This study aims to develop a Multi-Attribute Decision-Making (MADM) method, the BestWorst Tradeoff method, which draws on the underlying principles of two popular MADM methods (the Best-Worst Method (BWM) and the Tradeoff). The traditional Tradeoff procedure, which is based on the axiomatic foundation of multi-attribute value theory, considers the ranges of the attributes, but decision-makers/analysts find it hard to check the consistency of the paired comparisons when using this method. The traditional BWM, on the other hand, uses two opposite references (best and worst) in a single optimization, which not only frames the elicitation process in a more structured way, but helps decisionmakers/analysts check the consistency. However, the BWM does not explicitly considers the attributes ranges in the pairwise comparisons. The method proposed in this study uses the ‘‘consider-the-opposite-strategy” and accounts for the range effect simultaneously. Specifically, the decision-maker considers the ranges of the attributes and provide two pairwise comparison vectors, then an optimization model is designed to determine the optimal weights of the attributes based on these two vectors. After that, consistency thresholds are constructed to check the consistency of the judgements. Finally, a case study is used to examine the feasibility of the proposed method.

Best-worst tradeoff method / Liang, Fuqi; Brunelli, Matteo; Rezaei, Jafar. - In: INFORMATION SCIENCES. - ISSN 0020-0255. - 610:(2022), pp. 957-976. [10.1016/j.ins.2022.07.097]

Best-worst tradeoff method

Brunelli, Matteo;
2022-01-01

Abstract

This study aims to develop a Multi-Attribute Decision-Making (MADM) method, the BestWorst Tradeoff method, which draws on the underlying principles of two popular MADM methods (the Best-Worst Method (BWM) and the Tradeoff). The traditional Tradeoff procedure, which is based on the axiomatic foundation of multi-attribute value theory, considers the ranges of the attributes, but decision-makers/analysts find it hard to check the consistency of the paired comparisons when using this method. The traditional BWM, on the other hand, uses two opposite references (best and worst) in a single optimization, which not only frames the elicitation process in a more structured way, but helps decisionmakers/analysts check the consistency. However, the BWM does not explicitly considers the attributes ranges in the pairwise comparisons. The method proposed in this study uses the ‘‘consider-the-opposite-strategy” and accounts for the range effect simultaneously. Specifically, the decision-maker considers the ranges of the attributes and provide two pairwise comparison vectors, then an optimization model is designed to determine the optimal weights of the attributes based on these two vectors. After that, consistency thresholds are constructed to check the consistency of the judgements. Finally, a case study is used to examine the feasibility of the proposed method.
2022
Liang, Fuqi; Brunelli, Matteo; Rezaei, Jafar
Best-worst tradeoff method / Liang, Fuqi; Brunelli, Matteo; Rezaei, Jafar. - In: INFORMATION SCIENCES. - ISSN 0020-0255. - 610:(2022), pp. 957-976. [10.1016/j.ins.2022.07.097]
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
Best-worst tradeoff method.pdf

accesso aperto

Tipologia: Versione editoriale (Publisher’s layout)
Licenza: Creative commons
Dimensione 1.68 MB
Formato Adobe PDF
1.68 MB Adobe PDF Visualizza/Apri

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11572/352220
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus 15
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? ND
social impact