Abstract
More and more often, scholars in the field of multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) seem to be overly adverse towards inconsistency. While this has some reasonable justifications, hiding the dirt under the rug, by not even trying to let possible inconsistencies emerge, can have negative effects on the decision process. In other words, there may be some merit in having a decision maker being consistent when he is given the possibility of being inconsistent, but there isn’t any in having a fully consistent decision maker when he cannot be inconsistent. In the latter case, consistency of preferences cannot, by all means, be associated to the reliability of judgements. These concepts are illustrated by taking into account some recently introduced methods whose common inspiration is the Best-Worst Method.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Belton, V., Stewart, T.: Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis: An Integrated Approach. Springer, Heidelberg (2002). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-1495-4
Carmone Jr., F.J., Kara, A., Zanakis, S.H.: A Monte Carlo investigation of incomplete pairwise comparison matrices in AHP. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 102(3), 538–553 (1997)
Durmić, E., Stević, Ž, Chatterjee, P., Vasiljević, M., Tomašević, M.: Sustainable supplier selection using combined FUCOM-Rough SAW model. Rep. Mech. Eng. 1(1), 34–43 (2020)
Ecer, F., Pamucar, D., Mardani, A., Alrasheedi, M.: Assessment of renewable energy resources using new interval rough number extension of the level based weight assessment and combinative distance-based assessment. Renew. Energy 170, 1156–1177 (2021)
Edwards, W.: Behavioral decision theory. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 12(1), 473–498 (1961)
Eisenführ, F., Weber, M., Langer, T.: Rational Decision Making. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)
Fishburn, P.C.: Nontransitive preferences in decision theory. J. Risk Uncertain. 4(2), 113–134 (1991)
Gulliksen, H.: A least squares solution for paired comparisons with incomplete data. Psychometrika 21(2), 125–134 (1956)
Harker, P.T.: Incomplete pairwise comparisons in the analytic hierarchy process. Math. Modell. 9(11), 837–848 (1987)
Haseli, G., Sheikh, R., Sana, S.S.: Base-criterion on multi-criteria decision-making method and its applications. Int. J. Manag. Sci. Eng. Manag. 15(2), 79–88 (2020)
Keeney, R.L., Raiffa, H.: Decisions with Multiple Objectives: Preferences and Value Trade-Offs. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1993)
Laininen, P., Hämäläinen, R.P.: Analyzing AHP-matrices by regression. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 148(3), 514–524 (2003)
Liang, F., Brunelli, M., Rezaei, J.: Consistency issues in the best worst method: measurements and thresholds. Omega 96, 102175 (2020)
Luce, R.D., Raiffa, H.: Games and Decisions: Introduction and Critical Survey. Dover Publications, Mineola (1989)
Montibeller, G., Von Winterfeldt, D.: Cognitive and motivational biases in decision and risk analysis. Risk Anal. 35(7), 1230–1251 (2015)
Mostafa, A.M.: An MCDM approach for cloud computing service selection based on best-only method. IEEE Access 9, 155072–155086 (2021)
Pamučar, D., Stević, Ž, Sremac, S.: A new model for determining weight coefficients of criteria in MCDM models: Full consistency method (FUCOM). Symmetry 10(9), 393 (2018)
Rezaei, J.: Best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method. Omega 53, 49–57 (2015)
Rezaei, J.: Anchoring bias in eliciting attribute weights and values in multi-attribute decision-making. J. Decis. Syst. 30(1), 72–96 (2021)
Rezaei, J., Arab, A., Mehregan, M.: Equalizing bias in eliciting attribute weights in multiattribute decision-making: experimental research. J. Behav. Decis. Mak. 35(2), e2262 (2022)
Shanteau, J., Weiss, D.J., Thomas, R.P., Pounds, J.C.: Performance-based assessment of expertise: how to decide if someone is an expert or not. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 136(2), 253–263 (2002)
Shiraishi, S., Obata, T., Daigo, M.: Properties of a positive reciprocal matrix and their application to AHP. J. Oper. Res. Soc. Jpn. 41(3), 404–414 (1998)
Stević, Ž, Brković, N.: A novel integrated FUCOM-MARCOS model for evaluation of human resources in a transport company. Logistics 4(1), 4 (2020)
Sugihara, K., Ishii, H., Tanaka, H.: Interval priorities in AHP by interval regression analysis. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 158(3), 745–754 (2004)
Tversky, A.: Intransitivity of preferences. Psychol. Rev. 76(1), 31 (1969)
Ureña, R., Chiclana, F., Morente-Molinera, J.A., Herrera-Viedma, E.: Managing incomplete preference relations in decision making: a review and future trends. Inf. Sci. 302, 14–32 (2015)
Von Winterfeldt, D., Edwards, W.: Decision Analysis and Behavioral Research. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1986)
Žižović, M., Pamucar, D.: New model for determining criteria weights: level based weight assessment (LBWA) model. Decis. Making Appl. Manag. Eng. 2(2), 126–137 (2019)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this paper
Cite this paper
Brunelli, M. (2023). Why Should Not a Decision Analyst be Content with Only (\(n-1\)) Pairwise Comparisons? Echoes from the Literature. In: Rezaei, J., Brunelli, M., Mohammadi, M. (eds) Advances in Best-Worst Method. BWM 2022. Lecture Notes in Operations Research. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-24816-0_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-24816-0_3
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-031-24815-3
Online ISBN: 978-3-031-24816-0
eBook Packages: Business and ManagementBusiness and Management (R0)