Best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method

被引:2768
作者
Rezaei, Jafar [1 ]
机构
[1] Delft Univ Technol, Transport & Logist Grp, Fac Technol Policy & Management, Delft, Netherlands
来源
OMEGA-INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT SCIENCE | 2015年 / 53卷
关键词
Multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM); Multi-attribute decision-making (MADM); Consistency ratio; Pairwise comparison; ANALYTIC HIERARCHY PROCESS; RANKING; WEIGHTS; SELECT; TOPSIS; VIKOR;
D O I
10.1016/j.omega.2014.11.009
中图分类号
C93 [管理学];
学科分类号
12 ; 1201 ; 1202 ; 120202 ;
摘要
In this paper, a new method, called best-worst method (BWM) is proposed to solve multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) problems. In an MCDM problem, a number of alternatives are evaluated with respect to a number of criteria in order to select the best alternative(s). According to BWM, the best (e.g. most desirable, most important) and the worst (e.g. least desirable, least important) criteria are identified first by the decision-maker. Pairwise comparisons are then conducted between each of these two criteria (best and worst) and the other criteria. A maximin problem is then formulated and solved to determine the weights of different criteria. The weights of the alternatives with respect to different criteria are obtained using the same process. The final scores of the alternatives are derived by aggregating the weights from different sets of criteria and alternatives, based on which the best alternative is selected. A consistency ratio is proposed for the BWM to check the reliability of the comparisons. To illustrate the proposed method and evaluate its performance, we used some numerical examples and a real-word decision-making problem (mobile phone selection). For the purpose of comparison, we chose AHP (analytic hierarchy process), which is also a pairwise comparison-based method. Statistical results show that BWM performs significantly better than AHP with respect to the consistency ratio, and the other evaluation criteria: minimum violation, total deviation, and conformity. The salient features of the proposed method, compared to the existing MCDM methods, are: (1) it requires less comparison data; (2) it leads to more consistent comparisons, which means that it produces more reliable results. (C) 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:49 / 57
页数:9
相关论文
共 49 条
[21]   Using a multi-criteria decision making approach to evaluate mobile phone alternatives [J].
Isiklar, Gulfem ;
Buyukozkan, Gulcin .
COMPUTER STANDARDS & INTERFACES, 2007, 29 (02) :265-274
[22]   IMP: A decision aid for multiattribute evaluation using imprecise weight estimates [J].
Jessop, Alan .
OMEGA-INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT SCIENCE, 2014, 49 :18-29
[23]   RIGHT-LEFT ASYMMETRY IN AN EIGENVECTOR RANKING PROCEDURE [J].
JOHNSON, CR ;
BEINE, WB ;
WANG, TJ .
JOURNAL OF MATHEMATICAL PSYCHOLOGY, 1979, 19 (01) :61-64
[24]   A quality control approach to consistency paradoxes in AHP [J].
Karapetrovic, S ;
Rosenbloom, ES .
EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF OPERATIONAL RESEARCH, 1999, 119 (03) :704-718
[25]   INTEGRATED FUZZY MULTIPLE CRITERIA DECISION MAKING MODEL FOR ARCHITECT SELECTION [J].
Kersuliene, Violeta ;
Turskis, Zenonas .
TECHNOLOGICAL AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT OF ECONOMY, 2011, 17 (04) :645-666
[26]   TOPSIS FOR MODM [J].
LAI, YJ ;
LIU, TY ;
HWANG, CL .
EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF OPERATIONAL RESEARCH, 1994, 76 (03) :486-500
[27]   Decision support by interval SMART/SWING-incorporating imprecision in the SMART and SWING methods [J].
Mustajoki, J ;
Hämäläinen, RP ;
Salo, A .
DECISION SCIENCES, 2005, 36 (02) :317-339
[28]   Comparison of weights in TOPSIS models [J].
Olson, DL .
MATHEMATICAL AND COMPUTER MODELLING, 2004, 40 (7-8) :721-727
[29]  
Opricovic S, 2004, EUR J OPER RES, V156, P445, DOI [10.1016/S0377-2217(03)00020-1, 10.1016/s0377-2217(03)00020-1]
[30]   Extended VIKOR method in comparison with outranking methods [J].
Opricovic, Serafim ;
Tzeng, Gwo-Hshiung .
EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF OPERATIONAL RESEARCH, 2007, 178 (02) :514-529