CrossRef Thurstone, L. L. (1927). A law of comparative judgment. Psychological Review, 34(4), 273.CrossRef
11.
Zurück zum Zitat Zyoud, S. H., & Fuchs-Hanusch, D. (2017). A bibliometric-based survey on AHP and TOPSIS techniques. Expert Systems with Applications, 78, 158–181. Zyoud, S. H., & Fuchs-Hanusch, D. (2017). A bibliometric-based survey on AHP and TOPSIS techniques. Expert Systems with Applications, 78, 158–181.
Metadaten
Titel
Which Prioritization Method Is Better for Deriving Priority from Best-Worst Preferences? A Theoretical and Experimental Analysis
verfasst von
Bapi Dutta
Diego García-Zamora
Álvaro Labella
Luis Martínez
Copyright-Jahr
2023
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-40328-6_4

Premium Partner