A New Method of Multi-Criteria Decision Making: Improved Criteria Weighting Method (ICWM)

Abstract

This study aims to examine the strengths and weaknesses of AHP, SWARA, BWM, PIPRECIA and FUCOM, which are subjective criteria weighting methods, to reveal their advantages, and to develop an improved subjective criterion weighting procedure in this context. As a new method proposal, it is aimed to show the reliability of the method by giving application examples and comparison analyzes within the framework of ICWM (Improved Criteria Weighting Method). According to the analysis results, it was observed that the correlations between the criterion weights found with ICWM and the criterion weights found with AHP, SWARA, BWM, and FUCOM, which are considered reliable in the literature, were very strong. It has also been determined that ICWM provides advantages in terms of number of pairwise comparisons, consistency, and practicality.

Keywords

• Improved criteria Weighting method (ICWM)
• AHP
• SWARA
• BWM
• FUCOM

References

1. [1] Saaty, T. L., “Axiomatic foundation of the analytic hierarchy process”, Management Science, 32(7): 841–855, https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.32.7.841, (1986).
2. [2] Ecer, F., Çok Kriterli Karar Verme Geçmişten Günümüze Kapsamlı Bir Yaklaşım (1. ed.), Seçkin Yayıncılık San. ve Tic. A.Ş., (2020).
3. [3] Roszkowska, E., “Rank ordering criteria weighting methods – a comparative overview”, Optimum, Studia Ekonomiczne, 5(65): 14–33, https://doi.org/10.15290/ose.2013.05.65.02, (2013).
4. [4] Keshavarz-Ghorabaee, M., Amiri, M., Zavadskas, E. K., Turskis, Z. and Antucheviciene, J., “Determination of objective weights using a new method based on the removal effects of criteria (MEREC)”, Symmetry, 13(4): 1–20, https://doi.org/10.3390/sym13040525, (2021).
5. [5] Saaty, T. L., The Analytic Hierarchy Process: Planning, Priority Setting, Resource Allocation, McGraw-Hill, (1980).
6. [6] Keršulienė, V., Zavadskas, E. K. and Turskis, Z., “Selection of rational dispute resolution method by applying new step‐wise weight assessment ratio analysis (SWARA)”, Journal of Business Economics and Management, 11(2): 243–258, https://doi.org/10.3846/jbem.2010.12, (2010).
7. [7] Rezaei, J., “Best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method”, Omega, 53: 49–57, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.omega.2014.11.009, (2015).
8. [8] Rezaei, J., “Best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method: some properties and a linear model”, Omega, 64: 126–130, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.omega.2015.12.001, (2016).

9. [9] Stanujkic, D., Karabasevic, D. and Zavadskas, E. K., “A framework for the selection of a packaging design based on the SWARA method”, Engineering Economics, 26(2): 181–187, https://doi.org/10.5755/j01.ee.26.2.8820, (2015).
10. [10] Pamučar, D., Stević, Ž. and Sremac, S., “A new model for determining weight coefficients of criteria in MCDM models: full consistency method (FUCOM)”, Symmetry, 10(9): 1–22, https://doi.org/10.3390/sym10090393, (2018).
11. [11] Tzeng, G. H., Chen, T. Y. and Wang, J. C., “A weight-assessing method with habitual domains”, European Journal of Operational Research, 110(2): 342–367, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0377-2217(97)00246-4, (1998).
12. [12] Şahin, M., Güncel ve Uygulamalı Çok Kriterli Karar Verme Yöntemleri (1. ed.), Nobel Bilimsel Eserler, (2022).
13. [13] Bardakçı, S. (2020), “SIMOS yöntemi”, Çok Kriterli Karar Verme Problemlerinde Kriter Ağırlıklandırma Yöntemleri (Ed. H. Bircan) (1. ed.), 97–115, Nobel Akademik Yayıncılık, (2020).
14. [14] Shannon, C. E., “A mathematical theory of communication”, The Bell System Technical Journal, 27(3: 379–423, https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1538-7305.1948.tb01338.x, (1948).
15. [15] Diakoulaki, D., Mavrotas, G. and Papayannakis, L., “Determining objective weights in multiple criteria problems: the CRITIC method”, Computers and Operations Research, 22(7): 763–770, https://doi.org/10.1016/0305-0548(94)00059-H, (1995).
16. [16] Zavadskas, E. K. and Podvezko, V., “Integrated determination of objective criteria weights in MCDM”, International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making, 15(2): 267–283. https://doi.org/10.1142/S0219622016500036, (2016).
17. [17] Edwards, W., “How to use multiattribute utility measurement for social decisionmaking”, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, 7(5): 326–340, https://doi.org/10.1109/TSMC.1977.4309720, (1977).
18. [18] Edwards, W. and Barron, F. H., “SMARTS and SMARTER: improved simple methods for multiattribute utility measurement”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 60(3): 306–325, https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1994.1087, (1994).
19. [19] Figueira, J. and Roy, B., “Determining the weights of criteria in the ELECTRE type methods with a revised simos’ procedure”, European Journal of Operational Research, 139(2): 317–326, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0377-2217(01)00370-8, (2002).
20. [20] Bana E Costa, C. A. and Vansnick, J. C., “MACBETH - an interactive path towards the construction of cardinal value functions”, International Transactions in Operational Research, 1(4): 489–500, https://doi.org/10.1016/0969-6016(94)90010-8, (1994).
21. [21] Barron, F. H. and Barrett, B. E., “Decision quality using ranked attribute weights”, Management Science, 42(11): 1515–1523, https://www.jstor.org/stable/2634518, (1996).
22. [22] Saaty, T. L., The Analytic Network Process, RWS Publications, (1996).
23. [23] Žižovic, M. and Pamučar, D., “New model for determining criteria weights: level based weight assessment (LBWA) model”, Decision Making: Applications in Management and Engineering, 2(2): 126–137, https://doi.org/10.31181/dmame1902102z, (2019).
24. [24] Stanujkic, D., Zavadskas, E. K., Karabasevic, D., Smarandache, F. and Turskis, Z., “The use of the pivot pairwise relative criteria importance assessment method for determining the weights of criteria”, Romanian Journal of Economic Forecasting, 20(4): 116–133, http://www.ipe.ro/rjef/rjef4_17/rjef4_2017p116-133.pdf, (2017).
25. [25] Ayçin, E., Çok Kriterli Karar Verme: Bilgisayar Uygulamalı Çözümler (2. ed.), Nobel Akademik Yayıncılık, (2020).
26. [26] Önder, G. and Önder, E., “Analitik hiyerarşi süreci”, Operasyonel, Yönetsel ve Stratejik Problemlerin Çözümünde Çok Kriterli Karar Verme Yöntemleri (Ed.: B. F. Yıldırım & E. Önder) (3. ed.), 21–74, Dora Basım-Yayın Dağıtım Ltd. Şti, (2018).
27. [27] Özbek, A., Çok Kriterli Karar Verme Yöntemleri ve Excel ile Problem Çözümü (3. ed.), Seçkin Yayıncılık San. ve Tic. A.Ş., (2021).
28. [28] Saaty, T. L., "Relative measurement and its generalization in decision making. why pairwise comparisons are central in mathematics for the measurement of intangible factors. the analytic hierarchy/network process”, Rev. R. Acad. Cien. Serie A. Mat., 102(2): 251–318, https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03191825, (2008).
29. [29] Saat, M., “Çok amaçlı karar vermede bir yaklaşım: analitik hiyerarşi yöntemi”, Gazi Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 2(2): 149–162, https://izlik.org/JA76UR39JT, (2000).
30. [30] Saaty, T. L., “How to make a decision : the analytic hierarchy process”, Interfaces, 24(6): 19–43, https://doi.org/10.1287/inte.24.6.19, (1994).
31. [31] Jauković Jocić, K., Karabašević, D. and Jocić, G., “The use of the PIPRECIA method for assessing the quality of e-learning materials”, Ekonomika, 66(3): 37–45, https://doi.org/10.5937/ekonomika2003037J, (2020).
32. [32] Aytekin, A., Çok Kriterli Karar Analizi (1. ed.), Nobel Bilimsel Eserler, (2022).
33. [33] Demir, G. and Bircan, H., “Kriter ağırlıklandırma yöntemleri̇nden BWM ve FUCOM yöntemleri̇ni̇n karşılaştırılması ve bi̇r uygulama (Comparison of BWM and FUCOM methods of criteria weighting methods and an application)”, Sivas Cumhuriyet University Journal of Economics and Administrative Sciences, 21(2): 170–185, https://doi.org/10.37880/cumuiibf.616766, (2020).
34. [34] Ecer, F., “FUCOM sübjektif ağırlıklandırma yöntemi ile rüzgâr çiftliği yer seçimini etkileyen faktörlerin analizi (An analysis of the factors affecting wind farm site selection through FUCOM Subjective weighting method)” Pamukkale University Journal of Engineering Sciences, 27(1): 24–34, https://doi.org/10.5505/pajes.2020.93271, (2021).
35. [35] Ayçin, E. and Aşan, H., “İş zekası uygulamaları seçimindeki kriterlerin önem ağırlıklarının FUCOM yöntemi ile belirlenmesi (Determination of the weight coefficients of criteria in the selection of business intelligence applications with FUCOM)”, KOCATEPEİİBFD, 23(2): 195–208, https://doi.org/10.33707/akuiibfd.903563, (2021).
36. [36] Saaty, T. L., “How to make a decision: the analytic hierarchy process”, European Journal of Operational Research, 48(1): 9–26, https://doi.org/10.1016/0377-2217(90)90057-I, (1990).
37. [37] Pamucar, D. and Ecer, F., “Prioritizing the weights of the evaluation criteria under fuzziness: the fuzzy full consistency method – FUCOM-F”, Facta Universitatis, Series: Mechanical Engineering, 18(3): 419–437, https://doi.org/10.22190/FUME200602034P, (2020).
38. [38] Spearman, C., “The proof and measurement of association between two things”, The American Journal of Psychology, https://doi.org/10.2307/1412159, 15(1): 72–101, (1904).
39. [39] Spearman, C., “‘Footrule’ for measuring correlation” British Journal of Psychology, 2(1): 89–108, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8295.1906.tb00174.x, (1906).
40. [40] Gauthier, T. D., “Detecting trends using spearman’s rank correlation coefficient”, Environmental Forensics, 2(4): 359–362, https://doi.org/10.1006/enfo.2001.0061, (2001).
41. [41] Karabina, A. and Kılıç, E., “An automated clustering algorithm based on agglomerative clustering”, 2016 24th Signal Processing and Communication Application Conference (SIU), 1801–1804, https://doi.org/10.1109/SIU.2016.7496111, (2016).
42. [42] Kılıç, A. F., “Değişkenlerin kategori sayısı ve dağılımın korelasyon katsayılarına etkisi (The effect of categories and distribution of variables on correlation coefficients)”, Ege Journal of Education, 23(1): 50–80, https://doi.org/10.12984/egeefd.890104, (2022).