IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/ijsaem/v12y2021i1d10.1007_s13198-020-01033-3.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A review of selected weighing methods in MCDM with a case study

Author

Listed:
  • Meenu Singh

    (Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) Roorkee)

  • Millie Pant

    (Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) Roorkee)

Abstract

The Decision-making is undeniable and is an integral part of in almost all the processes either in the complex form or as a simple procedure. It often refers to the prioritizing (ranking) the alternatives based on several conflicting criteria. To ensure that the process of decision making runs smoothly with minimum errors, multiple criteria decision-making abbreviated as "MCDM" is used for obtaining the solution. The present work emphasized on the weighing methods, an important aspect in MCDM methods, that accurately determines the relative importance of each criterion. The relative importance of each criterion is determined by a set of preferences, called weights, represented between 0 and 1. The weights of criteria influence the outcome of any decision-making process, so it is essential to highlight the significance of weighing methods in determining the criteria preference. In literature, researchers have reported various weighing methods for calculating the relative weights of criteria used for ranking the alternatives. The present study, provides an overview of the some popular weighing methods applicable to the MCDM process and also shows the performance of these methods through a case study.

Suggested Citation

  • Meenu Singh & Millie Pant, 2021. "A review of selected weighing methods in MCDM with a case study," International Journal of System Assurance Engineering and Management, Springer;The Society for Reliability, Engineering Quality and Operations Management (SREQOM),India, and Division of Operation and Maintenance, Lulea University of Technology, Sweden, vol. 12(1), pages 126-144, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:ijsaem:v:12:y:2021:i:1:d:10.1007_s13198-020-01033-3
    DOI: 10.1007/s13198-020-01033-3
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s13198-020-01033-3
    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/s13198-020-01033-3?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
    ---><---

    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. Snežana Tadić & Mladen Krstić & Violeta Roso & Nikolina Brnjac, 2019. "Planning an Intermodal Terminal for the Sustainable Transport Networks," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(15), pages 1-20, July.
    2. Aragonés-Beltrán, Pablo & Chaparro-González, Fidel & Pastor-Ferrando, Juan-Pascual & Pla-Rubio, Andrea, 2014. "An AHP (Analytic Hierarchy Process)/ANP (Analytic Network Process)-based multi-criteria decision approach for the selection of solar-thermal power plant investment projects," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 222-238.
    3. Ghimire, Laxman Prasad & Kim, Yeonbae, 2018. "An analysis on barriers to renewable energy development in the context of Nepal using AHP," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 129(PA), pages 446-456.
    4. Kumar, Abhishek & Sah, Bikash & Singh, Arvind R. & Deng, Yan & He, Xiangning & Kumar, Praveen & Bansal, R.C., 2017. "A review of multi criteria decision making (MCDM) towards sustainable renewable energy development," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 596-609.
    5. Ying-Chyi Chou & Chia-Han Yang & Ching-Hua Lu & Van Thac Dang & Pei-An Yang, 2017. "Building Criteria for Evaluating Green Project Management: An Integrated Approach of DEMATEL and ANP," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(5), pages 1-17, May.
    6. Yasmin, Mariam & Tatoglu, Ekrem & Kilic, Huseyin Selcuk & Zaim, Selim & Delen, Dursun, 2020. "Big data analytics capabilities and firm performance: An integrated MCDM approach," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 1-15.
    7. Hamid Pourghasemi & Biswajeet Pradhan & Candan Gokceoglu, 2012. "Application of fuzzy logic and analytical hierarchy process (AHP) to landslide susceptibility mapping at Haraz watershed, Iran," 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. 63(2), pages 965-996, September.
    8. Tsita, Katerina G. & Pilavachi, Petros A., 2012. "Evaluation of alternative fuels for the Greek road transport sector using the analytic hierarchy process," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 677-686.
    9. Chin-Tsai Lin & Kuang-Peng Hung & Shu-Hsien Hu, 2018. "A Decision-Making Model for Evaluating and Selecting Suppliers for the Sustainable Operation and Development of Enterprises in the Aerospace Industry," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(3), pages 1-21, March.
    10. Chaudhary, Pandav & Chhetri, Sachin Kumar & Joshi, Kiran Man & Shrestha, Basanta Man & Kayastha, Prabin, 2016. "Application of an Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) in the GIS interface for suitable fire site selection: A case study from Kathmandu Metropolitan City, Nepal," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 60-71.
    11. Ahmad, Salman & Tahar, Razman Mat, 2014. "Selection of renewable energy sources for sustainable development of electricity generation system using analytic hierarchy process: A case of Malaysia," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 63(C), pages 458-466.
    12. Eko Budi Leksono & Suparno Suparno & Iwan Vanany, 2019. "Integration of a Balanced Scorecard, DEMATEL, and ANP for Measuring the Performance of a Sustainable Healthcare Supply Chain," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(13), pages 1, July.
    13. Singh, Rana Pratap & Nachtnebel, Hans Peter, 2016. "Analytical hierarchy process (AHP) application for reinforcement of hydropower strategy in Nepal," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 43-58.
    14. Mishra, Mukunda & Chatterjee, Soumendu, 2018. "Application of Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) algorithm to income insecurity susceptibility mapping – A study in the district of Purulia, India," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 56-74.
    15. Ludovic-Alexandre Vidal & Evren Sahin & Nicolas Martelli & Malik Berhoune & Brigitte Bonan, 2010. "Applying AHP to select drugs to be produced by anticipation in a chemotherapy compounding unit," Post-Print hal-01260122, HAL.
    16. Rezaei, Jafar & Hemmes, Alexander & Tavasszy, Lori, 2017. "Multi-criteria decision-making for complex bundling configurations in surface transportation of air freight," Journal of Air Transport Management, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 95-105.
    17. Ren, Jingzheng & Liang, Hanwei & Chan, Felix T.S., 2017. "Urban sewage sludge, sustainability, and transition for Eco-City: Multi-criteria sustainability assessment of technologies based on best-worst method," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 29-39.
    18. Rezaei, Jafar, 2015. "Best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 49-57.
    19. James J.H. Liou & Jolanta Tamošaitienė & Edmundas K. Zavadskas & Gwo-Hshiung Tzeng, 2016. "New hybrid COPRAS-G MADM Model for improving and selecting suppliers in green supply chain management," International Journal of Production Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 54(1), pages 114-134, January.
    20. Nassi, Carlos David & Costa, Fabiene Cristina de Carvalho da, 2012. "Use of the analytic hierarchy process to evaluate transit fare system," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 36(1), pages 50-62.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Kübra Akyol Özcan, 2023. "Sustainability Ranking of Turkish Universities with Different Weighting Approaches and the TOPSIS Method," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(16), pages 1-24, August.
    2. Chang, Tsung-Sheng & Hsieh, Yao-Chian, 2024. "Applying the analytic hierarchy process for investigating key indicators of responsible innovation in the Taiwan software service industry," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 78(C).
    3. Jin-Long Lin & Meng-Cong Zheng, 2024. "An Empirical Investigation on the Visual Imagery of Augmented Reality User Interfaces for Smart Electric Vehicles Based on Kansei Engineering and FAHP-GRA," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 12(17), pages 1-21, August.
    4. Shamekhi Amiri, Alireza & Torabi, S. Ali & Tavana, Madjid, 2025. "An assessment of the prominence and total engagement metrics for ranking interdependent attributes in DEMATEL and WINGS," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 130(C).
    5. Yograj Singh & Dinesh C. S. Bisht, 2025. "Enhanced dissimilarity measurement for pythagorean fuzzy sets in real-world scenarios," International Journal of System Assurance Engineering and Management, Springer;The Society for Reliability, Engineering Quality and Operations Management (SREQOM),India, and Division of Operation and Maintenance, Lulea University of Technology, Sweden, vol. 16(1), pages 402-424, January.
    6. Apichit Maneengam, 2023. "Multi-Objective Optimization of the Multimodal Routing Problem Using the Adaptive ε-Constraint Method and Modified TOPSIS with the D-CRITIC Method," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(15), pages 1-22, August.

    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. Mališa Žižović & Dragan Pamučar & Goran Ćirović & Miodrag M. Žižović & Boža D. Miljković, 2020. "A Model for Determining Weight Coefficients by Forming a Non-Decreasing Series at Criteria Significance Levels (NDSL)," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 8(5), pages 1-18, May.
    2. 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.
    3. Haoran Zhao & Huiru Zhao & Sen Guo, 2018. "Comprehensive Performance Evaluation of Electricity Grid Corporations Employing a Novel MCDM Model," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(7), pages 1-23, June.
    4. Milad Kolagar & Seyed Mohammad Hassan Hosseini & Ramin Felegari & Parviz Fattahi, 2020. "Policy-making for renewable energy sources in search of sustainable development: a hybrid DEA-FBWM approach," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 40(4), pages 485-509, December.
    5. Madhusudhan Adhikari & Laxman Prasad Ghimire & Yeonbae Kim & Prakash Aryal & Sundar Bahadur Khadka, 2020. "Identification and Analysis of Barriers against Electric Vehicle Use," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(12), pages 1-20, June.
    6. Rachna, & Singh, Amit Kumar, 2024. "Analyzing policy interventions to stimulate suitable energy sources for the most polluted states of India," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 197(C).
    7. Ahmad, Salman & Nadeem, Abid & Akhanova, Gulzhanat & Houghton, Tom & Muhammad-Sukki, Firdaus, 2017. "Multi-criteria evaluation of renewable and nuclear resources for electricity generation in Kazakhstan," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 141(C), pages 1880-1891.
    8. Dorokhov, V.V. & Kuznetsov, G.V. & Vershinina, K.Yu. & Strizhak, P.A., 2021. "Relative energy efficiency indicators calculated for high-moisture waste-based fuel blends using multiple-criteria decision-making," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 234(C).
    9. Rafael Lizarralde & Jaione Ganzarain & Mikel Zubizarreta, 2020. "Assessment and Selection of Technologies for the Sustainable Development of an R&D Center," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(23), pages 1-23, December.
    10. Mete, Suleyman & Yucesan, Melih & Gul, Muhammet & Ozceylan, Eren, 2023. "An integrated hybrid MCDM approach to evaluate countries’ COVID-19 risks," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 90(C).
    11. Lo, Huai-Wei & Liou, James J.H. & Huang, Chun-Nen & Chuang, Yen-Ching & Tzeng, Gwo-Hshiung, 2020. "A new soft computing approach for analyzing the influential relationships of critical infrastructures," International Journal of Critical Infrastructure Protection, Elsevier, vol. 28(C).
    12. José Carlos Romero & Pedro Linares, 2021. "Multiple Criteria Decision-Making as an Operational Conceptualization of Energy Sustainability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(21), pages 1-14, October.
    13. Ali Mostafaeipour & Seyyed Jalaladdin Hosseini Dehshiri & Seyyed Shahabaddin Hosseini Dehshiri & Mehdi Jahangiri & Kuaanan Techato, 2020. "A Thorough Analysis of Potential Geothermal Project Locations in Afghanistan," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(20), pages 1-17, October.
    14. Jairo Ortega & Sarbast Moslem & János Tóth & Tamás Péter & Juan Palaguachi & Mario Paguay, 2020. "Using Best Worst Method for Sustainable Park and Ride Facility Location," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(23), pages 1-18, December.
    15. 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.
    16. Li, Tao & Li, Ang & Guo, Xiaopeng, 2020. "The sustainable development-oriented development and utilization of renewable energy industry——A comprehensive analysis of MCDM methods," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 212(C).
    17. Ilbahar, Esra & Kahraman, Cengiz & Cebi, Selcuk, 2022. "Risk assessment of renewable energy investments: A modified failure mode and effect analysis based on prospect theory and intuitionistic fuzzy AHP," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 239(PA).
    18. Wu, Qun & Liu, Xinwang & Zhou, Ligang & Qin, Jindong & Rezaei, Jafar, 2024. "An analytical framework for the best–worst method," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 123(C).
    19. Cho, Sangmin & Kim, Jinsoo & Lim, Deokoh, 2024. "Optimal design of renewable energy certificate multipliers using an LCOE-Integrated AHP model: A case study of South Korea," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 226(C).
    20. Radoslaw Wisniewski & Piotr Daniluk & Aneta Nowakowska-Krystman & Tomasz Kownacki, 2022. "Critical Success Factors of the Energy Sector Security Strategy: The Case of Poland," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(17), pages 1-27, August.

    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:ijsaem:v:12:y:2021:i:1:d:10.1007_s13198-020-01033-3. 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.