A Proposed Method for Multi-Criteria Group Decision Making: An Application to Site Selection

References

• Ahmadi, H. B., S. Kusi-Sarpong, and J. Rezaei. 2017. Assessing the social sustainability of supply chains using best worst method. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 126:99–106. doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.07.020.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Athawale, V. M., and S. Chakraborty (2010). Facility location selection using PROMETHEE II method. Proceedings of the 2010 international conference on industrial engineering and operations management, pp. 9–10.
   Google Scholar
• Chakraborty, S., E. K. Zavadskas, and J. Antucheviciene. 2015. Applications of WASPAS method as a multi-criteria decision-making tool. Economic Computation and Economic Cybernetics Studies and Research 49 (1):5–22.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Costa, J. F. S., A. R. Borges, and T. Dos Santos Machado. 2016. Analytic hierarchy process applied to industrial location: A brazilian perspective on jeans manufacturing. International Journal of the Analytic Hierarchy Process 8 (1):77–91.
   Google Scholar
• Devi, K., and S. P. Yadav. 2013. A multicriteria intuitionistic fuzzy group decision making for plant location selection with ELECTRE method. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology 66 (9–12):1219–29. doi:10.1007/s00170-012-4400-0.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dey, B., B. Bairagi, B. Sarkar, and S. K. Sanyal. 2017. Group heterogeneity in multi member decision making model with an application to warehouse location selection in a supply chain. Computers & Industrial Engineering 105 (SupplementC):101–22. doi:10.1016/j.cie.2016.12.025.
   Google Scholar
• Gupta, H., and M. K. Barua. 2017. Supplier selection among SMEs on the basis of their green innovation ability using BWM and fuzzy TOPSIS. Journal of Cleaner Production 152:242–58. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.03.125.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heravi, G., M. Fathi, and S. Faeghi. 2017. Multi-criteria group decision-making method for optimal selection of sustainable industrial building options focused on petrochemical projects. Journal of Cleaner Production 142:2999–3013. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.10.168.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Keshavarz Ghorabaee, M., E. K. Zavadskas, L. Olfat, and Z. Turskis. 2015. EDAS. Multi‐criteria inventory classification using a new method of evaluation based on distance from average solution. Informatica 26(3):435–51. doi: 10.15388/Informatica.2015.57.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kikomba, M. K., Mabela, R. M., & Ntantu, D. I. (2016). Applying EDAS method to solve air traffic problems. International Journal of Scientific and Innovative Mathematical Research (IJSIMR), 4(8), 15–23.
   Google Scholar
• Kundakcı, N. 2019. An integrated method using MACBETH and EDAS methods for evaluating steam boiler alternatives. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis 26 (1–2):27–34. doi:10.1002/mcda.1656.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lima-Junior, F. R., and L. C. R. Carpinetti. 2016. A multicriteria approach based on fuzzy QFD for choosing criteria for supplier selection. Computers & Industrial Engineering 101 (SupplementC):269–85. doi:10.1016/j.cie.2016.09.014.
   Google Scholar
• Mi, Xiaomei, Ming Tang, Huchang Liao, Wenjing Shen, and Benjamin Lev. “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 87 (2019): 205–225
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mokhtarzadeh, N., H. Mahdiraji, M. Beheshti, and E. Zavadskas. 2018. A novel hybrid approach for technology selection in the information technology industry. Technologies 6 (1):34. doi:10.3390/technologies6010034.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Qin, J., X. Liu, and W. Pedrycz. 2017. An extended TODIM multi-criteria group decision making method for green supplier selection in interval type-2 fuzzy environment. European Journal of Operational Research 258 (2):626–38. doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2016.09.059.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rahman, M. S., M. I. Ali, U. Hossain, and T. K. Mondal. 2018. Facility location selection for plastic manufacturing industry in Bangladesh by using AHP method. International Journal of Research in Industrial Engineering 7 (3):307–19.
   Google Scholar
• Rezaei, J. 2015. Best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method. Omega (53):49–57. doi:10.1016/j.omega.2014.11.009.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rezaei, J. 2016. Best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method: Some properties and a linear model. Omega 64:126–13. doi:10.1016/j.omega.2015.12.001.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sahebi, I. G., A. Arab, and M. R. S. Moghadam. 2017. Analyzing the barriers to humanitarian supply chain management: A case study of the tehran red crescent societies. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 24:232–41. doi:10.1016/j.ijdrr.2017.05.017.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stević, Ž., I. Tanackov, M. Vasiljević, and S. Vesković (2016). Evaluation in logistics using combined AHP and EDAS method. International Symposium on Operational Research, XLIII, 309–13.
   Google Scholar
• Taibi, A., and B. Atmani. 2017. Combining fuzzy AHP with GIS and decision rules for industrial site selection. International Journal of Interactive Multimedia & Artificial Intelligence 4 (6):6. doi:10.9781/ijimai.2017.06.001.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Triantaphyllou, E. (2000). Multi-criteria decision making methods. In Multi-criteria decision making methods: A comparative study (pp. 5–21). Springer, Boston, MA.
   Google Scholar
• Trinkūnienė, E., V. Podvezko, E. K. Zavadskas, I. Jokšienė, I. Vinogradova, and V. Trinkūnas. 2017. Evaluation of quality assurance in contractor contracts by multi-attribute decision making methods. Economic Research Ekonomska Istraživanja 30 (1):1152–80. doi:10.1080/1331677X.2017.1325616.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Turskis, Z., Z. Morkunaite, and V. Kutut. 2017. A hybrid multiple criteria evaluation method of ranking of cultural heritage structures for renovation projects. International Journal of Strategic Property Management 21 (3):318–29. doi:10.3846/1648715X.2017.1325782.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ulutaş, A. 2017. Sewing machine selection for a textile workshop by using EDAS method. Journal of Business Research Turk 9 (2):169–83. doi:10.20491/isarder.2017.266.
   Google Scholar
• Uygun, Ö., and A. Dede. 2016. Performance evaluation of green supply chain management using integrated fuzzy multi-criteria decision making techniques. Computers & Industrial Engineering 102 (SupplementC):502–11. doi:10.1016/j.cie.2016.02.020.
   Google Scholar
• Uysal, H., and K. Yavuz. 2014. Selection of logistics centre location via ELECTRE method: A case study in turkey. International Journal of Business and Social Science 5:9.
   Google Scholar
• Van De Kaa, G., L. Kamp, and J. Rezaei. 2017. Selection of biomass thermochemical conversion technology in the Netherlands: A best worst method approach. Journal of Cleaner Production 166:32–39. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.07.052.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Verma, M., and J. Rajasankar. 2016. A thermodynamical approach towards group multicriteria decision making (GMCDM) and its application to human resource selection. Applied Soft Computing, 52, 323–332..
   Google Scholar
• Yan, H.-B., T. Ma, and V.-N. Huynh. 2017. On qualitative multi-attribute group decision making and its consensus measure: A probability-based perspective. Omega 70:94–117. doi:10.1016/j.omega.2016.09.004.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yaşlioğlu, M. M., and E. Önder. 2016. Solving facility location problem for a plastic goods manufacturing company in turkey using AHP and TOPSIS methods. Journal of Administrative Sciences 14 (28):223–49.
   Google Scholar
• You, X.-Y., J.-X. You, H.-C. Liu, and L. Zhen. 2015. Group multi-criteria supplier selection using an extended VIKOR method with interval 2-tuple linguistic information. Expert Systems with Applications 42 (4):1906–16. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2014.10.004.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zavadskas, E. K., Z. Turskis, and S. Kildienė. 2014. State of art surveys of overviews on MCDM/MADM methods. Technological and Economic Development of Economy 20 (1):165–79. doi:10.3846/20294913.2014.892037.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar