IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/h/spr/lnopch/978-3-031-40328-6_4.html
   My bibliography  Save this book chapter

Which Prioritization Method Is Better for Deriving Priority from Best-Worst Preferences? A Theoretical and Experimental Analysis

In: Advances in Best-Worst Method

Author

Listed:
  • Bapi Dutta

    (University of Jaén)

  • Diego García-Zamora

    (University of Jaén)

  • Álvaro Labella

    (University of Jaén)

  • Luis Martínez

    (University of Jaén)

Abstract

The Best-Worst Method (BWM) is a popular multi-criteria decision-making tool to prioritize alternatives or criteria via a set of subjective pairwise judgments. Deriving the priority weights from best-to-others and others-to-worst preferences is one of the key issues, and several prioritization methods have been proposed to address it. However, their behavior and performances in different situations are yet to investigate. In this study, we analyze the performance of four prioritization methods from theoretical and experimental perspectives. For this purpose, we first show that when the given preference is fully multiplicative consistent, the prioritization methods produce the same weight priority, and it can directly obtain through the analytic formulae without solving the optimization model. For inconsistent preferences, the prioritization methods are compared in terms of deviation from the original preferences and total order violation measures. Simulation experiments suggest that Euclidean distance and order violations metric based measures could lead to different choices of prioritization methods.

Suggested Citation

  • Bapi Dutta & Diego García-Zamora & Álvaro Labella & Luis Martínez, 2023. "Which Prioritization Method Is Better for Deriving Priority from Best-Worst Preferences? A Theoretical and Experimental Analysis," Lecture Notes in Operations Research, in: Jafar Rezaei & Matteo Brunelli & Majid Mohammadi (ed.), Advances in Best-Worst Method, chapter 0, pages 49-60, Springer.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:lnopch:978-3-031-40328-6_4
    DOI: 10.1007/978-3-031-40328-6_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:978-3-031-40328-6_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.