IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/aqjoor/v22y2024i3d10.1007_s10288-023-00553-5.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Is the best–worst method path dependent? Evidence from an empirical study

Author

Listed:
  • Jiri Mazurek

    (Silesian University Opava)

  • Radomír Perzina

    (Silesian University Opava)

  • Dominik Strzałka

    (Silesian University Opava
    Rzeszów University of Technology)

  • Bartosz Kowal

    (Rzeszów University of Technology)

  • Paweł Kuraś

    (Rzeszów University of Technology)

  • Barbora Petrů Puhrová

    (Tomas Bata University in Zlin)

  • Robert Rajs

    (Carpathian State College in Krosno)

Abstract

The Best–Worst method (BWM) is one of the latest contributions to pairwise comparisons methods. As its name suggests, it is based on pairwise comparisons of all criteria (or possibly other objects, such as alternatives, sub-criteria, etc.) with respect to the best (most important) and the worst (least important) criterion. The main aim of this study is to investigate the path and scale dependency of the BWM. Up to now, it is unknown whether the weights of compared objects obtained by the method differ when the objects are compared first with the best object, and then with the worst, or vice versa. It is also unknown if the outcomes of the method differ when compared objects are presented in a different order, or when different scales are applied. Therefore, an experiment in a laboratory setting is performed with more than 800 respondents university undergraduates from two countries in which the respondents compare areas of randomly generated figures and the relative size of objects is then estimated via the linearized version of the BWM. Last but not least, the accuracy of the BWM is examined with respect to different comparison scales, including Saaty’s nine-point linguistic scale, an integer scale from 1 to 9, and a continuous scale from 1 to infinity.

Suggested Citation

  • Jiri Mazurek & Radomír Perzina & Dominik Strzałka & Bartosz Kowal & Paweł Kuraś & Barbora Petrů Puhrová & Robert Rajs, 2024. "Is the best–worst method path dependent? Evidence from an empirical study," 4OR, Springer, vol. 22(3), pages 387-409, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:aqjoor:v:22:y:2024:i:3:d:10.1007_s10288-023-00553-5
    DOI: 10.1007/s10288-023-00553-5
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10288-023-00553-5
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10288-023-00553-5?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lahtinen, Tuomas J. & Hämäläinen, Raimo P., 2016. "Path dependence and biases in the even swaps decision analysis method," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 249(3), pages 890-898.
    2. Hämäläinen, Raimo P. & Alaja, Susanna, 2008. "The threat of weighting biases in environmental decision analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(1-2), pages 556-569, December.
    3. Poyhonen, Mari & Hamalainen, Raimo P., 2001. "On the convergence of multiattribute weighting methods," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 129(3), pages 569-585, March.
    4. Hämäläinen, Raimo P. & Lahtinen, Tuomas J., 2016. "Path dependence in Operational Research—How the modeling process can influence the results," Operations Research Perspectives, Elsevier, vol. 3(C), pages 14-20.
    5. Landry, Maurice & Malouin, Jean-Louis & Oral, Muhittin, 1983. "Model validation in operations research," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 14(3), pages 207-220, November.
    6. Mi, Xiaomei & Tang, Ming & Liao, Huchang & Shen, Wenjing & Lev, Benjamin, 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, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 205-225.
    7. Mu-Hsin Chang & James J. H. Liou & Huai-Wei Lo, 2019. "A Hybrid MCDM Model for Evaluating Strategic Alliance Partners in the Green Biopharmaceutical Industry," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(15), pages 1-20, July.
    8. P Leskinen, 2008. "Numerical scaling of ratio scale utilities in multi-criteria decision analysis with geometric model," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 59(3), pages 407-415, March.
    9. Yoram Wind & Thomas L. Saaty, 1980. "Marketing Applications of the Analytic Hierarchy Process," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(7), pages 641-658, July.
    10. Lahtinen, Tuomas J. & Hämäläinen, Raimo P. & Jenytin, Cosmo, 2020. "On preference elicitation processes which mitigate the accumulation of biases in multi-criteria decision analysis," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 282(1), pages 201-210.
    11. Hämäläinen, Raimo P. & Luoma, Jukka & Saarinen, Esa, 2013. "On the importance of behavioral operational research: The case of understanding and communicating about dynamic systems," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 228(3), pages 623-634.
    12. Rezaei, Jafar, 2016. "Best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method: Some properties and a linear model," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 126-130.
    13. Rezaei, Jafar, 2015. "Best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 49-57.
    14. Franco, L. Alberto & Hämäläinen, Raimo P. & Rouwette, Etiënne A.J.A. & Leppänen, Ilkka, 2021. "Taking stock of behavioural OR: A review of behavioural studies with an intervention focus," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 293(2), pages 401-418.
    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. Lahtinen, Tuomas J. & Hämäläinen, Raimo P. & Jenytin, Cosmo, 2020. "On preference elicitation processes which mitigate the accumulation of biases in multi-criteria decision analysis," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 282(1), pages 201-210.
    2. Liang, Fuqi & Brunelli, Matteo & Rezaei, Jafar, 2020. "Consistency issues in the best worst method: Measurements and thresholds," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 96(C).
    3. Besharati Fard, Moein & Moradian, Parisa & Emarati, Mohammadreza & Ebadi, Mehdi & Gholamzadeh Chofreh, Abdoulmohammad & Klemeŝ, Jiří Jaromír, 2022. "Ground-mounted photovoltaic power station site selection and economic analysis based on a hybrid fuzzy best-worst method and geographic information system: A case study Guilan province," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 169(C).
    4. Amelia Bilbao-Terol & Mar Arenas-Parra & Raquel Quiroga-García & Celia Bilbao-Terol, 2022. "An extended best–worst multiple reference point method: application in the assessment of non-life insurance companies," Operational Research, Springer, vol. 22(5), pages 5323-5362, November.
    5. Sarbast Moslem & Muhammet Gul & Danish Farooq & Erkan Celik & Omid Ghorbanzadeh & Thomas Blaschke, 2020. "An Integrated Approach of Best-Worst Method (BWM) and Triangular Fuzzy Sets for Evaluating Driver Behavior Factors Related to Road Safety," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 8(3), pages 1-20, March.
    6. Lahtinen, Tuomas J. & Hämäläinen, Raimo P., 2016. "Path dependence and biases in the even swaps decision analysis method," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 249(3), pages 890-898.
    7. Kusi-Sarpong, Simonov & Orji, Ifeyinwa Juliet & Gupta, Himanshu & Kunc, Martin, 2021. "Risks associated with the implementation of big data analytics in sustainable supply chains," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 105(C).
    8. Wu, Qun & Liu, Xinwang & Zhou, Ligang & Qin, Jindong & Rezaei, Jafar, 2024. "An analytical framework for the best–worst method," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 123(C).
    9. Fumin Deng & Yanjie Li & Huirong Lin & Jinrui Miao & Xuedong Liang, 2020. "A BWM-TOPSIS Hazardous Waste Inventory Safety Risk Evaluation," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(16), pages 1-18, August.
    10. Zhang, Long & Bai, Wuliyasu, 2021. "Sustainability of crop–based biodiesel for transportation in China: Barrier analysis and life cycle ecological footprint calculations," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 164(C).
    11. Arman Nedjati & Mohammad Yazdi & Rouzbeh Abbassi, 2022. "A sustainable perspective of optimal site selection of giant air-purifiers in large metropolitan areas," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 24(6), pages 8747-8778, June.
    12. Elkadeem, M.R. & Younes, Ali & Sharshir, Swellam W. & Campana, Pietro Elia & Wang, Shaorong, 2021. "Sustainable siting and design optimization of hybrid renewable energy system: A geospatial multi-criteria analysis," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 295(C).
    13. Amin Vafadarnikjoo & Madjid Tavana & Tiago Botelho & Konstantinos Chalvatzis, 2020. "A neutrosophic enhanced best–worst method for considering decision-makers’ confidence in the best and worst criteria," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 289(2), pages 391-418, June.
    14. Cavallo, Bice & Ishizaka, Alessio, 2025. "A comparative study on precision of direct evaluations, the Pairwise Comparisons Method and the Best-Worst Method," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 130(C).
    15. Tavana, Madjid & Mina, Hassan & Santos-Arteaga, Francisco J., 2023. "A general Best-Worst method considering interdependency with application to innovation and technology assessment at NASA," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 154(C).
    16. Hashem Omrani & Arash Alizadeh & Ali Emrouznejad & Tamara Teplova, 2024. "Data envelopment analysis model with decision makers’ preferences: a robust credibility approach," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 339(3), pages 1269-1306, August.
    17. Samieinasab, Mina & Hamid, Mahdi & Rabbani, Masoud, 2022. "An integrated resilience engineering-lean management approach to performance assessment and improvement of clinical departments," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 84(C).
    18. Maghsoud Amiri & Mohammad Hashemi-Tabatabaei & Mohammad Ghahremanloo & Mehdi Keshavarz-Ghorabaee & Edmundas Kazimieras Zavadskas & Arturas Kaklauskas, 2021. "Evaluating Life Cycle of Buildings Using an Integrated Approach Based on Quantitative-Qualitative and Simplified Best-Worst Methods (QQM-SBWM)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(8), pages 1-28, April.
    19. Rabia Bovkir & Eda Ustaoglu & Arif Cagdas Aydinoglu, 2023. "Assessment of Urban Quality of Life Index at Local Scale with Different Weighting Approaches," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 165(2), pages 655-678, January.
    20. Burak Can Altay & Abdullah Erdem Boztas & Abdullah Okumuş & Muhammet Gul & Erkan Çelik, 2023. "How Will Autonomous Vehicles Decide in Case of an Accident? An Interval Type-2 Fuzzy Best–Worst Method for Weighting the Criteria from Moral Values Point of View," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(11), pages 1-20, June.

    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:spr:aqjoor:v:22:y:2024:i:3:d:10.1007_s10288-023-00553-5. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.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.