IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bit/bsrysr/v3y2012i2p41-48.html

Criteria weighting by using the 5Ws & H technique

Author

Listed:
  • Čančer Vesna

    (Faculty of Economics and Business, University of Maribor, Maribor, Slovenia)

Abstract

Background: This paper introduces the use of the 5Ws & H technique, which is the creative problem solving technique based on who, what, when, where, why and how questions, for the establishing of the criteria weights in multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM). Objectives: The main goal of this paper is to adapt and complete the steps of the 5Ws & H technique, usually used in the problem definition phase, to establish the importance of criteria by the methods based on an interval scale. It also aims to verify the applicability of the proposed approach in the selection of the most appropriate blade. Methods/Approach: In terms of prescriptive approach, the creative 5Ws & H technique was used in the weighting step of the frame procedure for MCDM. During synthesis, the additive model was used, whereas interactions among criteria were considered by using the discrete Choquet integral. Results: The first result is a theoretical statement of the weighting scheme for a new decision mechanism. The second result is the application of this scheme in a real-world case-study. Considering interactions among criteria strengthened the decision-making basis in the selection of the most appropriate blade. Conclusion: The creative 5Ws & H technique proved useful in criteria weighting.

Suggested Citation

  • Čančer Vesna, 2012. "Criteria weighting by using the 5Ws & H technique," Business Systems Research, Paradigm, vol. 3(2), pages 41-48, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:bit:bsrysr:v:3:y:2012:i:2:p:41-48
    DOI: 10.2478/v10305-012-0011-3
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.2478/v10305-012-0011-3
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.2478/v10305-012-0011-3?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Marichal, Jean-Luc & Roubens, Marc, 2000. "Determination of weights of interacting criteria from a reference set," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 124(3), pages 641-650, August.
    2. Kojadinovic, Ivan, 2004. "Estimation of the weights of interacting criteria from the set of profiles by means of information-theoretic functionals," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 155(3), pages 741-751, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Fujimoto, Katsushige & Kojadinovic, Ivan & Marichal, Jean-Luc, 2006. "Axiomatic characterizations of probabilistic and cardinal-probabilistic interaction indices," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 55(1), pages 72-99, April.
    2. Kojadinovic, Ivan, 2007. "Minimum variance capacity identification," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 177(1), pages 498-514, February.
    3. Doumpos, Michael & Zopounidis, Constantin, 2011. "Preference disaggregation and statistical learning for multicriteria decision support: A review," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 209(3), pages 203-214, March.
    4. Chenyu Li & Ling Zhang & Yan Xu, 2023. "An integrated approach to identify criteria interactions based on association rule and capacity in MCDA," OR Spectrum: Quantitative Approaches in Management, Springer;Gesellschaft für Operations Research e.V., vol. 45(4), pages 1381-1412, December.
    5. Li, Jianping & Yao, Xiaoyang & Sun, Xiaolei & Wu, Dengsheng, 2018. "Determining the fuzzy measures in multiple criteria decision aiding from the tolerance perspective," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 264(2), pages 428-439.
    6. Pelegrina, Guilherme Dean & Duarte, Leonardo Tomazeli & Grabisch, Michel & Romano, João Marcos Travassos, 2020. "The multilinear model in multicriteria decision making: The case of 2-additive capacities and contributions to parameter identification," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 282(3), pages 945-956.
    7. Čančer Vesna, 2013. "A Frame Procedure for Multiple Criteria Selection of IT Products and Services," Scientific Annals of Economics and Business, Paradigm, vol. 60(1), pages 94-106, July.
    8. Grabisch, Michel & Kojadinovic, Ivan & Meyer, Patrick, 2008. "A review of methods for capacity identification in Choquet integral based multi-attribute utility theory: Applications of the Kappalab R package," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 186(2), pages 766-785, April.
    9. Gong, Zaiwu & Guo, Weiwei & Słowiński, Roman, 2021. "Transaction and interaction behavior-based consensus model and its application to optimal carbon emission reduction," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 104(C).
    10. Pereira, Miguel Alves & Figueira, José Rui & Marques, Rui Cunha, 2020. "Using a Choquet integral-based approach for incorporating decision-maker’s preference judgments in a Data Envelopment Analysis model," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 284(3), pages 1016-1030.
    11. Campagnolo, Lorenza & Carraro, Carlo & Eboli, Fabio & Farnia, Luca, "undated". "Assessing SDGs: A New Methodology to Measure Sustainability," Climate Change and Sustainable Development 230597, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (FEEM).
    12. Bottero, M. & Ferretti, V. & Figueira, J.R. & Greco, S. & Roy, B., 2018. "On the Choquet multiple criteria preference aggregation model: Theoretical and practical insights from a real-world application," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 271(1), pages 120-140.
    13. Pereira, Miguel Alves & Camanho, Ana Santos & Figueira, José Rui & Marques, Rui Cunha, 2021. "Incorporating preference information in a range directional composite indicator: The case of Portuguese public hospitals," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 294(2), pages 633-650.
    14. Raquel González del Pozo & Luis C. Dias & José Luis García-Lapresta, 2020. "Using Different Qualitative Scales in a Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Procedure," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 8(3), pages 1-20, March.
    15. Mayag, Brice & Bouyssou, Denis, 2020. "Necessary and possible interaction between criteria in a 2-additive Choquet integral model," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 283(1), pages 308-320.
    16. Angilella, Silvia & Greco, Salvatore & Matarazzo, Benedetto, 2010. "Non-additive robust ordinal regression: A multiple criteria decision model based on the Choquet integral," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 201(1), pages 277-288, February.
    17. Ruiling Sun & Zaiwu Gong & Weiwei Guo & Ashfaq Ahmad Shah & Jie Wu & Haiying Xu, 2022. "Flood disaster risk assessment of and countermeasures toward Yangtze River Delta by considering index interaction," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 112(1), pages 475-500, May.
    18. Kojadinovic, Ivan, 2004. "Estimation of the weights of interacting criteria from the set of profiles by means of information-theoretic functionals," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 155(3), pages 741-751, June.
    19. Labreuche, Christophe & Grabisch, Michel, 2018. "Using multiple reference levels in Multi-Criteria Decision aid: The Generalized-Additive Independence model and the Choquet integral approaches," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 267(2), pages 598-611.
    20. Wang, Chun-Hsien & Lu, Iuan-Yuan & Chen, Chin-Bein, 2010. "Integrating hierarchical balanced scorecard with non-additive fuzzy integral for evaluating high technology firm performance," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 128(1), pages 413-426, November.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:bit:bsrysr:v:3:y:2012:i:2:p:41-48. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: Peter Golla (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://reference-global.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.