New model for determining criteria weights: Level Based Weight Assessment (LBWA) model
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.31181/dmame1902102zKeywords:
multi-criteria decision making; criteria weights; LBWA modelAbstract
This paper presents new subjective model for determining weight coefficients in multi-criteria decision-making models. The new Level Based Weight Assessment (LBWA) model enables the involvement of experts from different fields with the purpose of defining the relations between criteria and providing rational decision making. The method can be applied in practical cases in specialized decision-making support systems, as well as in alternative dispute resolutions in virtual environment. The LBWA model has several key advantages over other subjective models based on mutual comparison of criteria, which include the following: (1) the LBWA model allows the calculation of weight coefficients with small number of criteria comparisons, only comparison; (2) The algorithm of the LBWA model does not become more complex with the increase of the number of criteria, which makes it suitable for use in complex multi-criteria (MCDM) models with a large number of criteria; (3) By applying the LBWA model, optimal values of weight coefficients are obtained with simple mathematical apparatus that eliminates inconsistencies in expert preferences, which are tolerated in certain subjective models (Best Worst Method - BWM and Analytic Hierarchy Process - AHP); (4) The elasticity coefficient of the LBWA model enables, after comparing the criteria, additional corrections of the values of the weight coefficients depending on the preferences of the decision makers. This feature of the LBWA model enables sensitivity analysis of the MCDM model by analyzing the effects of variations in the values of the weights of criteria on final decision.
Downloads
References
Bana e Costa, C., & Vansnick, J. C. (1994). MACBETH: An interactive path towards the construction of cardinal value functions, International Transactions in Operational Research, 1 (4), 489–500.
Chatterjee, K., Pamučar, D., & Zavadskas, E.K. (2018). Evaluating the performance of suppliers based on using the R’AMATEL-MAIRCA method for green supply chain implementation in electronics industry. Journal of Cleaner Production, 184, 101-129.
Ćirović, G., & Pamučar, D. (2013). Decision support model for prioritizing railway level crossings for safety improvements: Application of the adaptive neuro-fuzzy system. Expert Systems with Applications, 40(6), 2208-2223.
Costa, J. P., & Climaco, J. C. (1999). Relating reference points and weights in MOLP. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis, 8, 281-290.
Diakoulaki, D., Mavrotas, G., & Papayannakis, L. (1995). Determining objective weights in multiple criteria problems: The critic method. Computers & Operations Research, 22(7), 763-770.
Edwards, W., & Barron, F. H. (1994). SMARTS and SMARTER: Improved Simple Methods for Multiattribute Utility Measurement, Organizational behaviour and human decision processes, 60, 306–325.
Gabus A., & Fontela E. (1972), World Problems an Invitation to Further thought within the Framework of DEMATEL, Batelle Institute, Geneva Research Center, Geneva.
Graham, A. (1987). Nonnegative matrices and applicable topics in linear algebra, Ellis Horwood, Chichester, UK.
Green, P. E., & Srinivasan, V. (1990). Conjoint analysis in marketing: New developments with implications for research and practice. Journal of Marketing, 54, 3-19.
Keeney, R. L., & Raiffa, H. (1976). Decisions with multiple objectives. Wiley, New York.
Mikhailov, L. (2000). A fuzzy programming method for deriving priorities in the analytic hierarchy process. Journal of Operational Research Society, 51, 341–349.
Mousseau, V., Slowinski, R., & Zielniewicz, P. (2000). A user-oriented implementation of the ELECTRE-TRI method integrating preference elicitation support. Computers and Operations Research, 27, 757-777.
Pamučar, D., Sremac, S., Stević, Ž., Ćirović, G., & Tomić, D. (2019). New multi-criteria LNN WASPAS model for evaluating the work of advisors in the transport of hazardous goods. Neural Computing and Applications, https://10.1007/s00521-018-03997-7.
Pamučar, D., Stević, Ž., & Sremac, S. (2018). A new model for determining weight coefficients of criteria in mcdm models: Full consistency method (fucom). Symmetry, 10(9), 393.
Parezanovic, T., Petrovic, M., Bojkovic, N., & Pamucar, D. (2019). One approach to evaluate the influence of engineering characteristics in QFD method. European Journal of Industrial Engineering, 13(3), 299-331.
Poyhonen, M., & Hamalainen, R. (2001). On the convergence of multiattribute weighting methods, European Journal of Operational Research, 129, 569–585.
Rezaei, J. (2015). Best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method. Omega, 53, 49-57.
Rogers, M., & Bruen, M. (1998). A new system for weighting environmental criteria for use within ELECTRE III, European Journal of Operational Research, 107(3), 552–563.
Saaty, T. L. (1980). Analytic hierarchy process. McGraw-Hill, New York.
Shannon, C. E., & Weaver, W. (1947). The mathematical theory of communication. Urbana: The University of Illinois Press.
Srđević, B., Medeiros, Y.D.P., Faria, A.S., & Schaer M. (2003). Objektivno vrednovanje kriterijuma performanse sistema akumulacija. Vodoprivreda, 35, 163-176. (Only in Serbian).
Valipour, A., Yahaya, N., Md Noor, N., Antuchevičienė, J., & Tamošaitienė, J. (2017). Hybrid SWARA-COPRAS method for risk assessment in deep foundation excavation project: An Iranian case study. Journal of Civil Engineering and Management, 23(4), 524-532.
Weber, M., & Borcherding, K. (1993). Behavioral influences on weight judgments in multiattribute decision making, European Journal of Operational Research, 67, 1–12.
Weber, M., Eisenfuhr, F., & von Winterfeldt, D. (1988). The Effects of Splitting Attributes on Weights in Multiattribute Utility Measurement. Management Science, 34, 431-445.
Zavadskas, E. K., Govindan, K., Antucheviciene, J., & Turskis, Z. (2016). Hybrid multiple criteria decision-making methods: a review of applications for sustainability issues. Economic Research-Ekonomska Istraživanja, 29(1), 857-887.
Zhu, G. N., Hu, J., Qi, J., Gu, C. C., & Peng, J. H. (2015). An integrated AHP and VIKOR for design concept evaluation based on rough number, Advanced Engineering Informatics, 29, 408–418.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2019 Decision Making: Applications in Management and Engineering
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
