IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jomega/v126y2024ics0305048324000422.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Better decisions with less cognitive load: The Parsimonious BWM

Author

Listed:
  • Corrente, Salvatore
  • Greco, Salvatore
  • Rezaei, Jafar

Abstract

Despite its recent introduction in literature, the Best–Worst Method (BWM) is among the most well-known and applied methods in Multicriteria Decision-Making. The method can be used to elicit the relative importance (weight) of the criteria as well as to get the priorities of the alternatives on the criteria at hand. In this paper, we will present an extension of the method, namely, the parsimonious Best–Worst-Method (P-BWM) permitting to apply the BWM to get the priorities of the alternatives in case they are in a large number. At first, the Decision-Maker (DM) is asked to give a rating to the alternatives under consideration; after, the classical BWM is applied to a set of reference alternatives to get their priorities used to compute, then, the priorities of all the alternatives under consideration. We propose also a procedure to select reference alternatives, possibly in cooperation with the DM, providing a well-distributed coverage of the rating range. The new proposal requires the DM a fewer number of pairwise comparisons than the original BWM. Another contribution of the paper is related to the comparison between BWM, P-BWM, the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP), and the parsimonious AHP in terms of the amount of preference information provided by the DM in each method to apply it. In addition to the standard approach, we propose one alternative way of inferring the priority vectors in BWM and P-BWM based on the barycenter of the space of alternatives priorities compatible with the preferences given by the DM. Finally, an experiment with university students has been conducted to test the new proposal. Results of the experiments show that P-BWM performs better than BWM in terms of capability to represent the DM’s preferences and the difference between the results of the two methods is significant from the statistical point of view. The new proposal will permit to use the potentialities of the BWM to get the alternatives’ priorities in real-world decision-making problems where a large number of alternatives must be taken into account.

Suggested Citation

  • Corrente, Salvatore & Greco, Salvatore & Rezaei, Jafar, 2024. "Better decisions with less cognitive load: The Parsimonious BWM," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 126(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:jomega:v:126:y:2024:i:c:s0305048324000422
    DOI: 10.1016/j.omega.2024.103075
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305048324000422
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.omega.2024.103075?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Greco, Salvatore & Matarazzo, Benedetto & Slowinski, Roman, 2001. "Rough sets theory for multicriteria decision analysis," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 129(1), pages 1-47, February.
    2. Kusi-Sarpong, Simonov & Orji, Ifeyinwa Juliet & Gupta, Himanshu & Kunc, Martin, 2021. "Risks associated with the implementation of big data analytics in sustainable supply chains," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 105(C).
    3. Bertrand Mareschal & Jean Pierre Brans & Philippe Vincke, 1986. "How to select and how to rank projects: the Prométhée method," ULB Institutional Repository 2013/9307, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    4. Robert L. Smith, 1984. "Efficient Monte Carlo Procedures for Generating Points Uniformly Distributed over Bounded Regions," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 32(6), pages 1296-1308, December.
    5. Tervonen, Tommi & Figueira, José Rui & Lahdelma, Risto & Dias, Juscelino Almeida & Salminen, Pekka, 2009. "A stochastic method for robustness analysis in sorting problems," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 192(1), pages 236-242, January.
    6. Liang, Fuqi & Brunelli, Matteo & Rezaei, Jafar, 2020. "Consistency issues in the best worst method: Measurements and thresholds," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 96(C).
    7. Rezaei, Jafar, 2016. "Best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method: Some properties and a linear model," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 126-130.
    8. Yingying Liang & Yanbing Ju & Yan Tu & Jafar Rezaei, 2023. "Nonadditive best-worst method: Incorporating criteria interaction using the Choquet integral," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 74(6), pages 1495-1506, June.
    9. Rezaei, Jafar, 2015. "Best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 49-57.
    10. Gilberto Montibeller & Detlof von Winterfeldt, 2015. "Cognitive and Motivational Biases in Decision and Risk Analysis," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(7), pages 1230-1251, July.
    11. Mohammadi, Majid & Rezaei, Jafar, 2020. "Bayesian best-worst method: A probabilistic group decision making model," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 96(C).
    12. Mi, Xiaomei & Tang, Ming & Liao, Huchang & Shen, Wenjing & Lev, Benjamin, 2019. "The state-of-the-art survey on integrations and applications of the best worst method in decision making: Why, what, what for and what's next?," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 205-225.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Wu, Qun & Liu, Xinwang & Zhou, Ligang & Qin, Jindong & Rezaei, Jafar, 2024. "An analytical framework for the best–worst method," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 123(C).
    2. Xiao-Kang Wang & Wen-Hui Hou & Chao Song & Min-Hui Deng & Yong-Yi Li & Jian-Qiang Wang, 2021. "BW-MaxEnt: A Novel MCDM Method for Limited Knowledge," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 9(14), pages 1-17, July.
    3. Zsombor Szádoczki & Sándor Bozóki & Patrik Juhász & Sergii V. Kadenko & Vitaliy Tsyganok, 2023. "Incomplete pairwise comparison matrices based on graphs with average degree approximately 3," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 326(2), pages 783-807, July.
    4. Murad, C.A. & Bellinello, M.M. & Silva, A.J. & Netto, A. Caminada & de Souza, G.F.M. & Nabeta, S.I., 2022. "A novel methodology employed for ranking and consolidating performance indicators in holding companies with multiple power plants based on multi-criteria decision-making method," Operations Research Perspectives, Elsevier, vol. 9(C).
    5. Kheybari, Siamak & Javdanmehr, Mahsa & Rezaie, Fariba Mahdi & Rezaei, Jafar, 2021. "Corn cultivation location selection for bioethanol production: An application of BWM and extended PROMETHEE II," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 228(C).
    6. Danish Farooq & Sarbast Moslem & Arshad Jamal & Farhan Muhammad Butt & Yahya Almarhabi & Rana Faisal Tufail & Meshal Almoshaogeh, 2021. "Assessment of Significant Factors Affecting Frequent Lane-Changing Related to Road Safety: An Integrated Approach of the AHP–BWM Model," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(20), pages 1-17, October.
    7. Ecer, Fatih & Pamucar, Dragan, 2022. "A novel LOPCOW‐DOBI multi‐criteria sustainability performance assessment methodology: An application in developing country banking sector," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 112(C).
    8. Burak Can Altay & Abdullah Erdem Boztas & Abdullah Okumuş & Muhammet Gul & Erkan Çelik, 2023. "How Will Autonomous Vehicles Decide in Case of an Accident? An Interval Type-2 Fuzzy Best–Worst Method for Weighting the Criteria from Moral Values Point of View," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(11), pages 1-20, June.
    9. Aziz Naghizadeh Vardin & Ramin Ansari & Mohammad Khalilzadeh & Jurgita Antucheviciene & Romualdas Bausys, 2021. "An Integrated Decision Support Model Based on BWM and Fuzzy-VIKOR Techniques for Contractor Selection in Construction Projects," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(12), pages 1-28, June.
    10. Junnan Wu & Xin Liu & Dianqi Pan & Yichen Zhang & Jiquan Zhang & Kai Ke, 2023. "Research on Safety Evaluation of Municipal Sewage Treatment Plant Based on Improved Best-Worst Method and Fuzzy Comprehensive Method," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(11), pages 1-15, May.
    11. Liang, Fuqi & Brunelli, Matteo & Rezaei, Jafar, 2020. "Consistency issues in the best worst method: Measurements and thresholds," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 96(C).
    12. Vieira, Fabiana C. & Ferreira, Fernando A.F. & Govindan, Kannan & Ferreira, Neuza C.M.Q.F. & Banaitis, Audrius, 2022. "Measuring urban digitalization using cognitive mapping and the best worst method (BWM)," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 71(C).
    13. Besharati Fard, Moein & Moradian, Parisa & Emarati, Mohammadreza & Ebadi, Mehdi & Gholamzadeh Chofreh, Abdoulmohammad & Klemeŝ, Jiří Jaromír, 2022. "Ground-mounted photovoltaic power station site selection and economic analysis based on a hybrid fuzzy best-worst method and geographic information system: A case study Guilan province," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 169(C).
    14. Chong Li & He Huang & Ya Luo, 2022. "An Integrated Two-Dimension Linguistic Intuitionistic Fuzzy Decision-Making Approach for Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Supplier Selection," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(18), pages 1-24, September.
    15. Sarbast Moslem & Muhammet Gul & Danish Farooq & Erkan Celik & Omid Ghorbanzadeh & Thomas Blaschke, 2020. "An Integrated Approach of Best-Worst Method (BWM) and Triangular Fuzzy Sets for Evaluating Driver Behavior Factors Related to Road Safety," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 8(3), pages 1-20, March.
    16. Madjid Tavana & Mehdi Soltanifar & Francisco J. Santos-Arteaga, 2023. "Analytical hierarchy process: revolution and evolution," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 326(2), pages 879-907, July.
    17. Lin, Xueshan & Huang, Tao & Bompard, Ettore & Wang, Beibei & Zheng, Yaxian, 2023. "Ex-ante market power evaluation and mitigation in day-ahead electricity market considering market maturity levels," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 278(C).
    18. Göçmen Polat, Elifcan & Yücesan, Melih & Gül, Muhammet, 2023. "A comparative framework for criticality assessment of strategic raw materials in Turkey," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 82(C).
    19. Kusi-Sarpong, Simonov & Orji, Ifeyinwa Juliet & Gupta, Himanshu & Kunc, Martin, 2021. "Risks associated with the implementation of big data analytics in sustainable supply chains," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 105(C).
    20. Vineet Kaushik & Shobha Tewari, 2023. "Modeling Opportunity Indicators Fostering Social Entrepreneurship: A Hybrid Delphi and Best-Worst Approach," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 168(1), pages 667-698, August.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:jomega:v:126:y:2024:i:c:s0305048324000422. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/375/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.