Advertisement

An extended stepwise weight assessment ratio analysis (SWARA) method for improving criteria prioritization process

  • Sarfaraz Hashemkhani Zolfani
  • Morteza Yazdani
  • Edmundas Kazimieras Zavadskas
Focus

Abstract

The process of criteria prioritization and weighting is an important part of multiple attributes decision making. The most frequently applied multi-attribute decision-making weighting tools include analytical hierarchy process, stepwise weight assessment ratio analysis, factor relationship, and best–worst method. When policies are at the core of decision making, stepwise weight assessment ratio analysis method is the most efficient method for criteria evaluation. It involves two important steps: the first is to prioritize the criteria by consulting experts, while the second is the weighting process. This research seeks to extend stepwise weight assessment ratio analysis to improve the quality of the decision-making process by incorporating the reliability evaluation of experts’ idea into the first step. Such a component is absent from the first step in all other similar models. Thus, an extended version of stepwise weight assessment ratio analysis can be applied for such evaluation. To test the applicability and performance of the proposed method, a numerical example from an earlier study was used. The proposed version can replace the classic version in future studies as an improved method in decision-making area.

Keywords

Multiple attributes decision making (MADM) Stepwise weight assessment ratio analysis (SWARA) Extended SWARA Prioritizing the criteria Weighting criteria 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

Sarfaraz Hashemkhani Zolfani declares that he has no conflict of interest. Morteza Yazdani declares that he has no conflict of interest. Edmundas Kazimieras Zavadskas declares that he has no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

This Article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

References

  1. Bitarafan M, Hashemkhani Zolfani S, Lale Arefi S, Zavadskas EK, Mahmoudzadeh A (2014) Evaluation of real-time intelligent sensors for structural health monitoring of bridges based on SWARA-WASPAS; a case in Iran. Balt J Road Bridge Eng 9(4):333–340CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Brauers WKM, Zavadskas EK, Peldschus F, Turskis Z (2008) Multi-objective decision-making for road design. Transport 23(3):183–193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Chu ATW, Kalaba RE, Spingarn K (1979) A comparison of two methods for determining the weights of belonging to fuzzy sets. J Optim Theory Appl 27(4):531–538MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. Dalkey N, Helmer O (1963) An experimental application of the Delphi method to the use of experts. Manag Sci 9(3):458–467CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Deng X, Hu Y, Deng Y, Mahadevan S (2014) Supplier selection using AHP methodology extended by D numbers. Expert Syst Appl 41(1):156–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Feng B, Lai F (2014) Multi-attribute group decision making with aspirations: a case study. Omega 44:136–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Ghorshi Nezhad MR, Hashemkhani Zolfani S, Moztarzadeh F, Zavadskas EK, Bahrami M (2015) Planning the priority of high tech industries based on SWARA-WASPAS methodology: the case of the nanotechnology industry in Iran. Econ Res Ekon Istraž 28(1):1111–1137Google Scholar
  8. Ginevicius R (2011) A new determining method for the criteria weights in multi-criteria evaluation. Int J Inf Technol Decis Mak 10(6):1067–1095CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Haghnazar Kouchaksaraei R, Hashemkhani Zolfani S, Golabchi M (2015) Glasshouse locating based on SWARA-COPRAS approach. Int J Strateg Prop Manag 19(2):111–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hashemkhani Zolfani S, Bahrami M (2014) Investment prioritizing in high tech industries based on SWARA-COPRAS approach. Technol Econ Dev Econ 20(3):534–553CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hashemkhani Zolfani S, Saparauskas J (2013) New application of SWARA method in prioritizing sustainability assessment indicators of energy system. Inzinerine Ekon Eng Econ 24(5):408–414Google Scholar
  12. Hashemkhani Zolfani S, Aghdaie MH, Derakhti A, Zavadskas EK, Varzandeh MHM (2013a) Decision making on business issues with foresight perspective; an application of new hybrid MCDM model in shopping mall locating. Expert Syst Appl 40(17):7111–7121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hashemkhani Zolfani S, Farrokhzad M, Turskis Z (2013b) Investigating on successful factors of online games based on explorer. E M Ekon Manag 16(2):161–169Google Scholar
  14. Hashemkhani Zolfani S, Maknoon R, Zavadskas EK (2015a) Multiple Nash equilibriums and evaluation of strategies; new application of MCDM methods. J Bus Econ Manag 16(2):290–306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hashemkhani Zolfani S, Salimi J, Maknoon R, Kildiene S (2015b) Technology foresight about R&D projects selection; application of SWARA method at the policy making level. Inzinerine Ekon Eng Econ 26(5):571–580Google Scholar
  16. Hashemkhani Zolfani S, Pourhossein M, Yazdani M, Zavadskas EK (2018) Evaluating construction projects of hotels based on environmental sustainability with MCDM framework. Alex Eng J. 57:357–365CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Jessop A (2014) IMP: a decision aid for multi-attribute evaluation using imprecise weight estimates. Omega 49:18–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Karabasevic D, Stanujkic D, Urosevic S, Maksimovic M (2015) Selection of candidates in the mining industry based on the application of the SWARA and the MULTIMOORA methods. Acta Montan Slovaca 20(2):116–124Google Scholar
  19. Karabasevic D, Zavadskas EK, Turskis Z, Stanujkic D (2016a) The framework for the selection of personnel based on the SWARA and ARAS methods under uncertainties. Informatica 27(1):49–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Karabasevic D, Paunkovic J, Stanujkic D (2016b) Ranking of companies according to the indicators of corporate social responsibility based on SWARA and ARAS methods. Serbian J Manag 11(1):43–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kendall MG (1970) Rank correlation methods, 4th edn. Griffin, LondonzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  22. Keršulienė V, Zavadskas EK, Turskis Z (2010) Selection of rational dispute resolution method by applying new step-wise weight assessment ratio analysis (SWARA). J Bus Econ Manag 11(2):243–258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Krylovas A, Zavadskas EK, Kosareva N, Dadelo S (2014) New KEMIRA method for determining criteria priority and weights in solving MCDM problem. Int J Inf Technol Decis Mak 13(6):1119–1134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. MacCrimon KR (1968) Decision making among multiple attribute alternatives: a survey and consolidated approach, Rand Memorandum, RM-4823-ARPAGoogle Scholar
  25. Mulliner E, Malys N, Maliene V (2015) Comparative analysis of MCDM methods for the assessment of sustainable housing affordability. Omega.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.omega.2015.05.013 Google Scholar
  26. Ramanathan R, Ramanathan U (2010) A qualitative perspective to deriving weights from pairwise comparison matrices. Omega 38(3–4):228–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Rezaei J (2015) Best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method. Omega 53:49–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Saaty TL (1980) The analytic hierarchy process: planning, priority setting, resources allocation. McGraw-Hill, LondonzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  29. Saaty TL (1986) Axiomatic foundation of the analytic hierarchy process. Manag Sci 32(7):841–55MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  30. Saaty TL (1990) How to make a decision: the analytic hierarchy process. Eur J Oper Res 48(1):9–26CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  31. Saaty TL (1997) A scaling method for priorities in hierarchical structures. J Math Psychol 15(3):234–81MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  32. Saaty TL (2001) Decision making with dependence and feedback: the analytic network process. RWS Publications, PittsburghGoogle Scholar
  33. Shannon CE (1948) A note on the concept of entropy. Bell Syst Technol J 27:379–423CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  34. Srinivasan V, Shocker AD (1973) Linear programming techniques for multidimensional analysis of preferences. Psychometrika 38(3):337–369MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  35. Stanujkic D, Karabasevic D, Zavadskas EK (2015) A framework for the Selection of a packaging design based on the SWARA method. Inzinerine Ekon Eng Econ 26(2):181–187Google Scholar
  36. Stewart TJ (1992) A critical survey on the status of multiple criteria decision making theory and practice. Omega 20(5–6):569–586CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Sušinskas S, Zavadskas EK, Turskis Z (2011) Multiple criteria assessment of pile-columns alternatives. Balt J Road Bridge Eng 6(3):77–83Google Scholar
  38. Ustinovichius L (2007) Methods of determining objective, subjective and integrated weights of attributes. Int J Manag Decis Mak 8(5–6):540–554Google Scholar
  39. Vafaeipour M, Hashemkhani Zolfani S, Morshed Varzandeh MH, Derakhti A, Eshkalag M Keshavarz (2014) Assessment of regions priority for implementation of solar plants in Iran: new application of a hybrid multi-criteria decision making approach. Energy Convers Manag 86:653–663CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. van Winterfeldt D, Fischer GW (1975) Multi-attribute utility theory: models and assessment procedures. In: Wendt D, Viek C (eds) Utility, probability and human decision making. Reidel, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  41. Xu X (2001) The SIR method: a superiority and inferiority ranking method for multiple criteria decision making. Eur J Oper Res 131:587–602MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  42. Yazdani M, Hashemkhani Zolfani S, Zavadskas EK (2016) New integration of MCDM methods and QFD in the selection of green suppliers. J Bus Econ Manag 17(6):1097–1113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. You XY, You JX, Liu HC, Zhen L (2015) Group multi-criteria supplier selection using an extended VIKOR method with interval 2-tuple linguistic information. Expert Syst Appl 42(4):1906–1916CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Zavadskas EK, Vilutienė T (2006) A multiple criteria evaluation of multi-family apartment block’s maintenance contractors: I-model for maintenance contractor evaluation and the determination of its selection criteria. Build Environ 41(5):621–632CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Zavadskas EK, Ustinovichius L, Turskis Z, Shevchenko G (2008) Application of verbal methods to multi-attribute comparative analysis of investments risk alternatives in construction. Comput Model New Technol 12(4):30–37Google Scholar
  46. Zavadskas EK, Turskis Z, Ustinovichius L, Shevchenko G (2010) Attributes weights determining peculiarities in multiple attribute decision making methods. Inzinerine Ekon Eng Econ 21(1):32–43Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sarfaraz Hashemkhani Zolfani
    • 1
  • Morteza Yazdani
    • 2
  • Edmundas Kazimieras Zavadskas
    • 3
  1. 1.Technology Foresight Group, Department of Management, Science and TechnologyAmirkabir University of Technology (Tehran Polytechnic)TehranIran
  2. 2.Department of Business Management, Faculty of Social SciencesUniversidad Europea de MadridMadridSpain
  3. 3.Research Institute of Smart Building TechnologiesVilnius Gediminas Technical UniversityVilniusLithuania

Personalised recommendations