A new approach for determining weight coefficients of criteria within the scope of multi-criteria decision making: Logarithmic effect-based measurement (LEBM)

Abstract

In the literature of multi-criteria decision making (MCDM), there are many methods related to the measurement of weight coefficients of criteria. In this study, a mathematical model based on the logarithmic effect among criteria (Logarithmic Effect-Based Measurement, LEBM) is proposed to contribute to the MCDM literature and to calculate the weight coefficients of criteria. The dataset used in the study consists of criterion values belonging to the Logistics Performance Index (LPI) of 18 countries in the G20 group. According to the analysis results, the proposed method is considered successful in calculating the objective weight coefficients of criteria for countries. Additionally, the proposed method is compared with other objective weighting methods (ENTROPY, CRITIC, SD, SVP, LOPCOW, and MEREC) within the scope of sensitivity analysis. The findings indicate that the rankings of LPI weight coefficients measured using the proposed method are similar to those measured using the MEREC method, and the relationship between the LPI weight coefficients determined using the proposed method and the MEREC method is positive, significant, and strong. Therefore, it is believed that the proposed method will contribute both to the logarithmic function and the MCDM literature

Keywords

• Logarithmic function
• Effect value Weight coefficients
• LEBM

References

1. Adali, E.A., Öztaş, G.Z., Öztaş, T. & Tuş, A. (2022). Assessment of European Cities from a Smartness Perspective: An Integrated Grey MCDM Approach. Sustainable Cities and Society. 84, 104021. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2022.104021
2. Ali, T., Sunny, M.R., Aghaloo, K. & Wang, K. (2024). Planning off-grid hybrid energy system using technoeconomic optimization and wins in league theory-based multi-criteria decision-making method in the wetland areas of developing countries. Energy Conversion and Management, 313, 118587. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2024.118587
3. Ayan, B., Abacıoğlu, S. & Basilio, MP. A. (2023). A Comprehensive Review of the Novel Weighting Methods for Multi-Criteria Decision-Making. Information, 14(5), 285. https://doi.org/10.3390/info14050285
4. Ayçin, E. (2023). Çok Kriterli Karar Problemlerinde LBWA Yöntemi İle Kriterlerin Önem Ağırlıklarının Hesaplanmasına Yönelik Bir Uygulama: LBWA-Solver, İktısadı ve İdarı Bilimlerde Uluslararası Araştırma ve Değerlendirmeler, Serüven Yayınevi, 83-93. https://www.seruvenyayinevi.com/Webkontrol/uploads/Fck/iktisat1aralik2023_2.pdf
5. Ayough, A., Shargh, SB. & Khorshidvand, B. (2023). A new integrated approach based on base-criterion and utility additive methods and its application to supplier selection problem. Expert Systems with Applications, 221, 119740. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2023.119740
6. Ayrım, Y., & Can, G. F. (2017). Risk değerlendirmesinde crıtıc metodu ile sektörlerin karşılaştırması. Journal of Turkish Operations Management, 1(1), 67-78.
7. Aytekin, A., Korucuk, S., Bedirhanoğlu, Ş.B. & Vladimir, S. (2024) Selecting the ideal sustainable green strategy for logistics companies using a T-spherical fuzzy-based methodology, Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence, 127, 107347. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engappai.2023.107347
8. Bayram, E. (2022). Talep yönetiminde üretim önceliğinin belirlenmesi için çok kriterli karar verme tabanlı bütünleşik bir yaklaşım (Master’s Thesis). Atatürk Universty, Erzurum. Retrieved from: https://tez.yok.gov.tr/UlusalTezMerkezi/tezDetay.jsp?id=NvNxiLfiIIp4n6IHVihaJA&no=M1kRqLG7j_tLf9e0K ruXjA

9. Biswas, S. and Pamučar, D. (2020). Facility Location Selection for B-Schools in Indian Context: A Multi-Criteria Group Decision Based Analysis. Axioms, 9 (3): 77. https://doi.org/10.3390/axioms9030077
10. Biswas, S., Pamučar, D., Božanic, D. & Halder, B. (2022a). A New Spherical Fuzzy LBWA-MULTIMOOSRAL Framework: Application in Evaluation of Leanness of MSMEs in India. Mathematical Problems in Engineering, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/5480848
11. Biswas, S., Pamučar, D. & Mukhopadhyaya, J.N. (2022b). A Multi-Criteria-Based Analytical Study of the Impact of COVID-19 on ELSS Fund Performance. International Journal of Management and Decision Making, 21, 339– 378. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJMDM.2022.10048438
12. Božanic, D., Jurišic, D. & Erkic, D. (2020a). LBWA–Z-MAIRCA Model Supporting Decision Making in the Army. Operational Research in Engineering Sciences: Theory and Applications, 3, 87–110. https://doi.org/10.31181/oresta2003087b
13. Božanić, D., Ranđelović, A., Radovanović & Tešić, M. D. (2020b). A hybrid LBWA- IR-MAIRCA multi-criteria decision-making model for determination of constructive elements of weapons. Facta Universitatis-Series Mechanical Engineering, 18 (3), 399-418. https://doi.org/10.22190/FUME200528033B
14. Çelikyay, S. (2002). Çok amaçlı savaş uçağı seçiminde çok ölçütlü karar verme yöntemlerinin uygulanması (Yüksek Lisans Tezi). Erişim adresi: https://tez.yok.gov.tr/UlusalTezMerkezi/tezSorguSonucYeni.jsp Das, M.C., Sarkar, B. & Ray, S. (2013). On the performance of Indian technical institutions: a combined SOWIAMOORA approach. OPSEARCH, 50(3), 319–333. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12597-012-0116-z
15. Demir, G. (2020). LBWA Method. Çok Kriterli Karar Verme Problemlerinde Kriter Ağırlıklandırma Yöntemleri, Nobel Yayınevi, Ankara, 137-158.
16. Diakoulaki, D., Mavrotas, G. & Papayannakis, L. (1995). Determining objective weights in multiple criteria problems: The CRITIC method. Computers & Operations Research, 22(7), 763-770. https://doi.org/10.1016/0305- 0548(94)00059-H
17. Ecer, F. (2020). Çok Kriterli Karar Verme Geçmişten Günümüze Kapsamlı Bir Yaklaşım. Seçkin Yayıncılık, Ankara.
18. Ecer, F., Pamučar, D., Mardani, A. &Alrasheedi, M. (2021). Assessment of Renewable Energy Resources Using New Interval Rough Number Extension of the Level Based Weight Assessment and Combinative Distance-Based Assessment. Renew Energy, 170, 1156–1177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2021.02.004
19. Erdogan, M. & Ayyildiz, E. (2022). Comparison of hospital service performances under COVID-19 pandemics for pilot regions with low vaccination rates, Expert Systems with Applications, 206, 117773. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2022.117773
20. Farid, H.M.A., Miletic, S.D., Riaz, M., Simic, V. & Pamučar, D. (2024). Prioritization of sustainable approaches for smart waste management of automotive fuel cells of road freight vehicles using the q-rung orthopair fuzzy CRITIC-EDAS method. Information Sciences, 661, 120162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2024.120162
21. Görçün, Ö.F. & Küçükönder, H. (2021). An integrated MCDM approach for evaluating the Ro-Ro marine port selection process: a case study in black sea region, Australian Journal of Maritime & Ocean Affairs, 13(3), 203- 223. https://doi.org/10.1080/18366503.2021.1878872
22. Gupta, S., Kushwaha, P.S., Badhera, U. & Singh, R.K. (2024). Managing tourism and hospitality industry during pandemic: analysis of challenges and strategies for survival, Benchmarking: An International Journal, early access https://doi.org/10.1108/BIJ-11-2023-0806
23. Hristov, N., Pamučar, D. & Amine, M. (2021). Application of a D Number Based LBWA Model and an Interval MABAC Model in Selection of an Automatic Cannon for Integration into Combat Vehicles. Defence Science Journal, 71 (1), 34–45. https://doi.org/10.14429/dsj.71.15738
24. Jakovljevic, V., Zizovic, M., Pamučar, D., Stevic, Ž. & Albijanic, M. (2021). Evaluation of Human Resources in Transportation Companies Using Multi-Criteria Model for Ranking Alternatives by Defining Relations between Ideal and Anti-Ideal Alternative (RADERIA). Mathematics, 9 (9), 976. https://doi.org/10.3390/math9090976
25. Keskin, Z.B, & Delice E.K., (2023). Determining the effectiveness of countries in combating pandemics: COVID- 19 case. RAIRO Operations Research,57, 2151–2176. https://doi.org/10.1051/ro/2023077
26. Krishnan, AR. (2024).Research trends in criteria importance through intercriteria correlation (CRITIC) method: a visual analysis of bibliographic data using the Tableau software, Information Discovery And Delivery, early access. https://doi.org/10.1108/idd-02-2024-0030
27. Korucuk, S., Aytekin, A., Ecer, F., Pamučar, D.S.S. & Karamaşa, Ç. (2022). Assessment of Ideal Smart Network Strategies for Logistics Companies Using an Integrated Picture Fuzzy LBWA–CoCoSo Framework. Management Decision, 61, 1434–1462. https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-12-2021-1621
28. Kumari, M., & Kulkarni, M. S. (2019).Single-Measure and Multi-Measure Approach of Predictive Manufacturing Control: A Comparative Study. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 127, 182–195. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2018.12.018 Li, Y., Su, D.A. & Mardani, A., (2023). Digital twins and blockchain technology in the industrial Internet of Things (IIoT) using an extended decision support system model: Industry 4.0 barriers perspective, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 195, 122794. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2023.122794
29. Mishra, A. R., Rani, Pratibha Ravi Sundar Prajapati (2021a). Multi-criteria weighted aggregated sum product assessment method for sustainable biomass crop selection problem using single-valued neutrosophic sets, Applied Soft Computing, 113, 108038. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2021.108038
30. Mishra, AR, Rani, P & Saha, A. (2021b). Single-valued neutrosophic similarity measure-based additive ratio assessment framework for optimal site selection of electric vehicle charging station, Internatıonal Journal of Intelligent System, 36 (10), 5573-5604. https://doi.org/10.1002/int.22523 Narayanamoorthy, S., Annapoorani, V., Kang, D., Baleanu, D., Jeon, J., Kureethara, J.V. & Ramya, L. (2020). A novel assessment of bio-medical waste disposal methods using integrating weighting approach and hesitant fuzzy MOOSRA, Journal of Cleaner Production, 275, 122587. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.122587 Narayanamoorthy, S., Brainy, J.V., Shalwala, R.A., Alsenani, T.R., Ahmadian, A. & Daekook K., (2023). An enhanced fuzzy decision making approach for the assessment of sustainable energy storage systems. Sustainable Energy, Grids and Networks, 33, 100962. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.segan.2022.100962
31. Orhan, M. (2013). Karar alma problemlerinde AHP'nin yeri ve kalkınmışlık kriterleriyle Avrupa Birliği üyesi ülkelerin karşılaştırılması (Master’s Thesis). Marmara Universty, İstanbul. Retrieved from: https://tez.yok.gov.tr/UlusalTezMerkezi/tezDetay.jsp?id=T0uALLN8tVzNEGdEm-taSA&no=EXwoGD24- wXNhSjuE-DyWw
32. Ögel, İ.Y., Ecer, F. & Özgöz, A.A. (2022). Identifying the Leading Retailer-Based Food Waste Causes in Different Perishable Fast-Moving Consumer Goods’ Categories: Application of the F-LBWA Methodology. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 30, 32656–32672. https: //doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-24500-9 Pamučar, D., Žižović, M., Marinković, D., Doljanica, D., Jovanović, SV. & Brzaković P. (2020). Development of a Multi-Criteria Model for Sustainable Reorganization of a Healthcare System in an Emergency Situation Caused by the COVID-19 Pandemic. Sustainability, 12(18),7504. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12187504
33. Pamučar, D., Behzad, M. , Božanić, D. & Behzad, M. (2021). Decision making to support sustainable energy policies corresponding to agriculture sector: Case study in Iran’s Caspian Sea coastline. Journal of Cleaner Production, 292, 125302. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.125302
34. Pamučar, D. & Görçün, Ö.F. (2022). Evaluation of the European Container Ports Using a New Hybrid Fuzzy LBWA-CoCoSo’B Techniques. Expert Systems with Applications, 203, 117463. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2022.117463
35. Pamučar, D., Gokasar, I., Torkayesh, A.E., Deveci, M., Martínez, L. & Wu, Q. (2023). Prioritization of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles in Transportation Systems Using the Integrated Stratified Fuzzy Rough Decision-Making Approach with the Hamacher Operator. Information Sciences, 622, 374–404. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2022.11.143
36. Peng, X. & Huang, H. (2020). Fuzzy decision making method based on CoCoSo with CRITIC for financial risk evaluation. Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 26 (6),1199-1215. https://doi.org/10.3846/tede.2020.11920 Piasecki, M. & Kostyrko, K. (2020).Development of weighting scheme for indoor air quality model using a multiattribute decision making method. Energies, 13(12),3120. https://doi.org/10.3390/en13123120
37. Razzaq, A., Riaz, M. & Aslam, M. (2024). Efficient picture fuzzy soft CRITIC-CoCoSo framework for supplier selection under uncertainties in Industry 4.0. AIMS Mathematics, 9(1), 665-701. https://doi.org/10.3934/math.2024035 Shang, C., Saeidi, P. & Goh, C.F. (2022), “Evaluation of circular supply chains barriers in the era of industry 4.0 transition using an extended decision-making approach”, Journal of Enterprise Information Management, Vol. 35 Nos 4/5, pp. 1100-1128.
38. Sharma,M., Joshi,S. & Govindan,K. (2023). Overcoming barriers to implement digital technologies to achieve sustainable production and consumption in the food sector: A circular economy perspective. Sustainable Production And Consumption, 39, 203-215. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2023.04.002
39. Sreekumar, V. & Rajmohan, M. (2019). Supply chain strategy decisions for sustainable development using an integrated multi-criteria decision making approach. Sustainable Development, 27:50–60. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.1861 , A.E., Pam učar, D., Ecer, F. & Chatterjee, P. (2021a). An Integrated BWM-LBWA-CoCoSo Framework for Evaluation of Healthcare Sectors in Eastern Europe. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, 78, 101052. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seps.2021.101052
40. A. E. & Torkayesh, S. E., (2021). Evaluation of information and communication technology development in G7 countries: An integrated MCDM approach. Technology in Society, 66, 101670. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2021.101670
41. Tuş, A., & Aytaç, A., E. (2019). The new combination with CRITIC and WASPAS methods for the time and attendance software selection problem. OPSEARCH, 56, 528–538. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12597-019-00371-6
42. Uluskan, M., Topuz, D. & Çimen, C. (2020). AHP, bulanık AHP, LBWA VE COPRAS yöntemleri ile tedarikçi değerlendirme: demiryolu sektöründe bir uygulama. Eskişehir Osmangazi Üniversitesi Mühendislik ve Mimarlık Fakültesi Dergisi, 30(3),412-430. https://doi.org/10.31796/ogummf.1068384 Wang, W., Chen, Y., Wang, Y., Deveci,M., Moslem, S. & Coffman, D. (2024). Unveiling the implementation barriers to the digital transformation in the energy sector using the Fermatean cubic fuzzy method. Applied Energy, 360,122756. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2024.122756
43. Wei, G., Lei, F., Lin, R., Wang, R., Wei, Y., Wu, J., & Wei, C. (2020). Algorithms for probabilistic uncertain linguistic multiple attribute group decision making based on the GRA and CRITIC method: application to location planning of electric vehicle charging stations. Economic Research-Ekonomska Istraživanja, 33(1), 828–846. https://doi.org/10.1080/1331677X.2020.1734851
44. Yazdani, M., Pamučar, D., Chatterjee, P. & Torkayesh, A.E. (2022). A Multi-Tier Sustainable Food Supplier Selection Model under Uncertainty. Operations Management Research, 15, 116–145. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12063-021-00186-z
45. Žižović, M. & Pamučar, D. (2019). New model for determining criteria weights: level-based weight assessment (LBWA) model. Decision Making: Applications in Management and Engineering, 2(2), 1-20. https://doi.org/10.31181/dmame1902102z
46. Zaher, H., Khalifa, H. A. & Mohamed, S. (2018). On Rough Interval Multi Criteria Decision Making. International Journal of Scientific & Technology Research, 7(3), 44-54. Corpus ID: 116022924
47. Zeng, S., Gao, L. & Wu, J. (2024). Data literacy evaluation of undergraduate in business majors based on probabilistic linguistic integrated EDAS method. Granular Computing, 9, 27. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41066- 024-00453-x
48. Zhu, L., Lei,G. & Gao, J. (2023). Research on key influencing factors for site selection of DC microgrid-based hydrogen-electric hybrid refueling stations. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 48 (100), 39759-39779. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2023.07.141