Base-criterion on multi-criteria decision-making method and its applications

References

• Aboutorab, H., Saberi, M., Asadabadi, M. R., Hussain, O., & Chang, E. (2018). ZBWM: The Z-number extension of best worst method and its application for supplier development. Expert Systems with Applications, 107, 115–125.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bhushan, N., & Rai, K. (2004). Strategic decision making: Applying the analytic hierarchy process (pp. 1–24). London: Springer Science & Business Media.
   Google Scholar
• Brans, J. P., & Vincke, P. (1985). Note A preference ranking organisation method: (The PROMETHEE method for multiple criteria decision-making). Management Science, 31(6), 647–656.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brauers, W. K. M., Zavadskas, E. K., Turskis, Z., & Vilutiene, T. (2008). Multi-objective contractor’s ranking by applying the MOORA method. Journal of Business Economics and Management, 9(4), 245–255.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Broz, D., Vanzetti, N., Corsano, G., & Montagna, J. M. (2019). Goal programming application for the decision support in the daily production planning of sawmills. Forest Policy and Economics, 102, 29–40.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chou, C. C. (2018). Application of ANP to the selection of shipping registry: The case of Taiwanese maritime industry. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 67, 89–97.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dey, B., Bairagi, B., Sarkar, B., & Sanyal, S. K. (2015). Warehouse location selection by fuzzy multi-criteria decision making methodologies based on subjective and objective criteria. International Journal of Management Science and Engineering Management, 11, 262–278.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Forman, E. H., & Selly, M. A. (2001). Decision by objectives: How to convince others that you are right. World Scientific Singapore.
   Google Scholar
• Gitinavard, H., Mousavi, S. M., & Vahdani, B. (2014). A new balancing and ranking method based on hesitant fuzzy sets for solving decision-making problems under uncertainty. International Journal of Engineering-Transactions B: Applications, 28(2), 214–223.
   Google Scholar
• Gonçalves, C. D. F., Dias, J. A. M., & Machado, V. A. C. (2015). Multi-criteria decision methodology for selecting maintenance key performance indicators. International Journal of Management Science and Engineering Management, 10, 215–223.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guo, S., & Zhao, H. (2017). Fuzzy best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method and its applications. Knowledge-Based Systems, 121, 23–31.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gurumurthy, A., & Kodali, R. (2008). A multi-criteria decision-making model for the justification of lean manufacturing systems. International Journal of Management Science and Engineering Management, 3, 100–118.
   Google Scholar
• Hafezalkotob, A., & Hafezalkotob, A. (2017). A novel approach for combination of individual and group decisions based on fuzzy best-worst method. Applied Soft Computing, 59, 316–325.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harker, P. T. (1987a). Alternative modes of questioning in the analytic hierarchy process. Mathematical Modelling, 9(3–5), 353–360.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harker, P. T. (1987b). Incomplete pairwise comparisons in the analytic hierarchy process. Mathematical Modelling, 9(11), 837–848.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Herman, M. W., & Koczkodaj, W. W. (1996). A Monte Carlo study of pairwise comparisons. Information Processing Letters, 57, 25–29.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Huang, Z., Yu, H., Chu, X., & Peng, Z. (2017). A goal programming based model system for community energy plan. Energy, 134, 893–901.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ishizaka, A., & Nguyen, N. H. (2013). Calibrated fuzzy AHP for current bank account selection. Expert Systems with Applications, 40(9), 3775–3783.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kang, D., & Park, Y. (2014). Based measurement of customer satisfaction in mobile service: Sentiment analysis and VIKOR approach. Expert Systems with Applications, 41(4), 1041–1050.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kendall, J. M., & Berdahl, C. M. (1970). Two blackbody radiometers of high accuracy. Applied Optics, 9(5), 1082–1091.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Keršuliene, V., Zavadskas, E. K., & Turskis, Z. (2010). Selection of rational dispute resolution method by applying new step‐wise weight assessment ratio analysis (SWARA). Journal of Business Economics and Management, 11(2), 243–258.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Li, J., Wang, J. Q., & Hu, J. H. (2018). Multi-criteria decision-making method based on dominance degree and BWM with probabilistic hesitant fuzzy information. International Journal of Machine Learning and Cybernetics, 10, 1671–1685.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lolli, F., Balugani, E., Ishizaka, A., Gamberini, R., Butturi, M. A., Marinello, S., & Rimini, B. (2019). On the elicitation of criteria weights in PROMETHEE-based ranking methods for a mobile application. Expert Systems with Applications, 120, 217–227.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mardani, A., Zavadskas, E., Govindan, K., AmatSenin, A., & Jusoh, A. (2016). VIKOR technique: A systematic review of the state of the art literature on methodologies and applications. Sustainability, 8(1), 37.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mousavi, M., Gitinavard, H., & Mousavi, S. M. (2017). A soft computing based-modified ELECTRE model for renewable energy policy selection with unknown information. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 68, 774–787.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mousavi, S. M., Gitinavard, H., & Siadat, A. (2014). A new hesitant fuzzy analytical hierarchy process method for decision-making problems under uncertainty. In 2014 IEEE International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management (pp. 622–626). Bandar Sunway, Malaysia: IEEE.
   Google Scholar
• Mousavi, S. M., Gitinavard, H., & Vahdani, B. (2015). Evaluating construction projects by a new group decision-making model based on intuitionistic fuzzy logic concepts. International Journal of Engineering-Transactions C: Aspects, 28(9), 1312–1319.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nie, R. X., Tian, Z. P., Wang, J. Q., Zhang, H. Y., & Wang, T. L. (2018). Water security sustainability evaluation: Applying a multistage decision support framework in industrial region. Journal of Cleaner Production, 196, 1681–1704.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peng, H. G., & Wang, J. Q. (2018). A multicriteria group decision-making method based on the normal cloud model with Zadeh’sZ-numbers. IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems, 26(6), 3246–3260.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peng, H. G., Wang, X. K., Wang, T. L., & Wang, J. Q. (2019). Multi-criteria game model based on the pairwise comparisons of strategies with Z-numbers. Applied Soft Computing, 74, 451–465.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rezaei, J. (2015). Best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method. Omega, 53, 49–57.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rezaei, J. (2016). Best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method: Some properties and a linear model. Omega, 64, 126–130.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rezaei, J., Kothadiya, O., Tavasszy, L., & Kroesen, M. (2018). Quality assessment of airline baggage handling systems using SERVQUAL and BWM. Tourism Management, 66, 85–93.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roy, B. (1991). The Outranking Approach and the Foundations of the ELECTRE Methods. Theory and Decision, 31, 49–73.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Saaty, T. L. (1977). A scaling method for priorities in hierarchical structures. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 15(3), 234–281.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Saaty, T. L. (1988). What is the analytic hierarchy process?. In Mathematical models for decision support (pp. 109–121, Vol. F48). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Saaty, T. L. (1990). How to make a decision: The analytic hierarchy process. European Journal of Operational Research, 48(1), 9–26.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Saaty, T. L. (1996). Decision making with dependence and feedback: The analytic network process (Vol. 9). New York: New York Public Library
   Google Scholar
• Saaty, T. L. (2005). Theory and applications of the analytic network process: Decision making with benefits, opportunities, costs, and risks. Pittsburgh, USA: RWS Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Sarrazin, R., De Smet, Y., & Rosenfeld, J. (2018). An extension of promethee to interval clustering. Omega, 80, 12–21.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Spearman, C. (1987). The proof and measurement of association between two things. The American Journal of Psychology, 100(3/4), 441–471.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tang, H., Shi, Y., & Dong, P. (2019). Public blockchain evaluation using entropy and TOPSIS. Expert Systems with Applications, 117, 204–210.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tavakkoli-Moghaddam, R., Gitinavard, H., Mousavi, S. M., & Siadat, A. (2015). An interval-valued hesitant fuzzy TOPSIS method to determine the criteria weights. In International Conference on Group Decision and Negotiation (pp. 157–169). Cham: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Thurstone, L. L. (1927). A law of comparative judgment. Psychological Review, 34(4), 273.
   Google Scholar
• Triantaphyllou, E. (2000). Multi-criteria decision making methods. In Multi-criteria decision making methods: A comparative study (pp. 5–21). Boston, MA: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Ustinovichius, L., Zavadkas, E. K., & Podvezko, V. (2007). Application of a quantitative multiple criteria decision making (MCDM-1) approach to the analysis of investments in construction. Control and Cybernetics, 36(1), 251.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vahdani, B. (2016). Solving robot selection problem by a new interval-valued hesitant fuzzy multi-attributes group decision method. International Journal of Industrial Mathematics, 8(3), 231–240.
   Google Scholar
• Wang, X., Wang, J., & Zhang, H. (2019). Distance‐based multicriteria group decision‐making approach with probabilistic linguistic term sets. Expert Systems, 36(2), e12352.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wedley, W. C. (1993). Consistency prediction for incomplete AHP matrices. Mathematical and Computer Modelling, 17(4–5), 151–161.
   Google Scholar
• Weiss, E. N., & Rao, V. R. (1987). AHP design issues for large‐scale systems. Decision Sciences, 18(1), 43–61.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Xu, Y., & Wang, H. (2013). Eigenvector method, consistency test and inconsistency repairing for an incomplete fuzzy preference relation. Applied Mathematical Modelling, 37(7), 5171–5183.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yoon, K. (1987). A reconciliation among discrete compromise solutions. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 38(3), 277–286.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yu, X., Zhang, S., Liao, X., & Qi, X. (2018). ELECTRE methods in prioritized MCDM environment. Information Sciences, 424, 301–316.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zadeh, L. A. (1965). Fuzzy sets. Information and Control, 8(3), 338–353.
   Google Scholar
• Zavadskas, E. K., Kaklauskas, A., Turskis, Z., & Tamošaitiene, J. (2008). Selection of the effective dwelling house walls by applying attributes values determined at intervals. Journal of Civil Engineering and Management, 14(2), 85–93.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zeleny, M. (2011). Multiple criteria decision making (MCDM): From paradigm lost to paradigm regained? Journal of Multi‐Criteria Decision Analysis, 18(1–2), 77–89.
   Google Scholar
• Zgurovsky, M. Z., Totsenko, V. G., & Tsyganok, V. V. (2004). Group incomplete paired comparisons with account of expert competence. Mathematical and Computer Modelling, 39(4–5), 349–361.
   Google Scholar