IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/h/spr/lnopch/978-3-030-89795-6_4.html
   My bibliography  Save this book chapter

A Linguistic 2-tuple Best-Worst Method

In: Advances in Best-Worst Method

Author

Listed:
  • Álvaro Labella

    (University of Jaén)

  • Bapi Dutta

    (National University of Singapore)

  • Rosa M. Rodríguez

    (University of Jaén)

  • Luis Martínez

    (University of Jaén)

Abstract

Nowadays, multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) problems are usually defined under changing contexts in which the emergence of uncertain information is common. Under these circumstances, linguistic information and computing with words (CW) processes have been successfully applied for modelling such uncertainty and computing the decision results. Particularly, the linguistic 2-tuple model presents important benefits both readability and precision points of view. In the MCDM resolution process, the experts’ preferences elicitation task plays a key role. The Best-Worst method (BWM) was proposed to solve some behavioral errors in similar MCDM methods and, consequently, reduces the number of pairwise comparisons and inconsistency in such a task. In the classical BWM, the experts use a numerical scale to provide their assessments. Lately, several BWM extensions under uncertain contexts have been proposed, but they still present drawbacks regarding the readability of the results. Hence, this contribution aims to introduce an BWM extension under a CW approach based on the linguistic 2-tuple model to model uncertainty, accomplish accurate computations and obtain understandable results. Furthermore, a novel consistency ratio to measure the experts’ preferences consistency is proposed. Finally, the proposal is applied to an illustrative MCDM problem.

Suggested Citation

  • Álvaro Labella & Bapi Dutta & Rosa M. Rodríguez & Luis Martínez, 2022. "A Linguistic 2-tuple Best-Worst Method," Lecture Notes in Operations Research, in: Jafar Rezaei & Matteo Brunelli & Majid Mohammadi (ed.), Advances in Best-Worst Method, pages 41-51, Springer.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:lnopch:978-3-030-89795-6_4
    DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-89795-6_4
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    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:spr:lnopch:978-3-030-89795-6_4. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.