A novel multicriteria decision making (MCDM) approach for precise decision making under a fuzzy environment

Abstract

The existing crisp and fuzzy multicriteria decision making (MCDM) methods exhibit consistency, complexity, and reliability issues. To address these challenges, we propose a new MCDM method called fuzzy technique for best–worst analysis (FTBWA). In FTBWA, a decision-maker (DM) first identifies a set of criteria and then determines the best–worst criteria. Next, the DM performs the fuzzy reference comparisons between the best-to-other (BtO) and the others-to-worst (OtW) criteria using the linguistic expressions. The process results in fuzzy BtO and fuzzy OtW vectors, which are then defuzzified to obtain quantifiable values. Afterward, a maximin problem is built and solved to obtain the weights of criteria and alternatives. The best alternative can be selected based on the final score obtained by aggregating the weights of different sets of criteria and alternatives. Further, we propose a consistency ratio to check the reliability of the results of FTBWA. To verify the practicality and consistency of FTBWA, we perform two illustrative case studies. Moreover, we perform a comprehensive analysis considering a comparative analysis, rank reversal analysis, and support for group decision making. From the results, we observe that FTBWA outperforms existing fuzzy/crisp MCDM methods.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

References

  1. Aboutorab H, Saberi M, Asadabadi MR, Hussain O, Chang E, Rajabi M, Chang E (2018) ZBWM: the Z-number extension of Best Worst Method and its application for supplier development. Expert Syst Appl 107:115–125

    Google Scholar 

  2. Belton V, Gear T (1983) On a short-coming of Saaty’s method of analytic hierarchies. Omega 11(3):228–230

    Google Scholar 

  3. Brans JP, Vincke P (1985) Note—a preference ranking organisation Method. Manag Sci 31(6):647–656

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  4. Brans JP, Vincke P, Mareschal B (1986) How to select and how to rank projects: the Promethee method. Eur J Oper Res 24(2):228–238

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  5. Chang C-L (2010) A modified VIKOR method for multiple criteria analysis. Environ Monit Assess 168(1–4):339–344

    Google Scholar 

  6. Chen T-Y, Tsao C-Y (2008) The interval-valued fuzzy TOPSIS method and experimental analysis. Fuzzy Sets Syst 159(11):1410–1428

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  7. Chen N, Xu Z, Xia M (2015) The ELECTRE I multi-criteria decision-making method based on hesitant fuzzy sets. Int J Inf Technol Decis Mak 14(03):621–657

    Google Scholar 

  8. Figueira JR, Greco S, Roy B, Słowiński R (2013) An overview of ELECTRE methods and their recent extensions. J Multi Criteria Decis Anal 20(1–2):61–85

    Google Scholar 

  9. George JK, Yuan B (1995) Fuzzy sets and fuzzy logic: theory and applications. US Ed edition (11 May 1995)

  10. Govindan K, Jepsen MB (2016) ELECTRE: a comprehensive literature review on methodologies and applications. Eur J Oper Res 250:1–29

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  11. Guillaume S, Charnomordic B (2004) Fuzzy inference systems to model sensory evaluation. In: Intelligent sensory evaluation, pp 197–216

  12. Guo S, Zhao H (2017) Fuzzy best–worst multi-criteria decision-making method and its applications. Knowl Based Syst 121:23–31

    Google Scholar 

  13. Gupta H, Barua MK (2017) Supplier selection among SMEs on the basis of their green innovation ability using BWM and fuzzy TOPSIS. J Clean Prod 152:242–258

    Google Scholar 

  14. Hafezalkotob A, Hafezalkotob A (2017) A novel approach for combination of individual and group decisions based on fuzzy best–worst method. Appl Soft Comput 59:316–325

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  15. Hatami-Marbini A, Tavana M (2011) An extension of the Electre I method for group decision-making under a fuzzy environment. Omega 39(4):373–386

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  16. Hendriks MMWB, de Boer JH, Smilde AK, Doornbos DA (1992) Multicriteria decision making. Chemometr Intell Lab Syst 16(3):175–191

    Google Scholar 

  17. Hussain A, Chun J, Khan M (2020) A novel customer-centric Methodology for Optimal Service Selection (MOSS) in a cloud environment. Future Gen Comput Syst 105:562–580

    Google Scholar 

  18. Hwang C, Yoon K (1981) Multiple attribute decision making: methods and applications, a state of the art survey, vol 1. Springer, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  19. Jingzhu W, Xiangyi L (2008) The multiple attribute decision-making VIKOR method and its application. In: 2008 4th international conference on wireless communications, networking and mobile computing, pp 1–4

  20. Kahraman C (2008) Fuzzy Multi-Criteria Decision Making: theory and applications with recent developments, vol 16. Springer Science & Business Media, Cham

    Google Scholar 

  21. Kauffman A, Gupta MM (1985). Introduction to fuzzy arithmetic, theory and application. Van Nostrand Reinhold Co., New York

  22. Kaufmann A, Gupta MM (1991) Introduction to fuzzy arithmetic, theory and applications. VanNostrand Reinhold, New York

    Google Scholar 

  23. Kheybari S, Kazemi M, Rezaei J (2019) Bioethanol facility location selection using best–worst method. Appl Energy 242:612–623

    Google Scholar 

  24. Kumar A, Kaur J, Singh P (2011) A new method for solving fully fuzzy linear programming problems. Appl Math Model 35(2):817–823

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  25. Liao H, Mi X, Yu Q, Luo L (2019) Hospital performance evaluation by a hesitant fuzzy linguistic best worst method with inconsistency repairing. J Clean Prod 232:657–671

    Google Scholar 

  26. Mardani A, Jusoh A, Nor KMD, Khalifah Z, Zakwan N, Valipour A (2015) Multiple criteria decision-making techniques and their applications—a review of the literature from 2000 to 2014. Econ Res 28(1):516–571

    Google Scholar 

  27. Mi X, Tang M, Liao H, Shen W, Lev B (2019) The state-of-the-art survey on integrations and applications of the best worst method in decision making: why, what, what for and what’s next? Omega 87:205–225

    Google Scholar 

  28. Mou Q, Xu Z, Liao H (2016) An intuitionistic fuzzy multiplicative best–worst method for multi-criteria group decision making. Inf Sci 374:224–239

    Google Scholar 

  29. Opricovic S, Tzeng GH (2004) Compromise solution by MCDM methods: a comparative analysis of VIKOR and TOPSIS. Eur J Oper Res 156(2):445–455

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  30. Ouma YO, Opudo J, Nyambenya S (2015) Comparison of fuzzy AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS for road pavement maintenance prioritization: methodological exposition and case study. Adv Civ Eng. https://doi.org/10.1155/2015/140189

  31. Rezaei J (2015) Best–worst multi-criteria decision-making method. Omega 53(Dm):49–57

    Google Scholar 

  32. Rezaei J (2016) Best–worst multi-criteria decision-making method: some properties and a linear model. Omega 64:126–130

    Google Scholar 

  33. Rezaei J, Wang J, Tavasszy L (2015) Linking supplier development to supplier segmentation using Best Worst Method. Expert Syst Appl 42(23):9152–9164

    Google Scholar 

  34. Rezaei J, Nispeling T, Sarkis J, Tavasszy L (2016) A supplier selection life cycle approach integrating traditional and environmental criteria using the best worst method. J Clean Prod 135:577–588

    Google Scholar 

  35. Roy B (1978) ELECTRE III: un algorithme de classement fondé sur une représentation floue des préférences en présence de critères multiples. Cahiers Du CERO 20(1):3–24

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  36. Roy B (1991) The outranking approach and the foundations of electre methods. Theor Decis 31(1):49–73

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  37. Saaty TL (1977) A scaling method for priorities in hierarchical structures. J Math Psychol 15(3):234–281

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  38. Saaty TL (1994) How to make a decision: the analytic hierarchy process. Interfaces 24(6):19–43

    Google Scholar 

  39. Saaty TL (2004) Decision making—the analytic hierarchy and network processes (AHP/ANP). J Syst Sci Syst Eng 13(1):1–35

    Google Scholar 

  40. Saaty TL, Vargas LG (1984) The legitimacy of rank reversal. Omega 12(5):513–516

    Google Scholar 

  41. Saaty TL, Vargas LG (2013) The analytic network process. Decis Mak Anal Netw Process 195:1–40

    Google Scholar 

  42. Salimi N, Rezaei J (2016) Measuring efficiency of university-industry Ph.D. projects using the best–worst method. Scientometrics 109(3):1911–1938

    Google Scholar 

  43. Salimi N, Rezaei J (2018) Evaluating firms’ R&D performance using best worst method. Eval Program Plan 66(October 2017):147–155

    Google Scholar 

  44. Serrai W, Abdelli A, Mokdad L, Hammal Y (2017) Towards an efficient and a more accurate web service selection using MCDM methods. J Comput Sci 22:253–267

    Google Scholar 

  45. Shyamal AK, Pal M (2007) Triangular fuzzy matrices. Iran J Fuzzy Syst 4(1):75–87

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  46. Torfi F, Farahani RZ, Rezapour S (2010) Fuzzy AHP to determine the relative weights of evaluation criteria and Fuzzy TOPSIS to rank the alternatives. Appl Soft Comput J 10(2):520–528

    Google Scholar 

  47. Triantaphyllou E (2000) Multi-criteria decision making methods: a comparative study, vol 44. Springer US, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  48. Tzeng G-H, Huang J-J (2011) Multiple attribute decision making methods and applications. Chapman and Hall, London

    Google Scholar 

  49. Wang YM, Luo Y, Hua Z (2008) On the extent analysis method for fuzzy AHP and its applications. Eur J Oper Res 186(2):735–747

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  50. Whaiduzzaman M, Gani A, Anuar NB, Shiraz M, Haque MN, Haque IT (2014) Cloud service selection using multicriteria decision analysis. Sci World J 2014(9):459375

    Google Scholar 

  51. Yong LYL (2009) A novel method for decision making based on triangular fuzzy number. Chin Control Decis Conf 2009:4276–4279

    Google Scholar 

  52. You X, Chen T, Yang Q (2016) Approach to multi-criteria group decision-making problems based on the best–worst-method and electre method. Symmetry 8(9):95

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  53. Zadeh LA (1984) Making computers think like people. IEEE Spectr 21(8):26–32

    Google Scholar 

  54. Zadeh LA (1996) Fuzzy sets, fuzzy logic, and fuzzy systems. Arch Math Logic 32(32):1–32

    MATH  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

We would gratefully acknowledge the support by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) as the research program under [Grant Number 71671025, 71421001].

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Abid Hussain.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants involved in this study.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hussain, A., Chun, J. & Khan, M. A novel multicriteria decision making (MCDM) approach for precise decision making under a fuzzy environment. Soft Comput 25, 5645–5661 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00500-020-05561-9

Download citation

Keywords

  • Fuzzy best–worst method
  • Fuzzy multicriteria decision making
  • Fuzzy reference comparisons
  • Decision-making methods
  • Soft computing
  • Consistency ratio