4.7 Article

A Novel Approach for Group Decision Making Based on the Best-Worst Method (G-BWM): Application to Supply Chain Management

期刊

MATHEMATICS
卷 9, 期 16, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/math9161881

关键词

multi-criteria decision making; group decision making; best-worst method; G-BWM; supply chain management

资金

  1. FIM UHK Excellence Project 2021: Decision Support Systems: Principles and Applications 3

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study introduces a novel group decision-making method G-BWM based on the Best-Worst Method (BWM) for complex multi-criteria decision-making issues. Through examination and discussion of two numerical examples, the performance of G-BWM in achieving democratic decision making in a large group of decision makers is demonstrated.
Due to the complexity of real-world multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) issues, analyzing different opinions from a group of decision makers needs to ensure appropriate decision making. The group decision-making methods collect preferences of the decision makers and present the best preferences using mathematical equations. The best-worst method (BWM) is one of the recently introduced MCDM methods that requires fewer pairwise comparisons to obtain the criteria weights than the other MCDM methods. In this research, we develop a novel approach to group decision-making problems based on the BWM called G-BWM. This approach helps us to analyze the preferences of decision makers to carry out democratic decision making using the BWM structure. In order to assess the applicability of the proposed methodology and represent its novelty, two numerical examples from the literature with the application to supply chain management (SCM) (i.e., green supplier selection and supplier development/segmentation) are examined and discussed. The results demonstrate the performance of our proposed G-BWM for group decision making in terms of a large number of decision makers, ease of use and achieving democratic decisions in the decision-making process.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据