IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/h/spr/lnopch/978-3-031-24816-0_3.html
   My bibliography  Save this book chapter

Why Should Not a Decision Analyst be Content with Only ( $$n-1$$ n - 1 ) Pairwise Comparisons? Echoes from the Literature

In: Advances in Best-Worst Method

Author

Listed:
  • Matteo Brunelli

    (University of Trento)

Abstract

More and more often, scholars in the field of multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) seem to be overly adverse towards inconsistency. While this has some reasonable justifications, hiding the dirt under the rug, by not even trying to let possible inconsistencies emerge, can have negative effects on the decision process. In other words, there may be some merit in having a decision maker being consistent when he is given the possibility of being inconsistent, but there isn’t any in having a fully consistent decision maker when he cannot be inconsistent. In the latter case, consistency of preferences cannot, by all means, be associated to the reliability of judgements. These concepts are illustrated by taking into account some recently introduced methods whose common inspiration is the Best-Worst Method.

Suggested Citation

  • Matteo Brunelli, 2023. "Why Should Not a Decision Analyst be Content with Only ( $$n-1$$ n - 1 ) Pairwise Comparisons? Echoes from the Literature," Lecture Notes in Operations Research, in: Jafar Rezaei & Matteo Brunelli & Majid Mohammadi (ed.), Advances in Best-Worst Method, pages 33-40, Springer.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:lnopch:978-3-031-24816-0_3
    DOI: 10.1007/978-3-031-24816-0_3
    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:978-3-031-24816-0_3. 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.