IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wsi/ijitdm/v17y2018i05ns0219622018500323.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Euclidean Best–Worst Method and Its Application

Author

Listed:
  • Huseyin Kocak

    (Quantitative Methods Division, Department of Business, Administration, Pamukkale University, 20160 Denizli, Turkey)

  • Atalay Caglar

    (#x2020;Operations Research Division, Department of Econometrics, Pamukkale University, 20160 Denizli, Turkey)

  • Gulin Zeynep Oztas

    (Quantitative Methods Division, Department of Business, Administration, Pamukkale University, 20160 Denizli, Turkey)

Abstract

In this study, we propose Euclidean best–worst method (Euclidean BWM), which does not require any other extra calculations and analysis compared to nonlinear Chebyshev BWM. Using numerical examples, we illustrate and discuss the efficiency of the Euclidean BWM based on minimizing Euclidean norm instead of Chebyshev norm and using the consistency index matrix. Obtained results show that Euclidean BWM is an efficient tool resulting in reliable unique solutions, regardless of the number of the criteria, comparing with the linear and nonlinear model of the Chebyshev BWM. Moreover, we develop a MAPLE package “BWM” using only pairwise comparison vectors as the arguments to obtain the unique solution of a given problem by both the Euclidean BWM and linear model of Chebyshev BWM.

Suggested Citation

  • Huseyin Kocak & Atalay Caglar & Gulin Zeynep Oztas, 2018. "Euclidean Best–Worst Method and Its Application," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 17(05), pages 1587-1605, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:wsi:ijitdm:v:17:y:2018:i:05:n:s0219622018500323
    DOI: 10.1142/S0219622018500323
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/10.1142/S0219622018500323
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1142/S0219622018500323?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. Gang Kou & Yanqun Lu & Yi Peng & Yong Shi, 2012. "Evaluation Of Classification Algorithms Using Mcdm And Rank Correlation," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 11(01), pages 197-225.
    2. Gupta, Himanshu & Barua, Mukesh Kumar, 2016. "Identifying enablers of technological innovation for Indian MSMEs using best–worst multi criteria decision making method," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 69-79.
    3. Golany, B. & Kress, M., 1993. "A multicriteria evaluation of methods for obtaining weights from ratio-scale matrices," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 69(2), pages 210-220, September.
    4. Nastaran Chitsaz & Ali Azarnivand, 2017. "Water Scarcity Management in Arid Regions Based on an Extended Multiple Criteria Technique," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 31(1), pages 233-250, January.
    5. Bertrand Mareschal & Jean Pierre Brans & Philippe Vincke, 1984. "Prométhée: a new family of outranking methods in multicriteria analysis," ULB Institutional Repository 2013/9305, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    6. Negin Salimi & Jafar Rezaei, 2016. "Measuring efficiency of university-industry Ph.D. projects using best worst method," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 109(3), pages 1911-1938, December.
    7. Rezaei, Jafar & Hemmes, Alexander & Tavasszy, Lori, 2017. "Multi-criteria decision-making for complex bundling configurations in surface transportation of air freight," Journal of Air Transport Management, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 95-105.
    8. Opricovic, Serafim & Tzeng, Gwo-Hshiung, 2004. "Compromise solution by MCDM methods: A comparative analysis of VIKOR and TOPSIS," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 156(2), pages 445-455, July.
    9. Deveci, Muhammet & Demirel, Nihan Çetin & Ahmetoğlu, Emine, 2017. "Airline new route selection based on interval type-2 fuzzy MCDM: A case study of new route between Turkey- North American region destinations," Journal of Air Transport Management, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 83-99.
    10. Wenshuai Wu & Gang Kou, 2016. "A group consensus model for evaluating real estate investment alternatives," Financial Innovation, Springer;Southwestern University of Finance and Economics, vol. 2(1), pages 1-10, December.
    11. Rezaei, Jafar, 2016. "Best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method: Some properties and a linear model," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 126-130.
    12. Rezaei, Jafar, 2015. "Best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 49-57.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Amin Vafadarnikjoo & Madjid Tavana & Tiago Botelho & Konstantinos Chalvatzis, 2020. "A neutrosophic enhanced best–worst method for considering decision-makers’ confidence in the best and worst criteria," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 289(2), pages 391-418, June.
    2. 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.

    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. 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.
    2. Geerten Van de Kaa & Daniel Scholten & Jafar Rezaei & Christine Milchram, 2017. "The Battle between Battery and Fuel Cell Powered Electric Vehicles: A BWM Approach," Energies, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-13, October.
    3. Mališa Žižović & Dragan Pamučar & Goran Ćirović & Miodrag M. Žižović & Boža D. Miljković, 2020. "A Model for Determining Weight Coefficients by Forming a Non-Decreasing Series at Criteria Significance Levels (NDSL)," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 8(5), pages 1-18, May.
    4. Shih-Chia Chang & Ming-Tsang Lu & Mei-Jen Chen & Li-Hua Huang, 2021. "Evaluating the Application of CSR in the High-Tech Industry during the COVID-19 Pandemic," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 9(15), pages 1-16, July.
    5. Javid Nafari & Alireza Arab & Sina Ghaffari, 2017. "Through the Looking Glass: Analysis of Factors Influencing Iranian Student’s Study Abroad Motivations and Destination Choice," SAGE Open, , vol. 7(2), pages 21582440177, June.
    6. Mohammadi, Majid & Rezaei, Jafar, 2020. "Bayesian best-worst method: A probabilistic group decision making model," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 96(C).
    7. Salimi, Negin & Rezaei, Jafar, 2018. "Evaluating firms’ R&D performance using best worst method," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 147-155.
    8. Gupta, Himanshu, 2018. "Evaluating service quality of airline industry using hybrid best worst method and VIKOR," Journal of Air Transport Management, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 35-47.
    9. Jahangoshai Rezaee, Mustafa & Yousefi, Samuel, 2018. "An intelligent decision making approach for identifying and analyzing airport risks," Journal of Air Transport Management, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 14-27.
    10. Shojaei, Payam & Seyed Haeri, Seyed Amin & Mohammadi, Sahar, 2018. "Airports evaluation and ranking model using Taguchi loss function, best-worst method and VIKOR technique," Journal of Air Transport Management, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 4-13.
    11. Peipei You & Sen Guo & Haoran Zhao & Huiru Zhao, 2017. "Operation Performance Evaluation of Power Grid Enterprise Using a Hybrid BWM-TOPSIS Method," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(12), pages 1-15, December.
    12. Alexander Kuan Daiy & Kao-Yi Shen & Jim-Yuh Huang & Tom Meng-Yen Lin, 2021. "A Hybrid MCDM Model for Evaluating Open Banking Business Partners," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 9(6), pages 1-19, March.
    13. Zheng Yuan & Baohua Wen & Cheng He & Jin Zhou & Zhonghua Zhou & Feng Xu, 2022. "Application of Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Analysis to Rural Spatial Sustainability Evaluation: A Systematic Review," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(11), pages 1-31, May.
    14. Hamzeh Soltanali & Mehdi Khojastehpour & Siamak Kheybari, 2023. "Evaluating the critical success factors for maintenance management in agro-industries using multi-criteria decision-making techniques," Operations Management Research, Springer, vol. 16(2), pages 949-968, June.
    15. Mete, Suleyman & Yucesan, Melih & Gul, Muhammet & Ozceylan, Eren, 2023. "An integrated hybrid MCDM approach to evaluate countries’ COVID-19 risks," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 90(C).
    16. 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).
    17. van de Kaa, G. & Fens, T. & Rezaei, J. & Kaynak, D. & Hatun, Z. & Tsilimeni-Archangelidi, A., 2019. "Realizing smart meter connectivity: Analyzing the competing technologies Power line communication, mobile telephony, and radio frequency using the best worst method," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 103(C), pages 320-327.
    18. Haoran Zhao & Huiru Zhao & Sen Guo, 2018. "Comprehensive Performance Evaluation of Electricity Grid Corporations Employing a Novel MCDM Model," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(7), pages 1-23, June.
    19. Sisto, Roberta & Fernández-Portillo, Luis A. & Yazdani, Morteza & Estepa-Mohedano, Lorenzo & Torkayesh, Ali Ebadi, 2022. "Strategic planning of rural areas: Integrating participatory backcasting and multiple criteria decision analysis tools," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 82(PA).
    20. Mustafa Hamurcu & Tamer Eren, 2020. "Strategic Planning Based on Sustainability for Urban Transportation: An Application to Decision-Making," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(9), pages 1-24, April.

    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:wsi:ijitdm:v:17:y:2018:i:05:n:s0219622018500323. 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: Tai Tone Lim (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.worldscinet.com/ijitdm/ijitdm.shtml .

    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.